To round out our semester, here is a challenge. We've talked at length about families and social policies, and we're aware of how much burden families are under to raise children as citizens and workers. Phillip Longman and David Gray at the New American Foundation have released a short report, "A Family Based Social Contract," which argues that the US "creates more and more disincentives to invest in children, while also undercompensating parents and other caregivers..." One way to think about their argument is to picture a new approach that would shift expenditures in programs and policies (like Social Security) from families without children to families with children. They also mention new approaches to education, housing, and transportation that would ease the burden on families with children.
In the climate for change in Washington under the Obama administration, would this approach result in positive results for families? Would it attract support from both political parties? Why or why not? What are the downsides to such a proposal for a new approach to a social contract?
9 comments:
I think new social policies to ease the financial burden on families would be very positive for the U.S. Our society often says it puts families first but the lack of social programs and policies we have in support of families belie this claim. I agree with Longman and Gray that there appears to be a disincentive to invest in children these days - our cultural ideology is still pro-children and family, but in practice this is not the case. One good example is the undercompensation of child care providers. Childcare providers are one of the lowest-skilled and lowest-paid professions. This sets the tone that we do not value our children or the people whose job it is to care for them. Many parents have to compromise on the quality of care they can give their children because the cost of childcare is so high and it is the best they can afford. The U.S. government could invest in childcare subsidies (indexed by income) for families like industrialized countries in Western Europe (e.g. France). We could also better train and pay childcare workers by subsidizing the cost through the government to ensure better quality care. The U.S. could also mandate employers to offer paid medical, parental, and vacation leave which would also ease the burden on working families. Right now there is only FMLA which is unpaid medical leave, and it only applies to employers with more than 50 employees.
Although it is important to care for the aging population, we cannot let families go by the wayside, and the elderly have strong lobbyists such as the AARP ensuring their needs are addressed. As a whole, children are far more likely to live in poverty than the elderly as well and the only voice they have is that of their equally poor parents. I definitely think shifting resources to families in terms of worker's rights, childcare, education, housing, and transportation investments would create positive results. There would be less of a financial and emotional burden on families which would allow society to thrive and everyone to become better citizens. It could help break the cycle of poverty and lead to productive workers who strengthen the economy. Unfortunately, I do not think such a change would attract support from both sides of the aisle. The Republican platform advocates limited government involvement and conservatives would likely say that these are private concerns that should be handled privately by families. In the U.S. social welfare policies are generally means-tested and stigmatized rather than universal. Therefore those that have the income to deal with such issues may not see the relevance to providing help for everyone else. Until society recognizes that social programs and policies that help families should be fundamental rights like clean water and free primary and secondary education it will be hard to change things. Part of this is because of the U.S.'s individualistic philosophy and fear of socialism.
The only downside I can think of with regard to expanding the social safety net to better address the needs of families is the cost. But the U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world so there is really no excuse to providing, especially given the concern we as a society purport to have over this issue.
I agree with the comment made by blogger .350. They state that while it is important to care for the elderly, it is also very important to care for younger families. These families have the potential to be our economic future. In history, children were seen beneficially in economic terms. In our countries history, families who had many children were better off than those who did not have that many children. Having more children meant more people to do housework, and chores. More children basically meant free labor. While we are in very different times, people’s opinions have changed so much that they article mentions that they now see children as “liabilities rather than assets.” I think that there has never been a better time to seek positive results for families in terms of social contracts. I personally believe that the Obama administration is well equipped in education people of the other side of an opinion, and really getting our country to understand what matters. Obama clearly has a lot of younger supporters, and I believe these are the people that are going to make the difference. They have the potential to let the administration know what matters. I think that if Obama can make the country aware that families with young children are our future people would have a much different view of them.
I am not sure if this idea would attract support from both political parties however. I feel that democrats would be on board with this idea. I think that because this is a more liberal idea republicans may not support it.
Norma Trejo
Blog # 3 A New Social Contract
In the Obama administration with the theme of change, I think the approach of social contract would have positive results because this administration is looking up for the masses in the USA population. I doubt it would attract support from both parties right now the Republicans are against any President’s Obama ideas no matter how good a proposition might be they will not favor it. The history of this country tells that Democratic create legislations for the most needed, even though they can do more than what they have done.
In Mr. Longman and Mr. Gray explanations of A Family-Base Social Contract argue that the help to families with children is very low or none at all. Their article says that the poverty rate among married couple with kids is about 50% higher than among married couples with out kids.
