Pocket Gofer 9

Pocket Gofer 9

Download the Pocket Gofer 9 here

IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

• WHAT’S A FAMILY TO DO?
• THE OLD DAYS
• WHERE HAVE ALL THE FAMILIES GONE?
• SOME THOUGHTS ON LOVE AND MONEY
• CONCLUSION

Our Grandpa Ned bites your head off every time you try to be nice to him.  And there’s Aunt Nora in Springfield.  We get so tired of hearing her bitch about our Uncle Pete’s drinking.

Then there’s Cousin Sarah, who has been thru three husbands and has another man on the hook.  And f’gosh sakes don’t say anything about the skeleton in the Jennings’ closet!

Famous lawyer Clarence Darrow said, “The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the second half by our children.”

WHAT’S A FAMILY TO DO?

Well, we are not sure.  What we do know for sure is that families thruout modern history have had difficulties similar to ours.  This truth suggests that there is little hope for today’s families.

We don’t buy this one.  We do admit, however, that we had to scratch around more than we thought we would to find many families who got it together about 50 years ago and kept it that way.  (We have among friends a couple who have been married for 72 years.)

Families used to stay together through thick and thin.  Let’s dig into some reasons why they don’t today.

Risky shot, this.  Family issues generate emotions and we might step on some toes.

However, this country was founded by people taking risks, and we hope the practice has not gone completely out of style.  No pain, no gain.

THE OLD DAYS

During the old, old days families had to stick together in the interest of simple survival.  If the man was unsuccessful in hunting or fishing, or if the woman blew the child-raising job the family faded into oblivion.  There was very little margin for error, and many of them did not make it.

Came 1750 and the Industrial Revolution, and machines increased workers’ productivity to the point where the same amount of work produced much more stuff.  With such high output employers could afford to pay workers more, so living standards rose.

During the next 100 years we moved forward from a survival society and became a production-oriented culture.  This culture persisted in advanced countries right up through World War II.

During the early 19th century a wise Frenchman named de Tocqueville visited this country and wrote a book called Democracy in America.  In it he observed that the purpose of marriage among aristocrats in European lands was often to unite property rather than hearts.  He saluted the young America for:

“—– equality which can be brought about between man and woman.  They think that nature, which created such great differences between the physical and moral constitution of men and women, clearly intended to give their diverse faculties a diverse employment; and they consider that progress consists not in making dissimilar creatures do roughly the same things but in giving both a chance to do their job as well as possible.  The Americans have applied to the sexes the great principle of political economy which now dominates industry.”

That’s the way it was.  It was a farm culture then; industries were just getting off the ground.  Whenever they could spare the time women were out in the fields helping their men.

Time passed, and our society became dominated by industry.  A different measure of success prevailed.

Men naturally moved into pioneering and dominant roles in this new type of occupation.  But in so doing society gradually lost something valuable.  De Tocqueville again:

“Americans constantly display complete confidence in their spouses’ judgment and deep respect for their freedom.  They hold that woman’s mind is just as capable as man’s of discovering the naked truth, and her heart as firm to face it.”

During the Industrial Revolution women were just as confused as men while the very nature of work changed so radically as to be all but incomprehensible.  However, they were smarter when they remained in the home, as early working conditions in factories and mines were terrible.  De Tocqueville once more:

“And now that I come near the end of this book in which I have recorded so many considerable achievements of the Americans, if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the superiority of their women.”  Yep, something valuable ……

Before World War II we used to say a woman’s place was in the home.  The home was a lot nicer than a cave, but the job was still roughly the same and fully as important: feed and care for the old man and the kiddies, and give them lots of love.  The father still “brought home the bacon,” but instead of a deer carcass or a butchered hog it was money.

Keeping up a home took more time then versus today, but women nevertheless formed the habit of doing what was called a “kaffee klatch” several times a week.  Along about 10:00 in the morning they would gather for coffee with their babies and small children.

Many men thought their women were wasting time with this.  Far from it.  This was school, especially for the younger Moms (this in addition to advice sought from their parents if they lived nearby).

We all know the best-managed family is not without difficulties.  The younger ones had theirs, of course, but they listened carefully when the older Moms discussed how they handled their difficulties.

Other topics covered were current events, husbands, and how to enhance a marriage.  Current events were important too, so after the children went to bed the evening’s conversation could include these.

After a long day in factory and home, adult conversation was both relaxing and bonding.  This ritual also enabled parents to be good citizens as well as good parents.  Each could attend occasional political and civic meetings and make a contribution (Pocket Gofer 6).

Neither one of them turned on the TV, for a simple yet very good reason.  This home appliance had yet to become available.  That was the way it was back then.

But the Big War (WWII) changed all that, and a lot more besides.  Nearly all the young men got drafted and went off to fight.  They needed something to fight with, and so the auto companies quit making cars and went to making tanks, jeeps, airplanes, guns, ships and other weapons.

This meant they needed people to work in revamped factories, but the men were gone off to unknown parts of the world.  So we invented a new factory worker, whom we nicknamed Rosie the Riveter.

De Tocqueville’s superior women started wearing pants, as this was more practical for factory work.  Those pants had pockets, and as they filled with wage money women got the idea they could work outside the home and still keep it going.  Companies saw the need and invented labor-saving products.

What about the children?  Lots of aunts and grandmothers lovingly responded to the call; grandfathers too.

They even helped dig in the victory gardens, which filled every vacant house lot in cities and towns.  And when many things were rationed, all shared what there was.

The family stayed together for two reasons.  The first lay in a united and all-out effort to defeat the enemy.  The second was simply that there was no other practical choice.

We note here a conclusion not yet seen in today’s myriad news media: today is the first time since WWII that has caused the entire nation to come together to confront a common foe.

The war was finally over, and Johnny came marching home.  Rosie was really glad to see him, and so they created the Post-war Baby Boom.  Anyone born between 1946 and 1964 is considered a boomer; there are lots and lots of these folks still around.

Detroit started making cars again, and Rosie went back into the home.  But she didn’t stay there long, as television entered the picture and changed our lives fully as much as did WWII.

Clever marketeers created entertaining commercial messages aimed at convincing us we could have this and that, and that and this, and all for only a few bucks down and a few bucks a month.  Then they made it still easier for us to spend more money than we had, when they invented a little plastic card with numbers on it.

These actions opened up a new vista for us, as America moved forward from a production orientation and into what was called the “Affluent Society.”  Many of us started believing all that blarney that the marketeers were pouring into our minds.

We began to think that, instead of working hard and saving our money like our grandfolks did, we could have it all right now.  For them there was no short cut to the good life, but we had found one.

However, it seems that any good thing has a flip side: the two-income family, latchkey children, drugs, widely accepted divorce, and old folks put out to pasture.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE FAMILIES GONE?

As we indicated above, families have had problems ever since there have been families.  So, what’s new?

What’s new is what this pocket gofer is about.  We are going to let it all hang out, so we can see as precisely as practical what we have today and what we have lost.  Then we will see what we might do to make our families stronger.

In doing this we will emphasize the individual family, seizing the initiative on its own behalf.  We do this because we have long since given up on Big Government as a means of solving our problems, family and otherwise.

It looks to us like respect for parenthood has been gradually displaced by respect for the almighty buck.  Robert Bork in his book Slouching Toward Gomorrah: “Men were kept from rootless hedonism, —– by religion, morality, and law.

“These were commonly cited.  To them I would add the necessity for hard work, usually physical work, and the fear of want.  These constraints were progressively undermined by rising affluence.”

Here is a thought on the family in an immoral society.  Whenever immorality penetrates deeply, there will be a Big Government imposing its will on the people.  See pocket gofer 4.

Driven by the negative side of human nature and when no one is watching them, officials will seek ever more personal power and wealth.  Therefore government will grow ever bigger in a vicious cycle.

This means an ever-higher tax load on families.  As their finances are drained out of their pockets the two-income family gradually becomes predominant.  This in turn diminishes the image of the full-time homemaker.

Working mothers tend to project their guilt onto their husbands.  Husbands of full-time homemakers react by perceiving their wives as not quite whole because they don’t earn money like other wives.  As the vicious cycle continues, husbands also begin to feel diminished.

The moral decline in the family shows up in fewer instances of sexual expressions of love (and more harassment).  Each instance no longer enhances the love bond.

Spouses then begin to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  As the divorce rate increases (see below), children suffer and become delinquent.

BIG GOVERNMENT sees this cycle playing out.  In order to be seen as concerned, it passes still more laws presumably aimed at retrieving a moral society.

But in truth the elite class does not want a moral society, as it has what it wants right now.  The elitists don’t mind being alienated from the common folks, because they believe we cannot touch them.  PG19 elaborates.

The news media cooperate with the elitists in this.  What is moral about local news emphasizing little else besides murders, rapes, armed robberies, war, floods, mass shootings, tornadoes, car crashes, fires, wars and sex?  What do these stories tell us about what government is doing to help us lead better lives?

The media and the high and mighty want families to stay hunkered down and in constant fear of all kinds of threats.  We are reduced to playing the old psychological game of “Ain’t it awful?” instead of breaking out of this box to seize the initiative toward a moral society.  See the essay “The External Threat Gimmick.”

Misery does love company.  Pocket Gofers 11 and 18 elaborate on this subject.

Friends, the only way to build and maintain a moral society is through the efforts of citizens like us organizing to discipline ourselves and our government.  In only this way can the positive side of human nature assert itself.  Logically, the only way we can discipline government is through democracy.

With the sudden wealth that followed WWII, the extended family, a sometimes-uncooperative spouse, membership in a church, and good parental and neighborly relations were no longer necessary for survival.  A little friction and many would simply blow it off.  The money to live independently was there.

Technology has reduced the amount of physical work in society, and affluence has increased boredom.  This means that in three or four generations most of us have gradually changed from hard working farm folks to couch potatoes.  See Pocket Gofer 1.

In the old days law generally permitted citizens to do as they pleased, but religion and morality prevented the doing of crazy or unjust things.  Bork: “Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.”

There is a flip side, in that sometimes religion tends to prevent the exercise of free will.  For example, the Christian Coalition believes homosexuality to be against God’s law.  Surely members are entitled to this view, but they should bear in mind that it does not agree with the democratic concept of individual liberty.

Bork thinks it is possible for people today to regain insights into morality through reflection upon experience.  Jefferson believed in the value of pausing to think about what has been learned when planning for the future.

Today there seems to be less emphasis on traditional organized religion and more on reaching out to others for human fellowship and love.  This may be a reaction to wealth, increased mobility, and therefore a reduced extended family influence.

We wonder if there exists a hidden desire to compensate for a more distant family by reaching out to neighbors.  This may be only our wishful thinking.  If true, the pocket gofers may help to develop these relationships.

We continue to acquire more and more stuff, like several TVs, a boat, SUV, RV, personal computers, home entertainment systems, and second home.  Where will it end?

We wonder if there eventually comes a point where we stop owning all these things and they start to own us.  The challenge lies in pinning down this point, and becoming aware of what we are giving up in order to own and use all this stuff.

Naw, we couldn’t have given up parenthood; that’s ridiculous.  The kids are right here, see?

And we are the Mom and Dad, isn’t that obvious?  We buy them lots of things; what more do they want?

Sometimes it’s what we can’t see that grabs us.  And even then we may not know we’ve been grabbed, especially if we are preoccupied with making more money.  (More later on this one.)

When we reflect on these trends we might conclude that in terms of world history there has not been much time to adjust to the presence of wealth.  Before World War II the only wealthy people were kings, queens, a tiny minority of aristocrats and an equally small minority of new wealthies as typified by the Rockefeller and Carnegie families.

It has not been all that much time since the Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) multiplied worker’s outputs and dramatically raised living standards.  And capitalism arrived to furnish what is still today the only peaceful means in the world of creating and accumulating wealth.

We heard of one woman who adjusted quickly and apparently successfully to sudden wealth.  As the story goes, she came running into the house shouting: “Hey!  I just won the lottery.  Pack up!”

Her husband replied: “Gee, that’s great.  Do I pack for the mountains or the seashore?”  Her response: “I don’t care; just so you’re outa here!”

POOR FAMILIES: We still have some of course; different problems here.  Politicians play upon our feelings for these folks.

They tax us heavily to finance many huge national and state programs, presumably aimed at helping these people.  Occasionally we wonder why poor families seem to remain in so much worse shape than others, with all that money flowing to them.

Maybe we might wonder about the fact that most of that money never gets to the poor.  If it did they would be poor no longer.  It gets routed to people like contractors who build public housing.

If we were a contractor we would certainly go for that central government bundle.  If we get a government contract there is an official who inspects what we are doing.  He/she gets paid the same whether we work efficiently or not, and few others bother us.

It’s taxpayer money, but they don’t lean on us.  There is less competition for contracts than there is in the private construction business, and so we can bid high.

Then we kick some of the extra profit back into the re-election campaigns of congressmen, and another juicy contract comes our way.  Not a bad deal, actually.

A little bit does get to the poor, who see it as a handout in place of a wage.  They therefore see it as a trap, preventing them from getting out into the job market and earning some bread.  They don’t like it, and the negative impact on their self-images causes a negative impact on their family lives. 

Drugs help to forget the pain.  But they are so damned expensive, so guns are also needed.

Just like some old folks referred to retirement communities, poor uneducated young men are left with no active role in today’s culture.  They are seen as excess baggage.

This suggests that a young man is well advised to gear up his workplace skills before he takes a wife and sires children.  If he foolishly neglects to do this, why should we taxpayers support and enable his misbehavior?

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a poor young man.  He logically figures that if he is denied any of the benefits of fatherhood, why does he owe money to his children?  Why should he shell out for 18 years because he once spent 18 minutes in the sack with a girl?

News & Observer 2014: “More than a trillion dollars of spending on poverty programs since 1965 has stabilized historical rates of poverty, but the rate hasn’t strayed far from what it was when (President) Johnson left office in 1969.”  No surprise here; as we mentioned, bureaucracies grow and thrive on problems and not solutions.  (We have not seen the last of this one.)

Rick Newman’s book: Liberty for All: A manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Personal Freedom.   “In 1980 total federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a variety of aid programs for the needy was 10.1% of the nation’s GDP.  That rose to 13.5% by 2014, and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) projects it will rise to 14% by 2019.  —— might not seem like a lot, but since the US economy is so huge, the increase in spending from 1980 to 2014 — nearly $1.2 trillion a year, in today’s dollars, after adjusting for inflation.  That’s a lot of money spent on entitlements.” 

But the system worked great for politicians, who continued to play on our concerns for the poor in order to win our votes.  That was the hype.

The reality was they (and we) were treading upon the poor.  Welfare kept them down and made it exceedingly difficult to break out of their trap.  See PG2.

After a 1996 law we observed some apparent progress on the welfare problem, as millions of poor folks saw limits on duration of benefits and found jobs.  Quite simply, we see this as the positive side of human nature made free and working.

Also the central government has handed some programs over to the states.  But, has it really done this?  The money still comes to Washington, and is returned to the states as block grants.

This makes no sense to us, but the politicians like the arrangement.  Big bucks are involved, and they love to run money thru their fingers (and rip off a few bucks in the process).

Since the 1970s wages have improved but little for the poor.  However, people can buy more with them, thanks to new technology and globalization.

Also, studies have shown that people fall into and struggle out of poverty regularly, the latter occurring when there is no welfare check holding them down.  In spite of big government, the opportunity is still there.  See PG2 for some good ideas.

DIVORCE AND KIDS: We understand that close to one half of the marriages made in America today will fail.  This is about the highest failure rate in the developed world.  The costs of divorce drag down our economy, and not just the money costs.

