The Invisible Heart: Economics
and Family Values
Nancy Folbre
The Economics of Care: The
Milk of Human Kindness
• Milk as a metaphor for Kindness
• Motherhood represents both
• Social Change
– 1969: keep female achievements secret
– 1977: 2/3rds agree “It is much better…if the man is the
achiever…”
– 1998: 1/3rd agrees
• What are the connections between masculinity,
femininity, self-interest and care for others?
Political Socialization versus
Economic Socialization
• The consequences of the Women’s movement are
that women now know that economic benefits lie
with achievement not care-giving.
• If all women adopt this strategy society will
become oriented toward achievement over care.
• Mothers economic investment is greater than
Fathers
– Consequences:
• Women focus on number of offspring
• Fathers acquire power & financial responsibility
• Biological division of labor leads to social/cultural control
Specialization of Women as Care
Givers
• Economic efficiency drives specialization
• Nationally countries specialize in single
exports
• Their economies are considered not
diversified and vulnerable to collapse
• Specialization of care giving is good for
society not the caregivers.
Consequences of Specialization
• Dependency on male providers
• Socialization away from distinct individualism
• Violence to lower productivity enforcing
subordination
–
–
–
–
Chinese foot binding
Female “circumcision” (African nations)
Beating (Western Nations)
Rules of exclusion (Islamic societies)
Liberal Political Theory and
Women
• Locke
– Men should have ownership of themselves
– Men should be able to claim the products of his own labor (incentive
to work hard & well…quality)
• The Double Standard
– Women could not access education or work
– Women’s product was children but could not claim authority over
male children
• Astell 1694 “A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for
the Advancement of Their True and Greatest
Interest”
– Identified the contradiction in the glorification of motherhood and the
lack of reward
– The responsibility for care received no reward
Smith & Malthus versus Mill
• Adam Smith – trickle down theory
– Encouraging men to pursue their economic selfinterests is good for society because the economic
benefits trickle down to others
– “It is not from benevolence that we expect our dinner”
– In fact dinner probably did come from the coerced or
socialized benevolence of the wife
– Self-interest only existed in the impersonal world of the
market
– Service labor was unproductive (but not unimportant)
Smith & Malthus versus Mill
continued
• Malthus – also interested in self-interest
– Benevolence & charity could be destructive (poor
people would reproduce)
– population control but not via birth control
– Men should delay marriage – women responsible for
children out of marriage
• Mill, John Stuart – On The Subjection of Women
– Argues that women are denied equal rights and forced
to assume disproportionate moral & economic
responsibility for care
Separate Spheres Argument
• Women and men should inhabit separate spheres.
• Women are destined to preserve the values of
society and the home.
• Women had to provide a civilizing counterpoint to
the disruptive effects of competition on society.
• Women who disagreed were selfishly attempting
to emulate men.
• This argument explained why women should be
altruistic and men should be self-interested
Separation of Sex from Father
and Motherhood
• Men separated sex from fatherhood from (at least)
1600s – prostitutes
• Social resistance to contraception: what would
happen if women were allowed to separate sex
(pleasure) from motherhood (responsibility)
• Britain and U.S. contraception defined as obscene
– 1873 Comstock Act
• Moral Exhortations to have more children
– Perpetuation of “better” elements versus “voluntary”
motherhood
The cultural debate about
Feminism
• Family Values
– Women should be caregivers because men are
incapable of caregiving
– No emphasis on extending family values to public
arena; greed is good – e.g. Enron, Accounting Industry
• Women’s altruism
• Self Interest
• Equality versus Difference
– Men realize moving into areas inhabited by women
entails a loss of status and income eg: nursing school
– Pointless to assign economic value to housework
Liberal Compassion Fascists
• Empathy for others is viewed as dangerous
• Women should be empathetic while men
should not
• Patriarchal coercion unacceptable?
• Selfish individualism?
• Obligation to care for one another?
• Milk of human kindness a product of supply
and demand?
The Care Penalty
• The Nice Person’s Dilemma
– Opportunists will take advantage of those who are
generous & cooperative
– The risk of default is high, e.g. study groups
• The Risks of Caregiving
– Altruism reduces available resources for yourself
– Competitive disadvantage
– No guarantee of reciprocity (breaking up is hard to do;
children who “didn’t ask to be born into this family”)
The Care Penalty continued
• The Good Parent Dilemma
– One parent puts the children ahead of her career with
some expectation that “her turn” will come later
– Alternative when the implicit agreement is violated is to
end the relationship which is extremely negative for all
involved
• Fairness and Reciprocity
– Probably evolved because they encourage cooperative
behavior that is productive long term
– Ultimatum game
Children as Pets or Public Goods
• Argument:
– Parents acquire children because they provide
companionship and love
– Children = pets
• Pets
– Provide companionship and love exclusively to the owner
• Children
–
–
–
–
1.45 million over 22 years (estimate)
The childless can invest this money in the stock market
Children pay taxes as adults, financing retirement benefits
Parental investment benefits society
The state and childrearing
• Nations gain from developing capabilities of
children
• How are the costs of childrearing distributed?
