[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-232
IMPROVING FAMILY STABILITY FOR THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-561 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress]
SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mike Lee, Utah, Chairman Donald Beyer, Jr., Virginia, Vice
Tom Cotton, Arkansas Chairman
Rob Portman, Ohio Carolyn Maloney, New York
Bill Cassidy, M.D., Louisiana Denny Heck, Washington
Ted Cruz, Texas David Trone, Maryland
Kelly Loeffler, Georgia Joyce Beatty, Ohio
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico Lois Frankel, Florida
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota David Schweikert, Arizona
Gary C. Peters, Michigan Darin LaHood, Illinois
Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire Kenny Marchant, Texas
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington
Scott Winship, Ph.D., Executive Director
Harry Gural, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Opening Statements of Members
Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Utah................ 1
Hon. Donald Beyer Jr., Vice Chair, a U.S. Representative from
Virginia....................................................... 3
Witnesses
Dr. W. Bradford Wilcox, Director, National Marriage Project, and
Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA............................................ 6
Ms. Kay Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Contributing Editor, City Journal, New York, NY................ 7
Dr. Betsey Stevenson, Professor of Economics and Public Policy,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.......................... 10
Dr. Rashawn Ray, David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Governance
Studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC............. 12
Submissions for the Record
Prepared statement of Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, a U.S. Senator
from Utah...................................................... 40
Prepared statement of Donald Beyer Jr., Vice Chair, a U.S.
Representative from Virginia................................... 40
Prepared statement of Dr. W. Bradford Wilcox, Director, National
Marriage Project, and Professor of Sociology, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.................................. 43
Prepared statement of Ms. Kay Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow,
Manhattan Institute Contributing Editor, City Journal, New
York, NY....................................................... 54
Prepared statement of Dr. Betsey Stevenson, Professor of
Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI............................................................. 60
Prepared statement of Dr. Rashawn Ray, David M. Rubenstein Fellow
in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington,
DC............................................................. 73
IMPROVING FAMILY STABILITY FOR THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CHILDREN
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2020
United States Congress,
Joint Economic Committee,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
Room 106, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman,
presiding.
Representatives present: Beyer, Schweikert, and Herrera
Beutler.
Senators present: Lee.
Staff present: Robert Bellafiore, Carly Eckstrom, Sol
Espinoza, Harry Gural, Colleen Healy, Beila Leboeuf, Rachel
Sheffield, Kyle Treasure, Emily Volk, Scott Winship.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Chairman Lee. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us
today for this hearing of the Joint Economic Committee. Today's
hearing is going to focus on one of the most important topics
that we could ever cover, and that relates to the most
fundamental unit of society, which is the family.
As most members of this Committee are certainly aware, the
American family is in a precarious state. Although the vast
majority of Americans still desire to marry, the marriage rate
has declined. And it has been declining for decades, and stable
family life has disappeared for millions and millions of
American children.
The trends in family life in America are a little
concerning. Whereas just 5 percent of children were born to
unmarried mothers in 1960, 40 percent of children are born to
unmarried mothers today. Meanwhile, 30 percent of children
today live without one or both parents, twice the proportion of
children that lived without one or both parents 50 years ago.
Over the past few years, the Social Capital Project within
the Joint Economic Committee has worked to document these
trends in American associational life, that is defined as the
web of social relationships through which we pursue joint
endeavors--our families, communities, workplaces, and religious
congregations.
The Project recognizes the family as a crucial source of
these relationships, which is why our policy agenda aims to
make it more affordable to raise a family, and to increase the
number of children raised in happily married families.
While the Project has often emphasized the social value
that stable family life provides, the declines in family
stability have economic, physical, and emotional consequences
as well that are very significant for those affected.
For a variety of reasons, children raised in single-parent
families are far more likely to experience child poverty, less
likely to graduate from high school or attend college, and less
likely to be connected to the labor force as adults.
In addition, children raised in single-parent families are
less likely to have positive relationships with their parents,
and are far more likely to experience physical, emotional, or
sexual abuse.
Conversely, children raised by two married parents in a
healthy relationship are likely to be happier, healthier, and
better prepared for life. This of course does not define every
circumstance, and one should not deem oneself subject to one
fate or another depending on one's family circumstances.
Nevertheless, the statistics are informative and we should
look to draw from them. The positive outcomes associated with
stable home life are outcomes that Americans want for all
children, regardless of their background and regardless of the
home that they happen to have been born into.
But, tragically, the decline of the family is concentrated
among some vulnerable groups, including minorities, and lower-
income families. For example, over two-thirds of births to
Black mothers, and over half of births to Hispanic American
mothers, occur outside of marriage. And minority women are much
more likely to see their marriages end in divorce.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of births among non-college educated
women occur outside marriage, and non-college educated adults
are also less likely to stay married once they have gotten
married, if they have gotten married.
Although these trends are most stark for certain
disadvantaged groups, they affect us all. What factors have
driven these declines is something that we need to ask. What is
it that has driven these declines in American family stability?
Well, the breakdown of the family is at least partly caused
by cultural changes that have reverberated throughout our
society, including changing romantic norms that led to greater
relationship ambiguity, cultural individualism that too often
emphasizes the desires of individuals over the well-being of
the family, and the retreat from religion which is one of the
strongest supports of marriage and family life.
But while cultural factors may have contributed to
declining marriage rates over time, the Federal Government has
also played an active role. For example, our government
penalizes marriage through the welfare system and the tax code.
And in some cases, through the way that the tax code and the
welfare system happen to interact.
Our Federal Government should not be in the business of
punishing marriage. Instead, it should support policies that
strengthen marriage, and thus improve the likelihood of family
stability for children.
State and local leaders should also seek ways to strengthen
marriage and increase family stability. At a bare minimum,
government should have as its object not to discourage or
punish marriage under any circumstances.
Some of us have been working toward that goal. Today we
will hear from expert panelists who will speak to the state of
the American family and discuss various policies and solutions
for some of the current challenges facing families. I look
forward to hearing their testimonies on this crucial topic.
And I now recognize our new Vice Chair, Mr. Beyer, for his
opening remarks, and congratulate him on his selection as Vice
Chair.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lee appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 40.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD BEYER JR., VICE CHAIR, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA
Vice Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Chairman Lee, very much.
This is my first hearing as Vice Chair of the Joint
Economic Committee. I feel very privileged to be a member of
the Committee and have the opportunity to work on issues that
are of real importance to most Americans. I would like to thank
former Vice Chair Carolyn Maloney for her leadership, and I
would really like to thank Chairman Lee for his hard work, his
commitment, and his collegiality. I look forward to working
with you.
Today we are focused on family stability and the connection
to the well-being of American children. We all share a
commitment to the same goal: delivering the best outcome for
children, families, and the economy. And the question is: How
do we get there?
I feel so fortunate listening to Chairman Lee's statistics
about having a 33-year marriage, and 4 kids and 2 grandkids, I
am completely committed to, and I am really lucky that they all
still live right here in the Metropolitan Area.
I want to start with the good news. Teen pregnancy, which
leads to poor health and poor economic outcomes for mothers and
children is at an all-time low. Between 1991 and 2015, the teen
birth rate dropped by almost two-thirds, thanks at least in
part to the Affordable Care Act. This is an issue I have worked
on for many years. I think we can all feel good about the
substantial progress that has been made.
Part of the impetus for today's hearing may be that
marriage rates have declined in the past several decades. A
good portion of that decline is the result of economic
challenges. If you are struggling financially, your wages have
not gone up and you have lost your job, getting married is
neither feasible nor practical. Perhaps less noticed is that
divorce rates have also been falling. Since its peak in the
1980s, the divorce rate has fallen to a 40-year low.
Young Americans today want to get their economic footing
before they get married. They correctly understand that they
must get an education or training to achieve financial success.
They want to get a firm foothold on a career and earn a degree
of financial stability.
Again, I have a daughter almost 28. She has been dating the
same guy for 6 years. Their wedding date is still a year-and-a-
half away, as they try to get established and get their feet on
the ground. But the longer they wait to get married, it is not
because they are anti-marriage, it is because they are
pragmatic. They are pro-success. They are adapting the current
conditions, not wishing for a return to the past.
And the reality is that the traditional male breadwinner
model of the past failed to work for so many, as wages have
stagnated and the cost of housing and college have soared
higher and higher.
My friends on the other side sometimes talk about the so-
called ``breakdown of family'' and ``increase in households
headed by single mothers.'' It is true that as people delay
marriage, there are more babies born to unmarried parents, and
that holds across demographic groups and race. And it is true
in the United States and elsewhere.
What the research also shows is that children raised by
loving adults do well. There are lots of loving and supporting
arrangements. It is also true that fathers today spend
significantly more time caring for their children than in
previous generations. I know I changed many more diapers than
my father did. In fact, three times as much as in 1965.
On average, the households with the highest incomes are
married with both spouses working. But not every household is
going to look like that, and the government should be working
to support children in all types of families, especially those
with access to only limited financial resources.
The real challenges facing families--whether they live in
small rural communities, or large metro areas--are economic.
Forty-four percent of workers earn just $18,000. And many are
working two and three jobs. Millions of American families are
one accident, one car breakdown, one trip to the emergency room
away from financial crisis or ruin.
When people are living paycheck to paycheck, when wages are
basically where they were 40 years ago, is it any wonder that
adults postpone marriage?
Step number one, then, is to do more to help people build
their financial base. Increase the minimum wage. Expand the
Earned Income Tax Credit. Provide affordable, quality child
care. Protect nutritional supports. Ensure workers have real
bargaining power to negotiate wage increases, predictable
hours, and better working conditions.
We know that children from families who benefit from
expanded Earned Income Tax Credit are more likely to graduate
high school and enroll in college. And, similarly, access to
SNAP leads to better educational and health outcomes. If we
care about child outcomes, we should invest in programs that
drive those outcomes higher.
Making paid family leave a reality for women and men will
be another important step. I am very pleased that our Congress
recently adopted the National Defense Authorization Act which
gave Federal workers 12 weeks paid leave to care for a newborn
or adopted child. And I am looking forward to expanding that to
the private sector.
Finally, part of the challenge for families is our
government has not kept pace with the way people are living
their lives. For example, the share of multi-generational
households is growing, but our policies have not changed.
Grandparents, aunts and uncles are taking care of kids, and
they are often doing it because the cost of child care is
unbelievable. And they are doing a great job.
But often they cannot access family leave or food
assistance, or other important supports that would help. We
need to catch up.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Vice Chair Beyer appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 40.]
Chairman Lee. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I would now
like to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses.
First we have Dr. Brad Wilcox. Director of the National
Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, a Visiting
Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a Senior
Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies.
Dr. Wilcox's research focuses on marriage, fatherhood, and
cohabitation, specifically examining how family structure,
civil society, and culture influence the quality and stability
of family life. He is the author of multiple research studies
and books. His research has been featured in numerous outlets,
including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The
Atlantic, Slate, NPR, and NBS's Today Show.
Welcome, Dr. Wilcox.
Next we have Ms. Kay Hymowitz, who is the William E. Simon
Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a Contributing Editor at
City Journal.
Ms. Hymowitz writes extensively on childhood and family
issues, poverty, and cultural change in America. Her writing
has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The
Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, and numerous other
outlets.
Ms. Hymowitz sits on the board of The Journal's National
Affairs and The Future of Children, and has been interviewed on
numerous radio and TV programs.
Welcome, Ms. Hymowitz.
Next we have Dr. Betsey Stevenson, who is a Professor of
Public Policy and Economics at the University of Michigan. She
served as a member of The Council of Economic Advisers from
2013 to 2015 where she advised President Obama on social
policy, labor markets, and trade issues. And she served as the
Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor from 2010 to
2011. Dr. Stevenson's research explores women's labor market
experiences and the economic forces shaping modern families.
