Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The third bullet here is basic economics. When you create demand for a product by subsidizing it, people will create supply.

Practically, these subsidies mean that poorer women who could marry the father of their children will often choose not to because they are getting money from the government that exceeds what the man can bring in. It is a little bit like the effect of a very high minimum wage: it helps a certain group of people, but prices many others out of the market. Each step of the process is a perfectly rational economic decision, and it completely destabilizes the home.

I have witnessed this firsthand with some of my relatives, who unfortunately behaved exactly as the microeconomics predicted. They had children out of wedlock, wanting to get married but also wanting to keep their benefits, and then ended up separating because the man's attempt to work like a dog to provide more than the government burned him out (he actually wanted to get married and do the right thing).

Edit: I also want to add that I'm pretty sure the second point here is not true. Lesbian and gay two-parent households don't seem to have worse outcomes than heterosexual couples.



Thank you for sharing. It sounds like this is an unfortunate side effect of the law and not the intention, though. I wonder whether the laws could be updated to prevent these perverse incentives.


So are government benefits super generous or are these men just unable to make good wages despite "the man's attempt to work like a dog"?


Minimum wage * 50 hours per week is less than the benefits you would lose from it. There is literally a >100% marginal income tax at the bottom income brackets if you factor in loss of benefits. This also was in New York where benefits and taxes are high.


Ok, is this a problem? And if so does that mean there is some solution?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: