Is Lyndon Johnson partially to blame for the rise in single-parent homes?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:04:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Is Lyndon Johnson partially to blame for the rise in single-parent homes?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: Is Lyndon Johnson partially to blame for the rise in single-parent homes?  (Read 1277 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2022, 04:42:32 PM »

The modifications to ADFC (which was not a very well designed programme in the first place) were not, contrary to what is often assumed, part of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' agenda but occurred during the Kennedy administration. In any event, while the social impact of those reforms to ADFC were demonstrably negative (even if the extent can be argued), all Western societies saw an increase in single-parent families during the 1970s and 80s, which means that the general pattern cannot be blamed on ADFC, even if we can say that it likely made a bad situation worse.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2022, 10:40:41 PM »

The modifications to ADFC (which was not a very well designed programme in the first place) were not, contrary to what is often assumed, part of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' agenda but occurred during the Kennedy administration. In any event, while the social impact of those reforms to ADFC were demonstrably negative (even if the extent can be argued), all Western societies saw an increase in single-parent families during the 1970s and 80s, which means that the general pattern cannot be blamed on ADFC, even if we can say that it likely made a bad situation worse.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but do things like single mother benefits exist in the UK/most of Western Europe? When were those created? And are parallels to other Great Society programs common?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2022, 01:15:18 AM »

Demonstrably. Like this isnt even disputable.

Is your argument that a significant number of unmarried women choose to remain unmarried because they'd rather have the welfare? This is something that you genuinely believe to be true?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2022, 06:54:27 AM »

The modifications to ADFC (which was not a very well designed programme in the first place) were not, contrary to what is often assumed, part of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' agenda but occurred during the Kennedy administration. In any event, while the social impact of those reforms to ADFC were demonstrably negative (even if the extent can be argued), all Western societies saw an increase in single-parent families during the 1970s and 80s, which means that the general pattern cannot be blamed on ADFC, even if we can say that it likely made a bad situation worse.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but do things like single mother benefits exist in the UK/most of Western Europe? When were those created? And are parallels to other Great Society programs common?

Benefits systems vary a great deal from country to country and of course money was/is available to single parent households, but I'm not aware of a specific benefit anywhere else that had the very distinctive flaws of ADFC.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2022, 01:21:07 AM »

If we're discussing the specifics of AFDC now, it's worth noting that the "man in the house" rule was introduced, at first, out of concern for the sexual morality of single mothers, since the (racist, classist, sexist) assumption was that any unrelated adult male present was tantamount to a revolving door of boyfriends.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2022, 10:53:16 AM »
« Edited: December 02, 2022, 10:57:24 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

While I have many criticisms of the AFDC, there's actually no substantive research or evidence showing that the AFDC's rather strict rules against cohabitation and eligibility restrictions against those who were married had a significant effect on marriage rates or single motherhood. It is supposedly 'intuitive' that it must have had such an effect but the reality is that the majority of unmarried mothers didn't sign-up for AFDC, even though they were entitled to receive it. Because the AFDC had such rules and restrictions, it's quite likely that those signing up for it generally felt less stigma about being a single mother, which of course will be correlated with remaining a single mother, with or without the AFDC.

It is very notable that there's no signs that welfare reform, which more or less terminated entitlements for cash-grants for single mothers and replaced it with tax credits that actually encourage marriage, had any effect on marriage rates or single motherhood. In practice, I think we can say that a number of forces ended "shotgun marriages" as an institution and that it is unlikely the AFDC or Great Society played an important role.

This is all to say that reactionaries and Catholic types who want to blame the welfare state for the erosion of the family are extremely misguided. Ultimately, once easily accessible birth control became widely available, the old social norms were always going to fall apart rapidly. And virtually no one alive today would trade away the powers of such tools for being forced into marriage at age 22 due to having pre-marital sex. I think various social conservatives are basically delusional about this and should be thinking about how we can support a modern concept of the family that accepts cohabitation instead of marriage and that supports single parents.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2022, 04:59:01 PM »

….
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2022, 05:37:44 PM »

The modifications to ADFC (which was not a very well designed programme in the first place) were not, contrary to what is often assumed, part of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' agenda but occurred during the Kennedy administration. In any event, while the social impact of those reforms to ADFC were demonstrably negative (even if the extent can be argued), all Western societies saw an increase in single-parent families during the 1970s and 80s, which means that the general pattern cannot be blamed on ADFC, even if we can say that it likely made a bad situation worse.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but do things like single mother benefits exist in the UK/most of Western Europe? When were those created? And are parallels to other Great Society programs common?

Yes, but there tend to be different models of welfare. Of course, this is twenty years since I read it and it's only very rough grouping with a lot of overlap.

1: The Liberal or Anglo model, in this model you only help the people who are worst of. The benefit of this model is that it's cheap and only help the worst of people. The problem with the model is that it incentivizes people who are doing badly and have a tough time improving to become even more dysfunctional.

2: Social Democratic or Nordic model, in this model you help vast amount of the population. The benefit of this model is that it doesn't incentivize dysfunctionality. The con is that it's very expensive and have to deal with "free riders"
 
3: Conservative or continental model, this model is based on mandatory insurances being put on people who work and the insurance covering them, when they hit tough times. The benefit is that it's very cheap and incentivize people to work. The con is that it tends to  over the people who are worst of.

Of course, this is only rough descriptions. Most countries which follow the continental model, also have an extra safety net for the worst of. The countries using the Nordic models also tend to have insurance aspects.
But you can see that in case of UK, they have some working-class communities who have the same reputations as some African American communities have for social dysfunctionality, while in most European countries it's mostly on individual level you see this kind of dysfunctionality, while disliked outgroups like some Muslim minorities are seen as having a high degree of internal social coherence (parallel societies). 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.