Free markets vs. family values

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We hear a great deal these days about the twin virtues of a free market and family values, as if the two went hand in hand. Reasoning about the connection seems to go like this: The freer the market, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more money. The more money, the stronger the family. And to free the market, the U.S. needs to cut taxes; privatize such things as public parks, libraries and schools; deregulate business; and cut public services such as Pell grants to help fund college, Medicaid and food stamps.

Cutting taxes for the top and services for the bottom may widen the gap between classes for a time, advocates acknowledge, but in the end family values will be served. Some economists argue that these policies don't make more jobs and may actually reduce them. But, leaving that debate aside, do free-market policies make for strong families?

One way to answer this question is to compare kids in nations that have aggressively embraced free-market policies with kids in nations that have not. The 2007 UNICEF "Report Card 7" does just that.

To compare the health, education, emotional and material well-being of children in 21 economically advanced nations, an international team of researchers looked at such indicators as whether children ate dinner with the family, had someone to talk to, were susceptible to accidents.

They reported the highest ratings of well-being among children living in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark — nations that, far more than we, tax the rich, regulate industry and provide such public services as paid parental leave, art subsidies and excellent public schools.

The lowest overall rank went to nations pursuing the strongest free-market agenda: the U.S. and Britain, both of which ranked in the bottom third for five of the six key dimensions of child well-being. The U.S. ranked dead last among these 21 affluent countries in child poverty and second to last in "family and peer relationships" and "behaviors and risks." The likelihood of a child skipping breakfast, of becoming fat, of smoking pot, of a teenage girl getting pregnant — on all these measure, the U.S. and Britain ranked worse than nearly all the other nations.

Much of the difference, the researchers suggest, can be traced to the availability of public services. A 2010 follow-up study, UNICEF "Report Card 9," reported the same bad news: The U.S. ranked 23rd out of 24 nations in the proportion of its children in poverty, beating out Slovakia, which came in last. We ranked 19th out of 24 in educational performance, and 22nd out of 24 in child health.

more...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I love how these 'tests' magically think that if some massive socialist system in the United States was in place that we'd be 100x better according to THEIR surveys.

Please. Spare us. Being better is 'relative' at the end of the day and most of these surveys are created by people who either A) are from outside the United States and jealous. or B) are inside the United States and were unsuccessful in their own lives and need to make an excuse for it. Usually an excuse that will get them more government cheese for another 'study' on the same subject.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm thinking only the writer and Steve try to make the connection between "free markets and family values".... I have heard this link spoken of before in fact, many on the right blame the free trade side of free markets with destroying a large portion of manufacturing jobs... which has stressed the family.

I think peeps like steve and this writer have a point to make and will invent any vehicle they can to present it.

[james&olya 1,121]

Please. Spare us. Being better is 'relative' at the end of the day

We're #1 in child poverty!! Hurrah!!

[Danno 1,228]

We're #1 in child poverty!! Hurrah!!

When was the last time a child died of malnutrition, in this land of poverty?

[rocks 494]

When was the last time a child died of malnutrition, in this land of poverty?

They have to die before this is a serious problem?

Read this.

"Basically, other countries do more," he said. "They tend to have minimum wages that are higher than ours. The children would be covered universally by health insurance. Other countries provide more child care."

...

"Shortly after he became prime minister in 1997, Tony Blair found himself staring at a UNICEF report similar to this new one, except that England's child poverty ranking was much higher."

...

"The Labour Party spent more on these programs, even as the U.S. spent less, and within five years the number of children living in "absolute poverty" in the U.K. had fallen by half. According to the UNICEF report, 12.1 percent of British children now live in relative poverty -- nearly half the percentage of American children."

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I love how these 'tests' magically think that if some massive socialist system in the United States was in place that we'd be 100x better according to THEIR surveys.

Please. Spare us. Being better is 'relative' at the end of the day and most of these surveys are created by people who either A) are from outside the United States and jealous. or B) are inside the United States and were unsuccessful in their own lives and need to make an excuse for it. Usually an excuse that will get them more government cheese for another 'study' on the same subject.

Hold on a second. How is it you say we are doing great when it serves the purpose of your point, but doing so poorly when that position suits your agenda too? Inquiring minds want to know! Which is it???

[lostinblue 1,989]

We're #1 in child poverty!! Hurrah!!

The number one cause of child poverty ...... single unwed mothers.

[Danno 1,228]

They have to die before this is a serious problem?

:Die? thats rather laughable, the fattest groups of children in this country are those considered "in poverty".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The number one cause of child poverty ...... single unwed mothers.

Actually, it's the other way around.

For teen moms, it's poverty, then baby

By Matthew Yglesias

Delivering the commencement address at Liberty University, Mitt Romney naturally stuck primarily to "family values" and religious themes. He did, however, make one economic observation that intersects with some fascinating new research. "For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child," he said, "the probability that they will be poor is 2 percent. But if (all of) those things are absent, 76 percent will be poor."

These are striking numbers, but surprising new evidence indicates that Romney and others have it backward: Having a baby early does not hamper a woman's economic prospects, as he implies. Rather, young women become mothers because their economic outlook is so objectively bleak.