She is a columnist for Bloomberg View, and her analysis of
economic data and the economy are frequently covered in both
print and television media.
Welcome, Dr. Stevenson.
And we have Dr. Rashawn Ray, who is a Rubenstein Fellow at
the Brookings Institute, and Associate Professor of Sociology
at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Dr. Ray's research focuses on racial and social inequality
with a particular focus on police-driven relations and men's
treatment of women. Dr. Ray has published over 50 books,
articles, and book chapters. He has written for media outlets
such as The New York Times, Huffington Post, and NBC News, and
has appeared on C-SPAN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, and Fox.
Thank you for being here today, Dr. Ray.
We appreciate all of you joining us here today, and you are
now recognized for your testimony. We will have you speak in
the order that you were introduced.
Dr. Wilcox, you are first.
STATEMENT OF DR. W. BRADFORD WILCOX, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
MARRIAGE PROJECT AND PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
Dr. Wilcox. Thank you. Chairman Lee, Vice Chair Beyer,
distinguished members of the Committee, there is good news and
bad news to report about marriage and family life in America.
The good news is, as Figure 1 in my testimony indicates, is
divorce is down dramatically since 1980. What is more, non-
marital childbearing has also reversed course since the Great
Recession. Less divorce and less non-marital childbearing equal
more children being raised in intact married families, as
Figure 2 shows.
Also, this uptick has been strongest for Black children, as
we see in Figure 3. That is kind of the good news from my
testimony today.
The bad news is, the Nation still remains deeply divided
when it comes to family structure and family stability. Single
parenthood is about twice as high for children from families
with less education, and for Black children. This form of
family inequality leaves many working class and poor children
doubly disadvantaged, navigating life with less money, and an
absent parent.
This family inequality is rooted in shifts in our economy,
our culture, and our public policy. We know, for instance, that
men without college degrees have seen their spells of
unemployment climb in recent years, undercutting their
marriageability. Since the 1960s, American culture has de-
emphasized the values of virtues that sustain strong marriages
in the name of a kind of expressive individualism.
Declines in religious and secular civic engagement have
been concentrated among working class and poor Americans,
robbing these families of the social support they need to
thrive and endure.
Finally, as Joe Price at BYU and I have shown, means-tested
programs from the Federal Government often end up penalizing
marriage among lower-income families today, particularly
working class families.
This family divided America matters because the American
Dream is in much better shape when marriage anchors the lives
of children and the communities they grow up in. My use of the
term ``marriage'' here is deliberate. No family arrangement
besides marriage affords kids as much stability as does this
institution, as Figure 4 indicates.
Now I cannot here summarize the voluminous literature on
family and child well-being, but suffice it to say that
children are more likely to thrive in school, and steer clear
of poverty when their parents are married. And Figure 5 tells
the score on the latter point.
Family structure also matters to our communities.
Scholarship by Harvard economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues
tell us that neighborhoods with more two-parent families are
significantly more likely to foster rags-to-riches mobility for
poor kids.
In all these ways, the research tells us that the American
Dream is much stronger in communities with more married
families--communities like the ones the Chairman and the Vice
Chair hail from.
Unfortunately, many communities today do not have the
family stability found in Alpine, Utah, or Old Town Alexandria.
So what should we do to renew marriage in communities where
family life has become more fragile?
The first thing we should do is to end marriage penalties
in our means-tested programs. Currently, such penalties in
programs such as Medicaid and the ITC can reach as high as 32
percent for a family's total income. This is unconscionable.
Congress should eliminate these penalties by doubling
income thresholds for programs serving low-income married
families.
The second thing that we should do is to strengthen career
and technical education, recognizing that most young adults
today will not get a four-year college degree. Our education
system devotes far too little attention to this group. We need
to scale up career and technical education to boost the
earnings, the self-confidence, and the marital prospects of
young men and young women who are not on the college track.
A third thing we should do is to expand the Child Tax
Credit to help families cover the expenses of rising costs of
raising young children. And to reduce the financial stresses
that can cause marital instability, Congress should expand the
Child Tax Credit to $3,000 per child, and extend it to payroll
tax liabilities or provide families with fully refundable
credit.
And this credit should be paid out on a monthly basis, to
give families month-to-month support in addressing the
financial challenges of raising a family today. To limit the
expense, this expansion should be limited to children under
six.
Finally, we should be launching civic efforts to strengthen
marriage. I would like to see a campaign organized around what
Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Bill Soho call ``The Success
Sequence,'' where young adults are encouraged to pursue
education, work, marriage, and parenthood, in that order.
Ninety-seven percent of young adults today who have
followed the sequence are not poor. A campaign organized around
the sequence could meet with the same success as the recent
national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy.
Measures like these are necessary to bridge the divide in
family structure and stability across the U.S., a divide we can
all agree is both unacceptable and un-American.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wilcox appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 43.]
Chairman Lee. Thank you. Ms. Hymowitz.
STATEMENT OF MS. KAY HYMOWITZ, WILLIAM E. SIMON FELLOW,
MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, CITY JOURNAL, NEW
YORK, NY
Ms. Hymowitz. Chairman Lee, Vice Chair Beyer, distinguished
members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify today.
I am the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute. Much of my research over the past 23 years has been
on the decline of marriage, its causes, its impact on children,
and its relation to poverty and inequality.
Today I would like to focus on what is perhaps an
underappreciated part of this story, what some family scholars
call ``the marriageable men problem.''
Let me begin by describing the mass movement of American
women into the workforce that began in the mid-20th Century. It
launched an extraordinary social revolution and its ripple
effects we are still trying to fully understand.
In 1950, about one in three women were in the labor force.
The numbers for prime age women rose dramatically over the
following decades and peaked in 2000 at 76.7 percent. Today,
after a moderate reversal during the Great Recession, it has
returned to its historical high.
Even more striking was the shift in the work patterns of
women with children. In the past, women who did work almost
always left the labor force when they gave birth. Today,
working motherhood is the new normal. As of 2017, 71.3 percent
of mothers of children under 18 were in the labor force, and
that included 63 percent of mothers with children under 3.
In January, the Labor Department announced that for the
last quarter of 2019 women were a majority of those in the non-
farm payroll positions, something that could be said of no
other country in the OECD.
This revolution that I am describing has brought countless
benefits to women. In order to prepare themselves for the
workforce, they have spent more years pursuing an education.
This has given them the chance to use the full range of their
talents and to pursue their individual interests. It has been
widely and accurately reported that women are now more likely
to graduate from college than men are.
As a result, over 40 percent of women in the labor force
have a college degree, compared to only 36 percent of men.
Women have also poured into graduate schools and now earn more
masters and Ph.D. degrees than men do.
Sixty percent of doctors under 35 are women. More than half
of law school graduates and associates are also women. We hear
a great deal about the injustice of our gender gap, but
research that fully takes into account occupation, number of
hours worked, seniority, and time away from the job find an
unexplained gender cap of only a few percentage points.
I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge that there are
still many obstacles for women. There is still that income gap,
even if it is far smaller than generally understood. As the
#MeToo movement reminds us on a regular basis, harassment and
discrimination are an ongoing problem.
Women still do more of the child care in married-couple
homes, and for the 23 percent of homes led by a single mother
they do all of that work.
Despite all of these impediments, the opportunities for
women to exercise their talents, to be financially independent,
to leave an abusive marriage, to buy their own homes, and to
build wealth are extraordinary and unprecedented.
The opportunities for them to find a desirable husband or
partner--that is, a man with whom they might want to raise
children--turns out to be another matter. The problem is
especially acute for our lower-skilled population and minority
population as well. In 1960, more than 90 percent of adult
women over 35 had married. The most common explanation for the
decline of marriage and mother-father families at the lower end
of the income ladder is the moribund economic fortunes of low-
skilled men.
There is some disagreement about just how bad this is, and
I will not elaborate on that debate here. But there is little
question that the economic fortunes of those men relative to
women have worsened. I see my time is running shorter than I
thought, so let me rush through to this.
What does all this have to do with marriage? After all, the
traditional family model with the male breadwinner and the
homemaker wife has been in decline for decades. Yet, still
women want to marry men who earn more than they do. And what we
are finding instead is many men, about 10 percent of the prime
age workforce, dropping out of the labor market entirely. And
they are also having a great deal of trouble in school. Can I
continue?
Chairman Lee. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Hymowitz. So what we have, then, is a mismatch between
what women might want and the men available. It is especially
large for minority and especially African-American women.
A Pew Survey confirmed that never-married women place a
high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job. Yet the
number of never-married employed men between 25 and 34 per 100
women plunged from 139 in 1960 to 91 in 2012, even though there
are considerably more men than women in that age group.
The ratio for Black men and women is considerably worse.
There are only 51 employed young Black men for every 100 young
Black women. The share of Blacks who have never been married
has quadrupled over the past half century from 9 percent in
1950 to 36 percent in 2012. With these ratios, it is not
surprising.
In short, despite women's extraordinary gains over the past
decade in educational achievement, income, and occupations,
both sexes still expect husbands to earn at least as much as
their wives do. Women who cannot find such men, will choose not
to marry. Judging from their behavior thus far, either they
will become single mothers, or not have children at all. Which
leads me to the following conclusion:
To ensure that more children grow up in stable two-parent
families, we have to focus our attention on young men,
particularly less educated minority men, and I would suggest
three areas of attention.
First, the Nation's schools have to pay more attention to
their boy problem. Boys are already behind the girls when they
enter school. They read and write later than girls. And the
gaps widen over time. Educators often find boys lose interest
in their classes by middle school, as reading material becomes
more challenging.
Relatedly, boys are two times as likely to be suspended as
girls, and 40 percent more likely to drop out of high school.
Educators have been invested in improving the outcomes in
science and math for girls over the past decades. They need to
show the same commitment to addressing boys' lagging reading
skills--testing out new approaches that might improve their
performance.
To cite just one potential avenue, there is intriguing
evidence that boys benefit from more structured reading
instructions than many schools offer today.
The second change needed to improve boys' outcomes is
increasing both the number and prestige of trade schools. And
Brad Wilcox just spoke about that, so I will leave that point
aside.
And the third area of attention is admittedly less amenable
to government policy but is no less crucial to addressing the
marriageable men problem. And that is, the reaffirmation of the
importance of fathers and male contributions to the household.
These days, according to surveys, girls and young women
have stronger career aspirations than men do. It sounds
surprising at first, but think about it. Society has come to
accept single motherhood. In fact, it is the norm in many
disadvantaged communities.
I would propose that this seeming social progress has had
the unintended effect of telling boys and men that their
contributions to family life and the household economy are of
no great consequence. Why study, plan, show up for work on
time, or go to work when you are sick of your boss if no one is
depending on you and no one cares?
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hymowitz appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 54.]
Chairman Lee. Dr. Stevenson.
STATEMENT OF DR. BETSEY STEVENSON, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND
PUBLIC POLICY, THE GERALD R. FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI
Dr. Stevenson. Thank you [off microphone].
Chairman Lee. Hit the button.
Dr. Stevenson. It is my pleasure to speak with you today
about American families. I am an Economist who has spent the
better part of the last three decades studying American
families and economic forces and public policies that have
shaped them. In trying to understand not just what makes
families thrive, but what has been the forces that have led
families to change, and change they have.
You have heard much about how they have changed. My written
testimony outlines a lot of the forces, so I am not going to
spend a lot of time on that. But I do want to give you some
good news that is often overlooked. Which is, that at no other
time in history have so many people over the age of 60 been
married.
You might say, well, here we are talking about children.
Why should I care about a bunch of old people being married?
