The following excerpt comes from a story in the New York Times which appeared on July 14.
They are both friendly white women from modest Midwestern backgrounds who left for college with conventional hopes of marriage, motherhood and career. They both have children in elementary school. They pass their days in similar ways: juggling toddlers, coaching teachers and swapping small secrets that mark them as friends. They even got tattoos together. Though Ms. Faulkner, as the boss, earns more money, the difference is a gap, not a chasm.
But a friendship that evokes parity by day becomes a study of inequality at night and a testament to the way family structure deepens class divides. Ms. Faulkner is married and living on two paychecks, while Ms. Schairer is raising her children by herself. That gives the Faulkner family a profound advantage in income and nurturing time, and makes their children statistically more likely to finish college, find good jobs and form stable marriages.
Ms. Faulkner goes home to a trim subdivision and weekends crowded with children’s events. Ms. Schairer’s rent consumes more than half her income, and she scrapes by on food stamps.
“I see Chris’s kids — they’re in swimming and karate and baseball and Boy Scouts, and it seems like it’s always her or her husband who’s able to make it there,” Ms. Schairer said. “That’s something I wish I could do for my kids. But number one, that stuff costs a lot of money and, two, I just don’t have the time.”
The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.
But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.
Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.
“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.
About 41 percent of births in the United States occur outside marriage, up sharply from 17 percent three decades ago. But equally sharp are the educational divides, according to an analysis by Child Trends, a Washington research group. Less than 10 percent of the births to college-educated women occur outside marriage, while for women with high school degrees or less the figure is nearly 60 percent.
Long concentrated among minorities, motherhood outside marriage now varies by class about as much as it does by race. It is growing fastest in the lower reaches of the white middle class — among women like Ms. Schairer who have some postsecondary schooling but no four-year degree.
To read full story, click here.
The MEDIA promotes babies outside of marriage instead of chastity. When our society starts promoting chastity and continence for all unmarried persons – then we will see the unmarried birth rate go down. Parents must also teach this in their homes. Again, the Catholic Church is correct. Sex outside of marriage is a Mortal Sin.
Pete, you are absolutely correct, now if only we would hear it preached more from the pulpit!
The move to get women away from their families started within the Demoncrat Party, I was witness to it!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
It is not about “privilege”, but, it is about morals, of which Mr. Cherlin seems to be confused about. Mrs. Faulkner made the right choice about getting married to have children (a bad choice to mark her body with a tattoo) and of course, Miss Schairer made her wrong decision about having sex outside of marriage. God gave us the way into Heaven and it is up to us to obey and to be right with Him. +JMJ+
It used to be taught by the Church that getting a permanent tatoo is a mortal sin because you were marking your body for vain reasons. Whatever happened to that teaching?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Kenneth, some priests are stilling saying that but others are more lenient. Neither my husband nor I nor any of our adult children have any tattoes, other than the small dots tattoed for radiation treatment (medical tattoes). I was brought up with “the body is the Temple of God and the Holy Spirit, and one does put grafitti on a temple”. None of my family or my husband’s family had tattoes before, but one of his sisters and some of the younger members have them now. I have alway kept to the Old Testament admonition, “You shall not tattoe your body. You shall not cut yourself for the dead,” in the book of Leviticus. Some people are getting tattoes now supposedly in honor of the dead, but one priest said it came over from paganism, and I believe he is right. Devout Orthodox and Conservative Jews do not tattoe their bodies either. It was a double insult to the Jews people when Hitler had the them tattoed with numbers.
Pastor Bryce Christiansen (“Utopia against the Family” (1991)) warned about this exact issue when the American family and the economy were in better shape than they are now. He quoted older concerns, such as those by Sen. Moynihan in the 1960s, that we could never expect the single mother raising a child alone to be an “economically viable unit”. Did anybody listen?
Thank you, Editor, for bringing this story to CCD reader’s attention.
I do, however, have a MAJOR issue with the cutline: “Race no longer the great obstacle.” First of all, race was NEVER an obstacle; raceISM was and still very much is THE BIGGEST obstacle to equal opportunity for non-whites in the US. It is too easy to read this statement as “race is no longer the obstacle,” implying that racism is no longer an issue driving differential opportunity in the US, that Catholics can relax and stop worrying about racial inequality.
Racism is still a major inequality-driver and NOBODY can serve God without actively opposing racism. No Catholic can tolerate racist jokes, racist attitudes, or “those people” commentary in good conscience.
This is not to say I find the increasing incidence of single-parenthood anything less than appalling. If this one factor drives 40 percent of inequality growth, that underlines the importance of committed relationship to raise children, and also underlines how much more we as a Church ought to be doing for the children being raised by single mothers.
Simple math should tell us that if 40 percent of income inequality growth is due to rise of single parenting, another 60 percent of income inequality growth remains to be dealt with elsewhere. The US is regressing to a haves-and-have-nots society, and we ought not to stand by idly while that happens.
