Opportunity Knocks #55- Unpacking American Indifference to Child Wellbeing (Part 5) - The Economic and Moral Cases for Overcoming Indifference to Kids
Every Monday, I share reflections, ideas, questions, and content suggestions focused on championing, building, and accelerating opportunity for children.
In Part 1 of this series, we explored the broad theme of indifference toward child wellbeing. In Part 2, we defined indifference, evaluated its underlying causes, and illustrated the prevalence of these causes through examples from history, philosophy, literature, and science. In Part 3, we turned to Indian Boarding Schools the first of two case studies of demonstrable indifference to child wellbeing, examining whether these instances are bugs or features of American culture, and beginning to explore what lessons we can learn to manage indifference to child wellbeing. In Part 4, we consider the case of the Texas foster care system. Today, we consider the economic and moral cases for overcoming indifference to children.
Continuing from my comments last week, here’s what I think Scott Galloway gets wrong in his recent TED Talk: We love our own children, but we don’t love other people’s children. Over the next few weeks and months, I will offer practical strategies to attempt to manage this indifference. These strategies will focus on individual commitments and actions to value every child's welfare, community education, and non-obvious policy ideas for the benefit of all children. First, I want to present the economic and moral cases for why we should take these strategies seriously.
The Economic Case
There are economic returns associated with specific public investments in children and there are costs associated with not making public investments in children. Let’s unpack both.
Returns
Research has consistently shown that public investments in children—specifically direct investments focused on health, early care and education, and high school graduation—can yield meaningful short-term benefits for participating children and their families. Investments targeting adults with spillover effects to children, can also contribute to social returns. Over the long term, these investments can lead to healthier, more educated, and more productive adults. Additionally, they can lead to savings in spending on criminal justice, healthcare, and social services for adults, and in some cases even pay for their initial cost.
However, there is nuance that shouldn’t be overlooked. Child development is multifaceted, program design and replication is difficult, and numerous variables can influence the cost-effectiveness of interventions. For instance, one of the most influential models to explain social returns on public investment in children is the Heckman Curve, which basically argues that the rate of social return on public investments diminishes as a child ages, with the highest returns coming in the first ~1,000 days of a child’s life. And while there is evidence supporting this model, there is also recent research that suggests this formula doesn’t apply universally. That doesn’t mean that investments in kids ages 0-5 don’t pay off, it just means there may be parity between 0-5 investments and those focused on older children.
But the bottom line is that spending money now to prevent future social challenges, which are hard to manage and costly to fix, makes good economic sense.
Costs
Research has also confirmed that not investing in children and their families is associated with significant social cost burdens. For instance, child poverty has long-term costs including reductions in economic productivity, rising costs of crime, and rising healthcare expenditures. Gaps in childcare create hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic productivity annually. And research confirms that restricting Medicaid access is associated with increased health problems that are more likely to lead to hospitalization.
The Moral Case
Caring about and investing in the wellbeing of all children aligns with various religious and philosophical frameworks that emphasize compassion, community responsibility, and the intrinsic value of every individual. There is also a strong argument that it is our responsibility as parents to instill this ethic in our own children (and it’s good for them).
Religion
Many religious texts emphasize caring for vulnerable children as a requirement for a functioning community.
Christianity: “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14).
Islam: "and give food—despite their desire for it—to the poor, the orphan, and the captive" (Qur'an 76:8).
Judaism:"Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless" (Exodus 22:22).
Len M. Nichols make the moral case for caring about kids through the universal idea of the “stranger” that often shows up in religious texts:
So what was the basis of the stranger’s claim on scarce food resources? Every human being was believed to have been created in the image of God, and every human being had aright to participate in the life of the community True participation requires a more vibrant form of life than abject poverty. At the time our monotheistic scriptures were written, food was the only commodity one human being could give another that would guarantee life. As Isaiah is interpreted to have meant, what good is mere physical survival if we forget our covenant to live according to God’s just laws? Justice clearly compelled the “haves” to make sure that the “have-nots” did not starve, for such a preventable death was simply unacceptable then. So it is in our time, for the one thing we Americans guarantee to all who want is food to eat—through food stamps, food banks, soup kitchens, and so forth. I submit that our unshakeable commitment to avoiding noticeable starvation comes from our unspoken but unbroken allegiance to this requirement of justice laid down in many traditions long ago.
Philosophy
Many philosophical arguments strongly support the moral imperative to care for all children, regardless of where the philosopher existed on the ideological spectrum. Here are a few examples:
The American political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed a theory of justice based on the idea of fairness. According to Rawls, a just society is structured so that the are greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). Children, being among the most vulnerable groups, should receive special consideration under this principle. Rawls' theory implies that just social policies must prioritize the wellbeing and life prospects of all children, particularly those that are disadvantaged. This includes ensuring that all children, regardless of circumstances, have access to the resources, opportunities, and social conditions they need to thrive.
Edmund Burke (1730-1797) didn’t explicitly discuss a "social contract" in the manner of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke or Rousseau, but his writings did convey the idea that society is an enduring partnership across generations—a "contract" of sorts between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born. And, although Burke did not explicitly address children's wellbeing, his philosophy implies a strong moral obligation to nurture and protect the youngest members of society. As future inheritors of a community's traditions, children represent the vital link to preserving that community's stability and longevity.
Parental Responsibility
When we had kids, I really tried to stop judging how other parents parent. If this instinct doesn’t hit you immediately as a new parent, it will the first time you step on a plane with a rambunctious toddler. Sometimes, parents are just doing what they have to do to survive, and no one deserves judgment for that. However, the one area where I have found it hard to give ground is in caring about other kids because doing so doesn’t negatively impact my girls. In fact, it’s positive. It models empathy and caring, demonstrating a core value we are trying to instill in them—intentional kindness as a way of life. No judgement here, but if you don’t have skin in the game when it comes to caring about the well-being of other people’s kids, you may be doing your own a disservice.
Until next week, be calm and be kind,
Andrew