Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Josh]

It baffles me that anyone can look at the modern era with insanely high out of wedlock pregnancy rates, low overall birth rates, and conclude what we need is even less marriage and more divorce.

[RZehr]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

Divorce rates in the US are actually at a 50 year low and are half what they were in 1980 and about where they were all the way back in 1950. I think what you are really talking about is the decline in marriage rate which I don't think is something that can really be addressed through regulation.

You, (I should think) as well as anyone, should be able to see the societal problems that stem from broken homes.

After a couple generations of constant divorce, coupled with a culture of fornication, birth control, abortion and add in alimony, and child support payments - is it really a surprise to see a generation finally deciding that marriage is just not worth doing? That explains the drop in marriage.

With a culture who don’t know how to maintain a committed marriage for life, and have no examples to learn from, the cons and risks of marriage is larger than the benefits. Frankly it is a miracle to see as many marriages as we do. It guess it is a testament of its durability.

[Ken]

Well, aint that nice that you know better than RZehr what he's talking about.

I'm just pointing out that divorce rates in the US have been on a long slow decline for the last 40 years and are back down to where they were in about 1950.

Do you think that is incorrect? Do you think those data are fake? If not, then what is the actual concern here?

[RZehr]

Well, aint that nice that you know better than RZehr what he's talking about.

I'm just pointing out that divorce rates in the US have been on a long slow decline for the last 40 years and are back down to where they were in about 1950.

Do you think that is incorrect? Do you think those data are fake? If not, then what is the actual concern here?

If the marriage rate went to zero, so would the divorce rate.
We are not arguing one dimensionally against divorce at the cost of every else. What gain would there be if no one married or divorced, if the earth was then filled with fornication and people behaving like the worst of beasts?

[Ken]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

Divorce rates in the US are actually at a 50 year low and are half what they were in 1980 and about where they were all the way back in 1950. I think what you are really talking about is the decline in marriage rate which I don't think is something that can really be addressed through regulation.

You, (I should think) as well as anyone, should be able to see the societal problems that stem from broken homes.

After a couple generations of constant divorce, coupled with a culture of fornication, birth control, abortion and add in alimony, and child support payments - is it really a surprise to see a generation finally deciding that marriage is just not worth doing? That explains the drop in marriage.

I think we are in agreement as to the problem.

Although I think we would probably diverge in our ideas of solutions. And how the state can best encourage stable 2-parent families and better support families in general. That is where the rubber really meets the road.

Should we greatly increase the minimum wage to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a whole suite of measures designed to reduce housing costs to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a universal system of free national health insurance to better support families and make child-rearing less expensive?
Should we reinstate the generous pandemic-era child tax credits to make having children more affordable?
etc. etc.

If you want the STATE to encourage stable 2-parent families and support families in general, how are you going to do it? Your task as a policy-maker is to encourage young people and especially young single women to come to the conclusion that marriage and raising families is their best choice in life. How do you do that? What combinations of carrots and sticks are you going to choose?

[RZehr]

I think those are fair questions.

[Josh]

Although I think we would probably diverge in our ideas of solutions. And how the state can best encourage stable 2-parent families and better support families in general. That is where the rubber really meets the road.

Should we greatly increase the minimum wage to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a whole suite of measures designed to reduce housing costs to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a universal system of free national health insurance to better support families and make child-rearing less expensive?
Should we reinstate the generous pandemic-era child tax credits to make having children more affordable?
etc. etc.

If you want the STATE to encourage stable 2-parent families and support families in general, how are you going to do it? Your task as a policy-maker is to encourage young people and especially young single women to come to the conclusion that marriage and raising families is their best choice in life. How do you do that? What combinations of carrots and sticks are you going to choose?

As I have documented elsewhere on MN, the state provides vast subsidies to two parent families, particularly with a stay at home mom. If you don’t remember the numbers, I’ll remind you: a dad making $13 an hr with 4 kids is roughly equivalent to a couple with no kids earning $100k. And the family gets fully subsidised medical care.

Whilst I think these are good programs, it doesn’t seem to be encouraging people to get married and have a stay at home mom. Instead people think having kids is expensive.

Probably the best single thing that could change this is fixing bad neighbourhoods so they aren’t bad anymore, including schools rocked by violence and abysmal test scores and neighbourhoods full of lawlessness. Chicago seems a great place to start with this. My own town is fairly lawful, and many families earn low incomes yet own a modest home and send their kids to good public schools. The question is how to make sure it doesn’t turn into a “bad” neighbourhood.

[Ken]

Although I think we would probably diverge in our ideas of solutions. And how the state can best encourage stable 2-parent families and better support families in general. That is where the rubber really meets the road.

Should we greatly increase the minimum wage to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a whole suite of measures designed to reduce housing costs to make it easier for traditional families to live on one income?
Should we implement a universal system of free national health insurance to better support families and make child-rearing less expensive?
Should we reinstate the generous pandemic-era child tax credits to make having children more affordable?
etc. etc.

If you want the STATE to encourage stable 2-parent families and support families in general, how are you going to do it? Your task as a policy-maker is to encourage young people and especially young single women to come to the conclusion that marriage and raising families is their best choice in life. How do you do that? What combinations of carrots and sticks are you going to choose?

As I have documented elsewhere on MN, the state provides vast subsidies to two parent families, particularly with a stay at home mom. If you don’t remember the numbers, I’ll remind you: a dad making $13 an hr with 4 kids is roughly equivalent to a couple with no kids earning $100k. And the family gets fully subsidised medical care.

Whilst I think these are good programs, it doesn’t seem to be encouraging people to get married and have a stay at home mom. Instead people think having kids is expensive.

Probably the best single thing that could change this is fixing bad neighbourhoods so they aren’t bad anymore, including schools rocked by violence and abysmal test scores and neighbourhoods full of lawlessness. Chicago seems a great place to start with this. My own town is fairly lawful, and many families earn low incomes yet own a modest home and send their kids to good public schools. The question is how to make sure it doesn’t turn into a “bad” neighbourhood.

So strict Japanese-style gun control then? Get those guns out of schools and off the streets? So that Chicago and other cities are safer for children and families?

[Josh]

Chicago already has strict gun control. Doesn’t appear to be working.

It would be amazing, Ken, if you could imagine there may be other factors in what makes a bad neighbourhood bad besides just gun control laws.

Brazil has strict gun control country wide. Yet they have a high homicide rate.

[barnhart]

I rather enjoyed the conversation between rzehr and Ken, possibly because they come to the conclusion I agree with. Even if you know what is right or good for society does not mean enforcing with laws is a good idea.