Fathers Matter: A Bit From The Study, "Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States -- An Intergenerational Perspective"
There's a new study -- the results of which were published in The New York Times with this headline: "Sons of Rich Black Families Fare No Better Than Sons of Working-Class Whites."
The lede from the article -- by Emily Badgers, Claire Cain Miller, Adam Pearce, and Kevin Quealy -- and the next little bit:
Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households.
Executive summary of the study here. Full paper.
I'm on deadline and working on a medical expose, so I didn't have time to read the study. But I noticed this from the NYT piece, and I'm not surprised:
The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites."The problem," Mr. Chetty said, "is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America."
The few neighborhoods that met this standard were in areas that showed less discrimination in surveys and tests of racial bias. They mostly had low poverty rates. And, intriguingly, these pockets -- including parts of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, and corners of Queens and the Bronx -- were the places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.
"That is a pathbreaking finding," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard sociologist whose books have chronicled the economic struggles of black men. "They're not talking about the direct effects of a boy's own parents' marital status. They're talking about the presence of fathers in a given census tract."
Other fathers in the community can provide boys with role models and mentors, researchers say, and their presence may indicate other neighborhood factors that benefit families, like lower incarceration rates and better job opportunities.
Here's the bit from the abstract:
The few areas in which black-white gaps are relatively small tend to be low-poverty neighborhoods with low levels of racial bias among whites and high rates of father presence among blacks. Black males who move to such neighborhoods earlier in childhood earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated. However, fewer than 5% of black children grow up in such environments.
This finding dovetails with an area I know from anthropology, Life History Theory. This is an excerpt from one of my recent posts:
From talking with Sarah Hrdy, Daniel Nettle, and other anthropologists as well as understanding "Life History Theory," I believe that the 70 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate of black women is a huge problem causing huge problems in black children.In the past, even if maybe one child on a block or a few children in a neighborhood were raised by single parents -- including single mothers after a father died -- there weren't vast numbers of children raised by single parents. There was, very importantly, stability that comes from having an environment populated by family units -- intact family units, sometimes with mother, father, and a grandmother in the home.
"Life History Theory" is a scientifically-supported theory about how organisms react -- adaptively -- to risky, unstable, and even violent environments. If you are likely to die young, it is adaptive to mate faster (be promiscuous) and take risks (including being violent) in a way it is not in more stable environments.
Too many children of black parents are now growing up in unstable environments, largely -- I believe -- due to a lack of fathers in many homes in a neighborhood. (By the way, you can per, Judy Stacey's research, have a two-parent family with two same-sex parents, and have the kids turn out really well -- but it helps if those kids are not growing up in an unstable environment due to many other children being from single-parent families and promiscuous and risk-taking because of it.)
Just to be clear, the effect we're seeing in the black community, from all the children growing up without the stability of a family environment, is not a black thing. Any children raised this way, in this sort of environment, are likely to have the entirely adaptive reaction to a risky, unstable environment.
To read more on Life History Theory (and automatic "fast" or "slow" adaptive strategies that are triggered), see Marco del Giudice's excellent scientific papers and book chapters here.
Father are unneeded until you need a scapegoat for children not doing well.
Snoopy at March 20, 2018 6:25 AM
Is it absent fathers or is it single mothers that are the problem? Not sure you can tell from this.
Snoopy at March 20, 2018 6:27 AM
I've long assumed that black or other minority children raised in middle-class circumstances would have similar outcomes to white children raised in the same circumstances. When I started reading this, I thought "wow, this breaks my assumption", but on reading further, I'm not so sure that it does. Admittedly it depends on how one defines "middle class circumstances", but if you include there being two engaged parents in that definition, then I think it holds. I need to read the summary; they pushed a new version of Acrobat to our work computers last night and the damn software is insisting that I walk through a tutorial before I'm allowed to use it.
From the quoted article: "In the past, even if maybe one child on a block or a few children in a neighborhood were raised by single parents -- including single mothers after a father died -- there weren't vast numbers of children raised by single parents. There was, very importantly, stability that comes from having an environment populated by family units -- intact family units, sometimes with mother, father, and a grandmother in the home."
Interesting. I wonder if the inverse of this "neighborhood effect" is also true -- that children who grow up in intact families, but in a neighborhood where they are surrounded by single-parent households, have worse outcomes.
Cousin Dave at March 20, 2018 6:47 AM
Don't worry Amy. Within a decade or so whites will have an out of wedlock birth rate of 70% too. And thus we will close the black-white achievement gap. We are already around 50% so not much further to go.
"Is it absent fathers or is it single mothers that are the problem?"
What is the difference? This is like asking is heads up or tails down. It is the same situation. If you are asking for why black mothers are historically single then it is neither the mother or the father's fault, it is uncle Sam's. Welfare rules incentivised things so that any responsible parent would break up. This was a race neutral policy change but since more black were eligible for welfare the black populace was affected more. Whites with the same economic circumstances acted in the exact same way.
