Three facts that need to be taught in school
A report released today by the New Brunswick Department of Education shows the number of students dropping out of school in this province is pretty low, 2.4% from 2005-2006. One is too many but that seems to be a pretty low percentage in the grand scheme of things. Still, even that amount means almost 1400 students left school without finishing. That's of serious concern because let me blunt, chances are that most of those 1400 are screwed.
One of my favourite authors, former CBS journalist Bernard Goldberg wrote in two of his books Arrogance and Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right some pretty straight up advice that should be hammered home to students and their parents/guardians. "In order to avoid poverty, just do three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and don't have a child until you're at least twenty years old. Only 8 percent of people who do all three of those things wind up poor, but a staggering 79 percent of those who fail to do them wind up in poverty."
If we're going to achieve self sufficiency in New Brunswick the kids need to stay in school.
Crossposted - Spinks from the Right at CanadaEast
posted by
Spinks at 12:58 PM -
link
...
... 
35 Comments
You're assuming that those three things are a conscious decision.
2:10 PM
?!? anon? Explain.
2:43 PM
Spinks, I'm curious. How you ever read "What Liberal Media"? You seem to be a fan of Goldberg, but "What Liberal Media" seems to take a different point of view about bias in reporting. Just curious.
3:23 PM
No I haven't Mark, but I will check it out. Thanks for the tip.
What I like about Goldberg unlike some who claim liberal bias in the media is that he doesn't believe there's a grand liberal conspiracy in the media. Neither do I.
However like him I do think there is a serious lack of diversity of thought in most newsrooms and far too much groupthink. This starts right at most Journalism schools. In New Brunswick at St. Thomas University for example, unless it has recently changed, journalism students are required to read the New York Times each day but only the New York Times, a liberal paper. Nothing wrong with them reading the Times but there should be some balance like perhaps the Washington Times, a conservative paper. That's not just at STU. That type of thing happens at most J-schools throughout North America.
3:56 PM
"In order to avoid poverty, just do three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and don't have a child until you're at least twenty years old. Only 8 percent of people who do all three of those things wind up poor, but a staggering 79 percent of those who fail to do them wind up in poverty."
Of course those who don't finish highschool, marry before having a child and have kids before twenty are often poor in the first place! Even a rich kid who has a kid before twenty will be well looked after by their family who will often ensure they go to university and settle down well. Serious confusion of cause and effect here.
What you're saying is like saying the reason for global warming is the decline in the number of pirates - from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
3:56 PM
You would have to ask each and every one of those 79% anon but regardless if that's the case or not, there is no question doing those three things will improve your chances at a better life. I should point out that although that quote is in Goldberg's books it actually came from someone else...an advisor to ex-President Bill Clinton.
4:00 PM
"there is no question doing those three things will improve your chances at a better life."
Maybe, but you can't take that as the be all and end all solution to poverty... and definitely not as a substitute for good social programs to help the poor.
And regardless of who the quote comes from, I still have issues with it, be it from a prominent left winger, right winger, or centrist.
4:04 PM
Social programs can help but they are no cure. You can throw all the money in the world at a problem. If people don't take some responsibility for themselves the cycle will continue.If you're going to count on government to solve your problems you will be disappointed. Those three things are sage advice. There is no downside to doing them.
4:13 PM
Uh, beg to differ. You think there were no single moms in the seventies? Unemployment in the seventies and eighties was about double what it is today. Yet standards of living (averages) were far higher and there was little noticeable poverty.
Our family didn't have much money, we built a home with funds from a federal program that paid the interest on the mortgage for the first five or ten years. Virtually all the new homes back in the seventies in Oromocto West were built as part of that program.
Now ask how many of those programs there are. Zippo. It was a problem in the seventies that people didn't have enough for the mortgage on new homes, a government program was set up and bingo.
That's what medicare is, that's what roads are, thats what firemen and policemen are. They are social programs designed to address a problem and they all work pretty well, certainly better than the alternative.
For poverty, its a no brainer, in New York they have a system of dealing with the homeless by first giving them a home, then going from there and so far there is success.
That's the big myth, that 'throwing money at a problem' doesn't work-it works, and it works damn well.
