The Stability of the family

[BioCatholic]

Because the Conservatives often talk, and at times, yell about the “Family”, I have long wondered why is it that many policies in place today seem to be in direct opposition to the financial stability of a family.

For example, in the business world, career-driven individuals can virtually sacrifice their entire free time, and work tirelessly to achieve promotions, bonuses, and stock options. Single, unmarried individuals often excel at this, as they do not have a wife nor children at home. Married mothers/fathers while still putting in long hours, do not tend to work the 90-100 hour week that top-tier go-getters do. Family men/women often are out competed, both in the workplace, and sometimes in the stock/business world.

In the sciences, the M.D. and Ph.D. degrees often take a serious toll on family life. Often, Medical students have horrific times competing for, and getting desirable residencies. Ph.D students have it worse, as Federal funding is so very limited, and it takes extraordinary amounts of work to get and keep a grant. For both, having a professional job often entails long, long days and weekends of work. There again, single and/or a person with no children often do better in these situations. Much better

It seems our society is setup so that those who want excellence and financial success can attain it. However, it seems that single individuals, and childless people/couples can strongly out compete family workers. If a father/mother works a 40 hour week, and then goes home at 5:30pm, they often are severely put at a disadvantage by those who stay to 9-10 pm. Productivity most often brings reward, so those 9-10pm’ers reap more rewards, and more promotions. You get my drift here. **Those without families (or without regard for their own family) can powerfully out compete those with more traditional family units. **Hence, the traditional family can make far less money, and have far less stability because mothers/fathers are out competed by those who are willing to do what it takes. It seems the corporate world does not care about the family, and will take the people who are willing to work the hardest. Those who have more money can diversify their assets, thereby increasing their wealth/stability, while not having to worry about the cost of children.

So what is there to do about it? If parents with 3,4,5 children and a single household income are being out competed by childless hard workers, how do you “level the playing field”. Who needs the money more? Actually, who deserves the money more? Do you even need to “level the playing field”?

Do we:

1. Cap the work hours of single/childless people
2. Cap the Salaries of single/childless people
3. Pass legislation to require corporations and business to only judge qualifications/merits based on a 40 hour week, so any work above that cannot be used to discriminate against a “family person”.
4. Other?

 

[Newbie2]

Because the Conservatives often talk, and at times, yell about the “Family”, I have long wondered why is it that many policies in place today seem to be in direct opposition to the financial stability of a family.

For example, in the business world, career-driven individuals can virtually sacrifice their entire free time, and work tirelessly to achieve promotions, bonuses, and stock options. Single, unmarried individuals often excel at this, as they do not have a wife nor children at home. Married mothers/fathers while still putting in long hours, do not tend to work the 90-100 hour week that top-tier go-getters do. Family men/women often are out competed, both in the workplace, and sometimes in the stock/business world.

In the sciences, the M.D. and Ph.D. degrees often take a serious toll on family life. Often, Medical students have horrific times competing for, and getting desirable residencies. Ph.D students have it worse, as Federal funding is so very limited, and it takes extraordinary amounts of work to get and keep a grant. For both, having a professional job often entails long, long days and weekends of work. There again, single and/or a person with no children often do better in these situations. Much better

It seems our society is setup so that those who want excellence and financial success can attain it. However, it seems that single individuals, and childless people/couples can strongly out compete family workers. If a father/mother works a 40 hour week, and then goes home at 5:30pm, they often are severely put at a disadvantage by those who stay to 9-10 pm. Productivity most often brings reward, so those 9-10pm’ers reap more rewards, and more promotions. You get my drift here. **Those without families (or without regard for their own family) can powerfully out compete those with more traditional family units. **Hence, the traditional family can make far less money, and have far less stability because mothers/fathers are out competed by those who are willing to do what it takes. It seems the corporate world does not care about the family, and will take the people who are willing to work the hardest. Those who have more money can diversify their assets, thereby increasing their wealth/stability, while not having to worry about the cost of children.

So what is there to do about it? If parents with 3,4,5 children and a single household income are being out competed by childless hard workers, how do you “level the playing field”. Who needs the money more? Actually, who deserves the money more? Do you even need to “level the playing field”?

Do we:

1. Cap the work hours of single/childless people
2. Cap the Salaries of single/childless people
3. Pass legislation to require corporations and business to only judge qualifications/merits based on a 40 hour week, so any work above that cannot be used to discriminate against a “family person”.
4. Other?

The problem seems to be that wealth=stability=happiness, and that 'taint so.

If productivity brings “reward”, that gives me a promotion where I have to work longer hours away from my family to earn that big raise or bonus…well, you can keep that “reward”.

The answer is to look at “success” not in terms of money, and not to view such success/wealth/money as desirable in itself.

Also, to look at what we have as what it is; a gift. Some of us have it easier than others in terms of what we’ve been given. Our careers, our aptitudes, intelligence, etc. are all gifts, and some of us make far more money than others.

Financial stability? Another 911 will take care of that. Be careful not to build too many barns to store all your wheat…just when you think you’ve “made it” in terms of wealth and stability…well, we all know the story.

 

[Pious_Mat]

So what’s causing it? Why are people working a hundred hours a week, neglecting their families (or not even having them to begin with), and clawing and killing each other to get more money?

No God. God doesn’t exist in the modern state. In fact, he’s downright mocked and insulted. As Bishops Sheen said in a prayer to the Virgin Mary, “we have exiled your beloved Son from our lives, education, and work.”

If God were more present in society, then perhaps more individuals would serve him rather than mammon.

Even if we put religion aside, what does it give one to be a workaholic and be well-to-do, when one has no family, no beliefs, no real convictions? Nothing. Life is only temporary, and as they say, you can’t take your money with you.

 

[chicago]

This is why the “family wage” ought to be a standard for society.

