In response to the front page Sunday NYT piece I critiqued last week, the Center for Economic and Policy Research has published a multi-part analysis of what's wrong with blaming single mothers for income equality. CEPR's title for the numerous postings by Shawn Fremstad says it all -- Family Structure is Overrated as an Explanation of Inequality.
Part One criticizes how author Jason DeParle presented the data of respected sociologist Bruce Western in the NYT piece; turns out income insecurity bares more responsibility for inequality than family structure. Part Two examines the role of gender inequality and poor compensation of child care workers and other paid caregivers. Part Three refers to the NYT piece as "DeParle's Marriage Plot" and shows how the article overstates the significance of the decision not to marry; all mothers, not just married mothers, are having children at a later age, and married mothers as well as never married mothers have multi-partner fertility because they divorce and remarry. Part Four reviews evidence that income inequality is a cause, rather than a result, of changes in family structure. Part Five looks at the claim that children of single mothers have a harder time than children of married mothers moving up on the income scale; Fremstad points to data suggesting this is minimally true if at all, and that children born to unmarried mothers have an easier time climbing the income ladder than those whose mothers are married and then divorce. (Given the problems associated with high conflict marriages, he also notes that telling women to stay married is not the answer.)
Given that the last post was yesterday, there might be a Part Six and beyond. I would welcome that. CEPR is a leading source of analysis about economic issues, including ending poverty and inequality. I find I can turn to them for real answers when the right-wing pundits (and unfortunately some mainstream media folks like this NYT piece) are trying to distract the public from the policies that would lead to greater economic justice.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
This Forbes column gets it right
On the tail of my blog post yesterday, this terrific column appears on forbes.com today, filled with approaches to child poverty that do not depend on marriage and highlighting what an outlier the United States is in its social and economic policies.
Why children have unequal chances
For going on two decades there has been a steady stream of articles blaming nonmarital birth for the inequality among children...and all other social problems. But there seem to be even more recently. Then comes a front page story in this week's Sunday New York Times, describing the lives of two sets of children whose moms work together. Jessica has three children, one with Asperger syndrome, and no husband. She earns $24,500 as an assistant director of a child care center. Her boss, Chris, has two children and a husband. Chris and her husband earn together three times what Jessica earns. So of course their children have more enrichment activities. And of course they have more available parental time.
From this, and the many cited researchers, the article concludes, as its subtitle put it, "Marriage, for Richer; Single Motherhood, for Poorer." "Two Classes," reads the headline, "Divided by "I Do." Of course the reader will draw the conclusion that marriage before children -- and staying married -- is the solution to the unequal chances children face.
I cannot agree, and there's another way to tell the story of Chris's and Jessica's children, some of which is buried in the piece itself. Take one study the article reports. Scott Winship studied 2400 young adults and found that 58% of those in the lowest third of income who as teenagers lived with two parents moved up on their income level, while 44% of those with only one parent did. Also, 15% of those who started out in the top third income level fell to the bottom third, while 27% of teenagers without both parents did.
But Winship qualifies his own data, something the article does report. In fact, he interprets his data "cautiously." He warns that race, education, and parenting styles might separate the two groups. And that the families of women tied by marriage to "troubled men" might be hurt by marriage.
There is no question that there is a correlation between marriage and the well being of children. Lots of research shows that. But that is a far cry from naming having children outside marriage the cause of the problem, and getting married before having children the solution. There is also a well documented correlation between higher income and the well being of children. If we start by naming poverty the problem, we create a different trajectory of changes. But they are changes that implicate the social and economic policies responsible for income and wealth inequality. Blaming marriage or the lack thereof is a distraction, and one that is welcome by those who benefit from the status quo.
The story of Chris and Jessica and their children could have been told in other ways. And could have been told with a third family, a couple in a miserable marriage, with an uninvolved, unemployed, alcoholic, and/or violent father. Believe me, then it wouldn't look like marriage was the solution.
As for the other ways of telling the story, consider the comment Tim Casey of Legal Momentum included when he sent a link to the article out to an anti-poverty listserve. "Note the lack of discussion," he wrote, "of the policies that in other wealthy countries ameliorate the economic insecurity that is so common for US single mother families -- free or subsidized child care, paid parental leave, an adequate welfare system, childrens' allowances, assured child support, etc." The child poverty rates is much lower in other Western countries than in the US precisely because of such policies. Public responsibility for all children -- who are the future we all depend on -- is in my mind the mark of a civilized nation. We are barbarians in that respect. The New York Times should include that point of view the next time it writes about the unequal chances of children.
Advocates of same-sex marriage, and the experts who support them, have done a good job of debunking the idea that children need to be raised by their married biological parents. Their research and conclusions were nowhere in the NY Times article. Gay rights advocates do not necessarily want to be connected to Jessica and her children. That, in my mind, is a failure of vision. Marriage isn't the one answer to child inequality for children with straight or gay parents.
