Depending on how you measure it, marriage has and still benefits men

A new report from Pew shows that married women have made large gains in earnings and education, sometimes out earning their husbands. Maybe it's because I have been listening to too much punk rock lately, but this quote about the report really set me off today:

"What's radically changed is that marriage now is a better deal for men," said Richard Fry, co-author of the report, published by the Pew Research Center. "Now when men marry, often their spouse works quite a bit. Often she is better-educated than the guy." In 1970, unmarried men "had a higher economic status than married guys," he said, "but no longer." (Source: Washington Post)

Apparently Mr. Fry hasn't had a chance to review work by Heidi Hartmann or Nancy Folbre, but marriage has traditionally benefited men. Stay-at-home wives/mothers don't earn a "wage" for housework and child care but these acts of emotional labor certainly benefit husbands/fathers. Or maybe Mr. Fry also forgot Arlie Hochschild's work on how working wives not only work an 8-hour day but then come home to work a "second shift" of caring for the house and children.

The amount of time fathers spend on housework and child care has increased in the last few decades, but we are still a long ways off from having balanced families where all responsibilities are equally shared. As I see it, neither wives or husbands are gaining as the average family struggles to find affordable housing, must endure long commutes to work, and face an insufficient social welfare system that does not value ALL types of families.

I have a crush on an economist.

It's true, I have a undeniable crush on an economist. I usually find most economists undesriable because of their strict adherence to economic models that don't allow for irrational thoughts or behavior. But this economist is different. Oh Peter Orzsag, you had me at your first power-point slide at the recent National Academies meeting on the federal statistical system.

Orszag is the director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Basically, he's the budget guy for the entire federal government. He has also held positions with the Congressional Budget Office and the Brookings Institution.

Apparently, I am not alone. He's clearly a smart and accomplished individual and it's no surprise that he has developed a following. However, my crush on him is mostly academic. Dr. Orszag was invited to the National Academies meeting to discuss the importance of the national statistical system. He spoke of the important of having good data in order to make informed policy decisions. Programs that have measured outcomes should be evaluated and funded if they meet their stated goals. Whereas programs that don't have measurable outcomes should be cut (i.e. abstinence only programs). Yes, all fine and dandy, but Dr. Orszag had me at his mention of the importance of sociology. My most basic problem with economists is their reliance on equations that assume that individuals make rational decisions. Models of human action must also take into account sociological and psychological characteristics. While most of us would like to think we act rationally 100 percent of the time, it is highly unlikely we do. Our decisions regarding food, housing, education, employment, family, etc. often are the result of socioeconomic differences and personal desires. In his talk, Orszag highlighted how economics could learn a lot from the other social scientists. Decisions regarding health care, employment, child care, and education can not be made using simple economic models. They are issues that will require a holistic approach if we are going to truly make any kind of difference. My crush on Orszag aside, with the economy in crisis, it is reassuring that a well-rounded economist is over seeing the national budget.

Younger women saying yes to motherhood?

There has been a lot of press about the slight decline in the average age at which women are having their first baby. In 2006, the average age fell to 25.0 from 25.2 in 2005. The author of the article (see below) rightly points out that a one year decline does not represent a trend. It will be interesting to see what the new data shows and how the downturn in the economy may affect the choice to join the mommy club.

***********************************************************************************

No Waiting: Younger Women Are Saying Yes to Motherhood
By Sue Shellenbarer
Wall Street Journal

For nearly 40 years, women have been delaying childbirth longer and longer, partly to launch careers. Now, this trend may be ending.

For the first time since government records have been kept, the average age at which women have their first babies posted a decline -- according to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Mothers' mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. Women ages 20 to 24 led the shift, with a 5% increase in the rate of first births.

A one-year reversal doesn't make a trend, of course. But the study lends weight to anecdotal evidence that young women are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks. "It's the first time it's ever gone down, and certainly that's noteworthy," says Brady Hamilton, co-author of the study.

Other factors are at work too, including rising numbers of Hispanics, who tend to start families sooner, says Steven Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. A 4% rise in the rate of first births to older teens, ages 15 to 19, is also playing a role. And the sheer size of the baby boomlet generation, now entering the child-bearing years, may be skewing new mothers' mean age lower.

