The Struggle

Several months ago, during the height of the Ferguson fiasco (the first time), I stumbled across this piece on “the struggle”. For those too lazy to go read it yourself, a quick summary: American black family moves to Amsterdam, moher is now worried that their young son will not grow up “black”. To solve this challenge, she was actually wondering if she should move back to America so that her son could understand "the struggle", an idea that I just couldn't wrap my head around. Parents usually want the best for the kids, so why would she want to purposely impair her son?

We all know the stats, indeed that’s the whole basis of the #blacklivesmatter movement to begin with. Why would a parent want to put her son in an environment where his chances of mobility in life will be seriously impaired? What kind of parent wants their child to be in a society where they’re likely to get hassled for being in the "wrong neighborhood", for biking, for listening to music, for "resisting arrest", or for any other number of minor "offenses" just so that they know "the struggle" being referred to by others?

Additionally, this brings up another age-old question: what exactly does it mean to be “black”? As a black man, I personally happen to have a lot of experience with being “not black” thus far in my life. The term “Oreo” was frequently used in the same sentence as references to me by both non-blacks but especially blacks (and most pointedly as I attended a HBCU) since I skateboard, wakeboard, snowboard, bike, read books, listen to rock/metal music, and participate in other “non-black” activities, all the while NOT playing much basketball or football. Being that her son will likely speak Dutch and participate at least in some parts of Dutch culture, he already won't exactly fall fully into the "black" segment of American society by anyone's standards.

She mentions that she wants him to have a "black American" experience, but why set her target so low? If she’s already wanting to move from her current location to get the "black" experience, why not just go to Africa? It stands to reason that there is not a more “authentically black” experience than one would experience in the ancestral homeland of almost all blacks. From its royalty, bustling cities, and shiny new trains to its slums, child warfare, and AIDS, he can experience Africa and Africans in a vivid reality that most American blacks can only dream of having. Additionally, if it’s injustice at the hand of whites that she is searching for, South Africa offers the legacy of apartheid with the added bonus of a language that is based on Dutch, the language her son is likely learning.

Of course, she herself admits in the article that she's not exactly sold on the idea yet, likely for some of the reasons mentioned here and probably more too. Hopefully, she continues to rethink her position. Certainly, it isn't all doom and gloom here in the States for members of the black community. However, there are arguably few things to be gained by leaving a country that rates higher than the United States on numerous rankings, from health to education to happiness to transportation. In the modern era, culture can be gleaned from a practically limitless amount of sources online and travel is within reach of the average person. Take advantage of those opportunities.

Put 'Em to Work!

When kids were stuck in factories, they wanted to learn.

 Last year, Newt Gingrich caused a firestorm when he said that he'd like to see poor kids put to work as school janitors. I hope I can escape unscathed, because I now have the same idea. Yes, put the kids to work. They need it. Although unlike Newt, I wouldn't differentiate based on economic status. Under my plan, students who have chronic behavioral problems or just showing general apathy towards education would be put to work. No, they won't be in a factory putting together iPhones. Nor will they be crawling in coal mines, à la the turn of the 20th Century. (Although that might be the experience they really need to finally realize how much they have that they're just wasting.)

So since I said they won't be working in factories nor will they be mining coal, what will they be doing? We need more details on this here plan. Well for starters, it should be obvious by now that I'm not advocating a free-for-all to get kids behind the counter of McDonald's and I'm certainly not suggesting that kids replace janitors like Gingrich suggested. But kids are not incapable of doing anything at all. Libraries all over are scaling back on hours, they can assist there. Computer programs need testing. Other kids need help with schoolwork. The list goes on, although it is much shorter than the list available to the able-bodied adult.

To protect the children, the child labor laws will have to be modified somewhat. I'd suggest that children aged 12-15 be allowed to work a maximum of 15 hours weekly, but with a minimum of three school days included in there. Why the school days? If they're working, they're not out causing mischief on the streets. They're not vegetating in front of a TV. Then by time they get home, their parents will probably be arriving as well. The children would also have to get a report signed from their supervisor on their performance. Meanwhile, any company wishing to participate would have to get their program signed off by the school as meeting all the guidelines and requirements.

As for their pay, I'd set a special minimum wage for tweens that is lower than the federal by 30%. The federal minimum is currently $7.25, so that means the tween minimum would be $5.075/hr. Don't worry, it would rise whenever Congress decides to quit being lazy and raise the federal minimum. This depressed minimum would accomplish a couple things. First, it would give the kids a bit of money in their pocket. Even if they didn't work the 15 hour maximum but a very plausible 10 per week, they would be earning around $200/month. While raising kids can definitely be expensive, I certainly didn't receive $200 a month for allowance and I'm sure parents would welcome their kids having a little spending money of their own.

At the same time, the minimum would be low enough to (hopefully) keep families from exploiting the child's labor. An additional $200 can fit nicely into a family budget. (I'd even welcome it, that's my car payment.) Naturally, the parents will have to know that their kids are in the program and will almost assuredly find out how much the kids are making. To help lessen the appeal of that money to the parents, several program contingencies will have to be in place and met. First, the kids will have to register for a 529 account if their parents don't already have one for them. Then, 30% monthly will be put in there automatically. At that rate, they should have a couple dollars available for tuition room & board books a parking pass by time they start college. That also drops their income down to $120/month, which is hopefully less likely to be plundered by their parents.

In addition to the 529 plan, these kids will be enrolled in a mandatory money management course that must be completed within the first quarter of the program. Failure to do so will mean the program ends for them until they finish. The classes should be geared more toward extolling the virtues of saving and thrift over just conditioning them to believe that credit is both a natural and inevitable part of life that can't be avoided. This is especially imperative if the children really are the "poor" that Newt Gingrich was talking about. They will often not be able to see a good financial blueprint modeled for them at home at all and the areas they live in are chuck full of predatory lenders. This could be an important step toward reducing poverty both in future generations and in the current generation by the kids taking their knowledge home.

On the employer side, things will probably be quite a bit trickier. Understandably, it could potentially open them up for litigation, so many employers may choose to not participate. At the same time, it could potentially offer several advantages to those who do participate. At $5 an hour and no benefits, their labor costs would be relatively low. It also helps them identify individuals they'd like to pursue as employees in the future and could be useful as an early form of recruitment. Soon as the kid turns the full legal age, the company could offer an already trained employee some more hours (and higher pay) to keep them around.

Of course, this idea isn't perfect. It relies a lot on trust of the business owners, which some may scoff at. At the same time, it also relies on trust in the kids, which others may scoff at. There'll be a limited amount of jobs the kids can even do due to various privacy laws and insurance statutes, etc. But at least, they will be able to do something and see an alternative to what many of them happen to have grown up with so far.

Photo from US National Archives.