Studies in the 1970s showed that married women with jobs were more likely to divorce or separate.  They have less economic dependence than their homemaker counterparts, so they place greater emphasis on the emotional aspects of marriage.  But there is little time for this, especially after children arrive.

The situation just prior to a divorce is tough, tough.  Partners tend to see only short-term difficulty, as they just know the ideal mate is close by and waiting.  So they leap into the next relationship with inflated expectations and, —— out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire.

Results of studies indicate that 75 percent of second marriages don’t make it, and 90 percent of thirds.  Seems that people would be well advised to wait and think about it for a while before taking that first leap.

The best policy is to wait and be reasonably sure the first time, when the odds are best.  We’ll have a look at that option later in this pocket gofer.

The impact on the kids is not just economic.  They pay a heavy emotional price.  They lack the strength to work thru it because as kids they are more dependent financially and emotionally on both parents than are adults.

Pocket Gofer 4 discusses how Big Government makes us dependent on government.  Therefore we look to government to solve our problems rather than doing it ourselves.

Taking risks and making decisions are part of the maturation process.  This means Big Government is preventing us from becoming fully adults.  There are implications here for our ability to effectively raise our children.

We conclude that sound families are as important to a nation’s health as are sound economic policies.  We also conclude there is a connection.  We elaborate on this in other pocket gofers.

TIME AND KIDS: Most of us see the current two-income family as absolutely necessary in order to make ends meet in a country where the cost of living has ballooned over the past 40 years or so.  What we don’t see is the fact that we have been programmed to see our situation in this way by the marketeers and commercial messages, mostly on TV.  Gotta have it all, and right now, and we’ll make it so easy for you to pay.

This causes a short-term way of thinking.  Children are a long-term investment.  Time and money always have been a trade-off.

There is another factor worth considering regarding the two-income family.  In 1900 government at all levels took a total of about six percent of a typical family’s annual income in taxes.  Today a family pays around 45 percent, and extra costs to comply with tons of bureaucratic regulations runs the tab up to about 55 percent.

In 1900 nearly all families got along fairly well with one breadwinner.  But today it takes two?  We should think about this development.  Pocket Gofers 8 and 15 will help.

WAGES AND INCOME: There has been a lot of press lately about declining real wages (includes effect of inflation) since 1973.  This makes good copy, we suppose, but it omits at least two important factors.

One relates to the difference between wage income and total family income.  Not only is there a higher proportion of two-income families now, but also with much greater wealth many families have other sources of income such as inheritances and dividends and capital gains from shares of stock.

Another factor refers to an increase in income equality among social classes over the past 2-3 centuries.  The cause for much of this can be traced to the Industrial Revolution and capitalism.  The apparent decline in wage income is just a hiccup in this long-term trend.

Part of the cause is a long-term decline in employment in manufacturing, with its high-wage jobs.  But this is only natural economic progress, as society moves forward from farming to manufacturing to a high-tech/information culture.

Economic developments since World War II have given families opportunities to work longer and increase their incomes.  Two-parent families now average nearly 500 more work hours a year more than they did 50 years ago.

The flip side of this trend lies in restrictions on nonworking time.  Managing time is little more than arranging priorities, but many families either lack the ability to do this or are not aware of its potential.  Furthermore, watching TV takes more time than it deserves.  (Fooling with mobile phones without discipline of time spent brings the same result.)

Manno (Fall 2003) picked up on this one.  “—– data show that the more hours people work, the more they watch television.  Who has time for a real social life when they’re exhausted?

“In countries where workers have more leisure time, people spend significantly less time watching TV, much more active time with friends and family, and considerably more time outdoors.”  And now computers, play stations, and iPods are throwing up new barriers between parents and children.

Over the past 55 years women have invaded the marketplace in droves.  Also, the proportion of single-parent families has mushroomed.  Both of these trends have caused a massive time crunch.

In 1960, 70 percent of families had at least one stay-at-home parent.  By 2000, 70 percent were headed by either a single parent or two working parents.  This trend often combines with peer pressure and drugs to push a young one over the edge.

However, another opportunity has opened up.  Our society has become so wealthy that for the first time in history people are choosing to work less and enjoy more what they have.  Since 1880 the weekly time devoted to leisure by a typical American male worker has increased from 10.5 to 40 hours.

This may have caused income inequality to increase a little over the short term.  But because this reduction in working hours was due to free choice, social equality has increased (read satisfaction with life).

The more money a family figures it must have the less time available to enjoy what it buys.  Less money means more time with the spouse and children, guiding them, loving them, disciplining children, bonding and helping them to stay out of trouble.

MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN’S NEEDS: It surely seems to us that today there are many more ways for a kid to screw up than there were when we were young.  Maybe our memory has slipped a cog.

Or, maybe children are more creative these days, because they know no one is watching.  At the least, it’s a proven attention getting device.

Kids have always felt a need to do something disapproved by parents.  Today’s society is so permissive that a kid has to do something really bad to accomplish the same result.  He/she is asking for, crying out for, discipline.

Discipline mixed with love.  The nature of the mix is a judgment call, and is different for each child.  This is where education enters the picture; see below and Pocket Gofer 10.

Does all this explain why there seems to be so few competent leaders in our country today?  Whatever we might think of Bill Clinton’s leadership qualities, it is a fact that he was our first baby boomer president.  (And the second and third ones?)

Dignity, integrity, respect for others, and for truth seemed all but lacking in Clinton.  While in office he remained a perpetual adolescent, turning to aides to get him out of one mess after another.

Boomers are the first generation raised in a two-income family environment, and they are today assuming leadership positions in business and government.  And scandals in both areas have multiplied.  Maybe there is no connection, but then, we might want to put this one in our pipe and puff on it for a while.

We conclude that the institution of marriage is at least different than it was years ago, and probably not as healthy.  We suppose we should ask the experts to comment on this problem, as in today’s complex age family, friends, and clergy apparently no longer suffice.

We did this, and what we got back was a shocking lack of support for the institution itself.  Norval Glenn analyzed 20 textbooks for his book Closed Hearts, Closed Minds.

Practically all of them claimed that marriage today is more a problem than a solution.  The books contained serious errors, omissions of data, and distortions of research results.

A Gallup poll showed that 95 percent of Americans say family life is very important to them, 61 percent say the same about work, and 48 percent about religion.  But Glenn found this news de-emphasized or omitted altogether as the experts elaborated at length upon how marriage hurts women.

He concluded: “The battle for public opinion may be over, but the losers are still writing the textbooks.”  If the experts admit that marriage, while in some difficulty, retains a potential for improvement they risk doing themselves out of a job.

Therefore what we have here is the old bureaucrat’s lament replayed.  Pocket Gofer 2 demonstrates that bureaucrats value problems far above solutions.

SOME THOUGHTS ON LOVE AND MONEY

Money and love go out, away from a person.  The trick lies in tight control of the first, and less of the second because it will return in quantity.

Just as they need discipline, children need love.  During the 1960s baby boomers were growing up.

That was when the Beatles came over to this country from England singing, “Money can’t buy me love.”  The kids of that time loved them.  Their songs are still popular.

We wonder if they were trying to tell the older folks something.  We know how difficult that is, communicating across the generation gap.  Looks like we didn’t listen very well as a warning became popular during the 1960s: “Don’t trust anyone over 30.”

More recently, some people went and talked with young people.  They asked a few questions about the family of today.  A frequent response was “I was a latch-key child.  No way I’m going to raise my kids like that.”

Now, there is a policy statement which rules out one current aspect of child raising, at least for these people.

OUR RISKY SHOT: Let’s go on to imagine a successful family.  Let’s imagine a young man and woman in love and trying to make some long-range plans even while swept up in the fantastic thrill of romance.  They want to plan their future so that fantastic thrill lasts forever, of course.

Hold it!  First a red flag.  We are realistic, and so we don’t think for a moment that everyone should rigidly follow the guideline below, even if they could.  We simply utilize an imaginary young couple to communicate some thoughts and stir up some discussion.