Francis, I live in the South. About 30 years ago, the biggest employer in the state made an great effort to employ professional people who were African-American. They would not take a job here, because there was not an opportunity for them to mix (and find spouses) with other African-Americans of their social and economic level. There is a doctor who came here from Nigeria who I think has been happy here. He was married before he came here. His children have done well and gone on to very good colleges. I think they are grateful for the opportunities that they found here. There are some people here who are racist. But there are more people who are not. My point isthat the effects of racism become a self-perpetuating thing because of the decisions made by the minority and not discrimination from the majority.
K, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. However my concerns regarding the editor’s choice of cut-line remain. It is difficult to disentangle the economic effects of racism and single-parenthood because single parenthood is unequally distributed among ethnic and socioeconomic groups. The NYT article touches on this connection.
Liberals, government, and feminists have encouraged this for the last 50 years. They have destroyed the concept of the nuclear family, insisted that fathers are unnecessary and irrelevant… government would take over the paternal role (welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc.). The obvious fallacy of this concept was ignored and anyone who pointed it out was rebuked and remanded to sensitivity training. Before that time, two parent households could thrive on one income and mom could stay home with the kids. Now, the taxes required Ms. Faulkner’s family necessitate that Ms. Faulkner be employed. Those taxes are confiscated from Ms. Faulkner’s family in order to supplement Ms. Schairer income and to pay for the government bureaucracy the substitutes for what kids used to refer to as “dad”.
“Those taxes are confiscated from Ms. Faulkner’s family in order to supplement Ms. Schairer income…” This is an ABSURD statement. The article makes it plain that the Faulkners would have enough money with one income to live comfortably and launch their children into adulthood. Furthermore, use of the word “confiscated” to describe payment of income tax belies an attitude toward legitimate State authority which is totally out of tune with Catholic teaching on citizenship.
Note that I am not talking about whether the children would be better-served were Ms. Faulkner to stay at home; that’s a prudential decision for the Faulkners. What I am saying is that their decision to have two incomes is not driven by tax considerations as you assert. With two incomes, a couple pays twice into social security and pays a higher marginal rate on the second income. If anything, the higher incremental taxes on two-income households would encourage them to live from one income and have a more traditional lifestyle, with mom taking care of the kids, dad earning the money. That would be more in tune with Catholic norms (or at least what’s left of Catholic norms).
The progressive income tax is based on envy and is confiscatory in nature, since you support the gay mafia Francis do not preach to us about Catholic teachings
Canisius, your remarkably low opinion of me and your disregard for CCC 2358 aren’t relevant to this issue: Do you believe that two-income families like the Faulkners have a second income only because of tax laws? If, instead, we had a “flat tax” do you think Ms. Faulkner would stay at home with the children?
Okay Francis – (Is that you Marty?)
Your money growing on tree fantasies are ABSURD!
Since Ms. Schairer is not paying taxes, but is receiving back more than she pays in, and is also receiving subsidized ‘everything’ from the government, and the father of her children is paying nothing… (btw – the church is contributing nothing either) – who is it that is paying for the support of Ms. Schairer and her children? Flat tax? That would be wonderful – as long as everyone pays and no one is exempt.
I want a flat tax, because I want to smash the IRS, which is really a government authorized gang. I had a friend of mine lose everything to them because they claimed he owed them taxes, they shut down his business without a hearing, he lost his income and then his home. I have a low opinion of any and all liberals and anything that promotes the government as your savior.. Again since you support the gay mafia you have zero business telling me I don’t support a certain section of the catechism. My dream a world without liberals…
Anonymous:
No, my name really is Francis, I have no idea who “Marty” is, and I have no money growing fantasies.
It is ABSURD to state that “Ms. Schairer is not paying taxes.” Does she get some kind of exemption from Social Security, from sales tax, from gasoline taxes? The likelihood is that she spends every dime of her income to keep herself and her children alive; she has no tax-sheltered accounts, no deferred income. (btw – If you think “the church is contributing nothing” and you can’t deal with the plight of the poor perhaps you shouldn’t be writing on a web page for Catholics. The Catholic Church is the largest provider of health care in the US, and the largest single charity worldwide.)
P.S.: Mark 12:44, Luke 21:3. Think about it.
One of the things that is not mentioned by the bloggers when one clicks on the rest of the article is that men who are thrown into daycare too young and do not have a mother consistedly in thier lives because she is unavailable, and therefore are “raised” by a serious of women in daycares and schools, quite often have trouble bonding in marriage with one woman. Quite oten they end up philanderers because they have difficulty bonding with one woman. Quite frankly, I think little boys who have a mother who stays home most of the time, if she is a good mother, are less likely to go from woman to woman. or not marry the mother of their children. That is just my opinion from what I have seen and read, but it is the opinion of some psychologists, also. Quite often Sweden is brought up as a “paradise”, but from what I have read there is quite a bit of suicide there, so the people might not be as happy as they are said to be. Perhaps they hold it all in than explode.