–
–
–
–
–
–
Families allowed a dependent tax deduction
Tax credits
Public assistance for poor parents w/young children
Foster care system
Public education
1992 – governmental spending accounted for 1/3 of total
spending on children (Haveman and Wolfe)
• This calculation does not account for lost earnings as a result of
providing care
Government “support”
• Government support for education is up
• Government support for families with children is
down
• 1948-1960 few families paid tax because the value
of support was high
• 1960-1985 inflation eroded this value
• Tax rate of families with two children increased
43% while the tax rate for families without children
remained stable
• 1998 Congress added $500.00 to the credit for
children – not at the same percentage of income as
in 1940s
– If at the same percentage the credit would be 7,000.00
More “support”
• 1998 $2,700 per dependent child
– Families earning +$189,950 not eligible for the
credit
• For families without significant income
– Not paying taxes
– Therefore do not receive the credit
– Therefore do not receive ANY governmental
support
Inequality among families =
inequality among children
• Families spend:
–
–
–
–
25-30% of income on 1 child
35-50% of income on 2 children
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Earned Income Tax Credit
• Refund
• No benefits beyond 2 children
• Amt of support received by poor families is slightly more than
those offered to affluent families and families in the middle
receive the least amount of support
Irrational anger at welfare
• Citizens conceptualize welfare as lots of something
for nothing
• “something for nothing” is loosely defined
– Tax deduction on interest paid for house mortgage is not
counted even though this deduction alone costs the
government twice as much as it spends on low income
housing
– 1999 family in 31% tax bracket $1,352 in deductions
does not count as something for nothing
– 1999 TANF recipient $1,630 per year per child does
count as something for nothing.
• TANF had strict standards, income, wealth, time limits, work
requirements = no such requirements for the 31% tax bracketers
Government subsidies
• EITC recipients (limit 2 children)
– Average $1,662 per child
• Medicaid
– Health insurance for poor
• Food stamps
• Dependent care pre-tax accounts
– Up to 5,000 per year can be set aside and exempted from
both income and payroll taxes
– Savings for citizens ranges from $200-1,980 per year
• Medicare
– Health insurance to citizens aged 65 regardless of income
• Employer contributions to retirement and health
care tax exemptions
Social Security and Welfare: The
ultimate Double Standard
• Citizens paying social security payroll taxes have a death benefit from the
government
• At death children and dependents eligible to receive a check from the
government – “survivor benefit”
• 1997 survivor benefit average was 6,012 per child and $6,264 per
widow/widower = 18,288 for family of 3
– Total federal expenditures = $55 billion
– Not welfare – a good benefit
• Maximum TANF benefit to poor is $4,548 family of 3
– Total state and federal expenditures = $33 billion
– Welfare that encourages people to be slothful and engage in criminal
behavior!
The problem is one of semantics. How do you define
INSURANCE?
Who are the people receiving the bulk of the federal
monies dedicated to responding to 9/11 disaster?
Poverty and Kids
• Head Start or Catch Up?
• USA versus France
– Child poverty rate USA 17%, France 6%
– Maternity leave USA 12 weeks unpaid, France 16
weeks paid @ 84% with optional extensions without
pay
– Government support USA TANF $4,000 per family (if
you meet all conditions), France government allowance
to all families for children beyond the first
Public Education
• Education is the responsibility of the states
• The states have delegated that responsibility to
subunits, usually counties
• Counties further divide into school districts
• These are all artificially created boundaries to
geographically define an area.
• The finances of public education are based on
these defined boundaries
– An effort to keep schools “local”
– Once race segregation was made illegal, systems began
the process of economic segregation
A controversial view?
“Our economic system cannot accommodate
equal education. The country needs
garbage men, mailmen, waitresses and
hamburger flippers. There are only so many
jobs available for college students” (quoted
in Folbre 2001, 152).
State Universities
• Higher drop out rates at larger universities
– Responsibility is difficult to sustain
– Motivation? Average wages in terms of real purchasing
power are lower than 1970 wages
– College graduates are the only workers whose wages
have increased
• Public universities exist in a narrowing arena of
available public funds
– UNCW permanent cut of 10% (2002 – 12,000 per student
subsidy)
– Value to subsidizing higher education?
– Example: cost is higher to maintain inmates in Huntsville,
TX prison than to pay for four years at Harvard!
Public Education
• The Folbre position
– Higher education develops greater capabilities
– Public funding of higher education equalizes
opportunity for citizens who are not already wealthy
– Government continues to provide tax subisides and
breaks to wealthy institutions
• Eg: Harvard endowment is 13 billion dollars @ 10% rate of
return Harvard increases this by 1.3 billion tax free dollars
• Taxing these assets at the 30% rate $390 million could be
raised
• This would be Robin Hood. Why should we re-distribute
money? Why should Harvard (all U’s) be tax exempt?
Equal Opportunity for Children
• Is different from E.O. for adults
• It must be constructed
• What would public education be like with
all children present?