C'mon, Ezra. I'm all for Romney's new child allowance. But @swinshi's concerns about its potential effects on family & work are *legit*. It's not fair to dismiss them as "mean." Take family. What did Raj Chetty et al find was the best predictor of economic mobility for poor kids?
"Of all the factors most predictive of economic mobility in America, 1 factor clearly stands out: family structure. By [Chetty's] reckoning, when it comes to mobility, 'the strongest and most robust predictor is fraction of children w/ single parents.'” slate.com/human-interest…
So if you're concerned about kids, including poor kids, like Scott is, it is totally legit to worry about how a new policy might affect how men &women form their families. Again, there are plenty of studies suggesting welfare policy has had a hand in increasing single parenthood.
TBS: This literature is mixed & contested, but most fair-minded scholars would ack that welfare policy probably played a modest role in boosting single parenthood. A fair-minded overview is provided here by David Ellwood & Chris Jencks: hks.harvard.edu/publications/s…
Because childbearing is hitting record lows, childbearing has fallen *most* among less advantaged women lately & our economy seems increasingly precarious, I'm not that worried that Romney's child allowance will lead to a surge of single parenthood in 2020s. I differ w/ Scott.
But let's not forget that all of us would like to see a world where more kids are flourishing economically, socially & emotionally. Such a world is more likely to come into being if more kids are raised in stable 2-parent families. The ?s are: How can policy strengthen families?
And how can policy reduce child poverty? Hoping we can keep thinking about ways to do both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. “if fertility rates had remained at their 2008 levels (the last time we had replacement-rate fertility in America), how many more babies would have been born [over the last decade]?
1. Is “Universal Child Care” a good idea? Consider Quebec, which “launched its universal child care program in 1997.”
Evaluations found “2- to 4-year-old children who had been in child care showed significant ⬆️ in anxiety, aggression, & hyperactivity.” ifstudies.org/blog/universal…
2. “As children grew older, these negative outcomes did not dissipate: among 5- to 9-year-olds, the social-emotional problems not only persisted, but in some cases increased, particularly for boys with the most elevated behavioral problems.” economics.mit.edu/files/3103
3. “Follow-up studies conducted 20 years after the program’s inception further revealed a subsequent ‘sharp and contemporaneous increase in criminal behavior’ across Quebec, as the rate of crime conviction jumped 22 percent.”
1. A kind of “Me-First Marriage”—where marriage was seen as a vehicle for happiness, individual fulfillment & self-actualization—reached its zenith in the late 20th c. Many people thought marriage was just abt enjoying the peaks of “Mt. Maslow,” to take @EliJFinkel’s metaphor.👇🏼
2. Many assumed marriage’s other classic functions—mutual aid, financial stability, extending/receiving care to/from kin, & the education/support/care of children—could be handled to an imp. extent by state & market. Leaving men & women to pursue more indiv. model of marriage.
3. But growing social and economic inequality, economic precarity, political & social instability, and the hollowing out of so many of our civic and public institutions mean that a more “Family-First” model of marriage is re-emerging in the 21st century.