Panelists at the Values and Capitalism Fall Summit gathered recently to discuss the impact of the family on poverty.
According to Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the retreat from marriage has increased child poverty and inequality, hitting low-income families the hardest.
While educated families are more likely to enjoy stable homes and employment, those without high school degrees see an increase in single parent homes, teen pregnancy, and incarceration.
They are also less likely to get married, which further limits their economic opportunity.
The graph below illustrates the retreat from marriage across time for three different education cohorts. The least educated (high school drop outs) see a larger drop in marriage from the 1970s to the 2000s, followed by the moderately educated (high school degree or some college), and the highly educated (college degree).
Declining marriage rates drive a deeper wedge in the socioeconomic class divide.
Studies show that men who marry work harder and make more money.
Family structure is also a strong predictor of a child’s chance of moving up the income ladder.
Unfortunately, less educated men are becoming increasingly disengaged from institutions of work, religion, and marriage.
Panelist Melissa Boteach of the Center for American Progress named three important family factors that we must consider when discussing policy solutions, what she called the three S’s: structure, strength, and stability.
- Family structure: the composition of a family unit at a point of time.
- Family strength: the quality of parents’ and other primary caregivers’ relationships with each other and their children.
- Family stability: extent of transitions between structures and changes in strength factors over time.
Boteach pointed out it is not necessarily a matter of marriage or divorce. The issue is more complex.
For example, a stable single parent home may provide a better environment for a child’s future than a family with many marriages and divorces.
Panelist Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation emphasized the failed policy of the War on Poverty as well as the church’s unique role in addressing these issues.
According to Marshall, the poverty rate today is nearly as high as it was in the 1960s. For that reason, she sees the War on Poverty as a 20 trillion dollar failure.
The issues are much deeper than something money and government programs can solve. Instead, she argues poverty relief efforts should embrace shalom and the wholeness of the individual.
Marshall believes there is a lack of creativity in the Christian community in this space, which reflects a lack of confidence in God’s redemptive work. She encouraged the church to get involved in the messiness of peoples’ lives and to do the hard work of building deep relationships with low-income families in order to better understand their needs.
How can the church help?
Wilcox suggested marriage mentoring. Those who grow up without a healthy marriage model need mentor couples to walk alongside them and offer guidance through difficult times.
Strong families prove to be good antipoverty policy, as the panelists concluded, but not without the help of the church.
My husband Kris and I recently returned from our honeymoon in Alaska. Perhaps a less conventional choice for a honeymoon, we sought adventure and wild solitude.
Alaska attracts travelers, survivalists, hikers, nature junkies, and crazy honeymooners like myself. One of the most well-known adventurers who journeyed to Alaska is Christopher McCandless, also known as “Alexander Supertramp,” who was depicted in the 2007 film Into the Wild.
The movie details the true story of McCandless’s two-year odyssey across North America in the early 90s. Upon graduating college, he desired to escape a toxic family environment in order to discover his true self through adventure and a simpler life. Tragically, only months after his arrival in Alaska, his body was discovered inside an abandoned bus, deep in the wilderness.
I thought of McCandless often while Kris and I traveled through Alaska. His story always moved me—or maybe, disturbed me—in ways that still linger. Perhaps it’s because he graduated from the same high school I did, and his story only seems an inch closer to my own life experience. Or maybe it’s because I still remember feeling empty as the movie credits began to roll. I longed for a resolution to his tragic life story that the script never satisfied.
My husband and I passed through the remote town of Healy, Alaska and spotted a beat up blue bus off the road, sitting in the grass next to a brewery. It was the movie replica of what McCandless called the “magic bus.”
Inside the bus was a small box spring topped with a thin, dirty mattress, a few rusted pots and pans, and framed copies of notes he wrote and pictures he took during his time living in the bus. One note reads:
Two years he walks the Earth. No phone, no pool, no pets, no cigarettes. Ultimate freedom. An extremist. An aesthetic voyager whose home is the road.
However, in his search for ultimate freedom, McCandless finds bondage and death. On day 100 in his journal, he writes,
Death looms as serious threat, too weak to walk out, have literally become trapped in wild—no game.
The same feeling of emptiness I felt at the end of Into the Wild filled me as a stood in the bus reading his messages.
