Whose Family Values?
The Twentieth Century was marked by efforts to improve the workplace. Worker safety moved from "assumption of the risk" which was another way of saying "that's the worker's problem," to minimum safety standards that ALL employers must meet. Over time, fewer and fewer people were maimed or killed on the job.
The latter part of the Twentieth Century was marked by another change: More families with young children had all parents in the workforce. The consequence of a rising number of one-income households and both parents working in two-income households has meant that workers increasingly have no one at home to deal with emergencies and provide care. But what has been the response in the workplace? A new report, Family Values at Work, notes that 70% of workers can be fired for staying home with a sick child.
The stress on workers is not limited to those with small children. 21 million full-time workers and 5 million part-time workers provide unpaid care for an elderly, disabled, or chronically ill family member.
It is ironic that people who repeat the "family Values" mantra don't talk about the economic realities of trying to hold down a job and take care of a family. Why isn't the difficulty of raising a family and holding down a job front and center in any discussion of family values?
Whether they want to keep a parent at home or not, the economic realities of life in the middle class have ended the model of dad-works-while-mom-manages-the-home. That's where a real discussion of family values should start.
Family Values at Work starts a conversation that is long overdue.
The argument that "economics" is the reason for both people in a marriage working ignores the reality of current law concerning marriage. The divorce laws of Colorado severely penalize a worker whose spouse remained at home, even when no children are present.
Given such laws, it is much more rational to refuse to allow one parent to remain home, creating a clear preference for paid child care over parental child care. Couples who refuse state recognition of their relationship have more practical choices when it comes to these issues.
October 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The benefit of a second income is actually less than one might think. There is a book titled, "Two Incomes and Still Broke?" by Linda Kelley. After I read this book, I took all the steps in the book to analyze my financial situation and see what a second income would actually bring in, after taxes and work related expenses. I was surprised to find that the second income would have to be pretty substantial before there would be a net income to the household. The biggest culprit is that the second income pays income tax in the highest bracket, and then there are work related expenses. If you have children, daycare is the second largest culprit. Then there is a whole list of other items most of us never consider, that add up. The reality is that most middle class families would do better if they reevaluated the actual benefit of a second income, versus one parent staying home and working at saving money on things suce as daycare, cooking meals instead of eating out, spending more time shopping for good deals on everything they buy, etc.
Uncle Sam would prefer both parents work. It generates greater income tax revenue, and greater consumer spending.
Jim Anderson
The Truth About Credit
Facebook Profile
Ministry WebsiteOctober 12, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Wage Slavery.
Modern-Day Sharecropping, Perpetual Indentureship, whatever you may call it,
the 'american dream' got converted into 'the american scream' at some point, I rememeber
well one of my relatives crying over a pile of
unpayable credit card bills. You're not supposed
to get ahead, you're not supposed to succeed,
you're supposed to stay right where you are,
turning that Habitrail wheel, hence the term
'treadmill' etc.
Remember, you're just a 'consumer' now...so get
out there, consume, reproduce, and work, 'citizen'! LOL
October 12, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
Very good points, but it only works if the relationship is based upon private agreement - an effort to eliminate divorce incentives resulting from a publically recorded "marriage". What you state has been true for decades, even with the efforts to eliminate the so-called "marriage penalty" in taxation. The challenge, from my view, is to eliminate the crowding out of private agreements by government setting conditions on the return of our tax money. An example is Social Security; I should be able to designate my survivor benefit recipient - not have it based on the length of a publically recorded marriage, with all the dangers that includes. Such an approach eliminates the concerns about marriage "equality" and even supports true (non-coupled) singles. The fact is, "Family Values" programs have created more inequality and injustice than they have ever solved.
October 16, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink