Social issues (family values) and the health of the economy are interrelated.

[PigArcher]

@Shodan

Well, it isn’t quite that simple. Although you are correct that it depends on how you define “family values”.

The syllogism can be understood to run:
[ul][li]A healthy economy requires productive citizens[*]Children from intact, two-parent families are more productive citizens.[/li][li]Therefore, policies and mores that encourage the formation and preservation of intact, two-parent families benefit the economy. [/ul]I think the stuff about gay marriage is sort of a red herring - very few people oppose gay marriage because it is bad for the economy. [/li]
The number of poor has increased because of the recent recession, and the recession was not the result simply of Republican economic policies. That’s a fairly bad over-simplification.

Regards,
Shodan

Do you have any real (i.e., not anecdotal) evidence that “Children from intact, two-parent families are more productive citizens”?

[Shodan]

@Dangerosa

But it may be just as possible that “children from multi adult housholds” make better citizens. And that what we should be doing is encouraging the formation of multi adult support systems that may or may not involve marriage. For instance, if a woman with children divorces and moves in with her widowed or divorced mother.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, although I confess I have no data to disprove the notion.

There is some data that supports the idea that “staying married for the kids” doesn’t end up with a better outcome for the kids.

I did a bit of research on the same sort of question some time back, and it appeared to me that the opposite is true. Here’s the post, although the link appears to have expired.

In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.

Regards,
Shodan

[Voyager]

@Shodan

Well, it isn’t quite that simple. Although you are correct that it depends on how you define “family values”.

The syllogism can be understood to run:
[ul][li]A healthy economy requires productive citizens[*]Children from intact, two-parent families are more productive citizens.[/li][li]Therefore, policies and mores that encourage the formation and preservation of intact, two-parent families benefit the economy. [/ul]I think the stuff about gay marriage is sort of a red herring - very few people oppose gay marriage because it is bad for the economy. [/li]

The tricky part is comparing the impact on children from “happy” divorces and unhappy ones. I buy your claim that happy divorces are relatively bad for kids. But, how do we distinguish happy ones from unhappy ones?
I’ve read that the Southern states, with their high divorce rates, are encouraging premarital counseling, and I doubt you’d find a liberal anywhere who thinks this is a bad idea. New York, by the way, has a very illiberal divorce law. I think it is still sometimes necessary to fake an affair to get a divorce since there are so few grounds, and they are not no-fault. I doubt any of us would call this effective.

The number of poor has increased because of the recent recession, and the recession was not the result simply of Republican economic policies. That’s a fairly bad over-simplification.

Regards,
Shodan

A recession was inevitable. A recession of this magnitude was not. Greenspan could have raised interest rates and let the housing bubble deflate slowly. Bush could have lowered the deficit so there would be more room for stimulus once the economy did deflate. And shady mortgage brokers could have been regulated, and the leverage we saw on Wall Street reduced so that the economy wouldn’t have almost run over the cliff.