Economic Opportunity and Out of Wedlock Births

How important is lack of economic opportunity in explaining out of wedlock births? Bob Herbert argues it's a significant factor:

A Dubious Milestone, by Bob Herbert, Commentary, NY Times: ...Barack Obama spoke on Father’s Day about the tragic flight of so many American fathers, especially black fathers, from their children’s lives.

His comments came as the Center for Labor Market Studies ... revealed a dubious milestone. In 2006, for the first time in U.S. history, a majority of all births to women under 30 — 50.4 percent — were out of wedlock. Nearly 80 percent of births among black women were out of wedlock.

By comparison, ... in 1960, just 6 percent of all births were to unmarried women under 30. Since then, the percentages have risen across the ethnic spectrum. One-third of white, non-Hispanic women under 30 who gave birth in 2006 were unmarried. For Hispanics, it was 51 percent. ...

Senator Obama, in remarks he delivered ... in Chicago... [said] “But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

This is not a simple matter. Obviously, fathers should care for their children. But just wagging a finger and telling them sternly to step up to their responsibilities is about as effective as hollering at the wind.

Senator Obama touched on this when he talked about the need for certain policy changes to make it easier for young men to fulfill their parental obligations — for example, offering tax incentives and job training to those making a sincere effort. ...

But a lot more is needed. One of the main reasons out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed in recent decades is because it has become so difficult for poor and poorly educated young men to earn enough to support a family.

There is no doubt that a lot of clowns have fathered babies when they shouldn’t have, and too many have irresponsibly taken a walk. But it’s also incredibly difficult for many of these young people to find the kind of employment that makes raising a family feasible. ...

At the lowest end of the economic ladder the crisis in employment is reminiscent of the Great Depression in its intensity. It is in this group of poor and educationally deprived young people that out-of-wedlock births are highest.

Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies, put it this way in a research paper:

“The marriage rates of all native-born young males and young black males (22-32 years old) in the U.S. are strongly correlated with the annual earnings of these young men. The higher their annual earnings, the more likely they are to be married. Among native-born black males, those men with earnings over $60,000 were four times more likely to be married than their peers with annual earnings under $20,000.

“Unfortunately, the mean annual earnings of young men without four-year college degrees have plummeted substantially over the past 30 years, and declined again over the 2000-2007 period. Declining economic fortunes of young men without college degrees underlie the rise in out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and they are creating a new demographic nightmare for the nation.” ...

Employment is the master key to the thriving families that Senator Obama talked about... If we can’t achieve something close to full employment for the wider society, there is very little hope for those mired at the bottom.

Comments

[Patricia Shannon]

Not just full employment is needed. Decent wages and affordable housing are also needed.

[Purchasing Power and Pair Bonding]

The constant inflation policy comes home to roost. The decline in purchasing power per hour worked started when constant inflation kicked into high gear. When the hapless worker retires, constant inflation erodes their standard of living even faster. Before inflation kicked into high gear, people could buy ever more per hour worked as productivity increased. Retirees had a reasonably stable standard of living.

The public school system is also partly to blame. Children are now raised by strangers who don't bother to teach the dynamics of successful human pair bonding. All too many children reach adulthood with no idea of how to establish a permanent, mutually satisfying relationship. Some organizations have had some success by having a successful older couple mentor a young couple. In effect, teaching the youngsters what previous generations learned as tadpoles.

[Larry]

Getting married is an outcome. Getting a good job is an outcome. They happen to those who have social and economically productive skills.

Obtaining those skills has become a source of scorn in some parts of society. Unless that changes, the outcomes won't either.

Even with the increasing demand for college education, if you graduate from high school, don't break the law, and don't become a father until you're married, I think you can still have a reasonable life and provide for a family. Those three decisions are available to everyone no matter where they start.

[anne]

"Getting married is an outcome. Getting a good job is an outcome. They happen to those who have social and economically productive skills.

"Obtaining those skills has become a source of scorn in some parts of society."

Offensive rubbish.

[Dismal Deacon]

Getting a good job is in almost all cases a result of having productive skills. I fail to see why this statement is "offensive rubbish".

DD

[disinterested observer]

"Even with the increasing demand for college education, if you graduate from high school, don't break the law, and don't become a father until you're married, I think you can still have a reasonable life and provide for a family. Those three decisions are available to everyone no matter where they start."

Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Frost

[spencer]

I really suspect many of the problems we blame on the school system are really just the symptom and the real underlying cause of educational problems is the break down of the traditional nuclear family.

[ScentOfViolets]

I find this sort of comment to be irritating in the extreme:
There is no doubt that a lot of clowns have fathered babies when they shouldn’t have, and too many have irresponsibly taken a walk.

Look, if it is the woman who has the 'right to choose', then blaming these men for out-of-wedlock births is rather pointless, in fact, turning them into a legion of sin eaters. Unless, perhaps, the author thinks that these men should be living the life monastic.

The other irritating and offensive notion is that 'the woman's right to choose' is now conflated with the man's obligation to support. By all means, give the women the right to choose. But don't impose upon men the concomitant fiducial duties. That's a complete disconnect between power and responsibility.

[anne]

"Getting a good job is in almost all cases a result of having productive skills."

Not the right quote.

[evagrius]

"...and the real underlying cause of educational problems is the break down of the traditional nuclear family."

The "traditional nuclear family" is a recent conception. It's a creation of modern industrialism geared to creating consumers.

The "real family" consists of a larger grouping including (grand)parents, siblings, cousins, etc; That's what family is in other cultures now and what it was in the "west" until industrialism came along and destroyed it.

Industrialism just needs consumers, not families, nuclear or otherwise.

[ken melvin]

As since forever, these mores are, intended to support a sustainable society, which has a lot to do with continuance of the species, which has a lot to do with the hardwired biological urge to reproduce.

