God's economically successful plan for the family.
It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the middle class has grown over the last decade. The rich are getting very, very rich while the poor and middle class are--while not worse off--certainly no better. (Depending on your time frame, however, the poor actually are doing worse.)
This graph shows the average annual income of the top one percent earners in 2005 was more than $1 million, while the middle 60 percent is just above $50,000 per year. That compares with the $500,000 the top one percent earned just ten years before, versus an average income of just below $50,000 for the middle 60 percent. In other words, while the top one percent doubled their income, the middle 60 percent only modestly improved.
More striking is that the average income of the bottom 20 percent seems not to have moved in the last 25 years. Factor in inflation, and the bottom 20 percent is doing much worse. (Women too, it seems, haven't done well. But instead of making less, they're just staying home. And interestingly, feminists are making arguments for doing so.)
There's plenty of debate over why the income of the top earners has so vastly outpaced that of everyone else. It's tempting to argue that the top one percent is making its money off the backs of those less well off. And America, being the nation of individualists it is, has been generally content to allow the rich to get much, much richer. Plus, globalization has brought millions of new laborers into competition with those already in developed economies.
But another argument seems compelling. New York Times writer Tyler Cowen summarizes it this way:
The reason is supply and demand. For the first time in American history, the current generation is not significantly more educated than its parents. Those in need of skilled labor are bidding for a relatively stagnant supply and so must pay more.
Technological change has put a premium on workers who understand, can manage, and can profit from such advances. According to this argument, education--not abuse by the rich--makes the difference between advancing in the economy or falling behind.
But the difference between the educated and the un-educated is not a matter of wealth but of upbringing. After all, the poor can value education as much as the rich, and often do. And, education is not simply a matter of IQ, according to James Heckman, a professor at the University of Chicago and Nobel Laureate. Heckman says in his paper "Schools, Skills and Synapses" (available for download here) that "the workplace is increasingly oriented towards a greater valuation of the skills required for social interaction and for sociability." These skills are taught in the home, Heckman says.
Heckman makes no argument for marriage support programs or other family-supporting policies. In fact, he says the state, for economic reasons, should intervene early in families deemed to be unable to nurture well-educated (in terms of IQ and sociability) children. Yet, his analysis could be used to support traditional, Christian views of the family. "Those born into disadvantaged environments are receiving relatively less stimulation and resources to promote child development ... [Statistics show] the dramatic rise in the proportion of children living in single parent families. The greatest contributor to this growth is the percent living in families with never married mothers."
But, Heckman says, having two parents--even wealthy ones--isn't enough for healthy child development. "The proper measure of disadvantage is not necessarily family poverty or parental education. The available evidence suggests that the quality of parenting is the important scarce resource. The quality of parenting is not always closely linked to family income or parental education." In other words, there's no inherent reason that children who grow up with wealthy parents, or well-educated ones, should become wealthy themselves.
Unfortunately, more American children are growing up under "disadvantaged" circumstances. And this is having a negative impact on the American economy, because these children, even if they have high IQs, don't have the social skills for success. "A greater fraction of young Americans," Heckman says, "is graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction is dropping out of high school."
Churches could use Heckman's paper to argue for a different kind of social ministry, one that emphasizes parenting skills as much as poverty alleviation. Also, it shows once again, that the soft patriarchy model of the family is quite good for all involved. But, to me, it mostly argues that God had it right when he created male and female to be fruitful and multiply.
Posted by Rob Moll on July 31, 2008 8:06PM
Comments
My wife makes more money than I. I try to spend quality time with
my boys. In the morning, I will take the 13 yr. old to soccer
and be with him, talking in the car, on the way to the soccer field
and on the way back. Quality time makes sense.
My income is low. God is helping me make more slowly and pray
regularly with our sons, too.
"He will turn dads' hearts to their children." Malachi,
OT prophet
Posted by: Bob Durham at August 1, 2008
Here is a quote from the paper:
There is nothing in this paper to support your last two sentences.
Posted by: Jay Steele at August 1, 2008
As a mother of five and grandmother of four, as well one who was involved in parent education for many years, I have had a LOT of opportunity to observe children and the way that their parents parented. While I would wholeheartedly agree that increasing parenting classes through the churches would be beneficial, I would question whether or not parents, who often do not find enough time to do an adequate job of parenting, would be willing to participate. Indeed, during the years that I coordinated the parent education programs through the schools, we often felt that we were "preaching to the choir" (but, in this society with all of its challenges, even the choir needs support).
I wholeheartedly agree with the above article, but I would like to make an observation. The skills for "sociability and social interaction" that should be developed should not be equated with encouraging children to be socially agressive or self-centeredly competitive (what many parents seem to consider social competence or even superiority).
It takes a great deal of hands-on work and adult modeling/discussion to teach a child critical values such as respect and responsibility. If you talk with employers now, it is VERY DIFFICULT to find an employee who is committed and reliable. Perhaps this is a backlash of the self-esteem movement, aimed to avoid causing the fragile ego any disappointment by having high expectations of them.
Posted by: Kathy Brown at August 1, 2008
My wife and I have three quality kids we've spent many years raising. Looking back on all that, from our view the dominant metric is the quantity, not the quality, of time spent with children. And like anything else the "devil's" in the details. And again, how should the church be involved in teaching this? It's about time spent modeling, in the big and small ways, right parenting behavior to young parents that starts with giving up our own priorities and making parenting number one. What a concept for the church!!
Posted by: George Van Kirk at August 3, 2008
I agree with Jay Steele. Over the years, I've read most every issue of CT, going back to the first, and I'm not surprised that an organization founded with money from J. Howard Pew, of usually exhibiting condescending ill will to "the other" (Catholics in it's early days, Gays today), that's usually been soft, clueless and dithering on civil rights and systemic injustices, is now expressing enthusiasm for "soft patriarchy."
Mothers seem to desire financial stability, in sickness and in health, for herself and her children, flexibility in child raising and career options, socializing and charity activities, not to mention partners without commitment issues. While society can't insure the latter, alas, it can aid in helping all women access the other issues, regardless of class standing or the competence of their partners in making money, or having family money.
I'm not a wife, but I'd love all that myself. But, I have little financial and job flexibility. It's work as best I can or beg my siblings to take me in or go die on the streets.
Soft patriarchy suggests that women should marry for money rather than love. They wouldn't want to risk their happiness should they be forced to settle for a poorer man if they want to have children before the old biological clock stops ticking. It also suggests that it's in the wife's best interest and future happiness if she leaves a husband for someone richer and more accomplished, especially if her husband's earning potential is compromised, like mine was, from chronic illness or the result of some unfortunate event.
Tina Turner was being grimly ironic when she sang "What's love got to do with it?" Soft patriarchy doesn't do irony.
What patriarchy does is the legitimization of male heirs to inherit the estates, social status, connections, privileges and duties of their fathers. It's fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-merit, anti-innovation, and pro-feudalism, as well as for the institutionalizing of some sort of slavery, by whatever name...from chattel slavery, to indentured servitude or Jim Crow or states' rights. Someone has to serve the patriarchs and their heirs. Doesn't the Bible order slaves to serve their masters?
Social mobility is made to be as deliberately difficult as possible, with even the very exceptional few required to distance themselves, obscure and work against the people they left behind. They're required to fully accept and vigilantly defend the system of rigid patriarchal hierarchies of dominance and submission.
In other words, they're to pull up the ladder behind them to make it difficult for others to follow, rather than to try to pave a way for others to more easily strive for, and attain, a better life, however they themselves define as "better."
So, how does patriarchy square with Jesus' life and teachings? How has Jesus' life and teaching been used to both defend and undermine patriarchy and its attendant, slavery?
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 5, 2008
I realized that I have exaggerated my financial inflexibility, which isn't that inflexible and perilous. I so have a modest retirement account available. However, as unemployment, and/or retirement, disability, social security payments and such take time to start coming in, and I have health and some work needs and expenses from a very treatable but incurable inherited autoimmune disease, I might well run out of adequate resources rather alarmingly quick...like a great many other Americans who also mostly live paycheck to paycheck.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 11, 2008
Uh, how about stop voting for idiots like Dubya and his ilk who do not have your economic interests in mind. Sheez.
Posted by: Ben DiBonnano at August 14, 2008
Post a comment