More and more we see what Barack Obama really meant when he spoke about redistributing the wealth. In multiple initiatives—not just his efforts to control Wall Street—he has demonstrated his intension to take from the rich to give to the poor. This is described as “social justice” and thought to be extremely moral.
Behind this conclusion, however, lies an unspoken assumption. Obama, like most left-wing progressives, believes that inequality is corrupt. He is convinced that the natural human condition is complete equality; hence anything that produces inequality is fundamentally misguided.
But more than this, he like most liberals blames inequality on the selfish machinations of the wealthy. Precisely because the well-off are eager to control as many resources as they can, they conspire to cheat the less powerful of their birthright. The old-fashioned Marxist word for this is “exploitation.”
The answer is therefore to confiscate the excess profits of the rich. This will cut them down to size, while simultaneously lifting the oppressed to where they belong. If taxes are raised, heavy fees imposed, and personal discretion reduced, the powerful will no longer have the wherewithal to oppress ordinary folks. As a consequence, the promise of democracy—which is complete equality—will finally be fulfilled.
There is, sadly, a small fly in the ointment. What the Democrats are attempting is impossible. Were they to notice what occurred in the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution, they might understand why. They would realize what happens when an artificial egalitarianism is imposed from above.
The Communists, when they took over from the Tsars, assumed that if they got rid of the oppressive elites, fairness would become universal. Without the Boyars to keep people in virtual slavery, things would automatically sort themselves out in a more balanced way.
Except that is not what happened. The Bolshevik leaders themselves rushed in to fill the void. They became the new elite. Suddenly it was they who occupied the biggest houses, consumed the best food, and drove the fanciest vehicles. Worse still, it was they who had the power of life and death over those they ruled.
It seems that when one elite is overthrown another rises to occupy its status. Some of the previously deprived take advantage of the opening and assert their authority over others. They become the new bosses and as such appropriate social resources for themselves.
The point is that we human beings are hierarchical creatures. We all participate in creating and maintaining the ranking systems in which we partake. Take away a current elite and someone else fights to be on top. Then once there they make the most of their comparative superiority.
If this sounds far-fetched, ask yourself how comfortable you would feel as a “loser.” If in competition with others you were defeated, would you be content to be at the bottom of the pecking order? Conversely, if you won, would you mourn your good fortune?
If this sounds silly, it is because we all want to be winners. This is what is means to be human. No one wants to be mediocre; hence we all seek to be better than someone. Indeed, this is why we take pleasure in playing games where only someone wins.
Obama and company say they want to share the wealth, but look at what they actually do. Despite their protests, they are accumulating as much power as they can and then distributing the benefits among their friends. Thus, when they took over General Motors they didn’t give the lion’s share of assets to the bondholders, but to their allies in the union.
Similarly, when running for president Obama promised to be bipartisan. But has he been? Has he shared power with the Republicans? Surprise, surprise; he has not! It turns out that he too likes to win because he too is a hierarchical animal. He may believe in redistributing social resources, but he is going to make sure that he gets more than an equal portion.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Why Poor Women Don’t Marry
There has, in our society, been a recent spike in the number of couples cohabiting. Rather than marry, these folks prefer to live together without the benefit of clergy or a justice of the peace. It is as if they were husband and wife, but they do not have to worry about such troubling matters as a potential divorce.
At the same time, there has been a dramatic spike in the number of children born out of wedlock. Today, just about two out of every five American children arrive into the world in this condition. In these cases, their parents are frequently cohabiting—but sometimes not. Sometimes they merely had sex together.
While these figures are well known—at least among social scientists—there is a tendency to presume that the statistics apply equally up and down the social spectrum. Thus, it is often implied that the middle classes are as likely to be involved in extra-marital relations and births as are the poor. This, however, is not the case. There is a definite skew toward the lower end of the continuum.
In their book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas document this trend. Drawing on years of ethnographic study in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and Camden New Jersey, they use their subjects own words to detail the reasons why so many poor women eschew marriage in favor of unwed parenthood.
Almost everyone, including Edin and Kefalas, considers this a disconcerting development; nevertheless there are substantial differences in explaining why it has occurred. Although some feminists dismiss the matter as evidence of diversity, they are in the minority. Most others look for an explanation in the hope this will provide clues as to a viable intervention.