From this, and the many cited researchers, the article concludes, as its subtitle put it, "Marriage, for Richer; Single Motherhood, for Poorer." "Two Classes," reads the headline, "Divided by "I Do." Of course the reader will draw the conclusion that marriage before children -- and staying married -- is the solution to the unequal chances children face.
I cannot agree, and there's another way to tell the story of Chris's and Jessica's children, some of which is buried in the piece itself. Take one study the article reports. Scott Winship studied 2400 young adults and found that 58% of those in the lowest third of income who as teenagers lived with two parents moved up on their income level, while 44% of those with only one parent did. Also, 15% of those who started out in the top third income level fell to the bottom third, while 27% of teenagers without both parents did.
But Winship qualifies his own data, something the article does report. In fact, he interprets his data "cautiously." He warns that race, education, and parenting styles might separate the two groups. And that the families of women tied by marriage to "troubled men" might be hurt by marriage.
There is no question that there is a correlation between marriage and the well being of children. Lots of research shows that. But that is a far cry from naming having children outside marriage the cause of the problem, and getting married before having children the solution. There is also a well documented correlation between higher income and the well being of children. If we start by naming poverty the problem, we create a different trajectory of changes. But they are changes that implicate the social and economic policies responsible for income and wealth inequality. Blaming marriage or the lack thereof is a distraction, and one that is welcome by those who benefit from the status quo.
The story of Chris and Jessica and their children could have been told in other ways. And could have been told with a third family, a couple in a miserable marriage, with an uninvolved, unemployed, alcoholic, and/or violent father. Believe me, then it wouldn't look like marriage was the solution.
As for the other ways of telling the story, consider the comment Tim Casey of Legal Momentum included when he sent a link to the article out to an anti-poverty listserve. "Note the lack of discussion," he wrote, "of the policies that in other wealthy countries ameliorate the economic insecurity that is so common for US single mother families -- free or subsidized child care, paid parental leave, an adequate welfare system, childrens' allowances, assured child support, etc." The child poverty rates is much lower in other Western countries than in the US precisely because of such policies. Public responsibility for all children -- who are the future we all depend on -- is in my mind the mark of a civilized nation. We are barbarians in that respect. The New York Times should include that point of view the next time it writes about the unequal chances of children.
Advocates of same-sex marriage, and the experts who support them, have done a good job of debunking the idea that children need to be raised by their married biological parents. Their research and conclusions were nowhere in the NY Times article. Gay rights advocates do not necessarily want to be connected to Jessica and her children. That, in my mind, is a failure of vision. Marriage isn't the one answer to child inequality for children with straight or gay parents.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Center for American Progress highlights ending poverty and protecting all families
Family structure too often is the fall guy for everything bad in society -- violence, illegal drugs, homelessness, illiteracy, and, of course, poverty. The right wing loves to tell us that the root of all social problems is the decline of life-long heterosexual marriage and that the solution is ... life-long heterosexual marriage.
This time of year -- the approach of Father's Day -- is prime time for such messages. Not only do these ideas disrespect families headed by lesbians and gay men, they let off the hook all the social and economic policies that keep poor and low income people where they are and let the rich get richer. If the solution is marriage, then the fault lies with the individuals who don't marry, not with the entrenched interests of the rich.
The Center for American Progress has long been my idol on how to really end poverty. Their 2007 report, From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half, is still an excellent road map.
I also highly recommend the program they are hosting tomorrow, June 9, Strengthening Families: Developing a Progressive Agenda that Promotes Family Stability and Cuts Poverty. Here is the description:
This time of year -- the approach of Father's Day -- is prime time for such messages. Not only do these ideas disrespect families headed by lesbians and gay men, they let off the hook all the social and economic policies that keep poor and low income people where they are and let the rich get richer. If the solution is marriage, then the fault lies with the individuals who don't marry, not with the entrenched interests of the rich.
The Center for American Progress has long been my idol on how to really end poverty. Their 2007 report, From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half, is still an excellent road map.
I also highly recommend the program they are hosting tomorrow, June 9, Strengthening Families: Developing a Progressive Agenda that Promotes Family Stability and Cuts Poverty. Here is the description:
A progressive view of the role of government supports the notion that governments should act affirmatively to create and protect the conditions necessary for all families and children to thrive. Developing policies to support and stabilize families should go beyond a narrow focus on marriage promotion and unmarried childbearing; policies should reflect the fact that decisions related to family structure, relationships and parenting are inherently personal, and are made complex by one’s life and economic circumstances. Progressive policies must recognize and address the reality of today’s complex family dynamics.I couldn't say it better myself. If you can't attend the program in person (here are the details), you can stream it live. The speakers have impeccable credentials. They want to end poverty without blaming those who live in families other than married mother/father form. It doesn't get better or smarter than that.
