S1: Welcome to KPBS Midday Edition. On today's show , a progress report on guaranteed income programs , plus a look at the pay gap working mothers experience. I'm Jade Hindman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and make you think. We'll talk with Jewish Family Service about their guaranteed income programs.
S2: This is something that allows people to breathe and actually plan for the next steps. And people are out here having to live on a day to day basis.
S1: The no strings attached programs to move people out of poverty and into building wealth. Also the challenges working mothers face in getting equal pay. That's ahead on Midday Edition. And. Direct cash payments , no strings attached. That's the guiding principle behind a series of guaranteed income programs run by San Diego nonprofit Jewish Family Service. A new report shares early findings of those programs. Joining me now to unpack the details is Kia Pollard. She's director of economic mobility and opportunity at Jewish Family Service Kia. Always a pleasure to have you on the show.
S2: Oh thank you. It's always a pleasure to join you all.
S1: Well , before we get into the specifics of your program , I'm wondering if you could lay out the concept for me.
S2: And I think it's really important to start by saying that Jewish family service , we do cash transfer as well as guaranteed income , and there's only a few distinct differences between the two. Direct cash is the foundational component of both approaches. But guaranteed income really is that guaranteed payment on a monthly basis for whatever sum is determined for that particular population. And it's really meant to create a stable foundation and a stepping stone for people who really , really need it in our county and our community. And our programs are specifically targeted to serve very low income families here in San Diego County.
S1:
S2: Um , rent is , you know , a a cost that folks speak most often about , but also just the general cost of getting by , you know , food and things for their household and all the , you know , the , the supports that a family might need. And so we're serving people all throughout San Diego County. We're serving 39 zip codes throughout the county and all of our various programs.
S1: Well , give me the details of the guaranteed income programs you've been running. I mean , how many families have you served and what do the cash payments look like ? Absolutely.
S2: We have a few programs that we've run , so I'll go down the list. Our first program was the San Diego for Every Child Guaranteed Income program , and that was partnered with mayors for a Guaranteed Income. We've got a randomized control trial that is spearheaded by the center for Guaranteed Income Research , and that particular program is one of many across the nation that are focused on guaranteed income. And we ended that program in February. The last payment was out February of this year , and we served 150 families in four zip codes in San Diego County. Um , and that was our first look at low income families with children. Um , and we invested $1.8 million directly given to participants , um , in four zip codes and Canto Paradise hills National city , Sonya cedro. Um , and we know , you know , these zip codes are zip codes where there is a high rate of child poverty , there are high rates of historically high rates of unemployment , food insecurity , all of these indicators that would suggest that a modest guarantee of some income for these families would really support them.
S1: And these are systemic issues in these communities.
S2: Yes , we we know that these particular census tracks have all of these intersecting indicators , and these families are simply getting by , you know , on very little the median income for our participants , there is $20,000 , 20,576 to be exact , and that is way below the Ami. The area median income for a family of four , um , in San Diego County , which is $45,000. And so we see a huge gap even with the federal poverty level. Um , for a family of four , it's 31,000. So , um , we know that these families are just making it and this little bit of income to get them to the next level or have them be stable , um , is really the goal for that program. It doesn't solve poverty. Right ? We still have so many , um , systemic issues , as you stated , um , to address. But this is something that allows people to breathe and actually plan for the next steps. Um , and people are out here having to live on a day to day basis. So that's what we're here to do.
S1: Well , the second program is the Recovery Action Fund for tomorrow. Tell me about the goals of that. And also I want to hear about the Family Income for empowerment program , which supports families who are at risk of entering the foster care system.
