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.
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.
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
The author articulates rather eloquently the argument for marriage equality.
" ... 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.
‘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.
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
Surely it could also be said that stable family economies promote stable family
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
LDS Liberal. The LDS church teaches self reliance, not socialism! Go figure!
@ 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.
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
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.
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
The reason for the rise in inequality is the declining share of income going to
workers and the rising share going to the hyper-wealthy. End of story.Stable families are great and are an important factor in eliminating poverty,
but it will do nothing to lessen inequality as long as a greater and greater
share of GDP keeps getting funneled away from workers and into the pockets of
LDS Liberal,I've read what your "prophets" have said
about socialism. I'm not LDS, but I do stand with your prophets on many
issues and would think that LDS people stand with their prophets on all
issues.Prophet Benson said that Communism is "satan's
counterfeit system" and that "Communism is a System Antithetical to the
Gospel of Christ"Once again, I stand with Mormon prophets, and
I'm not even Mormon!
Issue Progressive Common SenseAbortion
A women has a right It is wrongSSM
They have a right Something is amissWelfare
pity self-sufficiencyEconomic system
Socialism/Communism Free markets2nd Amendment Granted
by government Granted by God1st Amendment Only
Politically Correct opinions Free expressionWar
Appeasement War is wrong!(There is a difference!)Education Common Core(All children the same)Kids are individualsGovernment Only government has the answers Individuals have the
answersGod Look to others to solve problems Look to
GodReligion Nothing has Pre-eminence Religion placed
on a pedestalIndividual As defined by the state As
defined by GodNeighbor Taken care of by government Say
hello to every morningSovereignty What?
rightful status, independence,or
prerogative.Supreme Court Supreme Law of the land
We the peopleConstitution Needs change for changing times Made
for a moral peopleI could go on! You get the point!
@Blue Why do Democrats continue to vote for people who believe that every
solution involves a centralized government, more regulations, greater taxation,
and more programs that fix all human problems (but only make them bigger and
longer lasting)?Conservatives (and I don't believe that all
Republicans qualify for that classification) believe that homes and communities
better solve problems that involve groups of people, that a strong moral culture
provides more of everything, that people should be responsible and accountable
for their own choices (otherwise there is no learning curve), and that
centralized government creates more problems - resulting in more economic
disparity, classicism, and in less freedom.Liberals, Progressives
(who are mostly Democrats, but includes some Republicans) are the ones that
support policies that break down the opportunities and damage the family - being
more interested in their own elitist attitude and power games.
Esquire. Read the article and think about the research behind it. It will
enlighten you mind!
To "LDS Liberal" I don't think you actually read the
"Proclamation on the Economy". It is actually speaking out against
socialism and other polticial collectivist ideals. It was actually an education
for the LDS pioneers about investments and how to become wealthy. The
proclamation also contained specific words dealing with interest and usery,
which for a time were outlawed. Brigham Young was working to overcome the
government regulations that were creating the economic divide. If you read the
entire document, you find that it was quite the sermon on the evils of big
government and how it benefits a few.
Of course stable families matter to income. But this editorial puts cart before
horse. No family can be "stable" without income, and the opportunities
for income have been steadily eroded in this country by conservative economic
policies that lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
@Mikhail 7:24 a.m. May 8, 2014To those of us who follow the
Latter-Day Saint religious tradition, your comment has a very good chance of
being persuasive and resonent. The problem comes from the fact that there is a
very good chance that it would not resonate and not be convincing to those who
follow other religious traditions or no tradition. I think everyone would agree
that "Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on
principles of ... repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and
wholesome recreational activities" but would question the religious
overtones from your comment.One thing to consider -- being a person
of a particular faith is NOT necessary for maintaining and fostering a good
marriage. The composition of the married couple (SS or OS) is not necessary for
maintaining and fostering a good marriage. What is needed, and should be
fostered, is the commitment of the partners to making their relationship
work.Families are indeed a major component for overcoming economic
inequality. It is therefore vital that ALL families get the support they need.
That includes the right to be married regardless the composition or religion of
JoeCapitalist2:If power corrupts, it sounds like you would be in
favor of a much more aggressive stance on anti-trust? Monopoly or Oligopoly
power is definitely a serious issue.Maybe if a company's
revenues exceed $100 Million that means an automatic split?
@ Thid, I read the editorial. But, there you go again. I won't repeat my
request of you. The editorial makes some good points, but it is not the
ultimate solution to income inequality as other commenters have noted. If that
were the case, there would be no income disparity amongst stable families, LDS
and not. No one is knocking stable families. It's just the premise is
faulty, though it sounds good if unchallenged and not analyzed.
JoeC & SEY,The "size" of the government is a largely
meaningless concept. Measured as a percentage of our GDP, however, total
government spending spiked briefly as a result of the 2008 meltdown, but has
dropped sharply since then and is projected to be flat for many years.Moreover, other governments have far higher spending as a fraction of their
GDP than the US and yet they maintain a robust private sector economy _and_
provide better public education, healthcare and environmental protections than
we do - all of which are relevant to maintaining strong families. Which of our two dominant political philosophies recognizes the importance of
investing in a strong system of public education, healthcare, infrastructure?
Which one rewards corporations who export their jobs to foreign lands and
opposes efforts to ensure that our water supply is safe to drink? Which group prefers that fast food workers have to go on welfare to feed their
families and seek healthcare through emergency room visits, instead of requiring
employers to pay wages that keep full time workers out of poverty and make
access to health insurance universally available?You don't
think those different perspectives have a strong influence on the well-being of
Stable two parent (father & mother) families do produce positive results
economically and in most all other metrics as the article correctly points out.
Children who are unwanted by some families should be adopted by stable two
parent (father & mother) couples which provides them the best opportunity to
become happy and successful adults. Any other family structure is not the equal
of this proven family structure. Laws should be enacted that promote this type
of family structure.
Leave it to a Progressive to find a way to winnow around basic building blocks
of a civil society, then want to use taxpayer money to fix societal problems!
It is too bad that we live in a society that believes socially detrimental
behaviors will somehow become socially constructive by the mere legalization of
the behavior. To think that we can be free of the consequences of our behaviors
by making it legal or illegal is a strange notion. For example - smoking tobacco
is legal, and yet lung diseases have the audacity to plague smokers.
Esquire. Income equality is impossible. No two people have the same work ethic,
drives or intelligence! Some people will simply not work hard nor will they stay
off drugs or not have children out of wedlock. The point of this research is
that children born and raised in intact families do much better financially and
every other way in life. No amount of welfare can change that as we have seen
since the 1960's and trillions of taxpayer wealth transfers.
What "resonates"? Do the words of God, our Creator, "resonate",
or would we rather listen to people who reject God for our "resonating
words"? God told us that marriage is to be between a man and a
woman. He told us that sex is only to be had within marriage. He told us to
reject same-sex sex. He gave us the rules of happiness that He expects us to
follow in our families, including Family Home Evening, where we can enjoy each
other's company and work out scheduling and minor problems before there is
a crisis. His rules for happiness support everything that the
Deseret News wrote. His system is best. At times, death and disability change
that perfect system, then, the extended family gets involved, aiding and
assisting those who need attention and assistance.If God's
doctrine does not "resonate", why would you expect a counterfeit system
to be more correct?
Thank you for being concerned about income inequality and unstable families.
You are right that they go together. I disagree that making
families more stable will fix the growing inequality with income and wealth.
Piketty sees the dynamics of contemporary capitalism as being overpowering in
their wealth concentration effects.You're right to emphasize
families - they make life tolerable. But, your illustration showing the
attractive couple and the two beaming kids shows your bias towards stereotypes -
Dad brings home the bacon, Mom is a full time one, heterosexuals all. But
different types of families work including SSM ones, and ones where women work
outside the home - not all women want full time housework and child rearing.
One parent needs to be assigned the care of kids - be it Dad, Mom, or one of 2
Moms or one of 2 Dads, or whatever.
Marxist: "whatever" doesn't seem to be working to well in our
society! Perhaps you ought to look to principles that will bring stability to
@Daniel L.Families parented by same-sex couples are already socially
constructive. Come visit Seattle some time. You see gay families a lot here.
Their kids are doing well in school, they go to church, they are just normal
families doing a good job taking care of each other.Two people married and
raising kids is healthy and good thing. Comparing it to smoking tobacc
doesn't really work.
@Meckofahess: "Laws should be enacted that promote this type of family
structure."Now there is an idea. Laws will be passed that will
"promote" a prescribed, government approved family structure. Those who
do not meet the standards clearly do not want there children - if they did, they
would meet the standards. Families that don't meet the
standards will have their children removed and reassigned to families that do
follow government designed protocols. Will inspections be quarterly?
Annually? Will there be a mechanism for neighbors to report families not
following protocol?This is a great idea. What could go wrong with a
plan like this?
