Tuesday, July 10, 2012

David Brooks, "The Opportunity Gap": Number of Parents Divided by Number of Children = Emotional Nourishment

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opportunity Gap" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/brooks-the-opportunity-gap.html), David Brooks bemoans the behavioral gaps opening up between the children of affluent Americans and the children of the financially stressed lower classes. Brooks observes that the wealthy spend more time with their children and invest more money in their education and development compared with the children of the less affluent. This in turn has led to lagging test scores and more limited opportunities for poorer children.

Brooks goes on to say:

"Traditional social norms were abandoned, meaning more children are born out of wedlock. Their single parents simply have less time and resources to prepare them for a more competitive world. Working-class jobs were decimated, meaning that many parents are too stressed to have the energy, time or money to devote to their children."

I agree with David that the level of attention, love and education provided to all of America's children is of critical importance to the nation's future. However, Brooks fails to take into account the differences in the number of children born to the affluent as opposed to unwed mothers.

According to statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm), the number of children born to unmarried women has reached an astronomic level in America:

Unmarried Childbearing
(Data are for the U.S.)

• Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,693,658
• Birth rate for unmarried women: 50.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years
• Percent of all births to unmarried women: 41.0%

I would further postulate that the number of parents divided by the number of children in a family determines the level of caring, sustenance and emotional nourishment that each child receives.

Brooks concludes:

"Liberals are going to have to be willing to champion norms that say marriage should come before childrearing and be morally tough about it. Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class.

Political candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy them — less time calling their opponents out of touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively address the problem. It’s politically tough to do that, but the alternative is national suicide."

Amen.

7 comments:

  1. Oh, people, you discuss everything except for reality. Traditional families ... Brooks forgot slavery (real) and wage slavery and their influence on families. You both don't remember that children with two enslaved parents (80 hour work weeks - no servants, private nurses, private lawyers, private chauffeurs, private doctors etc.) suffer abuse from both parents, exhausted, frustrated, terrorized, afraid and insecure.
    One doesn't have to get all the love from parents - in traditional large families younger children surrounded by many siblings, and other relatives feel more secure.
    Both Brooks and you don't remember that such mechanisms as maternal leave, vacations, sick days (unknown in Brook's land), etc. help in all normal countries to take care of children, weak and vulnerable.
    Why, Mr. Brooks? Why, Mr. Grossman?
    Brooks is notorious for his ability to babble about societies about noticing that societies actually exist, for a simple reason that Thacher, Reagan and other charmers told him that there is no "society" and we exist to grab, steal and murder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it irritating that Brooks with his constant preaching about ethics, "honor" etc.
    works for the NYT. Why not exist with an appropriate public statement. Making money on talking about ethics without any personal ethics is unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous,

    Your English is a bit hard to discern. Obviously, I cannot speak for Mr. Brooks, but how in the name of heaven did you come to the conclusion that I oppose maternal leave, vacations and sick days?

    "We exist to grab, steal and murder"? Sorry, again, but how did you arrive at this demented thought?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Jeff. I know that when someone attacks an elderly woman, steals one thousand dollars, gives her one dollar back: "You can have it, grandma" he is called "a criminal" (in spite of his "generosity") and sent to prison.
    BUT, forcing countless individuals to loose their health (and families) while being exploited and throwing them out the moment they loose their health, and giving 1/100000000000000000000000000 part of the money gained this way to victims ("charity") is considered "heroism" (!!!!!!) and "heroes" are worshiped. I came to this country during Reagan era and I will never forget this president's calling some insanely rich people "heroes" for giving some money to charity. I came from that part of the world where "heroism" has a different meaning.
    The ancient Jews knew more about humans and societies than the present day "conservatives" and had jubilees, sabbaticals and number of other mechanisms in an attempt to prevent unhealthy polarization.
    Please show me the text in which Brooks talks about a need for civilized labor law, paid maternity leave, universal health care, etc. and doesn't blame "widows and orphans."

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, this's really irritating. Did Brooks notice that there aren't any jobs in America. Is he familiar with such concepts as "outsourcing, insourcing" etc. Did he ever bother to calculate the cost of living and check whether how one can survive on minimal wage (or two minimal wages) working even 80 hours a week (housing, cars, health care, food etc.)
    "The wealthy spend more time with children" Which wealthy? The trust fund crowd? Maybe because the poor don't have an army of servants?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brooks is obviously aware of unemployment and poverty in the US, and states in his op-ed: "Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class."

    Question: Why do you focus your anger on Brooks? Tom Friedman, a "liberal," lives in a palatial mansion in Maryland. Ultra-leftist Nicholas Kristof is married to an investment banker . . .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jeff, Brooks is babbling idiotically and demagogically. Babbling about taxes when the problem is systemic is a diversion and manipulation - drop a stolen penny to your victims. Sure that will help. The moral principle is - don't steal and murder in the first place.
    Americans needs - civilized labor law with protection of employees and vacations, sick days, universal health care, maternity leave and child care, etc.
    Friedman and Kristof are utterly repulsive. The fact that are bad doesn't mean that Brooks is good. Kristof, as repulsive as he is, occasionally addresses real issues. Friedman is an utter and absolute bozo.

    ReplyDelete