S2: Yeah , absolutely. The Recovery Action Fund for tomorrow was really a partnership , a decisive one with the county of San Diego. Um , they directed that direct supports were needed , um , post-Covid , you know , as the height of it Covid pandemic specifically and in 2020 happened. Um , and then there's an aftermath where people have lost jobs , you know , they've had to move or have some volatility in their personal situation as a result. Um , of everything that happened with the closures and the shutdowns and layoffs , things , things that happened during that period. So the directive was to support those families directly and look at families with children , um , look at seniors who already survive on very little. Many , many seniors in our community and see what we could do if we infused a one time amount of $4,000 of cash to those families , and our target was 2243 families that we served families and older adults. And we looked at 39 health equity zip codes , which is data driven , evidence based , um , targeting for those , again , those very specific census tracts that have highly vulnerable um families and seniors in inside of them. So that was a program that ran for one year from the start of design and implementation to dispersing the funds , and now is in the evaluation phase. And our hopes for that was that folks would really take that money and spend it. What on what they needed to spend it. We knew that families were struggling with debt. You know , folks were putting things on their credit cards just to get by , you know , and maintain stable Housing and really just basic needs. As we see across all of our programs , people need food , people need shelter , they need transportation. They need to be able to buy those household supplies. So we expected and we saw folks spend the money on that.
S1: All right.
S2: And this program is really , really important , really important to me to , um , our partners at the county who are working really hard to make sure that this program started and that we were really advancing this approach to supporting families who have been referred to child welfare services. Um , it's the first of its kind. Uh , we are one of a handful , maybe six or so , um , communities across the nation who are really looking at concrete supports as one tool and evidence based tool , um , building evidence through this program for concrete supports being cash directly to families. And so that program is serving. It's going to serve hopefully by the end of this month because enrollment is still going. 452 families. Um , is our goal serving them for 24 months. So that's two years , $500 per month. Um , and this is to really address the root causes of neglect , which about 41% of families are referred for neglect to the child welfare services hotline. So really digging into that and saying , okay , what's the cause of that neglect ? You know , is it that people don't have adequate shelter ? Do they not get the medical care that they need so their child is showing up without that appropriate care to school , and that's why they're being reported. Is it clothing like what are these families in need of that really has , you know , the the mandated report coming in and addressing that first so that the families don't return. Um , we select families specifically that have a high likelihood , a moderate to high likelihood of returning to child welfare services. And we say , let's work a little further upstream to get you the supports that you need so that you can stay. Family can be strengthened. That's really the goal. And long term , because this is a randomized controlled trial , we have a treatment group and a control group. And studying this very closely to understand whether we can get this as a cleared practice nationally to really just isolate concrete supports or cash direct cash supports to families as an evidence based practice that we can utilize moving forward for some of that federal funding.
S1: And then a fourth program of yours is still in the planning stage. It's called the Black Women's Resilience Project.
S2: And , um , this Black Women's Resilience project is the culmination of all of the portfolio of work that we've had the honor to lead and implement. Um , and it's really looking at black women , black women , caretakers , um , in zip codes throughout San Diego County. It's led by black women , and it's being designed to provide $1,000 on a monthly basis for 18 months to cohorts of black women who identify as caretakers , um , folks who care for children , folks who are part of a sandwich generation , we like to call it , where there might be children , but there might also be older adults , because we know that a lot of women are providing that type of domestic care , and that's often not compensated or not compensated at an amount that will allow them to survive , particularly in this county. So we're looking at that guaranteed income piece , but we're also adding and drilling down more deeply into what other services are needed so that a family can not only sustain , but also elevate you know , their status , truly mobilize economically. And we're looking at the social capital. The community building , how families make meaning of their experience , both in the program and outside of it , and really build those connections with each other. And then looking at health , how do we connect them to the right types of care at the right time , and make sure they are stewarded through that process in a really caring and nurturing way ? Um , and then civic engagement and belonging. So how do we activate people to be engaged in their communities ? You know , how do we start to shift narratives about women who are experiencing poverty or financial hardship ? All of these domains are key to really understanding what types of guaranteed income would be good for women of color and just general community , because if we can do it for this community that has persistent wealth and health disparities. We can do it for others.
S1: All right. And I want to hear more about the findings of the programs you outlined in general.
