Posted on 08. Apr, 2004 by Brian Reid in General
The discussion taking place in the comments section of Tuesday’s post is worth bringing out into the light. Michael of Daddy Designs took issue with my decision to catagorize the U.S. as a not-especially family-friendly country and called my defense of that characterization weak. Later in the comments, Amy made some points I wanted to make, but let me reiterate them here to shore up my argument. For reference, I define a family-friendly policy as one that tends to encourage parent-child time together or improve the health and development of children generally:
In terms of governmental policy toward leave, the U.S. has a less generous policy than any other OECD country, save Australia, where the issue is a hot political topic. Up in Canada, both moms and dads have access to government funded leave. Ditto in Sweden, where dads have special use-it-or-lose-it month of paid leave — a benefit that 80 percent of men take advantage of. In the U.S., by way of contrast, Working Mother Magazine managed to find (in 1997) a grand total of 32 American companies that offered men paid leave.
In France, well-funded and well-regarded preschools are available for every child, and every child is has unfettered access to medical care. Paid maternity leave runs for a year. Not surprisingly — as Amy notes in the comments — this attention to kids shows up in the poverty stats: France has about 6 percent of its children living in poverty. The U.S. number: 17 percent.
That’s the government policy. U.S. companies are notoriously stingy with family-centric benefits.
There is a flip side, as Michael point out. The U.S. has a low tax burden, ample opportunity for entrepreneurship and far less rigid government regulation of business than in other countries. We are the world’s economic development engine, with a rate of unemployment (5.6 percent) far lower than that of France (9.6 percent). But just because the U.S. remains relatively more financially robust than other nation, we are not somehow more family-friendly.
(Thanks to Ann Crittenden, upon whose book — The Price of Motherhood — much of this post is based.)
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
Good job, rd! You have shored up your arguement somewhat. I now understand where you’re coming from a little bit better (sometimes I wish OpEd pieces in the newspaper had a comments section, like this, for when I see weak arguements or blanket statements not backed up).
Just a couple of points to make to help you shore up your argument even more.
1. Go to the census site and look up the poverty stats, and look a little closer. Check out the difference between poverty levels in families with both parents, as opposed to families with one parent. It is striking, and I believe one of the President’s initial policies (pre-9/11) was to “Strengthen Families” by pumping some money toward it.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
2. The 1997 poll from Working Mother Magazine was 7 years ago. I’d be interested in seeing an updated poll now. Although, I do agree that US companies are notoriously stingy when it comes to family benefits. I could take up about 20 of your comment blocks complaining about my employer when my second child was born. They did treat my right when my first child was born, however, they had quite a few set of layoffs in the intervening 2 years.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
3. Don’t get me started on a state-run daycare system. It just reeks of big brother indoctrination. I would prefer my 3 year old, not be exposed to a government mandated curriculum. She can wait until she’s five and, at that, it’s a State of Florida curriculum as opposed to a federal govt curriculum (although I believe the president wouldn’t mind changing that).
4. My main objection to your original post (and subsequent comments) was not defining “family friendly”, and not giving examples of the models we should aspire to.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
This has been a great discussion and you really got me thinking. I think one of the problems with all of the things we have discussed, as it pertains to SAHD’s, is that I basically believe that parents need to make a conscious decision to be part of their children’s lives. I think all of the social economic changes in the world won’t make a difference to parents who really don’t want to be involved anyways, or have other priorities.
Michael Weber
08. Apr, 2004
I think the best thing you do here, is show that there are choices. Children can come first. Sure, it takes some sacrifice. But, there’s always a way. Whether it means, the father or mother staying at home full time; or even working separate shifts. It can be done! So keep up the good work, don’t lose the evangilism and thanks for the shout out! I’ll keep track of my hits from the Rebel Dad shout out!
Hogan Hilling
08. Apr, 2004
Rebel Dad, I support you 100+% - even before your efforts to define what you meant by family-friendly.
Bottom line is that there is much more evidence to show that this country is NOT family-friendly than there is to prove that it is.
Added Note: Being a good parent is not about how much money you make. If that were true, then all the children of parents who make over $100k a year would be perfect parents and have good kids. Well they’re not. Remember the Menendez brothers?
Then there are those parents who earn less than $100K, some who I personally know, who are wonderful parents because they, like my wife, Tina, and I, recognize that the quality of our life as a family is more important than the quality of our family’s lifestyle.
Hogan Hilling
Proud Dad
amy
08. Apr, 2004
Hogan, I’m not sure you even have to cede that much. I think most Americans vastly overestimate how much they have to spend to have a rich lifestyle. It’s a particularly easy delusion to buy into if you’re living on the coasts, where the price of housing and some other basic services is nuts, but even so….
We live on, all told, about $55K after taxes (FICA and state/fed income). Jason pulls the money train with a fulltime job; I have a rental property, and there’s some income from a trust. I’m home with our daughter. Out of that, we pay two mortgages (house, rental), save for retirement (401(k), Roths, nonretirement-fund savings), maintain three months’ emergency cash on hand, save for college, pay off college loans, do home improvements, and cover ordinary living expenses plus monthly pocket money. We own two cars, but as mine’s dying, we’ll ditch it; Jason’s car mostly lives in the driveway anyway.
hang on -
amy
08. Apr, 2004
Amy here again, cont’d: We’re not particularly frugal, but we chose where to live pretty carefully. The town we’re in is a college town fondly known as “the People’s Republic”; it has excellent public services, daycare co-ops, decent public transportation, consciencious city planning, all the crunchy amenities and arts/intellectual goings-on that go with liberal college towns, and relatively low housing costs. If necessary, we could get by on about $25K gross by living in the rental unit and renting out our house (which would of course let us keep both properties).
I lived the high life back in the ’80s, rich Manhattan boyfriend and all, btw. I do know how to spend money on a serious retail scale. It’s really not necessary to a life that’s rich in both tangibles and intangibles.
amy
08. Apr, 2004
and Michael, I’ve unintentionally pointed out above that whether or not a more socialist economy is a good thing depends mightily on what you’re after. Property taxes here are max for the state, but the quality of services and programs means you don’t see a whole lot of poverty going on here, particularly child poverty. I live a few blocks from our projects, and had no idea until a couple years ago that that’s what they are. They’ve got a boffo neighborhood center in there, too, paid for by state taxes.
I’m after a place where we can live well without the two of us being obliged to pull high salaries, and where I can do my work (write, community stuff) undisturbed. This be it. If I were in business strictly for money, this would not be my first choice. Not at all. But it’s not what I’m after. Even as a landlord, I don’t think it’s necessary to gouge tenants. Call me the halfway parasite. =)
amy
08. Apr, 2004
Gotta respond to the “Strengthening Families” bit, too. I am sure the program will help some couples; but I’d predict there are many, many more families that would be better off after a divorce. Financially, no; but when you’re looking at the guy hitting the woman with the kids watching, etc., then I think you’d probably agree that having the woman and kids leave is the better idea. The kinds of changes husbands and wives have to go through — willingly — before abuse like that ends cost more than Bush’s program is willing to spend, I’m guessing. I would also guess that it’s much more difficult to get a couple into the kind of social services that can repair a marriage than it is to get single mothers (usually mothers) into programs that leave them better parents.