Monday, June 15, 2009
TANF reauthorization next year -- the stakes are high
President Clinton signed "welfare reform" right before the 1996 election; he signed DOMA during the same period. The first reauthorization, during the Bush administration, added the funding of "marriage promotion," which Obama is continuing. The next reauthorization must occur by September 2010.
Now comes an important report from the feminist legal organization Legal Momentum, demonstrating an enormous drop in the number of women and children receiving TANF benefits and a concommitant rise in the number of single-mother families living in extreme poverty. Since 1996, the number of welfare recipients has declined by two-thirds. This is not because "welfare reform" has succeeded in reducing poverty. Rather, there has been a 56% increase in the number of single-mother families with annual incomes less than $3000. When mothers who have left welfare are employed, their average earnings are likely to be less than the poverty level for a family of three.
The safety net has been shredded. There is no longer meaningful federal oversight. If states reduce the amount of money spent on welfare, they can use the surplus in their "block grants" for non-welfare purposes. Caseload reduction brings benefits to the states. These reductions do not have to be tied to any measure of the well-being of poor families.
The 2001 report of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force remains the best analysis of the connection between "welfare reform" and LGBT people. I hope they get involved during the upcoming reauthorization as well.
Legal Momentum will play a major role in shaping the advocacy around reauthorization. They opposed federal funding of "marriage promotion" before and will oppose it this time around as well. They have formed the EndPovertyNow coalition. To join it, send an email with the subject line "join" to tcasey@legalmomentum.org.
Now comes an important report from the feminist legal organization Legal Momentum, demonstrating an enormous drop in the number of women and children receiving TANF benefits and a concommitant rise in the number of single-mother families living in extreme poverty. Since 1996, the number of welfare recipients has declined by two-thirds. This is not because "welfare reform" has succeeded in reducing poverty. Rather, there has been a 56% increase in the number of single-mother families with annual incomes less than $3000. When mothers who have left welfare are employed, their average earnings are likely to be less than the poverty level for a family of three.
The safety net has been shredded. There is no longer meaningful federal oversight. If states reduce the amount of money spent on welfare, they can use the surplus in their "block grants" for non-welfare purposes. Caseload reduction brings benefits to the states. These reductions do not have to be tied to any measure of the well-being of poor families.
The 2001 report of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force remains the best analysis of the connection between "welfare reform" and LGBT people. I hope they get involved during the upcoming reauthorization as well.
Legal Momentum will play a major role in shaping the advocacy around reauthorization. They opposed federal funding of "marriage promotion" before and will oppose it this time around as well. They have formed the EndPovertyNow coalition. To join it, send an email with the subject line "join" to tcasey@legalmomentum.org.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
BLOG ACTION DAY: ENDING POVERTY -- PROMOTING MARRIAGE IS NOT THE WAY
We really could end poverty if we wanted to....Unfortunately, for the past eight years the government's primary strategy for ending poverty has been "marriage promotion." The right wing reiterates the lie that all of our social problems -- including illiteracy, homelessness, substance abuse, violence, infant mortality, chronic illness, crime and, of course, poverty -- are caused by the decline in life long heterosexual marriage. This ideology then lets government off the hook for its policies that maintain tremendous income inequality.
Sociologist Scott Coltrane has documented that the funders of such right wing think tanks as the Heritage Foundation also fund organizations that push marriage as the solution to poverty, such as the Institute for American Values. The Alternatives to Marriage Project has published "Let Them East Wedding Rings," a fine place to start in critiquing "marriage promotion" as the solution to poverty.
For a real solution, try last year's release from the Center for American Progress, "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half." The report makes 12 basic recommendations. Marriage is not on its list of poverty-reducing strategies. And read Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality, co-authored by leading anti-poverty law professor Joel Handler. The book criticizes those who demonize single mothers while ignoring the institutionalized economic and social structures that cause poverty and inequality. Marriage is also not on Handler's list of proposals for ending poverty.
Can we go from books and reports to action? Mark Greenberg, policy director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, was the Executive Director of the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty. I say President Obama should make him Secretary of HHS.
Sociologist Scott Coltrane has documented that the funders of such right wing think tanks as the Heritage Foundation also fund organizations that push marriage as the solution to poverty, such as the Institute for American Values. The Alternatives to Marriage Project has published "Let Them East Wedding Rings," a fine place to start in critiquing "marriage promotion" as the solution to poverty.
For a real solution, try last year's release from the Center for American Progress, "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half." The report makes 12 basic recommendations. Marriage is not on its list of poverty-reducing strategies. And read Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality, co-authored by leading anti-poverty law professor Joel Handler. The book criticizes those who demonize single mothers while ignoring the institutionalized economic and social structures that cause poverty and inequality. Marriage is also not on Handler's list of proposals for ending poverty.
Can we go from books and reports to action? Mark Greenberg, policy director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, was the Executive Director of the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty. I say President Obama should make him Secretary of HHS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)