S2: But it's so interesting to see that , you know , the top three categories are the same. Um , food and groceries , our number one for families in these programs. And again , they're low income families , some of which are extremely low income families. Um , all of us need to eat. And what's even more interesting is that the vast majority of our families , particularly for the Family Income for Empowerment movement , are already on call fresh. You know , they're already receiving receiving that supplemental support for the food specifically. So to still be spending on food , I mean , that tells us something , right , for analysis in that there's a need even above that supplemental support that guaranteed income or cash supports can provide. And so we see that across programs , even for raft , which was a $4,000 , one time payment , and we saw folks were spending was about 30% , um , most often purchase food and groceries. But for that program specifically , and what part of our intent was and hope was that people would spend some of that on their housing stability and making sure that , you know , they had stable housing , whatever that accommodation was. Um , and we noticed that the highest average transaction amount went for housing for that program. So if people do have $4,000 to spend , a lot of that money could go toward housing the the average transaction spend on that was $806. So if folks do have it , they will spend it , you know , appropriately to meet , you know , the needs of their household.
S1: Coming up next , we'll continue our conversation with how the perception around guaranteed income is shifting.
S2: This unconditionally is a real departure from from a stance that says , hey , you know , we have to place conditions and strings on what you receive. We really embrace and elevate the element of trust.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition I'm Jade Hindman. On today's show , we're discussing the findings of several guaranteed income programs run by San Diego nonprofit Jewish Family Service. I'm speaking now with Kiya Pollard. She's the director of economic mobility and Opportunity. And one thing I want to hear more about is the no strings attached idea of your program. I mean , it's something really unique to your service.
S2: Thank you. Um , it's it's actually the question. Right. You know , there are all kinds of conditional cash supports that already exist. You know , between Cal , AME and , you know , behavioral health supports. There's cash components in there , or Caniff or Cal Works in California that have specific cash components that can be given to families , um , but has work requirements attached to that. And , you know , the big question is whether or not those things are effective. Um , and generally just the program itself aside , you know , does the attachment of conditions actually inspire people to do their best work or to find their best job and actually craft , you know , the the life that they envision for themselves ? Or does it not ? You know , and that's what I believe the nation is , is , is analyzing now. And it's really interesting to see that conversation re-emerge with guaranteed income , because guaranteed income is not a new term. It's been around for a few decades , right ? Even before Andrew Yang and all the others. But there , you know , there were folks talking about the need to have a social safety net that people cannot fall through , you know , to withstand any volatility in the markets. And we're seeing that volatility now. And these programs are coming back. You know. And so this unconditionally is a real departure from from a stance that says , hey , you know , we have to place conditions and strings on what you receive. We really embrace and elevate the element of trust and know that families who are truly in need use the money for the things that they really need , and we see it time and time again , not only with our programs , but across our country at this point and the globe , actually. Right.
S1: Right. Well , and I was going to ask you about that. I mean , are there other countries , um , where this type of safety net program is working and thriving for people ? Yeah.
S2: I mean , people talk a lot about the Alaska Permanent Dividend. It's a fund where every Alaska resident gets a certain amount of money and it's taxed. You know , the general population is taxed in order for folks to receive that permanent dividend stipend. And there are actually I mean , we don't even have to go out of the country. and it might even be more useful to talk about the States. But you know that just for apples to apples and so forth. But Alaska's been doing it right for years and years and years , at least a few decades now. And , um , Oregon is actually looking at a rebate that's really promising. Um , going on the ballot. That is a tax as well to corporations. So it's a very small tax in comparison to the profits of what corporations get on an annual basis. But it would go towards every resident in Oregon , and it's going on the ballot very soon this year. And so people are having these conversations even in our own backyard. Right. Oregon's not far. Alaska's not too far. It's in our country. Right. And there are other countries who have tested a lot of conditional cash supports and other places who are testing unconditional cash as well. And those are ongoing studies. Um , and much like ours , we still have a few years out to really assess the end result of these programs. But what we do know now is what folks are doing with it now and how it supporting not only through the quantitative data but also the qualitative data. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Well , even though you know there's data and there's , you know , programs that have been tested and found success like yours , what do you say , how do you respond to push back against these guaranteed income programs.