The problem of teen/single/unwed motherhood is one of the relatively few issues liberals and conservatives seem to be able to agree on these days. The right is more likely to pitch the issue in terms of marital status ("single moms") and the left in terms of simple age ("teen moms"). But both sides reach the same basic conclusion. Raising a child without help from a partner is very difficult. Doing it at an early age is going to substantially disrupt one's educational or economic life at a critical moment, with potentially devastating consequences for one's lifetime. Therefore, preventing early nonmarital pregnancies (whether through liberal doses of contraception and sex education, or the conservative prescription of abstinence cheerleading) would seem universally desirable.

But perhaps we're approaching the problem from the wrong direction, according to Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine in a new paper "Why is the Teen Birth Rate in the United States So High and Why Does It Matter?" published in the spring issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

They conclude that "being on a low economic trajectory in life leads many teenage girls to have children while they are young and unmarried and that poor outcomes seen later in life (relative to teens who do not have children) are simply the continuation of the original low economic trajectory."

In other words, it is a mistake to the leap from the observation that women who gave birth as teenagers are poor to the view that they're poor because they gave birth. Women with better economic opportunities tend to do a good job of avoiding childbirth.

Kearney and Levine used data on miscarriages to isolate the impact of giving birth from background characteristics that may contribute to a decision to give birth. When used this way as a statistical control, the negative consequences of teen childbirth appear to be small and short-lived. Young women who gave birth and young women who miscarried have similarly bleak economic outcomes. Similarly, when you compare teen mothers not to the general population but to their own sisters who aren't teen moms "the differences are quite modest."

The researchers also discovered that very few policies appear to affect teen birth rate, including abortion policies and sex ed. (Although stingier welfare benefits do appear to cut birthrates a bit.) What really causes birthrates to vary are demographics and state-level economic variables. In particular, teen girls whose mothers have little education are much more likely to give birth than girls with better-educated mothers. Even more interesting is the way that economic inequality amplifies nonmarital births to teen moms. In particular, "women with low socioeconomic status have more teen, non-marital births when they live in higher-inequality locations, all else equal."

The measure of inequality used here is not the fabled gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent, but the gap between the median income and incomes at the 10th percentile. It measures, in other words, the gap between poor people and the local typical household. It may be a proxy for how plausible it would be for a girl from a low-income household to rise into the middle class. The more difficult that rise seems, the more births there are to unmarried teens.

The upshot is that teen motherhood is much more a consequence of intense poverty than its cause. Family life seems to follow real economic opportunities. Where poor people can see that hard work and "playing by the rules" will reward them, they're pretty likely to do just that. Where the system looks stacked against them, they're more likely to abandon mainstream norms. Those who do so by becoming single teen moms end up fairing poorly in life, but those bad outcomes seem to be a result of bleak underlying circumstances rather than poor choices.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nothing a forced sterilization program couldn't resolve within a decade or two.

[rocks 494]

:Die? thats rather laughable, the fattest groups of children in this country are those considered "in poverty".

You were the one who made the comment, I also thought it was laughable.

When was the last time a child died of malnutrition, in this land of poverty?

Remember?

So if they get diabetes and have to have their legs amputated, that's ok because they didn't die? I'm confused by your mixed messages.

[Danno 1,228]

You were the one who made the comment, I also thought it was laughable.

If my question "when was the last time a child died of hunger" was laughable ... why not name the year?

If you want to know what real poverty looks like let me know, The rest of the world laughs at you lefties crying about poverty over here.... answer them with the facts if you have them.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www3.uakron.edu/schulze/401/readings/singleparfam.htm

Single-parent Families in Poverty

Jacqueline Kirby, M.S.

The Ohio State University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most striking changes in family structure over the last twenty years has been the increase in single-parent families. In 1970, the number of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 was 3.8 million. By 1990, the number had more than doubled to 9.7 million. For the first time in history, children are more likely to reside in a single-parent family for reasons other than the death of a parent. One in four children are born to an unmarried mother, many of whom are teenagers. Another 40 percent of children under 18 will experience parental breakup.

Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.

[rocks 494]

If my question "when was the last time a child died of hunger" was laughable ... why not name the year?

If you want to know what real poverty looks like let me know, The rest of the world laughs at you lefties crying about poverty over here.... answer them with the facts if you have them.

What you said was "When was the last time a child died of malnutrition". Malnutrition and hunger are two very separate subjects. If you want facts about poverty, here are some facts. Make sure you read them this time.

The latest edition of UNICEF's report on child poverty in developed countries found that 30 million children in 35 of the world's richest countries live in poverty. Among those countries, the United States ranks second on the scale of what economists call "relative child poverty" -- above Latvia, Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, and 29 others. Only Romania ranks higher, with 25.5 percent of its children living in poverty, compared with 23.1 percent in the U.S.

The term "relative child poverty" refers to a child living in a household where the disposable income is less than half of the national median income.

...

"Basically, other countries do more," he said. "They tend to have minimum wages that are higher than ours. The children would be covered universally by health insurance. Other countries provide more child care."

CIA World Factbook - United States

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48,100.

Child Poverty

Nearly 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $22,050 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 42% of children live in low-income families.

