I currently heard a news report on NPR's program Tell Me More titled "The Days of June Cleaver Have Come and Gone." The overall theme of the piece pertains to the fall of the commonality of women staying at home as mothers, and not working outside of their homes. Typically, society has viewed women who choose to stay at home with their children as able to do so because of their socioeconomic status: they either have familial wealth or husbands or partners who provide enough to allow their wife or partner to stay at home.
What has been found statistically is that the "there is no such thing as a 'typical' stay-at-home mother." Some women do not actually have a choice in whether they can stay at home or not. This is a group of women who cannot get jobs, cannot afford child care (perhaps wanting to save money on child care, also), or have held jobs that are incompatible with child care. Yet again, there is a group of women who feel that being a mother is a full-time job and the most important one that they can be carrying out. All of these women are lumped in with the women who compose the set of rich women who stay home as a luxury of sorts.
This diversification of the stay-at-home mother as someone who can be any color, of any class and be doing so for any reason. The major issue contended by Leslie Morgan Steiner is that motherhood as a full-time career is not all that beneficial to women. "... The unfortunate thing about motherhood is that it's a dead end job. And if you start out young and you didn't earn very much money before you had kids, no matter how long you stay home, your being a mom isn't going to improve your chances of taking care of yourself and your family financially," Steiner explained. This is true of all women, and, it should be noted, the longer someone, whether female or not, is out of the workforce, the more detrimental it is likely to be toward their professional skills.
Professor Stone sees current trends as showing that women are graduating from college at higher rates than ever, and after schooling is completed they want to work and spend time in their homes, and wanting both is difficult to deal with because there is no absolute, blanket support system. This signifies that no matter what class a woman belongs to, there is no set way of handling how she balances work and children because it is not a totally played-out trend.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Working Poor Women's Unpaid Labor: Part II
Within our course material, and specifically within the NPR stories that we've listened to, there are vast gaps between those of the opinion that welfare has been effective and those who think that it has not.
While those who champion welfare are correct in that there are less people enrolled in that system than ever, at the same time, enrollment increased for other programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits. Vivyan Adair, Associate Professor of women's studies at Hamilton College, argued that welfare needs to work to educate, instead of recipients being ushered into work but still needing to depend on services, where cannot be self-sufficient.
Robert Rector, senior research fellow of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, argued that welfare is working positively because poverty numbers have declined in children and in single mothers. He believes the problem with welfare is that the whole system needs reform instead of simply getting mothers into the work force or offering them educational opportunities.
In Ajay Chaudry's "Putting Children First," the mothers in his sample use a variety of adaptive strategies after their welfare bouts have ended.
Chaudry's recommendations to make the system work to the advantages of the people begins with having the government increase funding for children's programs and making sure that the system is totally synchronized and usable. The system must also be usable and aware of the people who are to benefit from it and with whom it interacts: modern working women who are single mothers. In doing this everything must be made simpler, and redone from the ground up. Systems must work together for the benefit of children, their education and their well being by making programs available, flexible and seamless in their transitions from one stage of life to the next. Finally, the biggest, most sweeping and daunting recommendations from Chaudry is to work toward a society that has eradicated poverty as a whole. While this is the most far off of his ideas, it is certainly the most ideal and would be better than living in a society where we deal with existing poverty instead of proactively preventing it from happening.
While those who champion welfare are correct in that there are less people enrolled in that system than ever, at the same time, enrollment increased for other programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits. Vivyan Adair, Associate Professor of women's studies at Hamilton College, argued that welfare needs to work to educate, instead of recipients being ushered into work but still needing to depend on services, where cannot be self-sufficient.
Robert Rector, senior research fellow of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, argued that welfare is working positively because poverty numbers have declined in children and in single mothers. He believes the problem with welfare is that the whole system needs reform instead of simply getting mothers into the work force or offering them educational opportunities.
In Ajay Chaudry's "Putting Children First," the mothers in his sample use a variety of adaptive strategies after their welfare bouts have ended.
Chaudry's recommendations to make the system work to the advantages of the people begins with having the government increase funding for children's programs and making sure that the system is totally synchronized and usable. The system must also be usable and aware of the people who are to benefit from it and with whom it interacts: modern working women who are single mothers. In doing this everything must be made simpler, and redone from the ground up. Systems must work together for the benefit of children, their education and their well being by making programs available, flexible and seamless in their transitions from one stage of life to the next. Finally, the biggest, most sweeping and daunting recommendations from Chaudry is to work toward a society that has eradicated poverty as a whole. While this is the most far off of his ideas, it is certainly the most ideal and would be better than living in a society where we deal with existing poverty instead of proactively preventing it from happening.
