"Unfortunately family instability remains on the rise, and not just among the poor. Among the nearly 60% of Americans who have completed high school, but do not have a four-year degree, a stunning 44% of children are now born outside of marriage versus 13% in the late 1980s. Among women under 30, 53% of births now occur outside of marriage." (Why intact families are key to shared American prosperity, James Pethokoukis, 2 Jan 2014, American Enterprise Institute, aei-ideas.org)
The ramifications are telling and plentiful. Perhaps no where else is this seen so tragically as in the high school drop out rates. "71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average." (National Principals Association Report)
That dropping out from high school is a top predictor of unemployment and poverty is indisputable.
So how do single parent families fare in employment and poverty studies? "However, only two fifths of single mothers are employed full-time the entire year, and a quarter are jobless the entire year." (http://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/)
"According to a 2010 study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of married couple families living in poverty was 6.2%. For single-parent households in that same year, the poverty rate was 27.3%; for single mother households, the poverty rate was 29.9%." (http://www.policymic.com/articles/11316/27-3-of-single-parent-households-live-in-poverty)
"Poverty rates are much higher for single mother families than for other households. The 42.2%poverty rate for people in single mother families was almost three times the 15.1% rate for the population as a whole, and was more than four times the 10.1% rate for people in married couple families. The 42.2% single mother rate was also much higher than the 25.6% poverty rate for people in single father families." (http://www.ncdsv.org/images/LM_SingleMotherPovertyInTheUS-2010_9-15-2011.pdf)
Thus, poverty rates are shown to be higher in single parent homes. Consequently, it is logical to opine that more single parent families apply for welfare. And, as the following depicts, welfare isn't what it may be thought to be.
"In fact, in 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, or more than 2.75 times the minimum wage." "Poor people aren't stupid. If they can get more from the government than they can from a job, they aren't going to work." "And yet we know that over the long term, a job is better than welfare. Census figures show that only 2.6% of full-time workers are poor, compared with 23.9% of adults who do not work. And, while many anti-poverty activists decry low-wage jobs, even starting at a minimum-wage job can be a springboard out of poverty." (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-get-welfare?gclid=CK2Ggdqw57sCFcKDQgodlxwAMA)
So a vicious circle has been created and directly endorsed by this progressive society. No longer is marriage and the nuclear family viewed as a societal norm, leading to an explosion in single parent (most commonly single mother) households. With the vast majority of high school drop outs originating from single parent homes, it is then logical to see the future poverty population coming from these single parent homes. Yet, in its rush to address what it views as social injustice, the progressives have created a welfare system that actually discourages working. This, in turn, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as the children raised in such homes most often follow in the same pattern (dropping out of high school, incurring low employment/wage-salaries, entering poverty, going on welfare).
Yet, the same numbers illustrating the adverse impact of single parent families can be used to argue for the value and positive influence of the nuclear family. Were the progressive to herald and champion the traditional nuclear family and modify the cycle they created by celebrating the single mother, perhaps in a generation or two we can change societal views and expectations so the nuclear family returns. More children will complete high school and go on to higher education, which we know provides for increased employment, high standards of living, and more stable families. Above most actions, this shift in mindset can arguably lead to improved living standards, higher wages, and lower welfare roles. All of which will address the progressives' concern about "income inequality."
UPDATE 1-13-14
The following supports views regarding the importance of the nuclear family.
"If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States is just the person to take up the cause.
"Marriage inequality" should be at the center of any discussion of why some Americans prosper and others don't. According to Census Bureau information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%."
As the Heritage study states: "The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less."
(http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
No comments:
Post a Comment