HN never fails to disappoint in fundamentally unfair readings.
Yes if you ignore overall trends and use a simple snapshot today divorce rates are slightly lower than the alltime high in 1980. To my larger point, in 1960 9% of kids lived in single parent homes, that number today is 36% and as high as 72% in a certain demographic.
You're discussing the derivative (rate of change) of the actual issue. The issue isn't how fast divorced households are growing; the issue is that they exist at all. Even if the divorce rate was zero, there would still be existent divorced households. And broken households don't do any favors for children, even if the parents do their best to make it seem amicable.
> You're discussing the derivative (rate of change) of the actual issue.
The rate of change is the rate of new divorces minus the rate at which divorcee households are ending (if the concern is divorced parents with children, by death of the parent, child, or the child leaving the household.)
> Even if the divorce rate was zero, there would still be existent divorced households.
Of course I'm not taking a stance that the rate of change is not important. And of course it would need to drop in order to reduce and eventually eliminate occurrence...
I was instead pointing out that simply bring up a reduced rate is not really a counterpoint. Especially when, as you accurately point out, the divorce rate is not even the entire picture for the rate-of-change of divorced households. See also Arizhel's sibling comment:
Well, yeah, that's because fewer people are getting married. If you don't get married you can't get divorced! But that doesn't mean more kids aren't living in "broken" homes.
Yes if you ignore overall trends and use a simple snapshot today divorce rates are slightly lower than the alltime high in 1980. To my larger point, in 1960 9% of kids lived in single parent homes, that number today is 36% and as high as 72% in a certain demographic.