Working Poor Women's Unpaid Labor: Part I
Working poor women's conditions revolve mainly around trying to work through a very complex system of red tape that comes with seeking government assistance and varieties of welfare, which is theoretically a system in place to help and make life easier for them in times of need. It would seem that, based on statistics from the National Center for Children in Poverty, the youngest of children and often the ones living in poverty. This could be attributed to a young mother's unfamiliarity with how to handle money, child care and maintaining a job. The NCCP backs up this theory: "researchers believe that parents of young children do not earn as much as parents of older children because they tend to be younger and have less work experience."
Because these young children have generally younger mothers with less job experience, they are poor. The main deficiencies found in these fiscally lacking families are food shortages, food insecurity (which means that the family is unsure of how they will get food and when their next meal will come), lack of housing that does not break the proverbial bank (it should be noted that 41% of families who rent their homes spend more than a third of their income on rent, according to the NCCP), and these children also lack health insurance, which either prevents their mothers from seeking care or ends up costing exorbitant amounts when they do.
The NCCP offers two major ways that society and effectively government policy can prevent children from living in such poverty. The first is to “make work pay.” This would mean that new policies should be created to allow workers to gain earned income tax credits, thereby lightening the burden of tax deductions on already meager checks. It is also recommended that regular increases in minimum wage be enacted to support growth and promise in the lives of these families whose breadwinners do not have much opportunity to grow their money. With these should also come health insurance, paid sick leave, vacation and the possibility of benefits that those making more money receive.
The second way that child poverty can be ridded, according to the NCCP, is by supporting parents and their young children. Educational opportunities, such as subsidized early child care with structured learning, need to be made more widely available
Because these young children have generally younger mothers with less job experience, they are poor. The main deficiencies found in these fiscally lacking families are food shortages, food insecurity (which means that the family is unsure of how they will get food and when their next meal will come), lack of housing that does not break the proverbial bank (it should be noted that 41% of families who rent their homes spend more than a third of their income on rent, according to the NCCP), and these children also lack health insurance, which either prevents their mothers from seeking care or ends up costing exorbitant amounts when they do.
The NCCP offers two major ways that society and effectively government policy can prevent children from living in such poverty. The first is to “make work pay.” This would mean that new policies should be created to allow workers to gain earned income tax credits, thereby lightening the burden of tax deductions on already meager checks. It is also recommended that regular increases in minimum wage be enacted to support growth and promise in the lives of these families whose breadwinners do not have much opportunity to grow their money. With these should also come health insurance, paid sick leave, vacation and the possibility of benefits that those making more money receive.
The second way that child poverty can be ridded, according to the NCCP, is by supporting parents and their young children. Educational opportunities, such as subsidized early child care with structured learning, need to be made more widely available
Working Women's Paid Labor: Part II
Urban poverty creates very specific problems for poor working mothers. They cannot afford to leave their homes, because they do not make enough money at their minimum wage jobs. This means that they themselves are probably not well educated, and it leads to their children probably not getting a very extensive and well-rounded education, and almost entirely eliminates the possibility of going to college, because school is not a major priority when rent, food and health care are overwhelming expenses that leave these mothers with very little chance of saving, and thereby little chance of financial success.
Schooling is directly proportional to the ability of a person to escape poverty, and when schools are failing due to lack of funding from state taxes, grants and other forms of improving education levels. When this is paired with women being unable to maintain their low-paying jobs due to the necessity of child care to do so, the result contributes to keeping families in poverty. Before these children arrive at school, they are already disadvantaged because chances are good that they have received very little preschool care that worked to develop their education. Because women cannot afford center care, children are often left with family members, who are not trained teachers or caregivers, or with a group of children that are a variety of ages. There is almost no school preparation in these settings, and when it occurs, it is rare and often not very structured.
In the video titled "Profile of Another America," health care evidences itself as a major expense and issue for working people in poverty because, in many cases, there are no affordable benefits, insurance or overall help to keep these people healthy without severely denting their already minimal paychecks. In contrast from those interviewed for the piece who did not belong to unions, the woman who did belong to a union received benefits, reasonable wages and was able to maintain a livable lifestyle, seemingly without much issue. She did not have to make sacrifices, for instance choosing whether to eat dinner or buy a prescription, as others making low wages were forced to do. The tug between needing to feed oneself and one’s family, versus the need to stay healthy, versus the need to hold down any job that pays enough to make ends meet all comes back to what kind of a job one has, and contributing to that is how educated that person is. People's jobs, and thereby their education level, literally shape how they live.
Schooling is directly proportional to the ability of a person to escape poverty, and when schools are failing due to lack of funding from state taxes, grants and other forms of improving education levels. When this is paired with women being unable to maintain their low-paying jobs due to the necessity of child care to do so, the result contributes to keeping families in poverty. Before these children arrive at school, they are already disadvantaged because chances are good that they have received very little preschool care that worked to develop their education. Because women cannot afford center care, children are often left with family members, who are not trained teachers or caregivers, or with a group of children that are a variety of ages. There is almost no school preparation in these settings, and when it occurs, it is rare and often not very structured.
In the video titled "Profile of Another America," health care evidences itself as a major expense and issue for working people in poverty because, in many cases, there are no affordable benefits, insurance or overall help to keep these people healthy without severely denting their already minimal paychecks. In contrast from those interviewed for the piece who did not belong to unions, the woman who did belong to a union received benefits, reasonable wages and was able to maintain a livable lifestyle, seemingly without much issue. She did not have to make sacrifices, for instance choosing whether to eat dinner or buy a prescription, as others making low wages were forced to do. The tug between needing to feed oneself and one’s family, versus the need to stay healthy, versus the need to hold down any job that pays enough to make ends meet all comes back to what kind of a job one has, and contributing to that is how educated that person is. People's jobs, and thereby their education level, literally shape how they live.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Working Women's Paid Labor: Part I
The factors contributing to the instability of child care that the subjects Jacqueline and Julia experience in Ajay Chaudry's "Putting Children First" began with the fact that Julia used Jacqueline's father as the child's primary caregiver when she was first born, but the end of their romantic relationship left her without child care. Julia's original reason for using the father as the care provider was because she wanted to better herself and her life through schooling. Then Julia's sister moved in and became Jacqueline's primary caregiver. Then, in need of more money than what was coming from Julia's internship, both Julia and Izzy found work at a fast food restaurant, alternating shifts and lucky enough to have a manager who allowed them to bring Jacqueline to work with them when needed.
Minimum wage jobs greatly contribute to the ability of working women to find and maintain stable and safe children in that children are constantly being shuffled from one caregiver to the next on a schedule that is unstable. Chaudry also noted that the frequent change of a care provider can result in delayed development of children, particularly in their ability to form healthy relationships and in learning how to interact with others, and behave well in general. Often times, when women get jobs they immediately need to find care, which leads them to handing over their children to people who might not be the best reviewed or qualified. Since the jobs also tend to be unstable, children don't spend much time with their mothers and don't keep a set schedule. Additionally, these jobs are not high in compensation and child care is a bill that must be paid. The pay also has the ability to negatively affect how many types of child care a mother can choose, including the availability of things like vouchers or special programs in her community. There is an apparent constant strain, as evidenced in Roseanne Barr's interviews with women living on minimum wages. While wanting to be successful and work hard, many feel trapped by a system that gives them exactly no power over their lives or their futures.
Minimum wage jobs greatly contribute to the ability of working women to find and maintain stable and safe children in that children are constantly being shuffled from one caregiver to the next on a schedule that is unstable. Chaudry also noted that the frequent change of a care provider can result in delayed development of children, particularly in their ability to form healthy relationships and in learning how to interact with others, and behave well in general. Often times, when women get jobs they immediately need to find care, which leads them to handing over their children to people who might not be the best reviewed or qualified. Since the jobs also tend to be unstable, children don't spend much time with their mothers and don't keep a set schedule. Additionally, these jobs are not high in compensation and child care is a bill that must be paid. The pay also has the ability to negatively affect how many types of child care a mother can choose, including the availability of things like vouchers or special programs in her community. There is an apparent constant strain, as evidenced in Roseanne Barr's interviews with women living on minimum wages. While wanting to be successful and work hard, many feel trapped by a system that gives them exactly no power over their lives or their futures.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Cost of Child Care
Low-income mothers use a variety of forms of child care which range from state-subsidized care, leaving children with family, and allowing children, of an appropriate age, to care for themselves. These all result in varying degrees of success and very frequently mothers end up placing their children in the different forms of child care either simultaneously, for instance preschool followed by the use of kin caretakers until a mother is home from work, or throughout the youth of the children. Below I have paraphrased definitions of the types of childcare available adn most frequently occurring according to Ajay Chaudry in his book "Putting Children First."
