Kind of cool, but the conclusion was completely backwards.
The final line of the study was "So he is our collective responsibility. They all are.", but the entire study was about how the home environment affects your outcomes. I guess their conclusion is that if an individual does a bad job raising their kids, it is societies fault.
I think the core message is that a child's life is strongly determined by his family life/environment, it's not just a personal choice to succeed or to fail.
So if we want people to have better outcomes, we need to help better family lives/environments (and lives in general) to break the cycle, and not just give them basic education. Also, the family is just a group of individuals that probably themselves have come from poor conditions: this means there's hope of breaking the cycle.
In the presentation it talked about college, even a short amount, can give better outcomes.
But the presentation was more of an overview of the issue, and I don't think it's fair to argue that, because it doesn't go deeply into every data point, that it's not valid. It more about bring awareness to the issues, and grounds for further research.
It shows that family/environment influences life outcomes (it should be obvious); it's not conclusive (in establishing causation), it does show a correlation. I really think it's almost obvious this is true, but it's important reinforcing with data nonetheless.
So you can break (or weaken) the cycle if you improve those conditions, and this improvement propagates.
> It shows that family/environment influences life outcomes
Not to nitpick but this statement implies causation (family environment causes life outcome) which you contradict right after.
Sorry to sound obtuse, but, I asked because it may seem obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to me that there will be much improvement. I've seen data that indicates that outcomes are not changed (much) when those early interventions / "investments" are made. There is _an_ improvement, but not to the level people expect. Like a person's height, access to high quality food will only do so much; some people are just going to have short stature however much money you invest into making sure they have access to nutritious meals.
It also begs the question of nature vs. nurture. If researchers won't take this seriously, then nobody should take their findings seriously. It's almost impossible to untangle, "single-fatherhood leads to bad outcomes because kids need a father figure in the house" from, "single-fatherhood leads to worse outcomes because the type of person who would abandon their children is likely more impulsive and less conscientious than average and those traits are heritable."
Fair point in theory and I'm not familiar with the literature, but I'd guess at least some researchers have studied ways of controlling for this: eg, looking at cases where father dies early and mother does not remarry, single mothers who adopt or do artificial insemination, etc.
Yes, my (limited) understanding of the literature is that this is exactly what they do. You don’t see the same single-fatherhood effects when looking at the children of widows, for example.
Responsibility doesn't imply fault. For example we all have a collective responsibility to protect and improve our environment, even though none of us created it and none of us caused any of its problems.
I think the idea is that "only support your family" harms everyone. The example, Alex, has 2 kids, works manual labor to earn poverty wages, and is depressed. Which one of the types of teen do you think his kids will be?
The common refrain is "then he shouldn't have had kids" but unless you're going to create an authoritarian state people will always have kids (and restricting kids went awfully for China anyway).
Convincing people that their problems are outside of their control and that the only way to solve them is to vote a certain way is also a form of authoritarianism. If you aren't to blame for your own life that implies you have no control over it.
Saying that problems are completely outside of someone's control or completely their own fault is a false dichotomy. Reality is usually somewhere in the middle, especially in studies like this one on teenagers. Everyone's situation is shaped by a mix of personal choices and the world around them. It's not just about blaming people or the system; it’s about seeing how both play a role. Voting is one way to make a difference, but it’s not the only way—people have a lot of ways to shape their lives.
> Convincing people that their problems are outside of their control and that the only way to solve them is to vote a certain way is also a form of authoritarianism
Yes, systemic poverty can only be solved politically. That is just the nature of a systemic problem. I am pretty sure encouraging people to be active in the political process of which voting is a small but important part is the opposite of authoritarianism.
> If you aren't to blame for your own life that implies you have no control over it.
Yes. Bitter pill to swallow but that is the reality. We are mostly defined by nature and nurture and we can't choose with which genetics we are born with or our upbringing and if we will have adverse childhood experiences.
The circle of influence most people have over their own life is very tiny, especially the lower they are on the ladder.
The ideology of personal responsibility is propagated to justify the current status quo and block political change that would help poor people.
I would say that the circle of influence people have is by far the most impactful on their happiness and that of their family. The individual choice to try meth or not will vastly outweigh any genetic or environmental factor on personal outcome. Beating ones children is much more influential than your socioeconomic class.
No a mount of political action can compensate for dissolution of individual responsibilities.
Ideally, they are complementary, but they can easily be antagonists.
Teach a generation of juveniles that they have no agency, and their individual efforts and work, and they will never succeed.
> I would say that the circle of influence people have is by far the most impactful on their happiness and that of their family.
This is factually wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a strong correlation between socioeconomic class and later success in life.
> The individual choice to try meth or not will vastly outweigh any genetic or environmental factor on personal outcome.