In fact, that’s what the pocket gofer program is all about.  We believe that only we can remove the colossal menace that our government at all levels has gradually become.  Only we can build and keep good government and thereby build better lives for us.

To do this we need to keep a gofer in every hip pocket and purse or in a phone.  We need to use these to stimulate discussion, free and open debate, constructive criticism of ideas to make them better, and finally action to carry into practice our own and others’ good ideas.

In 1776 our forefathers cast forth an objective.  To get there they stated at the end of the Declaration of Independence: “—– we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

We have an objective.  Because of the bravery of our forefathers and mothers, we need not pledge our lives.  This applies especially if we do as we must: keep violence well clear of our hearts.

We are already pledging much of our fortunes to the Tax Man.  Once our objective is attained we will pledge much, much less, and we will redirect what we do pledge so we can make sure it does us and others some good.

Today honor has no meaning in government.  We will fix that one too.

We got off the subject, but make no apology.  Let us begin.

First, as for that fantastic thrill going on forever, forget it.  This type of thrill is by definition short-term.  “And they lived happily ever after” is the stuff of fairy tales and movies.

Therefore, second, let’s get real.  We must realize that no one wishing us happiness ever after (and that is the only type of wish we will get when others see us on that fantasy trip) is about to clue us in on the grim realities of an adult life together.

We mentioned that today’s woman is more economically independent than was her grandmother.  Of women between 20-74, 76 percent were married in 1960, but only 64 percent in 1996.

 Financial security is less important, so today’s wife puts more weight on the romantic aspects of a marriage.  This is unreal.  She may have to back her married friends and relatives into a corner before they will come clean, but once this is done the truth will come forth.

But there is a message in this for husbands who want to stay married.  That is, they are well advised to increase their efforts (or work smarter) to keep their wives happy.

That said, let us put together a plan.  We will keep in mind that what follows will not suit all.  We don’t buy Washington’s one-size-fits-all social programs, so we make no such claim in this instance.

We might add that here is where we will probably ruffle some feathers.  However, if the whole package looks good to enough of us and we get lots of discussion attitudes may modify somewhat (including ours).

In practice a young couple would probably take a piece here and a piece there.  They would discuss these aspects and put together a plan that is suited to them.

Bob and Sally are deeply in love.  They agree that it would be a good idea to delay marriage for a while.  This will give them time to get to know each other better.

They agree to delay sex until marriage, or if they do not, to use an agreed contraceptive practice.  They decide whether to share a place, to which idea their parents do not object.

They realize that education is important, so they plan to finish college before marriage.  They consult older members of each family and other resource persons.

One of these provides a most valuable insight into life: A person must know him/herself before he can really get to know another.  He must know himself before he can love himself (self-esteem), and he must love himself before he can truly love another.

A good higher educational experience is very helpful in acquiring these vital properties.  Also, it can convince Bob and Sally that learning can be fun as they learn how to learn.

This means they will go on learning at every opportunity in the future.  They will be able to better understand their changing selves, and their changing relationship.  They will do better on the job, in raising their children, and in contributing as concerned citizens to good government in their community, state, country, and world.

Finally, all this serves to minimize the frequency and severity of marital troubles down the road (There will be some of course).  Another sage consulted shared this observation: Whenever two young people of opposite genders meet and sparks fly, each immediately begins selling him/herself to the other.

This process goes forward, and it may stop after a while.  If it continues forward the couple will make plans for marriage.  All this involves continuing selling.

However, once the honeymoon is over, many of us figure there is no need for any more selling.  The sage maintains that here is when the really tough selling begins.  As time wears on and grim reality sets in, the selling becomes tougher and tougher.

The making of any long-term commitment between two young people should include discussion of this unavoidable future reality.  Getting married is easy.  Staying happily married is life’s biggest challenge.

Here are just a couple of many resources.  Bill McCartney’s Promise Keepers movement seeks spiritual support for men as they struggle to fulfill promises to trust in Christ, practice moral and sexual purity, love their families, support local churches, and seek racial harmony.  After attending a rally they meet in small groups back home for mutual support in their quest for improvement.

A national program called Marriage Savers helps churches to organize intensive premarital training.  It is spreading in the wake of a 35 percent drop in the divorce rate between 1986 and 1997 in an experiment in Modesto, California.

Specially trained mentoring couples in the congregation provide the training.  A slogan: “Before you tie the knot, let us show you the ropes.”  Here is a needed dose of reality to mix with the fantasy.

Bob and Sally’s plan may include a delay of higher education because one or both just doesn’t feel ready.  In that case this is planned for later, preferably before children arrive.  It is not easy to concentrate on formal learning when a student has a full-time job and a family.

Was it evolution?  Probably not, as it happened too fast to fall under the definition of evolution.  In the old days the male of the species was aggressive and dominant, the female dependent, nurturing, and subservient.

But now the women’s rights movement has elbowed its way into the culture, and is apparently here to stay.  Most of us have accepted this result, although the adjustment process may have some way to go.

Heather Boushey (Economist 9/2016): “At the start of the 1950s only about 1/3 of
American women worked (outside the home), —.  Today 57% of women are in work, —-.  — added trillions to economic output, —–.  Yet American policymakers have responded painfully slowly to this new reality.”

Bob and Sally are adjusting as they mature.  They discuss the two-income family/latch-key children issue.

They agree that they want two children spaced 2-3 years apart, and to delay the first one until they have been married about 4-5 years.  Resource people have made them aware that the arrival of a first child generates a turbulent change in family life style.

With both educated and working during that period, they plan on acquiring a good car, furniture, appliances, life insurance, and some savings toward a down payment on a home.  And there will be time for each to really get to know the other.

They decide that when the children are babies and small kids one spouse will remain in the home full-time with them.  The objective here is bonding, and continuing adjustment between parents and rapidly changing children.

Bob and Sally know they will be rookies at this parenting game, and they feel that they need time to learn how to do it well.  If in the interest of bonding Sally wants to nurse their babies she would be the home spouse for the first four years or so.

When the young ones enter school the home spouse can take part-time work inside or outside the home.  With a good education there would be plenty of opportunities.

When the children come home from school there would be a parent there to meet them.  Both parents will take time to be involved in their children’s education, both at school and at home (including vacation trips).

Lots of discussion these days about TV and violence.  Some 35 years of research have tried to make a connection, with limited success at best.  In his book The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly picked up on this theme.

“The rise of TV started the decline of parental status in America.  Once the tube began lighting up the nation’s living rooms in the early 1950s, parents made a bargain with the devil.  Here was a cheap, easy way to keep kids quiet.

“The working dad didn’t come home to a lot of chatter at the dinner table.  The kids were eating off TV trays — American ingenuity at its best, or what? — in the den or living room.

“And no more reading stories at bedtime.  The kids dozed off, glassy-eyed, and could be carried to bed.  That is, if that’s the choice parents made.”  Friends, there was and is not much bonding going on when parents use this cop-out.

Bill was not through, as he pursued another variation on the same theme.  “America has become a country that worships the famous.  ————–.  The stars look as if they’re leading exciting lives, while we snack on junk food and watch them from the couch.

“And Americans are not helping these people by worshiping them.  Bad for them, bad for us, and a total waste of time.  But what can stop this madness?”

Columnist George Will sandbagged Bill (6/2001): “That NBC program in its first episode last week, attracted nearly 12 million voyeurs to watch simpletons confront their fears, for a fee.  —— covered by a swarm of biting rats.  This week the program featured a willingness to eat worms and sit in a tub full of them.

“—– its competitors in the race to the bottom will not rest, and the bottom is not yet in sight.  ———-.  An optimistic premise of our society —— competition improves things ——.  —– but not with mass culture.  There competition corrupts.”

And a final broadside: “The argument that the existence of customers justifies the product distinguishes the purveyors of ‘Fear Factor’ not at all from heroin and opioid pushers.”