And the New York Times is a liberal newspaper...oh that is just too funny!!
5:15 PM
What survey shows poorer people less happier than richer people?Is it the richer people watching the poor people enjoy life and wanting them in as much misery as they are?
Or is it the few big companies in dire need of enslaved university degree people who speak french,which they aren't going to get.
5:15 PM
"Kids need to stay in school". Duh. Hardly insightful commentary, Spinks. Is blogging for the Irvings dulling your normally sharp edges?
Also, I don't understand how marrying before having a child makes a difference.
12:06 PM
Call it an opening to make a point pedgehog. That you're thinking about those points is the reason why I wrote it.
Also, I don't understand how marrying before having a child makes a difference.
Yet the stats show it does. And forget anonymous stats, walk around town. While certainly there are two parent families who are married that are poor, there are far fewer than single moms or single dads. Divorce also plays havoc on a family's finances and often the security of the child as well.
With that being said there are single moms and dads out there who do phenomenol jobs, however the traditional family still works the best as far as finances and creating a stable homelife. Kids need moms and dads. Neither is exclusive of the other. Look at gangs. Almost all gang members have no dad in their lives. That's not a statiscal aboration. That says something. Yet in media and even in society, dad is often portrayed as a joke and completely unnecessary. Clearly that's not the case. I have a blog coming up soon that will explore this in more depth. As Charles Leblanc often writes stay tuned.
5:03 PM
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I know it's better to have a couple than a single parent; I just don't think the couple has to be married.
9:43 PM
The stats suggest otherwise.
But you're not alone pedgehog and my view is clearly in the minority. Marriage has been under fire for decades to the point where for the first time married couples are now the minority. The ones who suffer the most in this new dynamic are the kids. Marriage often brings stability to a family. It's unfortunate more isn't done to promote it. Easier divorce and common-law has been toughest on the kids. Like I wrote, lots of people work very hard to make their situation work and do a phenomenol job but the stability of a marriage for a family can't be beat when both the husband and wife work at it and take their vows seriously. There will always be bumps in the road but it still works the best.
10:08 PM
Because two events occur in a similar field doesn't mean they are cause and effect related. If children are raised by one parent then they have half the money (or less), therefore its far more likely they will live in a poor neighbourhood where they face all the peer pressures, etc., mentioned above at the link. That a boy joins a gang is not 'caused' by the lack of a father simply because it is noted that many boys in gangs don't have a father...there are always other variables.
It also isn't true that 'most' gang members don't have a father, but just in the example above.
Gang membership is also often prevalent in marginalized cultures. However, often 'gangs' are copied in other areas, and gangs come in all shapes and sizes. We had a 'gang' growing up which consisted of a large group of people. However, the emphasis is here only on criminal gangs, mostly in Toronto.
However, looking at gang membership, we can see that when you take into account the number of single parent households, it is VERY clear that the majority of those children are NOT in criminal gangs, so there goes that theory.
And of course if marriage were the 'sacred key' then of course there wouldn't be a difference between common law marriage and formalized marriage-both have two parent families, and as stated, common law doesn't 'do as well' as formalized marriages, proving that there is far more to the issue than simply marriage.
And of course there is little research done on the differences between children brought up in homosexual households-where they have 'two parents', but just not a father and mother. So it is just as likely that having two sources of income, or just somebody else to share the load, can be equally effective.
And of course not all single parent households are the same. Some have a strong family background with grandparents, friends, co workers and others, while others are essentially 'on their own'. In that case it isn't so much a 'father' influence as simply somebody around to pick up the slack.
And of course the duties of the 'father' can vary widely. There are plenty of negligent fathers whose only real relevance is as a bread winner. Add a child support payment or financial help from somewhere else and that cancels that out.
I know spinks desperately wants to believe that his ideas reflect reality, but thats far from proven here. Take any single mother and give her the resources that any double income (or other breadwinner) has, and thats obvious. Norway has tons of single mothers, far more per capita than Canada, how often do you hear about those marauding viking gangs of teens haunting Oslo?
11:12 PM
And of course if marriage were the 'sacred key' then of course there wouldn't be a difference between common law marriage and formalized marriage-both have two parent families, and as stated, common law doesn't 'do as well' as formalized marriages, proving that there is far more to the issue than simply marriage.
The difference is the vows and part and parcel to that the committment IF taken seriously. I can understand you wanting to present another point of view mike and that's welcomed but arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind. Forget about what "Spinks wants". I'll be upfront. I'd like to see society better promote stable marriages and kids having a mom and a dad. There is no downside to that yet there is a huge effort by some (given the comments above, yourself included) to downplay if not totally dismiss that significance. Easier divorce, common law, dysfunctional marriages have left millions of kids with a lack of security that continues to further generations. I really don't expect it to improve but neither can I say given all the evidence that its had no effect..and a negative one at that.
To get back on topic. Doing those three things will reduce your odds of not living in poverty. If you want government to look after you, you will be disappointed time and time again.
8:29 AM
Yes, but as mentioned above, simply having more money will decrease your chances of living in poverty as well. Again, statistics show associations, not causes.
You are using definitions to justify your argument, and that makes no sense. Not only is marriage not good enough, but it must be a 'stable marriage'. What does that mean? We know you mean a mother and a father, but again, the stats don't bear that out. Simply having the INCOME solves the problem as well. So it DOES just come down to what you 'want', not what research shows, or what society wants or anything else.
That its your opinion is fine, like you say, the only reason for this is to show the ALTERNATE viewpoint.
I know some single mothers and I have no doubt they'd be happy with 'stable marriages', the caveat is always that certainly conditions are met. They don't have men to fit those conditions, therefore they are not married. So 'promotion' means nothing, REALITY means everything. Husbands and wives, at least in our culture, get married because they love one another, which is something that doesn't need 'promotion'.
But again, a 'family' can take all kinds of shapes and sizes, and since its a free country, it really makes no difference what is 'promoted'. But actually, I was even trying to think of that 'liberal Hollywood' and was trying to think of TV shows that were about single parents and the issues they face and VERY few come to mind. In popular culture the number of 'nuclear family issues' far outweigh the other, even though as you state, non nuclear families are the norm. So I think its the OPPOSITE of what you claim-it is the Norman Rockwell america that is still promulgated by Hollywood even though its a minority.
9:18 AM
There are tonnes of unhappy, dysfunctional rich people. Money isn't the sole answer.
As for Hollywood, you'd be hard pressed to show me a program where dad isn't portrayed as a buffon and the family isn't totally dysfunctional. Hollywood is hardly promoting a healthy family.
Again, committment is a strong key to a healthy relationship, healthy family, and healthy kids. The vows of a marriage are clear about that. The problem is when they become only words as we're seeing in today's society and they are dismissed as meaningless or even further marginalized as you have done by calling it old-fashioned IE : uncool. That is unfortunate and further mitigates personal responsibility.
9:42 AM
I don't remember calling it old fashioned, you brought up the statistics saying that non nuclear families are the norm now, which shows a change from what 'used' to be the case, so YOU are the one showing that it is old fashioned, not me.
However, that is a VERY subjective and unsubstanciated statement that 'there are tons of unhappy rich people'. The saying that 'money buys happiness' isn't exactly true, but we do know that a serious LACK of it causes misery. Not primarily a lack of cash, but what cash leads to-a safe place to live, food, and clothing. Apart from that most people are quite content.
However, somebody can look it up but I remember reading research that showed that the most common factor in divorce was financial issues. Again, look at Norway, when single mothers have income supplements that give them a decent standard of living, you don't get the huge problems we see in the states and increasingly in Canada (in fact by some measures Canadian poverty issues have surpassed even american ones).
As for media stuff, let's look at an extreme example of what you mention, The Simpsons. The father is a 'buffoon', but you can also note that in the show over the years there is considerable emphasis each year to show that Homer loves his kids. It is a nuclear family, and I think over 15 years I could count the number of times that Marge sought an outside income.
Fox is quite good at that, you'll notice that ALL their animated shows aimed at younger audiences are nuclear families with stay at home moms. The mothers are usually the straight man with considerable intelligence, yet not enough to tell them that their husbands are abusive louts. Marge tsks as Homer strangles their son.
