F

or anyone who, like me, is obsessed 

with the British royal family, the 

CBS broadcast of Oprah Winfrey’s 

interview with Meghan Markle and 

Prince Harry on Sunday night was merely 

another episode in the Netflix series “The 

Crown.” However, the interview had a 

subtlety that transforms the royal family’s 

drama into an experience that is relatable 

to many Americans: a dysfunctional 

family. 

In an attempt to create common ground 

following World War II, the monarchy 

shifted its cultural focus toward children 

and families. Consequently, when Prince 

Charles was born in 1948, Queen Elizabeth 

and Prince Phillip were portrayed as 

models for how a contemporary family 

should function. In every perceivable way, 

they were a young, powerful and flawless 

family. Seeing the opportunity, the British 

government used Queen Elizabeth and 

her family to promote the idea that family 

connects the British people to one another. 

For the family emphasis to follow, 

the royal family was made into the 

archetype for all British families to 

strive for. Significant events such as 

Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953 

intentionally centered on family. Being the 

first televised coronation, over 27 million 

British people watched the ceremony, 

which included shots of Prince Charles 

and Princess Anne. British children were 

given commemorative coronation mugs 

to ensure every family felt personally 

included in the celebration.

However, in the decades that have 

followed, the public has become aware 

of various fractures and scandals within 

the royal family, with none being more 

infamous than the clash between Princess 

Diana and Prince Charles. Their messy 

divorce further damaged the facade of 

the happy family when public opinion 

of the royal family was at a low due to 

accusations of numerous marital affairs 

and extravagant lifestyles. The tell-

all book “Diana: Her True Story” and 

several television interviews described 

the inevitable collapse of the Prince and 

Princess of Wales’ marriage and how her 

cries for help with her mental health were 

ignored. BBC documentaries were no 

longer enough to fill the cracks that had 

appeared in the world’s most iconic family. 

But in its own unique way, the royal family 

has modernized with the rest of the world. 

During the two-hour special, Meghan 

and Harry revealed a heavily flawed 

family, which stands in stark contrast to 

the image of the royal family projected 

during the 1950s. Altogether, the lack of 

support and understanding from the rest 

of the royal family — in regards to Meghan 

and Harry’s requests for assistance 

with their mental health and security — 

demonstrates a clear example of a divided 

family. 

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s 

decision to speak publicly about their 

situation does a lot more than just expose 

the royal family’s internal affairs. More 

importantly, their interview testifies 

to the importance of discussing your 

own family dynamics. In many ways, 

Markle’s experience parallels that of 

Princess Diana. Both were brought into 

the family that treated them unfairly, 

which led them to speak out and call 

attention to the circumstances they 

struggled with. By doing so, Meghan 

and Diana demonstrated the importance 

of holding the monarchy accountable 

for their actions, regardless of familial 

relationships.

In America, family life has changed 

dramatically, 
with 
an 
increasing 

number of children from single-parent 

households and families becoming 

smaller overall. Due to these shifts, a 

dominant family form no longer exists in 

America as it did in the 1960s. Research 

shows that the structure of modern 

families can be tied to the existence of 

dysfunctional families. While not all 

single-parent or blended families are 

dysfunctional, they are less likely to have 

“standard” relationships due to outside 

factors, including social environment 

and inability to provide adequate 

childcare.

Dysfunction within a family setting 

can take multiple forms, including mental 

and physical abuse, yet many children 

are unaware their family environment is 

not considered standard. Unfortunately, 

these 
conditions 
have 
long-lasting 

effects on children, including low self-

esteem, absence of identity and difficulty 

cultivating relationships. Furthermore, 

children from dysfunctional families 

regularly justify their parent’s actions and 

are never taught signs of unhealthy family 

dynamics because this is rarely discussed. 

In the United States, there remains a 

preference for households of two parents 

in their first marriage with multiple 

children. Yet, as divorce and single 

parenting have become more socially 

acceptable, the typical suburban family 

with a white picket fence is no longer a 

realistic model. Consequently, neither is a 

family that gets along perfectly with one 

another. 

By revealing the undercurrents of 

the royal family, Meghan Markle and 

Prince Harry’s interview has helped 

normalize the discussion of family 

dynamics — whether good or bad. For 

too long, people have hidden away 

their experiences with their family 

by adhering to the cliché that blood 

is thicker than water. Openly talking 

about family, regardless of structure or 

dynamic, should be more common and 

acceptable. Continuing the belief that 

the only respectable household form is 

one dating back to the post-World War II 

era is outdated and harmful for children. 