 

[Newbie2]

Which is how much?

The problem is, many small businesses such as mine cannot afford to pay our employees enough to support a family. This gets political, but in a free-market society such as ours, we cannot mandate what employers pay their employees, or you force small businesses out of business.

We try to give our employees regular increases and pay them as much as we can, but it’s difficult to live exclusively off our pay scale.

Good thought and great ideal, but impossible to put into practice.

 

[chicago]

Which is how much?

The problem is, many small businesses such as mine cannot afford to pay our employees enough to support a family. This gets political, but in a free-market society such as ours, we cannot mandate what employers pay their employees, or you force small businesses out of business.

We try to give our employees regular increases and pay them as much as we can, but it’s difficult to live exclusively off our pay scale.

One could argue that (in a just free market) either the family wage would make it affordable for more people to support such a business (perhaps even at higher prices) or that it would be best for it to fold. “Free market” is not inherantly equal to “businesses must suceed at the cost of employees”. If the business, itself, provides a family wage for the employer alone but not the employees, it is (unfortunately) not ultimately a good situation which ought to exist. Given, we live in an imperfect world where all one can practically do is strive nobly for this ideal, while remaining commited to it as best as possible, even where “market circumstances” force it to fall short. But the principle, itself, remains the just standard, considering that the family (not the individual or the product or the dollar or the market) is the proper end and basis of society.

 

[steveandersen]

Because the Conservatives often talk, and at times, yell about the “Family”,

and yet states that traditionally see themselves as conservative tend to have higher divorce rates, higher out of wedlock births, and higher teen pregnancy rates.

Part of it is economic (many of those states tend to be poorer or have wide income distributions)
And part of it is cultural or so I would like to think (the state with the lowest divorce rate, Massachusetts, has a high percentage of Catholics in the population)

I have long wondered why is it that many policies in place today seem to be in direct opposition to the financial stability of a family.

For example, in the business world, career-driven individuals can virtually sacrifice their entire free time, and work tirelessly to achieve promotions, bonuses, and stock options. Single, unmarried individuals often excel at this, as they do not have a wife nor children at home. Married mothers/fathers while still putting in long hours, do not tend to work the 90-100 hour week that top-tier go-getters do. Family men/women often are out competed, both in the workplace, and sometimes in the stock/business world.

While those maybe true they are not policy decisions by governments.
People who were willing to work very long hours (possibly) at the expense of their family have always had an opportunity to earn more… in the short term that is.
Working 100 hours a week can show up in your paycheck right away. Having a large loving family that will support you when you are no longer able to work 100 hours week is something that takes decades to get in place but you only notice it is missing when you need it.

It seems our society is setup so that those who want excellence and financial success can attain it. ….

sic transit munde

Fortunately we know that there is more to life than financial success

….So what is there to do about it? If parents with 3,4,5 children and a single household income are being out competed by childless hard workers, how do you “level the playing field”. Who needs the money more? Actually, who deserves the money more? Do you even need to “level the playing field”?

Do we:

1. Cap the work hours of single/childless people
2. Cap the Salaries of single/childless people
3. Pass legislation to require corporations and business to only judge qualifications/merits based on a 40 hour week, so any work above that cannot be used to discriminate against a “family person”.
4. Other?

I don’t see the need for any of the first three options
As for #4…
There are many places in the world where it is recognized that the time a parent spends with their children in the first few years are critical to healthy development so that one or both parents are given stipends to stay at home. Some nations do this as a way to boost the birth rate, others just out of social obligation.

I think it would be far more practical and desirable to help one parent stay with a child for the first few years than the alternative we have of shipping kids off to day care at very young ages.

That will never fly in the US though

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’d argue that the one coming home at 5PM is indeed much richer than his counterpart working until 10PM and coming home to an empty house.

It’s all about what you cherish. A bedtime story to your daughter or the lovely commute in that flashy Lexus.

We don’t ‘need’ to do anything to fix it.

Some ‘need’ to reset their priorities.

 

[catharina]

I think it would be far more practical and desirable to help one parent stay with a child for the first few years than the alternative we have of shipping kids off to day care at very young ages.

That will never fly in the US though

Thanks for your statement. I must add to this thought. I’ve worked with many pre-schoolers in their own homes (when they are not in daycare for one reason or another). One of my greatest challenges in this setting is to help parents understand that if their little ones tend to “fall apart” at home it’s most likely related to the safety of being at home and the stresses the little ones face each day they must conform in a groupcare “school” setting. I’ve seen such events happen over and over again and I’ve worked with children for more than forty years. We ask a lot of children when we send them into group settings, no matter how lovely or proper that setting might be, acc to modern guidelines.

 

[ljprevo]

I lost a job because I am a family man.

I was the Director of System Administration. I over seen the whole IT department, from networking, to hardward, software, programming, servers, PBX system, phone dialer, etc.

Our workday was 8:00am to 5:00pm.

At 5:00pm I was out the door to head home. I lived an hour away.

I was told I was salary and that I needed to be avail any time they needed me and that my job was VERY important and had to be avail at a moments notice.

They did not like the fact I hit the door when everyone else left. I did not do this all the time. However I did get there early.

It was a newer company and the budget didn’t have room for an assistant yet. Well long story short after the 1st of this year both the company and myself felt that it was in our best interest that we part ways.

I couldn’t give them the hours that they wanted. They wanted me to be in an hour eary and stay until everything was compiled for the next day.

I found myself working a lot from home and never really got a “vacation” day. On vacation last summer I got up at 7:00am to remote connect in and get thing ready every day.

Well I have sincve moved on and not work strictly from home, punch in 9:00 to 6:00 and only do programming work.

I had to what I feel “fall back” my career to have my family life work. Though I make fairly the same, I feel my advancement is at a stall.