But some experts also see a shift in attitudes. More young women today just assume they'll have both a career and a family, and on their own timetable, says Stephanie Coontz, director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families. Young women feel less compelled to spend a decade proving themselves on the job before kids, she says.

Sarah Distel, an at-home mother in Oxford, Ohio, and her husband, Christopher, a research technician, had their two children, now 1 and 3, in their mid-20s. Ms. Distel, a college graduate, sees her generation as unique. "We weren't fighting for careers like the older generation. It was something we take for granted," she says. After watching the struggles she has seen older moms face juggling established careers and child-care, Ms. Distel has decided to wait to launch her own planned career in library administration until her children are in school.

Candace Parker, the biggest star in women's basketball, shocked league officials and fans last month by announcing she was pregnant -- at the age of 22. If anyone had a career reason to defer child-bearing, Ms. Parker did; she was the 2008 league MVP and Rookie of the Year for the Los Angeles Sparks and had become the face of the sport in various marketing campaigns.

But after years spent striving to please others, says Ms. Parker, who is married to Sacramento Kings forward Shelden Williams, "this decision obviously was for myself and my husband and my family." Ms. Parker's parents were in their 30s when she was born, and "I kind of missed out" on shooting hoops with her dad and other shared play, she says. She wants her children to have the benefit of young parents.

Close bonds with their own grandparents are important to young women, too. Heather Allen of St. Cloud, Minn., an art teacher whose husband is still in college, had her first baby at 21. She wants her children, now 4 and 1, to know their great-grandmother, 76; she considers extended family "part of the village" it takes to raise a child.

It's unclear whether the country's current economic woes will affect the move toward younger child-bearing. Historically, recessions have reduced family size, but their impact on the age at which women start families is less clear. In any event, Dr. Martin says, "demographers will continue paying very close attention" to whether a cultural sea change is under way.

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com

Trouble paying the Mistress?

Having trouble paying your mistress? Well, apparently you are not alone. Interesting post in the Wall Street Journal detailing a new survey showing that 80 percent of multimillionaires with mistresses plan on cutting back on gifts and allowances. Who knew there was such a survey! I would love to see exact wording of the "mistress question". Follow link below for full post.

Rich Cut Back on Payments to Mistresses

Action: Gender Equity and the Obama Stimulus Package

A few weeks ago there was an editorial written by Randy Albelda aboutthe lack of gender equity in the stimulus package as proposed by theObama administration - and the need to invest in the care sector/human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure. A similar op-ed by Linda Hirschman recently appeared in the NYT

Below is a letter composed by a group of feminist historians urging Obama to consider gender equity in his construction of the stimulus package. They would like to gather signatures for the letter - please take a minute to read. To sign on, please send an email with your name and affiliation to Alice O'Connor: aoconnor@history.ucsb.edu Please respond NO LATER THAN 5pm (PST) Monday December 15. Please forward to others.

********************************************************************************

Dear President-elect Obama,

As students of American history, we are heartened by your commitment to a jobs stimulus program inspired by the New Deal and aimed at helping "Main Street." We firmly believe that such a strategy not only helps the greatest number in our communities but goes a long way toward correcting longstanding national problems.

For all our admiration of FDR's reform efforts, we must also point out that the New Deal's jobs initiative was overwhelmingly directed toward skilled male and mainly white workers. This was a mistake in the 1930s and it is a far greater mistake in the 21st century economy, when so
many families depend on women's wages and when our nation is even more racially diverse.

We all know that our country's infrastructure is literally rusting away. But our social infrastructure is equally important to a vibrant economy and livable society, and it too is crumbling. Investment in education and jobs in health and care work shores up our national welfare as well as our current and future productivity. Revitalizing the economy will require better and more widespread access to education to foster creative approaches and popular participation in responding to the many challenges we face.

As you wrestle with the country's desperate need for universal health insurance, we know you are aware that along with improved access we need to prioritize expenditure on preventive health. We could train a corps of health educators to work in schools and malls and medical offices. As people live longer, the inadequacy of our systems of care for the disabled and elderly becomes ever more apparent. While medical research works against illness and disability, there is equal need for people doing the less noticed work of supervision, rehabilitation and personal
care.