"I wonder if the inverse of this "neighborhood effect" is also true"
From my experience the answer is yes. Your kids don't stop at your front door. If everyone in their school is in a single family home they will move towards the mean. They may be better than many but it still has a large effect.
Ben at March 20, 2018 8:48 AM
Studies that concluded that divorce did not hurt kids took a short-term view and very coarse scale idea of what "harm" was. It is clear from longer studies that children with 2 parents, of whatever race, do better in life: less prison, higher income, less drugs, less teen pregnancy. The prison and income results apply more to the boys, and the teen pregnancy and single motherhood to the girls. This is the bad impact that the welfare system has had: on the kids. You can find the same impact in England among all-white neighborhoods. Just because you claim to be helping, doesn't mean you are helping.
cc at March 20, 2018 9:20 AM
> "I wonder if the inverse of this "neighborhood
> effect" is also true"
> From my experience the answer is yes. Your kids
> don't stop at your front door. If everyone in
> their school is in a single family home they will
> move towards the mean. They may be better than
> many but it still has a large effect.
Agreed. Peer group norms often have a much larger impact on children than parental norms.
Snoopy at March 20, 2018 10:11 AM
> "Is it absent fathers or is it single mothers that
> are the problem?"
> What is the difference? This is like asking is
> heads up or tails down. It is the same situation.
That's not quite what I mean. Perhaps women who make poor choices in whom the father of their children is also make poor parenting choices. So the problem would include poor parenting, not just the absence of the father.
Snoopy at March 20, 2018 10:15 AM
Ben is on the right track: Welfare rules incentivised things so that any responsible parent would break up. The additional benefit is that it insulated people to a certain extent from bad choices if they chose the wrong person to make babies with.
Say it with me: you get more of what you subsidize.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 20, 2018 11:20 AM
"Father are unneeded until you need a scapegoat for children not doing well.""Is it absent fathers or is it single mothers that are the problem? Not sure you can tell from this."
You're being obtuse on purpose. I dunno why.
The more role models, the easier "fit" a person has in any household. It must be apparent what the people in the house do, because if it isn't, their authority vanishes.
One of the many ways you get a rebellious or apathetic 13-yer-old is to be useless in the house. If the government gives you a check for nothing, and that's all you do for income, no one thinks you are worth the time of day.
Radwaste at March 20, 2018 11:28 AM
In that case, only your presence is needed - to ensure the continued arrival of checks - not your wisdom, guidance, or authority.
And the petulant 13-year-old will have, by then, figured out that his presence is also needed for you to continue to collect that check. In effect, welfare puts you on an equal footing with your teenager. It does not elevate you, like having an actual job greater than what the teenager could get on his own does.
Conan the Grammarian at March 20, 2018 11:55 AM
It isn't one simple thing Snoopy. Raising a child is a long process. At the beginning a child needs constant attention. Being able to spread this work between two people helps a lot. Even if you are only splitting things where one takes care of the kid full time and the other makes money. Doing everything yourself doesn't work well. Instead your child ends up bonding with the babysitter because that is who it spends all it's time with.
As they grow kids require less of your time (THANK GOD!). Then you end up with average sexual differences. While not everyone is the same the vast majority do fit certain stereotypes. Men are far more likely to push their kids in healthy ways. Women offer more nurturing and emotional support. As I said this doesn't apply to everyone but when you are dealing with large groups of people the majority trend sets the standard. People somewhat revert to the community mean. Having a large number of intact family units with a culture that celebrates education helps everyone.
When a child hits puberty they physically change into an adult. At that point the parent is largely ineffective. The child is no longer a child but instead an independent adult. Only the grossest of behavior modifications still work. And often they are more receptive of non-parent's guidance than of a parent's. So community standards are even more important at this point.
The value of an intact family vary depending on the stage of the child but are usually good at all ages.
"Perhaps women who make poor choices in whom the father of their children is also make poor parenting choices. So the problem would include poor parenting"
Trying to do it all on your own is an inherent poor parenting choice. One that is sufficiently bad that it overshadows most other good parenting choices. And this applies to both fathers and mothers. It is just that in the US there are so few single parent fathers that they become statistically insignificant.
Ben at March 20, 2018 11:56 AM
More ignoring the elephant in the room. The negative results affect only black BOYS and not black GIRLS -- who do just fine. A higher percentage of black girls go to college than white boys.
You figure it out. Never mind that feminist behind the curtain.
Jay R at March 20, 2018 12:53 PM
Single mother, married mother, cohabiting mother, bio-father, stepfather, live-in boyfriend, mother's pimp; involved father, uninvolved father...
The quality of the role model is as important as the presence of one.
Parents role-modelling in Chicago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxZG9JBgMhQ
Ken R at March 20, 2018 2:37 PM
Parents role-modelling in Miami:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJoDt8wf8e4
Ken R at March 20, 2018 2:38 PM
You'd think the reporter for Inside Edition could at least get the name of the restaurant correct. It's not "Chuck E. Cheeses." It's "Chuck E. Cheese."