But there is a part of the country where marriage is thriving.
It is thriving at older ages, and it reflects the fact that
marriage is still the ideal for Americans.
Americans, unlike those in many other countries, still want
to marry when they feel that they can succeed in their
marriage. And what we see with these successful marriages at
older ages is that--and what I have shown in my research, is
that marriages succeed when people have the time and the income
to spend in their marriages.
And so let me talk a little bit about what has caused some
of the changes in marriage and family life. The first thing I
want to highlight is just the increase in life expectancy. The
large increase in life expectancy is important to understand
the kind of trends that Ms. Hymowitz just talked about
regarding women is labor force participation.
A woman today can no longer think she is going to spend the
majority of her life taking care of children. She is going to
live 20 years longer as an adult, and so she needs to think
about how she is going to combine paid work with motherhood.
That does not necessarily mean combining paid work with having
young kids at home. She needs to figure out whether she is
going to work while she has young kids at home at the same
time, or try to re-enter the labor force when her kids have
left the home.
Unfortunately, public policy is failing to help women make
these decisions and support them in the ways in which they need
to combine work with motherhood, given their increased
longevity.
Many scholars have pointed to a bifurcation in families
because women with more education are marrying later and having
children even later, well into their 30s, while those with less
education often have children prior to marrying and often still
in their 20s.
First let me say that, while many bemoan the lack of a
second parent, research has shown that many of the problems
identified among single parent families stem from insufficient
income. The fundamental problem for children in single parent
families stems from insufficient income and socioeconomic
stress.
The shift to marrying and having children at older ages, as
was mentioned by Vice Chairman Beyer, does reflect the desire
by many people to establish their careers and achieve financial
stability prior to having children.
Women's wages and careers tend to flatline once they have
children and, as a result, women with potentially steep upward
trajectories in their career and wages are waiting as long as
they possibly can. Despite the fact that women are the majority
of college educated workers and the majority of non-farm
payroll job holders, they still face these challenges once they
have children.
Modern families do have a role for fathers. Fathers are
playing a bigger role than they have ever played in American
families. They are more likely to be actively engaged parents.
They are increasingly playing the role of a primary care giver.
They are deeply engaged in everyday acts of child rearing such
as changing diapers, giving bottles, bringing children to and
from school, and going to doctors' appointments.
I read an article in The Journal of Pediatrics recently
that talked about how pediatricians need to recognize the
important role fathers play in providing health care to their
young children, because that has not been traditionally where
pediatricians are expecting it to come from.
Let me stop and say what I think are the very important
ways that you can help support American families through
policy.
I am going to start with the very first one, which is: If
you want two-parent families, the first thing you need to do is
ensure that the mother survives childbirth. And the fact that
we have the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed
world, and it is continuing to rise, should be alarming to all
of you. I have outlined some policy options, and there are more
that I would be even happy to talk about. This should be a
first priority.
Providing paid family leave is really important for
children. Research has been very clear that that bonding time
with both mothers and fathers is best for children. And I have
been for the past several years part of a bipartisan working
group on paid family leave run jointly by the American
Enterprise Institute and Brookings.
We have come up with a bipartisan policy recommendation for
paid leave, and I would be happy to walk through what those
bipartisan characteristics of a Federal paid family leave
policy would look like.
Affordable high-quality early childhood education and child
care are crucial for today's children. When we first introduced
our K-12 educational system, or expanded our primary system to
high school, we had no idea how important early learning was.
We now know that we are sending too many kids to kindergarten
too far behind without having adequate investment in their
early learning.
There is much research on the importance of early childhood
learning. It is discussed in my written testimony and I would
be happy to talk with you further about that.
Also, I would just like to emphasize the importance of
recognizing and supporting broader kinship relationships.
Finally, to echo what has already been said by both of our
panelists, the importance of higher wages for our lower--lowest
earners, expanding the child tax credit to make it fully
refundable; expanding the EITC to noncustodial parents as well
as increasing it; raising the minimum wage. These are all
things that would both help support children and their
families. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stevenson appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 60.]
Chairman Lee. Thank you, Dr. Stevenson.
Dr. Ray.
STATEMENT OF DR. RASHAWN RAY, DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN FELLOW IN
GOVERNANCE STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Ray. Yes, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Beyer, and
distinguished members of the Joint Economic Committee, thank
you for allowing me to testify today.
You have already heard a lot of trends and stats, so I will
not repeat those. I have some of those in my written testimony
as well, including some very compelling graphs by one of my
University of Maryland colleagues, Dr. Phillip Cohen, that
shows trends in families over the past 120 years or so.
But what I do want to talk about is some of the interesting
trends and ways to interpret it. So similar to the issue facing
Americans at the turn of the 20th Century, families are
currently pooling funds together to deal with stagnant wages,
rising housing costs, and rising health care costs.
As of 2017, roughly 15 percent of households were composed
of extended family members, many of whom are together out of
necessity--not necessarily by choice. In 1960, 65 percent of
households were composed of married parents where the father
worked and the woman worked inside of the household as a
caregiver and houseworker. Currently, those households
represent about 21 percent of all households. Although research
shows that people's attitudes have not necessarily changed
dramatically of their ideal of a man working and a woman
staying at home, this is not the reality for most American
families. And we have to be very realistic about that.
In 1968, nearly 90 percent of unwed parents were in single-
mother households. Over the past 50 years or so, this has
actually decreased. What we are currently seeing is about 35
percent of unmarried parents are in cohabiting households. This
means that people are in households together, but they are not
married. That is a very, very important trend that we need to
pay attention to. People definitely want to be married. People
desire to be married. And I will talk a little bit more about
that in a second.
As it related to the stereotype of deadbeat fathers,
particularly for Black men, there is a recent study that is
extremely important that shows Black men compared to men of
other racial groups are more likely to bathe their children,
play and read to their children, take children to activities,
help with homework, and talk with their children about their
day.
When it comes to noncustodial fathers, Black men are
actually more likely to participate in the household. I want
you to think about what would happen if we actually had
equitable opportunity for jobs. We would see an even bigger
increase. And I think that racial gap that we see at times in
participation in the household would actually continue to
dwindle.
I think there are some other ways to further interpret a
family. Dr. Pamela Braboy Jackson and I, published a recent
book called How Family Matters: The Simply Complicated
Intersections of Race, Gender, and Work.
We collected data with 46 Black, White, and Mexican-
American families living in middle America. We found some very,
very interesting patterns.
First, we found that Black Americans were more likely than
Whites and Mexicans to include grandparents when it came to
being part of their family. That is because they were more
likely to actually live with grandparents and extended family
members.
Whites and Blacks were also more likely to mention
siblings, and Mexicans were more likely to live in extended
family relationships. These are not necessarily cultural family
arrangements as much as they are survival strategies for the
economic market.
Second, we found that the traditional family arrangement of
the father working and the woman staying at home was primarily
reserved for very high-end earners. Instead we found that high-
end earners were able to play chess, if you will, if we use
that game analogy, whereas working class and poor families were
forced to play checkers. They were actually having decisions
made for them. What we want are policies that allow people to
have more choices in the sort of things that they are able to
do.
The final thing we found is that single parents were
actually the savviest when it came to the families in our
study. Unfortunately, they had limited resources to be able to
do the things that they wanted to do. So overall we found that,
yes, there are some positives. Families are surviving, but they
are also floundering and we need resources to actually do
something about that.
I think there are three--you have heard some of these
before. I want to repeat them.
First, we need an actual living wage. According to a recent
Joint Economic Committee Report, wages were nearly $3 less in
today's dollars than in 1968. Families simply cannot live on
that. It is simply too low. And we need to do something about
it. Across race, we see an even wider disparity.
Second, high-quality jobs need to be given, and we need
family-friendly benefits. Families need earners with high-
quality jobs. Currently, we hear a narrative about low
unemployment. The low unemployment does not necessarily mean
much if the jobs do not allow people to put food on the table.
And we are seeing that in particular in places where we see
stagnant job growth--cities like Baltimore, Detroit,
Philadelphia, St. Louis--and we have to be realistic that these
are predominantly Black cities where we are seeing Black men in
particular who are actually out of the labor market.
So we really need to do something about these jobs. Working
Americans should not necessarily have to get a payday loan when
their kids get sick, or when their kid accidentally breaks
their arm. But unfortunately, that is what is happening.
If I could just take one more minute, I want to make a
couple more points.
First is that, based on job growth potential, Black men are
under-represented in the best 15 occupations for men, and
under-represented in the bottom 15 occupations for men. This is
because jobs have a lot to do with the geographic area where
people are. Cities that are predominantly Black are depleted
with economic opportunities, and we really need to focus on
that.
The final thing I will say is related to affordable health
care. I recently worked on a study with Black Onyx Management.
We did this study in Kosciusko County, Indiana. If you know
anything about that, it is considered one of the orthopedic
capitals of the United States. It is predominantly White and
rural.
One of the things that I found there was extremely
troubling. Nearly 25 percent of the parents reported leaving a
job because of child care. And for families that made less than
$50,000 compared to those who made over $100,000, they were 75
percent more likely to report that paying for childcare was
difficult.
I want to just end with my own family story. I typically
would not do this, but I would be remiss in this setting. I
grew up in a single-parent household, and I have never seen my
biological father before. I am currently married to my high
school sweetheart, with two beautiful, very intelligent boys.
How did I get here?
Well part of it is my mother's lineage. My mother became
pregnant with me while she was in the military. She got
pregnant by a sergeant on her base. She had to make a decision.
Was she going to have an abortion? Was she going to give me up
for adoption to my grandparents? Or was she going to get out of
the military and raise me?
This was a very, very difficult decision. She decided to
raise me. But she turned down a unique opportunity. My mother
was admitted to West Point in the late 1970s as a Black woman.
This is also coupled with the fact that my grandfather, a 21-
year Veteran, Purple Heart, Bronze Star recipient, was a Drill
Sergeant.
So now you have to come home and tell your father that you
are going to raise a kid after you got pregnant in the
military? Well, my mom did it. She put herself in nursing
school, worked a full-time job, two part-time jobs. We were on
welfare. We lived in subsidized housing. When we lived in
Atlanta, I was part of a majority to minority bussing program.
I got to go to a better school that had a gifted program that I
was admitted to. I think one of the main reasons why I am
actually here today.
All of these programs that I am describing were not
available to the kids in my neighborhood. They also are not
primarily available to families today. And what we need are
more resources and more policies to allow a woman like my
mother, Joslyn Talley, to have a son who then gets on the
success sequence based on policies that allow her to do the
things she needs to do to raise her child.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ray appears in the
Submissions for the Record on page 73.]
Chairman Lee. Thank you, very much. We will now begin
rounds of questions by members. I will go first, followed by
Vice Chair Beyer, Representative Schweikert, and then
Representative Herrera Beutler. And we will proceed from there.
Dr. Wilcox, I want to start with you. In your testimony you
point out that in recent years in the United States there has
been some positive shift with regard to family dynamics,
indicators of family stability, including some declining
divorce rates, and at least a slight uptick in the number of
children being raised in intact two-parent families.
Can you describe to us, just briefly, what these stats are
and what factors account for them?
Dr. Wilcox. Since 1980, the divorce rate has declined about
30 percent, and through now and about 1970 levels, and Dr.
Ray's colleague, Phillip Cohen, suggests we are going to see
even more declines in the divorce rate. So that is sort of one
indicator that speaks to your question.
Since the Great Recession hit, we have seen a modest
decline, a very modest decline, in the share of kids born
outside of marriage as well. And that is probably going to
continue apace.
And when you put those two things together, obviously, less
divorce, less non-marital child rearing, that means that there
are more kids being born and raised in a stable married family.
