In her weekly New York Times Economix blog post, Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, looks at what the potential economic impact of legalizing polygamy would be. Supporters of polygamy argue that it could be economically advantageous to society by increasing demand for women and creating a more efficient marriage market. Critics, however, point out that policies and practices strongly associated with polygyny (one husband, more than one wife) can lead to negative consequences for women, both in society and as individuals. According to Folbre, while no one fully understands the complex social dynamics, the “historical links among polygyny, patriarchy and inequality seem very strong. And monogamy — whether heterosexual or homosexual — probably has some equalizing effects for both families and communities.” (New York Times, 1/24/11)
Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, discusses why men have suffered higher levels of unemployment than women in the current recession. Currently, the unemployment rate for males is approximately 10.6% as compared to 8.9% for women. She notes that manufacturing, a male-dominated sector of the economy, has been hit harder with job losses than other female-dominated sectors such as health care and services. (The Real News Network, 12/16/10)
Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, writes in her weekly Economix blog in the New York Times about how the job losses in the current recession have been much more severe for men than for women. She says one key reason may be that jobs lost in manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, have been much greater than in health and education, sectors dominated by women. This mismatch in job losses has been dubbed the “Mancession” by some observers. An economics columnist takes note of Folbre’s observation and says construction, another male-dominated area of the economy, has also been hard hit. (New York Times, 12/13/10; The Atlantic, December 2010)
Nancy Folbre, economics, writes a column in the New York Times Economix blog about how the cash-welfare program for needy families with children is inadequate and growing more so as the numbers of poor children grows due to the economic downturn and high unemployment. (New York Times, 9/20/10)
But the inadequacies of the needy-families program have also contributed to the deterioration of economic conditions among the very young.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, our nation’s primary cash-welfare program for families with children, would more accurately be named Inadequate Assistance for Needy Families.
The latest Census Bureau estimates show that an additional 2.1 million children officially entered poverty between 2007 and 2009, as the poverty rate among children rose to 20.7 percent from 18 percent.
This comes as no surprise, given increases in unemployment over these years, from 4.6 percent in January 2007 to 10 percent by December 2009 (declining only slightly to 9.6 percent in August 2010). Read more…
Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, writes in her weekly blog at the New York Times about what level of job growth is actually needed by the U.S. economy. She also looks at the relationship between available jobs and job seekers. (New York Times, 9/13/10)
Nancy Folbre, economics, writes in the Economix blog at the New York Times about under-the-table employment of nannies and other household workers and how little is known about this part of our economy. Folbre is also quoted in a story about the stigma of being a housewife in a world economy where many women now work and take care of household chores. (New York Times, 8/30/10; Times of India, 8/29/10)
Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, writes her weekly column in the Economix blog about why what she calls “girly jobs,” teaching, caring for children or elders, social services and many parts of the health care industry, don’t pay as well as more male-oriented jobs. She says part of the problem is that economic outputs of this type of work isn’t easily measured in a market-based economic system and therefore isn’t highly valued. (New York Times, 8/16/10)
Nancy Folbre, economics professor, writes her weekly column in the New York Times Economix blog about the debate over whether Congress should allow the tax cuts passed under former President George W. Bush to expire, or whether only those on the highest income individuals should be allowed to lapse. Folbre argues that while the debate is heated, it generally isn’t based on facts or sound data but rather on ideological perceptions. She notes that many voters believe President Obama has raised taxes, even though that’s not true, and that more than 60 percent of Tea Party activists believe this. (New York Times, 8/2/10)
In my view, Citizens for Tax Justice, which describes itself as an advocacy group that strives “to give ordinary people a greater voice” against the “armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy,” offers the most specific and well-documented analysis of the two competing approaches to the Bush tax cuts, those of President Obama and the Congressional Republicans. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have gotten much attention from the news media.
Another strategic goal of opponents of the tax increase is to split and weaken the coalition favoring it. In this context, it is advantageous to label those receiving public assistance (including unemployment insurance) as slackers and cheats. About 47 percent of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2009, which you might think people opposed to federal income taxes would consider good news. Instead, the conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh characterized this as a form of fraud, “worse than anything Bernie Madoff ever thought about doing.”
On the battlefield, in the fog of war, it is often difficult to know exactly what is happening, and why. But those resisting change have the most to gain from fog – or even from blowing smoke – because uncertainty often works in favor of the status quo.
Nancy Folbre, UMass Amherst economics professor, comments about the sharp decline in the number of women who identify themselves as housewives in Scandinavia and other western industrialized nations. “Even though a number of women still stay at home, a cultural shift has put them on the defensive,” says Folbre, noting that women now work because they want to and because their families need the added income, leading to a new set of social norms. (New York Times, 7/20/10)
