|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
NOVEMBER 10, 2003
The Benefits Of Marriage "Unmarried america" (Cover Story, Oct. 20) shows what is really wrong with America. The author notes that research shows that marriage brings social stability, is better for children, and reduces social ills such as drug addiction and crime. Yet the author throws these facts out the window because our governmental and employee-benefits policies are less beneficial for those outside of traditional two-parent families. Rather than whine about gay adoption rights, unequal pension and Social Security benefits for unmarried partners, and inheritance equality for unmarried people, perhaps the article should have focused on why traditional families are under attack by those wanting the benefits of marriage without the biological and legal ties. Scott Horsburgh Novi, Mich. Michelle Conlin writes as if the benefits that people who are married with children accrue are a bad thing. Not so. The existence of these benefits should be shouted from the rooftops until those still young enough to hook up with someone, marry, and breed realize that marriage and family are smart moves. Not only do the procreators ensure that there will still be an America after they're dead, but these benefits also provide much-needed incentives to undertake the sacrifices inherent in such an enterprise. Jillian Abbott Bayside, N.Y. Six years ago, I became a divorced single parent. I have been active in my singles group at church and have experienced much of what you wrote about. One significant area you missed was the economics of divorce -- specifically, the impact of splitting retirement plans, selling homes (Americans' largest single source of wealth), and maintaining two households on the same income. Child support can amount to a significant portion of a person's income (10% to 20%). In Loudoun County, Va., I find more and more middle-aged singles having to take on roommates just to make ends meet. Gary Starr Ashburn, Va. The author seems concerned that policies designed to support and encourage marriage are not "fair" to others. What really isn't fair is that children with unmarried parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to struggle in school, and more likely to end up in the legal system. That isn't the fault of the children, but it certainly isn't the fault of married couples. Government policies ought to encourage a family structure that breeds self-sufficiency, civic responsibility, and a sup- portive environment for children. Under those criteria, marriage wins hands down. Chris Cary Gibsonville, N.C. I have witnessed firsthand the startling inconsistency with which Corporate America deals with singledom. In 2000, when my girlfriend and I had already been living together for five years, I left my job in Austin, Tex., as head of marketing for Whole Foods Market (where I was able to cover her under my health insurance) to take a job in Maryland as vice-president for marketing at Discovery Communications Inc. Not only could I no longer put her on my insurance, but Discovery also refused to pay to relocate her and instructed us to pack separately -- clearly marking goods as "his" and "hers." Amazingly, they would have paid to move a spouse or even a same-sex partner. Back then, it was an amusing annoyance that we skirted anyway. But now that I've read your cover story and seen all the other financial penalties of staying single, maybe we need to rethink this. Julie, want to get married? Joe Dobrow Potomac, Md. Fascinating. I should have bought stock in Match.com. Irene Jeng Dallas Medicare Contributions: An Unequal Burden "Sharing the health burden" (Editorials, Oct. 20), endorses means testing for Medicare. Have you forgotten that the so-called wealthy already pay more for their Medicare coverage? Income subject to Social Security contributions is capped at $87,000 per year. There is no such cap for Medicare -- taxes are deducted from the full salary and/or self-employment income of working individuals. Once eligible for Social Security benefits, the "wealthy" take another hit: Up to 85% of their benefit payments are subject to income taxes -- taxes that go directly to support Medicare. Isn't this enough without asking them to take a third hit by paying even more for their Medicare premiums? Roger L. Duba San Rafael, Calif.   College Presidents Have Failed College Sports "A whole new ball game?" (Sports Biz, Oct. 20) on college presidents' plan for athletic reform could have been written 20 years ago, when the presidents took control of athletics from campus faculties. The reform plan then was identical to the one they are now attempting. Since the 1980s, presidents have talked much about reform yet have presided over more violations and scandals on campus than ever. In addition, under their guidance, 90% of athletic programs are carrying huge debt (Ohio State's is $250 million). Once they found that making a statement from the locker room gave them more ink and exposure than a fund-raising breakfast with alumni, there has been no stopping them. Their inept management has brought college athletics to its knees. The unbelievable part is that as the presidents manage, they have eliminated their "board of directors" in the form of the former Faculty Boards of Athletics. What $50 million business operates without a board of directors? Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, Stanford, and others have budgets approaching that figure, yet their faculties have not a single vote on National Collegiate Athletic Assn. matters and too often no significant influence on campus, as they once did. If there is to be meaningful reform, freshmen should not be immediately eligible to play sports, and campus faculty must return to control. Presidents should be taking care of more significant educational matters than hiring unqualified coaches, firing qualified coaches, expanding conferences, and fighting over bowl revenue. Don Canham Ann Arbor, Mich. Editor's note: The writer was athletic director at the University of Michigan from 1968 to 1988. A generally good article, but to say that Swarthmore College has "taken action to rein in sports" by dropping football strikes me as just plain silly. About five years ago, I attended a Muhlenberg vs. Swarthmore football game at Swarthmore. (My nephew was a member of the Muhlenberg College team.) For a Big Ten alumnus (Indiana '68), it was a real culture shock. There was no stadium. On the Swarthmore side of the field, there were more kids suited up than there were fans in the bleachers. On the Muhlenberg side, there were about a dozen fans seated on their own lawn chairs. I've seen much bigger crowds at t-ball games. Whatever one thought of Swarthmore's football program, it didn't have to be reined in. Steve Leinbach Ambler, Pa. Don't Dismiss China's Currency Advantage The point made in "Is it China's fault?" (News: Analysis & Commentary, Oct. 13) about China's currency being undervalued by "only" 15% to 25% rather than the "40% figure China's critics bandy about" is stunning. Even a 15% advantage is one that means a difference between winning and losing the vast majority of orders for which a manufacturer competes. It certainly influences a decision to send all work overseas or to balance a blend of sources that allows for development and quick turnaround in the U.S. (as it did for me during my 20 years managing businesses around the world for a multinational manufacturer). Most manufacturers would give up body parts to get a 15% leveling of the playing field. It wouldn't stop the migration -- and shouldn't -- but it would make the difference between a logical economic shift and virtually a total, rapid abandonment of manufacturing in the U.S. Desmond J. McDonald Saegertown, Pa. One Way To Stop Americans From Buying Drugs In Canada Re "Drug R&D: Must Americans always pay?" (News: Analysis & Commentary, Oct. 13): Just because the U.S. market is so fragmented and disorganized that the country can't use its size to negotiate a better deal doesn't mean no one else should. Here's a solution that's being tried successfully by the music industry: Why don't pharmaceutical companies start suing customers who buy their drugs from Canada? How much lower can drugmakers' reputations fall, anyway? David Wineberg New York
| | |
 Copyright BWStory.copyright, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
Printer-Friendly Version
