How We Fail Our Children Part II—Young Children from Poor and Low-Income Families

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-141
Author(s):  
Maxine Eichner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Year ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Low Income Families

Free-market family policy puts most American families in a difficult position when it comes to the trade-off between earning income to support a family and making sure young children get the caretaking that suits them best, but it clearly puts poor and low-income families in the toughest positions. This chapter considers the extent to which poor and low-income US families can privately provide the conditions that help young children thrive: adequate material support, a parent at home for up to the first year, good daycare and prekindergarten after that, and time with a nurturing parent. It also compares the likelihood that young children will receive this support in the United States under free-market family policy and in countries with pro-family policy.

How We Fail Our Children Part I—The Caretaking Young Children Need

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-118
Author(s):  
Maxine Eichner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
Early Childhood Development ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Work Hours ◽  
Childhood Development ◽  
High Quality

A question for any thriving society is how to ensure that children have the things they need to do their best. Two different approaches, pro-family policy and free-market family policy, claim to satisfy children’s needs well. Countries with pro-family policy go out of their way to make it easy for parents to spend time with their children when kids most need it, as well as to provide them high-quality caretaking while parents work, and generous material support. In contrast, under free-market family policy, the United States expects parents to negotiate these conditions on their own, privately arranging for time off from work, reasonable work hours, caregiving while they work, and enough cash to support their kids. This chapter uses recent research on early childhood development to construct a list of the caretaking conditions that help young children thrive. It then considers the extent to which children receive these conditions under free-market family policy versus pro-family policy. Ultimately, it turns out that by far the biggest casualties of free-market family policy are our children.

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Low Income Families

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live.[1] Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement.[2] Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent.[3] According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”[4]A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking.[5] Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.”[6] Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.”[7] So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and 

Toward Thriving Families

2020 ◽  
pp. 213-226
Author(s):  
Maxine Eichner
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
Parental Leave ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Family Policies ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Employment Rates ◽  
Paid Parental Leave ◽  
The Many

This chapter addresses three concerns that might arise when considering whether to adopt pro-family policies. First, it assesses whether adopting pro-family programs will make our economy less competitive. In answer, it demonstrates that countries that have adopted pro-family policies have experienced as much or more growth in GDP per hour worked in the last decades as the United States has. Furthermore, the employment rates in countries that have adopted pro-family policy are actually higher than our own. Second, the chapter considers whether the costs of pro-family programs, including paid parental leave, child benefits, and universal daycare and prekindergarten, would be prohibitively high. It demonstrates that the additional costs of pro-family programs could be readily absorbed either simply by shifting existing total social welfare spending to spend more on children publicly without paying a penny more overall or by raising taxes in a manner that placed no added burden on middle- and low-income families. Third and finally, the chapter considers whether pro-family policy would stifle Americans’ freedom. Free-market proponents who equate unregulated capitalism with freedom, this section shows, overlook the many ways that market pressures are increasingly constraining Americans’ lives.

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Market Solutions

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live.[1] Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement.[2] Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent.[3] According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”[4]A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking.[5] Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.”[6] Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.”[7] So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and economic free market solutions to lower barriers.

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Market Solutions

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live. Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement. Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent. According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking. Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.” Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.” So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and economic free market solutions to lower barriers.Part I of this note examines the historical background of government initiatives to promote local development primarily through the mechanism of eminent domain. Frequently one of the first tools pulled out of the local government toolkit, eminent domain has evolved over the past century along with a shroud of controversy over its use. Part II details the current problems associated with local governments’ use of eminent domain, particularly regarding its effectiveness (or lack thereof) in accomplishing the government’s intended policy. Part III observes many of the other incentives local governments are using beyond eminent domain and examines their effectiveness in redeveloping their communities for all classes of residents.Part IV reviews current proposals of legal and government-side solutions including “inclusionary” eminent domain, Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs), and Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Part V then proposes alternatives to these regulatory proposals through market-oriented solutions based on increasing the overall supply in the market through deregulation of the zoning and permitting process. Exploring case studies in: Durham, North Carolina: Atlanta, Georgia: and Anaheim, California, this note will make the case that the solution to creating more affordable housing can be found in a reconciliation of both the legal/government and market-based proposals. Part VI offers this reconciliation and provides a comparative study of a proposal first implemented in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and its potential application to local governments in the United States. Lastly, I will conclude this note by describing how local governments should help alleviate the affordable housing problem in light of the reconciliation of government and market-based solutions.

PERCENTAGE OF UNINSURED CHILDREN HAS INCREASED

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 1051-1051
Author(s):  
STUDENT
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Health Care Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Insurance ◽  
Care Policy ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Uninsured Children

The proportion of children in the United States without private or public health insurance increased from roughly 13 percent to 18 percent between 1977 and 1987, according to a new study by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). The growth in the proportion of uninsured children in poor and low-income families over the decade was even more dramatic—it rose from 21 percent to 31 percent.

Food Stamp Program Effects on Availability Of Food Nutrients for Low Income Families In the Southern Region of the United States

1979 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Keith Scearce ◽  
Robert B. Jensen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Southern Region ◽  
Food Stamp ◽  
Food Stamp Program ◽  
Nutritional Improvement ◽  
Program Effects ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Low Income Households

The food stamp program, as enacted into law in 1964, was intended to improve the diet of low income households, but whether the program resulted in a nutritional improvement remains a controversial question. Several studies have evaluated the nutritional impact of the food stamp program on participant households. In general, the study findings do not conclusively resolve the question of nutritional improvement for participant families. Studies of California families showed some nutritional improvements among food stamp recipients in comparison with nonrecipients [7, 8]. A study in Pennsylvania showed no nutritional improvements, except in temporary periods of cash shortage [9].

US election could affect remittances to Latin America

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Low Income Families

Subject Growing remittances to Latin America. Significance Family remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have been growing strongly in a year when immigration has become a central and controversial election issue in the United States. Impacts Strong remittance growth will have a positive impact on millions of low-income families in the region. A Trump presidency could lead to reduced LAC-US migration and a tax on remittances, probably slowing growth in 2017-18. LAC migrants and their families are set to benefit further from an expected continuing fall in sending costs.

scholarly journals Housing hardship and energy insecurity among native-born and immigrant low-income families with children in the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Hernández ◽  
Yang Jiang ◽  
Daniel Carrión ◽  
Douglas Phillips ◽  
Yumiko Aratani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Families With Children

scholarly journals Impact of Domestic Food Programs on Nutrient Intake of Low-Income Persons in the United States

1983 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Chavas ◽  
Keith O. Keplinger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Nutrient Intake ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Programs ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
The Needy ◽  
Domestic Food

Domestic food programs in the United States originated in the 1930s, primarily in response to the needs of the agricultural sector. They served as a disposal mechanism for agricultural surpluses and were designed to stimulate demand. However, the nature of U.S. food programs has changed significantly during the last two decades. Out of a growing concern for the poor and the needy, their primary focus has become the improvement of the nutritional status of low-income families (Paarlberg, pp. 99-102.).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document