Questioning the conservative explanation for poverty

Bryan Caplan, the iconoclastic George Mason economist and author of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, is planning a book on poverty. Working title: Poverty: Who to Blame. I’m excited, but judging from his blog, he has some big blind spots when talking about poverty.

The basic truth conservatives start with, when talking about poverty, is that people who finish high school, do not commit crimes, do not have children before marriage, and find and hold a full-time minimum-wage job are very unlikely to be poor. This is true. Charles Karelis makes this point in his book, The Persistence of Poverty:

One 2003 simulation estimates that if all nonelderly and nondisabled heads of families with children worked full-time at their present wages, or at the wages they could earn based on their education and other factors, the fraction of the US population living below the poverty line would fall from 13 percent to 7.5 percent.

 

Caplan’s advice for poor women in particular is to refrain from childbearing until they find an eligible (stably employed, marriage-minded, nonabusive) man to marry. It sounds very simple. So what's the problem?

Here are some complicating questions I would expect the book to address:

1) Is it true that having children out of marriage hurts women’s economic prospects? Evidence from Kathryn Edin for one suggests that women who start out in the same economic place end up in the same place whether they become single teenage mothers or not.

2) Is it true, as he asserts, that poor people drink more and use more drugs? Actually, no. The consensus seems to be that alcohol use and income are positively correlated; richer people are more likely to drink and to drink more. Use of illegal drugs is correlated with poverty, but if Caplan thinks that substance use is one of the causes of poverty, he needs to explain why drugs and alcohol are so different here. They both cost money, carry health risks, and increase the risk of getting in trouble with the law. If the poor have lower impulse control, why are they better at controlling the impulse to drink?

3) What if there aren’t enough eligible men?

For women like me, it’s a no-brainer to wait a decade or more after puberty before having children. We know that there will be eligible men out there for us. If anything, the supply of men increases and improves over time: a 25-year-old college graduate has access to a greater variety and higher quality of men than a 15-year-old high school student.

Is this true for poor women living in poor neighborhoods? Isn’t it possible that the opposite is true for them: that the number of 18-year-old men who are marriage-minded, childless, without a criminal record and out of jail  is actually greater than the number of 25- to 30-year-olds who meet those requirements?

This is something of a speculative tangent, though. But it is true that there is a very high ratio of marriage-age women to marriage-age men in poor neighborhoods. Factor in the very high unemployment rates for young black men with no college degree, and the number of eligible men goes down further. 

Caplan rightly thinks preaching abstinence is unrealistic for most, and suggests contraception instead. But suggesting that women delay childbearing until they find an eligible man, even when this might take decades and might mean giving up the possibility of motherhood altogether, is almost as unrealistic.

4) What about the dangers of marriage? Caplan says that marriage is a good economic decision: two people living together spend less than two living apart. But it's not just about the money: what about the risk that the seemingly eligible man might lose his job, become abusive, or steal the woman’s money? Not to speak of the loss of independence.

5) What if finding full-time employment is impossible? Many minimum-wage employers deliberately avoid hiring full-time staff, because after that 40-hour-a-week threshold, they will be forced to provide more benefits. Anyone can get a job at McDonald’s, but getting 40 hours a week is a lot harder.

The largest liberal objection, of course, is that it shouldn’t matter who we blame for poverty. No one denies that the poor exist and are generally worse off than the rich. That, to me, means that they are entitled to a few of my superfluous dollars (which I probably would have spent on liquor anyway.)

Why object to the execution of the stupid?

The latest liberal outrage is the execution of a murderer, Marvin Wilson, who, according to his lawyers and one IQ test but not others, has an IQ of 61, below the threshold of 70 which Texas law takes as the minimum IQ needed to take responsibility for one’s actions.

For a while I was baffled, since many people seemed outraged by this without
 really saying why.  After some thought, I’ve decided this is not really about the death penalty.

Rather, it seems to me like a difference of opinion between those who believe judicial punishments exist to punish “guilt” (whatever that means) and those who believe the purpose of the judicial system is to protect law-abiding citizens.