S2: That's a question of the times isn't it. Um , there's so many different things that people can say about it. So I think in order to appropriately respond to that pushback , I'd have to know , number one , what's at the foundation of it ? You know , if if , like many times , it's this idea that folks are not going to do what they need to do with the money , we've already debunked that. Um , if it's Fits because we feel that , um , employment programs are more successful. There's already data that shows that the work conditions don't really have measurable impact over a course of time. We've already had and tried a lot of the things that people are , uh , rebutting and or answering guaranteed income with suspicion. And so it's it's a very interesting conversation because some of it is just really not founded in some of the facts and the data that we are seeing. And some of it just comes down to ideology and personal belief , and those kinds of things are the most challenging , um , pieces of , of information to untangle , because we'd have to know , you know , what those things are. And that's why we emphasize narrative change as a core component of all of our programs. Meaning we allow the participants space not only to connect with each other socially , but also examine the stereotypes , the tropes , the ideas that they hold in their own community. So there's an internal aspect , but there's also a vigilance and perspective from the outside on these communities. And so part of our charge with guaranteed income is to demonstrate that folks that we're serving are us. They are just like us. You know , they have similar needs , and we need to start seeing them that way and , and shifting our service delivery to match that. Mhm.
S3: Mhm. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. I mean well in on narrative change , you're also hosting a series of community conversations and , and narrative change cohorts as you organize these programs. Tell me more about that push to really shift attitudes around these issues.
S2: That is really , really important to us. Um , when we do , first of all , we design our narrative change opportunities. It's really thinking about what are the core aspects of the program that one we want to know more about , you know , people's experience with and to what else are we missing ? You know , when we're thinking about administering direct cash , um , what are the gaps in our own knowledge ? What are our limitations in terms of what people use it for ? Yes , but also what it means to them to receive cash and just be trusted to spend it right and be able to spend it in a timely way. Um , and what what of course , the impact is , you know , on receiving that particular amount of money , whether it's $500 or $4000. You know , those attitudes are going to vary greatly when we start digging in there and talking to families. And so we learn about the programs , but we also learn about the gaps , and we learn that people , oh , we're already using public benefits to a high degree , but we're also leveraging community resources. There are so many of our participants who are connected to other organizations , community based organizations that are filling those gaps for child care. You know , there are friends and family who are caretaking for children. And these are these are very fine pieces of information that you wouldn't pick up , you know , if you just looked at the numbers. And so that's it's really the point is to understand what's the everyday experience of people , what's lacking that we can support with one , because Jewish family service , we have a lot of other programs that families can can take part in. But also once we understand those needs , what are the opportunities for us to elevate these stories so that some of the structural barriers can be addressed ? Because some of these things around housing , we know it's a big issue , and we know that we're not going to be the ones to solve that issue alone. Right. And not even a guaranteed income payment can do that. So who do we need to partner with ? Who do we need to talk to about some of those barriers that that folks are bringing to these conversations. And so we structure the conversations to occur in community. Um , typically they're on a quarterly basis. And , you know , we invite the participants to most of them , um , all of them , um , and then some others we open out to the public. So we did a we did a few of those already this year. And we have , you know , a whole schedule to keep for the rest of the year.
S3: All right.
S1:
S2: Um , there was a woman named Sandra who is amazing and brilliant And who started her own business. Um , she invested in herself when we gave her that guaranteed income as part of our first program. Um , she was actually one of our narrative change cohort leaders. Um , she was interviewed , and in her interview , she told us she became an entrepreneur. She started her business and has wanted to do that for a while. But this cushion , this guaranteed income , allowed her to plan even as she was switching jobs and her income expanded and it decreased , she expanded her family , right. She had a lot going on. Um , as we all do , um , in life. But she was still able to set aside something for herself and do something that she wanted to do. Um , that has her feeling fulfilled. That was an amazing story. Um , from the UT , um , that came out recently. Um , but also just hearing from participants who were in very dangerous , actually dangerous Situations , whether it's housing instability or it's domestic violence. You know , sharing their stories and being completely brave and brave and courageous to do that. But talking about , you know , the the infusion of cash allowed them freedom and the opportunity to choose something different , because if they didn't have that and they didn't have that flexibility , you know , it's it's harder for them to escape a situation that might not be healthy , um , might not be generative for them. And so I've heard a number of the folks who have been in domestic violence situations or circumstances leveraging the guaranteed income or the one time payment , um , to move into safer , um , healthier circumstances. So I love these qualitative , um , data captures , um , as part of narrative change. And I think it's going to be a huge part of what helps guaranteed income come to fruition as a policy. Wow.
