Cafe Hayek

The Divorce Rate

Charlie, in the comments to this post, refers to a post by Justin Wolfers (who was guest blogging at MR) on the supposed divorce myth. Wolfers argues that the divorce rate is falling, not rising. That may be (though it is hard to measure correctly). But even if it is falling, it may still be higher than it was in 1975. When I last looked at the data, I saw a surge in divorce in the beginning of the 1970s. It probably peaked at some point rather than continuing to rise steadily.

But the more important point is not divorce per se, but the increase in households headed by single moms. They could be single moms because they're divorced. Could be they never married. But the increase in that category since the 1970s makes it hard to make comparisons across time about inequality.

Government Brings Out the (Undisciplined) Kid in Us

Here's a letter that I sent today to the Boston Globe:

Derrick Jackson wants government to reduce income differences among Americans ("Politely declining to touch the income gap," August 19).  Forget that even poor Americans today generally have greater access to goods and services than did middle-income Americans of a generation ago.  Instead ask: what kind of philosophy demands that government adopt and act on values that all decent parents teach their children to reject?

Who among us sends our children to school or to the playground with admonitions to begrudge classmates or playmates possessing nicer clothing or fancier toys?  Who among us counsels our youngsters to form schoolyard coalitions for forcibly confiscating expensive sneakers and video games from 'rich' kids for "redistribution" to poorer kids?  Who among us would not scold our children for such envy, and punish them severely if they participated in such thievery?

Children should avoid envy and learn to thrive by producing rather than by taking.  The same is true for adults.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Why it's none of your business

In an earlier post, I expressed dismay that when my 13 year-old son went in for his annual checkup, the doctor asked my son if he wanted his mother to leave the room so that the two of them could talk privately.

A number of the comments on that post took issue with my dismay, so I thought it might be worthwhile to make it clear as to why I found the doctor's behavior so disturbing.

I understand that there are many topics that my son might not want to talk about in front of me. Sex. Drugs. What happened in school today. It's probably a pretty long list. Some of the things on the list are important. Some less so. It is surely essential for children to talk to people other than their parents. It is essential for children to have privacy of various kinds.

But as a parent, I try to choose who my son gets advice from and who influences my son. Not completely, of course. His friends and teachers influence him all day without any oversight or input from me. So not surprisingly, many parents choose their kids' school with some care. We can't control our kids' friends. But many parents try to steer their kids away from friends who we think might push our kids to do unhealthy things.

Thoughtful parents can disagree on when one's role as parent ends, if ever. Some parents behave as if it never ends. They desire to control and influence their kids forever. They try to influence who their kids marry, what jobs they take, where they live, and so on. Most parents stop at some point. They let the bird leave the cage and fly around on its own. So in some sense, it's only a question of where you draw the line.

I don't draw the line at thirteen. My thirteen year-old has some autonomy in his life. But I control a lot of it. I don't let him watch 24 or CSI or R-rated movies. I try and get him to do his homework. I have various ethical guidelines that I expect him to live up to with respect to his siblings and to his parents and to his friends.

You might think I'm wrong on some of these. You might applaud me. But I certainly don't want you to have the right to influence my son without my permission, especially when I don't know much about you. And I assume you don't want me to influence your children without your permission, or without knowing much about me.

If my son is in crisis, I might want him to talk one-on-one with someone other than my wife or me--to a doctor, a rabbi, a family friend, a teacher, or a classmate. But who should make that choice? My son? Me? A stranger?

But I don't want my doctor talking to my kid about sex or drugs, just to take the two most obvious examples. If I were uncomfortable talking to my kid about sex, I would encourage my wife or someone else to have a conversation with him. But his doctor? Sex isn't just about anatomy and physiology, which are the doctor's strong suits.

You might disagree. Fine. Encourage your son to talk to the doctor without you being in the room. But why does the doctor presume to have the right to talk to my son without my approval?

I assume the doctor presumes to talk to my son without my approval so that my son can get help with a problem (drug use, sexual curiousity, sexual experience, sexually-transmitted disease) that he's uncomfortable discussing with a parent. It seems like a good idea. But my preference would be for the doctor to talk to me about it first. I have this quaint idea that my doctor works for me. Even my son's doctor works for me. The doctor does not work for my son. My son's doctor doesn't work for you, either. You might be worried about my son. But the incentives aren't there for the doctor to do a good job carrying out your mission.

Of course, I might be a bad parent. I might be encouraging my son to believe in God. And my son might be able to ask the doctor privately if God really exists. The doctor could explain to my son that the whole religion thing is a fairy tale. Or I could be encouraging my son to be an atheist. And my son could ask the doctor if there was something to this "God" thing that his friends in school talk about. And the doctor could explain to my son that religion and belief in God are a wonderful thing that he was missing out on.

Is either of those scenarios attractive? Would you want anyone proselytizing your son on any topic—religion, atheism, sexual practice, hygiene, fashion, diet—without your approval?