[Manny]

You don't need a high school education to be a father. You don't need a great job to be a father (60k/year). You just need to take responsibility for someone (your kid) who needs you. I don't want to sound like Bill Cosby here but the out-of-wedlock birth rate was minuscule when there was institutionalized discrimination and racism that severely limited the economic opportunities for minorities in this country. Stating that the lack-of economic opportunities is a major reason that the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high for African-Americans (80%) should be ridiculous to any economist. We have other data points that we can examine.

Regarding the high rate of out-of-wedlock births for whites (1/3) and Hispanics (1/2), the same holds. Every one of us, regardless of our race, has relatives in the not-so-distant past that had to scrimp for everything. 100 years ago, with the exception of a few, no one was rich (I am regarding as 60k/year in today's dollars as rich). But, for reasons other than lack of economic opportunities, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was very small compared to today. Let's examine those reasons, rather than feel bad for the poor, poor people who are not expected these days to accomplish anything including provide for their kids.

[ScentOfViolets]

I've gotta say, evagrius, industrialization doesn't seem to have done much to discourage the 'traditional' family of kids, parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, nieces, etc. What it did was make it possible to divorce them, or at least, move out of the house. I've heard from more than a few visionaries that various materials shortages and new urban patterns of living will reverse this, and that you will see once again three generations living under one roof, and that this is a _good_ thing. Personal observation leads me to conclude otherwise: my sisters can't stand my mother for more than brief periods, to her professed puzzlement, and in turn, she moved away from her own mother as soon as was feasibly possible. This does not seem to be an uncommon phenomenon. Yes, we all love our extended families - but at a distance, preferably ;-)

[ScentOfViolets]

I don't want to sound like Bill Cosby here but the out-of-wedlock birth rate was minuscule when there was institutionalized discrimination and racism that severely limited the economic opportunities for minorities in this country.

Er, yes. And not surprisingly, this was also a time when it was much more difficult financially to be a single parent. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, iow. Btw, this insistence that the biological father cannot live in the same residence as the female receiving AFDC was probably one of the most disastrous decisions ever for this sort of thing. This was a conservative policy, btw, endorsed by the man at the top, the one we all love to hate, Nixon himself.[1] The 'liberals' of the day objected, accurately predicting what the outcome of that would be. Going on a half-century later, the implications of that policy are now blamed on 'liberals'. Whadda surprise.

[1]iirc, Nixon was far more liberal than some of his contemporary liberals: he asked on more than one occasion why it wasn't feasible to simply pay certain families a regular stipend, rather than have them rely on a mish-mash of housing programs, food stamps, etc.

[anne]

"I don't want to sound like Bill Cosby here but the out-of-wedlock birth rate was minuscule when there was institutionalized discrimination and racism that severely limited the economic opportunities for minorities in this country."

Huh??? Reference, reference, reference.

[peterbob]

building on what Manny said, economic prosperity has *led* to out of wedlock births. Economic poverty has not. If a mother can survive financially (through your own employment, government assistance, etc.) without a husband, then she doesn't need to put up with one.

[Julio]

"This is not a simple matter. Obviously, fathers should care for their children. But just wagging a finger and telling them sternly to step up to their responsibilities is about as effective as hollering at the wind."

Why?

Unless the operative words are "just" and "wagging a finger" (in which case this is a useless straw man), it seems to me that this public discussion is necessary and effective.

I remember many years ago being on the receiving (and to my credit, sometimes the giving) end of repeated hectorings about sexism, which eventually helped change attitudes about it (and in fact gave us the word "sexism").

And, consider the alternative:
Dump all the responsibility for parenting on the woman?

[Julio]

Article says:
"One of the main reasons out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed in recent decades is because it has become so difficult for poor and poorly educated young men to earn enough to support a family."

?? Reference, reference, reference? ;-)

[jamzo]

this is a complex issue with social, political and economic influences to which i can only respond with several disjointed thoughts

in the Great Depression, the rate of out-of-marraige births are considered low but there were orphanages which took care of unwanted babies, some specialized in caring for pregnant single women and taking their babies for care and adoption

the churchee view and the prevailing common view confuses unwed parents with broken homes and absent fathers

bill cosby and now obama seem to offer little in the way of ideas to improve the life of parents and children in troubled situations other than criticism

the african-american community has been dealing with threats to "intact" families since the days of slavery which did not recognize the reality of family ties among slaves

the social welfare system in the united states has policies
which put great financial obstacles in the path of unwed parents of children

if you read wedding announcements in the newspapers you see that the wedding party includes a bride, groom, and one or more children

more and more people do not believe that marraige is a necessary part of being together and building a family

sounds like the same old rhetoric - frame the problem as a moral issue rather a poverty problem

there will always be children who have "bad", "ineffective", or "absent" fathers - what do we want to do to help these children

the prisons are full of men who are a threat to others or themselves (drugs), how come we are not looking for ways to prevent so many men from being able to secure stable, productive lives for themsevles - (it might save society a lot of economic and social costs)

[donna]

OH come on, out of wedlock there's family aid and food aid. If you're married and have to show that income that is harder to get.

This isn't that hard a problem to understand.

We as a society have decided it's more important to give millionaires tax breaks and pay CEOs outrageous salaries than it is to take care of low income families and pay decent wages and provide good jobs here. That's the state of Republican America today.

[ScentOfViolets]

And, consider the alternative:
Dump all the responsibility for parenting on the woman?

Posted by: Julio

As a matter of fact, yes. _And_ we should not give them any financial assistance. They want to be a mother over the objections of the would-be father? Fine. It's all about 'the right to choose', after all. But there's nothing heroic or honorable about this decision, many, many after-school specials aired during prime time to the contrary.