Edin and Kefalas, as self-confessed liberals, disparage the monetary theories often favored by conservatives. They point out that the trend against marriage has escalated despite the reduction in welfare benefits given to poor women. Nevertheless, while the welfare safety net did not cause the problem, it does facilitate it. Poor women may not become pregnant in order to get welfare, but its availability means they do not have to worry about starvation for themselves or their children.
This may sound trivial, yet it contrasts markedly with the reaction of destitute women several centuries ago. One seldom hears Edin and Kefalas’s informants bewailing their fate as the impoverished did then. They do not issue heartfelt lamentations about what will become of them should they have a child. Nor do they wonder if they will need to support themselves through prostitution. Quite the contrary, most are pleased when they discover themselves pregnant. Indeed, they are convinced that it will validate their status as adult women.
What has occurred, although it is not explicitly identified as such by Edin and Kefalas, is a kind of role reversal. Nowadays most social scientists recognize that the Industrial Revolution undermined the traditional division of labor between men and women. The advent of the machine age transported men from the farm to the factory, whereas it left women behind at home with a shrinking role to play. As a result, because the latter’s contributions to the family well-being declined, they suffered from diminishing social respect.
To put the matter more succinctly, the male role was enhanced at the same time that the female role was devalued. –Only this turns out to be half the story. The familiar scenario applies more to the middle classes than others. More specifically, the poorest classes experienced the opposite of what occurred among their social superiors.
Within the lower orders the female role has been sustained, whereas the male role was diminished. Undereducated men nowadays have greater difficulty obtaining remunerative employment than their predecessors did during agricultural times. Meanwhile undereducated women are still able to maintain their roles as mothers. They continue to bear and raise children; with minimal support from sources such as the government.
Edin and Kefalas themselves claim that their subjects also continue to think of themselves as good mothers. As long as they can feed and clothe their youngsters, they cling to a self-image of social competence. The fathers of their children, however, do not. Their social role as providers and protectors is impossible to preserve when they cannot find dependable employment. As a consequence, parenthood tends to be far more threatening to them than their paramours.
Putting these two pieces of information together, the upshot is a rise in both unstable cohabitation and unwed parenthood. Mothers do not remain with the fathers of their children because these men can do little to make motherhood easier. If anything, they become a drag on the mother-child relationship. And so couples split up. And so motherhood tends to come before marriage.
In fact, as Edin and Kefalas authenticate, marriage is often thought of as a personal achievement; as a sort of “icing on the cake.” It is something that is nice to have, but not what life is about. Bearing and raising children is what counts. No matter that doing so as a single parent almost certainly produces children who are unable to rise out of poverty. The fate of these youngsters is deemed irrelevant. Rather it is validation of the female role that determines their mother’s actions.
If this is so, then the tragedy of unwed parenthood may be difficult to undo. It will entail reversing an entire culture rather than merely redistributing wealth. And this will certainly not be achieved overnight.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
At the same time, there has been a dramatic spike in the number of children born out of wedlock. Today, just about two out of every five American children arrive into the world in this condition. In these cases, their parents are frequently cohabiting—but sometimes not. Sometimes they merely had sex together.
While these figures are well known—at least among social scientists—there is a tendency to presume that the statistics apply equally up and down the social spectrum. Thus, it is often implied that the middle classes are as likely to be involved in extra-marital relations and births as are the poor. This, however, is not the case. There is a definite skew toward the lower end of the continuum.
In their book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas document this trend. Drawing on years of ethnographic study in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and Camden New Jersey, they use their subjects own words to detail the reasons why so many poor women eschew marriage in favor of unwed parenthood.
Almost everyone, including Edin and Kefalas, considers this a disconcerting development; nevertheless there are substantial differences in explaining why it has occurred. Although some feminists dismiss the matter as evidence of diversity, they are in the minority. Most others look for an explanation in the hope this will provide clues as to a viable intervention.
Edin and Kefalas, as self-confessed liberals, disparage the monetary theories often favored by conservatives. They point out that the trend against marriage has escalated despite the reduction in welfare benefits given to poor women. Nevertheless, while the welfare safety net did not cause the problem, it does facilitate it. Poor women may not become pregnant in order to get welfare, but its availability means they do not have to worry about starvation for themselves or their children.
This may sound trivial, yet it contrasts markedly with the reaction of destitute women several centuries ago. One seldom hears Edin and Kefalas’s informants bewailing their fate as the impoverished did then. They do not issue heartfelt lamentations about what will become of them should they have a child. Nor do they wonder if they will need to support themselves through prostitution. Quite the contrary, most are pleased when they discover themselves pregnant. Indeed, they are convinced that it will validate their status as adult women.
