[hammock]

>The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced.

That conclusion came out of left field for me. He started off saying these certain adverse events affect you in adulthood. So the logical conclusion would be:

Be involved parents, give your kids a quiet place to study, don't have a drug problem as a parent, don't tolerate bullying, don't let your kid fall behind and be held back in school, don't let your kid do things that will get him suspended, don't shoot people in front of kids.

The vast majority of these are about good parenting. I would not describe that as a "collective responsibility," though, rather an individual civic duty.

[Glyptodon]

I do think the trend towards single parent and dual income homes makes all these things harder for parents. Clearly standard of living issues from lack of real income growth effectively filter down through parents into more of these adverse events.

[James_K]

Exactly, and I've always said the same thing about murderers. Why should we pay for police to catch murderers when the murderers could just not murder? This seems like a matter of individual, rather than collective responsibility. If they don't murder, it is better for us, better for them, and better for their victims. Why should we have to protect the victims of murderers when murderers could simply not kill people?

Without the sarcasm now, the victims of bad parents are no different than the victims of any other crime. Yes, it may be the parents' fault that their child has a bad life just as it is a murderer's fault that his victims die, but that hardly justifies it happening. A child cannot choose their parents any more than you can choose not to be the victim of a crime. It seems obvious to me that, as a society, we should protect the vulnerable from those who might harm them.

[liveoneggs]

It would be better for society if someone inclined to murder did not. Police do not protect the victim of murder -- they are dead already.

Your view appears to say "society" (the police?) should "protect" children from their own parents, if they are deemed "bad"? The line for police intervention should probably not include "living in a bad neighborhood" or "being poor". Those strategies are tried pretty often by evangelicals who steal poor children from vulnerable countries/populations, yet are perceived as bad by most people.

If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

[James_K]

> Police do not protect the victim of murder

But if they could, they most certainly should. Preventing murder is good, just as preventing a bad childhood is good.

> Your view appears to say "society" (the police?)

The police are (or should be) an extension of society. They are a part of the government, which in a democracy means the represent the will of the people, and hence they are society manifest. There are other manifestations of society that can help these children (schools, social services, etc). I am obviously not suggesting that the police become child catchers and round up all children of poor people.

> If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

From my perspective, there is no "fault". Blaming people for things is unproductive. There are bad things which might happen, and things we might do to prevent them from happening. If we can sever this great chain of injustice of which you speak, where poverty and suffering are transmitted from parent to child like a disease; aught we not take that action? It is even in our best interest to do so, as those children who live better lives will go on to contribute more in taxes and more towards the betterment of society.

[raxxorraxor]

Government has the responsibility to provide access to education and make it as transient as possible in regards to class. But government by experience is usually also a bad legal guardian, even if the people involved really want to help these kids.

Perhaps they get lucky and grow up in a good adoptive family. But for the others there are a few things that are quite difficult to replace.

A democracy isn't a manifested society, it is a compromise of everyone involved. Ideally at least, the reality is more gray and even in a democracy a government doesn't have the legitimacy to do everything it wants. Further its ability to evaluate which children would benefit from more direct support is limited.

So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

[James_K]

> So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

Clearly. It was other people who started suggesting that the children of poor parents should be forcibly put up for adoption. I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea or even worth talking about.

[raxxorraxor]

Ah, sorry, then I misunderstood your point. I though you were suggesting that it would be a productive thing to do. Empirical evidence of the past would suggest otherwise and I believe government only ever has legitimacy to remove children from their home when they are in acute and tangible danger.

Nothing that should be decided by some sensibilities du jour.

[liveoneggs]

I think it's when you said "the victims of bad parents are no different than the victims of any other crime"

[Ntrails]

We have largely moved away from anything so crass as holding parents responsible

[nurple]

Do you realize that having the time and resources for those things is a privilege that many in poverty don't have?

[gowld]

Of course! Poor children are innocent victims. But once they turn 18 and start having children, it's time those adults pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and their deprived childhoods don't matter anymore. Flawless logic.

[latency-guy2]

Those in poverty do have that time. Number of hours worked increases with wealth. Share of people working more than one job has fell since the 90s, and never exceeded 7%. Average commute time (one way) has been 20 - 30 minutes since the 90s.

You're pushing rhetoric, not reality. Which is fine, but I won't let you lie.

[helboi4]

I dunno man I work way less than my friends who work retail/hospitality/labouring jobs etc. Maybe the top people in my field work loads but most don't. But more importantly, I sit on my ass all day. Being physically exhausted from being on your feet all day is simply harder to deal with. Furthermore, I can afford a lot of things that take stress off me. I can afford to buy quality premade food when I don't have time to make food. I can afford to take Ubers when I need to get stuff fast etc etc. When I was growing up I probably had food from a takeaway or restaurant like once a year and I often couldn't afford to take the bus. That erodes your time.

[wyre]

Yes, so the best thing to do for these children is to help bring their parents out of poverty.