The information in this article makes me think that we parent produce human capital that will benefit this society but we are not receiving too much help to make us to do this job easier. I have three children and I do my best for them to be excellent citizens, so that when they are at the age of productivity they can give something to society. But I find it extremely hard to provide in all the areas to my children I ask to have more resources available for those who chose to do the job of parent of caregivers.
In an n attempt to change certain laws financial aid and welfare laws, the new objective is to rewrite the objectives to the law to properly compensate parents and caretakers. Although this idea seems like a savior and a long time coming, the probability of this successfully happening is slim. It is only slim because of the complexity of each family is totally different. To rewrite a bill to satisfy all of the families that need help would be a hard task. A large percentage of our money already goes toward education, public housing and public transportation. The down side of shifting these policies is the quality of the current policies would decrease if the funds for them were distributed to other things and new policies. How affective would they be in low budget/income areas?
Republicans, who believe and stand for the status quo, would probably say that they would rather keep all the policies the same. They believe that all taxes and stuff should remain the same and wages should be free market. As far as improving policies to help families with children out that political group would probably be anti that.
As far as democrats go, they believe in increasing taxes. They think that the wealthier you are more you should be taxed. They are pro poor so they would be for improving any policies that will encourage help for the poor and proper compensation for parents and care takers. Children are expensive these days and people who are not blessed enough to comfortably provide for theirs should be aided.
Under the Obama administration I think the whole idea of change is important. It seems that the government really only focuses on the retired or Social security and does not have children programs really organized. I think new social policies would be extremely beneficial in easing the financial burdens that families face on a daily basis. The idea that Longman and Gray share, that there is a disincentive in investing in children these days because the elderly is the focus. The elderly have made the most money in the last decade and because of our economy, us recent adults and children will not be benefiting from social security or even society and the government in general. I also agree with what blogger .350 stated in relation to the idea of childcare workers. They are the least educated and the cheapest labor workers that we have in our society. This just goes to show how we really value our children and their generation. I believe that poverty starts from the older generation. Grandparents and parents who may have some money do not seem to focus on raising their children out of poverty. More children are going to be faced with the idea of living in poverty if the elder generations do not do what it takes to help the younger generations succeed. I also agree that children are viewed now a days as liabilities rather than assests and creating new programs would be an excellent idea. Overall, I believe that the younger generations are ment to help the older generations age. Without this help, the older generations would die quickly and we need to have the older generation step up and continue to support the younger generation. There is no room for error and more and more children are falling into poverty. Something needs to be done.
I believe that the overall riding problems in schools in general can be contained to three general aspects; the lack of qualified teachers, the intent of desegregating schools and impossible unattainable tests scores.
Teachers’ reactions when faced with the challenges of inner city schools may be a reflection of how teachers are qualified and the credentials they must meet. I believe a strong component in being an effective teacher; is how compatible a teacher is with her student population. The teacher must be able to relate to her students in order to meet their educational needs and the students must feel comfortable and trusting of their teacher in order for any substantial education to take place.
The teaching profession is primarily composed of white middle class females, who come from middle and upper class upbringings. How then can it be expected that these women be qualified to teach inner city children? There is no amount of formal education that can prepare these teachers to teach in these at-risk schools. Based on my own experience at the University of Maryland, I can understand why the teacher population is composed of such a specific population; the training required to be a “qualified” teacher is extensive and expensive. Aside from the salary disparities, society’s views of males teachers and teachers in general, the rigorous program are only feasible to those who have the time and money to complete the program. The ways to provide qualified teachers may need the adaptation in addition to other changes. If teachers received the training and schooling in conjuncture to teaching, they would have not only an educational support system that would enable them to learn methods to use in the classroom, but also they would receive a salary allowing them the financial support. The educational process for teachers may be lengthier but would be more beneficial to their students and schools.
Although I believe all children should have the same opportunities regardless of their pre-determined status, the goal of “success for every child” is unrealistic. Perhaps it is the definition of success that needs to be re evaluated. Success cannot be defined as earning a six-figure salary and living in a mansion and a luxurious lifestyle; for many success simply means overcoming your current status. Success for one child may be to simply earn the basic skills to earn a job as simple as working at McDonalds. Should this mean that this child is unsuccessful because he or she did not reach the standards of success based on a universal set of standards? The idea of success must be applicable on an individual basis and such must the scores met by each student. Students should be “scored” based on improvement, as considerations based on growth should be taken into consideration. No Child left behind is correct in placing accountability, however the accountability must be widespread and not simply focused on teachers. Certain standards must be met in order to be deemed proficient and granted access to further their knowledge. It is the specificity of each standard that needs to be adjusted as well as the time allotted to meet the standard.