Tiago: There are some wonderful people living in Las Vegas too, right on the
Strip. Do I want to raise my family on the Strip? No thanks! Seattle is a
great place! I've been there many times! Not once did I think of married
Gay People! You didn't help your cause!
Hi, Mike Richards"What "resonates"? Do the words of God,
our Creator, "resonate", or would we rather listen to people who reject
God for our "resonating words"?"For me, the Tao Te Ching
resonates more than any other sacred work. The Tao Te Ching is at
least 2,600 hundred years old and has been a critical part of Eastern culture
for two millennia, deeply influencing government, art, and religion and general
society. The 81 brief chapters contain teachings on living with wisdom and
virtue, as well as describing interpersonal relations, the proper role of
government, good leaders, and how to live with peaceful integrity.A
famous Taoist painting depicts a Buddhist, a Confucianist, and a Taoist tasting
vinegar from a large pot. The Buddhist finds the taste bitter, the Confucianist
finds it sour. This reflects their general view of life. The Taoist is smiling,
because the vinegar tastes exactly like it should, and is enjoyed for what it is
at that moment. Taoists are not passive, we see the world as it is,
and live in joy while we take the action we need to live with integrity.
@Tiago:"Families parented by same-sex couples are already
socially constructive."Thanks, Tiago. Or come to
Cleveland. My family is pretty socially constructive, and we are part of a small
group of GLBT families that included blended families, natural families, and
families formed by adoption. We also go to a UU church that has several SSM
families. Mostly, the kids do well. When they don't, it is
usually for the same reasons kids have problems in any family. And,
a lot of LGBT couples adopt kids with "special needs" - that is code for
"they have problems" and usually means they have been in the system for
a while and may have a hard time. Some added stress, some added commitment. That is a lot of the reason we want to get married. We've had a
commitment ceremony, but we want our family to have the legal protections and
benefits that a family gets when there is a legal marriage.
@banderson -- Interesting list of how progressives view issues vs. how people of
"common sense" view them. But the most interesting to me was that those
with "common sense" believe that God wants you to own guns! Oh my.
Re: Ginger,Who defines ultimate truth? Does man have that right or
are we subject to our Creator?I don't deny that some people
find comfort when partial truths are available, but I fully reject any claim to
truth that does not include God, out Father in Heaven, our Creator, as the
source of truth, including the right to tell us that marriage is only to be
between a man and a woman, that sex outside of marriage is bit acceptable and
that same-sex sex is also not allowed. Irregardless of the teachings of you
So does this go so far as supporting legalizing gay couples?
Sometimes words seem to be harsh. Sometimes words seem to be disrespectful of
feelings, but rejecting ultimate truth and substituting partial truth is not the
answer. Because I reject partial truth does not mean that I am insensitive to
the feelings of others, but I am reminded that even God Himself is not a
respecter of persons. Laws are eternal. Our obligation is to insure that any
law that we support also supports eternal law. The family is the
basic unit of society. Eternal law defines WHAT constitutes a family. I cannot
redefine what God has ordained. I don't think that anyone has that right.
My challenge in life is to see that I align myself with eternal
principles instead of expecting eternal principles change to suit my sexual
desires. Families can be forever on condition that we discard our
philosophies and that we accept eternal truth.The family was
ordained of God. He set the rules. He gave us agency to accept HIS doctrine or
to reject it, but His promises only apply to those who accept His doctrine.
Bro. Richards -- Might I suggest putting down your Judgments of
others, and try ACTING like a disciple of Christ and remember your
@Mike Richards - Sorry for the delay, sick babies and internet issues.You asked "Who defines ultimate truth?"Tao Te Ching 1:
"The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular
things."When we try to understand reality we focus on some
things and believe we have the whole of it - like the blind men and the
elephant. I find your certitude that you have all the answers to be
limiting and disturbing. The first question isn't "what does god
say?", the first is "why do you think you know what god says?"
followed by "why does god's opinion so closely match your
opinion?"Tao Te Ching 72 says, "When they lose their sense
of awe, people turn to religion. When they no longer trust themselves, they
begin to depend upon authority." People want packaged answers,
rigid rules, and clear lines. Then they don't have to think or feel or pay
attention to reality.Tao Te Ching 81, "The Tao nourishes by not
forcing. By not dominating, the Master leads.""God said"
is a huge red flag that is always about controlling others.
BTW, Piketty's book "Capital In the 21st Century" will be featured
on the PBS Newshour this Monday - tomorrow. Hot! Watch!