Success Sequence

 

Wendy Wang

It’s college admissions time in the USA again, and letters of acceptance and rejection have all been mailed out. Inevitably, elite colleges and universities will find themselves overwhelmed with extremely qualified applicants with Asian backgrounds. It has long been suspected that admissions offices impose quotas to keep the number of Asian students down. On the other hand, affirmative action administrators  will bend over backwards to find qualified black applicants.

Why do Asian students do so well in school while black students do so badly? It is easy to blame prejudice and racism but my own experience has led me to believe that the reason is cultural. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Wendy Wang, the Director of Research at the Institute for Family Studies, bore out my suspicions.

Ms. Wang argued that there is a “sequence” that must be followed to achieve success in rising out of poverty. The sequence begins with education, at least a high school diploma, followed by a job, and only then marriage and children. There will be exceptions but her research shows that failure to follow this sequence results in a high probability of a life of poverty or worse. In other words, if children come before marriage, work, and education the results are disastrous.

Wang cited statistics concerning so-called millennials from a study that tracked young adults from their teenage years to early adulthood. Of those who failed to follow the “sequence”, 53% were in poverty. The rate dropped to 31% for those who had at least a high school diploma, and 16% for those with a full-time job. Finally, the poverty rate dropped to 3% for those who held off having children until married.

Interestingly, the success sequence worked extremely well for young adults from low income backgrounds. “Eighty percent of those with lower income backgrounds made it into middle or upper income brackets when they followed all three steps.” Missing one of the steps or putting them out of sequence, like having children before marriage, led to a very high probability of failure.

Ms. Wang cited her own Asian background. In the small Chinese city in which she grew up there were practically no childbirths before marriage. It was unthinkable. Today in China, Japan, and South Korea the out of wedlock birthrate is only 4%. Compare that rate to America’s urban centers where the out of wedlock births often exceed children born to married couples.

I know a young white woman with a degree in elementary education from a fine college who started her teaching career as a first grade teacher in a Bridgeport school made up largely of black and hispanic children. Her college degree could not have prepared her for the chaos she encountered on her first day. Every day presented new pathological personal and social behaviors, and these were only first graders. In many ways, first grade is pivotal for it is then that the mind is ready to learn how to read. If the opportunity is missed, students will inevitably fall behind and never catch up.

Sadly and significantly, the teacher told me that on Parent’s Night, only four parents showed up to hear about their child’s progress. Maybe parent is the wrong word because most of these Bridgeport first graders didn’t have parents. They were being raised by grandparents some of whom were not even in their forties. Sometimes even great-grandparents were the caregivers for these children. Moreover, in most cases there were no men involved in the raising of these children.

No amount of money will rectify the tremendous social disaster that has taken place in American cities in the past few generations. Unwed teenage pregnancies create an almost impossible educational problem. To get an education certificate today, teachers have to take courses that would almost qualify them as master psychologists.

Even the best teachers will not be able to overcome this cultural disaster.  There is a high probability that the parentless first grader will come to regard school as a prison and even before he or she gets to eight grade they will likely be attacking classmates and teachers, and destroying school property. Next, the probability is also very high that they will join a street gang, become a drug addict or dealer, and eventually wind up in jail or dead on the street.

Some will argue that Ms. Wang’s “sequence” success formula of education, work, marriage, and children is old fashioned. Actually, the success formula she finds in Asia was once the norm in the USA, especially among that generation that we now fondly recall as the “greatest generation.” Some may also argue that just getting an education and a job is sufficient for success, and that marriage and children are no longer necessary. However, another recent news article indicated that there is an epidemic of loneliness and depression sweeping over the country today that seems to indicate that love and marriage are still part of the success sequence.

###

The Pope, Poverty, and the USA

     

I suppose that it’s natural for Pope Francis to call upon the wealthy to assist the poor. Charity, especially for the poor, is an integral part of the Christian message. However, on his upcoming visit to the United States the Pope will have an opportunity to examine one of the greatest anti-poverty programs in all of human history. 