So we've seen from 2014 to the present, an increase in the
share of kids in intact married families from about 61.8
percent in 2014 to in 2019 62.6 percent. It is a modest
increase, obviously, but if you look at kind of the longer
trajectory, we have seen a decline for many, many, many years
in the share of kids in intact married families. And it is nice
to see, from my perspective, a slight uptick in the share of
kids being raised by their own married parents.
Chairman Lee. Thank you. Something else you said there that
I wanted to follow up on. In your testimony you mentioned that
upper income Americans overall tend to subscribe to a marriage-
centered ethos. And that is something they want for themselves
and for their children and for their grandchildren.
At the same time, though, a lot of these same Americans,
the people on the top economic echelons, are most likely to
reject a marriage-centered ethos. How do you explain this
disparity? And what can you tell us about what impact that has
on others in our culture?
Dr. Wilcox. So my colleague, Dr. Wendi Wong and I, looked
at a sample of California adults. It was done by YouGov a few
months ago, and in that survey we found on the one hand that
college-educated California adults were much more likely to
embrace an idea of family diversity, to sort of celebrate
family diversity, and also to say that there was no problem
morally with women having a child on their own. That was sort
of their public kind of orientation towards family on the one
hand.
But then they also said sort of how much they personally
valued having kids in marriage. And then of course we also
tracked whether or not they were stably married. And when it
came to their private orientation, they actually were more
likely to value having their own kid in marriage than their
less educated fellow California citizens. And they were also
much more likely to be in a stable marriage compared to the
less educated fellow California citizens.
So from my perspective, part of the story here--and of
course there are lots of other things happening economically in
California, among other places--but part of the story here is
that our elites have publicly stepped away from embracing
marriage, but recognize that for themselves, you know, for
their spouse, and especially for their kids, it is typically
the best way to do things.
And so what I would like us to see, you know, in precincts
like this is that we need to be more honest about acknowledging
publicly, and communicating publicly, not in a kind of
judgmental way but just kind of in an educational way, about
how much marriage matters for them, for their families, but
also for the larger community and for the larger country.
Chairman Lee. Thank you. Ms. Hymowitz, in your testimony
you talk about men's disconnection, and particularly
disconnection by non-college-educated men from the labor force
and their declining likelihood to marry, or to remain
unmarried.
Do you think strong labor force participation and earnings
increases--do earnings increases tend to increase men's
likelihood of getting married, or wanting to get married?
Ms. Hymowitz. Well historically, yes. And the reason that I
talked so much about the kinds of attitudes women have towards
who they want to marry--they want to marry men with jobs--was
to just reinforce that idea. That it is still that women want
to work, many of them, most of them who are, but they also want
to marry men who hopefully earn at least as much or more than
they do. And there is significant research showing that.
Having said that, there are indications--there is at least
one study that I am aware that suggests that it is not just a
matter of, at this point, of making sure men are earning
better, more money at better jobs. It is a study of men in, I
believe it was North Dakota, who got jobs in the fracking
industry and started to make very decent incomes. And what they
found in that study was that over time the birth rate went up,
the marriage rate did not.
So that suggests to me that it is not enough simply to talk
about the good jobs, as important as that is.
Chairman Lee. That said, do you suspect if marriage rates
were higher today, do you think labor force participation rates
among men would be higher?
Ms. Hymowitz. Well, it is hard to know which comes first.
Chairman Lee. Right, right.
Ms. Hymowitz. So I would say that, given that women are--
and I think men have internalized this as well--given that
women want to marry men who do have jobs, that is going to have
to come first.
Chairman Lee. Mr. Beyer.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank
all of you very much. It is a fascinating hearing. I really
appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Stevenson, you point out in your testimony that women's
careers and wages plateau after they start having children, so
there is an economic incentive to put this off as long a
possible. And now we have a slight majority of jobs held by
women. And given that they are a growing majority of college
graduates, their role in the workforce is only expected to
grow.
We also have this issue, as you pointed out, that the child
rearing part of their marriage becomes ever smaller as we live
longer. But what we have not figured out as a society is how to
not penalize women for having children.
So what changes could come from the government to recognize
this plateau phenomenon, this forced delay in child bearing?
Dr. Stevenson. Well thank you very much for that question.
One challenge is that it is very difficult in our labor force
to pause your career, to get the flexibility that you may need,
or to be able to take the leave that you may need. Researchers
have shown that there are really quite substantial penalties
for women who want to take, say, a year or two out of the labor
force off when they have small kids at home. And that is
because we exist in a society in which taking maternity leave,
or paternity leave, is unusual. Since most workers are not
taking much time off, they are competing against people who do
not take time out of the labor force.
So I think the first thing is creating a social norm that
people are going to stay home for some amount of time, be it
eight weeks as we recommended with the bipartisan working
group. That was a compromise. I think the research shows that
children do better when there is a parent at home with them for
six months, and that could be split between mothers and
fathers. So three months of paid leave for mothers, and fathers
would give six months at home for a new child.
If that was the norm, it would be easier for people to be
able to continue to get ahead. When you are in a career, for
instance if you are a lawyer and other people at the law firm
are not taking the paid leave, it does not matter whether the
paid leave is offered or not offered. You feel like you will be
penalized in terms of being able to continue your trajectory.
We also see that there is implicit discrimination.
Sometimes women go back to work after having a kid. Colleagues
try to be kind and helpful, so they do not give women
opportunities because the colleagues do not want to get in the
way of the mother raising her children. But the result is that
the mother's career plateaued.
And also one other thing, when we are thinking about
training programs, and job placement services, we should be
thinking about the full range of people with skills. Often our
job placement services are really reserved for people with the
least amount of skills. And so we just don't really have any
services for workers trying to reenter the labor force.
If you were a college graduate, perhaps a middle wage
working woman who decided to take three or four years out of
the labor force while you are raising your young children,
there is really no support from the government to help you
figure out how to make your way back into the labor force. And
that is really problematic for them.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much.
Dr. Ray, many have talked about the increased role that
grandparents play in helping raise the kids. But it is not
really supported by our Federal policies. What should
policymakers do to recognize the role of grandparents, aunts
and uncles in providing care for kids?
Dr. Ray. That is a great question. I think one of the
biggest things is there needs to be more flexibility in the way
we think about the policies associated with children.
Currently, most policies are directly tied to the parents. I
mean even before this session we were talking about what does
it mean to sign onto a birth certificate, and how that follows
people throughout life.
There needs to be more flexibility and more malleability in
grandparents' ability to take on some of the resources and tax
breaks associated with raising children. And I think those are
some of the things--one of the big things that needs to change.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Okay, thanks. Dr. Stevenson and Dr.
Ray, you both made clear that Americans value and embrace
marriage, and even put it on a pedestal, and it is not a
question of not wanting to get married, but a question of
whether people can afford to get married.
Dr. Wilcox has talked about a cultural program, comparing
it to not smoking, for example. What is the evidence that these
programs can work, should work, that the government could weigh
in to encourage people to get married?
Dr. Stevenson. So, you know, I am sure you are aware that
Congress does fund marriage promotion programs. There have been
a number of evaluative studies of marriage promotion programs,
including programs that involve putting advertisements on buses
that said, you know, marriage is great. Other programs that
fund marriage counseling.
The evidence is simply that these programs do not work. I
will say that parenting programs work really well, teaching
people the skills--because that is where people simply need
skills. The problem with marriage is not that people do not
have the skills for marriage, or that they do not value
marriage. It is really that they do not think they can afford
marriage.
If I may, one of my most highly cited research papers was
explaining the decline in the divorce rate. So I would like to
tie this back to answering Mr. Lee's earlier question. One of
the reasons that we saw the divorce rate spike so high in the
1970s was because people had started marrying at younger ages.
And those marriages are often not very stable, for lots of
reasons.
People do not know what their life is going to look like at
young ages. Their preferences are not yet very stable. And
neuroscience now tells us they are not even fully really a
grown up until about age 24 or 25 when your brain finishes its
development.
But what really happened in the 1970s was people married
thinking that their marriage was going to look one way, and it
looked a very different way. They married thinking the wife was
going to stay home, and the husband was going to support her.
And that is not how society evolved.
And they took a look at their marriage and it did not seem
to fit the society they were living in today. What we see now
is people are better informed about what they are getting into
when they get married. They know what they are looking for in a
partner. And they are finding people that are going to be well-
suited to them, but they really are waiting until they feel
that they can afford marriage. Because marriage is not--is no
longer about coming together, and one person is going to
support me, and the other one is not, and therefore we are
going to get financial stability out of it. But, rather, you do
not want to commit to taking on somebody else's financial
responsibility unless you know that you for sure can support
yourself and perhaps can be the insurance and financial support
for another person. Think about what the marriage vows say.
They say we are going to take care of each other. We are going
to insure each other----
Vice Chairman Beyer. Dr. Stevenson, if I can give Dr.
Wilcox a chance to respond, too. Because you had made the case
for launching specific efforts to strengthen marriage, and that
specific efforts would certainly work in other places in our
society.
Dr. Wilcox. Dr. Stevenson is correct, that a lot of the
initial reviews of Federally funded marriage and relationship
education were not promising in many different parts of the
country, although there was success in Oklahoma in terms of
both the quality and stability of outcomes for the Oklahoma
programs. And of course they had had the most experience with
this particular approach.
Although it is also important to note here that a newer
review done by Alan Hawkins in 2019 finds success not just in
Oklahoma but also in New York City on some of these marriage
education approaches.
But the point I am making here actually is not really about
having programs that are trying to target lower income couples,
as with these particular approaches, but actually thinking more
about kind of the broader cultural message we are sending to
the public. You know, just like we did with smoking, like we
did with teen pregnancy, I think we need to think about ways in
which we can get public service announcements. We can get
Hollywood. We can get schools, and other institutions, on board
with the message that, you know, it is helpful to sequence
basically education, work, marriage, and parenthood in that
order. And if more young adults kind of heard that message, I
think they could change their pattern in that area much like
they have changed their patterns around teen pregnancy and
smoking.
So that is sort of the point here. And we have seen
evidence, too, from Brookings, for instance, that MTV show ``16
and Pregnant,'' that was one of the kinds of things that
happened in the pop culture that helped to sort of shift us
away from teen pregnancies.
So using that kind of cultural power and influence I think
to stress the value of the sequence would be helpful in
extending a model that we see among our own peers and their
kids to the broader country. And, to all kinds of kids from all
kinds of different backgrounds.
Chairman Lee. Representative Schweikert.
Representative Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Vice Chairman Beyer. Thank you for asking that.
Can I take this slightly differently, because you are all
freaky smart and I need sort of that input. First, can you
confirm a piece of data that I have on my desktop saying that
the majority of millennials will never marry. It does not mean
they are not in long-term committed relationships. But the
majority of millennials will not marry. Has anyone else seen
that data set?
Dr. Wilcox.
Dr. Wilcox. There is a recent report from the Urban
Institute that talks about a marked decline in marriage, but it
would go from, you know, around 90 percent in previous
generations to about 70 percent of millennials would be
marrying over the course of their lives. So obviously a big
decline, but still a majority of millennials are projected by
the Urban Institute.
Representative Schweikert. I will send that to you, because
I have spent some real time on its math, and I found it both
fascinating and disturbing because it became an interesting
conversation of: Is it the definition of marriage as we
operate--you know, here is how you get a tax benefit, how you
do this--or is it the long-term committed relationship. It is
almost, forgive my ignorance, the common-law model.
But in our office we have a fixation----
Dr. Ray.
Dr. Ray. I was just going to say quickly, even if it is a
decline in marriage among millennials, that does not mean that
when they get married that those marriages will not be more
successful.