Seems like children don’t count for much in today’s society.  Perhaps they are being raised by immature What’s-in-it-for-me? parents.  (See Pocket Gofer 6.)

Over 20 years’ research shows that too much TV: 1) slows the development of thinking skills and imagination; 2) shortens attention spans; 3) slows the growth of reading and speaking skills; and 4) conditions a child to distractions of sight and sound that don’t reflect the real world.  Today’s trend away from TV and toward social media may help.

A 1994 report from the Department of Education called “Strong Families, Strong Schools” found that grades drop sharply when kids watch more than two hours of TV daily.  Parents should take pediatricians’ no-TV recommendation seriously, just like a prescription.  Updating these remarks to mobile phones changes little.

We had a thought.  It is well known that television is a no-brainer entertainment medium.  This means that someone who watches a lot of it is probably not aware that he/she is cheating himself out of thinking time.

Taking time to think helps a (especially young) person to become better acquainted with him/herself.  This in turn enables a person to learn self-discipline.  See Pocket Gofer 10.

Without this restraint negative passions more often displace rational thinking.  What happens next may depend on whether a weapon is handy.

Talking heads who after so much of this become full of themselves and thus see no need to listen to anyone else.  Naive folks watching contribute to this feeling when they lionize TV personalities.  When talking a person is only repeating what he/she already knows.  When he listens he may learning something important.

With a TV camera aimed at him/her a person abandons his real self and starts acting like someone he admires, often another TV personality perhaps reading a teleprompter.  The analogy in economics is called crony capitalism: circulate a nation’s wealth only among a chosen few.

Without hard evidence we suspect that these people followed the example of newly minted career politicians after WWII as they used the tube as a way of distracting citizens’ attention from what was really going on.  See PG7 and PG19.

This is why we have concluded that television has combined with a government that discourages good education to cause great injury to our society.  Dr. Barr of St. John’s College saw this injury as early as 1968.  Most of us are just now awakening.

Here we share a comment about print in a society deluged with oral communication.  Humans can forget, and all too often do.  A person watching TV news may notice something interesting, but before he/she has time to think about it the news reader/anchor has sped ahead to the next topic.  And then the viewer’s thinking is interrupted by a string of commercials.  Then the whole sequence repeats itself over and over.  No thinking here.

Print stays with a person, especially when interesting.  He/she can read, maybe reread, and pause to let it sink in.  He can question the writer’s text; is this true?  Do I agree with her?  Why or why not?  Is there enough food for thought and discussion here to make a contribution during the next club meeting?  Friends, this is learning.

Today the Internet is prying couch potatoes away from the tube.  This is good, but we already know this new medium is a mixed blessing.

The Internet opens incredibly vast possibilities for learning.  It is amazing what has become available at the click of a mouse.

But one thing has not changed.  This is the continuing need for parental supervision of and bonding with children.

Read to the smallest.  Nothing like a lap and a book for bonding.  But later be sensitive to parent-child shared learning opportunities on the Web.

There is an outfit called Reach Out & Read, for small children.  Pediatrician David Tayloe volunteered to be medical director in North Carolina.  “Children actually ask me for books at every visit!” he exclaimed.

How would employers react to Bob and Sally’s plan?  If most of us employees accepted and practiced some variation on the plan they would adjust, simply because that would be the only way they could hire and keep good people.

They realize the arrival of a baby means a temporary adjustment downward from a two-income family to the one-income variety.  But, their grandparents did it and survived, and maybe if they were consulted some insights might come out of it (they would be thrilled to be consulted).  Their long-range plan anticipates this reduction in family income.

Money management is two-way.  That is, management of what goes out is fully as important as management of what comes in.

With help from Thomas Stanley and William Danko’s book The Millionaires Next Door we will torpedo one more instance of news media hype.  Most millionaires do not fit the media-hyped  “lifestyles of the rich and famous” image.

Most are self-employed.  Many live on about $90,000 a year.  Eighty percent work.

“We tell people that if they want to be the millionaire down the street by the time they’re 50 or 55, they should put away at least 15 percent of their income every year.  Start with 5 percent the first few years of your marriage, then go to 10, then to 15 by your late 40s.  ——.  The secret is to put money somewhere that it will grow without your having to pay taxes on it immediately.”

The authors provide a hypothetical example of a 25-year-old who invests 5 percent of a $35,000 income, upping to 10 percent at age 35 and 15 percent at 45.  They assume a 4 percent average annual raise in salary and a 9.6 percent annual return.  The miracle of compound interest then puts this cat’s net worth by age 65 at a cool $2 million.

Half the millionaires interviewed live in middle class or blue-collar neighborhoods.  Keeping up the image more or less required of life in affluent neighborhoods is a serious cash drain.  Stanley and Danko say that playing a great offense in making money does little good unless accompanied by a good defense: control over spending it.

So, how is the typical family doing?  Before the 2008 crisis auto dealers guessed that fully a third of new cars were bought with home-equity loans.  Er, what about the kids’ educations and retirement?  And today families are still digging themselves out of deep debt when they should have been saving for a rainy day, — like today.

Their homes in 2008 were worth less than they owed, so they could not or didn’t borrow.  Banks were anyhow in trouble due to bad loans, so they lent only to sterling borrowers.  Stanley and Danko would surely say “bad defense, folks!”

Every economy has occasional bank foreclosures on houses.  When the housing bubble having burst, today we had huge numbers of foreclosures.

Foreclosed properties in a neighborhood drag down the value of adjacent houses.  This causes more foreclosures, more headaches, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, etc.  It is a vicious cycle.

Local government officials are stuck with picking up the pieces when homes are abandoned, leaving fees unpaid and property to maintain.  To all this we add those who lost their homes due to losing their jobs.  We recommend renting for at least several years, until house prices stop decreasing.

Therefore, what is the outlook?  Optimists say that so long as the population keeps growing so will the demand for houses.

But many folks will probably consolidate as adult children get into financial difficulty and return to the nest.  Inflation-adjusted median family income during the past 30 years has dropped by a shocking 5 percent. 

National treasuries are in similar difficulty, which makes us wonder if family fiscal behavior reflects that of its government.  Nations in trouble will probably face two unpleasant options: either break their promises to creditors, or break their promises to future retirees.

We learned above that getting married is easy while staying married is not.  Now it seems that making good money is one thing, while accumulating wealth is quite another.

Ambitious young people need to understand a truth that seems to them to run counter to the daily avalanche of promotional messages.  That is, you don’t buy the good life.  Rather, you save and invest toward it.

Economist Robert Genetski in his book A Nation of Millionaires claimed that “—– the only obstacle standing between every American worker and incredible wealth is government.”  This guy pulled no punches.

“A nation of dependents includes individuals who are forever pleading with their politicians to give back a small portion of what they themselves produced.  A nation of independent individuals is vastly different.  Its members realize that they, and not their government, are fully responsible for their own well-being.”

Friends, there is in this a vitally important distinction; did we catch it?  Citizens in the first nation are ruled under socialism, while in the second they govern themselves under capitalism and democracy.  See Pocket Gofer 20.

POSH RETIREMENT: Whether pension schemes are funded by the public or private sector, or are structured as defined-benefit or defined-contribution plans, the fundamental principle is the same.  Schemes try to build up a capital pot, which is used to buy a monthly income in retirement.

Genetski’s calculations showed that if social security were privatized this alone would eventually enable more than half of the nation’s workers to retire with a million dollars in investable assets.  Reforming health care (Pocket Gofer 1) enables a healthy worker to save $1,500 a year in a medical savings account.

Privatizing the education system (PG 10) would add $35,000 in assets at age 67.  Regulatory reform (PG 8) would add another $129,000.  Environmental and legal reforms would clamp on another $48,000.

The grand total comes to about a million at retirement even for the lowest-paid worker, and Genetski claimed his calculations are conservative.  Well, now.

Here is a small but important extra.  The government and many companies today have “defined benefit” retirement programs.  This means a retiree gets $X a month based on some combination of income during working life plus length of service, plus accumulated interest.