Most of these children have parents who work, but low wages and unstable employment leave their families struggling to make ends meet. Poverty can impede children’s ability to learn and contribute to social, emotional, and behavioral problems. Poverty also can contribute to poor health and mental health. Risks are greatest for children who experience poverty when they are young and/or experience deep and persistent poverty.

Wealth report reveals richest states, poorest states

At the bottom is Mississippi with a staggering poverty rate of 21.3 percent. Mississippi also has the lowest median household income at $36,850

Obesity and Overweight Prevalence among a Mississippi Low-Income Preschool Population: A Five-Year Comparison

Mississippi, a southern state with the highest level of poverty, had the highest adult obesity rates in the USA at 33.8%. In addition, 44.4% of Mississippi children aged 10–17 years of age self-reported as overweight or obese in the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health versus the national rate of 31.6%. More recent measured estimates of Mississippi Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) obesity and overweight rates in 2009 indicated a combined rate of 23.9%, not significantly different from the 2007 combined rate of 23.5%.

Malnutrition

It is possible to eat a diet high in calories but containing few vitamins and minerals. This means you can become malnourished, even though you might also be overweight or obese. Being malnourished does not always mean that you are skinny.

Poor and fat

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recently published a study that found $1 could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips but just 250 calories of vegetables and 170 calories of fresh fruit. And it is also true that Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, is also the fattest.

In fact, the five poorest states are also among the 10 fattest, and eight of the 10 poorest states are also among the 10 with the lowest life expectancy.

I guess one could dismiss this as one big coincidence, but is it also a coincidence that half of the top 10 states with the highest median incomes are also in the top 10 in life expectancy?

...

just as there is a link between education and poverty, there appears to be a correlation between poverty and health.

ACT 2010 Condition of College & Career Readiness - Mississippi is ranked bottom in every category.

State Education Data Profiles - Mississippi is far below the national average.

Mississippi Losing The War With Obesity

The problem is most pronounced in the Mississippi Delta — the flat, fertile flood plain fed by the Mississippi River. It's a region with a history as rich as the soil, but with deeply rooted social problems.

In Holmes County, for instance, nearly half the residents live in poverty. And not only is it the state's poorest county; it's also the heaviest. Four out of 10 people in Holmes County are obese. And you see it all around — large kids lumbering to get on the school bus, patients spilling over their seats in the doctor's waiting room.

Dr. David Gilder in Tchula, Miss., frequently sees patients with problems related to obesity — diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure.

The Health Effects of Overweight and Obesity

Coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides), Stroke, Liver and Gallbladder disease, Sleep apnea and respiratory problems, Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint), Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility).

Childhood Obesity Facts

Long-term health effects: Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Diabetes Tops Child Obesity's Health Risks

Closely linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes was once so rare among children that it was called adult onset diabetes. According to the AAP Executive Committee on Endocrinology and doctors nationwide, health professionals are seeing many 12- and 13-year-olds with type 2 diabetes.

Doctors estimate that half of overweight kids will grow up to be overweight adults. Once they've been heavy for many years, experts say, they're at risk for diseases that doctors usually see in people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Chronic Disease Fact Sheet

Cardiovascular Disease is the leading cause of death in Mississippi. 10,195 Mississippians died from CVD in 2007, accounting for 36% of all deaths.

Mississippi's CVD mortality rate is the highest in the nation, with a mortality rate in 2005 that was 25% higher than the U.S. as a whole. More Mississippians die each year from CVD than from all types of cancer, traffic injuries, suicides, and AIDS combined.

Diabetes is a major cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality for Mississippians and a major source of health care costs in the state.

High Blood Pressure (Hypertension): In 2007, the prevalence of hypertension was 33.7%. Approximately 725,000 Mississippi adults are estimated to have hypertension.

Of all states, Mississippi has the eighth highest percentage (19.3%) of adults 18 and over who reported no health care coverage.

Infant Mortality in Mississippi

Mississippi's average infant mortality rate has been around 10 deaths per 1,000 live births in recent years: one of the highest in the nation.

Leading causes of infant mortality:

-Birth defects

-Accidents and maternal difficulties

Protect your baby before it is born:

-Mothers should work to be in good health prior to becoming pregnant: address any chronic medical problems such as high blood pressure or diabetes.

-Get early and continuing prenatal care throughout the entire pregnancy, and follow the advice of your doctor.

Mississippi's Rising Infant Mortality Rate

For young women like Jemeika Brown, transportation is another problem. Now five months pregnant, she hitches rides to Medicaid appointments in Greenville, over 30 miles away.

...

Krystal was 17 years old then. Now she's 20, a mother of two, and seven months into a high risk pregnancy. She hasn't yet made it to Greenville to see a doctor. She can't afford the fare. She can't even afford a tombstone for her son.

Out of all the states Mississippi has the highest rate of poverty, the lowest income, the highest rate of adult obesity, the highest rate of child obesity, highest rate of teen pregnancies, the highest rate of deaths from heart disease, lowest ranked education system, and one of the highest rates of infant mortality.

These issues are all interrelated. Poverty is very "real" in this rich country with "the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world".