S3: Wow.
S1: It really is a lifeline for so many people. I've been speaking with Kia Pollard , director of economic mobility and opportunity at Jewish Family Service. Kia , as always , thank you so much for joining us.
S2: Thank you so much for having me.
S1: Still ahead , the systemic problems creating a wage gap for working mothers.
S4: I think it's really hard to ask individuals to bear this burden solely alone and as individuals , and navigate a system that is pretty unsupportive of mothers and children.
S1: KPBS Midday Edition returns after the break. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Mom's payday was recognized earlier this month on August 7th. And that reminds us that on average , working mothers earn about $0.63 to every dollar paid to fathers for single mothers care responsibilities. Widen that pay gap even further. Joining me now is Professor Linda Beal. She's a political science professor at Point Loma Nazarene University who studied this issue extensively. Professor , welcome to the show.
S4: Thank you so much. It's great to be here.
S1: It's great to have you. So let's start with the overall gender pay gap. I mean , it's existed for a long time , but there has been some progress made over the years in closing that gap. Right ? Absolutely.
S4: We really started measuring this and noticing it in the late 1960s , early 1970s , when it was about $0.59 , that full time working women earn to every dollar that full time working men earned. And so throughout the 70s and 80s and into the 90s , that pay gap closed by about half. But ever since , sort of the mid to late 90s , we've been hovering right around $0.80 to every dollar that men earn in the workforce. And so we've really had a hard time over the last 25 , 30 years. In closing that gap any further , it's still stuck at that level of about 80%. Wow.
S1: Wow.
S4: So Latino women earn about $0.54 on the dollar full time working year round. Women to men and black women earn about $0.63 per dollar. So it is a very intersectional thing where women of color are really kind of falling even further behind or not paid as fairly in the workplace.
S1: And is this just women of color or mothers of color.
S4: Well , one of the things we used to talk a lot about , things like the glass cliff or the glass ceiling and noticing , just thinking. And we're thinking about this all in aggregate terms , right ? I mean , obviously it really matters , like what occupation you're in and how long you've been in the workforce. And it's not like every single woman is earning , you know , those $0.80 on the dollar or whatever. Um , so there are lots of variations. But one of the things that we have become very aware of in recent years is that it's not just sort of women in general having this pay gap. We talk about something called the maternal wall , not just the glass ceiling and the maternal wall is that this gap really starts opening up. When women hit sort of their early to mid 30s. Younger women , especially with similar education levels to men , earn about 90 to 95% what their young male , um , colleagues earn. But when you start getting into those childbearing years and women start to have families , That's where we see this pay gap really opening up for women of all races and ethnicities. Wow.
S1:
S4: But it's not just that women are earning less paycheck to paycheck. It's that all of that compounds over time , right ? So you're paying less into Social Security. You're paying less into maybe whatever 401 K or retirement plan you have , you're getting less matching dollars from your employer if they're doing that. And so by the time women retire or get into their senior years , they have a lot less resources that they've been able to save , or a lot less that their Social Security payments are based on. And as we know , is a bit of a catch 22 because in general , women tend to live longer than men , so they're living longer , but they have fewer resources to do it with.
S1: Well , we've been talking about , you know , percentages up to this point , but I want to really paint the picture of , of what this , this wage gap means. So first , I mean , tell me more about the influence of childcare responsibilities on the pay gap. I mean , every kid needs childcare.