If we remove ourselves from current political rhetoric and disputes, and take a longer view of what has happened in the USA in the 150 years that have elapsed since the end of the American Civil War to the current day, we will see the greatest advance in human well being in the history of the world.

Although politicians and activists like to complain about modern income inequality, there can be no doubt that in the past 150 years the USA has become the wealthiest nation in history, and that the wealth has been spread over a greater number of people than ever before in history.

Sure, from the time of the “robber barons” in the late nineteenth century to our own time, there have been wealthy fat cats at the top of the economic pyramid, but just consider the fate of the immigrants of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Irish, Jewish, Italian and other immigrants came to this country fleeing starvation and oppression, and with nothing to sustain them but their religious and cultural heritage.

In each case the first generation of immigrants took the most menial of jobs and lived in wretched slums. The second generation, however, found jobs with large American corporations in the expanding American industrial and transportation sectors. Many also became upwardly mobile as teachers, policemen, firemen, or other civil servants.

 However, members of the third generation did not just work for these corporations, they became part owners through a variety of means. Corporate pension plans expanded dramatically after the Second World War, and these plans were largely invested in the American economy. Even government employees became capitalists since their pension plans were primarily invested in stocks and corporate bonds.

In addition, the proliferation of mutual funds, and tax qualified retirement plans like IRAs made stock ownership easy and affordable for a larger and larger percentage of the population. Just the other day I heard of a study by some economists that claimed that Employee Stock Ownership plans (ESOPs) were the best thing since sliced bread.

In 1920 when nativist sentiment and outright religious prejudice imposed quotas and effectively put a stop to immigration, the population of the country was about 100 Million. I’m sure many at the time thought that America could not handle any more people. Today, there are over 300 Million people living in the USA and the great majority enjoys a standard of living unique in history.

There were no poverty statistics back in the 1920s but if 10 percent of the population was considered to be in poverty that would amount to 10 Million people with 90 Million above the poverty level. But today, if we use the same percentage, 10 percent of the population or 30 Million people would have incomes below the poverty level. Still, there would be 90 percent or 270 Million people who live above the poverty level.

Even the poor in the USA would be considered well to do in other parts of the world. Here, the poor own cell phones, TVs, refrigerators, cars, and most have access to a variety of government subsidies for housing, medical care, and food.

It is not just the children of impoverished immigrants who benefited from the enormous growth of the American economy in the past 150 years. The American South was impoverished and devastated by the Civil War that raged in the 1860s. Today the South is booming with states like Texas and North Carolina attracting people and industries away from other parts of the country. From a poor agricultural backwater, the South has entered the industrial age and created an unprecedented degree of prosperity that should be an example to the rest of the world.

It is the job of economists and sociologists to explain the great increase in American prosperity over the past 150 years. Yet, no one can deny that it has happened. I would just point out that the increase in wealth coincided with the legalization of the corporation in the nineteenth century.

When a corporation became recognized as a legal entity with the same rights as a person, it opened the way for the tremendous expansion of American industry. The corporation became a limited liability company meaning that only the corporate assets of stockholders were at risk in any business venture. Private, personal assets of stockholders could not be lost if a corporation failed. This single provision protects pensioners as well as CEOs.

You can complain about corporate greed all you want but please don’t do it on the iphones that corporate giant Apple created. How many jobs did Steve Jobs create?

It seems to me that instead of criticism directed against corporations and business, the Pope and others should encourage the study of what these corporations have done to create the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. They should be models for others to follow, rather than an evil to be abolished.

### 

Pope and Poverty

Fr. Jorge Mario Bergoglio

                                       

I’ve been thinking about writing about the new Pope from Argentina ever since his election a few weeks ago. Despite some carping from typical quarters, Pope Francis I seems to have gotten off to a good start. His choice of name, simplicity of lifestyle, and concern for the poor has elicited worldwide applause.

