Have the ‘Ruling Classes’ Failed American Families?

A fixture of conservative economic thought for decades has been that free trade and market liberalization would, at least in the long term, improve the economic status of all. This view, however, has come under increasing criticism by economists and other experts.

One such expert recently voiced his opinion that “in recent decades, government and corporate leaders have made choices on trade and technology, education and welfare, that often benefited their economic or social standing but undercut ordinary American families.”

W. Bradford Wilcox, a Senior Fellow with the Institute for Family Studies and a Visiting Scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, spoke January 27 at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois on the policy effects upon the strength of the family within the United States.

Wilcox opened his address by decrying the efforts of the Clinton administration to normalize trade relations with China. Americans were promised, Wilcox recited, that “free trade with China would advance economic freedom, have a profound impact on human rights and political liberty in China, and most importantly…foster a future of greater prosperity for the American people.” According to Wilcox, however, “in retrospect, Clinton’s promises ring hollow.”

This is because trade normalization led to what MIT economist David Autor has termed the “China Trade Shock,” a description for the phenomenon whereby “more than two million Americans were thrown out of work” following the opening of trade relations. Autor’s proposed shock, Wilcox noted, “had particularly negative impacts on the labor market prospects of men…diminishing their relative earnings.” 

Wilcox found the disproportionate effects of the trade shock on men to be particularly concerning. “We know sociologically…that men who are not stably employed in decent paying jobs are less attractive as potential husbands, and more likely to land in divorce court.” For Wilcox, this all boiled down to the idea that “more trade with China meant less marriage, fewer kids, and a dwindling prospect for attaining the American dream for millions of working and middle-class families across America.”

For Wilcox, the fallout of trade with China was only one data point illustrating the systematic undermining of the American family that has ensued in recent history. That families have been left behind is evident, per Wilcox, based on data showing both that America is “now at the lowest marriage rate that we’ve ever had historically,” as well as that the United States’ fertility rate is at “1.64 babies per woman on average – our lowest rate ever in American history.”

Wilcox also bemoaned the falling salience of men in the country. According to data he provided, “the percent of men in their prime working years, ages 25 to 54, who are not working full-time has more than doubled from 8% in 1970 to about one in five today.” Among the culprits Wilcox identified included “big education,” who, he said, fail “to do…their best work with boys and men,” as well as “the structure of government benefits” which penalizes “work for too many young and middle-aged men.”

Wilcox stated that the assumptions of both parties were to blame. Amidst a raging debate within conservatism and the economic policies it should embrace, Wilcox acknowledged that Republicans “often talk a good game on family life.” But, he said, “when it comes to…public policies that would help families,” they have often failed to deliver. Regarding a scrapped provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to enhance the child tax credit (CTC), Wilcox stated that “for too many Republicans in this case, big business or the free market…took precedence over the welfare of ordinary families.”

According to Wilcox, Democrats have not done much better. Democrats, Wilcox believes, are too constrained by what Wilcox calls “statism” and “workism.” “By statism,” Wilcox described, “what I mean is…a temptation…to take functions and authority that have classically been given over to the family and to pass them over to the state.” As for workism, Wilcox noted that Democrats often believe that “the sort of ideal family model for American parents is one where both parents are working.”

In terms of solutions, Wilcox endorsed the viewpoint of U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters (R-AZ), particularly his calls for the ability “to raise a family on one single income.” Wilcox identified five other solutions he called attention to as well, including proposals to “defund college and refund vocational education,” and “eliminate marriage penalties.” Wilcox also offered the idea of enacting “a wage subsidy,” where the government would “target an hourly wage that’s close to the median wage in the nation or in different regions and then…subsidize the difference between that wage and the market wage for lower-income workers.”

Besides this, Wilcox also stated that school choice was reserved “largely for the rich,” and that efforts should be made to expand this to children from families of all incomes. Finally, he promoted a process known as the “Success Sequence,” a term coined by Brookings Institution fellows Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins. Research suggests that those who follow the sequence by earning at least a high school degree and then working full-time and marrying before having kids reduces one’s “odds of being poor” to “just about three percent.”

Still, not all in the audience were convinced by the economic nature of the argument laid out by Wilcox. Dr. Bryan McGraw, the Dean of Social Sciences at Wheaton College, who moderated the Q&A session after the talk, asked Wilcox how sure he was of the “relative impact of these…economic changes versus” more broadly “cultural changes,” including in areas of “sexual norms, in family…priorities, and so on?” Others voiced concern about the already-spiraling economic debt of the federal government, and how Wilcox’s proposals would factor into that phenomenon.

It may be the case that absolute economic liberalization and strong family stability will prove to be mutually exclusive goods. In the years to come, conservatives may have to make the choice to prioritize one over the other. And for those more prone to forms of social conservatism, Wilcox presents a compelling narrative and offers meaningful solutions on behalf of American families.