Chicken or Egg? Does Wealth Create Family Stability ?

While scanning news sites this morning, I saw a couple of headlines that caught my eye.  An article titled “Children suffer from growing economic inequality among families since recession” by Brigid Schulte was posted in the “Local” section of today’s Washington Post, but the implications of this article are anything but local.  The impetus for Schulte’s article is the report just released by Ohio State University social scientist Zhenchao Qian titled “Divergent Paths of American Families”.  Qian examined census and other data regarding income, poverty, and family status in the United States.  Both Schulte and Qian miss the point.



From Qian’s report, Schulte cites the growing disparities in income between the educated and the uneducated, the married and the cohabiting, the serially married (multiple marriages/divorces) and the lifetime married.  Schulte combines Qian’s research with conclusions from other experts (family historian Stephanie Coontz for one) and discusses two social divergences from what has been typical of the past. She quotes Coontz who describes the first divergence as a new freedom to form non-traditional family units as desired, and the second divergence as the systemic lack of opportunities available to those who utilize these new family structures from the first divergence.  Quoting Coontz, Schulte states:

This second divergence is a result “of widening economic inequality that, unless we decide as a society to invest in livable-wage jobs and a truly egalitarian educational system, will only get worse,” Coontz said.

There are a number of presuppositions and some illogic packed into that short statement.  First, Schulte apparently believes a disparity in income between individuals (at least at some level) is a problem within itself as this is the unspoken issue this article seems to address.  Schulte spends time highlighting the disparity in these new family structures yet then appears to imply the disparity is the “result” of not having liveable-wage jobs and education equality.  Now perhaps I’ve read too much into her statement, and her belief is simply that liveable-wage jobs for the uneducated and more equality in education will fix the problems introduced by these new family structures.  The illogic is that she never addresses the need to change the only thing correlated to the problem of income disparity itself – the new family and marital structures (or lack thereof)!

Her article shows me how often we see what we want to see.  She concludes with these statements:

In the report, Qian found that, for all U.S.-born children, living arrangement was a strong indicator of poverty. Four percent of U.S.-born children living in dual-income families were poor in 2010, followed by 14 percent in traditional families, while nearly 60 percent of the children living with single, never-married mothers were.

“The vast majority of people want to have long-term, stable relationships,” said Philip Cohen, a University of Maryland sociologist who studies family inequality. “The fact that rich people are becoming more able to do that than poor people is just another indicator of the unequal society we live in.” [Emphasis added]

Schulte concludes that it is just those doggone rich people and their resources that allow them to protect, hand down and grow their privileged status.  I say Ms. Schulte can’t see the trees for the forest (and yes, I am about to draw my own conclusions based on my own biased views).  I had hoped that perhaps she had just misunderstood Qian’s own sentiments.  I read his entire report, and I highly recommend it.  There are some incredible insights to be drawn there which I may parse in future blogs.  The reality is, however, that Qian is just as oblivious to his own data as Schulte is.  With questions begging to be asked and answers jumping from the data tables, Qian misses the point as well.

Both Schulte and Qian need to flip their line of inquiry.  The answer is not that the wealthy are better able to get married, stay married, monopolize education and raise stable families because they are wealthy.  The answer lies within five-thousand years of recorded human wisdom that teaches the best way to get ahead is to diligently study all that is available to you, work hard with what you’ve learned, commit to a lifetime spouse through marriage, and invest yourselves in your children together.  Those options are available to anyone, anywhere.  Maybe, just maybe, Schulte and Qian have the cart before the horse and the egg before the chicken (since it is clear to a creationist that the chicken came first).

I am weary of the constant line of excuses given to individuals to explain away the results of the choices they have made.  I realize there are many uncontrollable factors influencing those choices, but the ultimate responsibility for choices remains with the individual.  It is high time people were given some straight talk, and it is not all that complicated.

If you want to get ahead, it will take effort – a lot of it!  You will have to learn a skill of value to those around you (i.e. those who will pay you).  You will have to work and continue to learn for most of your life.  You may find you enjoy it – there is dignity in work.  Well-done work that you don’t like much at the moment leads to future work that is more fulfilling.  You will have unexpected problems, but they can be overcome.  You will need to demonstrate character and be honest in your relationships and dealings.  You will need to be committed to your spouse and family.  You will need to pay your bills and spend less than you earn.  There will be others that have an easier time than you, but if you do these things, you will get ahead financially.  Is the solution to poverty in America really that difficult to pinpoint?