Wow this was a great discussion, good work Marshall. The questions and follow ups were immensely insightful. As a fellow "mid-tier state school" graduate who is surrounded by ivy leaguers, it's so nice to hear someone else mention it. Part of me wonders if the piece of paper is just a means of bridging the poverty gap so the people who gate keep the high paying jobs give poorer folks the time of day. I don't think I learned much during my time in college, but I did learn a ton about how to assimilate and fit in. My poverty growing up however, really showed me that I needed to be very wary of having kids of family as I observed the immense resource drain these things have. Maybe that's a big part of the lack of marriage too. We have the largest generation of poverty-stricken folks now, perhaps there's an almost unfixable amount of damage that won't be corrected until we're far enough downstream of this current generation of adults?
Something intresting you can do is compare high marriage vs low marriage poor neighborhoods that border each other for example Hamtramck is a neighborhood in Detroit that is a high marriage and very safe and upwardly mobile even though it is low income just like the rest of Detroit
this is such a complex topic it will require a complex solution. for example men my age are so suspicious about women with regards to them taking everything. majority of people initiating divorce. it literally stuffs you for 20 years at most. your a middle aged man by the end of that. trying to save for a house you've either lost or never owned. and yet you don't wanna get rid of child support and alimony. its there for a reason. tax breaks and other stuff might incentivize marriage and greater support might decrease the divorce rate. but i feel like that doesn't solve the problem. make is better but as an actual solution. the divorces i see around me happen because of personal stuff and not money (very important contributing factor). finally why does the left seem allergic to this issue.
I wonder statistically who's filing for no-fault divorces in America and how often children are involved. I wonder if it would help everyone to amend family law to stipulate that if children are involved, then any parental spouse who files for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences" (meaning no abuse, no adultery, no theft/fraud, etc., by the other spouse) is ineligible for alimony and child support.
Ah, the "abusive marriage" trope. "This guy I decided to date, then decided to marry, then decided to have kids with suddenly turned out to be abusive. I'm a victim!" It doesn't quite add up.
If you file for divorce you should get less than 50%. This would reduce frivolous divorce, while still allowing people to leave abusers. We keep lowering it to 45%, 40%, 35%, until frivolous divorce rates become substantially less. Less gold diggers leaving and entering marriages as a result. Win-Win. ❤️
How do you define marriage? Are you define marriage based on legal registration to state authority? If you think like that then 200 years back there was no registration like that and 100% People would be unmarried. But in those old days people would stay together are raised children without inteference of state authority.
Near the end she started talking about the real reason why men aren't getting married. Marriage is an atrocious deal for men. It is a potential financial apocalypse which can completely ruin a man's life. The woman can leave for any reason, and the man loses half of everything he worked his entire life for, then on top of that he has to pay alimony and child support, and potentially he won't be able to see his kids. Maybe-MAYBE-if the occurrence of this was tiny then men would still consider marriage, but the fact is that half of marriages end in divorce, so you are quite literally gambling your stability and future if you choose to risk it. If someone offered you two M&M's and told you that one would give you a family and the other would financially ruin you, it's not rocket science to understand why someone might choose to not take either one. The answer is to get rid of alimony, child support, and the confiscation of assets. The only scenario where alimony and child support should be considered is when it can be proven that the man was abusive. Unless by some miracle that happens, I will never get married in this country.
Hard disagree. Alimony, child support, etc. are there to protect a spouse, male or female, who gives up a career, or doesn't go 100% on a career, to raise children. Without that protection it would be foolish for any parent to sacrifice potential future work earnings for the family. Having a parent cut back on work to focus on children is a good thing for the children. Child support and alimony provide legal structures to allow for this, without a parent sacrificing their own future.
Imagine a lawyer married a minimum wage worker and wants that worker to quit his job and raise the children. Well, without child support and alimony as insurance for if things go wrong, the minimum wage worker would be foolish to quit his job for 15 years, giving up all the potential career promotions that would have gone with it. Quite frankly, child support and alimony allow a couple to make decisions that are best for their children, without potentially making someone destitute if things go wrong.
@@jamesbaldock7186 If you choose to be a stay-at-home mom, then that is your decision and you should bear the risk of your decision. No one is forcing you to not work. You didn't read the last part where I said alimony and child support should be considered when the man is shown to be abusive. If there's no abuse going on, the man hasn't done anything wrong, and the woman chooses to leave of her own free will, then that is her choice and the man shouldn't pay for her decision.
@@ZyroZoro you nailed it in your first paragraph. Without child support/alimony, if you choose to cut back on work to raise children, then you suffer the consequences for it. Therefore, you'd be a fool to prioritize children over your job, since you need to look after your own financial well being first. Our society values parents spending time with children, we think this is healthy for the children and therefore society. If you take away child support and alimony, then you encourage both parents to focus on their career and put children last. Most people don't think this is a good way to raise the functioning children that our society will rely on.
@@ZyroZoro if you set an abuse standard to get child support, then all you'll end up with is a sexless hostile marriage until someone snaps or cheats. This isn't a good environment to raise children in.
I love listening to her. Though she is far left she speaks with humility which is respectable. She sounds like she open to possible fixes rather than pushing a political narrative
Drawing from this information, it seems that a viable approach would involve offering mothers salaries for child-rearing and engaging a full-time nanny to provide support in the absence of the other parent. Nevertheless, it's crucial to recognise that this strategy may inadvertently lead to stigmatisation, particularly for women who aren't mothers or cannot have children. Therefore, a more equitable solution might be to extend salaries to all women.
Poor people are not getting married because they can't afford legal fees of family court. Divorce is a reality and 50% marriage endup in divorce. So the idea of People don't getting married is partially true. Because people have all the intention of getting married but not in the legal setup. Marriage is a social instituation and not a legal one.
@zacher66 I was watching Mikaila Peterson episode on narcissism, I wonder how IQ would play into that epistemology, perhaps "emotions" are a feminine quality. Interesting, thanks for your reply, have to contemplate all these threads
You can be the most well educated person in the world but if you don't own or control anything then you have no power and wealth. If I own all the land and you are forced to buy food from me then no mater how intelligent and educated you are I will always have more money than you. If I own and control all the natural resources in a country as well as the manufacturing and retail business you will always be poorer than me and the level of your education will be meaningless. Education does lead to improved opportunities but it will not create the type of wealth that will allow for you to make the amount of money that companies like Shell, Exxon Mobil, Google, Apple, Cargill, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Black Rock, etc. make. You and I are not majority shareholder and most people NEVER will be. You can be a Harvard Graduate and spend your entire life working for one of these companies but you will never be an owner. Monopoly power and ownership is the true cause of income inequality and the lack of mobility in our society. Social mobility is a myth. Moving from the bottom to the lower middle is not much in terms of real power and mobility. The gap from the middle to the top is enormous, what to speak of the gap from the bottom to the top. If we speak about income inequality between the bottom and the middle and put those two groups in competition with one another while leaving out the top 1% then we are not having an honest conversation. People who come from single parent families are often poor and have no education but the reason they are poor is because they own nothing and they have no real power. They are not poor because of their lack of education, they are poor because they live in cities where they are forced to purchase everything they need to live from businesses and property owners. They work for low wages, pay excessive taxes, and are overcharged for everything they need to survive. This leaves them with very little money to invest in business opportunities and entrepreneurial ventures. For most people the best that a person with an education can hope for is a high paying job working for someone else. High paying jobs are not easy to find. Robotics, computers and outsourcing have lead to a decline in jobs and wages. Competition for high paying jobs is fierce. There are too many well qualified applicants and not enough positions. Our government encourages the immigration of high skilled workers from other countries. Immigrants are often willing to work for less than their American counterparts so that they can become citizens and enjoy a better life. Many western governments also support this policy. This allows their constituents (businesses) to save money and increase their profit margins by suppressing wages. The increase of qualified applicants and the small number of positions leads to competition. In the end it is economics and power asymmetries that are at the root of true income inequality not educational opportunities. @@lynnlavoy6778
