Economic Instability Set to Mother Ingenuity in the Minds of Our Children

Our recent economic "crisis," or as Adam Smith would purport, a "self-correcting" phase in the grand schematic, has interesting implications to the manner in which we raise our children. Throughout history, parenting styles have often reflected the attitudes and mores of the common economic phenomena. Think of the industrial revolution, when children were more-or-less trained to be independent, laborious-type contributors to society, ultimately accepting and utilizing a specific skill to conduct a trade. Or we consider in the 80's and 90's when business and technology began advancing at exponential rates. The result was a widening gap between underperforming children and those who could produce a desired mark or product. "Research demonstrated that, in the 80's, high parental expectations and criticism were related to socially-prescribed perfectionism. In many children, the flip-side result was related to higher levels of procrastination (Psychology Today, March 21, 2009)."

Bringing us up to date, we need to consider what is the prevailing attitude of our culture in the early 21st century? As we decode this philosophy, we can ascertain the way in which a majority of parents are raising their children. This is not easily communicated, as we can identify a sundry of perspectives trumpeted throughout this administrative milieu. I believe what exists is a sort of secular humanism, using reason, ethics, and justice for human, and subsequently economic achievement. This common thread of thinking either cultivates a well-intentioned subculture of positivity (either genuine or not), or it promotes a disillusioned outlook on reality.

Having seen my share of children in the short time I have been a professional, I can attest that there is little symmetry between the views of the parents I have spoken with in my career. However, I believe that there is a broadening perspective by child development experts and some of the highly effective parents I have met, that entails fostering the use of human reason, ethics, and justice, in raising children. Though my worldview does not align with the basic tenets of humanism, in its purest form, I believe this can be a highly constructive ethos to employ in parenting.

One particular reason why the use of reason and ethics can be beneficial in parenting, is that it refines distorted thinking. We are seeing the negative results of greed in the business world, and it certainly is not stopping. The housing market will be working to stabilize for years to come, formerly comfortable employees are stretched on their budgets, and need I mention gas prices? Yet, there are a growing number of people, many that only in the last ten years have left childhood, who are using their ingenuity to find niches in a receptive market. I think of the many young adults who are reusing materials to manufacture and sell the same commodities that were formerly monopolized by enormous companies. I also, recently read an article about a subculture of people who are operating their own free-range chicken farms in suburban and city neighborhoods to generate extra revenue by selling eggs, and indulging in the benefits of having their own yield. These are just two of many innovative enterprises redirecting our attention away from the ravenous ways of numerous big-businesses.

This is the kind of creativity that is burgeoning, as we retain an adequate outlook on human nature and our propensity to discover originality. As our attitude toward rediscovering the purpose of humanity plays out in the 21st century, we are bound to see children growing up with a sense of identity, meaning, and a longing for fulfilling professions. There are many players in our current administration that want to distract our children from what is important. But, like the few that are using our current crisis as a prescription for creative possibilities, there is an opportunity to watch children flourish with their ideas of how to combat destructive cultural philosophies.

Jay Richards, author of "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem," says of the entrepreneur:

"Unlike the self-absorbed, they anticipate the needs of others, even needs that no one else may have imagined. Unlike the impetuous, they make disciplined choices. Unlike the automaton, they freely discover new ways of creating and combining resources to meet the needs of others. This cluster of virtues, not the vice of greed, is the essence of what the Reverend Robert Sirico calls the ‘entrepreneurial vocation."

To retain this attitude for our culture, to blanket our children with this vision, is to empower them with a desire to fulfill their God-given purpose no matter what fiscal imperfections our society throws at them.

What Our Country's Current Attitude on Healthcare Teaches Our Children About Growing Up

I work in the Non-profit sector for my full-time occupation. I also have two other part-time jobs to pay the bills. One of those jobs, I work an additional ten hours per week on top of my required forty hours per week with my full-time job. I work this extra ten hours per week solely so that my wife and son can have decent insurance. I even took on a very part-time freelance writing gig to generate some more income. My wife is an independent contractor that has limited (and expensive) options for purchasing health/dental insurance for herself and my son. I write all of this to unfold a clearer tapestry of what has happened recently in terms of the security of my family and how it pertains to the manner in which our nation's attitude on healthcare is set up to hinder the motivations of our children.

The affordable insurance debate is profound, long-winded, and ultimately a timely one in the midst of a moderately unstable economy. It was much more rigorously debated during the first two years of Obama's Presidency, and has since been cushioned by some decent policies in response to the dyer situation of healthcare in our country. This whole scenario hit home two years ago, when I took a job at a Non-profit that offered a benefits package after six months of employment that was quite affordable to me, but bank-account-sucking to add my family. I made the decision to stay on the insurance and pursue other options for my wife and son. Inevitably, I was forced to choose between high-deductible/low premium or low deductible/high premium. I chose the latter, and it has done it's job.

