Exercises in Narcissism

In the midst of nationwide protests over inequality, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, released a study arguing that most poor people in the United States shouldn’t actually be considered poor. Without offering a formal definition of poverty, they claim that Americans view poverty as deprivation in three things—food, clothing, and shelter—and by that standard, current poverty statistics grossly exaggerate the severity of living conditions. They point out that many poor people own consumer electric products and even cars, suggesting that the poor suffer from, amongst other things, a weak work ethic as a result of welfare policies. First off, while the notion that poor people use welfare programs to enjoy the accoutrements of a middle class lifestyle fits in neatly to the “welfare queen” trope that has been used to justify cuts in public transfers to poor people, it is far from reality. The latest Consumer Expenditure Survey tells a radically different tale: The poorest 20 percent of Americans spend much less than the average American on every category of spending, including alcohol (37 percent of what the average American spends), entertainment (41 percent), housing (52 percent), food (54 percent), audio/visual equipment (56 percent), and education (59 percent). Overall, expenditures of the poorest group are just 44 percent as high as the average American. Even that low level of spending is twice as high as their after-tax earnings, suggesting it is funded by borrowing, savings, and government transfers.

greenstate:

srslylauren:

UK is #13.

from HuffPo:

The scores were determined by measuring seven indicators for women in each developed country: risk of maternal death, how many women use modern contraception, life expectancy, years of schooling, maternity leave benefits, how much women earn as compared to men and the percentage of women in government. The study also measured three indicators for children: primary and secondary school enrollment numbers and childhood mortality rates in each country.

There are several areas where the U.S. does particularly poorly — explaining why American moms might not quite be living the American Dream:—

We have one of the highest maternal mortality rates of any industrialized country — 1 in 1,200 to be exact. Only three “more developed” countries ranked worse on this indicator.—

The under-five child mortality rate in the U.S. is eight in 1,000 births, meaning that an American baby is more than twice as likely to die before reaching five than in Finland, Norway, Slovenia, Greece, Sweden, Luxembourg, Japan, Singapore and Iceland.—

Forty-two percent of American children aren’t enrolled in preschool, making us the developed nation with the fifth-lowest rates of enrollment.

Perhaps the most “Wait, did I read that right?” stat — the United States is the only nation in the developed world that doesn’t have federally-required maternity leave. Couple that with findings that the average leave American women get is shorter and less likely to be covered by her employer than in any other “wealthy” nation, and it becomes clear how much work we have to do on behalf of mothers.

one of the most common questions i get as an american living abroad is the ‘wait, i heard in america you guys don’t have annual leave or maternity leave, is that REALLY true?’ people don’t want to believe that, they assume it’s a weird rumor that somehow got lost in a bad game of telephone. but it’s true. america just doesn’t care about its people. and study after study proves it. 

It’s ridiculous. With conservatives who love to rail on about “family values”, you’d think we’d have some federal protections for (at least) moms out there, if not both parents. It scares me to think about my future as a gay dad. I’m glad I may be working for a church that understands and supports LGBT people and parental leave, but even that isn’t certain. Parental leave should be for both parents, required, and paid. Families, however they are made, are more important than profits.

(Source: oh-hello-lauren)

IN this verdant lawn-filled college town, most people keep their lawn mowers tuned up by oiling the motor and sharpening the blades. Eddie Miller keeps his in shape with salt licks and shearing scissors.

Mr. Miller, 23, is the founder of Heritage Lawn Mowing, a company that rents out sheep — yes, sheep — as a landscaping aid. For a small fee, Mr. Miller, whose official job title is “shepherd,” brings his ovine squad to the yards of area homeowners, where the sheep spend anywhere from three hours to several days grazing on grass, weeds and dandelions.

Small farmers get a bad press: developing country governments often see them as a throwback, and hanker after the glitter of modernity that surrounds large-scale investment in biofuels or export crops. Aid agencies and donor governments with more money than staff prefer the scale the big farms can offer. But there are at least two good reasons why, when it comes to agriculture, small is still beautiful.