Money Struggles, Not Mommy Wars

WASHINGTON — Instead of fighting a phony mommy war over what Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney, we should face the fact that most families these days cannot afford to have one parent stay home with the kids. This is not about “lifestyle” or “values.” This is an economic struggle highlighting yet again the social costs arising from decades of stagnating or declining wages and growing income inequality.

There is a profound class bias in our discussion of what mothers should or should not do. The public debate seems premised on the idea that all two-parent families have a choice as to whether one or both work. That’s still true for the better-off. But this choice is denied to most American families. They have had to send two people into the workforce whether they wanted to or not.

Thus the importance of a study released this week by the Center for American Progress that deserves wide attention. The report demonstrates conclusively that the ruckus over Ann Romney’s decisions is 30 years out of date. Its core conclusion: “Most children today are growing up in families without a full-time, stay-at-home caregiver.”

“In 2010, among families with children,” the study notes, “nearly half (44.8 percent) were headed by two working parents and another one in four (26.1 percent) were headed by a single parent. As a result, fewer than one in three (28.7 percent) children now have a stay-at-home parent, compared to more than half (52.6 percent) in 1975, only a generation ago.”

And these changes are driven more by economics than by any of the mommy war issues that provide so much fodder for television and radio brawls. “Breadwinning wives are even more common in families with lower incomes,” according to the CAP report. “Seven in 10 (69.7 percent) working wives earn as much or more than their husbands in the bottom 20 percent of income distribution for all families. And about half (45.3 percent) of working wives are breadwinners in families in the middle of the income distribution, up from four in 10 (39.1 percent) in 2007 and only 15.2 percent in 1967.”

So here’s the deal: If you want more households in which one parent can stay home with the kids, you need to boost the incomes of average American families — and especially of poorer families. For millions of American moms and dads, debates about “feminism” or “social conservatism” are irrelevant. It’s about money.

The timing of the report was not driven by the Romney-Rosen kerfuffle. Written by Sarah Jane Glynn, it was an update of an earlier study by CAP senior economist Heather Boushey that was part of a project on working women organized by Maria Shriver. Tuesday was “Equal Pay Day” and Boushey said the new study sought to underscore that equal pay “isn’t just about women, it’s about their families, because women are the breadwinner or co-breadwinner.”

We need to look at both sides of the work-family equation. There are, indeed, as Boushey notes, many families in which “women are working because they want to.” That decision should be respected no less than the one Ann Romney made.

But there are many others where the woman “is a single parent, or her husband is unemployed, or her husband isn’t seeing the kind of wage growth that his father did and can’t afford to support the family on his own.”

This points to a contradiction that few conservatives want to confront. When trying to win votes from religious and social traditionalists, conservatives speak as if they want to restore what they see as the glory days of the 1950s family. But they are reluctant to acknowledge that it was the high wages of (often unionized) workers that underwrote these arrangements.

Yet on the right, economic conservatism almost always trumps social conservatism, and market imperatives almost always get priority over family imperatives. As a result, the United States has the weakest family-leave laws in the industrialized world. We have done far less than other well-off countries to accommodate the difficult work-family dilemmas that most moms and dads deal with in the new economy.

It’s good that Ann Romney had choices. She made them honorably and raised a great family. Now let’s debate what should matter in a presidential campaign: Which policies will relieve the economic pressures on millions of parents who are equally determined to do right by their kids but have far less room for maneuver. Pro-family rhetoric doesn’t pay the bills.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is [email protected] (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group. This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

Author: E.J. DIONNE, JR., WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST

  • adelinesdad

    You make several good and important points about the economic struggles of families, but it’s a shame that your argument is framed around the myth that stay-at-home moms are privileged. This is factually incorrect, even as a generalization, and is offensive to SAHMs who are middle class and poor and make great sacrifices, or have no option to work, to be a SAHM.

    But I appreciate that you at least tried to use data to back up your claim. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do it. It says that most *working* wives in poor households out-earn their spouses. It doesn’t say how many of those wives actually *do* work. To see data being used to back up this argument just makes it more disappointing that the more relevant data that I’ve pointed to repeatedly has been ignored:

    http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2007/tabFG2-all.xls (warning: this is an excel file, the format the census apparently uses for its tables)

    http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff07.html

    This issue is not about “want[ing] more households in which one parent can stay home with the kids.” It’s about not disrepecting SAHMs by saying they are so lucky to get to make that choice.

    If we can get beyond this maybe we can have an interesting discussion on what we both recognize is the more important issue of how to help the poor and middle class improve their economic well-being.

  • Navigator

    Thanks to EJ and the commentator for both working to return the dialog to the substance. I am new to TMV and pleased to find a site oriented to others who are inclined to be “extremely moderate” – a term I learned from my father. I look forward to listening, learning and contributing in my own way. I’m inclined to use visuals and graphs to illustrate key concepts and choices. Perhaps I can shape something out of the data quoted and linked here.

  • The_Ohioan

    In the 60+ years I’ve been able to observe women in the work force, most have been there for one of two reasons.

    1. They want to work for persoonal reasons as well as monetary gain. The monetary gains is usually minimal given the cost of clothes, transportation, baby sitters, etc., they admit, but the satisfaction of being able to contribute to the family income in some way is immense. Men, who feel defined by their work and income sometimes fail to understand this, I think.

    2. The family simply can’t give their children the education, safety, and future chance of success without a second income.

    Our particular family all made the decision that mothers would put careers on hold for the time it took for the youngest child to be in school full time. Most were in teaching or nursing so they had no problem reentering the workforce, and planned it that way. Other careers would not be able to function that way, but one’s career is a choice, of course.

    Most two parent families can make enough sacrifices to have one family member be at home with the children, if they really want to, until they are in school full time. The main factor that determines this is usually housing. Living in safe areas with low cost housing is not easy to do, but it can be managed even in current times.

    Even some one parent families who are willing to allow other family members help out can do the same. It takes sacrifice and every parent has to weigh the costs before deciding what’s best for the children.

    I know this outlook will be in dispute, but I can attest that for our family it worked. Not every parent will be concerned with what’s best for their children, of course, and the nation suffers when that happens.

  • zephyr

    “This points to a contradiction that few conservatives want to confront. When trying to win votes from religious and social traditionalists, conservatives speak as if they want to restore what they see as the glory days of the 1950s family. But they are reluctant to acknowledge that it was the high wages of (often unionized) workers that underwrote these arrangements.”

    Exactly right. Of course one shouldn’t look for too much consistency in the reactionary reflex. It’s mostly a pick and choose affair.

    Welcome Navigator. You’ll find quite a mix of people at TMV. (“Moderate” means different things to different people ;-] “Visuals and graphs” are cool!