One former teacher's opinion/testimony on teaching Gen Z

[nakedfrog]

Every great country falls. Maybe we are at that beginning destructive stage?

Closer to the middle bit, probably.

 

[Mai72]

Closer to the middle bit, probably.

Yea. That is probably true. 😱

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not sure what that has to do with single parents and educational outcomes. Except that it makes it even harder for single parents.

I'd say, though, "needing" two incomes to maintain a desired standard of living was a pretty obvious outcome of a majority of households getting a second income. Also if everyone over the age of 24 was married, housing demand would likely drop a lot.

TSRH.

Gotta love people that come in and say laughable stuff like "We should go back to single income households".....

Yeah... tell the women to get back in the kitchen, let me know how that goes for you politically...

So many people that just can't think things through from Business/ECON 101 that even a 10th grader would know lol.


Next thing you know someone might suggest something crazy like figuring out that single-parent households plays a factor in our ever-increasing housing costs. Gee... needing 2 homes... or 1... hmmmm...

 

[pmv]

This entire thread belongs in P&N.

 

[pmv]

Been a while since I've seen the stats, but that has been researched and it was found that on average married parents still produce better results than cohabitating parents. Probably because, in general marriage is actually more stable than cohabitating.

ETA: https://www.brookings.edu/research/cohabiting-parents-differ-from-married-ones-in-three-big-ways/

Really don't see how you separate causation and correlation in that argument. It's perfectly possible for people to get married but then behave exactly as if they were cohabiting - marriage vows are not really enforced by law, partners who cheat and/or fail to be supportive financially or emotionally are not sent to jail for it.

The difference is likely because of selection effects - those who choose to officially marry do so because they have a pre-existing stronger level of commitment - and probably different attitudes in a whole host of ways.

I don't really know what I think on any of these topics - the nature of schools, the benefits of marriage, or even the side-issue someone mentioned about licencing of taxi-drivers. Other than all three of them are more complicated than either side in the usual arguments seems to acknowledge.

 

[Torn Mind]

TSRH.

Gotta love people that come in and say laughable stuff like "We should go back to single income households".....

Yeah... tell the women to get back in the kitchen, let me know how that goes for you politically...

So many people that just can't think things through from Business/ECON 101 that even a 10th grader would know lol.


Next thing you know someone might suggest something crazy like figuring out that single-parent households plays a factor in our ever-increasing housing costs. Gee... needing 2 homes... or 1... hmmmm...

Incendiary as always.

Just what level of ECON did you level up to? I know one thing though. It's not as high as mine. 😛 😉

 

[Torn Mind]

Really don't see how you separate causation and correlation in that argument. It's perfectly possible for people to get married but then behave exactly as if they were cohabiting - marriage vows are not really enforced by law, partners who cheat and/or fail to be supportive financially or emotionally are not sent to jail for it.

The difference is likely because of selection effects - those who choose to officially marry do so because they have a pre-existing stronger level of commitment - and probably different attitudes in a whole host of ways.

I don't really know what I think on any of these topics - the nature of schools, the benefits of marriage, or even the side-issue someone mentioned about licencing of taxi-drivers. Other than all three of them are more complicated than either side in the usual arguments seems to acknowledge.

To be fair, the meat of the Brookings article he posted does point out exactly what you are talking about.

The real question now is not whether married parents are more likely to stay together, but why. Is it something about marriage per se, as Wilcox and DeRose suggest? Or is that the factors leading couples to stay together also lead to them to marry? This is not a semantic point. Understanding cause and effect is likely to be important when it comes to designing policy.

 

[pmv]

So many people that just can't think things through from Business/ECON 101 that even a 10th grader would know lol.


Next thing you know someone might suggest something crazy like figuring out that single-parent households plays a factor in our ever-increasing housing costs. Gee... needing 2 homes... or 1... hmmmm...

Do you have any evidence that "single parents" are a significant factor in the cost of housing? Compared with:

the effect of zoning restrictions on home-building
the tendency of the wealthy to buy much larger homes than they need
the fact that homes generally in the US are far, far larger than those in any other developed country apart from Australia (the average home being three times the size of that in the UK or Italy)
the increasing number of childless single people living alone

the 13 million single parent households (out of 130 million households in total) would seem likely to have a negligible effect on the availability of housing. At most that means 10% additional demand, assuming an extra parent in the household would take no additional space. Contrasted with the 200% additional demand caused by the desire for vastly-oversized homes.

Average Home Sizes Around the World And Fun Facts You Didn't Know

Although homes come in different sizes, these average home sizes around the world will leave you stumped! Here are some facts you didn't know!

homescopes.com

 

[Zorba]

Do you have any evidence that "single parents" are a significant factor in the cost of housing? Compared with:

the effect of zoning restrictions on home-building
the tendency of the wealthy to buy much larger homes than they need
the fact that homes generally in the US are far, far larger than those in any other developed country apart from Australia (the average home being three times the size of that in the UK or Italy)
the increasing number of childless single people living alone

the 13 million single parent households (out of 130 million households in total) would seem likely to have a negligible effect on the availability of housing. At most that means 10% additional demand, assuming an extra parent in the household would take no additional space. Contrasted with the 200% additional demand caused by the desire for vastly-oversized homes.

Average Home Sizes Around the World And Fun Facts You Didn't Know

Although homes come in different sizes, these average home sizes around the world will leave you stumped! Here are some facts you didn't know!

homescopes.com

I'm not an economist, but I'm willing to bet a 10% drop in housing demand would send the industry into a depression, at least a very large slump.

This is really an aside to an aside though. When people lived on a single income houses were much smaller and nearly everyone was married young. Population was also much more spread out.

 

[Torn Mind]

My opinion is that the "best housing districts" are often propped up by already educated individuals who want to keep the education train rolling for their kids.

Like the housing in the Wotton district in my area have a clearly and obvious higher value compared to the areas where you can get more $/sqft.

These prime areas are always valuable and would never drop down.

 

[Zorba]

My opinion is that the "best housing districts" are often propped up by already educated individuals who want to keep the education train rolling for their kids.

Like the housing in the Wotton district in my area have a clearly and obvious higher value compared to the areas where you can get more $/sqft.

These prime areas are always valuable and would never drop down.

No shit? People pay more to live in areas with higher standards of living and provide better amenities? Tell me more about your economic theories.

 

[Torn Mind]

No shit? People pay more to live in areas with higher standards of living and provide better amenities? Tell me more about your economic theories.

The people themselves make the area more expensive. My point is that the pursuit of schooling itself drives up prices regardless of other amenities.

Even a technically still-rural area can have transplants willing to pay the price if a school is good, pulling in the educated professionals. Poolesville is not a convenient or well-endowed place but it also has property values that are higher than the 20877 zip code, which is a proper suburb city.

When my mom had to work at the 7-eleven there it was kind of rednecky. When we went there 17 years later to pick up a free broken power washer(I can repair some small engines), things did change a bit. Looking in Redfin, the property values are damn high for the location and convenience, but it has a good reputation school, which is the only plausible explanation for the $/sqft.

The Wooton district I mention is also not some glitzy, walkable place easily commutable by bus. It is center around a single lane road with no stores on it. It isn’t isolated since the city of Rockville or the Fallsgrove is only a short drive away, but the basically does require a car.

 

[dank69]

TSRH.

Gotta love people that come in and say laughable stuff like "We should go back to single income households".....

Yeah... tell the women to get back in the kitchen, let me know how that goes for you politically...

So many people that just can't think things through from Business/ECON 101 that even a 10th grader would know lol.


Next thing you know someone might suggest something crazy like figuring out that single-parent households plays a factor in our ever-increasing housing costs. Gee... needing 2 homes... or 1... hmmmm...

Nobody said we should go back to single income households or women need to go back to the kitchen. That is how YOUR mind works. They said we need to get back to an economy where a single income is enough to support a family comfortably.

We could have that. We just need to return to sane tax policy and use that extra tax money to supplement existence for everyone instead of just the people that are already filthy rich.