With defined benefit it is next to impossible to accurately predict how much money needs to be set aside to pay future pensions.  Therefore both government and companies have believed they can get away with withholding or stealing money from the system.  Both public and many private pension funds are in deep doodoo today.

The 1935 Social Security law had three parts: old age (retirement), survivor and disability.  It was designed to be “defined contribution.”  In this scheme a worker and employer contribute to the worker’s future retirement on an individual basis.

What gets paid in plus interest plus employer contributions stays in one pot undisturbed until the worker retires.  It is his/her money, so his enjoyment of retirement depends on how hard or smart he works (the latter connects with education).

So, what happened to Social Security?  Brace yourselves, Friends.  Here is where we share the grim details of what the government has done to us over the last 80 years.

• The basics of long-term money management consists of offense (income, both earned and unearned [interest and dividends]) less defense (what is spent), leaving savings.  When the government taxes our earned and unearned income it becomes more difficult to accumulate savings.
• A poor K-12 education system combines with a constant avalanche of marketeer hype to convince most folks that they save when they spend.  Today’s household savings rate is frequently near zero.
• Therefore the tendency is to think in terms of Social Security as savings for retirement.  But beginning in 1940 the congress looted the three funds and spent the money to buy seniors’ votes (they vote a lot compared to the young).  This thievery was kept secret and outed only years later, when citizens forced it to quit.  So there is way too little money to provide retirement income to the 80 million baby boomers who recently started to retire.
• So much for the notion of defined contribution.  Every worker’s wages and employer contributions were not and are not set aside with accumulated interest for retirement.  Therefore today Social Security is a tax on the struggling young to support often wealthy geezers: a forced transfer from the poor to the rich.
• Private sector workers are taxed to provide defined benefits for public sector workers.  This is yet another hidden transfer of wealth and a tremendous future liability to be covered by the taxpayer, especially as BIG GOVERNMENT continues to grow bigger.

Furthermore old folks are living much longer today than in 1935, and there are relatively fewer young workers available to support them.  Combine this with the grim fact that the fund will run out of money in a few years, and we will soon have a BIG PROBLEM.

When young President Bush started flogging this issue it seemed that every writer threw in his/her two cents.  The news media went nearly berserk, which left everyone confused.

Almost no one wrote that the purpose of the old age part of the Social Security law in 1935 (during the Great Depression) was to provide a safety net for poor and elderly citizens.  There was no intent to provide a comfortable living for the average senior, who would have other sources of income.

For details on how the congress screwed up the system see Pocket Gofer 3.  In it we show that a public pension system can’t fly simply because members of congress can’t be trusted to leave the fund alone as it accumulates money.

Like a public fund, private pensions carry a risk.  But this risk does not include the real danger of public “servants” ripping off the fund.  We wish we had WikiLeaks back in the 1950s or so, when the congress began stealing our retirement money and leaving unsecured IOUs in their places.  These must be paid by our struggling young people, who have enough on their plates already.

An Economist 12/2010 article is called “Hands Off Our Pensions.”——– a tempting target for impoverished govts.”  We find it fascinating to see no mention here of our congress ripping off the public pension fund.  This should be the main thrust of the piece.

A different kind of danger evolved due to congressional mischief.  Providing benefits to seniors far and away above money contributed caused millions of workers to believe that Social Security will support a comfortable old age.

Therefore they did not set aside enough money for retirement.  So today 48% of workers over 55 have total savings and investments of less than $80,000.  Added to a SS pension of, say, $15,000 a year and a private pension somewhat more the retiree would be forced to live on about $48,000 or less.  That is not comfortable.

The AARP is a special interest group of around 35 million people 50 and over.  When President Bush suggested that the nation move to partially private individual retirement accounts (a step toward the above), the AARP helped to torpedo this idea.

In defined contribution the risk lies in an individual worker investing his/her personal funds in places where he might occasionally lose some of his/her nest egg.  However, he can manage his own money with hired professional assistance as desired, instead of being forced with his employer to pay into a public pot where he has no control over what happens to it.   (Information on advisers’ records is a last readily available at BrokerCheck, a website run by FINRA, an American regulator.  Clearly, a lot more investors need to use it.)  Remember: the Constitution deals with individual rights and responsibilities.

Many workers today don’t save enough for retirement, in spite of the common knowledge that Social Security is in financial trouble.  We suspect that part of the reason for this is psychological: as mentioned above, poorly educated citizens get taken in by marketeers’ hype and spend more than they should.

Always-in-your-face notwithstanding, no one can save money when he/she spends it.  Some old folks recall Adolf Hitler telling Germans a lie so often that they eventually came to believe it.

Today we see millions of baby boomers retiring while having saved far less than they will need, much less enough to enjoy retirement.  Many have nothing stashed away.

This means they must continue working and pay more into Social Security even if they are not healthy.  Will these extra bucks paid in rescue the system?  We doubt it.

But psychology can work in the positive direction.  One company started an automatic defined contribution scheme for new employees, where each could opt out instead of actively choosing to participate when it’s not automatic.

This change in policy increased participation in the company’s pension fund from 49% of new employees to 86%.  Then some employees committed a portion of future raises to the fund in addition.

The average contribution rate went from 3.5% of pay to 13.6%.  These people own their retirement funds.  The psychology lies in pride of ownership and watching the nest egg grow.

With modestly priced professional help if desired, a worker might invest in the stock market.  Over the past 150 years, including the Great Depression, stock values have had average annual increases of 6.5%, including inflation.  This means on average a doubling of value every 10-11 years with compound interest (accumulated interest earns more interest).

The kicker here lies in the need for self-discipline.  There is not much of that commodity around today.

With private pension funds there will of course be some folks who can’t or don’t plan ahead for old age (especially if participation is voluntary).  Before 1935 churches and charities provided for these people.

Today they are far more capable of resuming this responsibility.  See Pocket Gofer 2.

We might add that there is nothing in the Constitution that permits government to provide any level of financial support for any individual or group.  Therefore President Roosevelt violated that document when he created Social Security.

Back to Sally and Bob.  Most people concentrate too hard on making more money while devoting little thought to spending patterns.  Therefore the home spouse will study and become an expert in “consumership.”

In today’s marketplace we consumers are finally beginning to see through all the fluff that marketeers keep flinging at us.  The conclusion is that all brands of a typical nondurable product or service are much the same.

Therefore shopping for the best buy can concentrate relatively more on price rather than be spread over several other considerations.  This makes minimizing family expenses to obtain a certain living standard and invest for retirement easier.  Coupons, special sales and other inducements can help, plus patience.  (Some of these are not real.)

Bob and Sally sum up the additional expenses associated with that extra job: another car with its payments, operating, insurance, taxes, depreciation, and maintenance costs, clothing, higher income taxes, day care, extra expenditures due to not having the time to shop around, eating out more often, etc.  They discover that the net reduction in living standard is not that much after all.

There might even be a net plus, especially if non-economic factors are patched in such as giving parenthood a chance and having time for that tough but vitally necessary post-honeymoon selling activity.

A recent study looked at 350 male business managers over a period of five years.  Results indicated that fathers with homemaker wives earned an average 20 percent larger raises in salary.

Children may not be capable of saying it straight out, but practically all of them favor parental love and companionship over extra batches of toys and video games.  If Bob and Sally do it right, when the children have families of their own they will want to come visit the old folks often instead of putting them out to pasture and forgetting about them.  They say happiness is being a grandparent, but only with the right advance preparation.

With adequate time, post-honeymoon selling can be fun.  If each partner has learned to receive through giving it will be.

A comment on sex.  With time to work on all aspects of a relationship its sexual part will get better and better.

Pretty quickly each partner starts thinking, it can’t be any better elsewhere.  The result is fidelity, and one of several causes of marital failure eliminated.

And booze, gambling, drugs, difficulty with relatives, and money would no longer play the same destructive roles that they play in today’s strained marriages.  Open communication, continuing learning, and bonding would all but obliterate these negatives.