And they certainly don't deserve any special consideration from the state - no subsidized housing, no food stamps, no AFDC.

[Michael Cain]

[1]iirc, Nixon was far more liberal than some of his contemporary liberals: he asked on more than one occasion why it wasn't feasible to simply pay certain families a regular stipend, rather than have them rely on a mish-mash of housing programs, food stamps, etc.

My present job includes helping state legislators understand the various administrative expenses associated with the current mish-mash, such as the costs to change the computer systems when they make changes in the eligibility or reporting criteria. While I understand at least part of the history of the mish-mash, and the reasoning (both the good and the bad) which created it, I am more sympathetic than I used to be to the idea of simply paying a single stipend.

I suspect that many of the ordinary people who think they want a smaller government actually want a simpler government.

[anne]

Agreed; I have no idea why there may be relatively fewer 2 parent living together families now than 5 or 10 or 20 or 40 years ago, here or in the Euro Zone or broken down by ethnicity or whether there actually are many fewer 2 parent living together families. Show me the carefully drawn sociological study, as some evidence.

I was not the least impressed by Barack Obama's speech, nor am I impressed by Bob Herbert's column which at least seems more open to matters beyond stereotypically blaming the character of a stereotype of fathers on a day when all fathers might better be supported.

[donna]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/nyregion/22food.html?hp

“We know food stamps are falling short $34 a month” of the monthly $576 that the government says it costs a family of four to eat nutritional meals, she said. “The sudden price increases on top of everything else like soaring fuel and health care have meant squeeze and strain that is unprecedented since the late 1970s.”

Who is going to be getting married and losing those food stamps when things are this tight?

[anne]

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=661&Itemid=1

June 18, 2008

Obama Insults Half a Race
By Glen Ford

The Black man who wants to be president spends Father's Day at church in loud and general denunciation of Black males. For added insult, he describes them as "boys." Barack Obama's primary audience isn't the conservative Black Pentecostal congregation, but "white social conservatives in a race where these voters may be up for grabs," says the New York Times. In America, even the "Black" corporate candidate runs against Black people. How did such madness come to pass in 2008? ...

[donna]

ScentofViolets,

Grow a heart. Your moral judgments of people don't help them survive.

[ScentOfViolets]

If a mother can survive financially (through your own employment, government assistance, etc.) without a husband, then she doesn't need to put up with one.

Posted by: peterbob

BINGO. Take away the economic incentives to be single mothers, you'll see fewer single mothers. Make AFDC contingent upon having the father around. If the woman wants to become a parent and the relevant male does not, make sure she receives not on jot, tittle, or iota of legally-mandated support from him. Problem solved.

[anne]

Thanks to Donna:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/nyregion/22food.html?hp&pagewanted=print

June 22, 2008

Buying Power of Food Stamps Declines
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

Making ends meet on food stamps has never been easy for Cassandra Johnson, but since food prices began their steep climb earlier this year, she has had to develop new survival strategies.

She hunts for items that are on the shelf beyond their expiration dates because their prices are often reduced, a practice she once avoided.

Ms. Johnson, 44, who works in customer service for a medical firm, knows that buying food this way is not healthy, but she sees no other choice if she wants to feed herself and her 1-year-old niece Ammni Harris and 2-year-old nephew Tramier Harris, who live with her.

“I live paycheck to paycheck,” said Ms. Johnson, as she walked out of a market near her home in Hackensack, N.J., pushing both Ammni and the week’s groceries in a shopping cart. “And we’re not coping.”

The sharp rise in food prices is being felt acutely by poor families on food stamps, the federal food assistance program.

In the past year, the cost of food for what the government considers a minimum nutritional diet has risen 7.2 percent nationwide. It is on track to become the largest increase since 1989, according to April data, the most recent numbers, from the United States Department of Agriculture. The prices of certain staples have risen even more. The cost of eggs, for example, has increased nearly 20 percent, and the price of milk and other diary products has risen 10 percent.

But food stamp allocations, intended to cover only minimum needs, have not changed since last fall and will not rise again until October, when an increase linked to inflation will take effect. The percentage, equal to the annual rise in prices for the minimum nutritional food basket as measured each June, is usually announced by early August.

Some advocates and politicians say that this relief will not come soon enough and will probably not be adequate to keep pace with inflation.

Stacy Dean, the director of food assistance for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington social issues research and advocacy organization, estimates that the rising food prices have resulted in two fewer bags of groceries a month for the families most reliant on the program.

“We know food stamps are falling short $34 a month” of the monthly $576 that the government says it costs a family of four to eat nutritional meals, she said. “The sudden price increases on top of everything else like soaring fuel and health care have meant squeeze and strain that is unprecedented since the late 1970s.” ...

[ScentOfViolets]

donna says...

ScentofViolets,

Grow a heart. Your moral judgments of people don't help them survive.

Posted by: donna

You are making absolutely no sense, in fact, seem to be engaging in some sort of attempted moral blackmail. Nowhere have I made a moral judgment. What makes you think I have, other than broadly affirming the 'right to choose', which you presumably agree with.

[anne]

"Take away the economic incentives to be single mothers, you'll see fewer single mothers."

Idiocy, but do keep on because I really, really like the idea of punishing women for being women. Where are those poor-houses when we need them?

[anne]

Bingo, I almost forgot about the bingo.

[ScentOfViolets]

Well, then of course Anne, you should be able to point out where I think that women should be 'punished' for being women, right? Let's see the quotes.

And while you're at it, let's see the quotes where I'm advocating punishment of any kind.

I'm not, of course. In fact, I am very much against punishing or stigmatizing involuntary fathers, men who have absolutely no say in the matter. Not only is that attempting to inject a note of moralistic opprobrium in a discussion that really has no place for it, it is attempting to put the responsibility of the resolution of a problem onto the shoulders of the ones who had no say in creating it. And of course, there's the fact that such censure accomplishes . . . nothing. It has zero positive practical outcomes.

