For John, BLUF: For six decades we have been trying to fix poverty and discrimination by applying social spending. This seems not to be working. Thus, we need even more spending or a different approach. I am for a new approach. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Free from The New York Times, by Opinion Writer David Brooks, 23 April 2020.
Here is the lede plus one:
Who is driving inequality in America? You are. I am. We are.David Brooks has written a fine article, but you can only do so much in 800 words.Did you read to your kids before bed when they were young? If you did, you gave them an advantage over kids whose parents were working the evening shift at 7-Eleven. Did you spend extra on tutoring or music lessons? Since 1996, affluent families have spent almost 300 percent more educating their young while everybody else’s spending has been mostly flat.
Did you marry before having kids and raise your kids in a two-parent home? The children of the well educated are now much more likely to grow up in stable families, and those differences in family structure explain 32 percent of the growth of family income inequality since 1979.
If you did these things, you did nothing wrong. You invested in your children’s flourishing as any decent parent would.
But here’s the situation: The information economy rains money on highly trained professionals — doctors, lawyers, corporate managers, engineers and so on.
Daniel Markovits, author of “The Meritocracy Trap,” estimates there are about one million of these workers in America today. They work really hard, are really productive and earn a lot more. In the mid-1960s, profits per partner at elite law firms were less than five times a secretary’s salary. Now, Markovits notes, they are over 40 times.
These professionals invest heavily in their children’s education. By eighth grade, students from affluent families are four grade levels ahead of students from poor families. Seventy-two percent of students at the 150 most competitive colleges come from the richest quarter of families, and only 3 percent come from the poorest.
He doesn’t mention that Watts has been down for decades. I remember, around Summer 1965, with my then girlfriend, arriving at my Father's house in Long Beach and being advised to spend the night, since there were riots in Watts. We did.
Then there are the roles of LBJ (and RMN) and Jim Hayes in breaking up families. The number one indicator of success in life—are your two natural parents still married to each other.
And, since David Brooks writes for the NYT there is the School Chancellor, Richard A. Carranza, who is looking to quash any “special” advantages for those kids who are doing well. A theme emerging in NYC Schools is that it is wrong for parents to help kids with homework or give them special enrichment. I needle our local Lowell School Superintendent, Dr Joel Boyd, about being a friend of Richard Carranza. They aren’t, but he has met him.
All that said, Winnie the Flu may well result in a significant amount of flight from cities like New York. For minorities who flee it might mean new opportunities to help their children grow, a la the article. For others it could mean sifting out the “bright” kids, giving the others more of a chance.
This is where people like Doctor Boyd come into play. Our School Superintendent is working hard to decentralize, for increased parental involvement, for getting all involved. My fingers are crossed. Better school mean better housing prices, which means more inheritance for our children.
Progress means, however, that people assume individual responsibility for their lives. And better structured government welfare programs, ones with proper incentives, not disincentives.♠
Hat tip to my Brother Lance, who reads The Old Gray Lady.
Regards — Cliff
♠ I am looking at you, Speaker Pelosi.
No comments:
Post a Comment