Drug use and poverty wouldn't be so strongly linked if that were a free choice.
Maybe you should tell all the drug addicts to just not do drugs. Problem solved.
Are you telling people with depression to "just snap out of it" as well? Drug addiction is a serious medical illness. It requires a whole support network of people to cure in most cases.
> Teach a generation of juveniles that they have no agency, and their individual efforts and work, and they will never succeed.
You empower them by teaching them that it a systemic issue, that it is NOT their fault. That they can organize together and lift each other up. Individuals are weak, groups are strong.
Individual responsibility only works for the rich. Collective responsibility is what breaks the cycle of violence of poverty. It takes a village to raise a kid after all.
You may see correlations between socioeconomic class, but they are still by far weaker than correlations with Individual behavior and choice, which is my point.
Telling someone not to be born poor isn't actionable advice. Telling them their chance of success is 1000% better if they don't do drugs IS actionable advice. Telling them to live in misery and wait for the collective to solve a social problem in decades isn't actionable or useful advice either.
>You empower them by teaching them that it a systemic issue, that it is NOT their fault.
It is a big difference between a higher statistical risk factor isn't your fault, and telling them their choices and behavior have no impact.
Individual responsibility and effort is the foundation of collective responsibility. You can't have collective action with personal action. It isn't one or the other. The boat won't move if there is individual responsibility to paddle.
Everyone and their dog knows not to do drugs. Still people do. This is not actionable advice.
Knowing about the effects of poverty means knowing more about yourself. Understanding yourself leads to being able to take more effective actions increasing the control you have over your life.
You seem to think it is about victim mindset vs whatever you toxic middle-class self help "individual responsibility" thing is. Real change can only happen once you understand and accept yourself, including being a victim of circumstance and birth. After that there can there be healing and proper action.
> Telling them to live in misery and wait for the collective to solve a social problem in decades isn't actionable or useful advice either.
That is not the point. The point is for them to educate themselves on the issues they are facing, to politically organize, to organize in the neighborhood, to help each other out and ideally become leaders and role-models in their community. It starts with seeking help and community, not trying to lift yourself up by your bootstraps which often is not realistic.
> Individual responsibility and effort is the foundation of collective responsibility. You can't have collective action with personal action. It isn't one or the other. The boat won't move if there is individual responsibility to paddle.
Yes, obviously collective responsibility includes a form of individual responsibility. They only work together when your are poor.
It seems like we actually agree on more than it seems, even if we disagree on the value of a victim mindset and the necessity of adopting victim in-group identity.
Of course I agree with having ones eyes open to their personal circumstance and challenges, as well as the value of giving and receiving help to others. However, I do think it is ironic that you think people have the agency to help others more and become leaders, but not have the agency to help themselves.
Circling back to drugs, this is akin to becoming a sobriety advocate, but not trying to get sober. You say everyone knows not to do drugs, but from what I know, hopelessness, self-hate, and self-delusion is a key difference between those who become addicts and those that dont.
I think that exaggerated messaging about statistical disadvantage does more harm than good if it is uncoupled from the message about statistical advantage of personal action (e.g. you may be 2x more likely to end up poor if born poor, but you are 10x more likely to escape if you stay sober and go to college). these numbers are obviously made up, but literature overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that personal behaviors have more impact than group statistics and environmental circumstances. Of course personal choices like staying in school or smoking meth have huge impacts on your personal life!
Incomplete messaging of this is harmful because people need to understand and believe there is an actionable path to a better life in order to try. Hopelessness and despair are real barriers that need to be acknowledged.
You brought up depression earlier, and while I dont tell people to "snap out of it", it is also true that almost nobody overcomes depression without the belief that their actions CAN have improve their depression, and that there is a path to improvement. It is central and fundamental to rehabilitation. Most of depression therapy boils down to convincing people improvement is possible, and teaching them how to do it. A therapist may be a crucial help that makes the difference, but the patient still has to do 99% of the work.
Statistically most people born into poverty stay there. Do you think most of them aren't trying? Conversely, do you thing most people born wealthy have to put as much effort into staying wealthy?
There are a number of systemic barriers, one of the big ones mentioned in this demonstration is education.
If we had equal baseline access to education, housing, healthcare, and food... then sure, if people stayed impoverished I might begin to agree with you.
We're not even close in our current state so "you're in control of your own life" is a completely ignorant argument.
>Statistically most people born into poverty stay there.
That simply isn't true. Look at the data on economic mobility, and the vast majority of people born in the bottom 20% leave the bottom 20%.
Outcomes obviously aren't random, but are far from deterministic.