Let me make it clear. I can imagine lots of scenarios where I would want my children to have the opportunity to talk to people without me being there because my presence affects the outcome. But why would the doctor presume to have that conversation without my agreement?

If a doctor suspects that a parent beats his or her child, the issue gets murkier. But my guess is that many doctors ask all children if they want to talk privately. I think this reduces the power of families and expands the influence of the culture at-large on our children. This itself is part of a larger cultural trend to increase the autonomy of children and to push children toward adulthood at earlier and earlier ages. I think that's a bad thing. You disagree? Fine. Raise your children as you see fit. Just don't presume to raise mine for me.

None of your business

My wife recently took our 13 year-old son to the doctor for his annual checkup. He's doing fine. At the end of the visit, the doctor asked my son if he wanted my wife to leave so he could talk freely to the doctor about anything he wished. My son said no. If I'd been there I would have asked the doctor why he thought it was appropriate for him to even ask to talk to my son without me there. I told the story to a friend who said he'd had the same experience.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has had this happen. What's the source of it? Is the AMA suggesting it? I'm sure it's justified with some argument about public health.

If it ever happens when I'm in the room, I'm going to ask the doctor when I can talk privately to his son. I want to make sure that his son understands how markets work. In the name of public economic health, of course.

Two worlds

Here is a very nice essay by GMU student Geoffrey Lea on Hayek's argument that we need to behave differently when we interact with friends and family compared to the strangers we meet in the extended order of market transactions.

Choosing your parents

Walter Oi once told me that the two most important choices you make in life are your wife and your parents. By the latter "choice" he meant that your parents have a big impact on who you turn out to be. One of the important things included in that influence is where you are born and grow up. I am so fortunate to be born and raised in the United States. (HT: Donald Luskin) I think most immigrants to the US understand that—the overwhelming reason they come to the United States is for their children.

Sex ratios

The New York Times reports on some interesting data on marriage. Men without college degrees are much less likely to marry than in the past. Note the sex ratios by education at the bottom:

Hormones and Home

I have a new EconTalk podcast with Don Cox on the economics of inheritance, the grasping child, the manipulative parent and the role of hormones in maintaining civilization. Comments always welcome.

A "legitimate state purpose"

Read the opening paragraph of Fields, et al. v. Palmdale School District, a case handed down on November 2^nd by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The majority opinion – including the words below – are from the pen of Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

When parents of schoolchildren in Palmdale, California learned from their sons and daughters that they had been questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics such as the frequency of "thinking about having sex" and "thinking about touching other peoples’ private parts," some of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. The parents brought an action in district court against the School District and two of its officials for violating their right to privacy and their right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex." They brought both federal and state claims. The district court dismissed the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

Read again the final three sentences of this quotation.

The state – government – politicians and their henchmen and toadies – strangers specializing in duping the masses into believing that these same duplicitous strangers are capable of superhuman feats of beneficence – are ruled by a U.S. court of appeals to have a "legitimate" reason to interfere with parents’ decisions about how to expose children to "sexual matters."

As my good friend Roger Meiners remarks about this ruling by super-lefty Judge Reinhardt, it’s rather anomalous that lefties so publicly bemoan the likelihood that non-lefty judges threaten personal freedoms.  Is this ruling not deeply offensive to all who love liberty?

Podcast on Biology and Economics

My podcast with Don Cox of Boston College is here.

We talk about sea horses, elephant seals, sexual dimorphism (males and females being different sizes), binge drinking, infidelity, Cosmo, Maxim, parenting and now and then, why all this has something to do with human behavior and the economic way of thinking.  Let me know if you listen to it, find it interesting, boring, fascinating, dull as dishwater, a waste of time.  Also, if people are interested, I'll post some suggested readings.

Thanks again to James Reese of Radioeconomics for hosting and making the technology transparent.

What's Love Got to Do With It

Should economists pay attention to biological differences between men and women when we try and understand behavior inside and outside the family?  How important are such differences for explaining how fathers and mothers treat sons and daughters?  How important are such differences for understanding differences in the labor market?  How important are such differences for understanding the impact of public policy?

This Friday at noon (ET) I'll be doing a podcast with Don Cox of Boston College on these and other topics.  After we're done, I'll post a link that wil let you hear the conversation on your computer or download to your iPod or MP3 player.  But you can also hear it live and submit questions or comments during the conversation for our reaction via a very cool technology called Macromedia Breeze.  Just go here a little before noon on Friday, enter as a guest, and you'll hear the conversation and be able to contribute via your keyboard if you want.  It gives  the experience a little bit of the flavor of a call-in talk show.

If you want to get the flavor of Don Cox's provocative and fascinating views on this general subject, check out this essay.

If you are teaching economics, please encourage students to listen in.

And a thank you for hosting to James Reese and Radioeconomics where you can find other podcasts as well.