If nothing else, she could have checked it on the marquee.
Conan the Grammarian at March 20, 2018 2:56 PM
Kids imitating their role models:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43fFoOWcdeY
Ken R at March 20, 2018 3:02 PM
Boys following their mothers' example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UQ0NknhIi8
Ken R at March 20, 2018 3:19 PM
So what would it take to encourage guys to stick around with their families?
Are the women driving them off?
Are they leaving so their kids won't lose food stamps or other benefits?
Are they horndogs chasing other women?
Are they unable to find good jobs and feel too ashamed to stay?
Are they just flakes?
NicoleK at March 21, 2018 6:47 AM
Women initiate 70% of divorces in the US NicoleK. So for the most part women are driving men off.
Ben at March 21, 2018 12:43 PM
I will admit I was being a bit flip with you NicokeK. Look at how you asked your question. It clearly implies men are the issue. Look at the options you suggested. 1 option where women are the issue and 4 options where men are the issue. Clearly you want this to be all men's fault.
Well sorry, but you are wrong.
The reasons for no marriage and divorce vary based on people's circumstances. I've already covered the welfare class above. Those issues are still applicable today as they were fifty years ago. For the middle class there are two main issues.
The first one is education. It is a common part of today's public schools to teach that men are oppressors, that marriage is bondage, and that women don't need men. Despite all of that women still want to get married. But it does mean that women don't commit to marriage. Especially for millenials women are looking for reasons to abandon a marriage.
The second main issue is child support. 98% of child support cases women get the kids. While in 50% of contested cases men get the kids that in no way implies that things are equal. Instead it shows people only contest when they have a reasonable chance of winning. Clearly men have near zero chance of gaining custody. Consequently if a woman has a kid she earns at least 25% of her partner's income for the next 18 years. Given that many women see no reason to keep that man around. They have his money. So what else do they need him for?
Hence the high rate of divorce (50% of marriages) and the disproportionate ratio of who files (women initiate 70% of the time).
This has lead to a change in the way men operate. While it takes only one person to end a marriage it still takes two to begin one. Given these unequal outcomes men are far more leery of entering marriage. Consequently women have to woo men into marrying them. Amy has written on this behavior over and over again. She has talked about how historically abnormal it is. But at the end of the day the party with the most to lose has to be wooed. Historically that was women but currently that is men.
And this is most apparent in the millenial generation. While the marriage rate has been dwindling since 1970 there was a huge drop that happened in 2000. This is when people born after 1980 would have started getting married. They aren't. The divorce rate seems to still be holding steady at 50% of marriages. So while the number of divorces are falling it appears to only be because you have to get married before you can get divorce. The current out of wedlock birth rate is 50%. If you expand that to include those who's parent's divorce while the child is at home you are looking at under 25% of American children grow up in an intact home. It is officially weird to have both your birth parents with you when you graduate high school.
Quite a change from a few decades ago. And while I am not that young anymore this is why I snarked 'Marriage is for rich people and gays.' For the younger generation that is how they view things.
As for who is at fault, yes it is women. Or at least the incentives they are under. As for what it would take to reverse this trend? Massive changes in child support at a minimum. Perhaps even abolishing the whole system. Maybe more. I don't know.
Either way on current trend lines all Americans should stabilize where black Americans have been for decades. A 70% out of wedlock birth rate by 2040. And thus we will close the pesky black-white achievement gap. Yay!
Ben at March 23, 2018 7:45 AM
Actually, I took the second option ("so their kids won't lose food stamps or other benefits") as a result of bad government policy and the fourth option ("unable to find good jobs and feel too ashamed to stay") as a recognition that men often define themselves by their jobs.
In the second, an acknowledgement that when a woman is married, she is less-eligible for food stamps and other benefits. If her husband/boyfriend/baby-daddy cannot find work, the government still calculates his expected contribution and reduces her benefits accordingly. Thus, if he leaves, she gets a larger benefit from the government. It's one of the long-standing criticisms of the welfare system as currently structured - that it actively discourages marriage and encourages fathers to abandon their families.
In the fourth, a somewhat sympathetic acknowledgement that a man's pride is often bound up with his ability to provide for his family and that an extended period of unemployment can lead to a loss of self worth and depression.
As for the third and the fifth options? Well, there are men who chase other women despite being married and men who are just nuts, so those are legitimate options.
Conan the Grammarian at March 26, 2018 7:53 AM
Conan, The third and fifth option should be gender neutral. At least in current practice. There are just as many women horndogs chasing men and women are just as flaky as men.
The question itself was flawed. It assumed the problem was with men. As I pointed out with far too many words the issue isn't men it is women. And the issue with women is poor government policy that discourages them from staying married.
Ben at March 26, 2018 9:42 AM
Leave a comment