What has occurred, although it is not explicitly identified as such by Edin and Kefalas, is a kind of role reversal. Nowadays most social scientists recognize that the Industrial Revolution undermined the traditional division of labor between men and women. The advent of the machine age transported men from the farm to the factory, whereas it left women behind at home with a shrinking role to play. As a result, because the latter’s contributions to the family well-being declined, they suffered from diminishing social respect.
To put the matter more succinctly, the male role was enhanced at the same time that the female role was devalued. –Only this turns out to be half the story. The familiar scenario applies more to the middle classes than others. More specifically, the poorest classes experienced the opposite of what occurred among their social superiors.
Within the lower orders the female role has been sustained, whereas the male role was diminished. Undereducated men nowadays have greater difficulty obtaining remunerative employment than their predecessors did during agricultural times. Meanwhile undereducated women are still able to maintain their roles as mothers. They continue to bear and raise children; with minimal support from sources such as the government.
Edin and Kefalas themselves claim that their subjects also continue to think of themselves as good mothers. As long as they can feed and clothe their youngsters, they cling to a self-image of social competence. The fathers of their children, however, do not. Their social role as providers and protectors is impossible to preserve when they cannot find dependable employment. As a consequence, parenthood tends to be far more threatening to them than their paramours.
Putting these two pieces of information together, the upshot is a rise in both unstable cohabitation and unwed parenthood. Mothers do not remain with the fathers of their children because these men can do little to make motherhood easier. If anything, they become a drag on the mother-child relationship. And so couples split up. And so motherhood tends to come before marriage.
In fact, as Edin and Kefalas authenticate, marriage is often thought of as a personal achievement; as a sort of “icing on the cake.” It is something that is nice to have, but not what life is about. Bearing and raising children is what counts. No matter that doing so as a single parent almost certainly produces children who are unable to rise out of poverty. The fate of these youngsters is deemed irrelevant. Rather it is validation of the female role that determines their mother’s actions.
If this is so, then the tragedy of unwed parenthood may be difficult to undo. It will entail reversing an entire culture rather than merely redistributing wealth. And this will certainly not be achieved overnight.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild
Marriage is in trouble. At the very least, it is changing. Some say this is a good thing, while others do not. As a result, I have been doing research on the subject. More specifically, I have begun reading a broad range of books about intimate relationships. My objective has been to gain an overview of what experts have thought about the matter as a prelude to digging in a bit further.
One of the first works I examined was Arlie Hochschild’s classic The Second Shift. First published in 1989 and then revised in 2003, it is a feminist’s perspective on the sharing of household tasks in dual career families. Professor Hochschild, who teaches sociology as the University of California in Berkeley, made her initial reputation in a study of emotional labor among airline flight attendants. Here she has produced an equal splash by documenting the way husbands and wives divide the work they do at home after their official jobs are done.
Ostensibly a balanced ethnographic report on a series of in depth interviews, the last thing this book is is disinterested sociology. From its very first page it has an ideological argument it wishes to promote. Dr. Hochschild is a veritable cheerleader for androgynous marriage. She clearly wants men and women to be completely equal—including at home. Well, actually the equality she seeks is not of the moral variety, but seems to tilt in the direction of women. It is obvious that it is them for whom she has sympathy and their interests she seeks to defend.
Dr. Hochschild begins by stacking the deck in favor of her heroines. Thus, she describes a putative historical evolution of marriages from traditional, through transitional, and eventually to egalitarian. As with Karl Marx, this evolution is assumed to be inevitable. Traditional marriages are therefore described as doomed to be succeeded by those of the egalitarian variety, with the transitional sort representing a temporary resting spot.
Although this sequence may sound comfortably democratic, it is not democratic in the sense with which most Americans are familiar. For Hochschild, an egalitarian marriage is one in which the differences between the genders have been virtually eliminated. As do many feminists, she seems to assume that any disparities in the ways that men and women operate are the artificial consequence of historic masculine advantages. Once women take their rightful place both at home and work these will fade away.
For instance, Hochschild gets upset when men interact with children differently than their wives. She wants fathers to be as nurturing as their spouses. Right from infancy, she expects her male subjects to be as tender-hearted as her female ones. If they play rough with their children, or prefer to interact with the older ones, this is dismissed as unacceptable. They too must be feminized in their contribution to childrearing.