McCandless is idolized by some as a thoughtful transcendentalist and admonished by others as foolish, selfish, and suicidal. Those who regard him as a hero admire his escape from a consumerist culture for adventure and simple beauty. Those who think his decision on par with a death wish might say he embraced an individualism too extreme.
God did not make us to flourish in isolation (Genesis 2:18). He calls us to community, to participate in a great economy outside of ourselves. Though the market economy is criticized for its individualistic nature, global voluntary exchange might be one of the most communal, interdependent constructs of our society. McCandless, in removing himself completely from community without proper preparation, paid the ultimate price.
While Kris and I were at the brewery next to the set replica of the magic bus, we met a young hitchhiker named Tai, with a scruffy beard and a giant backpack. We chatted and laughed over beers. Tai told us about his recent 20-mile pilgrimage down the Stampede Trail and over the Teklanika River to visit the original magic bus as he pointed to a picture on his phone from his hike. I told him he looked just like the legendary Supertramp.
Like the famous hiker, Tai loves the adventure and the beauty Alaska offers, and often spent many days alone in the wild. However, in a few days, he would be returning home—a journey perhaps McCandless would have wished to make one day.
*Originally published on the IFWE blog.
In response to Planned Parenthood allegedly selling baby body parts, an estimated 12,000 people in 65 cities across the US gathered at “Women Betrayed” rallies on Tuesday, July 28th, demanding to defund the organization.
Speakers at the Washington, D.C. rally on Capitol Hill included presidential candidates Dr. Ben Carson, senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, news personality Matt Walsh, and several leaders from the pro-life movement representing the Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Students for Life, Alliance Defending Freedom, Concerned Women for America, and Silent No More.
The message presented at these rallies was clear: women have been betrayed, not only by Planned Parenthood, but by our government.
You get more of what you subsidize
When the government subsidizes Planned Parenthood, it lowers the cost of their services. When costs are lowered, supply rises. That means when the organization receives half a billion taxpayer dollars a year, they are able to supply more services, like abortions, than they would without the funding.
On top of that, they are incentivized to use all the funding to show they need it, ensuring they will receive that funding again next year. This further incentivizes the organization to sell abortions, and, as the recently released videos show, the remnants of aborted babies.
When the government began subsidizing corn, the price of corn dropped. As corn became cheaper, we consumed more of it. In order to make more money from the lower cost of corn, farmers planted more corn. Cheap corn flooded the market. As a result, high-fructose corn syrup became a cheaper alternative to sugar, and began to show up in nearly everything – candy, burgers, sodas, and so on. In the end, the effects were costly to the environment and our health.
The government’s relationship with the abortion industry is similar. By subsidizing Planned Parenthood, the government treats human life as a commodity like corn. How much more costly is subsidizing a culture of death?
How did we even get here?
The commodification of human life
To Planned Parenthood, babies are goods to be harvested and sold. They’re not humans; they’re used car parts.
Allegedly profiting from the trafficking of fetal organs, babies are worth more dead than alive to Planned Parenthood. Perhaps what’s more disturbing is that our own government affirms the dehumanization of unborn babies by slipping money into their pockets.
One of the most disturbing things about the videos released from the Center for Medical Progress is the casual nature of the conversations over the commodification of human life. This is not a new way of thinking in our culture. Look at America’s history with slavery and the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Will our grandchildren one day look back in horror that our government supports an organization that commercializes human flesh? Let’s hope so.
Though we fight against the black market of human trafficking, our economy and our government supports a market for baby trafficking.
At the end of the day, Planned Parenthood is a business much like any other. On top of the nearly $500 million they received from the government annually, they rake in $1 billion. They care about their bottom line just line and make their decisions based on profit incentives. When Planned Parenthood looks at the mother of an unborn child, of the remnants of an aborted child, why wouldn’t they see dollar signs?
As the recent videos suggest, Planned Parenthood even has the incentive to profit off the harvest of baby organs. To increase the quality of their organ sales, this means they also have the incentive to perform later term abortions. Alison Howard of Alliance for Defending Freedom explains why:
When Planned Parenthood […] said that they wanted lungs […] how many of you here know preemies that were born with underdeveloped lungs? Lungs are one of the last things to develop in a baby. Now you understand why Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in late, late term abortion. They have a vested interest in working against the […] bill that would restrict abortion after 20 weeks, because guys, they wouldn’t be getting the specimens they want.