An Economist Special Report (2/2017) discusses a brand new negative.  “Technology has enabled people to fill every moment of their lives with a stimulus of one sort of another.  It has eliminated the boredom of solitude, replacing it with a need for instant gratification.  ——– Tristan Harris, a former product manager at Google, puts it, it is tech companies that have made this trade for humans, designing platforms, games and apps to keep them hooked.”

Jefferson, Tom Paine and probably many others at the time believed in the value of reflection: taking time to think when free of all distractions.  Doing this today is a serious challenge.  (Publius II has found it useful.)  We have found some evidence on this subject, but little or none concerning the impact on parents bonding with their children.

“Blistering criticism (News & Observer 12/2017) by two former Facebook insiders ———– handful of companies that control the platforms even as their influence grows and their stock soars.”  Glad to see this. “Both——— regret at how social media companies ensnare users ———— preying on human vulnerabilities.”

With less concern about money getting in the way there are lots of free or inexpensive family activities available: games, reading, going to a park, playing ball, joining a civic organization such as the YMCA or scouts, youth and adult sports, making silly little kid things, etc.  It’s not the bucks, it’s the bonding.

We mentioned resources above.  There are lots of organizations staffed by paid counselors and volunteers who care about families.

These include pre-marital, financial, psychoanalytical, and prenatal counseling, and parenting guidance.  Educated people like Bob and Sally know how and when to utilize these.

Don’t forget parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other older and wiser folks.  We have learned through the years that wisdom pops up at unexpected times and in unexpected places.  Most often it remains silent in people, unless called forth by others.

Wisdom is not restricted to the highly educated.  Just like too much money, excessive education can get in the way of wisdom.

We old folks were young once.  Therefore we know the value of unsolicited advice: not for much.  Mark Twain: “He charged nothing for his advice, and it was worth it, too.”

So we exercise restraint and wait until the young ones come to us.  This can get frustrating as we watch them make dumb mistakes.

There is a joint responsibility here.  The young tend to perceive the culture as having changed so much over the generations that any contribution by an oldster has to be irrelevant.

This is only partly true.  What older members of extended families can share with the young are insights into human nature.

Sandra Carey offered a good one: “Never mistake knowledge for wisdom.  One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.” 

Human nature does not change with time, while human behavior does.  Furthermore, with continuing learning old folks are more likely to keep pace with cultural changes.

Mostly by necessity, seniors slow down.  They have time to reflect on their past experiences.  From this can often come self-knowledge along with insights into human nature.

Another benefit from reflection lies in awareness of trigger points.  These are words and phrases that often migrate from one generation to the next one.  They generate negative passionate responses that lead to arguments and fights.

Knee-jerk negative actions are based in emotion.  Today we are seeing this type of reaction far too often due to racism and Covid-19.  Reflection demands time, effort and thinking.  Done right, it can switch a citizen from the negative side of  his/her human nature to the positive.

Thinking seniors can share these points with younger generations.  The result can be an additional route to intergenerational harmony.

After the Industrial Revolution many labor-saving devices entered homes.  These were technological innovations, to which most households easily adjusted in terms of behavior.

Because human nature does not change, post-IR children still need lots of attention, love, and discipline.  The kicker comes when parents tend to assume that their kids’ needs change and diminish along with progress in the technological aspects of household management.

A side benefit here lies in additional bonding and reduction of the generation gap.  Seniors will remain useful contributors to us and to society, and we need not shuffle them off to retirement homes.

From the geriatric viewpoint, maybe growing old is not so bad.  Looks like the world still wants us.  A mom once said to her 12-year-old son: “Tom, you will be a man soon.  Be nice to the ladies.  They will return your favor twice over.”  And here is another, after Tom and his wife have teen-age children.  “We may not always love what you say and do, but we will always love you.”

Here is some good news; perhaps more parents are thinking (Economist 1/2018).  “—– young people are less hedonistic and break fewer rules than in the past.  One possible explanation is that family life has changed.  A study of 11 countries by — two academics, found that parents spend much more time on child care.  In America, the average parents spent 88 minutes a day —— 2012 — up from 41 minutes in  1965.  Fathers have upped their child care hours —–.”

When discussing resources, Bob and Sally should not overlook their spiritual lives.  Nourishment for this vital part of their life experience can come from joining a church or some other religious organization, or through bonding with God or some other Supreme Being on an individual basis.

Holistic health keeps a balance between mind, heart, body and spirit.  When he/she feels one of them weakening he recruits assistance from the others to regain balance.

The family that prays together stays together.  Our lives are God’s gift to us.  What we do with our lives is our gift back to God.

SOME IMPLICATIONS: Scientific evidence is piling up.  It suggests that children who grow up under supervision of other than natural parents are more likely to fail in school, adjust poorly to social situations, and get into trouble with the law.

Lack of marriage is a stronger predictor of poverty than is race or unemployment.  Since 1995 the proportion of children living with a single mother has dropped slightly.  This is good news, as the number of children in single-parent families has increased every year from 1960 to 1995.

A recent study showed that 61 percent of children who are living with both biological parents had a medical exam during the previous year.  Only 46 percent of those living with a stepmother or father had been examined.  This result reinforces the importance of keeping a marriage intact.

We return to discuss race since it commands much of today’s media coverage BLACK LIVES MATTER is but one example.

The July 11/2020 Economist shows what we consider an insight which is useful.  Bear in mind, however, the writer uses the classical definition of “liberal;” not the popular definition as used by today’s progressives.

“The new ideology of race is not just wrong and dangerous, it is also unnecessary.  Liberalism can offer a fairer, more promising route to reform.  It asserts the dignity of the individual and the legal, civil and moral equality of all people, whatever the color of their skin.  It believes in progress thru argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalize bigotry and falsehood.

Liberalism thrives on a marketplace of ideas, so diversity has a vital role.”

Note that this writing does not include violence, which dogs many protests.  Well written because violence obliterates the purpose of the rally, as the whole push has switched to restoration of order.

Going abroad, Brazil’s government has a welfare program where a family gets assistance only when its children attend school and get medical exams regularly.

We seem to have lost sight of the importance of a full-time Mom (or Dad) in the home.  Her contribution may not be readily measurable, but it is nonetheless significant.

GOVERNMENT AND FAMILY VALUES: In late 1994 President Clinton jumped into the “great family values debate” with both feet.  Well, aren’t we glad he showed some genuine concern for families?

Some of us may be.  Others realize that every career politician frequently speaks with forked tongue (see Pocket Gofers 3 and 19).

The reality is that anything Washington says about family values is hype, and therefore it’s a crock.  The further reality is that Big Government can do nothing good about family values except get off our backs.  Washington preaching to us about values is just like the pot calling the kettle black.

Leslie Carbone in a 1/1999 column graphically portrayed the damage government policies have done to the family over the previous 45 years.  Children in single-parent households are 77 percent more likely to be physically abused.

Fatherless kids are twice as likely to be school dropouts.  About 75 percent of teen suicides occur under these conditions.  In nearly all other OECD (advanced) countries suicide has declined since 2000.  In America, however, from 2003 the number began to grow by 1,000 a year and did not stop.

“Larry Bernstein is on a Campaign to Change the Statistics on Suicide (News & Observer 9/2016): ——- 20-year-old son committed suicide.  “There was nothing that sent up signals,” he said.  “I had no inkling.”  During 2016 there was some preliminary research ongoing on machine learning, which taps into huge databases to record stats about young people who committed suicide. 

If a young person’s personal data today match this pattern there are therapists available.  (The technique enables a computer to train itself.)

Remarriage does not help.  Young children of stepfamilies are no better off than in single-parent households.

Now to government policies.  No-fault divorce has weakened marriage, as it has made it an unenforceable contract.

By teaching sex education and distributing condoms, government convinces kids there is nothing wrong with pre- or extramarital sex.  The government bends over backward to provide more and more childcare, which weakens the parent-child bond.