Hochschild seems to imagine that underlying gender abilities and inclinations are identical. She also seems secure in the belief that any difference between what men and women contribute to the family must of necessity be inequitable. That what husbands and wives add to the mix might be complementary never occurs to her. That their separate inputs might add up to a whole that is greater than its individual parts is beyond her ken.
In fact, a large body of research indicates that men and women differ in a whole range of abilities and attitudes. Men, for example, are much more inclined to roughhouse with their children than women. They are also more likely to enforce stricter behavioral standards. This, however, is not to say that the emotional support most mothers furnish is less important. To the contrary, it is crucial that children receive both.
Hochschild, however, is fond of citing the “stalled” revolution. She knows full well that most men have resisted participating in the sorts of relationships she favors. She also knows that many women conspire to keep traditional customs in place. Nevertheless she is convinced this is a temporary condition. Women may be moving more quickly toward her ideal, but she is convinced that both sexes will eventually get there.
Evidently Hochschild believes that a cultural lag is responsible for the slowness with which her aspirations have been adopted. Men have simply experienced difficulty in surmounting the lifestyles they find comfortable. That their resistance might have biological components is ruled out of bounds from the start. Similarly, that her objectives might owe more to her own moral attitudes than evolving social institutions is likewise ignored on nonscientific grounds.
The Second Shift is a must read for those interested in gender relationships, but not because it adumbrates an inevitable future. The real reason for its importance is that it documents a critical moment in the redefinition of gender roles. Dr. Hochschild has been a central player in this negotiation. What she says about social transitions may have more to do with her hopes than reality, nonetheless it helps us understand what people have thought while embroiled in what is undoubtedly a major transformation in the nature of marriage.
Finally, if we are to understand where modern marriages are headed, we must see the larger picture. As W.I. Thomas wrote, that which people consider real is real in its consequences. The same applies to the arguments people use when involved in changing social customs. These too may be mistaken, but they are not without very real influence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
One of the first works I examined was Arlie Hochschild’s classic The Second Shift. First published in 1989 and then revised in 2003, it is a feminist’s perspective on the sharing of household tasks in dual career families. Professor Hochschild, who teaches sociology as the University of California in Berkeley, made her initial reputation in a study of emotional labor among airline flight attendants. Here she has produced an equal splash by documenting the way husbands and wives divide the work they do at home after their official jobs are done.
Ostensibly a balanced ethnographic report on a series of in depth interviews, the last thing this book is is disinterested sociology. From its very first page it has an ideological argument it wishes to promote. Dr. Hochschild is a veritable cheerleader for androgynous marriage. She clearly wants men and women to be completely equal—including at home. Well, actually the equality she seeks is not of the moral variety, but seems to tilt in the direction of women. It is obvious that it is them for whom she has sympathy and their interests she seeks to defend.
Dr. Hochschild begins by stacking the deck in favor of her heroines. Thus, she describes a putative historical evolution of marriages from traditional, through transitional, and eventually to egalitarian. As with Karl Marx, this evolution is assumed to be inevitable. Traditional marriages are therefore described as doomed to be succeeded by those of the egalitarian variety, with the transitional sort representing a temporary resting spot.
Although this sequence may sound comfortably democratic, it is not democratic in the sense with which most Americans are familiar. For Hochschild, an egalitarian marriage is one in which the differences between the genders have been virtually eliminated. As do many feminists, she seems to assume that any disparities in the ways that men and women operate are the artificial consequence of historic masculine advantages. Once women take their rightful place both at home and work these will fade away.
For instance, Hochschild gets upset when men interact with children differently than their wives. She wants fathers to be as nurturing as their spouses. Right from infancy, she expects her male subjects to be as tender-hearted as her female ones. If they play rough with their children, or prefer to interact with the older ones, this is dismissed as unacceptable. They too must be feminized in their contribution to childrearing.
Hochschild seems to imagine that underlying gender abilities and inclinations are identical. She also seems secure in the belief that any difference between what men and women contribute to the family must of necessity be inequitable. That what husbands and wives add to the mix might be complementary never occurs to her. That their separate inputs might add up to a whole that is greater than its individual parts is beyond her ken.