Having more frequent and open 

conversations 
allows 
children 
and 

teenagers to learn acceptable treatment 

from 
family 
members. 
Moreover, 

discussions about the reality of family 

erode the social stigma of being raised 

in an imperfect family. Hearing people 

around you only talk about the good parts 

of their family creates a false sense of the 

lives others live — which can be further 

augmented if one has to return to a home 

that seems the opposite. The family 

experience you portray to your friends 

and peers should be representative of your 

reality, not merely what you believe the 

rest of society wants to hear.

A

fter Sens. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., 
and 
Raphael 
Warnock, 

D-Ga., won their Georgia 

runoff races in early January and 
gave Democrats a slim majority in the 
Senate, advocates of raising the federal 
minimum wage saw an opportunity 
to finally pass a wage hike. However, 
those hopes were quickly dashed 
when the Senate voted 58-42 against 
a proposal sponsored by Sen. Bernie 
Sanders, I-Vt., to increase the wage to 
$15 an hour.

This vote not only deals a major blow 

to those rallying behind a minimum 

wage hike, but could also force President 

Joe Biden to make compromises with his 

his promise to raise the minimum wage, 

unless he can influence Republicans 

and moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe 

Manchin, D-W.Va.

Regardless of the Senate’s rejection 

of a $15 minimum wage, it’s obvious 

that a minimum wage increase is 

warranted in certain areas across the 

country. A recent poll conducted by 

Monmouth University finds that 53% of 

Americans support raising the federal 

minimum wage to $15 an hour. The 

minimum wage has been fixed at $7.25 

an hour since 2009, and our country 

has experienced inflation since then. At 

the same time, our problems of wealth 

and income inequality have worsened; 

according to the Pew Research Center, 

the wealthiest Americans are getting 

richer fastest while lower and middle-

income households are falling behind. 

With sky-high costs of living in many 

locations, raising the minimum wage 

would lower poverty levels and seems 

like a common-sense measure.

But while raising the minimum 

wage would be beneficial on a number 

of fronts, there are also issues with 

raising the federal minimum wage 

to $15, as evidenced by the bipartisan 

vote against it in the Senate. One 

of the clearest arguments against a 

minimum wage increase is that it would 

precipitate broad job losses across the 

entire economy. In a recent report, the 

Congressional Budget Office estimated 

that a hike to $15 would slash a total 

of 1.4 million jobs, reducing national 

employment levels by almost 1% due to 

employee layoffs, signifying a notable 

hit to the labor force. As the economy 

begins to recover from the disastrous 

COVID-19 pandemic, a minimum 

wage increase could undermine much-

needed economic growth by forcing 

over a million people out of work.

There are valid arguments for 

raising the wage to $15 or keeping it as 

is, and we should give all viewpoints 

attention. But what is indisputable is 

that select areas of the country would 

benefit from a minimum wage hike of 

some sort. Instead of waiting for our 

representatives and senators to sort out 

their policy differences in Congress — 

something that could take years — each 

state should address its own minimum 

wage.

Handing over responsibility on the 

minimum wage to states makes sense 

on a lot of levels. Individual states 

already have the power to regulate their 

own minimum wages, although there 

currently isn’t a great incentive to do so 

since the federal government is trying to 

control the minimum wage for the entire 

nation. Encouraging states to address 

their own minimum wages would offer 

a major boost to employees around the 

country; workers subject to both federal 

and state rates are “entitled to the higher 

of the two minimum wages,” according 

to Cornell Law School.

While state action doesn’t deliver 

the broad $15 hourly rate that many 

have been fighting for, it gives the 

power to state governments to assess 

their own economies and make their 

own informed decisions. It allows 

states in need of an increase to do 

so; at the same time, it will allow 

states to opt out based on their own 

circumstances. California sets a 

good example for how states should 

use their powers in response to 

the unique conditions within their 

borders; At the beginning of this year, 

the Golden State raised its minimum 

wage to $14 an hour.

One of the best arguments for this 

approach is that the median cost of 

living differs dramatically from state 

to state, as does the current median 

wage. Instead of painting with a 

broad brush, giving authority to each 

state acknowledges these economic 

differences and promotes a stronger, 

more detailed solution. 

For instance, the average cost of 

living in the state of Mississippi is over 

15% lower than the national average. 

By contrast, the state of California, 

notorious for its high cost of living, 

exceeds the national average cost 

of living by almost 50%. Whereas a 

minimum wage hike to $15 may do 

more harm than good in Mississippi 

and similar states due to their low 

costs of living, it would be beneficial in 

the entire state of California, not just a 

select few areas. 

Moreover, the living wage — the 

amount necessary to live a comfortable 

lifestyle — comes out to about $58,000 

per year in Mississippi, compared 

to nearly $100,000 in California. It 

makes sense that workers in these 

two states should make considerably 

different amounts since their costs 

of living are quite different. Why 

should these two states have the same 

minimum wage?

Without a doubt, the current 

minimum wage from 2009 is 

inappropriate for certain parts of 

our country. Particularly for those 

with skyrocketing living costs, 

this glaring problem needs to be 

addressed. But rather than institute 

a national measure, something that 

the Senate has already tried and 

rejected, states should revise their 

own minimum wages in response to 

their unique and evolving needs. In 

the end, delegating the power to each 

state will pave the way for a solution 

that acknowledges our differences 

while supporting America’s workers 

at every turn.

12 — Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST
KATHERINE KIESSLING 
| COLUMNMIST 

Katherine Kiessling can be reached 

at katkiess@umich.edu.

Normalize discussing the reality of family dynamics
Minimum wage hikes should be left to the states

MEERA KUMAR | COLUMNIST

W

henever people ask, “How 

are you?” I reflexively 

respond with, “Good! 

How ‘bout you?” I never take time to think 

about how I’m truly doing. Generally, 

asking someone how they are is simply an 

easy greeting — often, people don’t care 

for a genuine answer. So, we tell everyone, 

including ourselves, that we’re good.

Even though we preface nearly every 

conversation with a “How’s it going?” — 

nobody seems to pay attention to their 

state of being. “Good,” we say. “Fine.” Our 

reflex is to lie without searching for an 

answer.

When I ask how you are, I want your 

honest answer. Really, truly, how are you? 

Because, in all honesty, I’m terribly, totally, 

utterly burnt out.

These days, so are most people I know. 

Every day, when I call my best friend 

Nandini, we describe our plans for the 

rest of the day. Pretty much daily, we 

work from when we rise to when we go 

to sleep. Often 18 hours later, both of us 

accidentally fall asleep on FaceTime calls. 

Nearly every student I’ve spoken to at the 

University of Michigan has mentioned 

their exhaustion with the overwhelming 

workload of online school. The entire 

world seems to be weighed down with 

Zoom fatigue. 

Yet, we continue to chip away at 

our seemingly endless pile of work. We 

convince ourselves that we need to be a 

certain amount of “productive” each day. 

Otherwise, the day is a waste. In our quest 

to simulate a seemingly “normal” virtual 

learning experience, we sacrifice our 

mental health. In our haze, we spend all 

of our time in a single cramped place, lost 

in the small details and unable to see the 

big picture.

Nowadays, our contact with the 

outside world is limited. The only time 

we get asked how we are is when a friend 

or professor asks at the beginning of a 

conversation or class and it can feel nice to 

know that someone cares about us, even 

in the form of a trivial greeting. We search 

high and low for empathy in any location 

we can find. Without even realizing it, I’ve 

relied on others to ask me how I am. 

My friends and I, often concerned for 

each other’s mental health, advise each 

other to take a nap, and go for a walk. 

However, we seldom give the same advice 

to ourselves. Why are we so incapable of 

taking care of ourselves in the way we 

take care of others? 

The noted Australian psychologist 

Godfrey Barrett-Lennard has an answer: 

we lack empathy toward ourselves. 

Due to our emotional involvement with 

our problems, it can be challenging 

to understand what’s really going on. 

Self-empathy, a valuable skill, allows us 

to zoom out and view a situation with 

impartiality. We can figure out how we’re 

doing, and if we’re not doing well, we can 

find necessary solutions. Barrett-Lennard 

says the goal of therapy is to gain more 

empathy for oneself and others.

It would be easy to dismiss this concept 

as part of the recent commercialized, 

extremely-hyped self-care movement. 

However, it’s important to note that self-

empathy and self-compassion are not 

the same things. Self-compassion (which 

is also extremely important) involves 

showing love and kindness to oneself. In 

contrast, self-empathy involves simply 

observing the patterns of emotions we 

experience — it sounds like a no-brainer 

but is actually incredibly hard to maintain. 

