If social circumstances make for a increase in divorces or a change in the fundamental structure of the family, I don't see why it's not something to take into consideration beyond "personal decisions".
Could it be that conservatives might actually be right about that?
Since when is "wealth" inequality a "socialist" thing? It's a matter of such importance that The Economist considers it the most pressing issue in economics of our times.
There is also nothing "socialist" about the publication. And the fact that the stats may be skewed by certain underlying variables (like every other study on Earth, who knew) does not invalidate the findings, although it does invite for further refinement of the data for more conclusive information.
Comments
If social circumstances make for a increase in divorces or a change in the fundamental structure of the family, I don't see why it's not something to take into consideration beyond "personal decisions".
Could it be that conservatives might actually be right about that?
The point is that it doesn't tell you anything about "wealth inequality" insofar as the socialists whom push this discussion want it to.
Since when is "wealth" inequality a "socialist" thing? It's a matter of such importance that The Economist considers it the most pressing issue in economics of our times.
There is also nothing "socialist" about the publication. And the fact that the stats may be skewed by certain underlying variables (like every other study on Earth, who knew) does not invalidate the findings, although it does invite for further refinement of the data for more conclusive information.