In fact, a large body of research indicates that men and women differ in a whole range of abilities and attitudes. Men, for example, are much more inclined to roughhouse with their children than women. They are also more likely to enforce stricter behavioral standards. This, however, is not to say that the emotional support most mothers furnish is less important. To the contrary, it is crucial that children receive both.
Hochschild, however, is fond of citing the “stalled” revolution. She knows full well that most men have resisted participating in the sorts of relationships she favors. She also knows that many women conspire to keep traditional customs in place. Nevertheless she is convinced this is a temporary condition. Women may be moving more quickly toward her ideal, but she is convinced that both sexes will eventually get there.
Evidently Hochschild believes that a cultural lag is responsible for the slowness with which her aspirations have been adopted. Men have simply experienced difficulty in surmounting the lifestyles they find comfortable. That their resistance might have biological components is ruled out of bounds from the start. Similarly, that her objectives might owe more to her own moral attitudes than evolving social institutions is likewise ignored on nonscientific grounds.
The Second Shift is a must read for those interested in gender relationships, but not because it adumbrates an inevitable future. The real reason for its importance is that it documents a critical moment in the redefinition of gender roles. Dr. Hochschild has been a central player in this negotiation. What she says about social transitions may have more to do with her hopes than reality, nonetheless it helps us understand what people have thought while embroiled in what is undoubtedly a major transformation in the nature of marriage.
Finally, if we are to understand where modern marriages are headed, we must see the larger picture. As W.I. Thomas wrote, that which people consider real is real in its consequences. The same applies to the arguments people use when involved in changing social customs. These too may be mistaken, but they are not without very real influence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Our Greatest Social Problem: Unwed Parenthood
Few would deny that we confront significant political problems. The current impasse between liberals and conservatives has become so extreme that almost everyone is aware something is radically wrong. What is amiss may be in dispute, but that something is seems clear.
In fact, so passionate have arguments about the proper role government become that they have sucked most of the oxygen out of the public arena. As a result, there is little energy left over to discuss anything other than ObamaCare, energy policy, or potential federal deficits.
This, however, does not mean that all is well on other fronts. To be more specific, we are mired is a “social” problem the dimensions of which are at least as terrifying as the likelihood of national bankruptcy. This issue is none other than the tsunami of unwed parenthood that has broken over our shores.
Almost unnoticed, the number of children born to unmarried couples has risen from less than one in twenty to about two out of every five births. That’s right, as of now nearly forty percent of all children are what used to be called “illegitimate.”
Many folks—mostly liberals—profess to being unconcerned by this development. They tell us that there are all sorts of ways to raise children; that no particular way—such as the traditional two-parent family—is better than any other. This is often described as “multiculturalism” and is hailed as evidence of our growing social tolerance.
Nevertheless, there is a problem. Indeed, we are being engulfed by a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Never before have so many children been abandoned to an undeserved fate. Never before has a nation entrusted its future to a generation, this many of whom, have not been provided the protection of two devoted parents.
Before we go any further, let us get something straight. Being raised by a single parent, either because of an unwed birth or divorce, is typically a severe disadvantage. Despite the exceptions (and there are exceptions) more often than not the innocent victims come up on the short end of the social stick.
Let us review some of these burdens. Those who grow up in single parent households are more likely to:
· Have lower incomes
· Obtain lesser educations
· Have poorer health, including mental health
· Become involved in crime
· Be swept up in drug and alcohol abuse
· Participate in unstable relationships of their own
In other words, children born to unwed parents are apt to be less successful, including less happy, than those blessed with two loving parents who remain committed to each other and their offspring.
President Obama and his allies tell us that they have promoted health care reform in large part because they intend to redistribute social resources. They believe it is unfair that some people have fewer advantages than others and are determined to rectify this injustice.
But if “illegitimacy” has the effects outlined above, then merely shoveling money and/or services to the underclass will have few lasting benefits. In the end, the poor will still be poor and unhappy.
So why haven’t politicians been falling all over themselves to correct this inequity? The reason is deceptively simple. It is because they haven’t got a clue as to how to fix things. They just don’t have the programs to turn them around.
And the reason they don’t is that successful families depend on “responsible” behavior by the participants. Only prospective mothers and fathers can control themselves such that they remain dedicated to each other and their children.
Politicians may talk a lot about “personal responsibility,” but guess what—personal responsibility is personal. It is something that people have to do for themselves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
In fact, so passionate have arguments about the proper role government become that they have sucked most of the oxygen out of the public arena. As a result, there is little energy left over to discuss anything other than ObamaCare, energy policy, or potential federal deficits.