Its the prevalance of the nuclear family that we are talking about, not character studies. And by showing nuclear families more than any others-even though the fathers behaviour in reality would probably lead to a divorced parent family, that shows that Hollywood is emphasizing a family norm that obviously it prefers for some reason (namely advertisers).
You may remember what a 'scandal' it was a decade and a half ago that television even DARED to show a professional woman having a child out of wedlock. Less than a decade ago the main networks cancelled The Gilmore Girls, because it dared show a single mother with a positive relationship with her child. The show had enough support that another cable network picked it up, but that shows you just how extreme television is in its portrayal of family life.
The conservatism of Hollywood is pretty clear since you'll never hear the f word ANYTIME. In fact the Mormons used to own CBS. So again, the reality seems the opposite of what you portray.
10:17 AM
The conservatism of Hollywood is pretty clear since you'll never hear the f word ANYTIME.
Gee that would be a shame. People might actually walk around on the streets and have a little self respect and not use expletives every second word especially around kids. The horror.
Regardless that's not true. CBC has the "f" word and other expletives in their programming regularly enough and CTV even got in on the action with the Osbornes and the Sopranos. Expletives are ingrained in nearly all of Hollywood. I'm always amazed at parents who are baffled when little Johnny or Suzie start swearing. I often ask, "Do you swear around the kids?" The answer is always yes and/or televison/music in the hosue has it on. Monkey see, monkey do.
Again its not going anywhere and your view mike is the world view. I can't argue with that. However that doesn't mean its a good thing. We could do a lot worse than having more "Norman Rockwell" families where families love and respect ecah other.
10:52 AM
Respect doesn't necessarily have anything to do with language, and Norman Rockwell painted fictional models. Just because a couple shows have swear words though certainly doesn't prove the exception to the rule.
BUt families can love and respect one another no matter if they are nuclear families or not-that's the point.
That is not 'opinion', but simply facts. The 'good' or 'bad' part is symptomatic of society-since our society doesn't provide a social safety net anymore then a woman is far more likely to live in poverty under the conditions mentioned above. If we agree that poverty is 'bad' then obviously, like you say, it's not a 'good thing' that such poverty exists.
However, in dealing with the social problem we are talking about two different things. I'm pointing to Norway and saying that rectifying poverty simply means having more services designed to alleviate poverty, while you are saying that because of statistical evidence YOU want to see people change their social norms (although since pregnancy is often unintentional and love is fickle, that doesn't seem to be real helpful).
Changing social norms is extremely difficult, much more difficult than changing social policy. Norway and other scandinavian countries have no trouble doing social policy, the only reason WE can't do it is our political system. The question is which is easier, changing political systems or changing social norms.
All that love talk makes you sound like a hippie though, I thought you were supposed to be the 'Right' of centre:)
1:42 PM
YOU want to see people change their social norms
Some acceptance of personal responsibility would go a long ways, yes. You know I believe that so that's not new.
Social programs can get one back on their feet but depending on government to fix all your problems? The government will fail you time and time again. The world owes me a living just doesn't work.
2:19 PM
Again, that's your opinion so you shouldn't state it as fact. Nobody said anything about 'fixing all your problems', we are talking about POVERTY. So I'm glad you finally agree, we are talking about government programs to 'get one back on one's feet', in other words-get out of poverty.
So long as we agree on that, then it becomes OUR responsibility to get government to at least do THAT. Of course we can go beyond that, again, Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, and scandinavian countries have the lowest poverty levels. Those countries ALL have very high levels of government involvement, far far more than Canada. The difference is that they have a different type of government, their government actually represents the interests of their population.
When you have a government like that, then government CAN and DOES solve huge social problems, and of course social problems are collections of individual problems. It was a huge problem that canadians couldn't afford medical care, and a government program came out of that, and was VERY successful.