Finally, political “leaders” treat marriage as trivial: they routinely break their vows without any guilt feelings.  They are undermining the morality of our society.

Today’s older parents often feel they must raise their children over again as they come back home with grisly stories of failed marriages and their kids getting into serious trouble.  Confused, the old folks wonder what has gone wrong with society since they were young.

Warren Hoover and his wife had this type of experience (six daughters; 3/1999 column): “The only way to convince your children that you love them and want the very best for them is to give them the most priceless asset you have, your time. 

“This truth is not a political issue, or a rights issue, nor will it ever meet the standards of political correctness, but it will produce loving and kind children who grow up to take their place as productive and caring members of the community.”

UP TO US: We can do something, and we will.  The job must be done through the bottom-up approach.  See Pocket Gofer 4.

With this approach as a guide we will find a way.  It is pointless to wait for Washington to do it for us, as politicians and bureaucrats can be counted on to get it wrong.

Debate will help us.  In this President Clinton was right on target.  But that is as far as it goes.

Democracy, when we have it, resides in communities and neighborhoods.  We can get it; see Pocket Gofers 16 and 20.

The storybook version of everlasting happiness emphasizes being loved.  That is fantasy.

The reality lies in the ability to give love.  We know we’re doing this when we start getting it back, often when we least expect it.

Children need discipline.  They expect this from their parents.  Nearly all feel like something is missing when they don’t receive it.

Bill O’Reilly could not pass on this one.  “When I see so many kids disobeying their parents in public places today, or even hitting them, I laugh out loud.  If I had acted anything like that, I would have ended up in traction.

“Would the neighbors complain?  Would the cops be called?  Right.  The neighbors would tell their kids to take a lesson from my condition and the cops would have treated Dad to a beer.”

When discipline is done with love, a child can appreciate its importance.  He/she does not fear the parent.  Rather, he fears what will surely happen the next time he screws up, and he adjusts his behavior accordingly.

We could avoid the following issue, but we promised ourselves at the beginning to let it all hang out so here goes.  Actually, we have “signed aboard” the Constitution of the United States of America, which emphasizes individual initiative and freedom of choice.  Therefore we have little flexibility in the following issue.

We are pro choice and pro life.  We are pro choice due to our belief in the Constitution.  We are pro life: the life of a poor 14-year-old girl who misbehaved with a boy for a few moments and finds herself pregnant.

She is far from properly equipped to raise a child, especially in view of the thoughts discussed here.  We are pro the lives of children who are wanted, loved, and raised right.

Finally, we are pro the taxpayer, who is tired of seeing his/her hard-earned money going toward ever more top-down, one-size-fits-all programs, and prisons.  Every crack baby costs us around $125,000, and that is just to get the poor little rascal clear of the hospital.  In prison, every lifer costs us $1 million.

We freely admit this is a sticky wicket, emotionally loaded and rightly so.  We respect opponents’ viewpoints and understand their arguments.

We found another insight in the Economist 1/4/1997: “Pro-lifers are wasting their efforts — laws changed — most of the population do not support.  Yet there is an alternative: to work with the grain of public opinion, accept that abortion will remain legal and campaign instead for more sensible sex education and better contraception.  In this they would be enthusiastically supported by pro-choicers: an unlikely alliance, but one that really could secure the reduction in abortions they claim to want.

“In the Netherlands, which is liberal on abortion and active in sex education, the abortion rate is lower than in almost all other western countries.”

This seems to make a batch of logical sense in an issue where this has been in short supply.  Also, in a democracy government’s purpose is to protect individual rights, not to infringe upon them.

We may soon find that the open society has stolen the issue from us (Pocket Gofer 5).  That is, we suspect that no force can stop free and wide distribution of the abortion pill RU-486 even if it is made illegal.  Other illegal drugs obviously have no distribution problem.

We all hope to establish a democracy everywhere in America, including among those less privileged.  This gofer attempts to show that in such an environment the extended family will again come together.  Geographical distance is today not the hindrance it was.  That done, improved communication and better schools will go a long way toward providing better guidance for the young, male and female.  See PG10.

AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON LEARNING: We note that we have not commented on young people who elect not to go to college.  We don’t mean to overlook these citizens, as they are making and will make valuable contributions to society.

The kicker here is that most young people complete high school today without an appreciation of the value in learning.  Hell, some of them can’t even read!  See Pocket Gofer 10 for some suggestions.

The objective is to instill in every young person an enjoyment of learning.  If we can do this they will at times that are right for them seize several of the myriad opportunities in continuing education that surround them.  College is but one of many resources.

In a hi-tech information society where continuing learning is so important and becoming more so we must focus on the best preparation.  Hence our guideline as written.

In the future blue-collar workers will remain vitally important.  Our purpose here is to motivate them to continue their learning too, and not necessarily in a formal learning environment such as a college.

Good companies today see the future in similar terms.  Therefore they will be offering additional learning opportunities to all employees, including those with collars of blue, white, pink, or any other color.  Pocket Gofer 10 shares details.

The Internet contains excellent potential as a learning tool.  The kicker here lies in the necessity for discrimination in its use.

This requires self-discipline, which grows out of self-insight.  This in turn evolves from learning.

In his book What Is Good? Grayling adds a heavy observation: “—– an individual who lives justly will know, as a result of reflecting on his life in order to make it balanced and harmonious, which pleasures are true pleasures, and in particular he will know that the pleasures of the mind far outweigh those of the body.”

CONCLUSION

In this pocket gofer we have offered some thoughts concerning the family in America and what might be done to keep it together in a turbulent society.  We conclude that if many of us in the future were to practice such variations on the theme as suits each of us the social environment could become less turbulent.

Some of us could move our lives beyond turbulent altogether.  The pursuit of happiness goes on thruout life, but it would be enhanced if a family could acquire the right mix of time, money, health, and love.

Management of time is primarily discussion among family members about assigning priorities to activities.  Managing money consists largely of long-range planning and self-discipline: It’s not what we earn but rather what we keep.

As for health, we should aim for a healthy mind, body, heart, and spirit.  Pocket Gofer 1 helps a reader to tailor a mix of these to suit him/herself and family.

As for love, St. Francis of Assisi’s famous prayer: “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek … to be loved … as to love …”  He knew that we receive love thru giving it without expectation of return.  (This can be difficult, but the rewards are infinite.)

We realize that these thoughts cannot apply to everyone.  However, if they turn out to be useful in guiding middle class young people others may see the results and be influenced.

Ninety percent of us respond to surveys by saying we are middle class.  This suggests that we might be off to a good start.

The generation gap would narrow, although we would be naive to believe it would be eliminated.  With less turbulence at home we could work better, parent better, love better, and contribute better to enhancing the lives of others.  We would become better at receiving through giving.  PG2 offers insights.

Sounds corny and idealistic, so maybe we’re not following our own advice: get real.  But someone real has to seize the initiative on this thing, lest it grow still worse.  A few risks taken on behalf of our children cannot be all bad.

In the last analysis, WHY NOT US?

Let’s think about it, and then organize a series of kaffee klatches to talk about it.  Invite men to participate.  Let’s keep our pocket gofers and mobile phones handy as guides and stimulants for discussion and debate.

While doing this we need to bear in mind that the government is not going to do anything constructive to save the family.  This is because, notwithstanding today’s politicians’ pronouncements on this issue, it cannot.  (But see how Pocket Gofer 20 paints a political landscape where public officials can help.)

If anything good is going to get done, IT’S GOTTA BE US.  We want it, for us and for our children.  We figure they are worth the effort.

……….. PUBLIUS II

Put this gofer in shirt pocket, near the heart.

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS THAT WE CAN DIG INTO,

DISCUSS, CRITICIZE AND ACT ON:

PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE U.S.A.

PG 11 – ON THE U.S. AS A WORLD CITIZEN

PG 12 – ON THE U.N. AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION