With the economic squeeze of college loans and expensive housing, fewer in GenMe will be able to afford to have children. Those that do will have fewer. Within a few decades the United States will end up like many countries in Europe, with the working population not large enough to support retirees. This is happening already: in 2011, the US birth rate hit an all-time low—again (it’s been on the decline for a while). The total fertility rate was 1.9, below the so-called replacement rate of 2.1. This is likely to continue as everything associated with children is skyrocketing in price: houses with enough bedrooms and in good school districts, health care, child care, a college education. Even apart from that, making sure children are well taken care of and educated ensures better workers, better citizens, and better parents in the future. It’s in the country’s best interests to help families.
Here are some specific suggestions for how governments (local and national) can help working families.
1. Create a nationwide system of paid parental leave. When the Family and Medical Leave Act passed in 1993, conservatives predicted that it would hurt business. That didn’t happen, and the next seven years were some of the best the economy ever had. The law, however, mandates only unpaid leave, a difficult proposition when paying the rent often requires two hefty incomes. Canada and many European countries provide paid parental leave for a year. The United States has nothing. Of 168 industrialized nations around the world, 163 guarantee paid leave for new mothers. Not only is the United States one of the five countries without paid parental leave, but we are also one of the few that does not mandate paid vacation for workers. As a result, a third of women workers in the United States get no paid vacation at all. For someone living paycheck to paycheck (i.e., most people), no paid leave often means going into considerable credit card debt to have a baby.
The tide may be turning, however. In the 2000s, California introduced a paid-leave system that pays 55% of your income for six weeks. It is not paid through taxes but through a small payroll deduction. It’s a small step, but it’s a step. A system of mandated paid parental leave nationwide would be an even better step.
2. Create a system of public preschools for 3- and 4-year-olds. This will benefit both GenMe parents and their children. Children who attend preschool are smarter and more academically prepared for school. The benefits are especially large for lower-income kids, but middle-class kids show significant gains as well. Children at this age are eager to learn; it is a unique opportunity to capture kids at their best and create children who will become confident readers and great math-problem solvers. Yet when not publicly funded, preschool is out of the reach of most lower-income families and a big strain on the already-taxed budgets of the middle class. Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma introduced such programs in the last decade.
When I advocated for universal preschool in the first edition of Generation Me, it was still a fairly contentious issue. Now the idea is gaining widespread acceptance. President Obama mentioned it in his 2014 State of the Union address, and in February 2014, the New York Times described preschool as the rare issue with bipartisan support, a “favored cause for politicians and interest groups who ordinarily have trouble agreeing on the time of day.” Republican governors in states such as Michigan and Alabama have raised spending for preschools.
Only about 17% of 4-year-olds were enrolled in state-funded preschools in 2001, which jumped to 28% in 2010 as states such as Florida, Oklahoma, and Georgia introduced state-sponsored preschool programs. States that wish to keep current workers productive and create better workers for the future should follow suit. The money that middle-class families save on preschool will probably go right back into the economy—most families with young children are so strapped for cash that they will probably have the money spent the minute their state funds the program. In addition, as Crittenden argues, the tax revenue generated by more women working might also offset a good portion of the cost of these types of programs, particularly if they are full-time. Even if preschools aren’t funded, a national system for accrediting them would be extremely helpful to parents.
3. Make child-care expenses tax-deductible. If you haven’t used the day-care tax credit yourself, you might think that the tax code already allows this deduction. But the amount of expenses allowed is pitifully small, barely enough to put a kid in day care for two months, not an entire year. The amount is capped at such a low figure that the average family gets back only a few hundred dollars. Another program available through some businesses allows parents to have an account to pay for child care that draws from pretax funds, but the limit on this account is also only a fraction of the amount needed to pay for full-time care (about $5,000 a year, when full-time care often costs over $12,000 a year, and sometimes more). This account can also be used only for day-care centers, and not for more informal arrangements such as many nannies or babysitters. It is also only available for some jobs.
Compare this with the incentive to buy a house: all mortgage interest is tax-deductible (even if your house is worth several million—and this is still deductible even under the alternative minimum tax). Yet few child-related expenses are tax-deductible. It is in the government’s best interest for people to have children and for both parents to keep working, since working creates more income tax, as do child-care centers, as will the children themselves eventually (not to mention that their paychecks will be sorely needed to fund the Social Security system, assuming it doesn’t collapse before then). Crittenden also details other changes to the tax code that would benefit working families, such as taxing the second earner’s income at a lower rate. The authors of The Two-Income Trap write, “Any program that helps families save money is a program that helps keep the middle class secure.”
4. Change school hours. At virtually no cost to themselves, local schools could save working parents thousands of dollars a year, improve student performance and behavior, cut the crime rate, and reduce the teenage pregnancy rate. How? By bringing school hours more in line with business hours. I’m not talking about after-school programs—just shifting the hours when kids are in school.