Again, it is ONLY your opinion of what government can or can't do. In fact you can look all around you and see the SUCCESS of that, not the failures. You need roads, telecommunications, investment, water, education and health and government provides ALL those. Did they 'fail you time and again'? Not at all, the times they outrightly fail in canada are unfortunately getting more frequent as more and more people tune out politics, but Canada up to the mid nineties was ranked the best place in the world. Since then we've plummetted, only because government DOESN"T represent its citizens. However, its far from the case that they fail you, take a look at how many public employees there are in the province-they are a massive success. It's the private market that is consistently a disappointment.
But at least we've got you admitting hte first part.
3:11 PM
..and yours is your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
3:43 PM
Actually its NOT my opinion. If you fall down the stairs and break your leg what will you do? Will you state that 'government fails me time and again so I'll fix this leg myself'. I doubt it. When you went to school, or if you have kids, did you say 'well, government fails me time and again so I'll teach myself or home school my kids'.
In the winter time do you start shovelling the street to get to work because government 'fails you time and again'? I doubt it.
Do those who work for the government say 'I won't go into work today because government probably won't pay me because they are always letting me down'. Not too often.
That's not opinion.
5:54 PM
No it is, but that's your opinion that its not your opinion. Again thanks for sharing.
6:06 PM
The fight for the last word..it's only opinion if you live in a log cabin in the middle of the woods and never use any government services. If you do, then you've just proven that you are wrong, that government does NOT 'fail over and over again'. But thanks for playing.
8:57 PM
Sorry man. You're arguing that big government can solve all of your problems. That's your opinion. Again thanks for sharing it.
6:39 AM
Aside from the argument about "big government" (which Spinks is so deftly participating in by saying "that's your opinion" instead of actually debating it), Spinks I wish you would stop lumping common law in with divorced and single parent families. You still haven't explained sufficiently how common law is any less stable than actually being married.
For example: my partner and I would like to someday have children. We have been in a committed relationship for five years. We both think marriage is a bunch of outdated, misogynistic rituals that have no significance to our lives. How would going through with one day of some crap we have no interest in, make our relationship any stronger or provide more stability for our potential family?
The reason people are pulling away from marriage is because it's meaningless to them. If you already know you're committed, why do you need to spend thousands of dollars saying it? All this wailing and gnashing of teeth about the downfall of marriage fails to take into consideration stable, long term commitments that didn't financially benefit the diamond companies. How is common law a bad thing?
7:00 AM
Actually, I didn't say that at all, and don't believe it (and really wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth so to speak). Depending of course what you mean by 'big' and 'government' and 'all your problems'. That doesn't even make sense, do you think anybody out there is arguing that if your girl left you then 'big government' will get her back for you , or at least a replacement? Nonsense.
However, the above makes an interesting point because it reinforces what is wrong with the whole argument. As Spinks has noted, a good percentage of marriages end in divorces, although I think the statistics show it is marginally higher for common law, but I can't remember.
There is no evidence that with income being equal there is any benefit to anybody that a household include a husband and wife and children. We know that's Spinks ideal, and he will probably keep looking for evidence that it is 'right' for the rest of his life.
I suspect a rebuttal to the argument could be that "because you didn't spend all that money then you can't be as serious about it". That also makes little sense as often as not, marriages are paid for by parents. I know a husband and wife who went deep into hock for their marriage, and in year one things became rocky.
However, as for statistical evidence, there are some other stats 'children should be taught in school'. For example kids, you shouldn't be new immigrants. If you are new immigrants you have a 50% chance of living in poverty. You shouldn't be native, if you are native you have a 60% chance of living in poverty.
You shouldn't go into the logging industry. If you go into the logging industry you have a 50% chance of living in poverty. In fact, even if you are a senior manager you still have a 9% chance of living in poverty, showing just how poor canadian wages are.
Don't go into arts and culture, if you do, you have a 45% chance of living in poverty. Again, statistics SAY a lot, but you can't get policy out of a number.
9:38 AM
Mike and I have debated this before. We both know where the other stands pedgehog. You can read his blog for more.
On to your point, the difference is the vows and committment, which is particularly important when it comes to kids. Some common-laws work out. Hopefully yours does. That's your choice. However, common law particularly when it comes to the well being of children is often less stable.
The odds of separating if you live together even if you eventually get married are higher. The odds of separating period compared to those who get married is even higher. That naturally has an impact on kids.
