Tom Edsall remains one of my favorite wonky writers in mainstream print. It helps that he is a fellow Cambridge Public Schools alum and Charlie’s Kitchen aficionado.
In his most recent piece, ‘Can the Democrats Resurrect the Middle Class‘, he goes through a litany of policy prescriptions that might surprise you. The piece is worth reading in full. Rather than excerpt it, I have decided to share my key takeaways
1) It Takes a Village to Stabilize the Family
Conservatives like Charles Murray have long decried out of wedlock birth rates as key indicators of chronic poverty, and what was once viewed as an ‘inner city’ (aka black) malady is now recognized as affecting working class communities across the board. White communities like Akron or coal country that have faced severe economic strain due to deindustrialization have experienced these same problems.
It turns out, the right is right. Stable families are more likely to stay or join the middle class, and it is vital that government policy ensure stable families. But, it turns out social and economic liberals have the best solution. Universal access to reliable birth control like IUDs helps substantially reduce out of wedlock births and abortions and ensure families start later, after parents have learned how to be stable partners and providers. Moving teen births into the 20s and 20s births into the 30s will have a profoundly positive effect on combating poverty. It will take a village, and specifically free birth control, to raise the kinds of families Murray and others on the right want to see.
2) Only the Government can save the Free Market
The right is right, economic competitiveness fueled by global capitalism is essential to continuing the growing economy. But-this can only occur if corporations spend cash on new hires, R&D, and that is only spurred when they are locked into fierce competition. Instead, we are looking at one of the highest periods of corporate consolidation since the Gilded Age, which has led to cash hoarding. Raising corporate income taxes and more importantly, breaking up big businesses (including banks) into smaller businesses is exactly how we correct this situation. Only government intervention can save American capitalism.
3) A Spoonful of Friedman and George Makes the Rent go Down
Why is the rent too damn high? Because of NIMBY zoning laws that libertarians and conservatives have been railing against for years. Simplifying zoning to ensure more housing is no brainer, and a policy Buckley and Friedman long called for. Inclusionary Zoning is one such reform, but it has to be paired with a Land Use Tax like Henry George proposed. Mayor Bernie Sanders tried a community land trust in Burlington which was a variation on this idea. Pursuing both reforms is the best way to spur more supply to ease the demand facing communities like Greater Boston. Make home building easier, and land hoarding harder, and you got a pathway to lower costs.
JimC says
Why has consolidation led to cash hoarding and not acquisitions?
johntmay says
acquisitions are even better than cash hoardings. What interest rate does one get on cash in a savings account versus stock price increases?
centralmassdad says
There is nothing in the link about “cash hoarding.” In any event, of course, business hoard cash because they need liquidity. If you can’t rely on the credit markets to provide liquidity, you provide it yourself, or you fail. We aren’t that far removed from a fairly significant near-death experience in the credit markets. Of course firms hoard cash.
johntmay says
is not as likely when both parents must work 40+ hour weeks to keep the family afloat. In today’s reality, few have lifetime employment at the same place. Jobs come and go. In days past, if dad lost his job, mom picked up the slack for a while. It happened with my mom & dad when I was a kid. It happened with the parents of Elizabeth Warren.
But, if you want to promote the idea that all adults are in the “work force” and focused on their “career” in order to reach their “full potential”, well, then we have an abundance of labor, that drives down wages, and now if mom OR dad loses their job, there is no one to pick up the slack.
Financial woes are the #1 cause of a broken family.
In my opinion, the notion of a stable family is best achieved only when we have a culture that does not demand that all adults (parents) work outside the home.
jconway says
The ideal conservative family is a male breadwinner, female home maker, and 2.5 kids all from the same parents. The irony is, that ideal has been made far more difficult for most Americans due to conservative economic policies. I think if we can adjust that ideal for the gender norms of today (I’d love to be a stay at home dad if it were financially feasible) we can achieve it via expanded paid parental leave and a larger safety net. Delaying child birth is still critical, and tax credits won’t cut the mustard, we need universal birth control.
johntmay says
But a generous tax break to any family raising up to two children would be a good start, means tested and all that.
Conservatives and “Democrat Lite” politicians are eager to give tax breaks to investors/companies entering their area because they might bring jobs. Well, what about bringing “people” into the area? There was a time in our history, prior to the revolutionary war, when an idea was floated that women bearing children should be given a cash subsidy because they were “increasing the number of the king’s subjects”.
Christopher says
..that gender norms of today also include both partners having careers because they WANT to, and not just because economic circumstances require both to earn a paycheck.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t have that sense at all. I know a number of men who, like myself, would have gladly chosen to be stay-at-home dads. I think there are an enormous number of families who would prefer to have one of them able to be a full-time parent, and who are unable to do that because of the economic realities of today’s America.
I’d need to see some investigation of your premise before I accept it.
centralmassdad says
I think what he meant is that it is a consequence of it. In my parents’ world, mom stayed at home as did all the other moms. Occassionally, there was a mom who worked full time, but usually because of a divorce. Moms who wanted to work had an awfully hard time doing so, even if they wanted to. As it turns out, a great many moms wanted to, and when restrictions on their ability to do so fell away, they went to work.
At first, families where they did simply had more money. Whoopee! Having more money means that you can buy more house, pay for more college, etc. But, over the years, now a majority of married couples with kids BOTH work. So, now, when you figure out how much mortgage you can afford, two incomes doesn’t help so much as make toy the same as everyone else.
Most married people with kids now have double incomes, and that gets baked into the price of everything. If you could time travel to your dad’s work in 1955, and say: Dad, don’t work 9-5, work half as much, 9-1, and just live on half your salary– the family would have been at a disadvantage.
The solution to this isn’t a circumstance where it is not expected that both parents work– we had that, and it kind of turned out to suck for the partner who was expected to be the housespouse, and had no economic power. In any event, there is no government “expectation” that anyone do anything. It’s just that if both partners don’t work, it’s a little like your dad working part-time in 1955. If he made a shit-ton of money working half time (or if one spouse makes a lot of income) they can go single-earner too.
The solution is make it easier for families with kids– extended pre-K; tax subsidies for childcare, etc.
Christopher says
…who would love to be able to have just one income regardless of which partner is earning it. My comment was in reference to the enlightened 21st century notion that both genders are allowed to have and pursue ambitions of a professional career for the simple reason that such is what they find fulfilling.
jconway says
Which will be easier when my wife becomes a full time RN, and when I become a full time teacher. I also like that both professions are unionized and enable us to pursue public service as a vocation. Both professions are also hard, but largely teachers get to work on the students schedule which means I’ll get daddy duty when she has a 24 shift. I’m looking forward to it, but it’s a long two years away before we are both there.