The vast majority of school-age children have mothers who work: 77% of married women and 83% of divorced and widowed women with children aged 6 to 17 now work. Parents of younger kids have little choice now but to pay for day care in the afternoon, since their children are released from school around 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. and most parents don’t get off work until 5:00 or 6:00. After-school day care is expensive, often costing $500 a month or more. Once kids are older, they are usually left at home to fend for themselves in the afternoon. Teenagers and an empty house: great combination, right? Yet the early school day is the norm around the country, with many high schools starting at 7:30 a.m. and releasing at 2:30 p.m. Some even start at 7:00 a.m.!
If schools instead started at 9:00 a.m. and released at 4:30 or 5:00, a number of benefits would accrue. Day-care costs for the parents of young children would go down, often to zero, and teenagers would not have the entire afternoon to get into trouble. And they do get into trouble—a large percentage of teenage pregnancies occur between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m., as do a large percentage of teenage crimes. Other teens sit in front of the television, surf the Web unsupervised, or play video games for hours.
The early start time of many high schools also runs exactly counter to the ingrained tendencies of the average teenager. A biologically driven shift in circadian rhythms makes it next to impossible for adolescents to fall asleep early and wake early. This is not laziness; it is a well-documented biological tendency. (For a great description of this research, see The Promise of Sleep by renowned Stanford sleep expert William Dement.) In addition, teens are more impaired by sleep loss than adults are and need at least an hour more sleep than adults. For a school that starts at 7:30 a.m., this means getting up, at the latest, at 6:30 a.m. and thus going to bed at 9:30 p.m. (to get the nine hours of sleep teens need). What teenager goes to bed at 9:30 p.m.? Few, so most are simply tired all the time. Teen
s who begin school at 7:30 a.m. are simply not awake. School start times ask teenagers to come to school an hour earlier than most adult jobs begin, at an age when they need more sleep and have a difficult time falling asleep before 11:00 p.m. or midnight, if not later. Sleep deprivation can lead to anxiety, depression, drug use, car accidents, and aggression. As teenagers are already vulnerable to these dangers, it is important to do everything we can to help them get enough sleep.
Changing school start times can have amazing effects. When the Edina, Minnesota, school system shifted their start time to 8:30 a.m., academic performance improved and misbehavior went down. Teens were more awake and alert in classes and learned more, and everyone’s mood improved.
Some parents might protest that they need to be at work early, and then what will they do with their kids? First, this is a minority of people—most businesses start at 8:00 or 9:00 (whereas few adults leave work at 2:30 or 3:00 in the afternoon). Also, most elementary schools already have a system of supervising kids in the cafeteria if they need to be dropped off early; many serve breakfast. Older teenagers can sleep later and get ready on their own in the morning. Even teens who wake earlier are much less likely to get into trouble in the morning than during the long stretches of parentless afternoons. Parents and coaches might also protest that a later day leaves less time for sports. But isn’t it more important that kids are awake to learn and not spending entire afternoons unsupervised? Why compromise the education of everyone, and the dollars of many hardworking parents, for the convenience of sports programs? Sports practice can be held in the morning just as well, or after 4:30 p.m. if need be. It makes a lot more sense for a few athletes to get up early so that everyone can learn more, instead of the current system where everyone gets up early and many fall asleep in class. A later schedule might also require some older teens with jobs to adjust their hours, though these adjustments would probably be more positive than negative. Teens would be able to “close” at their retail or fast-food jobs at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and still get enough sleep before the next school day.
Later school start times make sense for so many reasons, and the research on teen sleep has been around for more than 20 years now. School boards and administrators should take action on this issue as soon as possible. It would cost so little, and benefit so many.
FOR PARENTS
Many personal solutions exist for the dilemmas faced by Generation Me. If you are a parent, you might be wondering how you can help your children avoid some of the pitfalls of being young today. First, recognize that you will not be able to completely isolate children from the influences of their generation. Your children will be heavily influenced by their peers, the media, and the broader social environment. You can, however, counteract some of the more negative influences by reinforcing positive traits.
• Junk the self-esteem emphasis and teach self-control and good behavior. Self-esteem has limited benefit, whereas self-control is linked to success in life. You can teach your children self-control early on: even toddlers notice the consequences of their actions. If a child cries and cries for a piece of candy at the grocery store and you give it to her, you have just taught her that crying is an effective way to get what she wants. The next time she wants something, she will cry and whine because that worked last time. Instead, give the child treats for good behavior. Many parents cave in to a crying child because it feels easier, or because they can’t stand to deprive a child of something she wants. However, you’re depriving her of a lot more if you give in. Rewarding the child who asks nicely teaches social skills as well as self-control. Resist the urge to give children everything they want and teach them the importance of working toward important goals. Many excellent books are available on the gentle, firm discipline that teaches self-control (Ruth Peters’s book It’s Never Too Soon to Discipline comes to mind). Discipline doesn’t always mean punishment; it usually means not rewarding bad behavior, and praising good behavior.
When I wrote this advice in the first edition of Generation Me, I did not yet have children. I now have three. Yet my viewpoint remains more or less the same. I now know just how hard it is to listen to your child cry, but I have also seen the great results of loving and consistent discipline (my family relies mostly on time-outs plus prizes for good behavior). No, my kids aren’t perfect, but they behave much better when they know the rules and the consequences for breaking them. One of the most effective techniques is to say “Stop doing that or . . .” followed by a consequence (time-out, taking the toy away, and so on). If she keeps doing it, the key is to follow through with the consequence—every time, and immediately. Time-out also has to be done correctly, with no interaction, to work. Time-out works because you are taking away something the child wants (to participate in the family and interact with you). If you talk to a child while he’s in time-out, even about the offense, it defeats the purpose. The general rule of thumb is one minute in time-out per year of age. It’s a short time, but effective. It’s tempting to want our children to be happy all of the time, but what would make them the happiest? Probably eating candy for dinner, not brushing their teeth, watching TV all day, and staying up late. Not exactly a recipe for health and happiness in the long run.
Teaching discipline and self-control is also important for children to get along with each other—and with you. Children are naturally selfish when they are young; for millennia, the role of parents and teachers was to tell them that the world does not revolve around them. Now we tell them it does. It’s better to teach them consideration for others. This is yet another thing that might not make them happy in the short term—sharing does not come naturally to preschoolers. (I recall my daughter Kate’s statement when she was 2 years old: “Everything is mine.”) Many parents have emphasized self-esteem because they think it will help children succeed in school and build healthy relationships. It probably won’t. But social skills and empathy for others will—and, as an added bonus, it’s the right thing to do.
Self-control and hard work are also essential. Amy Chua’s 2011 book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was both controversial and bestselling because it exposed the secret fear of every non-Asian parent: we’re doing it wrong, and that’s why the Asian kids have been valedictorian every year. I don’t agree with all of Chua’s views, but I do agree with her basic point that perseverance, delay of gratification, and hard work are more important than “believing” in yourself. No matter what your ethnicity or cultural background, we’d all do well to move the focus from self-esteem to hard work. The book Willpower, by Roy Baumeister and John Tierney, is a great place to read about the research on the science of self-control and its many benefits.
Basically, the lesson is to not rest on your laurels. Everyone, no matter how smart or accomplished, can always learn something new. If you’re completely self-confident and know exactly what you’re doing, chances are you’re a few seconds away from being bored. If you don’t feel a little overwhelmed or confused, you’re not learning anything. Being continually challenged is much more conducive to success than believing you already know it all.
The bottom line: Yes, you want your children to be happy. But sometimes they have to be unhappy in the short term to be happy in the long term. As parents, our job is to give our children what they need, not just what they want.
• Leave behind the obsession with specialness and uniqueness. In June 2012, Wellesley High School teacher David McCullough made national headlines when the theme of his commencement speech was “you’re not special.” “Contrary to what your soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh-grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur . . . you’re nothing special,” he said. “We have of late . . . come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. . . . We’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality,” if that’s the way to have something to brag about, he said. Instead, he noted, “The fulfilling life . . . is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap. . . . Climb the
mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge. . . . The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.”
I’m with McCullough. We are doing kids a tremendous disservice when we lead them to believe that just because they are special to us (their parents), the rest of the world will treat them this way. The best preparation they can receive is not narcissism or even self-esteem, but your love and support—and your message to them that hard work and perseverance are more important to success than self-belief. The last part of McCullough’s speech is especially poignant—in essence, what he’s saying is to focus on intrinsic goals (affiliation, community, and self-understanding) rather than the extrinsic goals of money, fame, and image. That also agrees with the psychological research on the topic. In short: Do it to live, not to put it on Facebook. Do it to help someone else, not so you can brag about it.
Some parents have asked me, shocked, “You mean I shouldn’t tell my son he’s special? Should I instead say, ‘You’re not special’? ” No. Just say, “I love you.” It’s what you mean anyway, and it’s a much better message, emphasizing connection to others instead of superiority.
Others have asked if we should instead emphasize uniqueness. After all, although not everyone is special, everyone is unique. That’s the point behind school programs such as “All about Me” that ask students to discover how they are different from each other, or another called “I’m Thumbody,” which points out that everyone has a unique fingerprint. The problem: virtually every war in human history began when one group decided another group was different from them. Why don’t we instead emphasize what we all have in common as human beings? That’s much more likely to help children develop a sense of empathy for others. Emphasize to your children that everyone has feelings, everyone feels pain, and everyone gets hungry. Being able to take someone else’s perspective is an extremely useful skill for relationships—both personal relationships and work relationships. It’s the foundation of most of society. Yet when we focus so much on specialness and uniqueness, we leave behind the message that we have a lot in common too.
Generation Me--Revised and Updated Page 32