Representative Schweikert. It was more just because on my
committee, Ways and Means, so often we are parsing out things
saying, okay, here is the benefit for having this piece of
paper. Here are the benefits for raising the child. Even as Dr.
Stevenson spoke about some of the benefits of an earned income
tax credit.
I am just trying to get my head around what my population
looks like that these sorts of things would actually benefit
family stability?
Ms. Hymowitz. I just wanted to mention that the surveys
that I have seen recently of younger people is that there is
not a great valuing of marriage. And many of them do not see it
as essential. They want children, but they do not necessarily
want to marry. There is a Pugh Survey on this. And I think
there is another one----
Representative Schweikert. Which is why this becomes
important to us up here. We are trying to design family
formation policy, and then we are going to get to my real
interest: My real question is what happens when society already
has certain trends? Do we need to run out in front of those
trends and make sure that we own the definitions, and the
benefits, and those things that incentivize, or just deal with
the reality of here are our demographics. Am I being fair?
Ms. Hymowitz. Well I guess the question is whether there is
a way to influence----
Representative Schweikert. Yes. And as we know, some of the
marriage studies gave me a moment of hope, because I looked at
many of those before and I saw nothing that was statistically
significant.
Can I go back to----
Dr. Stevenson. Can I just--I think what makes it really
hard when we look at these studies like of millennials is that
it is the case that people are postponing marriage to much
greater ages. And so we are having to forecast, oh, they are
marrying at such low rates at 28, 29, and 30, what are they
going to do at 40, 41, and 42? And it is hard to forecast, but
I will say that it does seem like people are very committed
still to marriage.
And one of the things that we are seeing----
Representative Schweikert. But we----
Dr. Stevenson [continuing]. The number of children people
have has gone down, but actually so has the rate of
childlessness. So people are pushing things off, and then they
get like one kid, and, you know, a late marriage.
Representative Schweikert. But that actually comes to what
I really wanted to ask about, the fertility rates. Okay, we all
know the United States has been below replacement rate since,
what, 1971. Functionally, if you do the adjustments--you do not
like that number?
Dr. Wilcox. Since the Great Recession, certainly, yes.
Representative Schweikert. Okay, let us go to the Great
Recession. But it is not just us. We actually worked on a
project in our office trying to see if there is any country--
even Hungary where like with the third child they buy you a
house, or with a fourth child--and in a number of northern
European countries, even a couple of Asian countries, we see
some of the experiments, and in Taiwan. Who has finally had
success of breaking the Holy Grail to change fertility rates?
And we found almost nothing that is actually statistically
significant.
So in some ways we are having a conversation here about
family formation and family health and family stability.
Wonderful. On the other end, we have been trying to build
economic models of what does the future of our economy look
like, just even hitting population stability, plus, minus, you
know, what a talent base for our current immigration systems
would look like.
It is really hard to build those models. And the thing I
was going to ask from all of you, because from my previous
comment, you are all freaky smart, I disagreed with some of
your things that were written in your papers, the benefits, but
it is what it is.
If I came to you tomorrow and said our society is concerned
about fertility rates. We want to encourage children. We would
like to encourage those children within a traditional family
structure. What works? And can you point to me anywhere in the
world where someone has found a formula in their society that
has worked?
Am I wrong that, at least in the current literature, it
just is not out there?
Dr. Stevenson.
Dr. Stevenson. So I think the one thing that is hard in
looking around the world, the world is a great place to look
for lots of examples. Sometimes we find things that work, and
sometimes not. But we have to think is this matching our
society.
So what has happened in the United States is we are
investing more as parents in our children than we ever have
before.
Representative Schweikert. You referred to it--I had a
professor who used to refer to it as ``the high quality
child.''
Dr. Stevenson. Yes. So people are--college-educated mothers
are working more in the market for pay, but they are also
spending way more time with their children than they ever did
when they were stay-at-home moms. It is amazing. I do not know
where they are getting the hours, but moms are spending more
time. Dads are spending more time.
Representative Schweikert. How does that--how does that--
those are interesting data points, but how does that help
build----
Dr. Stevenson. Let us put this together with what our
public policy is. We are not investing in children. The public
policy--the government is not matching what the parents want.
Representative Schweikert. But show me a society that
actually--because we have some that are putting stunning
amounts of money, and yet we have not seen a change in the
fertility rate. And that is my honest question. And maybe it is
that as a society we should do those things. I am actually--
this is one of those occasions where, someone is known to lean
conservative, and maybe somewhat libertarian, I think if I can
just find some data that shows it would be good for society.
And can I hit Doctor----
Dr. Stevenson. I was just going to say, what I am asking
you to do is look for countries where the parents desire to
invest is high, and see what works there.
Representative Schweikert. And I will read--you know, I am
just a voracious reader. You send me anything, I will read it.
Dr. Ray, and then I am way over time.
Dr. Ray. Yeah, I think one of the main things is higher
quality jobs with higher wages. We were just talking about
millennials. One of the biggest issues with millennials, and
again similar to what Dr. Stevenson was saying, I sometimes do
not put tons of weight in some of the attitudinal data when
people are in their 20s. For example, because once they finish
school and get a house and do all these sort of things, the
success sequence tells people to do before they get married,
they will get married. And I think that those marriages will be
more successful.
And if we want people to have more children, people need
more money to take care of children. Taking care of children
today is extremely, extremely expensive. When I talk to--again,
I have two young kids. When I talk to other families, they talk
about having an additional child, a third child, or a second
child----
Representative Schweikert. I----
Dr. Ray. Hold on, let me make this point. Because they
ultimately do not do that, because it is too much money,
because of the investment they are making. But if they were
able to make higher wages, it might be a cost/benefit
analysis----
Representative Schweikert. Dr. Ray, I was actually going to
compliment you, because you actually did come close to the
thing, because we were actually trying to build a model that
said what would happen if they are going to have one child, but
if they hit certain levels of success five years earlier, would
that mean a second child.
Dr. Ray. Yes.
Representative Schweikert. And you actually sort of touched
on that in some of your writings.
Can I hear from Dr. Wilcox, and then I apologize for going
way over time. He humors me because I torment him.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wilcox. I just wanted to say two things quickly. One is
that we actually are seeing this decline in fertility even in
Scandinavian countries that have incredibly progressive
benefits, you know, that many of our colleagues would call for.
So I think it would be attentive to the fact that there is
something out there that is happening that is sort of above and
beyond just the policy thing. And maybe, you know--well,
certainly the policy recommendations that some of our
progressive peers have called for.
There is some evidence of a program that has been somewhat
successful, and it is a program of paying five hundred and
whatever their currency is to families for each child, you
know, a very targeted kind of child allowance. That could be
kind of a model for us to think about here in the U.S., to sort
of think about a child allowance that would give families
choices about how best to spend their money on their kids to,
you know, deal with the rising costs.
Representative Schweikert. We have actually even looked at
everything from a negative income tax to some stability income
for the additional child. We are just trying to figure out what
would help us produce a level of population stability and
family formation.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for tolerating me.
Chairman Lee. Thank you.
Representative Herrera Beutler.
Representative Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been just fascinating for me. It is funny, as I was
looking through this, I think everybody is kind of right. And
everybody is kind of a little wrong, which is pretty much how
it always works, right?
Some of the recommendations I am just excited to even get
started on, I think recommendations from each of you. I found
it particularly interesting, Dr. Stevenson, that you were
talking about our maternal mortality rates. It was my piece of
legislation that got signed into law at the end of 2018, our
first Congressional Federal legislation in the Nation to start
addressing the rising maternal mortality crisis. Because you
either are a mom, or you have got a mom, so it impacts all of
us. And for some reason in 21st century America we were not--
people do not even know when you say 47th in the developed
world, people get shocked. And I am like this is our backyard.
It is rural, it is urban, it is poor, it is rich. It is
everybody.
So we are starting to address that. I think the next piece
there is to make sure that we have health care coverage,
especially for moms on Medicaid, through that first year of
life, if we are going to start measuring maternal mortality for
that first year of life. Women with private insurance will
hopefully keep it, right?
But certainly Medicaid needs to continue. I think that is
2.0 for that. I had a good conversation with Vice President
Pence during the whole ObamaCare repeal time. And that was my
comment to him. As someone who is very much pro-life, if we are
going to encourage people to have children in dire
circumstances, then we can make sure that we are stepping up
both as the community and our policies federally.
The other piece, I think Dr. Ray you were talking about and
I did have some questions for you. I do think that equatability
for--you were talking about, really, Black men in big cities,
where are the good jobs? Like in opportunities. I did have to
smile a little bit, because if you step out of those big
cities, we are seeing a lot more opportunity across gender and
race, and traditional--in fact, non--Hispanic men without high
school degrees are some of those who are actually seeing their
wages boosted right now in this economy. So it does make me
think in some of those big cities, maybe it is time for a
little balance in some of those political levers. Maybe we
could help spread out the thriving economy we are seeing in
other areas.
And as someone who--I am so moved by your personal story.
You know, I think I could have pulled myself from each of your
examples. You know, I am 41. I just have a 9-month-old. I
started having children late, because, I don't know, I got
wound up in this place. My husband, who is going to hate me for
this, is technically a millennial. He has all three of my
children right now. So he's got the 6-year-old, the 3-year-old,
and the 9-month-old. And I was like, ``bye, honey, I've got to
go to a hearing.'' And he is going to handle them so much
better than I would.
So I had to smile about all the different ways you were
quantifying people, because I am also Hispanic. And the first
in my family to get a four-year college degree. And so so much
of your story really inspired me. Actually, your mother did,
I'm not going to lie. She probably put all of us to shame.
But as I was listening to this, because one of the things I
will say has helped tie me together in all this, has been both
my faith and my parents. My parents are still married. And one
of the things I just kept asking, if the goal here is improving
the stability and well-being of American children, children are
the products of their parent's marriage.
Now for their parents, right--and I am looking at Dr. Ray
because obviously his mother is amazing and overcame a lot
more. So for me the question is not how do we get more people
to get married because who wants to get married if they see a
terrible marriage, or a terrible situation?
That is the one thing, when I look at millennials, and I
think finances is the first thing they will say, when you say
why are you not having kids, or when are you going to have
kids, and generally it is the guy who will say ``money, we
don't have enough to pay for them yet.''
And I think that is true. But I think the next step is,
what is your view of marriage? And what causes someone to get
married? Is it a healthy marriage? I was surprised--the one
thing I was surprised by is the lack of conversation around, I
do not know if you would say ``emotional health,'' in each of
these situations. Because I do not want to push millennials to
get married if they are going to get into crumby marriages and
have bad outcomes, right?
So what we really want is stable families. So for me the
question is: Why do not young people value marriage? And what
are we modeling? What are they seeing? Because I think this
generation is actually pretty courageous to demand certain
things, work/life balance. They are doing that, though, because
they want to see something better. I think about this in terms
of faith, too. If our faith does not show anything, why would
anybody want to join the faith? I would not.
The question to me, then, goes back to the health of the
people who are getting married. Who am I? And why am I here?
And that is the thing I think we have to answer before we put
them on this success--I cannot remember how you were saying it,
Dr. Wilcox--but the steps obviously make sense. But I just
think, even when it comes to the economics, those are all
symptoms. But in treating all the symptoms, how do we bring
about the health and well-being really of the people that
create the most intimate building block of our society, which
is a marriage.
I think that is where we have to start. And I would love to
hear your thoughts. Dr. Ray, I think I would love to hear,
because I think your mom obviously found that.
Dr. Ray. Yeah, I mean my mom--so I will say a couple of
quick things, and then I will say something about my mom. When
this hearing happened and Sol Espinoza asked me to be a part of
it, the first thing that came to my mind is what does
``stable'' mean? What you did conceptually from a sociological
standpoint, you expanded past the economic structural parts,
even the cultural parts, to think about what does a healthy
marriage mean?