Get back to me after you've done that research, okay?

[Julio]

"Take away the economic incentives to be single mothers, you'll see fewer single mothers."

Damn, I was born male and missed all those. No wonder I have to work.

[Julio]

From Glen Ford's article posted by Anne:

"...loud and general denunciation of Black males. For added insult, he describes them as "boys." "

Talk about out of context! This is right up there with the trashing of Hillary for "as far as I know" -- no, worse even.

[ScentOfViolets]

Odd, Julio, you must think that, for example, tax breaks can never used as economic incentives.

It's really quite a simple notion: if you want to see more of behaviour, subsidize it. If you want to see less of a behaviour, tax it. Now, call me cynical, but it seems to me that if a 18-year-old girl has a choice between having a baby and she's guaranteed an apartment of her own, housing assistance, food stamps, child-support if she can get it, etc, and having a baby with no guarantee of her own residence, no subsidy for gas, water, electricity, food, no possibility of child support, etc, she'll be much more likely to have one in the first scenario than in the second.

Yeah, that's really showing some sort of moral outrage towards single parents.

[anne]

“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

Here is the context, and I found the expression insensitive or, at least, unfortunate.

[anne]

"Take away the economic incentives to be single mothers, you'll see fewer single mothers."

Now, please explain precisely what the economic incentives are that encourage single motherhood and which of these need to be taken away.

[anne]

Ah, I get it:

"Now, call me cynical, but it seems to me that if a 18-year-old girl has a choice between having a baby and she's guaranteed an apartment of her own, housing assistance, food stamps, child-support if she can get it, etc, and having a baby with no guarantee of her own residence, no subsidy for gas, water, electricity, food, no possibility of child support, etc, she'll be much more likely to have one in the first scenario than in the second."

Who knew?

[michael]

First of all, all the writers above assume all the unmarried mothers and fathers are alike, so we can conveniently discuss them together. This isnt true. For example, the youngest unwed mothers were very likely to have had their children by much older males who are, basically, often taking advantage of them. This is less likely to be true of older ones (though all these things are probabilities). On the other hand, the Philadelphia study by two sociologists who lived with poor women, showed many of the women wanted children but not the men, who they looked at as worthless males (with some justification), and were holding out for some ideal marriage partner later. So yes, these women do bear some responsibility for their choices, and count on public support to help implement them. And so on. There's no single case to discuss, even if there is a general social trend.

Second, as usual, everyone assumes one group or the other has to have sole blame: the poor women, or the poor males, or the better-off - and the other group gets to be let offf. No one considers the possobiliity, for example, that maybe various people from all these groups are sources of problems (and that again, the members of the groups aren't all the same).
Just because the better-off haven't consistently acted well (or often, have mostly not acted well), doesn't mean the poor logically are good - or vice-versa. My reading of human history in general is that the pursuit of self-interest and/or moral negligence is pretty widespread in humans generally, though the powerful do get to act badly with fewer impediments and more highly paid defenders.

[anne]

Being serious, the point is there is no evidence whether the stereotypes we are setting down about parents, of varying ages, or stereotypes about parenting are true or if so why. What is the state of parenting like in France or Sweden? Why?

[ScentOfViolets]

Not you, apparently. I find this lack of knowledge sufficiently remarkable that I must ask what made you think that they were _not_ economic incentives? Do you think that mothers _deserve_ them, that they have a _right_ to them by virtue of being a mother? Did you think that they have absolutely no influence on the decision to have kids?

This . . . just doesn't make sense.

[dissent]

Ooh, fun fight.

Methinks that folks are offended with the social characteristics of the predatory free market system they espouse. Grow up. You want winner take all, low social spending, divisive resentment based politics ('welfare queens' etc), then live with the consequences.

They are: family breakdown, gangs, disaffected youths, murder.

They also include: a low marriage rate.

Face it. Your system is too insecure for rational people to form family units. As wages at the bottom have declined, marriage at the bottom has declined.

Party on. This is your 'Nixonland', not mine.

[anne]

Ah, I get it:

"Now, call me cynical, but it seems to me that if a 18-year-old girl has a choice between having a baby and she's guaranteed an apartment of her own, housing assistance, food stamps, child-support if she can get it, etc, and having a baby with no guarantee of her own residence, no subsidy for gas, water, electricity, food, no possibility of child support, etc, she'll be much more likely to have one in the first scenario than in the second."

This is simply a guess, if any such incentives are actually being offered, with no reason offered for believing the stereotype at all true. Since there is no reason to believe any of this is true, I choose to dismiss the argument.

An 18 year old girl, is actually a woman....

[ScentOfViolets]

Anne, you obviously think that single mothers should have subsidized housing, subsidized medical care, subsidized food and utilities . . . and you also think that the relevant male in question should be forced to pay child support, even if he does not want to be a father. You also think that economic incentives do not influence behavior in this particular cirmcumstance.

May I ask why you think the women are deserving of this treatment? May I inquire as to why you think males should be forced to pay for something they have absolutely no say in? By law?

Michael, I'm not sure what you mean by your argument that younger women are being taken advantage of by older males. If you mean to say that these younger women have been assured by their partners that they want to have a baby, and that they have been given firm commitments - even if only of the verbal kind - that the father 'will stand by them', to use an older phrase, that's one thing, and I agree that's not to be tolerated. But I am unsure of how broadly applicable your argument is. The vast majority of voluntarily absentee fathers are males that did not want to become fathers in the first place, but had no say in the matter (That's according to my partner who used to work in Family Services and who is a bleeding-heart liberal if ever there was one.)

Given that this is the case, I really don't know how anyone can compel an involuntary father to become a good father, at least, not with the powers the government currently has at it's disposal. This is one where it's definitely time for women as a class to step up and acknowledge a little responsibility here. For the good and sufficient reason that , actually, it is.

[anne]

No; I have no position, and do not understand the nature of the problem. What I do not understand is the sociology, which even including reference here to the work of Andrew Sum does not speak convincingly of the problem of 1 parent living-singly families from a comparative or historical frame. I do not understand the problem generally, no did Barack Obama make the problem clear, nor has Bill Cosby nor has Bob Herbert.

[anne]

We are stereotyping, rather than trying to understand what must be a highly complex set of problems ranging through ages of parents and ethnicities and through several countries. Possibly the same trends cited are found in Spain. I do not know. Germany? Does not being married mean not living together or not supporting each other? I do not know. Poland?

[anne]

Violets,

I can be entirely sympathetic to your complaints, but have no sense of whether they actually fit conditions. Who are the women and men we are thinking about? I do not know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/magazine/27QUESTIONS.html?ex=1269579600&en=a7b05b5d338115bb&ei=5088

March 27, 2005

Bill Cosby's Not Funny: Questions For Michael Eric Dyson
Interview By DEBORAH SOLOMON

Q: Your new book is a rhetorical screed against Bill Cosby, and the title alone is not exactly subtle: ''Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?''

When a comedian throws a pie in the face of a powerful person, it's funny. When he throws a pie in the face of a homeless mother with three kids, that's not very funny.

Q: You're referring to Cosby's recent harangue about lower-income black people, whom he faults for neglecting their children, wasting money on expensive sneakers and glamorizing ghetto culture.

It's his Blame-the-Poor Tour. He should pick on someone in his own class. If he had come out swinging at Condi Rice or Colin Powell, they could defend themselves. But he's beating up on poor black people, the most vulnerable people in this nation. And why jump on them?

Q: On the other hand, many of us feel that his comments represent an admirable attempt at self-criticism and apply not only to blacks but also to whites in a consumer culture that has run amok.

Here's the irony: Mr. Cosby has been a supreme pitchman for American corporate capitalism for nearly 40 years. Had he come along now, he himself might have been promoting some gym shoes....

[ScentOfViolets]

Anne, it's a lot less in the nature of a complaint, and a lot more irritation at how the problem is being addressed - attacking the people who aren't responsible for it strikes me in this context as nothing more than an applause-getter for the same old tired alliances and trusts. Not a serious attempt at all, iow, while trying to make the pretense that it is.

Like I said, my 'solution', such as it is, would be to take away any incentives for a poor person with few marketable skills to become a single parent, and to add hefty incentives for poor _couples_ with few marketable skills who wish to become parents. If at all possible, I'd like to add in a hefty dose of social opprobrium to the woman who wishes to become a mother against the express wishes of the father and who then tries to dun others for money and benefits. But, realistically, that's beyond the purview of any agency.

[anne]

Yes; I really understand, my wish was that we take no sides for lack of understand. I did not think you were trying to be insensitive, but we have no sense of the problem so no sense of what general fairness must be.

[ScentOfViolets]

Anne, _it's_not_a_matter_of_fairness_. It's incorrectly stating the problem. And, like it or not, it's a _woman_ problem, not a _man_ problem. By the very nature of the beast.

[Icarus]

Is the establishment of some of the 1960s Lyndon Johnson welfare reforms to blame for our current out of wedlock crisis?

Did the US effectively incentivize poor parenting?

Having a child out of wedlock is not an issue, given that the person has the means to raise that child properly. I find any claim that a 'family' is necessary, or a 'marriage' is necessary problematic.

But, having said that, having children which you can't afford is a social problem; one that should not be rewarded with financial benefit.

It may seem cruel to cut food stamps, or free school lunches, or other welfare handouts...but, we should. They simply encourage poor decision making, and that child will suffer.

The eventual goal has to be a reduction in births by paycheck to paycheck workers. If you live paycheck to paycheck, what the hec are you doing giving birth? It's such a selfish act. And, there's really no help...

[Rajesh Raut]

I was taught in biology class that it takes a male and a female to do sexual reproduction. While many men may be irresponsible in providing for their offspring, women are also making choices that enable men to escape their historical responsibilities. One could argue that women's access to work and wages has allowed them to escape from the need of maintaining a relationship in order to acquire the benefits of raising children.

[Icarus]

But Rajesh,

The women having children, without support and fathers...are not the ones acquiring wages and embracing work.

We have a growing class of unwed, unfit, unskilled, undiscplined mothers, who get pregnant, and are then dependent on the state to finance their mistakes. They then don't raise their children with any discipline, and those kids become legal problems for that society. It is a burden we must shed.

[Farrar]

You "rational" economic thinkers suppose somehow that subsidies or the lack of same are going to have more than an iddy biddy bit of influence on whether or not single women have children. Get real! You know very well (or should know if you live in the real world) that rationality has very little influence on whether or not single women get pregnant. The worst is that by withholding support, you are not only punishing the supposedly responsible single parent, but you are punishing the child, the innocent victim. So your espousal of economic disincentives in this case is completely irrational and detrimental to society.

[Farrar]

The real solutions to this problem are -
Freely available abortion
Realistic sex education including birth control
Public or charitably supported facilities for single women to give birth in guilt free circumstances, and to place the children for adoption (for which there is a great unsatisfied demand
And especially
Real possibilities for young women of all classes to make lives for themselves outside of motherhood.

[Icarus]

We should pay women to have abortions...and, public assistance should require some form of monitored birth control.

I know that sounds slightly dystopic, but, the alternatives are the rates of bastard children we seem to be producing, who live in a disadvantaged state.

And Farrar...there are people 'gaming' the system, and that pisses off too many people.