Having the skill of self-empathy is 

empowering. Instead of depending on 

others for superficial care to (barely) 

check-in with yourself, you’re able to give 

yourself empathy and solve problems in 

emotionally charged situations. When 

you’re overwhelmed, instead of staring at 

a screen for hours, take a break. 

When you’re tired, instead of forcing 

yourself to work even longer, take a nap. 

In our “hustle-obsessed” culture, forcing 

yourself to struggle is seen as a positive 

concept. But this has extremely harmful 

effects. Instead of ignoring our feelings, 

we should encourage people to be 

conscious of them and deal with complex 

emotions accordingly. 

Commonly cited ways to get in touch 

with oneself include therapy, meditation, 

journaling and more. However, these are 

easier said than done — it’s important to 

remember that taking care of one’s mental 

health can sometimes require active effort. 

It’s necessary to ask yourself: How am I? If 

you’re honest with yourself, there’s a good 

chance you’re doing less than stellar. Think 

about it. Talk it out. Write it down. Leave 

yourself a voice memo on your phone. And 

try not to hate yourself for your negative 

feelings or your perceived inability to do 

work. While figuring out one’s feelings, 

it’s essential to lead with empathy and not 

idealistic expectations.

If you’re burnt out, like most college 

students right now, I implore you to 

take a step back. In fact, I’m currently 

encouraging you to do the bare minimum 

of the work needed to get through the 

week. Skip a class or two if you need to — 

forcing yourself to go to class exhausted 

won’t help your learning. When I mention 

this to friends, they guiltily say, “I would, 

but I’ve already been slacking off this 

week…” — good for you for taking time 

off for yourself! If you’re still stressed, 

I’m begging you to take more time off 

to recharge. To force yourself to be 

productive while burnt-out is unrealistic. 

When we step off the treadmill, 

we feel incredibly guilty. However, it’s 

important to ask yourself: Who is this 

guilt benefitting? (Hint: it doesn’t look like 

the guilt is good for you). Your insecurity 

over how much work you’ve completed 

that day has been perpetuated by 

companies obsessed with “productivity” 

to maximize profit — by creating a culture 

where destroying yourself to please your 

boss feels necessary. We must unlearn 

this mindset. Stop expecting yourself 

to operate at full capacity at all times, 

especially during a pandemic — seriously, 

show yourself some empathy.

In this age, we measure our self-worth 

by how “productive” we were earlier 

in the day. I urge you to rebel and see 

yourself as worth more than a machine 

that cranks out essay after essay. Distance 

yourself from your work — you deserve a 

break. 

Meera Kumar can be reached at 

kmeera@umich.edu.

Design by Man Lem Cheng

Seriously, show yourself some empathy

ALEX NOBEL | COLUMNIST
Preventing the next pandemic

T

hroughout human history, the 

main determinant separating 

humans from other species has 

been our ability to adapt the environment 

to address our needs. Whether harnessing 

fire to stay warm in cold temperatures, 

inventing the wheel to transport things 

long distances or utilizing the earth’s 

magnetic field to guide navigation, 

humans have made advancements that 

make it easier for us to live. But what 

happens when we overstep and go too far? 

Since the 1980s there has been a “steep 

rise in the number of outbreaks globally.” 

A Brown University study found that 

between the years 1980 and 2014, there 

were more than 12,000 infection outbreaks 

affecting 44 million people around the 

world. In order to stop disease outbreaks 

from becoming more and more common, 

human society needs to drastically rethink 

how it interacts with nature. 

One of the forces driving the increasing 

number of infectious outbreaks is how 

land is used. It is estimated that humans 

have changed 75% of all land globally. 

What that looks like depends on the 

region. It could mean urbanization and 

suburban sprawl or deforestation and 

mining, all of which make outbreaks 

more likely. The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention estimate that 

three out of every four new diseases begin 

with animals. These are called zoonotic 

diseases — scientists believe there are 

more than 1.7 million undiscovered 

zoonotic viruses, of which roughly half 

are predicted to be able to infect humans. 

Changes to the land bring humans and 

animals closer together. Deforestation and 

other land-use changes are responsible 

for about one-third of new diseases. As 

habitats are destroyed for thousands of 

species, they are forced to migrate into 

new ecosystems, potentially disrupting 

the food chain or being exposed to new 

toxins. Eventually, they come in contact 

with humans, increasing the risk of a 

zoonotic disease outbreak amongst people. 

An example of this is the origins of the 2014 

Ebola outbreak in Guinea. One of the first 

people to contract Ebola was a little boy 

playing under a tree where a large number 

of bats had begun to live. Bats do not like 

living near humans — they had been forced 

out of their homes by forest clearing and 

mining done by foreign companies. 

Urbanization contributes to the spread 

of disease by concentrating 4 billion people 

globally into small areas, sometimes living 

in very unclean conditions. As the world 

becomes increasingly urban and more 

people move to cities, it presents the 

perfect opportunity for diseases to reach 

the level of an outbreak. 

Suburban areas pose a different 

threat to public health. Since the 1970s, 

Lyme disease has affected the Northeast 

United States. Lyme disease is caused 

by ticks feeding on white-footed mice 

where they become infected and then 

transfer the bacteria to humans. When 

people started moving out of cities and the 

suburbs began to expand, formerly forest 

and agricultural land was repurposed. 

This disrupted the ecosystem and 

harmed predators of the white-footed 

mouse, allowing the mice to grow their 

population and thereby increasing the 

frequency of Lyme disease. 

Another contributor to the increase of 

infectious diseases is climate change. Like 

many things, climate change seems to just 

exacerbate existing problems, making 

them more harmful and harder to solve. 

As climate change leads to hotter and 

wetter climates, the spread of infectious 

diseases becomes easier. Infections that 

are transmitted through water, food, 

mosquitos and ticks are transmitted more 

easily in warmer and wetter climates. 

Studies have found that diseases such 

as dengue, malaria and cholera have 

already become more contagious with the 

changing climate. Warmer temperatures 

also are forcing thousands of species to 

migrate from areas they had lived in for 

centuries. The migration of these species 

brings them closer to humans, which 

again contributes to the spread of disease. 

While these changes are scary, the 

good thing is that there are actions 

humans can take. One major step is to 

stop deforestation. This would help keep 

many habitats intact, and in turn prevent 

species from being forced to migrate. 

Additionally, millions of people around the 

world call forests their home. Forests also 

help to reduce carbon in the atmosphere 

— absorbing more carbon than the U.S. 

emits every year — which helps mitigate 

climate change and therefore helps limit 

the spread of infectious diseases. 

Another thing that humans can do 

is to adopt the One Health approach to 

governing. This plan looks at humans, 

animals, plants and their common 

environment holistically. When using 

a lens that assumes we are all part of 

nature, we are all unhealthy when one 

part is unhealthy. By designing policies 

and programs that place the health 

of everything into consideration, it 

will result in a healthier public. This 

approach, comprised of thorough policy 

proposals rooted in research, can be used 

in environmental regulations to ensure 

air and water quality are not making 

anyone sick. 

Urban planning can also use this 

to design cities in a way that will best 

decrease opportunities for diseases to 

spread. Lastly, the One Health approach 

can be used for epidemiology. Unhealthy 

environments can cause asthma or other 

respiratory issues, and sick animals 

have caused Ebola, Lyme disease, Zika 

and plenty of other infectious diseases. 

Looking at public health through a holistic 

lens will allow us to identify and address 

many of the factors that contribute to 

human illness and sickness. 

Something important to mention 

about outbreak prevention is that it 

looks different everywhere. A region’s 

development, population, culture, climate 

and countless other factors will influence 

how people decide to approach fending 

off disease outbreaks. In Thailand, for 

example, this took the form of an app. 

Residents use the app to send pictures of 

any animals or plants that look suspicious 

to public health officials and scientists 

who are then made aware of diseases and 

can research or contain them before they 

become outbreaks. 

Officials estimate that preventing 

the next pandemic will cost around 

$22 billion per year. While this is a 

large amount, it is irresponsible not to 

consider, given that the economic costs of 

COVID-19 are predicted to be upwards 

of $10 trillion. Investing in pandemic 

prevention is not only the smart thing 

to do because it will save lives, but it 

is the economically smart decision 

too. COVID-19 has shown us that we 

must put an emphasis on public health 

and need to be adequately funded and 

address infectious disease prevention. 

We cannot forget that we live within 

nature and are not immune to nature’s 

consequences. 

Design by Mellisa Lee

Evan Stern can be reached at 

erstern@umich.edu.

Alex Nobel can be reached at 

anobel@umich.edu.