This, however, does not mean that all is well on other fronts. To be more specific, we are mired is a “social” problem the dimensions of which are at least as terrifying as the likelihood of national bankruptcy. This issue is none other than the tsunami of unwed parenthood that has broken over our shores.
Almost unnoticed, the number of children born to unmarried couples has risen from less than one in twenty to about two out of every five births. That’s right, as of now nearly forty percent of all children are what used to be called “illegitimate.”
Many folks—mostly liberals—profess to being unconcerned by this development. They tell us that there are all sorts of ways to raise children; that no particular way—such as the traditional two-parent family—is better than any other. This is often described as “multiculturalism” and is hailed as evidence of our growing social tolerance.
Nevertheless, there is a problem. Indeed, we are being engulfed by a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Never before have so many children been abandoned to an undeserved fate. Never before has a nation entrusted its future to a generation, this many of whom, have not been provided the protection of two devoted parents.
Before we go any further, let us get something straight. Being raised by a single parent, either because of an unwed birth or divorce, is typically a severe disadvantage. Despite the exceptions (and there are exceptions) more often than not the innocent victims come up on the short end of the social stick.
Let us review some of these burdens. Those who grow up in single parent households are more likely to:
· Have lower incomes
· Obtain lesser educations
· Have poorer health, including mental health
· Become involved in crime
· Be swept up in drug and alcohol abuse
· Participate in unstable relationships of their own
In other words, children born to unwed parents are apt to be less successful, including less happy, than those blessed with two loving parents who remain committed to each other and their offspring.
President Obama and his allies tell us that they have promoted health care reform in large part because they intend to redistribute social resources. They believe it is unfair that some people have fewer advantages than others and are determined to rectify this injustice.
But if “illegitimacy” has the effects outlined above, then merely shoveling money and/or services to the underclass will have few lasting benefits. In the end, the poor will still be poor and unhappy.
So why haven’t politicians been falling all over themselves to correct this inequity? The reason is deceptively simple. It is because they haven’t got a clue as to how to fix things. They just don’t have the programs to turn them around.
And the reason they don’t is that successful families depend on “responsible” behavior by the participants. Only prospective mothers and fathers can control themselves such that they remain dedicated to each other and their children.
Politicians may talk a lot about “personal responsibility,” but guess what—personal responsibility is personal. It is something that people have to do for themselves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, May 3, 2010
Some Thoughts on Retirement and Social Security
A few days ago I attended back-to-back retirement parties. In one case, a full professor who had been serving as the head of an academic center was leaving my university after serving for over thirty years. In the other, a much-loved secretary was returning to Ohio after having been with us for over a decade.
One thing these events had in common is that they provided me an opportunity to visit with many former colleagues who had previously retired. In doing so, I was usually asked about my own plans. Did I likewise expect to retire? To this my answer was always an emphatic No! I enjoyed what I was doing too much to step down voluntarily.
But then I generally launched into a gentle diatribe against retirement. Going into retirement, I opined, was entering the anteroom to death. It was giving up those activities that made life worth living, only to do something like playing golf or going fishing. The latter were surely too boring to keep any rational mind actively engaged.
My colleagues usually replied by explaining that they did not intend to vegetate. They planned on scheduling more than enough to do and therefore expected to remain happy. What was more, who needed the hassle of departmental meetings or inane bureaucratic rules?
I then responded by expanding on how much I personally enjoy the classroom. The stimulus of dealing with both students and ideas is too agreeable to give up. And besides, the joy of oppressing students is too great to relinquish.
To this the rejoinder was frequently that thirty or more years of doing the same thing were more than enough. My colleagues explained that they had earned their freedom and now expected to take advantage of it. Things would surely work out just fine.
What I did not say, because my goal was not to insult these friends, was that if they were in a rut, this was partially their own fault. If they hated what they were doing, why didn’t they move on to something different? And because so many of them were college professors, why didn’t they just adopt research projects that would bring more fulfillment?
Another subject that did not come up in these conversations, but was surely relevant is the current crisis in social security. As almost everyone who has investigated the situation must realize, this program is liable to go broke in the not too distant future. The number of persons who will shortly be eligible to receive a check will be greater than the number of dollars coming in to honor them.
