3 responses so far ↓

• 1 Micha Ghertner // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:00 pm

  What do you mean by the “unstable combination of two independently viable value sets”? My initial impression is that you were referring to the “middle-class trend toward delayed childbearing” on the one hand, and early pregnancy among the poor on the other. If that is what you meant, are you claiming that both of these positions are viable on their own, but dangerous when mixed? I guess in a sense that’s true, but I think of the problem less in terms of two equally viable value sets in competition and conflict with each other, and more as a result of early pregnancy being outdated in advanced society, where a decade or more of education post-puberty is the norm, and in most cases, a prerequisite for successfully maintaining a middle class lifestyle. On the other hand, while the early pregnancy value set may be at odds with economic success, the middle class late pregnancy value set is at odds with human biology, which leads to all sorts of other problems, as Megan non-McArdle so eloquently expounded upon.

• 2 Julian Sanchez // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  I meant the more traditional “marry young / bear children young” norm on the one hand and the more recent middle class “marry and reproduce in the late 20s or early 30s, after schooling” on the other. The problematic hybrid being “bear children young, marry late.”

• 3 Chris // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  re: affluence as the “solution to all life’s problems”, isn’t this pretty similar to the view that we don’t need to worry about fixing crime-ridden ghettos, because they’ll all become entrepreneurs when we cut marginal tax rates which give them sufficient returns to investing in building a career?

  if only eradicating the causes of poverty was so easy!