[jamzo]

a myth

18 year old pregnant girl is ..."guaranteed an apartment of her own, housing assistance, food stamps, child-support"

[jamzo]

what is it that causes economic discussion can quickly turn to morality statements

[ScentOfViolets]

Sigh. jamzo, feel free to point out anywhere I have made an argument from morality. What I have said is that the question as phrased is inappropriate. The question is, why are so many women choosing to have children, given that there is not a reliable second parent to provide financial assistance or otherwise contribute?

Any thoughts? Anyone?

[jean]

In the third world, I have heard, education of women is tied to a decrease in family size. Can that possibly be translated to the US: will more and better education change these statistics?
But, these are very emotional decisions. I wonder what percentage of young women weigh the choices rationally, and what percentage hope and pray that the father will love them forever and take care of them...forever.
It's very strange to hear economists talking about such individual choices.

[anne]

Jamzo:

Myth -

18 year old pregnant girl is ... "guaranteed an apartment of her own, housing assistance, food stamps, child-support"

Of course, but

"What is it that causes an economic discussion to quickly turn to morality statements?"

[anne]

"The question is, why are so many women choosing to have children, given that there is not a reliable second parent to provide financial assistance or otherwise contribute?"

How many, where, when?

[Icarus]

Well Anne, lets look at the african american community. What percentage of children are born out of wedlock these days? I've heard percentages as high as 70.

And, without a reliable 2nd parent, and a stable income structure, the reality of that new child's life is in jeapordy.

[ScentOfViolets]

Sigh. anne, I'm only going with the premise of the thread, which is, why are there so many out-of-wedlock births? You're perfectly free to say that you don't accept the premise until you see some documentation, of course.

[Fred]

Both the desire for children and the desire for marriage are learned/socialized. A rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates is caused by breakdown of traditional culture, and this breakdown is probably unstoppable at this point. We are heading towards the situation in Japan or Singapore, where the government has to bribe or coerce young men and women to get together, not merely for marriage and children, but even for sex. Real sex is messy, after all, compared with shopping and masturbation.

[Pair Bonding]

"Both the desire for children and the desire for marriage are learned/socialized"

To a degree pair bonding is instinctual. Men and women have paired up since the beginning of humanity. In days of yore, children were primarily raised by their parents. Children observed the successful relationship their parents had, and then copied the process by pairing up themselves.

Now the public school system raises children for most of their waking hours. Pair bonding is not learned in school, so the art form is fading. There is still the instinctual attraction between men and women, but people no longer have the skill set to successfully pair bond. People are driven by instinct to get together long enough to reproduce, but don't know how to establish a successful long term relationship. They split up, often with great sadness because the emotional bond is permanent in its natural state.

[ScentOfViolets]

This may be true, but there is such a thing as birth control, after all. Engaging in the act of reproduction, instinctual though it may be, does not necessarily lead to reproduction. And it doesn't, usually, in the humans we're talking about, unless this is the prior intent. Iow, 'accidental pregnancies' does not explain the increase in the number of out of wedlock births.

[Pair Bonding]

Youngsters in love don't think that way. They feel that they have found their one true love, and will be with them forever. Having children is a natural expression of that love. This is the nature of the instinct, without which the species would be extinct.

Falling madly in love is an instinct, but relationship skills must be learned.

[ScentOfViolets]

It seems as if you're switching your argument, or that I misunderstood it the first time - are you maintaining that the increase in out-of-wedlock births is primarily due to women not even out of their teens? anne maintains, btw, that an 18-year-old is perfectly capable of making an adult decision on this matter.

[Pair Bonding]

Oh, I am an old man, so youngster is a relative term to me. People in their 20s and 30s are youngsters to me.

[Pair Bonding]

BTW, in ancient times 13 was considered to be adulthood. The needs of the public school system changed the definition. A 13 year old feels the instinct to seek their one true love just as strongly as an 18 year old. Changing the definition does not change the instinct. By their very nature, instincts cannot be changed.

[Fred]

To a degree pair bonding is instinctual. Men and women have paired up since the beginning of humanity. In days of yore, children were primarily raised by their parents. Children observed the successful relationship their parents had, and then copied the process by pairing up themselves.

What is instinctual? Forced upon us by our physiological nature, in the way that eating and breathing are forced upon us? The crazy thing is, you disagree with me at first and then you turn around and agree with me when you say that "children observed". Pair bonding is learned. It was learned by the first humans by observing their monkey parents. It was learned by present humans by observing their parents. Rear any higher mammal in complete isolation and it simply won't pair bond or have sex.

Humans are unlikely to give up sex, marriage and children completely, because those who do will become extinct while those who somehow manage to learn these behavior will not. What we will see is a split between Mormons on the one hand and childless (and possibly sexless) singles on the other. Provided there is a constant migration from the Mormon camp to that of the childless singles, the latter group will not go extinct. The rate of migration tends to be self-reinforcing in either direction, since whichever group dominates will tend to create a society which benefits themselves. That is, a high rate of migration from Mormon to childless may lead to a society with a high proportion of childless singles, which may lead to a society which discriminates against Mormons, thus increasing the migration from Mormon to childless single. Conversely, a low rate of migration may lead to a society which is almost all Mormons and there are powerful pressures against childless singles.

My gut feeling is we will move towards a society of mostly childless singles in the near future, with the Third World supplying our labor needs. Though the Mormons might stage a come-back.

[Pair Bonding]

"Rear any higher mammal in complete isolation and it simply won't pair bond or have sex."

Er, yes, but virtually no one is raised that way. Raise any mammal among its own kind, and the normal instincts will develop. The more advanced brain makes people more dependent upon a prolonged learning experience. If you remove children from their parents at age 5, the pair bonding learning experience is incomplete.

[Fred]

Yeah, well, I had to use an extreme case to prove my point. "Instinctual" is a vague term. There are behaviors that are actually hard-coded into the DNA and hence don't have to be learned (operations at the cell level), there are behaviors which we have to learn or else we die (eating), there are behaviors which we have to learn to stay out of prison, and then there are all sorts of behaviors which we don't have to learn, but which most of us do learn, and which we may be capable of unlearning. Pair-bonding and consumerism both fall into the latter category and conflict to some extent. When you pair bond, you are pulled away from consumerism and vice-versa. Which is why you have the growing phenomenon, throughout the developed world, of young people who don't marry or have children, and are obsessed with sex and relationships and yet don't have sex. Instead of actually engaging in sex with another person, they buy things to make themselves more sexually desireable and then masturbate to satisfy their physiological-based genital itch (which is distinct from any desire to form a pair bond). The learned desire to be a good consumer trumps the learned desire to pair bond.

[anne]

"Well ----, lets look at the African American community."
"Well ----, lets look at the African American community."
"Well ----, lets look at the African American community."
"Well ----, lets look at the African American community."
"Well ----, lets look at the African American community."

"Well ----, lets not.

[Pair Bonding]

The topic was originally out of wedlock births, which is why I opined on the incomplete nature of the modern pair bonding learning experience. It is certainly possible to raise most people so that they never attempt to initiate any type of real relationship with the opposite gender. The Spartans did this by raising all male children out in the field, away from their mothers. However, ubiquitous voluntary out of wedlock births indicates that Americans are attempting to pair bond, but are not succeeding.

[anne]

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=661&Itemid=1

June 18, 2008

Obama Insults Half a Race
By Glen Ford

The Democratic presidential nominee-apparent seldom speaks directly to Black people, but when he does it is usually to denounce individuals once close to him or to criticize The Race in general for some moral failing. Thus it was no surprise that Barack Obama used the occasion of Father's Day to give Black males the back of his hand, no doubt to the delight of millions of potential white supporters. Black males have "abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," said Obama, citing statistics on female-headed households. "You and I know how true this is in the African-American community."

Even the New York Times could see through Obama's transparent bid for white approval at Black people's expense. Reporter Julie Bosman noted that Obama "laid out his case in stark terms that would be difficult for a white candidate to make" - terms (such as boy?) that "his campaign hopes [will] resonate among white social conservatives in a race where these voters may be up for grabs."

In effect, Obama is following an established American electoral tradition of running against Black people....

Can one imagine Obama or any other presidential aspirant repeatedly hectoring any other ethnic group on moral issues? ...

Obama's two young daughters were seated in the church, upfront, to hear their father call other Black men "boys" with no sense of responsibility. Ironically, a key Black rationale for supporting Obama is that he is a great "role model" for Black children....

[Icarus]

I applaud Obama for calling out black men, and as well black women, for having children irresponsibly.

We cannot shy away from all critical commentary on a particular ethnic group, because the likes of anne will shout 'racism'. That ends our ability to have critical dialogue.

Now, black americans are by no means alone in this issue, but, the statistics are stark. 70% + of black children are born out of wedlock, and the subsequent stats for illiteracy, child-crime, stds, and teen pregnancy follow.

What do we do? If irresponsible people have children, they will tend to raise irresponsible children.
And, during this time, those who do raise children responsibly, will tend to raise the children who will succeed in our capitalist economy.

This is the issue...instead of vilifying capitalism, we need to alter the behavior of the irresponsible, and hence those in perpetual states of cyclical poverty.

[anne]

"I applaud Obama for calling out black men, and as well black women, for having children irresponsibly."

Vile lying racist creep.

[dd]

When women have a true choice and are self-supportive they choose to rear children without dominant males and in supportive female-centric environments. Adult males (husbands, teenaged male offspring or Icarus for example) are very difficult to integrate into a fluid family structure as dominant males demand far to much energy and attention which distracts from childrearing. Ask any working woman who has attempted the feat; it matters not the color or the income level.

[anne]

DD

"When women have a true choice and are self-supportive they choose to rear children without dominant males and in supportive female-centric environments."

Quite interesting.

[ScentOfViolets]

Actually, dd, I would put it was women tend to want to have their way . . . every time. And are resentful when they don't get it, and rather than confront the issue head-on, expend a great deal of ingenuity and effort with like-minded females evolving elaborate theories about male inadequacy in a way that reeks of passive-aggression.

But that's just the male counterpart to your version :-)

[Fred]

When women have a true choice and are self-supportive they choose to rear children without dominant males and in supportive female-centric environments.

Amusing, but won't hold up under analysis. First, the evidence is against you. Upper class working women have fewer children out of wedlock, even though these are precisely the women who could afford to do so, especially if joined together with other women in some sort of feminist commune.

A bigger problem comes when you ask why women bother with children. There is nothing about female physiology that causes women to want children. The desire is learned as part of the socialization process. But this same socialization process that makes a woman feel like a failure without children makes her feel like a failure without a husband, without a big house, without the latest fashions, without lots of money, without a high-status job, etc, etc. A woman who has managed to rid herself of the learned desire for a husband has more than likely also rid herself of the learned desire for children. Frequently, the desire is transformed into a desire for cats rather than eradicated completely.

[dd]

Upper class working women use daycare, babysitters and nannies aka a female-centric child-rearing environment.

[ScentOfViolets]

Er, dd, except for the last bit, so does everyone else. And, as it's already been pointed out you, upper-class women have a lower than average out-of-wedlock birth rate.

Care to modify your hypothesis?

FWIW, it looks to me like women are much more likely to hook up with the $60K/yr guys mentioned in the article above than they are with the $20K/yr guys, who get married at one fourth the rate of their wealthier counterparts. Big surprise there.