I have a very healthy marriage with my wife. One of the
things my mom did raising me, she said two main things. She
said, first, I am a woman. I cannot necessarily show you what
it means to be a man, and in particular a Black man in society,
but I can put you around other people who can. I cannot
necessarily show you what it is like to be in a marriage right
now, but I can put you around people who can show you what that
looks like.
So she helped me to model family. So I had a very healthy,
positive view of what marriage looked like. When I ask a lot of
my friends, if you talk to a lot of millennials, they do not
have that, partly because their parents were getting divorced
when they were kids and they do not want to go through that.
I think the other thing is that from a cultural
standpoint--and Dr. Wilcox talked about this--sometimes I kind
of think about shows and how much they matter on MTV and that
kind of thing, but I do think that showing people that marriage
is good, and what a successful marriage looks like, is
something that we should really, really do. Instead, oftentimes
when you look at parents with young children who are working,
they look miserable, like their life does not look great, even
if it is. And oftentimes it is hindsight.
And so I think part of what has to happen is, if we are
going to talk about marriage and what a healthy marriage looks
like, we have to reconceptualize what ``stability'' and
``healthy'' means. And I think we have to make sure that young
adults, and in particular young kids, elementary school kids,
high school kids, that they are able to model and actually see
what healthy, positive, happy couples in marriages look like.
Because I think in American society we do not necessarily
have that image. I think certain people like myself were able
to be around families that my mother made me get around to see
that, but I think for a lot of my friends they do not have
that. So when it comes to getting married, and particularly
having kids, why would they do that? Because life does not look
better with that.
So part of it is that we have to show people what that
looks like.
Dr. Stevenson. So I would just like to add that what we see
is that couples, where they have similar expectations for how
they are going to behave in marriage, how they are going to
share the tasks of raising children, the tasks of working, who
is going to do the vacuuming, who is going do the washing up,
those are the marriages that succeed. And one of the reasons
that I thought it was really important to talk about the
increasing role that fathers are playing as really active care
givers, like your husband, is because those are the marriages
that are succeeding. And when we model that for kids and say:
You know what, this modern masculinity does involve having a
baby pouch on some of the time.
Those are the marriages that are really thriving, and so
trying to figure out how we can make men, particularly men who
are not able to find the kinds of work that they thought they
were going to be able to do, the kinds of like goods-producing
manufacturing jobs, has increasingly become a service sector,
how do we convince them that, you know, it is okay to work in
the service sector and take care of your babies, and your
masculinity is fully intact.
Ms. Hymowitz. I am a little bit concerned that we keep
talking about marriages, but I want to remind us once again
that 40 percent of children, American children, are born to
unmarried mothers. And some of those mothers will marry at some
point, maybe to the child's father, maybe not, and that seems
to me when we are talking about all that fathers do, and how
much more fathers are involved, and how much more they can be
involved, that is not going to happen without marriage in any
reliable way.
So, you know, I think the effect is, I think Dr. Ray had a
very interesting chart about how much time fathers who are
living with their children are spending with their children
versus how much time those who are not living with their
children, and it is a huge difference. And I do not see how
that changes without marriage, or some kind of firm commitment.
We do know that, you know, cohabitation seems to be
something that is working for--in some countries. That is, more
permanent relationship without marriage. But that does not seem
to be the case in the United States.
Representative Herrera Beutler. I think you are correct in
that marriage has I think those benefits. I think my point is
beyond just whether or not two people get married, or two
people shack up, or two people live together. It is what
stability are they going to create for the kid. And that
stability, you cannot give out what you do not have. And I will
say, in my marriage I think the reason that we do not worry
about who is doing what, when--and he is obviously a strong
conservative, confident man--is because of the mutual, not just
partnership, but love and respect. And I think that is
ultimately how we get to the more stable relationships in
marriage, which I agree.
Ms. Hymowitz. Yeah. There is something of a feedback loop
that is going on here, because there are so many children
growing up without fathers, without seeing marriage. I think
Dr. Ray's experience is somewhat unusual. As you say, a lot of
kids do not ever see, especially in certain communities where
they do not know anybody who is married.
So it is a completely lost norm in those communities. So I
think that the question is, you are right, you have to figure
out what it is that will allow people to get along better. I
agree with you about that. But I think that it becomes a self-
fulfilling prophesy because when kids are growing up without
those norms----
Representative Herrera Beutler. It is true. It is true, but
I would argue in some rural White areas where people are
married and it is dysfunctional----
Ms. Hymowitz. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Representative Herrera Beutler [continuing]. Just as much.
I get it. I will get you in, and then I will get my lack of
time back.
Chairman Lee. Thank you. We are going to start into a
second round now. They have just called a vote in the Senate,
so I am going to have to leave in a moment, in which case I
will hand the gavel off to Mr. Beyer and he will then
filibuster for the next six hours while I am voting.
[Laughter.]
Or, alternatively, wrap up, depending on which comes first.
Ms. Hymowitz, I wanted to get back to you for a moment. At
the end of paragraph three of page one of your written
testimony, you made some observations that I wanted to learn
more about.
You say: We hear a great deal about the injustice of our
gender gap, but research that takes into account occupation,
number of hours worked, seniority, and time away from job,
finds an unexplained gender-income gap of only a few percentage
points.
I wanted to ask you where that comes from, particularly in
light of the stats that you shared earlier in that same
paragraph where you talk about the fact that 60 percent of all
physicians 35 and younger are women, and that women now make up
a majority of law school students and associates, young
lawyers. Presumably that is indicative of the fact that they
are doing well in those professions.
So what explains the remaining gender gap?
Ms. Hymowitz. First of all, a lot of the comparisons we do
are based on data that we have from the government on, let us
say we are comparing people in similar occupations. So you will
see a category that will say ``physicians,'' and it will
compare men and women. But of course physicians come in many
types. So that you could have a cardiologist, who makes a great
deal of money, and a pediatrician who does not. And women are
more inclined to go into specialty areas where they do not make
as much money.
So, yes, they are physicians, but there is a gender gap in
the--a wage gap that is partly dependent upon the kinds of
doctors they are. And this goes through all of the occupations,
practically, that you can think of.
Chairman Lee. Okay, so you might just say the same thing
with regard to lawyers, or accountants?
Ms. Hymowitz. Absolutely. So, you know, you are going to
have more--look, some of this will even out at a certain point
I think as women--there is a pipeline issue.
Chairman Lee. Right.
Ms. Hymowitz. But as that changes, and it will change, it
might get better. But, you know, as Dr. Stevenson pointed out,
women's income gets hit when they have children. And my own
observation of--and this is just my observation--is that, yes,
they want a little bit more time with their kids. And I do not
see how that--why we would want to change that. We want to
cushion them from the effects of it, but we do not want to
change that.
Chairman Lee. Dr. Ray, I see you wanted to respond.
Dr. Ray. Yeah, I just want to quickly push back on that. So
research actually shows that even within the same occupations
that women still get paid less. I think one of the best
examples is our profession, actually, as academics. Even within
the same department, we see that women are paid less at the
same rank for doing the same amount of work.
And so, you know, definitely we can see some type of gap in
specialty. But even within those specialties, even among
pediatrics, we still see that men who are pediatricians
compared to women get paid more.
We have to be very realistic about why that gender wage gap
exists. And I think it is something that we should really,
really pay attention to; that it is not simply that women are
leaving the workforce to take care of their kids, but it
actually is a real penalty that women face.
And the other thing, and this is Dr. Shelly Correll's
research who is at Stanford, who has done a lot of work in this
area at the Clayman Institute, one of the big things she finds
is that after women have children, they actually become more
productive. And for those of us in here who have kids, that is
something to really think about. You might be more tired. You
might be more stressed out. But you actually use your time
better.
And so I think that we have to look at some of the more
recent research that is done. I think Shelly Correll's work,
Steven Evan Bernard's work who is in Indiana, I think they are
some of the scholars to really look to to show us that this
gender gap exists across the board.
Ms. Hymowitz. Can I just----
Chairman Lee. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Hymowitz. If I can push back a little bit myself. If
you look at Claudia Goldin's work, she--she is at Harvard and
has done a lot of work on the gender gap over the years, and
there is still a gap. But what she finds is that the economy is
changed particularly at the high levels in ways that
privileges, or leads to higher earnings for people who are
available all the time, basically. And that tends to be more
men than women.
So, you know, you can look at ways to try to change those
industries where that is the case. But for instance if you are
in big law, you have to be available for clients. In many
firms, you have to be available for clients----
Chairman Lee. Yes, I have experienced that one up close and
personal.
Dr. Stevenson. Can I--I actually just pushed back a little
bit. Claudia Goldin was my advisor in graduate school, and I
know her work really well. In big law, there is a huge penalty
if women do not want to be on call all the time.
The same penalty was true in obstetrics. There was a belief
that, you know, your obstetrician had to deliver your baby and
needed to be on call 24/7. Women went into obstetrics and they
changed that, and the way we deliver babies has changed, and
there is no longer a penalty for not being around all the time.
Claudia has often said, why is it that babies are easier to
pass off than court cases? That is something she has never
understood. So we do not understand why some occupations
continue to have an enormous penalty like finance for having a
short, brief time out of the labor force. And I do not think
that it is easy to say that, you know, women are taking time
out. Of course if women want flexibility we should give it to
them, and we should help all occupations realize that it is a
mistake to lose the talent by having unreasonable penalties for
people who want a little bit of flexibility.
Chairman Lee. I will say, having accidentally turned into a
witness a moment ago, saying that I have experienced that one,
I will say that at least with every law firm I have ever had
any association with, which I will concede are big law firms,
law firms do tend to go out of their way to offset that.
Generally speaking, a premium is placed in the profession on
availability, particularly a big firm, but they also go out of
their way to try to offset that by having special committees
and procedures that are designed specifically to attract,
recruit, retain, and promote women. And as far as I can tell,
they have done a pretty good job of that.
I am unfortunately going to have to go, so I am going to
hand the gavel over to Vice Chair Beyer. But I want to thank
all of you for being here. Your testimony has been outstanding,
and I have really enjoyed this hearing a lot. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Beyer. I am going to come a little out of
left field, Dr. Ray. I am one of six, the father of four. You
have two children. Why are kids so darned expensive? I seem to
recall my mother turning us out into the backyard, and every
one of us talked about how expensive children are right now.
Dr. Ray. Yeah, I think one of the biggest things with the
expenses of children--and I am sure others up here have
thoughts, as well--but I will kind of combine the research with
my own personal experience, having an 8- and a 9-year-old right
now, is that a lot of the resources--and this gets back to my
own personal story--a lot of the resources that were available
to my mother when she was raising me are not available today.
So what families are doing, they are outsourcing those
resources. And then it is a scaling up of supposedly sort of
soft skills and certain types of experiences that kids need
today. So what that means is that parents are spending a lot of
money for other sorts of things that, honestly, school and
local neighborhoods used to do. I mean when we look at the
differences in school funding compared to what the Federal
Government used to provide in the past is now funded at the
local level.
So like this neighborhood that I talked about growing up in
Atlanta, the local property tax structure simply could not even
afford to keep the lights on, could not even afford to have air
conditioning at the schools in August in Atlanta. Anybody who
has been in Atlanta in August knows it is really, really hot.
So then all of a sudden you do not get any of the
additional perks that go along with supposedly what it means to
raise kids in a community. So parents are now outsourcing all
of these things. I know a lot of parents who send their
children to math and reading programs because they feel that
the schools that they go to are inadequate, it is not even that
they want their kids to get ahead, they simply want their kid
to be able to keep up, to simply stay on par.
And so I think as we look at what is happening with parents
today, and families raising young children, it is that the
costs associated with activities, with even educational
activities--I mean we have not even got to thinking about going
on a nice trip, which for a lot of families simply does not
happen. I think we have to be very realistic about these sort
of things. School uniforms. Even in a lot of public schools,
parents have to get school uniforms. If you know anything about
kids that are my kids' ages, as you do, I mean we have to get a
uniform basically every week for one of our boys. This costs a
significant amount of money. And if you are a family that is
strapped, going to pay for a $20 or $30 shirt every couple of
weeks, they simply cannot afford it.
And these are often times at public schools where
supposedly they are not supposed to be able to have to pay for
these sort of things, the taxing that they are providing to the
local neighborhoods are supposed to do it.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Stevenson, Ms. Hymowitz
talked about the significant percentage of children in single-
family homes, or born to unmarried mothers. What happened to
the stigma about that? Again, growing up the Florence
Crittenton Home for Unwed Mothers was across the street from my
elementary school. There are no more Florence Crittenton Homes
for Unwed Mothers.
Dr. Stevenson. Oh, that is I think a long social change.
But, you know, I am--sorry, I am trying to think about where to
start. I was actually just talking with somebody about this the
other day.
It used to be the case that we would stamp ``bastard'' on
the birth certificate of a child born out of wedlock. And in
many states, in fact in Louisiana, the State did not recognize
the legal relationship between the mother and the children that
were born out of wedlock. And that was overturned by the
Supreme Court in 1968 that said the sort of Draconian attitude
toward single mothers is too much. It is too hard on children.
So I think that there has been--you know, there has been a big
cultural evolution since then which has allowed single mothers
to thrive.
But I think more importantly, coming back to this point
about is it a good marriage or a bad marriage, has allowed
people to make a choice about raising a child on their own, or
being in an unsuccessful marriage.
And there is a large literature on what happens when we try
to force people together who are in an unhappy marriage, and it
is not good for children. I think we can all agree that what is
good for children is for children to be raised by as many
loving people as possible. And if that is two parents, that is
terrific. Two loving parents who get along and are not fighting
with each other is really great for kids. That is just not
always possible. And it has been really important for us to
recognize.
I think if we go back to that Supreme Court case in 1968,
one of the things that really struck me was saying, you know,
you might not like the decisions that the parent is making, but
do not have the child bear the consequence.
And that is really important. We need to support all
children.
Vice Chairman Beyer. That is a great segue, because one of
the things is that sort of in all of your testimonies, both
spoken and written ones, that so much of the challenge has to
do with low economic performance. Either men that are
unemployable, or families that have to postpone marriage
because they do not have the income.
Dr. Wilcox, you expressed skepticism about some of the
progressive plans of your colleagues. Where does your
skepticism come from?
Dr. Wilcox. I want to be careful here. I am not saying that
some of these programs and policies are not necessarily helpful
to families, but we have to sort of recognize that they are not
a panacea, and that just addressing the economic dimensions of
these challenges today will not necessarily get us to the place
where we would like to be is sort of the point that I would
make about this.
And I think it is important in terms of the question that
you just asked Dr. Stevenson, that we sort of understand that
we are not going back to the 1950s into the home that just
across from your home growing up. But I would like to go
forward in the 21st century to a world where kids who are born
to lower income families, and kids who are born to African-
American families, and kids who are born to less educated
families, have just the same shot as being raised by two loving
married parents as kids born to more educated, more affluent,
you know, White and Asian families.
And so I think to get to that place, from my perspective,
requires us to address both the economic kinds of questions we
have been talking about today, but also it requires us to think
and speak more frankly about culture and to sort of get people
to understand and to realize that, you know, it certainly helps
our kids if we can figure out ways to forge strong and civil
marriages. And I say this as someone who was raised by a single
mom, as well, and my mom did I think a great job with me and my
sister. But there was a profound longing in my heart growing
up, you know, not having a father in the household. And what I
am just hoping we can figure out is sort of ways, you know,
economically, civically, and culturally to increase the share
of kids who are raised by two loving married parents, and where
we do not have these huge class divides when it comes to family
structure in America.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Herrera Beutler, the floor is yours.
Representative Herrera Beutler. Sweet. This is so
fascinating. Actually, it is funny to me. These are some of the
things that I think really drive, or should drive most if not
all of the policy that we do here. And yet, you know, the
chances that we will have the ability to impact all the
different committees--I think about our Budget Committee, Ways
and Means, everything that we are working on, certainly health
care, all of this plays into it.
And I think, Dr. Wilcox, your point, it is funny that you
just said, you were talking about some of the solutions are not
a panacea, and I had written down that marriage is not a
panacea, and I am a big promoter of marriage. I do not know if
I should say, I do believe it is the reason that, you know, my
kids are able to be happy and healthy is because of the effort
my husband and I put into it, right? And we have that chance. I
did not end up in a domestic violence situation, or so on,
right. Thank you, Daniel.
But I still keep coming back to, I think we have to help
people answer who am I? And why am I here? Because they are not
going to be able to bring that into a marriage situation and
not be a healthy marriage. Or they will be able to answer it in
whatever circumstance they are in, and then provide for their
kids. Which I think are both examples of that.
That does not mean that the ideal, which I think is what
you are talking about, is the ideal would be getting people
into stable, committed, married relationships so that the kids
have that stability. Because it is true, man. They get their
security from what is going on in the home, and who is
affecting the home. I am sorry that I have kind of pigeon holed
everybody now in how I think about it.
One of the things I wanted to ask about, you know, I think
some of the policy recommendations I think are super strong.
The earned income tax, let's see, you know, doubling the
threshold, and certainly not penalize marriage, strengthening
CT&E, because I think that goes across the board. I think that
is one of the areas where we have sold this whole generation
down the river and into debt because we have not talked about
what do you want to do? Who are you? What do you like? How do
we help you get there? And some of that is CT&E.
I have certainly seen it in my brother's life. An expansion
of the child tax credit. It seems like those things you all
agreed on. Am I reading that right? All of you agreed on that?
[Nods in the affirmative.]
And then--sorry, I took a lot of notes. In terms--oh, this
is for Dr. Ray. Equitable opportunity for jobs. You know, that
is something that I have been focusing on in my region, my
district. That is, how we get more people access to jobs,
right, because that is the first step to being able to provide
for yourself, your family, what that looks like.
How do we help get equal opportunity for jobs? And I think
in particular you were talking about African-American men, but
what does that look like?
Dr. Ray. Yeah, I think--I think one of the biggest--I think
there are a couple of main things. First, I think that there
has to be more vocational and technical training. So if you
look at what is happening going from high school to college is
that in a lot of states--Maryland is one of these--where if you
are going to say come to the University of Maryland, typically
your junior year of high school you start going to community
college so that you can try to offset some of the costs----
Representative Herrera Beutler. It is a Running Start
program.
Dr. Ray. Exactly. The problem, though, is that those
programs are typically for very high achievers in high schools.
When we go back in previous decades, community colleges were
for people who were going to end up getting a trade, who were
going to end up with a vocational/technical associates degree.
Those individuals are being placed out of that queue. So I
think that is the first thing. So there is a training gap.
Then the second thing, obviously, is that with the training
gap there is a job gap. And I mentioned cities in particular
because when we talk about, Black American families, a lot of
them are located in urban cities. And we have to be very clear
that historically, Black families actually move to those cities
looking for jobs that for the most part have disappeared.
I mean, I think Gary, Indiana, which is a city we do not
talk about often, but it is a city that was thriving in the
1960s and 1970s, and it is simply obsolete with an economic
hub. Detroit? Baltimore? The same way. So we want to get to a
point--and kind of what we have kind of been talking around, is
that, as much as some people want this to change, men still
intrinsically tie their masculinity to work. And what that
means is, is when they do not see value in work, or when they
are not getting valued at work, it then impacts other aspects
of their lives.
And so we have to do something about the economic hubs in
our existing--in cities. I mean, they are simply depleted. And
now what is happening is that now people are flocking to the
suburbs, because over the past 20, 30 years that is where the
jobs were, and we have not even got to rural America yet. Like
when I was talking about Kosciusko County. No matter whether we
are talking about urban, suburban, or rural areas, for
searching workers they are simply priced out of the market. And
that has a lot to do with education, but it also has a lot to
do with the jobs that are available.
The jobs that are available, they are often times working
two and three of them to try to put food on the table. They do
not have good benefits. And like there was a man in Kosciusko
County who we interviewed. He said something very profound.
He used the word ``role.'' He said, ``My wife and I
switched roles.'' I find it so interesting when people use that
terminology, and we make the assumption that people do not
necessarily think about it that way, and they do. He said: ``My
wife and I switched roles, and I am primarily at home with the
kids. It does not make sense for me to work right now, because
if I do, we still will not make enough for childcare. So
instead it is better for me to stay at home, us have one
income, and then we get some sort of government assistance.''
What I find interesting about that, he wants to work. He
wants to be out.
Representative Herrera Beutler. This I see over and over
again with regard to the child care piece. One of the reasons,
I would say, I have a few bipartisan, bicameral pieces of
legislation with regard to child care and helping to pay for
child care, or helping offset some of the things more middle
class families, some with lower income, right.
One of the things the child care providers, especially in
areas like mine where we have a child care desert in Washington
State, they do not have the facilities and the provider, right?
And what those providers that are there have told me, the why,
different ones, that the minimum wage, the blanket minimum wage
requirement, the $15 an hour Washington State, have actually
cost them because they cannot keep providers, good child care
providers, in those places because they move on, or they cannot
afford it, the centers themselves.
So talk about a conundrum we are running into, but I think
artificially setting things, I think we have got to figure out
how to do this in a way--it gets deep quickly, but I saw that
on your recommendations and I thought some of those, what I am
being told by child care providers and those who use the
subsidies to make sure they are getting low-income people
options for their kids that are quality, are telling me the
opposite about the set standard minimum wage.
I just thought that was interesting. I mean, I am just
running with it.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Stevenson. So I think that is a really important point,
and I will just put out the mathematical fact. If we want child
care providers to be trained in early childhood education, they
are going to have to be paid a wage that is above the minimum
wage. And how can a minimum wage worker afford to put their kid
in a child care center where the child care workers are making
more than they are, without government support and government
subsidy?
That is the fundamental problem. And the solution is not to
have a whole bunch of low-paid child care workers, but it is to
figure out how we invest in our children more.
Representative Herrera Beutler. I think that is it, right
there. I think you are right. We say we invest in the kids, but
we really do not.
Dr. Stevenson. And there is not--I mean, there are a slew
of studies that show the return to taxpayers of spending money
on that. You know, every year with my graduate students we put
on big events at the Ford School talking about the growing
Federal deficit and debt. So I am well aware and versed on
those issues.
But there is no dollar that we could better spend than to
invest more in early childhood education.
Representative Herrera Beutler. Let me make sure, because I
am going to yield it for good now.
I think I would love to hear thoughts about the mental
health piece. I know, as someone who does believe in marriage
and its benefits, how do we help people see good marriages, and
feel confident enough, or ready enough to get into one? Some of
it are the symptoms we have talked about, but at the heart of
it have you seen any data on those things?
Dr. Wilcox. Well I think, as I said before, one of the
encouraging pieces of news that we cannot lose sight of here is
that we are seeing an increase in the share of kids who are
being raised in stable marriages. When we look at the General
Social Survey, we also see, too, that a clear majority of both
women and men who are married today say that they are very
happy in their marriages.