Nevertheless, I worry that many of his early fans might turn against him when he cannot fulfill all their expectations. No one man can do it all and ever since Vatican II Catholics have been continually reminded that the world’s problems are everyone’s responsibility. It was probably always wrong for the laity to think that everything was up to the clerical leaders of the Church, but in the last few decades it has become increasingly difficult for the ordinary person to say, “why don’t they, meaning the clergy, do something about this or that?”

Still, it is clear that the Pope can play a major role. Pope Francis I has already expressed his belief that the poor should be a major concern of the Church but why should his attitude be a surprise to anyone, or regarded as a step in a new direction?

But how are the poor to be helped? I think some of the early plaudits for the Pope came from those who believe that the Catholic Church has vast financial resources or assets that could be sold or used to benefit the poor. It’s as if they want Michelangelo’s Pieta to be auctioned off and the proceeds used to benefit the needy.  Or, perhaps they believe that chalices and other religious articles should be melted down and sold for cash.

 

A recent news article in a local newspaper gave front-page attention to the disparity between rich and poor even in the United States. The article focused on the plight of a single mother living with her four young children in low income housing in Greenwich, Connecticut, one of the richest communities in America.

Here is her story in a nutshell. She grew up in a household without her father. She claims that as a young girl she was sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriend. She became a rebellious teenager and traveled with a bad crowd. She had a baby out of wedlock at around the age of 15, and when she turned 18 both she and the baby were kicked out of the house by her mother. Since then she has always looked for work and tried to better herself. Somehow, she managed to take classes but ran up a student loan debt of about $25000.

 

At the same time she found a new boyfriend and they quickly had three more children even though he did not have a good job. Recently she had a fight with the boyfriend and kicked him out of her apartment even though she still claims to love him. It would appear that he has no intention of supporting his children. Of course, they never bothered to marry.

How does she survive? She lives in low income subsidized housing in Greenwich at a cost of $50 per month. It would be difficult for an ordinary person to find a rental in Greenwich for less than $2000 per month. As a resident of Greenwich, her children can attend one of the best school systems in the country at virtually no cost to her, especially since she pays no taxes. She gets about $650 per month in food stamp assistance. She and her children are most likely eligible for free medical care under Medicaid.

Let’s add it up. She gets housing assistance worth about $24000 per year. If her four children had to go to a private school, it would easily cost about $15000 each or $60000 per year. She gets almost $8000 per year for food stamps. A medical insurance plan comparable to Medicaid would easily cost over $10000 per year for a family her size.

I’m not blaming this young woman or others in similar situations. She has had a hard life and with little apparent guidance or assistance. In fact, she seems always to have looked for work, and she certainly had the smarts to find housing in Greenwich, a choice she made so that her children could grow up in a community largely free of crime and drugs.

But how is the Pope or any other religious leader to help her? She certainly could use more income but it would appear that more than anything else she could have benefitted from some spiritual or moral guidance during her lifetime. Did anyone ever tell her that bedding down with a man who lacked both the will and the skill to support a family was a bad idea?

More than a dispenser of alms the Pope has to be a spiritual and moral leader. One of the things that I have found most objectionable about the press coverage of the new Pope is the way in which his election is being used as a kind of slap at his two predecessors, John Paul II and the recently retired Benedict XVI. By implication, it would appear as if they did little to help the poor.

  

If that is the case, why are the fastest growing and most dynamic parts of the Catholic Church found in the poorest areas of the world? Why, for example, is Catholicism growing by leaps and bounds in Africa despite often vicious persecution? Maybe the poor of the world, who are not so fortunate as to live in Greenwich Connecticut, have looked to the previous Popes as liberators. It can be argued that by his efforts to bring freedom to his native land of Poland, Pope John Paul Ii did more for the world’s poor that any Pope in history.

Just go to this link and view the Polish company of Les Miserable performing “One More Day” in a Warsaw mall that looks like it could be the Mall of America. Before the Pope’s initiative, Poland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Maybe the people at the Mall turned out to be a little more materialistic than the Pope might have desired, but they are no longer poor. Video can also be viewed below.