From looking at some of the charts under “Sweden and Suicide” on my search bar, Sweden is not at the top of the chart for suicides, but it is way above the United States for them, so that to me refutes the idea that so many socialists like to push that they are such happy people and that the country is such a haven.
The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate shows Sweden’s rate (12.7/100,000 people annually), compared with the USA (11.8), is slightly lower for men, rather higher for women, and so just a little higher overall. I don’t think this ties in any obvious way to single parenthood.
Sweden does, however, have generous paternity leave as well as maternity leave laws, and it is “normal” for fathers to spend a lot of time with their young children — something sorely missing in the US. Daycare for children under 1 year old is unheard of there. A 2004 study (see https://ftp.iza.org/dp1259.pdf) showed that even with Sweden’s generous support for parents, the correlation of child outcomes with two-parent families is equally strong in both Sweden and the USA. It is always better to be raised by both biological parents.
It would be interesting to learn whether programs like those in Sweden, which encourage fathers’ participation, actually result in a higher rate of intact families. That’s the kind of work the Church could support as well. Anyone know of a reference to this?
Francis, it depends on what chart you are looking at. The one you mentioned did not have much difference between Sweden and the U.S., but another chart, which had more countries on it, placed Sweden 30th from the top and the United States 40th from the top. It really does not matter which one is right for my point is that some people and statistics say that the people of Sweden are the happiest in the world, but if that is so why do they have so many suicides? It does not make sense as both they and the U.S. are above many other countreis in suicides. Nevertheless, you did make some very good points about both parents being close to their children. That is always good, and marriage should make it even better.
Anne:
I don’t know why some people are happier than others, nor why some commit suicide. By God’s grace, I have never felt a suicidal impulse. Fr. Rolheiser writes a column on suicides every year; he just published one this month: https://www.ronrolheiser.com/columnarchive/?id=1038
Nearly every day the newspapers and TV announce the birth of children to yet another unmarried couple in the entertainment industry. These people are successful, wealthy, talented and attractive. They are the role models for young people today. The message is: if they have babies out of wedlock, that means it’s a good idea. Why not? Who needs marriage? For ordinary young women, getting pregnant often means dropping out of school, missing out on teen activities (prom, dating, graduation, a beautiful wedding), having fewer career choices, and lower income in the future. How can we provide better role models for young people? Sorry, I don’t have an answer to this.
St. Padre Pio once had a visitor at one of his Masses, that visitor was I believe Frank Ziffereli (I may not be spelling his name correctly), the famous Movie Producer. He was in the back of the Church where Padre Pio could not see him, but Padre Pio stated loudly and boldly “there is someone here from an Industry that could be doing much good for mankind, but instead is helping to destroy mankind”. Ziffereli knew he was addressing him, and went forward to meet the Saint he can gone only out of curiosity to see earlier, and he became a follower of the Saint after that.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Their personas may seem attractive, but after discovering what true beauty is, these entertainment people provoke a kind of nausea due to their extreme ugliness. God creates beauty, and most of Hollywood creates tinsel, behind which is the most vile antithesis of beauty. Hollywood is a nightmare disguised as the cute and innocent Little Red Riding Hood. The public calls good evil and evil good.
Real beauty is God, and we find its reflection in Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, the saints and the angels, and the unsullied aspects of nature, and also in the repentant sinner.
My observations, by the way, come from having worked around hundreds of children and having seen that those children who had mothers at home most often did a lot better behavior wise and academically than those who did not. That is not to lay a guilt trip on mothers who do have to work outside the home, but it is just the facts and should be taken into consideration by any mother when making out her work schedule.. A good father can certainly help out in that area too, but in the case of the artilce above, none is around.
Unlike the religion preached by Francis, Catholicism is not based on race, but on Jesus Christ.
As RR would say: “There you go again,…”
I say “race was never an obstacle” and somehow JLS thinks I’m “preaching” (his words) a Gospel of Race. What’s a straight talker to do when someone twists his words around 180 degrees, and then thinks HIS way is the path Jesus proclaimed? Twisting words is not what Jesus did; he was the world champion straight talker.
God, grant me patience. You already know I need it.
Francis, liberals are incapable of Truth or being a straight talker
Canisius:
Interesting application of logic. Have you ever heard of “knight and knave” puzzles?
What Anne T. says. I’ve had two renters here over the years, both of whom lacked a mother in any true sense of the word. The first one was raped by his biological mother, a hooker, when he was not yet a teenager. The other man’s mother was a hooker also and he was placed in an orphanage right away, and then a series of 13 foster homes before being adopted by a family that never really succeeded with him. The first sought solace in the KKK and the second spent half his life in prison. Both yet consistently have tried to become trouble free constructive members of society. Even with lots of support it is incredibly difficult for these dudes to stay on their feet. Society needs to effect strongly enforced laws that encourage and protect marriage and family, and penalize whatever acts against marriage and family. But society will not do this while it supports leaders both political and religious who undermine God’s will by pushing “man’s sole value is the industrial unit of production”.