So at least for the families that are being formed today, I
think we are going to see kids being exposed in tiers about
peers being exposed to some better things. And some of those
things are related to points that Dr. Stevenson made about kind
of we are seeing more men like your husband, for instance, who
are----
Representative Herrera Beutler. He is gonna kill me.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wilcox [continuing]. Engaging on the home front. But it
is important to recognize, even on that score, there are
different models for how marriages are kind of doing that
thing. We actually see, surprisingly, that the most progressive
Americans, and the most conservative Americans--and maybe that
would explain your husband's status in some part--are the ones
most, like I say, they are very happy in their marriages.
I think oftentimes some of the different models to how they
kind of do it, but I think what is one common thread across
those two different sort of ends of the spectrum is that they
have in different ways pretty high expectations about what men
are doing. And so among the conservative spouses it is mostly
religious conservatives in people who are happily married on
sort of one end of the spectrum, and on the other end it is
more progressive folks who have more egalitarian commitments.
But I think the shared thread there on both of those kinds of
marriages is they have pretty high expectations for what the
guy will be doing. Not necessarily when it comes to housework,
or when it comes to their investment in the kids and in the
marriage and the family. So that is sort of I think one thing
to kind of be aware of and to sort of lift up.
But I also think it is important to sort of, not that you
all can do much about this, but to sort of recognize that the
pop culture is pretty important here, probably more important
than what happens actually in Washington. And so we really need
more shows, you know, like ``The Middle'' and fewer movies like
``The Marriage Story.'' Because, you know, a show like ``The
Middle'' is I think very honest in its depictions of the
challenges of family life and marriage. It is not sugar-coating
anything. But ultimately it is pretty funny, and it is pretty--
you know, it is pretty uplifting. Whereas a movie like ``The
Marriage Story'' I think presents a pretty kind of dim view of
marriage, one that is actually not even very realistic anymore.
So I think it is about trying to figure out ways to
encourage our colleagues working in southern California to be
not doing a rose-colored job when it comes to the pop culture,
but an honest job and one that really does sort of show how
good marriages, good families, are great for adults and kids.
Representative Herrera Beutler. That is such a great point,
considering what just happened with the Oscars, and the types
of shows that got voted in, and the types of producers who were
pulled in. I thought, how is that a cross section of American
society?
Ms. Hymowitz. I would just add one more thing in terms of
trying to think about the mental health piece. I am not going
to speak specifically about serious mental illness because that
is not my--but I think that we need to be thinking more about
the schools kids are going to.
I think a school with a strong culture, a strong sense of
purpose, and a strong sense of proper--you know, of appropriate
behavior, and of kindness, of generosity, but also of
discipline, can make a huge difference for kids who are maybe
not going to find that so much at home.
And we do have in New York City, and I know this is true
elsewhere, we do have some charter schools, not all, that are
doing that. And it is quite a remarkable thing to see. And the
parents of course are deeply, deeply grateful.
Representative Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Beyer. Dr. Stevenson.
Dr. Stevenson. Thank you. I was just going to actually add
something that will tie in Dr. Wilcox's sort of life plan. I
think that people enjoy their lives, or have better mental
health when they understand the progress narrative of their
life, when they know what they are aiming for, they are working
toward something and there is a path they are going down.
So Dr. Wilcox noted that highly educated people follow this
path of education, then work, then marriage, then kids. And
that is because for many highly educated people there is a
narrative that they are working toward something. They know
what the job promotion is they are looking for. They know the
career path, and they know where they want to get to.
I think that that whole path is missing for a lot of people
with lower incomes and less education. And that idea of not
knowing their path, not knowing their progress narrative is
leaving them unmoored emotionally and also sort of unable to
follow the path that Dr. Wilcox is suggesting.
And I think that is one of the reasons I have skepticism of
just telling them this is the right path to go down, but
perhaps helping them form their own plan for how they are going
to execute their life. What are their ambitions going to be?
What are they going to achieve? From school, as Ms. Hymowitz
suggested, starting them understanding the path they need to
walk down. And then I think that they will naturally fall into
the path that Dr. Wilcox suggests is the best.
Vice Chairman Beyer. I want to thank all of you for being
here today, and for letting us go beyond our five minutes. So
we want you to come back sometime when there are no votes, and
you will have a whole panel up here.
I was particularly struck by both Dr. Wilcox and Dr. Ray's
comments about being raised by single mothers without the dad.
And, Dr. Wilcox, your yearning for that missing father. I
realized that I had a dad that was home at four o'clock every
afternoon, was around every weekend working on the neighbors'
cars, and very present. And I realized my three closest friends
all had basically absent fathers. And it was not until I was 18
that I realized they did not really like me, they just wanted
to hang around my father.
[Laughter.]
That was the really important part. So I want to thank all
of you for being here today. Thanks to the witnesses. If any of
the members want to submit additional questions for the record,
the hearing record remains open for three days. And, without
objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., Tuesday, February 25, 2020, the
hearing of the U.S. Joint Economic Committee in the above-
entitled matter was adjourned.]
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman, Joint Economic Committee
Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us for this hearing of
the Joint Economic Committee. Today's hearing will focus on the most
important institution in our society--the family.
As most members of this committee are aware, the American family is
in a precarious state: although the vast majority of Americans still
desire to marry, the marriage rate has declined for decades and stable
family life has disappeared for millions of American children.
The trends in family life are concerning: whereas just 5 percent of
children were born to unmarried mothers in 1960, 40 percent of children
are born to unmarried mothers today. Meanwhile, 30 percent of children
today live without one or both parents, twice the proportion of
children that lived without one or both parents 50 years ago.
Over the past few years, the Social Capital Project has worked to
document these trends in American ``associational life,'' the web of
social relationships through which we pursue joint endeavors--our
families, communities, workplaces, and religious congregations. The
Project recognizes the family as a crucial source of these
relationships, which is why our policy agenda aims to make it more
affordable to raise a family and to increase the number of children
raised by happily married parents.
But although the Project has sometimes emphasized the social value
stable family life provides, the declines in family stability have
economic, physical, and emotional consequences as well. For a variety
of reasons, children raised in single-parent families are far more
likely to experience child poverty, less likely to graduate from high
school or attend college, and less likely to be connected to the labor
force as adults.
In addition, children raised in single-parent families are less
likely to have positive relationships with their parents, and are far
more likely to experience physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.
Conversely, children raised by two married parents in a healthy
relationship are likely to be happier, healthier, and better prepared
for life.
The positive outcomes associated with stable home life are outcomes
Americans want for all children, no matter their background. But
tragically, the decline of the family is concentrated among some
vulnerable groups, including minorities and low income families.
For example, over two-thirds of births to Black mothers and over
half of births to Hispanic mothers occur outside marriage, and minority
women are much more likely to see their marriages end in divorce.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of births among non-college educated women occur
outside marriage, and non-college educated adults are also less likely
to stay married.
Although these trends are most stark for disadvantaged groups, they
affect us all.
What factors have driven these declines in family stability? The
breakdown of the family is at least partly caused by cultural changes
that have reverberated throughout our society--including changing
romantic norms that led to greater relationship ambiguity, a culture of
individualism that too often emphasizes the desires of individuals over
the well-being of the family, and the retreat from religion, which is
one of the strongest supports of marriage and family life.
But while cultural factors may have contributed to declining
marriage rates over time, the Federal Government has also played an
active role. For example, our government penalizes marriage through the
welfare system and tax code.
Our Federal Government should not be in the business of punishing
marriage. Instead, it should support policies that strengthen marriage
and thus improve the likelihood of family stability for children. State
and local leaders should also seek ways to strengthen marriage and
increase family stability.
Some of us have been working toward that goal: today we will hear
from expert panelists, who will speak to the state of the American
family and address various policy solutions we might pursue. I look
forward to hearing their testimonies on this critical topic.
I now recognize Vice Chair Beyer for opening remarks.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald Beyer Jr., Vice Chair, Joint Economic
Committee
Thank you Chairman Lee.
This is my first hearing as Vice Chair of the Joint Economic
Committee. I feel privileged to be a member of the committee and to
have the opportunity to work on issues that are of real importance to
most Americans.
I would like to thank former Vice Chair Carolyn Maloney for her
leadership. And I'd like to thank Chairman Lee for his hard work,
commitment and collegiality.
Today, we are focused on family stability and the connection to the
well-being of American children.
We all share a commitment to the same goal--delivering the best
outcomes for children, families and the economy.
The question is--how do we get there?
teen pregnancy is at record low
I want to start with good news. Teen pregnancy, which leads to poor
health and economic outcomes for mothers and their children, is at an
all-time low.
Between 1991 and 2015, the teen birth rate dropped by almost two-
thirds, thanks in part to the Affordable Care Act.
This is an issue I have worked on for many years, and I think we
can all feel good about the substantial progress that's been made.
declining marriage rates largely are a result of economic challenges
Part of the impetus for today's hearing may be that marriage rates
have declined in the past several decades. A good portion of that
decline is the result of economic challenges.
If you're struggling financially, your wages haven't gone up or
you've lost your job--getting married is neither feasible nor
practical.
Perhaps less known is that divorce rates have also been falling.
Since its peak in 1980, the divorce rate has fallen to a 40-year low.
americans want to get their economic footing before marriage
Young Americans today want to get their economic footing before
they get married. They correctly understand that they must get an
education or training to achieve financial success. They want to get a
firm foothold on a career and earn a degree of financial stability.
If they wait longer to get married, it's not because they are anti-
marriage. It's because they are pragmatic. They are pro-success.
They are adapting to current conditions--not wishing for a return
to the past.
And the reality is that the traditional male-breadwinner model of
the past failed to work for so many--as wages stagnated and the costs
of housing and college soared higher and higher.
traditional family structures are not the only path to success
My friends on the other side sometimes talk about the so-called
break down of family and the increase in households headed by single
mothers.
It's true, that as people delay marriage, there are more babies
born to unmarried parents. That holds across demographic groups and
race. And it's true in the United States and elsewhere.
But what the research also shows is that children raised by loving
adults do well. There are lots of loving and supporting arrangements.
It's also true that fathers today spend significantly more time
caring for their children than in previous generations--in fact, three
times as much as in 1965.
On average, the households with the highest incomes are married
with both spouses working. But not every household is going to look
like that and the government should be working to support children in
all types of families--especially those with access to only limited
financial resources.
real challenges facing families are economic
The real challenges facing families--whether living in small rural
communities or large metro areas--are economic.
Forty-four percent of workers earn just $18,000. And many are
working two and three jobs.
Millions of American families are one accident, one car breakdown,
one trip to the emergency room from financial crisis or ruin.
When people are living paycheck to paycheck, when wages are
basically where they were 40 years ago, is it any wonder adults
postpone marriage?
we should invest in proven programs
Step number one, then, is to do more to help people build their
financial base.
Increase the minimum wage. Expand the EITC. Provide affordable,
quality child care. Protect nutritional supports. Ensure workers have
real bargaining power--to negotiate wage increases, predictable hours
and better working conditions.
Children whose families benefit from expanded EITC are more likely
to graduate high school and enroll in college.
Similarly, access to SNAP leads to better educational and health
outcomes.
If we care about child outcomes, we should invest in programs that
drive those outcomes higher.
we need ``family friendly'' policies like paid leave
Making paid family leave a reality--for women and men--would be
another important step.
I'm pleased and encouraged that Federal workers will be able to
take 12 weeks paid leave to care for a newborn or adopted child.
We should expand that same policy to workers in the private sector.
government policies need to catch up to the way americans live
Finally, part of the challenge for families is that our government
hasn't kept pace with the way people are living their lives.
For example, the share of multigenerational households is growing,
but our policies haven't changed.
Grandparents and aunts and uncles are taking care of kids--they're
doing a great job. But, often they can't access family leave or food
assistance or other important supports that would help.
We need to catch up.
I thank all of the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]