The Wealth of Nations Begins at Home

Economics has its roots in the Greek word “oikonomia,” which means the “management of the household.” Yet economists across the ideological spectrum have largely neglected the links between household family structure and the macroeconomic welfare of nations. With economics professor Joseph Price, IFS senior fellow W. Bradford Wilcox sought to remedy this oversight by examining the association between family structure and global economic growth in a chapter in the new book, Unequal Family Lives.

According to Wilcox and Price:

A stable marriage matters in part because it allows couples to make decisions over time that maximize the economic prosperity of their family unit. Stably married persons have incentives to invest in their marriage and benefit from specialization and economies of scale; their households also tend to earn and save more than their peers who are unmarried or divorced.

They argue that because of the economic benefits of marriage, “the more children are born and raised in stable, two-parent families, the more a society should experience economic growth.” To test their theory, they utilized marriage statistics, historical data on children, and gross domestic product (GDP) data from over 90 countries between 1968 and 2014. In a fixed-effects regression analysis, they found a positive relationship between marriage and economic growth around the world. Specifically:

for every 13-percentage-point increase in the proportion of adults who are married, there was an 8 percent increase in per capita GDP, net of controls for a range of sociodemographic factors. Likewise, every 13 percentage point increase in the proportion of children living in two-parent families is associated with a 16 percent increase in per capita GDP, after controlling for education, urbanization, age, population size, and other factors.

They conclude, "There is clearly a link between family structure and economic growth.”

But why would married, two-parent families help to boost the wealth of nations? Wilcox and Price pinpoint three specific mechanisms that may explain the family-wealth connection, showing that more two-parent families 1) foster more household savings, 2) decrease crime, and, 3) improve children’s academic success across the globe.

Household Savings

Consider savings. Using data from the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) to examine the household savings rate in 90 countries, Wilcox and Price find that the proportion of children living in two-parent families is associated with higher savings rates in the countries examined. In fact, the savings rate is nearly double in countries with the most two-parent families, compared to the countries with the fewest two-parent families.

Public Safety

Because safer communities are more prosperous, Wilcox and Price also explored the connection between two-parent families and violent crime in countries around the globe. We know that marriage and stable families help to reduce crime in two primary ways: 1) by discouraging men’s involvement in criminal activities and 2) by reducing children’s risk of involvement in delinquency and crime as adolescents and young adults. They point to neighborhood-level data from the U.S. and Canada, which indicates an association between more married families in a community and less crime. But what about violent crime at the country level? Using data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), they found a strong negative association between the proportion of children raised in two-parent families and homicide rates in 83 countries, including countries in Africa, North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania.

As the figure above illustrates, the average homicide rate is more than four times larger in countries in the bottom third in terms of children living with two parents compared to countries in the top third.

Educational Achievement

Another way more marriage and two-parent families may lead to higher economic growth is by boosting human capital for children. As Wilcox and Price explain, “children may benefit from the higher levels of time, money, and stability found in two-parent families, compared to single-parent families,” resulting in better educational outcomes that improve their future career success. In the U.S., there is ample research linking children’s academic success to married families. For example, children in married-parent families are more likely to graduate from high school, earn a college degree, and get a good job as adults than children from single-parent families.

Similarly, in other developed nations, children raised in two-parent families are less likely to repeat a grade and more likely to perform well on standardized testing. Wilcox and Price point to Sweden, Singapore, and Indonesia, where children in single-parent homes are “at least 70 percent more likely to be held back in school compared to their peers from two-parent families.” Moreover, in Europe, children from single-parent families are more likely than those from two-parent families to skip school.

Overall, Wilcox and Price show that marriage and two-parent families may help to foster global economic growth by increasing household savings rates, decreasing crime, and boosting children’s educational attainment in developed nations. While they acknowledge that their “results cannot definitively prove that family structure has a causal impact on economic growth,” they note, "if nothing else, the patterns documented in this paper suggest that stronger families, higher household savings rates, less crime, and higher economic growth may cluster together in mutually reinforcing ways."