[Julio]

Obama Insults Half a Race
By Glen Ford
(quoted here by Anne)

I find the article offensive:

"...Barack Obama used the occasion of Father's Day to give Black males the back of his hand..."

Obama was talking about specifics. It defies common sense that he would pick a Black audience to give them "the back of his hand". But this is minor compared to...

"...no doubt to the delight of millions of potential white supporters."

Vile lying racist creep (apologies, couldn't resist).

"Black males have 'abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men,' said Obama, citing statistics on female-headed households. 'You and I know how true this is in the African-American community.'"

Note the application of Obama's quote to Black males in general; in fact Obama referred to absent fathers without reference to race, and the next sentence quoted is the first one to tie this in to the Black community specifically.

"...terms (such as boy?) that 'his campaign hopes [will] resonate among white social conservatives in a race where these voters may be up for grabs.'"

There we have it -- he said "boy". He must be appealing to the most reactionary racist vote. "His campaign hopes"... that the creeps will come out of the woodwork and vote for a Black man. And of course "white social conservatives" in their millions will vote for anyone who says "boy".

"...to hear their father call other Black men "boys" with no sense of responsibility..."

There's the "b" word again. Bad enough that he said "states' rights" in his constitutional law classes, but this nails it -- the guy's appealing to the frustrated lynch mobs.

Anne, you have quoted this guy more than once. IMO, giving him a forum here is a lapse of your usually impeccable judgement. I'd much rather hear your direct opinions about Obama's speech -- I might learn something. I have nothing to learn from this guy.

[anne]

The sense I had at once was that using Father's day to berate fathers was insensitive, focusing on specific fathers by ethnicity was more insensitive. I imagine there are all sorts of parenting problems in the homes together and separate of Irish Catholics, but I know of no more than anecdotal accounts of such problems and I would not care to listen to those anecdotes portrayed stereotypically on Mother's or Father's Day by a candidate for President speaking in a Catholic church in an Irish community.

The criticisms to me were playing to ethnic stereotypes in a demeaning rather than being in any way instructive. The terminology struck me as needlessly and startlingly offensive. But, possibly I should not be surprised because I had already found the terminology in speeches on Latin America and the Middle East needlessly un-diplomatic or belligerent.

Glen Ford's criticisms struck me as right, before I ever knew of such an essay, and I was careful in using Ford's essay.

[anne]

Where the New York Times and Glen Ford spoke of the speech catering to a conservative Anglo community, I found the speech ripe for cementing a sad stereotype and of course the stereotype was carried further in this thread so that the problem becomes the misfortune of allowing people, allowing poorer people, allowing certain poorer people in particular, to become parents.

[anne]

Link the calculation of the Father's Day speech to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?hp&pagewanted=print

June 19, 2008

Obama's Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access
By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit....

[Julio]

Anne,

Thank you.

[anne]

Julio,

Same.

[Holly W.]

According to Jeff Jacoby's recent columns, we should all be grateful that anyone is breeding at all, no matter how "irresponsibly."

[anne]

I would sure like to look at family-structure data and historical changes for the European Union countries.

[christian]

sc. o .violet

i don't get why the men are not responsible. Why the heck aren't you using a condome if you are not in a long term relationship based on mutual trust?
and btw i wouldn't trust a guy, who has left his child behind, when he is saying that he didn't wanted it. Most of them are cowards.

[ScentOfViolets]

Uh, mostly because he has no say in whether or not a pregnancy comes to term? Because even scrupulously applied contraceptives have a non-zero failure rate?

You can turn this around - suppose the female gets pregnant, even though the mail uses birth control, and he thinks that the pregnancy should be continued, while she wants an abortion. Should his wishes over-ride hers?

A little consistency, please.

[christian]

Ok, with proper usage the failure rate of a condom is around 2%. Guess thats simply the risk you have to take for the fun you get. other than that show responsibility.

You assume an even playing field regarding birth, but thats not true. Only the woman have a physical risk during the pregnancy. it is her body who is impacted not the man`s one.
Therefore it is her decision to carry the child or not.

The eventually higher financial burden for the man is a risk worth taking at least for me ;).

[ScentOfViolets]

You're missing the point: The men don't have a say in whether they become a father or not. If a man says this is not the right circumstances to become a parent, and the woman disagrees, and - surprise - that man can't meet his fatherly obligations, for any of a number of reasons, it hardly seems logical to say that it is the man's behavior that needs to be modified, not the woman's.

Bringing a new person into the world needs to be considered very carefully, and one the big points is how well the needs of the child can be attended to. Deciding to have a child, even though one _knows_ the male in question is not up to the taske of fatherhood, and that one cannot count on any support in that direction, strikes me as an extremely poor decision.

[Icarus]

ScentofViolet,

The problem with your opinion (and it does sound barbaric to many) is that you're essentially asking for a female's procreative right to be held hostage to the decision of the male who impregnated her.

That's just not right.

I could, however, explore the idea that a biological father's monetary obligation is reducted. I just don't think there's a legal mechanism to navigate all that.

What gets difficult is the obligation to finance the costs of that child. Progressives want to place that burden on the rest of us...I prefer plans which ask the parent to take responsibility over their decisions.

In this case, if the female has financial capacity, we have no issue. If she doesn't, and doesn't have family or partner support, an abortion or adoption needs to be better managed.

By the way...were you the math instructor...who didn't spend much time in the humanities?

[ScentOfViolets]

My opinion sounds barbaric to many? You've the first one I've seen who has said anything to that effect.

[christian]

"The men don't have a say in whether they become a father or not."

no ScentOfViolets.

you dont need to have sex with a woman if the 2% risk is to high for you. no sex no father. if you do there is a responsibility.

you are saying: I want to have my fun the risk is on you baby.