Not 'All Americans' Are 'Proud That We Have More Women in the Workforce Than Ever Before'

Townhall ^ | 02/12/2019 | Dennis Prager

[kabar]

Yeah ... and now it's around 75%. That "war on poverty" sure worked wonders, didn't it?

Culturally, Asians have strong familial ties and sense of honor and shame. In the US, the out of wedlock rate for Asians is 17%, less than any other racial group.

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.

Yale study: Out-of-Wedlock Births Rise Worldwide

Of the world’s 140 million births that happened in 2016, about 15 percent - or 21 million – were born out of wedlock. This global average, however, does not reflect the enormous variation in the proportion of births outside of marriage across countries and regions.

At one extreme are some 25 countries, including China, India and most countries in North Africa and Western and Southern Asia, where the proportion of births out of wedlock is low, typically less than 1 percent. In those societies births outside of marriage carry strong social disapproval, including sanctions, penalties and punishments to the mother and father as well as stigmatization of the child. Some travel guides advise couples to pretend to be married.

In striking contrast, the proportions of births outside marriage in another 25 countries mostly in Latin America, including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico and Colombia, are estimated at more than 60 percent. In another 20 countries, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden, the majority of births occur outside marriage, with government assistance typically provided to single mothers.

Marriage has become less necessary for women’s financial survival, social interaction and personal wellbeing, and government policies have been slow to keep pace. Like it or not, out-of-wedlock births are in transition worldwide and create challenges for many societies. Increasingly single women and cohabiting couples, especially in Western societies, elect to have children and raise them outside the institution of marriage. In many countries, marriage is no longer viewed as the only acceptable institution for childbearing and long-term intimate relationships.

The high incidence of childbearing out of wedlock is a relatively recent phenomenon. The proportions of such births a half century ago were substantially lower than today. For example, in 1964 most countries in the Organisation of Economic and Co-operative Development had no more than 10 percent of their births outside of marriage. By 2014 in only five countries – Greece, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Turkey – were the proportions of births out of wedlock below 10 percent. In the large majority of more developed countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, more than one-third of all births take place out of wedlock.

Many of the children born out of wedlock live in single-parent households, typically headed by single mothers. The proportions of children living in single-parent households vary considerably across countries. At the lowest levels where 10 percent or less of the children live in single-parent families are three dozen mainly developing countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

And high levels of single-parent families are found in Latin Africa countries where close to 40 percent of the children live with mothers only and about 4 percent live with fathers only. Other countries with high levels of children in sole-parent households – typically a single mother – include Mozambique, 36 percent; Dominican Republic, 35 percent; Liberia, 31 percent; and Kenya, 30 percent.

Over the past several decades the incidence of single-parent families has generally increased worldwide, with the largest increases in industrialized countries. Between 1980 and 2005, for example, the proportion of single-parent households doubled for many developed countries, including France, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Note, a woman having a non-marital birth does not necessarily translate into a single-parent household. Often non-marital births occur to cohabiting couples, who increasingly choose to continue cohabiting rather than marry.

Among OECD countries, children (infants to age 17) living with two cohabiting parents are increasingly common. While the average OECD proportion of children living with two married parents declined from 72 to 67 percent between 2005 and 2014, the proportion living with cohabiting parents increased from 10 to 15 percent over that decade.

The highest proportions are observed in five countries – Estonia, France, Iceland, Slovenia and Sweden – where one quarter of the children are living with cohabiting parents. And in Austria, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, the United Kingdom and the United States, more than one fifth of the children live with a sole parent, which substantially exceeds the proportion of children with cohabiting parents.

[NorthMountain]

Marriage has become less necessary for women’s financial survival, social interaction and personal wellbeing, and government policies have been slow to keep pace.

ROFL!!!

Marriage has become less necessary etc BECAUSE of government policies that let Big Daddy Government take the place of children's actual fathers. "Slow to keep pace"? That's ridiculous!

[kabar]

Women got the vote in the US early in the 20th century. They started entering the workforce in great numbers during WWII. It is a fact that they become more independent and less dependent upon men. The welfare state had very little to do with it.

This is a worldwide study. Notice that Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico have three of the four highest out of wedlock birth rates. Do you think the huge infusion of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, contribute to our 40% rate?

[NorthMountain]

Do you think, maybe, our ruinously (to us) generous welfare state might have something to do with the influx of illegal aliens from Central and South America? Do you think the "New Deal" welfare state might have been quite the precursor to the "Great Society" socialist state?

The chart you presented that compares 1964 to 214 shows the destruction wrought by the adoption of a welfare state in the 1960s ... long after most of those countries made the mistake of letting women vote.

[yoe]

LOL " I’m too damned old to change or to give a damn what new words people want to invent now."

Suffice it to say, we're old enough to know what public bathroom to use and what sex male or female we were born as, we are as adults...unless we are liberals........

[central_va]

So are so FOS your eyes are brown.