 

[Captante]

Really don't see how you separate causation and correlation in that argument

It's not exactly a stretch to think that couples who go to the trouble of getting officially married would do somewhat better statistically then those who only moved in together.

I do not however believe that it's anything mysterious at work though, only that the couples who marry may be somewhat more "committed" to each other and making the relationship work.

 

[Zorba]

Nobody said we should go back to single income households or women need to go back to the kitchen. That is how YOUR mind works. They said we need to get back to an economy where a single income is enough to support a family comfortably.

We could have that. We just need to return to sane tax policy and use that extra tax money to supplement existence for everyone instead of just the people that are already filthy rich.

People would also have to give up the standard of living two incomes provides. The standard of living today is much higher, at least in a material sense, than the 1950s. But people don't want to give up their second car, cell phones, or TVs in every room. Not do they want to cut their house size in half.

 

[dank69]

People would also have to give up the standard of living two incomes provides. The standard of living today is much higher, at least in a material sense, than the 1950s. But people don't want to give up their second car, cell phones, or TVs in every room. Not do they want to cut their house size in half.

Not really. UBI means food/shelter/clothing/healthcare are already paid for before you earn a cent. One income would be enough for better food/clothes/shelter and reasonable entertainment. Dual income would be enough to early retire to a life of luxury. As it should be. All our productivity is being stolen by people who couldn't spend all the money they already have if they tried, and we continue to allow them to do it. Half our population literally helps enable them to do it more every time they vote.

 

[RPD]

Not really. UBI means food/shelter/clothing/healthcare are already paid for before you earn a cent. One income would be enough for better food/clothes/shelter and reasonable entertainment. Dual income would be enough to early retire to a life of luxury. As it should be. All our productivity is being stolen by people who couldn't spend all the money they already have if they tried, and we continue to allow them to do it. Half our population literally helps enable them to do it more every time they vote.

What? I mean I kinda get the reasoning behind UBI (doesn't mean I agree with it) but you are proposing UBI while someone has a job too, huh?

 

[dank69]

What? I mean I kinda get the reasoning behind UBI (doesn't mean I agree with it) but you are proposing UBI while someone has a job too, huh?

U stands for Universal. Everyone. People/families with income above a certain threshold have it all taxed right back anyway. So many government programs and all the overhead associated with them go away with this simple change.

 

[RPD]

U stands for Universal. Everyone. People/families with income above a certain threshold have it all taxed right back anyway. So many government programs and all the overhead associated with them go away with this simple change.

I know what the U stands for. I can get on board with that, the problem with your statement is income can vary. I make 80% or more of our households 2 incomes. Not much changes if my wife doesn't work, but two people making what my wife does looks a lot different vs. my income.

 

[dank69]

I know what the U stands for. I can get on board with that, the problem with your statement is income can vary. I make 80% or more of our households 2 incomes. Not much changes if my wife doesn't work, but two people making what my wife does looks a lot different vs. my income.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

 

[pete6032]

Older generation dislikes younger generation.

Wow what a surprising headline. That's never happened before.

 

[Torn Mind]

It's not exactly a stretch to think that couples who go to the trouble of getting officially married would do somewhat better statistically then those who only moved in together.

I do not however believe that it's anything mysterious at work though, only that the couples who marry may be somewhat more "committed" to each other and making the relationship work.

Well, it could be that the wild times might no longer interest someone looking to marry and they finally want to "settle down".

Whereas, cohabitors are still basically doing now-acceptable mode of operation of being wild and having arguably deviant fun but are kinda of closer than mere fuck buddies.

 

[Torn Mind]

Older generation dislikes younger generation.

Wow what a surprising headline. That's never happened before.

An inaccurate, misleading summary.

 

[Captante]

Older generation dislikes younger generation.

The biggest problem with this idea is that the "OLDER" generation is largely responsible for both the behavior/thinking of the "YOUNGER" generation plus the fvcked state of the world they're inheriting from us. (hard to blame them for being a bit pissed)

 

[RPD]

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

Dual income would be enough to early retire to a life of luxury. As it should be.
There's my concern. People forever working on the low end shouldn't just up and retire to a "life of luxury", sorry.