I'm certain there are studies out there as to why but I'll offer my opinion and suggest the difference is the obvious one, the vows and taking them seriously.
Those who think marriage is "old fashioned" often point to the disintegration of it with half resulting in divorce as to its failure. What's left out is the fact that most of those divorces happen because one or both members of the couple don't keep their vows. Infidelity is rampant. However to throw out the institution of marriage is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Marriage can work well but it needs to be strengthened not weakened. Again, back to the original point of the blog, to reduce poverty, those three things clearly play a factor. To deny that serves no one well.
9:39 AM
But it doesn't matter if you get married or not. What matters is the commitment. I don't have to get up in front of people and say those vows if I already feel that way in my heart. Marriages fall apart, just like common law relationships fall apart. All I'm saying is that the ring doesn't make too much of a difference, except maybe making it a bit more difficult, legally, to get out of the relationship; making you feel a bit more trapped and overwhelmed when your spouse is unfaithful.
I just think there's no point to marriage, because anyone who could have a "successful" marriage and not divorce could just as easily save themselves some money and have a successful common law relationship.
11:47 AM
I hear what you're saying pedgehog, yet the stats say otherwise. And as you pointed out, marriage does make it more difficult to bail out. It's supposed to. That doesn't mean someone stays in an abusive relationship but it does mean you don't bail because you're bored. It takes work and if vows are taken seriously, it is 'til death do us part not 'til I find someone better. That brings stability particularly for the kids and ensures a couple is always working at their marriage IF they take those vows seriously. It's unfortunate it's reached the point where many consider marriage a joke.
12:30 PM
The number one reason for divorce is NOT infidelity but money money money. The other main reasons include:
Infidelity.
Poor communication
Change in priorities. This can be caused by having kids or due to ones job, big things.
Lack of commitment to the marriage.
Sexual problems.
Other reasons that come up frequently, but not as frequently are:
Addictions
Failed expectations of your spouse (believing one is a super hero or that he/she can fix or be everything to or for you)
Physical, emotional or sexual abuse.
As you can see, all those are pretty serious issues. However, obviously these people do not agree with Spinks that it is better to 'tough it out' rather actually do what they WANT.
But again, because a statistic says something, that means nothing about individual relationships. Divorces can be VERY easy-depending on the two people involved, and I suspect that if the divorce is difficult then the marriage was probably hell if the couple wants to go through with it.
Since both people face immeasurably more difficult financial situations once single, I suspect that marriage was pretty intolerable. What seems old fashioned is the notion that 'you should do what you don't want to do' for the sake of the children.
Some recent studies show that there is only a small minority of the population of children from divorced homes who suffer long term 'damage' from the divorce. One said 25% vs. the 10% from intact families. One can then question the situations of those, for example would the children in that group add to the 10% if the families had remained intact.
But also, there is some evidence that what is most stressful is the emotional damage done by the FACTORS leading to divorce. In other words, the repercussions would be the same whether the divorce occurred or not.
As for Pedgehog's point above, I'll be personal just to take sides. We got married in a very institutionalized catholic ceremony that cost lots of money. The 'work' we went to was to go to a four hour 'course'. However, this was very much done for the needs of the family. Like you, my feelings for my wife are not governed by any 'work' that is done in preparing for a ceremony, and its even somewhat insulting to claim that 'seriousness' is defined as partaking in what can be defined by some as an obsolete ceremony.
I seriously doubt that any people avoid marriage on the assumption that it makes it harder to divorce. Again, with the statistics its far easier to show that certain income classes may be more likely to be involved in common law marriages than others due to the cost involved, due to the needs of work, lack of family, etc. Again, statistics don't show the whole story.
Marriages are remarkably easy to get, so as mentioned above, people have very specific reasons for what they do.
There is also the point that common law marriages ARE 'marriages by definition, no different than any other. In NB I think it is 3 years co habitating, but once the common law bond is established, it cannot simply be broken by moving out-in the eyes of the law you are married. So obviously it isn't any easier to get out of.
1:07 PM
Not tough it out mike. Work at it. IE : Take the marriage vows seriously.
1:31 PM
Post a Comment
Home