Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Stable families are the key to overcoming income inequality’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 8 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

To quote Paul Krugman, New York Times, "...what’s really new about “Capital [in the 21st Century]” is the way it demolishes that most cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that we’re living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved."

You assert that stable families are the key to overcoming income inequality. By that you must mean that the reason for the increasingly top heavy distributions of income and wealth is unstable families. According to economist R.D. Wolff:

"Piketty’s mastery of the dynamics of economic inequality leads him to conclude that, barring a major wildcard or sustained, aggressive state interventions, the economic system of the developed world is primed to deliver ever greater returns to capital over the next few decades (at least), and relatively lower returns to labor."

So it would appear that the best we can say for your argument is that stable families certainly will help, but they in no way can be a fix.

Bob K
portland, OR

I am glad to see the DN promoting marriage, for the benefit and success of children.

I hope this means that the DN has finally come around on understanding that the Gay couples who adopt the children others do not want should marry and raise those kids in stability.

I hope it does not mean that we should pretend that broken people in troubled situations are somehow magically going to avoid having kids until married.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

If people really believe that "stable families are the key to overcoming income inequality" then they should support both opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. There are a lot of children in families headed by same-sex couples. Those children could really benefit if their parents were allowed to marry.

Hugh1
Denver, CO

The author articulates rather eloquently the argument for marriage equality. Ironic.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

" ... progressives seeking to improve income equality should ally with conservatives promoting marriage."

Conservatives should ally with progressives in promoting marriage equality as this will increase the number of stable families by including stable LGBT families in the number.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

‘In our opinion: Stable families are the key to overcoming income inequality’

=======

So,
The Deseret News believes that the 1% income represent stable Families,
[Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, OJ Simpson, Hugh Hefner?]

whilst the 99% of us represent "unstable" families?
[the rest of us]

I seriously beg to differ.

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

I suppose that if Marxist can quote Paul Krugman as an authority, I would submit that the following quote is more authentic and has proven itself over the ages to be a far superior summary of the issue that those who advocate that the exception should become the rule are willing to accept.

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities."

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

Surely it could also be said that stable family economies promote stable family structures.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

I think I understand where the DN is coming from on this:

The atomic family, where dad works outside the home, mom works mostly inside the home, and where there is abundant resources for the kids to focus on school until after they graduate from high school, is the best way to counter the concentration of wealth and income in our economy.

This makes good sense, and it works pretty well if dad has a stable, well-paying career.

But it starts to unravel as dad gets bounced out of his career by economic forces far beyond his control, which forces him to take multiple lower paying jobs, and mom has to work outside the home, too, and then who is watching the kids?

I see it across the street from me. Dad loses self-respect as his former career is nicely handled by machines or people in India, he works odd hours doing odd jobs. Mom admits the pressure is tremendous, there is yelling and fighting, church helps, but the kids are getting the message that unless you marry into wealth, having a family is a daunting prospect.

Marry into wealth and stay married.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

It has never been a secret that financial stress is a hugely toxic factor to stable families. Whether it's medical bills or dealing with unemployment, nothing hammers a family like money problems.

We're swimming in research data that show, clearly, repeatedly and powerfully, that the economic environment for poor and middle class American families has been increasingly tilted to their disadvantage and to the advantage of they hyper-wealthy.

Moreover, we know beyond any doubt that this rigging of the economy to favor the "1%" is wholly intentional; a cynical, deliberate manipulation of tax laws and economic policies implemented by a government that has been bought by the hyper-wealthy exclusively for the benefit of the hyper-wealthy.

So my question to those Utahns who fret, justifiably, about the deteriorating state of the American family is this - why do you continue to vote for the same Republican politicians who so consistently demonstrate that they support tax laws and public policies that are aggressively hostile to the interests of average, wage-earning American families?

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

We can either actually solve the problem or we can just keep on wasting trillions in taxpayer money with welfare programs that only exacerbate the problems.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The original study states:

"We caution that all of the findings in this study are correlational and cannot be interpreted as causal effects"

Although there were correlations between rates of single mothers and upward mobility there were many other factors that correlated to upward mobility, such as race, size of the existing middle class, early educational policies, and even geographic location.

I think that this editorial cherry picks a few factors, and draws unwarranted conclusions.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

If the theory is solid, put it into law. Legislate stable families by eliminating divorce. Stable doesn't mean happy. It is a state of not being easily changed.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

My 2nd thought on the matterr ---

This article is the Tail wagging the Dog.

If the #1 cause of Divorce and creating the un-Stable family is a poor economy,
then the 1% shoudl be doing more to with their vast fortunes in promoting sustainable wages for Husbands and Fathers, Healthcare for their Families, and Retirement or when they are old.

Instead -- they offload, outsource, and off shore their jobs to further increase their insane wealth,
and the 99% - who HAVE the families - have no where else to turn but the Government.

The LDS 1st Presidency's "Proclamation on the Economy" addresses this spot on -- but since it hints at Socialism, the far-right completely rejects it.

SEY
Sandy, UT

Blue, you came so close to the best response yet, but it deteriorated into hackneyed partisanship like so often happens here. It's not just the Republicans who are to blame. It's the political class aligned with recipients of political largesse who are creating this criminal disparity. Democrats and Republicans both have their hands dirty in the scheme.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

LDS Liberal. The LDS church teaches self reliance, not socialism! Go figure!

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Thid, please, no more slogans and belittling. We know where you stand, but I sure wish we could get some substantive arguments. Social programs have made an enormous contributions to millions and been beneficial overall. Certainly they have not solved every problem, but doing nothing would be far worse. Parroting the talking points of the billionaires who control the GOP serves no purpose and is not constructive in the least.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Blue: First you said, "Moreover, we know beyond any doubt that this rigging of the economy to favor the "1%" is wholly intentional; a cynical, deliberate manipulation of tax laws and economic policies implemented by a GOVERNMENT that has been bought by the hyper-wealthy exclusively for the benefit of the hyper-wealthy."

You then ask why Utah voters vote for Republicans. My question to you, is why do you vote for Democrats? If you acknowledge that a corrupt government is the cause of this rigged government, why do you support a party that advocates an even larger, more powerful government?

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only solution to our problems is to reduce the size and scope of government. Until some of the power is taken away from them (both sides of the aisle), they will continue to push the limits of corruption. If you want to fight the "hyper-wealthy", then take away what their money currently will buy them in government.

vangroovin
West Jordan, UT

I place great faith in the following quote from Elder Theodore M. Burton:

“God’s way is the way to solve our political, moral, ethical, even our financial problems. The way of the Lord can eliminate wars, riots, discrimination, suffering, and starvation. What the world then needs is direction from a true prophet who, knowing the mind and the will of God, can speak in his name with power and authority and say, ‘Thus saith the Lord!’”

There is a prophet on the earth today, Thomas S. Monson. If we listen to him and follow the counsel we receive, we’ll know the mind and the will of the Lord and our problems will eventually be resolved.

John Brown 1000
Laketown, UT

Thank you, DN. Someone needs to stand up and point out these glaring facts.

BTW, folks, this wasn't a study about the 1%.

This was a study looking at correlations across large populations, all of which have to deal with the same political environment.

Two-parent families correlate to better results on all sorts of things from income mobility to anti-social behavior etc.

Mobility also means mobility. This means poor becoming richer and rich. You want to help the poor become rich in our current environment? Looks like one major way to do that is to support two-parent families.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments