Children are "economically worthless but emotionally priceless"

Maybe it just me, but it seems like interwebs are full of pieces about the hassle of children and the growth of childless couples. I used to think I wanted children, but that was when I was in a different relationship status. Now, I don't know what I think about this whole baby thing. Does it make me selfish? Would having children make me happy? Maybe, maybe not. According to a recent article in the New York Magazine...children are making my generation miserable. Oh, the torture of modern life.

From the article:
"From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines."

The whole article reminds of the brilliant book, The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. We continue hold up the family of the past as this relic and something to be admired and achieved. Yet, there are benefits and disadvantages to every new generation of families and it's time that researchers, especially demographers and sociologists, push to examine and define families in a new light. Children don't serve as workers anymore for the family farm, but have became an emotional investment. For some, the emotional investment is just not worth the time or money...but it certainly doesn't make childless people any less worthy or interesting than those with children. It just means that we are forming different types of families and need new definitions and policies to support all groups appropriately. In the mean time, try not to be sad about the children that you do or don't have.

Economists are not the only social scientists

A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal highlights how the social sciences are experiencing a rebirth. Part of this rebirth is due to popular books such as The Tipping Point or Freakonomics.

It's not entirely surprising to me that the article focuses primarily on the gaining popularity of economists. There is little mention of sociology. While much of the research performed by sociologists is easily applicable to everyday issues, sociology still struggles to become more public. Certainly part of blame rests on sociologists themselves. When I was in graduate school the only viable job option was to become a professor. However, I quickly realized that was easier said than done and started to broaden my job search outside of the academy. Sociology departments need to be realistic about the "real" job market available to sociology students. While I don't always agree with economic theory and methods, it always seems easier for the public (and employers) to embrace economists. Sociologists are lovable too, we're just a bit judgmental until we get to know you.

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.

Father Involvement with Children Following Marital and Non-Marital Separations

A paper that I co-authored with Danielle Farrie and Jay Fagan has finally been published in the journal Fathering.

Abstract
Using data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study, the present study examines levels of father involvement with children between married and cohabiting couples post-separation. Differences in father involvement were analyzed using three hypotheses and one research question- repartnering,traditional values, human capital, and relationship quality. Multiple regression analysis revealed that previously cohabitating fathers were more involved with children than previously married fathers, although not all measures of involvement were significantly related to prior marital status. Findings point to several policy implications for low income couples with children.

To cite:
Laughlin, L., Farrie, D., and Fagan, J. (2009). Father Involvement with Children Following Marital and Non-Marital Separations. Fathering, 73(3), 226-248.

The article can be found here.

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.

Conscious and Unconscious Preferences

Project Implicit represents a collaborative research effort between researchers at Harvard University, the University of Virginia, and University of Washington.

At their website you can assess your conscious and unconscious preferences for over 90 different topics ranging from pets to political issues, ethnic groups to sports teams, and entertainers to styles of music.

I took a couple of surveys, and found it interesting and entertaining! Apparently, I would have a nurturing parenting style and have a gendered perception of math skills. Go figure!

Women are teachable

Came across an interesting blog post about women and work issues during World War II. During this time period there were a number of assumptions made about female workers and many companies produced booklets for employers to help them deal with "women issues". My favorite recommendation to employers is to "Avoid horseplay or 'kidding', she may reset it." Check out the full post here.

How times have changed! While women still face a number of obstacles in the workplace, women have made tremendous advances in education which should translate into advances in the workplace. According to the 2007 Current Population Survey, about 33 percent of young women 25 to 29 had a bachelor’s degree or more education, compared with 26 percent of their male counterparts. Also more women are enrolled in college. More than half of undergraduates (56 percent) – as well as 59 percent of graduate students – were women.

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?

The Politics of Food

Check out this fascinating class about the Global Politics of Food offered at St. Cloud State. As part of the class, students created facts sheets about the production and consumption of variety of ordinary items and the actions that can be taken to improve the quality of our food and its impact on our communities.

The Course web site:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/FoodPolitics.htm

2008 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts4/index.html

2007 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts3/index.html

2006 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts2/index.html

2005 Fact Sheets:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/teore/Food/Facts/index.html

Well, I guess this why I am happy!

I recently decided to do away with television. Well, I actually kept my tv, but just use it to watch movies and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. The cost was too much, I am not home enough to watch tv and it gets me out of office talk about last night's episode of Dancing with The Stars.

Well, it turns out that happy people watch less tv and spend more time socializing and going out...this according to researchers at the University of Maryland. While the direction of the relationship is unclear (do people watch tv because they are unhappy or do does tv make people unhappy) I support the idea of less television and more television covers.

What Happy People Don't Do - New York Times

Using my sociological imagination

Greetings researchers, thinkers, data monkeys, and general public!

I work with a lot of data daily and I enjoy learning and commenting on the social world around me. I hope to use this virtual space to post interesting articles, research, social science data, and statistical methods related to sociology and family demography. I hope you enjoy!