These findings demonstrate that we cannot fully understand the forces fueling the wealth of nations without also paying attention to the health of the families that call those nations home.

SOURCE





Women who disappoint feminists

According to exit polling, in U.S. House races, white women split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, 49% each. But in the Georgia gubernatorial race that's still being delegitimized by Oprah's pick, Stacey Abrams, 75% of white women voted for Republican Brian Kemp. Clearly, in this critical race between a white, southern man and a black, professional, and educated woman, the only reason these while women voted for the archnemesis of Democrat women is because they're all racist.

Yet Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke, the latest Democrat candidate who has reporters swooning, lost to incumbent Senator Ted Cruz with the backing of almost 60% of white women and a treasury that outspent Cruz by up to $30 million. How could these supposedly racist white women vote for a Hispanic man whose family immigrated to this nation legally with a story of the American Dream?

In the case of the Caucasian Chick Caucus going for Cruz, angry feminists spewed that white women were "foot soldiers of the patriarchy." By now, we hope that these hundreds of thousands of female voters have had their apron strings untied and they're released from their caveman husbands. While the Women's March of the Left Ladies hoists the banner of feminism high, what they're peddling is anything but feminism. The women on the Left seem to be a mass of malcontents who view every man through some experience of betrayal dripping with anger toward all who don't echo the same sentiments.

Feminism was originally the theory that both sexes are equal in their political, economic, and societal rights and function. It was and is supposed to be about the advocacy of feminine independence and the fair treatment of women. Well, the only modern women who use that approach are on the Right side of the political spectrum.

When a progressive gal talks about reproductive rights and free birth control, the female voters on the right hear, "I want abortion on demand and the government to be my caretaker with free contraception and abortion services." When angry Democrat females verbally assault men as privileged oppressors, the women on the Right have the capacity to bring to mind most men they've known through life — husband, father, brother, friend, co-worker, etc. — to understand that, while there are certainly some scoundrels with XY chromosomes, most have roles of personal and professional significance that just don't fit the truly despicable portrayal by the Left.

It's a serious miscalculation for leftists to make feminism and progressivism mutually exclusive. In the Brett Kavanaugh trial by pitchfork and torches, Democrats broadcast to the world that "all women" were in solidarity with their despicable tactics. That strategy yielded Republican gains in the Senate.

Democrats can only redefine feminism to fit their politics, not reality. It often works because it's based on emotion and rooted in the hatred of Donald Trump. It's especially effective among college-educated women living in urban-suburban areas — women who subscribe to this perverted observance of feminism that demands that the government serve as source and sustenance while marginalizing almost all men.

In reality, the authentically independent women who are treated as equals are leading on the Right. These are the candidates and elected officials who articulate economic policy that focuses on free markets, individual empowerment, and attainment with an emphasis on self-reliance, not becoming more dependent upon the government for any list of government-funded and controlled services.

It's Republican women like UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senator-elect Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Governor-elect Kristi Noem of South Dakota, and Congresswoman-elect Carol Miller of West Virginia who focus on real policy issues. None of these women ran on the treadmill of tired identity politics that beats down men while, essentially, clamoring for the government to be their key provider.

Election cycles will come and go. The 2020 elections are sure to contain higher stakes, louder rhetoric, and even more hate coming from the ever-aggrieved Left. But a critical difference will always remain between Democrats and Republicans, both male and female: Leftists strive for equality at the finish line with blame and shame as key ingredients for failure. Republicans strive for equality at the starting line with the expectation that the outcomes are best when self-determined and fueled by personal responsibility. Both men and women can appreciate that.

SOURCE






Women’s March Stripped Of Human Rights Award For Its Blatant Antisemitism

For all the harping the left does about how the rhetoric from Trump and the right is fueling antisemitism, one organization has at least accurately pinpointed one of its sources.

