“Work-family conflict is much higher in the United States than elsewhere in the world,” reports The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict, a new study released this week by WorkLife Law and the Center for American Progress. “Not only do American families work longer hours; they do so with fewer laws to support working families.”
The report takes an in-depth look at the work-life balance and caregiving challenges these groups face. The study divides families into three categories: Poor (the 30 percent of U.S. families living on less than $35,000 a year), the Missing Middle (the half of the U.S. that earns between $35,000 and $110,000 annually), and Professionals (the top 20 percent of households that earn over $110,000). It goes on to compare these groups with their respective counterparts from the late 1970s.
It turns out that Americans today work 11 more hours per week than they did 30 years ago, but the average income has actually dipped for most workers after adjusting for inflation. Also, 30 years ago, most families existed on one income with a parent (usually the mother) staying home to attend to the household. Now that situation has changed—two-income households with both parents working full-time are the norm and often necessary to make ends meet. These factors add up to huge pressure on working parents who struggle maintain work-life balance.
“Fully 90 percent of American mothers and 95 percent of American fathers report work-life conflict,” according to the study.
Neither the poor, missing middle, or professionals have an ideal situation.
The families who make up the poor not only have the lowest income, but also typically hold jobs with erratic hours, little job security, and few health or child care benefits. With unpredictable work schedules, these parents have a difficult time securing child care when they can afford it. While they do have the advantage of qualifying for government child care benefits, the study showed these programs were often “inadequate or underfunded.”
The missing middle—where half of U.S. households reside—is caught in a Catch-22. These families lose out because they work to pay for child care while paying for child care so they can work. They don’t qualify for government subsidies and often feel stuck in their situation (although President Obama has proposed doubling the child-care tax credit for these families). As it stands now, 14 percent of their income goes to child care.
The highest-income bracket should be okay, right? Not so, says the report. Often, the high-earners work the longest hours. These professionals feel obligated to be available around the clock for their jobs, which significantly cuts into private life and family time.
Could the problem be that the workplace hasn’t evolved along with the working family?
“Today’s workplaces are (im)perfectly designed for the workforce…of 1960,” says the report, “The mismatch between the workplace and the workforce delivers negative economic consequences for individual workers at all income levels, as well as for U.S. businesses and for our economy as a whole.”
The authors of The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict argue that we’re trying to cram modern parents, with their extended work hours, increased demands on the home front, and lower salaries, into an antiquated system. They say this practice isn’t sustainable and call for the government to take action to provide more help for families and protection for workers.
What do you think? Is the work/life pressure you feel is greater than what your parents felt? How do you go about trying to maintain a balance in your own life?
Comments