[central_va]

...plus no import tariffs. That and accepting the status quo of the world’s mercantilism. The US consumer market is wide open (still!) when it should be protected along with US industry and workers. I know I know I am a Patriot and not your typical Free Traitor™. Instead of bending over we should have resisted. We’d have an industrial base right now.

[kabar]

Do you think, maybe, our ruinously (to us) generous welfare state might have something to do with the influx of illegal aliens from Central and South America?

We had mass immigration to the US long before the welfare state. But to quote Milton Friedman, "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." There is no doubt that welfare is one of the magnets that draws both legal and illegal immigrants. Both groups use welfare to a much greater extent than the native born. Illegal immigrants gain most of their access thru their American born children who are citizens at birth.

There are literally billions of people who would like to come from the Third World to the US and Europe. Having lived in and visited many poor countries, the corruption, grinding poverty, and hopelessness are palpable. Even without access to welfare, they still would want to come just for the opportunity to change their station in life and provide for their families. Technology and modern air travel increase the attraction. And many have family and friends who are already here willing to provide them with a base. The developed world is the lifeboat that everyone wants to board. We can't take in these numbers. We are importing poverty and we are paying a terrible price that will only get worse. Immigrants vote more than two to one Dem. So we continue to bring in 1.1 million LEGAL immigrants a year.

Do you think the "New Deal" welfare state might have been quite the precursor to the "Great Society" socialist state?

Is that a rhetorical question? There is no doubt that FDR's "New Deal" started us down the path towards the welfare state and socialism. Social Security was the foundation. Do you think there is any significant political will to eliminate SS or LBJ's Medicare despite the fact that both programs have been running in the red, Medicare since 2008 and SS since 2010? Both programs enjoy the overwhelming support of the country despite them driving us further and further into bankruptcy.

The chart you presented that compares 1964 to 214 shows the destruction wrought by the adoption of a welfare state in the 1960s ... long after most of those countries made the mistake of letting women vote.

Women should not be allowed to vote? Their vote had nothing to do with the welfare state, which started long before the 1960s.

[NorthMountain]

Your posts are a mess. You keep showing "today" stats, with nothing for comparison to previous years when the welfare state was less pervasive. They may be impressive (to you), but they're useless.

We had mass immigration to the US long before the welfare state.

Depend on what you mean by the welfare state. The real "mass immigration" began in the early '60s, LBJ's communist "War on Poverty" began in the mid-late '60s. You can't call that "long before". In fact, it's the other way around. As you admit, the fascist Roosevelt began the modern welfare state with "Social Security", and public works programs, and massive farm subsidies, and government food distribution programs, long before massive uncontrolled immigration began in the early '60s. So once again, you have the order backwards.

Women should not be allowed to vote?

No. More to the point, people who aren't paying for the government shouldn't be voting on how the government spends the money taken from them to fund it. The universal franchise is an unmitigated disaster ... and don't try to pretend that the current bloated, unconstitutional welfare state isn't part of the disaster. Don't try to pretend that it isn't perpetuated by politicians pandering to the desires of those who pay no taxes. These are, of course, separate issues from that of the welfare state subsidizing the destruction of the family.

[kabar]

Your posts are a mess. You keep showing "today" stats, with nothing for comparison to previous years when the welfare state was less pervasive. They may be impressive (to you), but they're useless.

Pure gibberish. What "stats" are you talking about? You seem to have an aversion to facts. You would rather deal in baseless assertions.

Depend on what you mean by the welfare state. The real "mass immigration" began in the early '60s, LBJ's communist "War on Poverty" began in the mid-late '60s. You can't call that "long before".

Nonsense. The last three decades have been three of the four highest (in terms of numbers) in our history. Bush 41 doubled the immigration cap to over a million. But we had huge numbers in the early 20th century. In terms of numbers, the decade ending in 1910 was the third highest in terms of numbers and compared to our population at the time, a higher percentage than recent decades.

In terms of the percentage of foreign born compared to our total population, we are heading towards record numbers comparable to 1910. Here are some more "stats" for you:

As you admit, the fascist Roosevelt began the modern welfare state with "Social Security", and public works programs, and massive farm subsidies, and government food distribution programs, long before massive uncontrolled immigration began in the early '60s. So once again, you have the order backwards.

What the Hell are you talking about? What is backwards? In fact, one of the major influences on moving our country left was the arrival of large numbers of Eastern Europeans in the 1900s. They brought socialism with them and populated our universities. Ever hear of Eugene Debs?

No. More to the point, people who aren't paying for the government shouldn't be voting on how the government spends the money taken from them to fund it. The universal franchise is an unmitigated disaster

Means tested voting? What about the draft? Should be people be forced in to the military if they aren't taxpayers? You are madder than a March hare. Have a good day.

[NorthMountain]

Means tested voting?

The founders limited the vote to property owners.

Now, welfare queens and taxpayers have the same voice in how much tax money shall be collected and to whom it shall be given. THAT is madness.

[cgbg]

Remember the Heinlein approach—only those who served in the military should be allowed to vote.

(I did not serve in the military and I would be totally ok with that.)

The universal franchise has been an unmitigated disaster.