We are also concerned that if the stimulus package primarily emphasizes construction it is likely to reinforce existing gender inequities. Women today make up 46 percent of the labor force. Simple fairness requires creating that proportion of job opportunities for them. Some
of this can and should be accomplished through training programs and other measures to help women enter traditionally male-occupied jobs. But it can also be accomplished by creating much-needed jobs in the vital sectors where women are now concentrated. The most popular programs of the New Deal were its public jobs. They commanded respect in large part because the results were so visible: tens of thousands of new courthouses, firehouses, hospitals, and
schools; massive investment in road-building, reforestation, water and sewage treatment, and other aspects of the nation's physical plant--not to mention the monumental Golden Gate and Triborough Bridges, the Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams. But the construction emphasis discriminated against women. At best women were 18% of those hired and, like non-white men, got inferior jobs. While some of the well-educated obtained jobs through the small white-collar and renowned arts programs, the less well educated were put to work in sewing projects, often at busy work, and African American and Mexican American women were slotted into domestic service. This New Deal policy assumed that nearly all women had men to support them and underestimated the numbers of women who were supporting dependents.

Today most policy-makers recognize that the male-breadwinner-for-every-household assumption is outdated. Moreover, experts agree that, throughout the globe, making jobs and income available to women greatly improves family wellbeing. Most low-income women, like men, are eager to work, but the jobs available to them too often provide no sick leave, no health insurance, no pensions and, for mothers, pay less than the cost of child care. The part-time jobs that leave mothers adequate time to care for their children almost never provide these benefits.

Meanwhile the country needs a stronger social as well as physical infrastructure. Teachers, social workers, elder and child-care providers and attendants for disabled people are overwhelmed with the size of their classes and caseloads. We need more teachers and
teachers' aides, nurses and nurses' aides, case workers, playground attendants, day-care workers, home care workers; we need more senior centers, after-school programs, athletic leagues, music and art lessons. These are not luxuries, although locality after locality has had to cut them. They are the investments that can make the U.S. economically competitive as we confront an increasingly dynamic global economy. Like physical infrastructure projects, these jobs-rich investments are, literally, ready to go.

A jobs-centered stimulus package to revitalize and "green" the economy needs to make caring work as important as construction work. We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges, the social connections that create cohesive communities. We need a stimulus program that is maximally inclusive. History shows us that these concerns cannot be postponed until big business has returned to "normal." We look to the new administration not just for recovery but for a more humane direction-and in the awareness that what happens in
the first 100 days and in response to immediate need sets the framework for the longer haul of reform.

Child Child and Hard Economic Times

Facing economic uncertainty, families are cutting back on costs left and right. One expense that families are cutting back on is child care (see Wall Street Journal article below).

Research has shown that when there is an economic recession, fathers are more likely to provide child care (see Casper and O'Connell 1993). It will be interesting to see if the same trend occurs during the current recession. The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) collects child care data and the 2008 panel will be in the field later next year, so it might be possible to pick up on such a trend. Can't wait to get my hands on the data!


Families Cut Back on Day Care As Costs - and Worries - Rise

By SUE SHELLENBARGE

Behind the drumbeat of grim economic news, a lot of quiet shuffling is going on as parents pull small children out of paid child care.

Enrollment at some child-care centers is falling and nanny agencies are reporting mounting layoffs as families cut child-care costs -- which rival mortgage payments in many households. An October online survey by the women's Web site BettyConfidential.com found that 12% of 100-plus parents who responded are cutting child care.

Some parents are tapping grandparents or even great-grandparents for help. Others are switching to back-to-back shifts to trade off child-care duties. Still others try to work at home with their children present, or even take them to the office. And many wonder just how deeply they can cut child-care costs without hurting the kids.

Caroline Fafara's 3-year-old son and infant twins used to be in a child-care center full-time. But now, facing soaring food and health-insurance costs and pay cuts on her husband's city job, Ms. Fafara has withdrawn the twins and cut her son's preschool hours to part-time. Filling the gap: an elaborate three-generation scaffolding of relatives.

Ms. Fafara, an inventory manager in Philadelphia, drops off her son at preschool each day and her husband takes the twins to his grandparents' house, where his cousin helps care for them. After preschool, Ms. Fafara's parents bring her son to their house. Then, the couple picks everyone up at day's end. While she's immensely grateful for the help, says Ms. Fafara, all the shuttling around can be hard.