If you fall into the former camp, then, if the criminal is too stupid to know what he was doing, if he is young, if he is uneducated, if he is poor, and so forth, his guilt is less. He should be punished either not at all or else the bare minimum amount. We should favor more humane prisons to promote rehabilitation. The death penalty should either not be used at all, since it precludes rehabilitation, or it should only be used for older, richer, more educated, and higher-IQ criminals (of which there are very few).

If you fall into the second camp, you will be inclined to say a murderer is a murderer is a danger to society. This danger should be eliminated regardless of hard-to-ascertain metaphysical “guilt”. The seriousness of the crime matters, but not the personal characteristics of the victim. If you favor more humane prisons, you will do so to decrease recidivism. You might favor the death penalty on grounds of efficiency, or you might oppose it because you think it does not deter.

Note, of course, that these two broad schools of thought are not correlated with opposing or supporting the death penalty. That’s a whole ‘nother issue involved in the Wilson case. I suspect that most people who think a low-IQ man should not be executed also think that no one should be executed–they focus on Wilson because he’s the easy propaganda case. (Just as most medical marijuana advocates favor legalizing all marijuana, but they focus on medical uses for the easy propaganda.)       

NB: Difference between rehabilitation and preventing recidivism. Preventing recidivism means ensuring that criminals do not reoffend–this might mean changing hearts and minds, or scaring criminals with the threat of more or worse punishment, or preventing their contact with other or worse criminals in prison, or keeping drugs off the streets, or improving economic opportunities for low-income men, and so forth. Rehabilitation focuses on changing the criminal’s personality, so that he will understand that crime is bad.

Talking about single women

Most societies fear, hate and suspect young women. Therefore, talking about young, unmarried women is linguistically problematic. This is true in several languages.

• It's especially clear  in French: garce, originally the feminine of garcon, came to mean 'slut', while garcon continued to mean simply 'boy'. After garce became contaminated, fille, the feminine of fils, came to be used. But soon fille fell victim to the same contamination. Finally jeune fille was expanded from its original meaning of 'young girl' and came to be applied to young woman, similar to the English 'girl'. Jeune personne (young person) is another euphemism used in the past to avoid facing the uncomfortable fact of a young woman.
• In English, the word 'woman' came to be used only to refer to lower-class women; the words 'lady', 'young lady' and 'girl' replaced it,and in the early 20th century English even borrowed the French 'young person' to mean an unmarried woman.
• In modern English,'lady' or 'young lady' is less often used, but the discomfort with the word 'woman' persists. A new development is the use of the word 'female', which is military and bureaucratic jargon as well as giving a helpful air of pseudo-scientificity to one's speech. When you are making unsupported allegations about the difference between men and women, it's a lot easier to call them 'males' and 'females'. It makes you sounds objective, like a farmer talking about his livestock. On the other hand, using the term 'woman/women' is so unusual it actually tends to make you sound like a feminist.
• In a Language Log post which is more comprehensive than I will do justice to, the same phenomenon is shown to appear in Chinese.
  

  
  When I started to learn Mandarin nearly half a century ago, it used to be that xiǎojiě 小姐 ("miss") was a polite way to refer to or address a young, unmarried woman. You could also extend xiǎojiě 小姐 ("miss", lit., "little elder sister") to convey other, related meanings, such as lǎo xiǎojiě 老小姐 ("old maid / miss"), xiǎojiě píqì 小姐脾气 ("petulant; flirtatious; coquettish"), and so forth. Gradually, however, xiǎojiě 小姐 ("miss") evolved to the point that it often came to be used in a jocular or facetious manner.  Furthermore, when used by itself, xiǎojiě 小姐 may be applied to prostitutes, so one must be careful when referring to someone with this word.  It seems that there is no longer a broadly accepted, relatively respectful term of address for a young, single woman.

New DSM addiction disorder criteria

Among the millions of people who will be diagnosed with an addictive disorder in the new DSM are many whose lives will be derailed by their substance use, leading to car accidents, suicide, brain damage, sexual trauma...The new criteria will allow clinicians to intervene at an earlier stage in the addiction cycle, when relatively brief and inexpensive treatments can prevent more serious problems from escalating. Psycho-education, psychotherapy and group support should be available for people who seek treatment early on. Who would argue that it’s better to wait until the substance use escalates before treatment can be initiated?

Who would argue against early intervention? I would. There are costs to substance abuse treatment: big financial ones, the cost of limiting people's autonomy, and the risks of teaching someone who may never (yet) have experienced addiction that he probably will get addicted and will be powerless to stop it. Not to mention teaching that if a person continues to use drugs or alcohol, he's no longer responsible for his behavior.

I mean, imagine a bunch of typical 20-year-old drinkers sent into AA. They probably fit the diagnostic criteria (since the definitions of "binge drinking" and "heavy drinking" keep being revised downwards!), but does anyone think that such drinkers would benefit from a treatment program? In fact, we know that most young people who use drugs or alcohol heavily will age out of such heavy use naturally. In most cases, no intervention is necessary: and treatment programs have a terrible record of success. To call for early intervention drug and alcohol treatment is like calling for surgery to treat the common cold. We know it doesn't work for most people, it's expensive, and it does serious harm to the people subjected, in many cases involuntarily, to treatment.

Oh, and ignore the first sentence. As my astute readers will have noted, horror stories are totally irrelevant when talking about early intervention. For every person who will have serious problems with a substance, there are hundreds who fit the criteria for early intervention but will never have serious problems.

Abominable women proposing marriage

The offer of herself by a woman to a man is, to us all, a thing so distasteful that we at once declare that the women must be abominable...But the man to whom the offer is made hardly sees the thing in the same light.

 --Trollope, The Eustace Diamonds

Barely 150 years since this sort of attitude was mainstream. And we already hear men complaining that women don't take enough initiative. They can't imagine any reason why a woman would be reluctant to make the first move.

Pseudomutuality in relationships

How will we ever achieve an equal society if we can’t even live in equality with those whom we love?

--Maria Sveland

Heterosexual women and men in our society often describe their relationships as egalitarian and fair while also reporting relationship patterns that are objectively unfair.

For instance, they may report that they both do housework--but measurements of how much time each spouse puts in almost always reveal that the woman does more (on average, 80% of the work). One man said that his wife did all the cooking, but he did the dishes. By “doing the dishes” he meant putting the dishes in the dishwasher, leaving his wife to notice when they were done and put them away.

Or spouses may say that they are both responsible for childcare--but often, the man’s contribution to childcare is playing sports, going on outings, and watching TV with the kids, while the woman remains in charge of cleaning up after the kids, nagging them to take a bath, going to doctor’s appointments, and other boring stuff. Even when spouses sincerely attempt to share the burden, often the woman remains the manager, in charge of the family schedule, remembering what needs to be done, and reminding her husband to do it.

Couples may talk as though they are peers, but behave in ways that unintentionally promote invisible male power. Research in  the ‘90s that examined couples’ shared work and family decisions found that even though both partners reported that their decisions were mutual, outcomes tended to favor the husband’s needs and goals more than the wife’s.

One reason this “pseudomutuality” exists is that, when you ask women whether their relationship is equal, they don’t compare the relationship to an ideal of equality; they compare to an imagined “evil man” scenario. I know my husband is not a wife-beater or crude cartoon misogynist. He helps out more than my friends’ husbands. So I have nothing to worry about, right?

This cultural narrative of evil men trying to control women appears very important to women as something to avoid and to men  as unacceptable behavior. Although this discourse appears useful as a negative model of what to stay away from, it also seems to be applied to individual men in a sort of all-or-nothing way. Some men dominate and control; others don’t. The more subtle ways that male power is embedded within normative gender discourse and social structures did not seem to be part of the story. When men do not fit the dominating male pattern, couples can have a false sense of security about the existence of male power in their relationship and are less likely to look for or recognize the more subtle forms of male power built into the gender-differences discourse.

Within heterosexual relationships, and, the research suggests but does not prove, especially within marriage, even women who believe in equality are often pulled towards traditional gender roles. They may find themselves feeling that the condition of the house reflects on them--a feeling that husbands are unlikely to share. Or, with the modesty our society teaches women to feel or pretend to feel, they may say that their husband’s careers are more important than theirs (this tends to occur even when he makes less money). This leads to lives structured to accommodate the husband’s career.

Francine Deutsch describes two couples she encountered. In one couple, he was a college professor and she was a physician, and in the other couple she was the college professor and he the physician. But in both cases, both the husband and wife claimed the man’s job was less flexible.

There is no happy ending to this post, but I will leave you with a hilarious anecdote from Linda Hirshman . A female professor of her acquaintance decided to drop out of the workforce. When Hirshman asked her why, she said she had no choice: commuting 300 miles every weekday was driving her crazy. Hirshman asked the obvious question: why in the world had she chosen to live 150 miles from her university? The answer, equally obvious, was that she lived right next to her husband’s office.

The serious point here is that one traditional choice tends to lead to another traditional choice. In most marriages, the husband makes more money, so it might seem reasonable to value his career more. But for this woman, that seemingly innocuous choice led to locating near his workplace, spending most of her free time commuting, and, ultimately, housewifery.

I’m not going to bother precisely attributing these quotes, but here is my essential bibliography:

Couples, Gender and Power, Carmen Knudson-Martin

Gender Vertigo, Barbara Risman

Wifework, Susan Maushart

Get to Work, Linda Hirshman

Fiction and memoir:

An Unconventional Family, Sandra Lipsitz Bem

Bitter Bitch, Maria Sveland

We Need to Talk About Kevin, Lionel Shriver

Update: more quotes along the same lines.

Some research suggests that men cope with such uncomfortable inequities by denying that housework matters--or that it even exists! Male respondents to a time use study frequently tried to draw the interviewer into a collusive dismissal of the significance of housework and child care. Male partners were sometimes unaware that cleaners were doing some of the work. All they knew--and all they needed to know--was that it was getting done, and by someone else. One man admitted that he did no cooking, but claimed it was because he wasn’t interested in cooked food. When a wife suggested they might alternate responsibility for bed-making, the husband said he didn’t believe in bed-making. Or male respondents implied that their attitude toward housekeeping was tolerant and their wives’ obsessive. To most men, the suggestion that there might be a right and a wrong way to vacuum or fold a nappy or hang out the laundry inspires eye-rolling, or even disbelief. This is another way in which we betray the very deeply held assumptions that what men accomplish matters, and what women accomplish doesn’t...a women who persists in framing housework as skilled work, and who cares about the results obtained, is routinely stigmatized as too fussy or a control freak.

The persistence of marrying up or hypergamy is one of the most serious obstacles to achieving genuine equality within marriage today.

 

"Glamour" magazine

We all know Glamour as the magazine which led Americans to start misspelling “glamor.” But did you know it also teaches many terrible life lessons?

To the best of my recollection, all of these wonderful quotes were in the same magazine:

“Engagement eyeliner” worked for me!

(“Carrie’s” boyfriend complimented her electric blue eyeliner. Less than 24 hours later, he proposed. Glamour helpfully provides the brand name, but I will not. It sounds dangerous.)

Reading comprehension hint: when you see the word “hardwired”, know that whatever you are reading is probably bullshit.

Like most women, I’m hardwired to try to keep everybody who counts on me at the office and at home happy. There are weeks, not just days, when I feel like I’m cheating on him—with my work.

(Real women never displease others. Also, men need constant supervision. Whatever will he do if you go out and he doesn’t get sex for a whole eight hours? Probably stick forks into the electric outlets and pee on the floor.)

A dumb celebrity hopes her daughter will never develop sexual desire:

Jamie Lynn Spears says: “It’d be dumb to sit here and say that [my daughter] isn’t going to like a boy one day and she isn’t going to have a boyfriend. I’ll just have to handle that the best way that I can. Both her daddy and me will caution her about having sex, and I would hope that she would not want to do that at all, but I have to make sure that I’m realistic too.”

A woman who is boring in bed feels insecure about it:

Maybe everybody is kinkier than you are. So what? Having standard-issue sex in private is my fantasy, and that’s the last I’m going to say about it.

(Kinky sex is something other people do. Not Glamour readers, who are too busy with magic eyeliner and keeping everybody happy.)

Another dumb celebrity (Amanda Seyfried) says she doesn’t want to have sex when she doesn’t want to have sex, and also women never want to have sex:

I’m terrified of being promiscuous. I don’t like the feeling you get when it’s not something that you truly want to do, and I hate the emotional abuse you give yourself afterward.

I will spare you Glamour’s advice on yeast infections, but it is also bad.