Most of the people espousing this view raise children with the economic and social benefits of intact, stable families.

That's because having an intact stable family is generally what gives you economic a social benefits.

I think that is the exact point they are trying to get across.

No they were saying A implies B, when it is really B implies A.

The whole article is about how stable family is generally what gives you economic a social benefits.

   But the data tells quite a different story. Poverty, even extreme poverty, is surmountable. What is nearly impossible to overcome is the instability—the psychological havoc—created by broken homes. Especially for boys. Research in psychology and economics shows that childhood instability has much a stronger effect than parental socioeconomic status for a variety of important outcomes, including education.

PS. How do you generate the inset distinct font?

You mean the non-proportional "code" font?

   Indent the line by a few spaces.

I moved into a high crime neighborhood, Baker, in Denver, in 2000. Had bikes, a lawnmower and a car stolen. Police didn't do anything except tell me I'd never see my car again. Denver Police are worthless in reducing theft and graffiti. The opening paragraphs of this article are false in my experience.

If anything, publicly espousing conservative viewpoints are the "luxury beliefs".

That doesn't change the point.

The majority of poor minorities living in high crime areas don't and never supported defunding the police.

They want police to be less racist.

When you have bullets flying through the window of your childs room from drive by shootings, and drug dealers peddling outside your house, defunding the police is an alien concept.

It sounds a lot nicer from a safe suburban neighborhood.