Some 40% of grandparents who live near young grandchildren are regularly providing child care, according to an August survey of 500 grandparents by the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies. While research shows leaving a baby or toddler with grandparents can be good for them, the trend isn't without its costs. Although Mayra Montano, of Los Angeles, is happy to care for her daughter's three children, her husband was recently laid off and she needs to look for a job herself now. "I'm getting sick from all the stress," she says.

Job hunting without child care can be tough. After losing his job in an aluminum plant last week, Kevin Eaton of Morehouse, Mo., withdrew his 4-year-old daughter from preschool and is doing his best to care for her, preparing meals and keeping her at home during a cold snap. But he already missed out on one job opening after other applicants showed up at the plant to apply in person, he says. Juggling bills, child care and a job hunt, Mr. Eaton -- whose wife works full-time -- describes his state of mind as "confusion."

Other parents are giving up family time. Devorah Hicks, a Hatboro, Pa., teacher, says her husband, a supervisor for an airline, chose to work 10-hour shifts through the weekend so they could cut their toddler's child-care time to two days a week from three. While this is helping save money in case of a layoff, "it's hard not having a full day" together, she says.

All this tends to be hardest on the parents. There's little evidence that changing child care, in and of itself, hurts children, says James Griffin, a deputy chief at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. An institute study of 1,100 children found stability of child care had little predictive impact on development.

Experts cite just three "don'ts." First, try to avoid taking preschoolers out of group care entirely, says Deborah Lowe Vandell, chairwoman of the education department at the University of California, Irvine. Some preschool experience aids development starting around age 2½.

Second, avoid placing a child with someone who isn't warm, caring or responsive, says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute; that bond with the caregiver matters most.

Finally, parents should guard against their stress spilling over onto children. "Think of them as listening and reading, if not your words, then your feelings," Ms. Galinsky says. Transitions can be positive, if you think of them "as teaching your children to venture out" and learn new skills.

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com

Sociologists and the economy

The economy is collapsing, but we have heard little from sociologists about what the current financial crisis will mean for millions of Americans. While economists tend to be somewhat narrow in their evaluation of the economy and consequences, sociologists could offer a discussion that is more meaningful to the general public by discussing issues such as race, class, education, and gender outcomes and the future of the American middle class. See the excellent post below from Ron Anderson at the Contexts Blog.


From the Contexts Blog:

Where are the sociologists in a time of financial crisis?

by Ron Anderson on Dec 07, 2008 at 6:56 pm

During the past year 1.9 million Americans lost their jobs, with almost a third of those losing them last month. When the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released these numbers this week, one of the Bureau’s commissioners said the report was probably the most negative report in BLS’s 124 year history.

Meanwhile this year over 2 million houses went into foreclosure. Many of those losing their homes did not lose their jobs; they were at least somewhat fortunate. But the firings and foreclosure together affected over 3 million workers.

In the past year while the stock markets fell by nearly 50%, my retirement savings dropped 25%. I would imagine that most sociologists felt equivalent personal financial losses this year. Even those putting their savings in “fixed income” retirement funds have lost money because of the collapse of the bond markets.

Despite the huge magnitude of this economic trauma, sociologists appear to be silent about the financial crisis. The American Sociological Association’s newsletter, Footnotes, has not mentioned the crisis nor is it a special topic of the forthcoming annual convention. It is even scarcely mentioned in Contexts magazine’s blogs. Isn’t there a big enough hurt yet to talk about?

This month, after economists have begun comparing our current financial crisis to the great depression, the government finally admitted that the United States economy was in a recession. Ironically, they also added that we had been in a state of economic recession for 12 months.

Sociologists, like the American government, have not told the public anything about the financial crisis. Wait, isn’t that criticism a bit unfair? After all, it takes at least a year or two, if not three, to conduct a thorough study. But have we not learned what social effects resulted from previous economic recessions and depressions? Maybe. It is difficult to find discussions in the sociological literature on this topic.

About the only one discussing the sociological effects of the current recession is David Brooks, a journalist who writes Op-Ed Columns for the New York Times. Last month in “The Formerly Middle Class”, he wrote that those on the low rungs of the middle class are those for whom the recession is the most catastrophic. “Recessions breed pessimism,” he wrote, and he claimed that millions of Americans, to say nothing of the billions in the developing world, are “facing the psychological and social pressures of downward mobility.”

