Tag Archives: economic growth

Strong Nuclear Families Are Crucial for our Economy and Society

images-2

Our contemporary immersion into political correctness and assumed “rights” regarding the basic building block of society has cumulatively, over the past few decades, steadily eroded not only our sociological strength, but our economic viability as a country. The fundamental significance of the family unit, and the hard data evidencing the undeniable importance of the intact nuclear family, have been ignored, and the longer we pander to bad public policy based in political correctness, the more rapidly our society will degenerate.

phone-box-strong-family-strong-societyA few years ago, drawing heavily from government data and peer reviewed sociological and economic research, Robert I. Lerman and William Bradford Wilcox published an extensive research piece in The Economist confirming the fundamental role the intact nuclear family has on society. Lerman is a Professor of Economics at American University and a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, DC., and Wilcox is a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia.

Their executive summary states, “All the latest evidence confirms that the institution of marriage is a key to productive adulthood, the cornerstone of a stable family, and the basic unit of a healthy community. Its effects go well beyond the married couple. It shapes our whole society, from workforce participation to economic inequality to the effectiveness of education. Children raised by married parents have better odds of succeeding in school, excelling at work, and building a stable relationship of their own.”

Quotation-Ashley-Montagu-society-quality-human-family-Meetville-Quotes-54321Drawing from Department of Labor data, they showed how American families experienced an average 80% increase in their real income from 1950-1979. Family income inequality was relatively low, and more than 89% of prime working age men were employed. All of those trends have reversed, and are accelerating to the downside, with the composition and structure of the family playing the most crucial role in this reversal.

In 1980, married parents headed 78% of households with children. By 2012, that had dropped nearly 20%. The researchers, again relying on hard primary data, showed why that was significant. “Married families enjoy greater economies of scale and receive more economic support from kin, and married men work harder and earn more money than their peers, all factors that give them an economic advantage over cohabiting and single-parent families.”

images-2The economic impact on individual family units, as well as society as a whole, cannot be overstated. Even adjusting for race, education, and other factors, if the share of married parents remained at 78% through 2012, “the rise in the overall median income of parents would have been about 22%, substantially more than the actual growth of 14%.” And if the post-1979 immigrants, coming mostly from low-income countries, are adjusted for, the “growth in median family income would have been 44% higher than 1980 levels.” They therefore conclude that the decline in the share of “married-parent families with children largely explains the stagnancy in median family incomes since the late 1970s.”

Traditional nuclear family units, including a mother, father, and children, have been proven to be more viable in almost every facet of sociological construct. As the researchers explain, “Family structure appears to matter for children’s well-being because, on average, children growing up without both parents are exposed to: More instability in housing and primary caretakers, which is stressful for children; Less parental affection and involvement; Less consistent discipline and oversight; and Fewer economic resources.”

imagesSociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, in summarizing their research on family structure, put it this way: “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults; it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting.”

Lerman and Wilcox summarize, “The research to date leads us to hypothesize that children from intact, married families headed by biological or adoptive parents are more likely to enjoy stability, engaged parenting, and economic resources and to gain the education, life experiences, and motivation needed to flourish in the contemporary economy—and to avoid the detours that can put their adult futures at risk.”

Many of the forces negatively affecting the family are cultural and can be attributed to the gradual, yet accelerated, erosion of social mores. But many of the destructive contributors are driven by governmental policy, statute, and legal code, like the IRS “marriage penalty,” and welfare programs that facilitate the absolution of parental responsibilities. And some are couched in principles espoused by political correctness that defy empirical data, the most egregious of the latter represented by the redefinition of marriage, the cornerstone to the family unit, which only further dilutes and weakens the building block of society.

The viability of the American family is crucial for the survival of the republic, not only sociologically, but financially. We all cumulatively either contribute to, or detract from, the soundness of the familial units comprising our society. We must not only do our part in our familial microcosms, but electorally, to elect and support those who favor governmental policy that strengthens the family unit, and who don’t buckle to political correctness in redefining our societal building blocks.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Adieu France, So Long Stability

French Socialist President Francois Hollande’s newly elected government is planning to raise taxes on big companies while deterring businesses from engaging in layoffs by making that process more costly.

Hoping to nudge companies into investing rather than paying profits to shareholders, the government plans to impose a new 3% tax on dividends. Other plans include raising levies on capital gains, a special tax on banks and on energy companies, as well as imposition of government policies requiring the sale of profitable businesses in lieu of closure.

France’s Socialist government will dictate that it is illegal for a profitable, privately owned business to close its own doors.

So much for having the French people engaged in business activity. This less business-friendly government is going about the business of smothering France’s economy.

The prospects of trying to do business in France’s new economic environment resulted in margins tumbling, cash flow dwindling and orders collapsing. The uncertain outlook has postponed or cancelled investment and hiring.

Medef President Laurence Parisot told a news conference “The first source of financing for companies’ projects comes from private investors. Increasing tax on dividends runs the risk that private investors either invest less or elsewhere. We’ve had many meetings with the staff in ministries to explain what’s happening, but we are becoming deeply distressed. We fear a systematic strangling. Let’s be careful not to transform our country into a super-rigid enclave completely out of touch with the functioning of market economies as found everywhere else.” Parisot said.

Statistical data from the INSEE agency shows that business confidence fell in June to the lowest level since 2009, when France’s economy first showed signs of emerging from the nation’s worst post-war recession.

Hollande was elected last month after pledging to fight unemployment and revive growth. What he and his government are planning is not the way to go about achieving those goals. Attempting to resolve an economic dilemma that nanny state entitlement spending caused by destroying the tax base through imposition of business strangling regulations and taxes, while increasing the amount of spending done on entitlement programs is like trying to get a drunk sober by giving him a case of champagne. It’s going to have an effect opposite to the one desired. It is only going to make matters worse.

The way to balance a government budget is to stimulate private sector economic growth. That is what creates the tax base required to fund the government. Making it more difficult and more expensive to conduct business in the private sector is counter-productive to balancing any government budget.

By following economic policies similar to those Hollande plans for France, the United States is currently experiencing 1.8% economic growth. At this same point in President Ronald Reagan’s first term in office, his economic policies had stimulated the private sector U.S. economy to a 7.2% growth rate.

Can you say duh?

Both America and France could learn a thing or two from the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. In the case of the current White House occupant, that does not include hollow, unfounded, meaningless claims that you are much like President Reagan. It makes no difference whether those claims are made by you or your eager, obedient lapdogs in the institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear machine, referred to by your dumbed down, ill informed “progressive” congregation as the mainstream media.

France has the second biggest economy in the European Union. If this is the best the French can come up with, it is time to bid adieu to France and to European Union stability.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/adieu-france-so-long-stability/