For example, this article puts the number at 63% leaving the bottom 20%. 80% would require that there are no impacts whatsoever from every factor correlated with poverty
That data is paywalled, but I've got some conflicting sources:
> Rates of relative intergenerational mobility in the U.S. appear to have been flat for decades
> Most Americans born in 1940 ended up better off, in real terms, than their parents at the same age. Only half of those of those born in 1980 have surpassed their parent’s family income
Also worth mentioning that the mean income for the second quintile is only ~$40k — it's still ~$30k off from the middle quintile... so we're not talking anything close to the american dream here either way. We're talking multiple generations at best for a small percentage of the lower quintile to reach the middle.
>Only half of those of those born in 1980 have surpassed their parent’s family income
If you are talking about relative economic mobility, more than half of people cant end up in the top half by definition. Only 50 percent of people can improve in social class- and 50% of people have to go down in social class to make that happen. Of course I understand that the case is different if you are talking about nominal income. The biggest Issues there is that it is calculated using household income, and the number of adults/household has gone down quite a bit in the US. The last Issue I would point out is that these metrics rarely include transfer payments, which for the lowest quintile have gone up quite a bit.
There should be an Internet law for the phenomenon of taking systemic or statistical analyses personally and then dismissing them on that basis. It’s so common and always just results in a mess of people commenting past each other.
That it’s possible to work one’s way out of poverty or to maintain a healthy weight through willpower or what have you is simply irrelevant when talking policy. Its only possible role is to dismiss the problem or discourage action. The reverse is also true: that a system could hypothetically make it easier for one to succeed is irrelevant to the individual who’s trying to decide what to do to improve their life in the system that currently exists.
I guess all those guys that lost to Lance Armstrong over the years should have played their hands better? Being born wealthy is essentially economic doping.
I feel like when people start talking about money like this they're being intentionally illogical.
Being born into a situation where your problems are minor is a great way to be ignorant of how systemic issues affect people.
If a child shows up to school every day unfed for breakfast and without lunch money, right-wing states have decided that somehow their kid not having food is a motivational issue for the parent. And their solution for when a distracted, hungry student is unable to focus in class is to bring back corporal punishment and post religious texts in classrooms.
If it were merely a motivational issue for parents, then the child would already be fed. The political situation that made the most sense for the school district in which I grew up, which is a bright red area that is also a public education stronghold, was to dip into the budget to ensure that all kids got breakfast and lunch if they wanted it. That way it can't be framed as a political issue.
The issue was never about the benefit, it was about the race and class of people who received it.
Same thing with work. We have age-based workplace discrimination laws precisely because a class of workers who are over the age of 50 have been discriminated against due to their age and in lieu of other concerns. Those problems are outside of their control. Most people with 20+ year careers are unemployed for reasons that have nothing to do with performance, and they can't help what age they are.
This isn't authoritarianism. It's basic common sense.
I think social and individual expectations are a big part of this. Why is Alex depressed? If they had 20k more a year, would they be happier, or just 2 steps ahead on and empty hedonistic treadmill. Alex now has a new mustang, but is still depressed and fails as a parent.
I think it would be interesting to see the relative impact of a 2 parent + low risk home vs income, and I think there is a lot lost when people assume every variable reduces to income.
What about Alex when they have low income, but a healthy home life? What about Alex when they have higher income, but a shit home life?
Money actually does buy happiness, despite what the wealthy would like you to believe.
It is very likely that yes, he would in fact be happier with an extra 20k a year.
You don't know he'd have a new mustang; that's just you projecting. He might put the extra 20k a year into savings for his kid's education - I know that feeling like I'm setting my kids up for future success makes me happy.
Money buys happiness, up to a point. It's like a pretty linear increase in happiness to some spot somewhere above median income (I forget, something like 1.5x median income). After that, it has very little impact on happiness, if at all.
> Money actually does buy happiness, despite what the wealthy would like you to believe.
Individual happiness and being a good parent (which contributes to breaking the cycle) don't necessarily intersect as much as you think, or at least it's based on the individual.
Some people's happiness is only marginally related to how well their kids are doing (as evident by rise in single-parent households), so the 20k may contribute essentially 0 to the long term solution.
> You don't know he'd have a new mustang; that's just you projecting.
If I don't know, then you don't know either. You're taking the other good extreme and presenting is at fact. The reality is somewhere in the middle.
There are plenty of pre-industrialized peoples that smoked tobacco, drank alcohol, and did drugs recreationally. Were they too on hedonistic treadmills?
It's funny how Americans love to brag about how they have the freedom to do whatever and pay less tax, but then turn around and treat their poor like fools if they live in any way that doesn't resemble soviet-era russia.
This is the same thing boomers do when they tell millennials to stop eating avocado toast to pay their school loans.