Abortions are Planned Parenthood’s product, and they have an incentive to sell to their product to women. In doing so, they often mislead women with selective information.
When Andrea Pearson Mev took the podium at the rally on Capitol Hill, the energetic crowd fell silent as she shared her story of abortion and regret. She revealed to the crowd that when she walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic as a young pregnant teenager looking for help, she was told her abortion would be the healthy choice. She was promised relief, but found only depression and emptiness. She was never warned of such emotional damage.
Women betrayed by Washington
A morally numb culture has led to a twisted commodification of unborn babies and immoral business incentives for Planned Parenthood, but not without the government’s legal aid and praise.
Instituted to protect life, our government today is using taxpayer dollars to destroy it. At the Women Betrayed Rally, Walsh called out Washington saying,
It is not only Planned Parenthood who has betrayed us, betrayed women and betrayed children, you have betrayed us Washington. You have betrayed us over and over again. You betray us when you give half a billion dollars a year to a company that already earns over a billion in revenue. And whose primary source of revenue other than tax payer money is the mass slaughter of infant children. You betray us.
I’m convinced that as a woman, Planned Parenthood doesn’t have my best interest in mind. But the more heartbreaking fact is, neither does my own government.
*Originally posted on the IFWE blog.
Imagine you woke up this morning and you were the last person on the planet.
You’d feel lonely and terrified, but look at the bright side. You just inherited all the wealth in the world.
This is how the first episode of The Last Man On Earth begins. The 2015 post-apocalyptic comedy series stars Will Forte as Phil Miller, who discovers he might be the last person on the planet after a deadly plague strikes. A two-year road trip around the country searching for survivors turns up empty, but he seems to enjoy owning all the wealth in the world in the meantime.
Phil breaks into grocery stores and takes all the food he wants, whenever he wants. He blows through stop signs and fills up his gas for free. He even takes ancient mummy tombs and million-dollar pieces of art from museums, just because he can.
When he returns to Tucson, Arizona, he picks out a mansion to call his own. He pours Cheez Wiz into a glass of $10,000 wine, decorates his house with the Mona Lisa and the rug from the oval office, and lounges in Hugh Hefner’s pajamas. He lays in a giant margarita in a kiddie pool, drinking from a giant straw, and hoping someone will see the messages he left around the country about his location.
The last man on earth seems to be the richest man on earth, but it doesn’t last for long. The garbage men are gone, so there’s no one to take out his trash. The farmers are gone, so Phil doesn’t have any fresh produce to eat. The water isn’t running, so Phil has been using the swimming pool in his backyard as a giant toilet. The richest man on earth quickly tumbles into poverty.
The Last Man on Earth is an unexpected lesson on the nature of wealth. It shows that wealth isn’t just material; it’s completely dependent on the constant work and creativity of others. Wealth can grow under the right circumstances and shrink under the wrong ones. In a post-apocalyptic world, wealth is like a deflating balloon.
Many might think inheriting all the wealth in the world would equate to economic well being, but Phil’s character shows this isn’t the case. Luckily, we live in a world with seven billion other people with the capacity to create wealth, discover new ideas, invent new products, and start new businesses. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, the body of Christ is one body with many members. The economy is similar in this way, relying on the unique gifts and talents of billions of people for the flourishing of each individual.
It makes you appreciate the garbage men that take out your trash every Tuesday, doesn’t it?
*Originally published on the IFWE blog.
Dr. Samuel Gregg kicked off Acton University on last week in Grand Rapids, MI with a lecture entitled “Truth, Reason, and the Quest for Equality.” According to him, the worst temptation in a post-modern world that does not trust truth is sentimental humanitarianism.
Originally, clergy and monks established universities because seeking truth was synonymous with seeking God. Harvard’s motto is Veritas which means “truth.” Oxford’s motto is Dominus illuminatio mea which comes from the opening of Psalms 27 and means “The Lord is my light.” Just as monks came together in monasteries to pray, they intended people to come together to learn and seek God at universities.