The Women’s March, a radically left feminist movement is often present at every high-profile protest you’ve seen over the past months, leading women in one chant or another. They claim to be for every social justice narrative you’ve ever heard such as equality and justice but have proven to be highly anti-white, anti-male, anti-rich, and very anti-Republican.

Among the “anti’s” they subscribe to, you can also add anti-semitic.

Among their leadership is Linda Sarsour, a pro-Sharia activist who has spouted some very anti-semitic hate on numerous occasions, and even considers rabid anti-Semitic hate preacher Louis Farrakhan among her mentors. Sarsour’s anti-Semitism and the resulting hate that leaked into her own movement is now starting to get attention.

According to Ashe Schow at the Daily Wire, The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a German socialist think-tank, was set to reward the Women’s March with a human rights award but has now rescinded the award after members of the organization wrote a very public letter denouncing the Women’s March.

“We believe that the Women’s March USA does not meet the criteria of this award, as its organizers have repeatedly attracted attention through antisemitic statements, the trivialization of antisemitism and the exclusion of Zionists and Jews since Women’s March USA’s establishment in 2017,” wrote foundation members. “Women’s March USA does not constitute an inclusive alliance.”

The members noted the anti-Semitic actions by the organization such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel, Linda Sarsour’s repeated insults towards the Jewish peoples, and Women’s March leadership being friendly with Farrakhan as proof that the Women’s March is an anti-Semitic organization.

“Just as important the struggle for feminism still is, so is the fight against other forms of discrimination, as well as to work inclusively and to not exclude Jews,” the members added.

“An organization that may support feminism, but discriminates against Jews and Zionists and denies Israel’s right to exist should not be honored by a democratic foundation that advocates diversity and speaks out against discrimination,” the group concluded.

It’s good to finally see the Women’s March being pointed out as the incredibly hateful movement it is after the American media and U.S. politicians have spent so much time making it seem like the group is pure as the driven snow.

SOURCE






Australia: Collateral damage of the debased #MeToo crusade

Janet Albrectsen  is generally right below but her claim that no conservative should copy the unscrupulous tactics of the Left is rather idealistic. A prophet long ago warned "Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7).  The Left deserve a taste of how their bad behaviour affects people

In the latest outpouring of #MeToo miasma, former ABC managing director Michelle Guth­rie claims former chairman Justin Milne touched her inappropriately on her back. It was “unprofessional” and “icky”, she told ABC’s Four Corners on Monday evening. Guthrie has gone public amid a war of words over who said and did what to whom just before she was sacked and he resigned.

Let’s just say that Guthrie is a woman in her early 50s who stood on equal footing with the former chairman. She chose not to make a formal complaint at the time. Who knows what happened? And, quite frankly, who cares?

More of us are concerned about Ashleigh Raper. The ABC journalist became an innocent ­casualty when powerful men ­decided to exploit the #MeToo zeitgeist for their brutal political games. Before we get to that, if it is true, the alleged behaviour of ­former NSW Labor opposition leader Luke Foley towards Raper at Christmas drinks in 2016 was shameful. More than that, if a man puts his hand on a woman’s back, slides his hand inside her dress and rests his hand on her backside without consent, that is assault. At a press conference last week, Foley denied the allegations and said he planned to launch defamation proceedings. Given there was a witness, this sordid tale has a way to go yet.

Women are right to be just as outraged about Foley’s alleged ­behaviour as the contemptible and uncontested actions of NSW Liberal minister David Elliott and federal Liberal MP Eric Abetz who exploited the #MeToo zeitgeist for their partisan political pur­poses. A month ago, under the coward’s cloak of parliamentary privilege, Elliott alluded to Foley’s actions against an unnamed ABC journalist. Elliott’s actions made it impossible for Raper to remain ­silent.

A week later Abetz also mentioned an alleged “assault”, “sexual assault” and “indecent assault” while grilling ABC management at a Senate estimates committee. His base motives forced the ABC’s acting managing director into the ridiculous position of saying the matter would be investigated, even though Raper had not made a complaint.

Who gave these two men the right to set the hares running about an ABC journalist who was allegedly harassed or assaulted by Foley?

Elliott and Abetz knew that Raper had chosen to stay silent. She did what many, many women do in the same circumstances. She decided to get on with her life, in her case as a political journalist. She did not join the public #MeToo campaign that started a year later. Up until last week, Raper made no public comment or formal complaint.

These were not men in shining armour acting on behalf of Raper when they pursued Foley and the ABC respectively. The two Liberal politicians were acting for their own craven purposes; they knowingly disregarded her choice to ­remain silent. It is especially rank behaviour from two men who dress daily in the moral garb of ­social conservatives within the Liberal Party.

On Friday morning Elliott ­requested privacy. What a joke. Elliott and Abetz ignored Raper’s right to privacy, forcing her into the public domain against her will to damage Foley and embarrass the ABC.

Elliott’s late apology on Saturday only compounds the stench. This is politics 101: a politician apologises only when it becomes untenable not to do so. And even then the apology is predictably lame, a means of deflecting bad behaviour rather than serious reflection about what he did wrong.

We can all agree then that Raper became collateral damage when two senior Liberal men ­exploited the #MeToo crusade for their own political purposes.

But here comes the part that will cause some women conniptions, as is often the case with #MeToo: many women have man­ipulated the social media campaign for their own purposes, corrupting its focus and undermining its credibility. That doesn’t excuse the mistreatment of Raper by the men involved in this sleazy saga. It adds insult to injury that both sexes have used #MeToo for their own ulterior motives.

When millions of women, each with their own agenda, jumped aboard the #MeToo movement early on, it became a train wreck waiting to happen for men and women alike. This early exploitation was an open invitation to others to use the same confected emotion and rage for their personal and political purposes too.

Perhaps if the early champions of #MeToo had demanded a more disciplined focus on serious harassment and sexual assault, their campaign would not have gone off the rails in the way it has. Those who are so outraged over Raper’s treatment should have had the foresight to see this coming. Some unintended consequences are predictable even early on.

Instead, #MeToo became a shoddy conduit for political causes and trivial episodes. And a clique of female supporters would not countenance debate that veered from their fast-forming orthodoxy. They discouraged discussion about how we define sexual harassment and treated those of us who suggested some nuance, context, due process and less prudery as traitors to the sisterhood. The same women so quick to condemn men for exploiting claims of sexual harassment will not concede that women have done the same. Outing a man ­because he didn’t turn out to be Prince Charming and the sex was bad was lumped in the #MeToo basket with everything from a wink and a wolf-whistle, leaving their cause badly damaged.

Three key words suffice as evidence of the wicked manipulation of the #MeToo movement: women, Democrats and Kavanaugh. Even the American Civil Liberties Union exploited the emotion-laden #MeToo zeitgeist to try to stop Brett Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court justice. A group that includes civil liberties in its name is prima facie dedic­ated to due process. Not when it came to Donald Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court. Here, the ACLU used unproven and highly contested claims by women to ­oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination.

The debasement of the #MeToo movement made it ­inevitable that it would be exploited by men and women and people of all political persuasions. Last week, during a fiery White House press conference, a Trump aide took the microphone from CNN’s Jim Acosta. Later that day Acosta’s press credentials were suspended and Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, accused Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern”, calling it “absolutely unacceptable”. The video shows Acosta’s hand brushing the intern’s shoulder as she takes the microphone from him. But in an age of confected #MeToo outrage, everyone gets a shot at emoting over even the most trivial #MeToo matter.

Now that a Republican president and two Liberal politicians in Australia have exploited this hashtag crusade for their own tawdry ends, maybe more backers of #MeToo will concede that its early corruption encouraged precisely this outcome: a political free-for-all where women have become collateral damage too.

SOURCE 

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************