I'd like to follow up on the discussion about a New New Deal, i.e. the need for
an updated version of the New Deal to fit the modern economy. In the posts so far, there have been discussions of the types of policies Obama may implement (Card check? Health care reform?), and who will actually benefit from those policies relative to who ought to benefit. In particular, there have been cautions against limiting the recovery package to the typical "males in hard hats with families to support" image that many people seem to have in mind when thinking about stimulus policies.

As we think about a Brand New Deal, I think it's important to recognize that the structure of families and households has changed considerably over time. The notion of a family was very different in the 1930s. Men were the bread winners, that was their responsibility to the household, and by and large, it was assumed that there was a spouse at home taking care of household needs and supporting this effort. Men who let down their families by losing a job, or who failed to provide for them adequately in other ways, were not fulfilling their proscribed social function.

The Great Depression upset this social norm. When the Great Depression hit, males could no longer fulfill this essential role. No matter how hard they tried, they could not find jobs and they could not give their families the economic security that society said they were responsible for providing. They had failed their families in a time of great need.

The New Deal, I think, did two things that stopped people from blaming themselves. First, the New Deal sent a message that said it's not your fault, it's the system's fault. That was an important psychological leap forward for those who felt they had let down the people depending upon them for food, clothing, shelter, and so forth. Second, the New Deal told them that because it's not your fault, you deserve help. People who had shown up for work everyday, like it or not, and did what they needed to do for their families but nevertheless found themselves unemployed could shed their guilt and stop blaming themselves. It was the unstable capitalist system that was at fault, not their own capabilities. And once people began to see this, once people began to to understand that capable, hard-working, honorable people could find their lives shattered so easily by the economic system we live under, the road was paved for government assistance, for programs that would insure households against the devastating whimsies of the market system.

Thus, attitudes about the role of government in providing backup economic security changed. People accepted that the government needed to actively intervene to try to stabilize the economic system and prevent business cycles - and Keynes was there to show them the way if they would only heed his advice - and they accepted that the government had an obligation to to try to help individual households that are affected by swings in the economy directly through transfer payments and other means (e.g. unemployment insurance).

The point, though, is that the system was designed for one earner households with a supporting spouse, for the most part anyway, and the economic security efforts targeted this model of the household. But the nature of families has changed substantially over time, as has the economic organization of the household. The model where the male goes to work and the wife stays home still exists, of course, but the notion of a family is now much, much broader than that.

So not only do we need to stop thinking about males in hard hats as we think about economic security - I see this as a holdover form an earlier "Leave it to Beaver" era - we need to start by thinking about the needs of the modern family and make sure those needs are addressed. That means worrying about economic security for all the various family arrangements we have, including single moms, two-earner families, etc. For example, a single mom with little money may have difficulty looking for a new job if she cannot find someone she trusts to look after her children while she goes out and searches, does interviews, and so forth. Maybe we have such programs, but I'm not aware of them, and it seems to me that providing such care is a simple step that could enhance economic security by making finding a new job much easier for someone in that position.

As we think about a Brand New Deal, let's be sure to think about how the evolution in family structures has altered the ways in which we need to provide economic security, and be sure that the new programs we put into place provide the help that people need. The capitalist system is better than any other system we have tried at providing for people, but it is not perfect, it tends to cycle and those cycles cause pain to households who did nothing to deserve it. We have an obligation to insure those households against the economic disasters the system can visit upon them, and the current economic and policy environment provides a great chance to move our social support programs in this direction.