Today, our post-modern world doesn’t trust veritas or reason. Postmodernity says the ultimate reality is unknowable at worst and a social-construct at best. As a result, we have sentimental humanitarianism.
Sentimental Humanitarianism: A Dangerous Temptation
Gregg argues that sentimental humanitarianism:
- Reduces most debates to exchanges of feelings. Common responses to disagreements are “you can’t say that” or “that’s hurtful” or “that offends me.” But in quoting British novelist Ian McEwan, Gregg says there is nothing virtuous about being offended.
- Is naive of human nature. It assumes everyone is of good will. Rather, Gregg says we have to acknowledge that there are some groups of people in which rational conversation is not possible.
- Doesn’t take free choice seriously. It claims all evil emanates from bad education and unjust structures, but this is hardly the full story. Evil is a free choice of each individual, and Gregg says it’s not something that can be explained away by the fact that someone is wealthier than you.
Sentimental Humanitarianism and Equality
Sentimental humanitarianism greatly influences the way our culture thinks about equality. Popular opinion is that economic inequality is unjust and we must do whatever we can to stop it. It is the root of all social ills.
Christianity, on the other hand, says sin is the root of all social ills. Many forms of inequality are not unjust in the Bible. Some forms are actually very just and intentional, like the example in the parable of the talents. Economic inequality is not the same as poverty.
Gregg pointed out two different cases that are illuminating to the nature of economic equality:
- Global economic inequality has been in decline since the 1980s, more than any previous time in history, because Eastern Asian nations are growing at rapid rates and the poor are becoming wealthier.
- Economic inequality is declining in Venezuela because totalitarian law is causing the wealthy to flee the county, the middle class to suffer, and the poor to become poorer, but at a slower rate than everyone else.
Which situation would you prefer?
There is nothing virtuous about economic equality for its own sake. The Christian-Hebrew understanding of equality is not about the obliteration of difference, it’s about human dignity.
While Gregg recognizes that sentimental humanitarianism is rooted in good intentions, he says it’s dangerous because it raises emotions over reason. The anecdote? Gregg says, “truth”. Veritas. Because ultimately, it sets us free.
*Originally published on the IFWE blog.
As I mentioned last week, The U.S. has dropped from the second most economically free country in the world to the eighteenth in the past twelve years.
One of the major reasons we’ve lost economic freedom is because humans, by nature, hate uncertainty. We try to plan and control the future to reduce it.
Usually when we try to control future economic outcomes, it makes things worse. Our natural human fear of uncertainty is what drives our government to pass more regulatory legislation, suffocating economic freedom. When we lose economic freedom, we lose human flourishing. We are worse off than we were before, and the poor suffer the most.
This fear of uncertainty is part of our human nature. It is a spiritual problem that affects our personal lives as well as our nation at the policy level.
There is another aspect of human nature that causes us to lose economic freedom: freedom itself is scary.
We’re Terrified of Freedom
You might think of freedom as something that makes life easier. It means less rules and more room to do what you want to do with your life. This is true in a sense, but at the same time, freedom is a burden. Freedom doesn’t require less of us. It requires more. To many, the burden of freedom is a scary thing.
Michael Novak says in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism: 30 Years After:
It cannot be supposed that human beings always love liberty. Free persons must meet the burdens of personal responsibility, and for some, that responsibility is too onerous. If I may paraphrase Dostoevsky: “When people cry out for liberty, give it to them—in fifteen minutes they will give it back.” For most of history, humans have been remarkably unrebellious under tyranny. If their simplest appetites are met, and why should they take up irksome responsibilities?
So it is today. Not all human beings desire to be economically free. If they are free, they are obligated to bear responsibility for their own welfare. Of course, there is always some percentage of the population too old or too young, too ill or too disabled, to carry their own weight in economic responsibility. There will always be some people who rightly depend upon the help of others. By its own moral identity, any honest Jewish, Christian, or even secular humanist society must come to their aid.
Freedom means we have a huge responsibility to care for our neighbors and trust they will come to our assistance when we are in need. We are scared of freedom because the burden is heavy. We do not trust ourselves or others to carry the burden, so we continue to hand over our freedom to someone or something we think can manage it better, like government, even when giving up economic freedom to government leads to lower levels of human flourishing.