S4: Childcare has become really expensive. It's really like tripled in price in a lot of places over the last 20 , 25 years. And one of the things we saw during the pandemic was more women leaving the workforce because they simply couldn't handle both work and childcare when everything was shut down. And any time that women take out of the workforce is setting them back in terms of pay , seniority , possible promotions , all of those kinds of things , and those accumulate over a woman's working lifetime. But in terms of just childcare directly. You know , there's there's still a cultural expectation , I think , among many people that women do more of the caregiving work and women end up doing more of the caregiving. That means they have to potentially not , again , travel or take promotions or , you know , work overtime , things like that. Whereas men , there's sort of what we call the fatherhood bonus , where men who become fathers are seen as more reliable and stable and kind of tied to , rooted , rooted to their responsibilities. And they're going to work really hard and seek promotions and things like that. And men tend to sort of start earning more money when they have a family. And women are seen as sort of flakier or , you know , more like they're going to take time off. They might have more children take more maternity leave or some years out of the workforce , or they might , you know , want more flexible hours or something like that. And so employers really tend to , in the aggregate , kind of look askance at women as workers , whereas they sort of put more faith in men as workers. And those are big gendered projections to put on individuals that might not fit those stereotypes. But that's what we kind of see happening , is that women get penalized for being parents in the workforce. They're hired less , they're promoted less. They're seen as sort of less dedicated workers , where men kind of benefit from parenthood in the workforce. Right.
S1: Right. Well , can we also talk about the fact that if women are making , you know , 20% less or 30% less than men , that means they have to work 20% more or 30% more just to , to get equal pay. Exactly.
S4: Exactly. And we know that 40% of families in the United States , women are either the sole breadwinners or the primary breadwinners. That's a lot of families who are really dependent on women's paychecks and the things those paychecks have to pay for , whether it's childcare , health care , groceries , putting gas in the car , those things don't cost less for women and their children. So absolutely , it's a real problem. And it and it affects whole families , not just those individual women.
S1: At the same time that , you know , women were dropping out of the workforce during the pandemic , a lot of women were working in childcare and unable to really make enough to sustain themselves. That's still the case for anyone , really , who works in childcare.
S4: It's really a problem. And one of the things that explains this gendered wage gap in this maternal wage gap a lot is not just women seeking that childcare and needing that to be affordable , but also another big piece of this is occupational segregation , right. And so the people doing a lot of the caregiving work , whether it's home health aides or early childhood education or just some of those service jobs cashiers , waitresses , maids in hotels and tourism. A lot of that kind of work is being done by women and it's really undervalued. It's not very well paid. And so women are kind of in those jobs. And a lot of those women are women with maybe not college degrees , or they are disproportionately women of color. Those women are getting hammered by doing this caregiving work that is not paid well. And then they also , of course , need childcare , potentially , and all those kinds of things. So it's really a double whammy in some ways. Mhm.
S3: Mhm.
S1: Well , you know , as as we mentioned a lot of women left the workforce in November 2021. In five single mothers in the US without childcare had to stop working. And that was according to a report by the center for American Progress.
S4: Right. We do not have a lot of good on ramps and off ramps for anybody who's doing caregiving for children , or for elderly parents or sick family members or anything like that. There are a lot of women , including lots of professional women , who have said , you know , during those years in midlife , when I have these responsibilities to other family members , I'd like really good part time work. I don't want to leave my job or my profession completely , but and I need some income. But I'd like to have more flexible hours or be part time. And we really don't have that in the United States. It's it's a very all or nothing in most jobs and professions.
S1: Well , and I also want to talk about hiring discrimination. How does that put mothers at a disadvantage in the workforce. Right.
S4: Right. So a lot of social scientists have done really interesting research and experiments where they will , you know , send out resumes and simply change some of the wording on the resumes , like the kinds of volunteer organizations , maybe indicating that a parent has been in the PTA or something like that , and then send out other resumes that are identical that don't have those indicators that someone has children. And what we know is , again , women are penalized for having children , men or not , but women who you can tell from their application or their resume that they have children , they're much less likely to be called back for an interview. We also have some evidence that they are offered sort of lower starting salaries. If asked , what would you offer this person to come work for you ? So it there really is discrimination against women as parents in the workforce. And again , men seem to kind of benefit from some of those assumptions that they're going to be responsible and settle down and whatever. But women seem to really get discriminated against there.
S1: Well , you're a mom yourself , and we both know. Yeah. I mean , we both know how challenging it can be to make it all work. What's it been like for you personally , balancing the rising cost of having kids with working full time.
S4: It is a huge challenge. Right. And so I think for many of us navigating this on an individual level , it really matters if you have a partner or not. It matters how you know how much your partner is really in the trenches with you feeling as responsible for child care or not. My kids knew to tell their , you know , school nurse , like call my dad , don't just call my mom because sometimes I'd be in class and couldn't pick up the phone. And so I think it really your choice of partner or if you have a partner , can really matter to both your finances and juggling the the family load , but also like the policies in place really matter. And so what kind of family leave your workplace offers your employer's support for flex time or things like that really matter. And this is where I think we've given a lot of advice to women about how to , you know , like be better negotiators of a starting salary or something like that. And that's fantastic as far as that goes. Or , you know , choosing a workplace that maybe gives some good support or benefits to families , maybe has onsite childcare , things like that , but expecting women or women and their partners to navigate this individually I think is really pretty unfair. It's pretty difficult in sort of the workplace structures and expectations and getting some of those cultural expectations we have of women to sort of be more warm or maternal or caregiving , but then devaluing those traits and that work. I think it's really hard to ask individuals to bear this burden solely alone and as individuals , and navigate a system that is pretty unsupportive of mothers and children in a lot of ways when it comes to work. So I think we also need to think about our larger culture and our larger policies , and what would support lots of American families in terms of balancing both work and family. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Well , on the topic of of policy solutions , we often point to what other countries are doing. And I'm thinking about the US policies around paid leave , for example. Are we an outlier on that ? Yes.
S4: Policy wise we are an outlier. Almost every Western industrialized country has more generous family leave policies. When someone has a child , maybe have a year or even more leave from work that is paid , and in order to not just support families economically , but also shift the culture a bit and some of those gendered expectations , they have been innovative in saying , okay , mothers can take maybe half or two thirds of that leave. But fathers , if you want to take the full leave , fathers are going to have to take a few months of that leave as well. And it started to really , I think , shift some of the ways that both parents become really bonded to young children , and employers can't expect that. Men never take time off , but women do. They have to realize , oh , this is something that all of our younger employees and , and people who are going to have families are going to be able to , to do and take advantage of. Um , there are some other policies , you know , that that people who advocate for children and for mothers and for families and balancing work would really advocate. We know that when we had an expanded child tax credit during the pandemic , that we cut child poverty pretty much in half. And those have expired now. And so whether we're thinking about sort of enforcing equal pay better , or whether we're thinking about raising minimum wages for some of those undervalued care occupations or whether we're giving more tax credits for families , there's a bunch of things we could do to sort of be more supportive policy wise.
S1:
S4: Maybe we've been a little bit more resistant in the United States , um , to some of these policy changes. One , just change politically and socially can be hard , and doing something that is less familiar is often a little bit of a challenge. We have a pretty individualistic , um , political culture which comes with some real strengths around freedom and , um , people getting to make all kinds of different choices for themselves and their families. But I think maybe a little bit less of an orientation towards sort of seeing we need to take care of , like all the kids and families in our community , whether that is your individual family or not. Um , and some of these things cost money , right. And so between the government , is the government going to subsidize child care more or do more enforcement of equal pay or whatever it is , or is this a cost that's going to have to be borne by individual families or by corporations and employers , like all of those things get complex , right ? So I think there's reasons why. And also because if you think about sort of who maybe has more political voice or participation or power , it's often not lower paid workers , moms , single moms who are have the time and the money and the energy to be super organized for policies that they might favor or need. It's often , um , you know , people who are maybe not wanting to bear those costs , who might be a little more politically engaged or organized. But indeed , I think asking people to navigate this solely by themselves is really problematic. It makes , I think women feel guilty that they can't do it all or have it all or whatever , when really there are a lot of things about our workplaces and our systems and our culture that are not necessarily set up for them to fully thrive very easily. And so I think we have to work on both levels of sort of the aggregate and policy and culture , as well as navigating these systems individually ourselves.
S1: I've been speaking with Linda Biehl , a professor of political science at Point Loma Nazarene University. Professor. Thank you so much for your insight and for being here today.
S4: Thank you so much.
S1: That's our show for today. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch KPBS Evening Edition tonight at five for in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. I'm Jade Hindman. Thanks so much for listening and have a great day , everyone.