1. Kin care - care from the relative of a child, often the child's maternal grandmother, but also potentially relatives of the mother or father. Care occurs in either the home or the relative or the child.
2. Informal care - Care for a child from a person who is not a relative at that person's home. Care is arranged on an individual basis for the one child, and can come from a friend, neighbor or acquaintance.
3. Family day care - Care with a licensed provider who runs a child care business in her home. The child is generally part of a group of kids who are not necessarily related.
4. Center care - This includes both preschool, day care and nursery programs that congregate large groups of children and the nature of their locations varies from churches, to schools to community centers.
5. Alternative care - This category encompasses father care, babysitters and any other means of care.
What is interesting in Chaudry's findings is that, while mothers prefer the structure and development found in center care, due to scheduling conflicts and the financial burden that comes with them. Most frequently family day care is used because it costs less and the hours can stretch to accommodate commutes and long hours that seem to coincide with the jobs that low-income mothers hold.
1. Kin care - care from the relative of a child, often the child's maternal grandmother, but also potentially relatives of the mother or father. Care occurs in either the home or the relative or the child.
2. Informal care - Care for a child from a person who is not a relative at that person's home. Care is arranged on an individual basis for the one child, and can come from a friend, neighbor or acquaintance.
3. Family day care - Care with a licensed provider who runs a child care business in her home. The child is generally part of a group of kids who are not necessarily related.
4. Center care - This includes both preschool, day care and nursery programs that congregate large groups of children and the nature of their locations varies from churches, to schools to community centers.
5. Alternative care - This category encompasses father care, babysitters and any other means of care.
What is interesting in Chaudry's findings is that, while mothers prefer the structure and development found in center care, due to scheduling conflicts and the financial burden that comes with them. Most frequently family day care is used because it costs less and the hours can stretch to accommodate commutes and long hours that seem to coincide with the jobs that low-income mothers hold.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Identifying The Working Poor
In "Putting Children First," author Ajay Chaudry agrues that, based on the welfare system in the United States, that while "we [society] are asking the least fortunate to strive and work harder, we are deeply discounting our public responsibility for the children born into poor families and disadvantaged communities" (14). His point of view is the product of, first, legislation passed under President Bill Clinton, called The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This reform set forth the requirement that, in order to receive welfare benefits, one must first have a job.
The videos from this section that identify the working poor support Chaudry's perspective that the issue of poverty is a public one and not simply a personal problem because so much of the population is in the category of "working poor." This means that although they get by, many are in debt because, as Professor Katherine Newman notes, they try to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. Additionally, they must work more, longer hours, at jobs where healthcare is probably not provided. Making ends meet and living check-to-check is a way of life for people who are not bordering the poverty line. Because the group of people that compose the "near-poor" or "working poor" was 53 million Americans as of 2007, according to Newman, this cannot be simply written off as a private problem. It is obviously a wide-reaching issue that is also reflected in the current economic climate: People bought things they could not afford, and which their jobs could not pay for. This class of working poor issue touches women, men, married, single and divorced. These people become trapped in a seemingly unbeatable system where they cannot make enough money to truly be safe or comfortable in the world. When such a large group of people are being affected aversely by their attempts to improve their station in life by either working more or receiving welfare, the issue has to be the system in which they participate, and not they, themselves, as cogs within it.
The videos from this section that identify the working poor support Chaudry's perspective that the issue of poverty is a public one and not simply a personal problem because so much of the population is in the category of "working poor." This means that although they get by, many are in debt because, as Professor Katherine Newman notes, they try to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. Additionally, they must work more, longer hours, at jobs where healthcare is probably not provided. Making ends meet and living check-to-check is a way of life for people who are not bordering the poverty line. Because the group of people that compose the "near-poor" or "working poor" was 53 million Americans as of 2007, according to Newman, this cannot be simply written off as a private problem. It is obviously a wide-reaching issue that is also reflected in the current economic climate: People bought things they could not afford, and which their jobs could not pay for. This class of working poor issue touches women, men, married, single and divorced. These people become trapped in a seemingly unbeatable system where they cannot make enough money to truly be safe or comfortable in the world. When such a large group of people are being affected aversely by their attempts to improve their station in life by either working more or receiving welfare, the issue has to be the system in which they participate, and not they, themselves, as cogs within it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)