> It's funny how Americans love to brag about how they have the freedom to do whatever and pay less tax, but then turn around and treat their poor like fools if they live in any way that doesn't resemble soviet-era russia.
You have things quite backwards, the stereotype of USSR and it's successor is large amounts of vodka and mindlessly wrestling bears. The USA added an amendment to their constitution banning the sale of alcohol and took a while to get repealed.
> This is the same thing boomers do when they tell millennials to stop eating avocado toast to pay their school loans.
> the stereotype of USSR and it's successor is large amounts of vodka and mindlessly wrestling bears
also lines for bread and austerity, that's what I mean
> I think citing internet memes is not a good plan.
while that example is memified, this is still a commonly held belief that I see reiterated almost daily (of course they're poor, they're buying iPhones! for example)
You can certainly go into debt to get your foot onto that treadmill. You can live with your parents and spend the entire $40k on entertainment. The exact figure of the income barely matters. FOMO and consumerist culture almost ensures that everyone is participating.
The companies are certainly happy to take your money, regardless of how hard it will be to pay back.
I don't think that "fault", which I take as implying blame, had anything to do with the presentation. I interpreted it as very neutral in that respect. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it?
I do think it touches on how everyone is exposed to adverse outcomes, whatever category they are in. And I agree that it's a collective responsibility, although the presentation does a poor job of arguing the "collective responsibility" point.
If a society has a trend line of poor home environments then I think the society is in some sense at fault for fostering poor home environments. This doesn't and shouldn't take away from the individual's responsibility for raising kids.
But home environments exist in a specific social context that effect how people think they should foster a good home environment. We've lost a lot of societal knowledge and experience around good family structures since probably the 60s. As a society we have definitely encouraged, especially the lower income bands, to outsource it to schools and institutions. That is going to have an effect.
Under President Johnson, government funding began to incentivize single (predominantly black) mothers not to marry the father of their children. IMO this had disastrous effects on our urban centers. Before the social welfare solutions of the Johnson era, 25% of black children were born without two parents. Now the number is nearly 75%, and the effect on young men has been tragic, in a way that affects the whole community.
The take-home for me was that as parents, or future parents, here are some things we can do to make the child have a greater chance at success. None of these are doorways to success, but they make it easier for success to happen with those conditions present, as well as the inverse.
In health care, sometimes we help the body fix the problem, and sometimes we "just" treat symptoms.
It's ... probably not a good idea for the government to try to fix families. Any interventions must be very carefully considered.
But some of the symptoms can be helped out relatively easily.
---
I also think the author(s) may have a different perspective on responsibility, fault, and blame. I feel like blame is something that our minds do for us so we can stop thinking about a problem - to fix things you have to look past the blame.
I honestly think that the sorts of experiences that break kids are things like parents breaking up, not 'not having the newest toy' or 'not going on vacation'. In the sense that material poverty can cause family stress, I completely agree. I fully support programs to feed kids, provide medical insurance, etc. I even support it for adults. I'm just not sure how any of that at the end of the day is going to fix daddy cheating. Unless you're suggesting a crackdown on prostitution and/or making adultery a crime again (in which case sure! as a social conservative, I'm down)... but good luck getting that passed today!
Yeah, I'm tired of being told that it's all our responsibility, but we get none of the agency. My mother was a teacher in the inner city. There were kids our whole family fell in love with, and frankly, my mother knew what was best for them, and for a few would have been willing to even take them in. But, alas, they had to go home to their abusive parent. I am in no way advocating for forced separation, but it's hard to experience these things first hand and then be told it's all our responsibility.
I mean.. I agree that we are responsible for each other. However, for other things in life I'm responsible for, like my car, my property, and even my government, I am given a direct say. Imagine if you were forced to take responsibility for a car, except you were never allowed to drive it and it was made freely available to every teenage boy at the local high school. What responsibility could you possible have? What does it even mean to say you're responsible for something you have no control over?
A good priest once told me in confession when I confessed feeling upset that I couldn't help the homeless, the destitute, etc, and he properly identified the problem was that there's only one Saviour and I'm not him. And I feel that sagacious advice is applicable here. What are we possibly to do in this situation other than the unthinkable?
Previous progressive movements have indeed advocated for the removal of children in bad environments, and indeed many of these 'worked', but they're highly criticized (rightly, I guess) today.
I guess I can see this conclusion if you start from a position that all families are nothing but isolated, self-interested atoms in the world. Rather than, you know, a part of society!
Maybe you missed some of the bits in the middle? Like how education is a greater boon to the people who can't afford it and that the cost of it has increased over time.
The final line of the study was "So he is our collective responsibility. They all are.", but the entire study was about how the home environment affects your outcomes. I guess their conclusion is that if an individual does a bad job raising their kids, it is societies fault.