Where once the average age at which people died was less than sixty-five, today it is upwards of seventy-five. Instead of most people expiring before they are able to collect a dime from the federal treasury, most are living for over a decade past when they become a public charge. This means that the number of active workers paying into the system to support each retiree has shrunk to the point that the ratio will momentarily be a mere two for one.
In fact, during the Reagan administration an attempt was made to remedy this imbalance. The retirement age was actually ramped up to sixty-seven. Unfortunately it was also made possible for people to begin receiving benefits at age sixty-two. All they had to do was agree to accept a reduced benefit.
This compromise, however, has proved unsustainable. The numbers simply do not add up. The time has therefore come to raise the retirement age once again. As for me, I suggest that the age of seventy-two would be a reasonable figure. Having almost reached the age of seventy myself, I can testify that most of us in this category remain both mentally and physically fit. We are thus perfectly capable of remaining among the fully employed.
If premature retirement is less necessary than it once once, why should we revere an arbitrary benchmark from an earlier period? All we need to do to maintain fairness is make the proposed changes applicable to those who are currently fifty-five or younger. In this way we can avoid breaking a pledge to those who have already organized their senior years around the old figures.
As for me, postponing retirement is no hardship. I was not planning on stepping down anyway. With respect to my colleagues, they too are capable of doing what their personal dissatisfactions have persuaded them they do not wish to do. Despite their reservations, they will survive quite comfortably even if their retirement parties are pushed back a few years.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
One thing these events had in common is that they provided me an opportunity to visit with many former colleagues who had previously retired. In doing so, I was usually asked about my own plans. Did I likewise expect to retire? To this my answer was always an emphatic No! I enjoyed what I was doing too much to step down voluntarily.
But then I generally launched into a gentle diatribe against retirement. Going into retirement, I opined, was entering the anteroom to death. It was giving up those activities that made life worth living, only to do something like playing golf or going fishing. The latter were surely too boring to keep any rational mind actively engaged.
My colleagues usually replied by explaining that they did not intend to vegetate. They planned on scheduling more than enough to do and therefore expected to remain happy. What was more, who needed the hassle of departmental meetings or inane bureaucratic rules?
I then responded by expanding on how much I personally enjoy the classroom. The stimulus of dealing with both students and ideas is too agreeable to give up. And besides, the joy of oppressing students is too great to relinquish.
To this the rejoinder was frequently that thirty or more years of doing the same thing were more than enough. My colleagues explained that they had earned their freedom and now expected to take advantage of it. Things would surely work out just fine.
What I did not say, because my goal was not to insult these friends, was that if they were in a rut, this was partially their own fault. If they hated what they were doing, why didn’t they move on to something different? And because so many of them were college professors, why didn’t they just adopt research projects that would bring more fulfillment?
Another subject that did not come up in these conversations, but was surely relevant is the current crisis in social security. As almost everyone who has investigated the situation must realize, this program is liable to go broke in the not too distant future. The number of persons who will shortly be eligible to receive a check will be greater than the number of dollars coming in to honor them.
Where once the average age at which people died was less than sixty-five, today it is upwards of seventy-five. Instead of most people expiring before they are able to collect a dime from the federal treasury, most are living for over a decade past when they become a public charge. This means that the number of active workers paying into the system to support each retiree has shrunk to the point that the ratio will momentarily be a mere two for one.
In fact, during the Reagan administration an attempt was made to remedy this imbalance. The retirement age was actually ramped up to sixty-seven. Unfortunately it was also made possible for people to begin receiving benefits at age sixty-two. All they had to do was agree to accept a reduced benefit.
This compromise, however, has proved unsustainable. The numbers simply do not add up. The time has therefore come to raise the retirement age once again. As for me, I suggest that the age of seventy-two would be a reasonable figure. Having almost reached the age of seventy myself, I can testify that most of us in this category remain both mentally and physically fit. We are thus perfectly capable of remaining among the fully employed.
If premature retirement is less necessary than it once once, why should we revere an arbitrary benchmark from an earlier period? All we need to do to maintain fairness is make the proposed changes applicable to those who are currently fifty-five or younger. In this way we can avoid breaking a pledge to those who have already organized their senior years around the old figures.
As for me, postponing retirement is no hardship. I was not planning on stepping down anyway. With respect to my colleagues, they too are capable of doing what their personal dissatisfactions have persuaded them they do not wish to do. Despite their reservations, they will survive quite comfortably even if their retirement parties are pushed back a few years.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