I agree with 340... the ability to write laws that would help the majority of families is very slim, as so many families operate completely differently and have such varied needs. And he or she is write-- how would alternate policies for families shift? Would other policies suffer because so much effort and concentration is being spent on one large policy. Or perhaps would this sort of tax break for families be combined to other policies? Additionally, it is true that most republicans would be against a policy that is supporting tax breaks for families. I think the largest argument which the article did not so much look at however on the conservative side is that these policies may taste something like socialism which makes Americans nervous- especially conservative Americans.
In 340's question to whether the policy would be effective in low income areas- I'm not entirely sure. I think it has the potential to be the most effective in those areas and stir up a lot of change, but I think that putting efforts into solely low income areas would anger a lot of Americans- who don't understand why their tax dollars are being taken from them and distributed to impoverished families.
Yes families should be aided, but how can we even begin to start to mold the attitudes of Americans to believe that money should be invested in families. We are so obsessed with money, with war, and lack seeing the connection between healthy families and a healthy economy/ workforce/ future. I think one of the first steps needs to be educating Americans about how the investment in families leads to an investment in the United States-- I think most people lack that insight. Educating people is the first step in the direction on implementing pro family policies... but right now the implementation of those policies seems a bit far off.
I have actually been in countries and communities where a great deal of money is invested in families and children. While in Israel, in a very religious orthodox community, I noticed that basically all families send their children to private schools (all 8 of their children or more) and facilitate a community where the emphasis is solely of the future generation. There are pros and cons to this sort of set up. Some of the pros are that it sets up a sense of community-- where everyone feels responsible for every one else. Another pro is that children are very well educated. Some cons however, are that some children are still being sent to much better education systems than others- creating a sort of gap. Additionally, while education is of primary importance, other things such as living situations suffer tremendously. Families that are 8 or 9 people live in crammed 2 bedroom apartments and live extraordinarily modestly. Although many families in Israel don't mind this lifestyle, I'm not sure that it would be one that Americans would warm up to.
I think that if any administration were to initiate a tax break for families and an increase in social policies for families it would be the Obama administration. However, I think enacting these policies would be at the risk of losing a great deal of popularity. Already, Obama has been named a socialist-- and I think a policy like this one would certainly motivate many Americans, especially Republican Americans, to label him as such.
I just simply don't see Republicans supporting a policies like this one-- which is a bit strange actually. In our history it has always been Republicans that argue for pro family in the court room, yet it seems when families are born and established, there is little policy that will ease the very difficult task of raising a family. Like other have said, Democrats would be more in favor of a policy like this one. Most Democrats vote in favor of policies that give tax breaks to the poor, and so many Democrats should be supportive of such an idea.
Still-- how do we even begin to change America's value system. How do we confront an image so obsessed with luxury, money, and independence-- how can we begin to persuade others that families are indeed the building blocks for the future in terms of military, health, and the economy?
One thing that struck me in the article is how such a policy would work. Families would get tax breaks when there children graduate from High School- what happens in families when children don't graduate high school? This has the potential to facilitate HUGE problems with families. Additionally, many kids can't graduate high school, not because they aren't smart, but rather because there are obstacles that prevent them from doing so. If we were to enact such tax break policies for families, we would need to create additional policies which would motivate and aid children in graduating.
I believe that the Obama administration would approach the issue of the costs of raising children in a feasible manner. I think that the values of Obama, his family, and his administration would do what they can to help parents with the financial aspect of raising children. Children are the future and need the proper resources and care in order to prosper in the future. Children are innocent and should be well-equipped for the future. I think that those who oppose helping parents with children are not thinking of the children, they are thinking of the decisions that the parents made. Within the report, children were metaphors to pets which I think is a bad analogy. Children are more than just pets or liabilities. The U.S. needs to adopt policies from other countries such as universal health care so parents would not have to pay to have their children delivered in hospitals. I do not believe it is right to use money from families without children to pay for the finances of families with children. It is going to be a hard task for policies to change because the citizens and politicians who do not agree with the issue are set in their own ways of thinking.
Post a Comment