Freedom is a burden, but we are always better off with it than without it.
Freedom Is What We’re Made for
These two natural human tendencies that cause us to lose economic freedom, our disdain for uncertainty and our fear of freedom, are both spiritual problems. It makes sense why we lose economic freedom when we look at our sinful human nature, but we need to remember how God created us. We were created to flourish and we were created to be free, and freedom leads to flourishing.
Economic freedom is the force wiping out poverty across the globe. It is the reason so many people around the world are not starving to death today. It is the best known path towards flourishing because it reflects biblical truths, allowing us to unleash our God-given creativity, enjoy the dignity of a hard day’s work, and flourish as God intended. It gives us the best chance to provide more opportunities for people of all income levels, not just for the wealthy.
If we really want to fight poverty, we have to fight for economic freedom for everyone, at home and abroad, and in spite of our fears.
*Originally published at the IFWE blog.
The United States is one of the most economically free countries in the world, but it might not stay that way for long. The U.S. has dropped from the second most economically free country in the world to the eighteenth in the past twelve years alone. Just because a nation has economic freedom today doesn’t mean it will in the future.
Lower levels of economic freedom mean lower levels of human flourishing, and the poor suffer the most. Why are we so quick to forfeit our freedom? There are at least two major reasons – one of which will be covered today, and the other next week. They are both spiritual problems, inherent to our human nature.
We Hate Uncertainty
Our human nature despises uncertainty. We often do anything we can to minimize it, so we plan. We plan our days, our meals, where to go to school, where to live, where to work, and how many kids to have. We predict elections, the weather, and the future of the stock market. Humans, by nature, want to know as much as possible. This natural human behavior spills over into policy-making, especially economic policy. Dr. Gregory M. A. Gronbacher says,
When faced with the uncertainty and complexity of modern economic reality – from banking to foreign aid, from employment issues to tax policy, from mortgage laws to money funds – the desire for control, safety, and predictability is strong. It is frequently the government that is called upon to enforce this so-called stability.
We don’t like uncertainty or unwanted surprises in life, or in the market, so we try to plan and control to avoid these circumstances. When we do this through policy, it usually comes in the form of expanding government programs and increasing regulation, which reduce economic freedom. Two examples of this are the Great Depression and the recent Great Recession, both of which were very unpleasant economic surprises followed by a political attempt to correct and control the economy by increasing government programs and regulation.
Trying to Control Uncertainty Can Make Things Worse
I’m getting married this summer–I can use all my knowledge and planning power to plan the perfect wedding, but I will never have control over the weather on that day. Likewise, history shows us that the market continues to cycle through periods of growth and periods of recession, despite an increase in government control over the economy. There is a limit to the amount of certainty we can create, and when we don’t acknowledge this, our controlling behaviors can often times make things worse.
Many scholars, writers, and thought-leaders argue that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. Shortly after the Great Recession, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian argued in the Wall Street Journal that government interventions that are meant to correct economic depression, like the New Deal, often don’t work out as planned:
The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can — and does — deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.
I can think of many times in my life when I have tried to control a situation and actually ended up making matters worse. My desire to control was predicated on a sense of pride, that I knew how to run the show better than someone else (most notably, God). The control felt good in the moment, but overtime I came to realize how little control I actually had over certain situations. I saw many of my plans foil, and those things that I tried so desperately to control had spun out of control. I quickly learned that I wasn’t always the one with the best knowledge, and I had to quit acting like it.
A certain amount of planning is absolutely good and necessary, but since we are not omniscient, we have to be okay with uncertainty in our personal lives and in the economy. God calls us to plan and prepare, but at the same time, he calls us to surrender control to him during both certain and uncertain times.
When the government tries to control the economy, it might make us feel more secure or stable temporarily, but it limits our freedom and flourishing in the long run. Ben Franklin said,
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
We lose economic freedom not primarily because we don’t understand the way economic policy works, but because of our natural human tendencies. Uncertainty is scary to us because it means we can’t know everything. Fearing uncertainty and trying to mitigate it through our own control is a spiritual problem that can become a policy problem, and ultimately a problem of human flourishing.
Next week, I’ll share with you the second reason why I think we are losing economic freedom.
*Originally published at the IFWE blog.