Well, I recently was exposed to an insurance plan called MOHealthNet, an affordable health insurance initiative set forth by Obama's operatives. It is set up to provide "Missouri's low income and vulnerable citizens access to excellent health care in order to maximize their quality of life and independence." We are not a low income family, but nonetheless, I felt that not having access to decent healthcare benefits was in our range because of the nature of my work. I realize it would be easy to argue against this theory from a for-profit, significant-benefits-package perspective, so just keep quiet. Or provide a decent enough argument that trumps the truth that I only care about my family. More so, non-profit work has certainly stirred me to become more ingenuitive than most people with our budget.

I eventually began the process of attaining this wonderful insurance specifically for my son, because we made too much (we certainly don't make too much) to have both my wife and son on this insurance. After sorting through heaps of paperwork, turning in the required documentation to prove our moderate, lower-middle-class income, and waiting to hear the response, it ended up being a dissappointing "no," for none other than this reason: my son currently had insurance! Talk about irony. Forget the idea that it was expensive (on my budget), high deductible, limited health insurance and I have another job just to pay for it.

This is the state of current healthcare. In hopes of counteracting the revenue-dominating forces of the medical industry, our policies have made health insurance free to many who choose to not engage themselves in gainful employment and have cable/phone bills higher than my mortgage payment. In addition, the many who strive to achieve in life, are diligent at sorting through the details of budgeting, and simply want to narrow the gap between costly medical care and family needs, are left to navigate through the mucky waters of what to buy and how effective it will be when health concerns actually arise.

There is undoubtedly a subset of culture that are granted good family group insurance through companies that can afford it. There is a subset that does not have any health insurance for their family, either by choice or by misfortune. There are several spots in-between where myself and many others reside, where insurance is a maze of considering the unlikely traumas, not wanting to pay for them, but not being able to afford solid enough insurance to pay for minimal concerns.

My focus in writing this blog was about the prevailing unbalanced attitude of the majority of Americans regarding affordable healthcare. I am not an expert on the subject, but what I do know is how attitudes perpetuate encouragement or enablement. It is not to say that I deserve a break, or that others should get their acts together, but rather, effective judgment on matters of what is best for people considers the plight of the people. We do not remove mercy from those who choose to not work and have their bills paid for, but we do remove support as the just father and mother nudge their young out of the nest so they can choose to fly. Needless to say since pursuing MOHealthNet, I have had discussions with several people expressing to me that they are aware of many others, including friends, who do not work, have not worked in some time, and are sitting comfortably with some of the best insurance possible to use at their leisure. This upsets me. Not simply because I am impacted by it, but more so because the children who sit under the care of the individuals that reap unjust rewards from the government glean nothing. The children are to be taken care of as they are incapable of caring for themselves, but not by direct entitlement to the immature lifestyles of their guardians.

Summarily, I of course never forget the flipside. It is more effective to criticize the greedy. Their lessons are more easily learned, it is the poor on whom we show much mercy; just not at the expense of practical enlightenment.

Good, Old-Fashioned, Mud-pie and Stick Play

A recent story was run in 2008 regarding the evolution of children's play since the first toy ad outside of the Christmas season. The "Thunder Burp," a toy constructed by Mattel, was introduced through an advertisement during an October 3, 1955 Mickey Mouse Club episode. What has occurred since then is a transition of children improvising their own play prior to the 50's, to present-day play focused often singularly on a specific toy. The story gave this example:

"During the second half of the 20th century... play changed radically.... Children were supplied with ever more specific toys for play and predetermined scripts. Essentially, instead of playing pirate with a tree branch, they played Star Wars with a toy light saber...."

Psychologists and child development experts believe the most formative and meaningful play for children is centered on their own initiative and emotional regulation. Experts believe that sustainable development happens when children are given specific rules regarding safety and socialization, and then are allowed freedom to explore and create with limited adult intervention, less safety rules are being broken. With this type of play we see children initiating interactions with others and the world around them in an unencumbered fashion. They learn through this exploration in make believe in myriad educational domains (social, intellectual, affective regulation).

A fascinating piece in this story also included the effect that psychologists believe that play, focused upon particular objects (light sabers, toys that represent mainstream media figures, etc.) are actually undermining the executive functioning of the brain, subsequently changing kids' developmental capacities.

"A growing number of psychologists believe that these changes in what children do has also changed kids' cognitive and emotional development. It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline."

The story continues...

"We know that children's capacity for self-regulation has diminished. A recent study replicated a study of self-regulation first done in the late 1940s, in which psychological researchers asked kids ages 3, 5, and 7 to do a number of exercises. One of those exercises included standing perfectly still without moving. The 3-year-olds couldn't stand still at all, the 5-year-olds could do it for about three minutes, and the 7-year-olds could stand pretty much as long as the researchers asked. In 2001, researchers repeated this experiment... but the results were very different. Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago..."

It is fascinating to me that we have seen a slow regression in children's ability to regulate themselves since the ever-so-slight introduction of toys into mainstream media. We have to take a step back, evaluate where we want our children to be, not simply intellectually, but also socially and emotionally, in the next 50 years. No doubt they will be exposed to more intellectually stimulating activities and materials, but at what cost to the rest of their precious souls?