[jdmichal]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

A declining, eventually to zero, number of them.

[jdmichal]

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:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150694

But hey, will_brown did a better job of making the same point and defending himself:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150843