Career reversals and job loss yields serious self-doubt, he argued. For the formerly middle-class, housing reversals mean returning from suburban dream homes to run-down apartments, to paraphrase David Brooks’ message.

Brooks’ most interesting theories have to do with social capital and social identity. Quoting Robert Putnam, he argues that economic depression yields social isolation because people have to stay home more and their community bonds break up. In fact, the history of our great depression shows that suicide rates and divorce rates went up while birth rates went down.

These predictable trends yield alienation and social protest, and therefore Brooks predicts that the next big social movements will start from the formerly middle class.

Much of this analysis is conjecture, but isn’t it more relevant than any other sociological topic these days? Economic forecasters share the hunch that the economy will continue to worsen for at least a year. It is very likely that most of us in the middle class will have lost half of the value of our assets before the recession is over. Few will not face sacrifices, struggles and maybe even suffering during the years ahead. What can sociology say now, not next year, to help us understand better what is happening so that we can get through this with greater understanding, and compassion for ourselves as well as for others?

Required reading for the auto industry

For anyone who wants to understand why the American car industry has been a failure for so long, I highly recommend The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production.

This book has forever shaped how I view the car industry and manufacturing. The main lesson that I learned was that American companies are slow to implement change and fail to plan ahead.

Description from Amazon.com:

Based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's five-million-dollar, five-year study on the future of the automobile, a groundbreaking analysis of the worldwide move from mass production to lean production.

Japanese companies are sweeping the world, and the Japanese auto industry soars above the competition. Drawing on their in-depth study of the practices of ninety auto assembly plants in seventeen countries and their interviews with individual employees, scholars, and union and government officials, the authors of this compelling study uncover the specific manufacturing techniques behind Japan's success and show how Western industry can implement these innovative methods. The Machine That Changed the World tells the fascinating story of "lean production," a manufacturing system that results in a better, more cost-efficient product, higher productivity, and greater customer loyalty. The hallmarks of lean production are teamwork, communication, and efficient use of resources. And the results are remarkable: cars with one-third the defects, built in half the factory space, using half the man-hours. The Machine That Changed the World explains in concrete terms what lean production is, how it really works, and--as it inevitably spreads beyond the auto industry--its significant global impact.

LOL Cats and the Economy

New blog via Slate featuring the LOL cats and commentary about the slumping economy. Brilliant. Apparently the author of the blog is accepting photos. Anyone that can make a reference to the economy using Adam Smith and cats is just hot in my book! (Thanks Bri!)

Adam Smith Appears The Big Money

Posted using ShareThis

What would a 21st Century Economic Depression look and feel like?

The Boston Globe has an interesting article discussing what a economic depression would look like in 2009. For most of us, we've only heard stories or seen pictures of the Great Depression. My father was born during the depression (1935) on a farm in Nebraska. His mother and father (my grandparents) were hit especially hard by the economic downturn of the 1930s and never really ever got over it. My grandparents house had a fully stocked kitchen because they never wanted to go hungry again. My grandmother would also stocked up on shoes, because she often went without shoes as a child and during other hard economic times and vowed to never go with out shoes again in her life. When my grandmother passed away earlier this year, my father found boxes upon boxes of brand new shoes through out her house. My father also tends to stock up on certain items, but not to the extent that my grandmother did.

Family stories and the Globe article got me wondering about how will Americans react if a true economic depression were to happen. Bennett suggests that while we might not see long soup lines or an people jumping from buildings, we will probably see an increase in lines at the ER, more people will stay home and watch tv (leading to a television boom), emptying suburbs, and people will shop more at Walmart and Target.

Prehaps the most interesting result of a 21st century economic depression would be the "desurburbanzation" of America. If home prices continue to sink, homeownership will become less appealing and individuals may find living in the city and better economic investment because commuting costs are cheaper and access to services would be greater. While this would benefit some cities, urban places like Detroit could just disappear.

While the numbers that will likely come out in the coming year regarding poverty, use of government programs such as food stamps, unemployment and so on, will provide further evidence of declining American economy, it will be interesting to see how generations of Americans who have never experienced a depression will react. Do we know how to tighten our belts and how to live with less? Will families take to gardening again and learn to live all together? Only time will tell.