Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think that's all of it. Sadly, I've talked to to many women and young girls who simply think "I don't need a man," but still wanted a child for "someone to love me." No, they're not seeing the financial reality clearly (they're especially not seeing the effect of the Clinton lifetime cap clearly), and government assistance obscures the fact...but it's the inculcation of Gloria Steinist "women don't need a man" feminism that blinds them.
You don't look at those loveless women and wonder what sort of sad past they have without love?
No. It isn't REALLY a great idea, but some people are incapable of understanding that.
That is what so many of you don't realize. Maybe it is because you've been shielded from these people and just can't believe they exist, but they do. LOTS of them.
Anecdotal, but true nonetheless:
When I was in restaurant management, one of my favorite and best workers gave me her notice in early September. "Surely she got a better job", I thought, "good for her".
Nope.
Seems that she had reached the "peak" of her earned income credit and if she continued to work she would "lose money".
Of course I tried to explain that she was losing far more money by not working those last 4 months. She just shook her head and explained to me that I was naive, and didn't get it.
To some people free money is far more valuable IN THEIR MIND, than earned money.
I've seen this mentality time and time again. It is as though they have been brainwashed and you CANNOT convince them otherwise.
I don't think it's that she (or anyone else) thinks it's better or easier to just live off of the government, but rather it can be terrifying to let the guaranteed money go, even if it less than your would-be paycheck.
I'll share my personal story.
I got laid off in 2009. I looked for a job for months with no leads, then I found out I was pregnant. What a time for BC to fail after 3 years of functioning perfectly right?? Anyway, about 4 months into my pregnancy and still no job with bills putting us in debt and a person on its way, I finally applied for unemployment. I look for a job until it was close to my due date, then took a break for obvious reasons. After she was born, we realized childcare would outweigh any potential paycheck I would get, so we sold our house, downsized and moved less than a mile from my husband's work to cut down our monthly expenses. Even though we knew we were now covered (barely) it was so hard to stop receiving the money, because you never know what might happen. He might get laid off, the electric company could increase our rates, something devastating could happen to our only car, our house might need a repair... There are so many "if's" and not enough money to cover emergencies that could send one into a debt they could never recover from. That money was a nice safety net that I knew would be there, but we didn't "need" it anymore, so I quit filing for it. It was really hard to do, so I can understand the fear many people have about losing their benefits. There is not much in the form of job security in this country anymore and COL is too high for most salaries these days. We need to get real about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Teenagers and women no older than 25?
Yes. Love doesn't just mean romantic love. A person who feels, unexcepted, outcasted or unloved by their parents, family, friends, even high school sweethearts, may feel the need to have a baby for someone to love and want them. Though I don't think this actually happens too often.
This is very questionable, at best. In the conclusion of the lengthy report you link above it states:
"The evidence also seems clear that in the short run, minimum wages do not appear to have ripple effects for those workers earning middle-class wages or higher".
So as the cost of goods and services that employ minimum wage workers increase across the board to absorb the increase in labor costs, the people in the "middle class" are now poorer.
It happens every single time. When they raise minimum wage the people making minimum wage are better off for only a short time until prices reset themselves and then they are right back to where they were, with the big impact being on the middle class who didn't receive any raise, and are now spending more each month as the cost of living has increased.
It is a "feel good" measure that in reality just kicks more middle class earners DOWN the ladder rather than helping the poor climb UP the ladder.
Not true. Raising the minimum wage does not cause the prices of goods and services to go up, particularly if it is gradual. Even if the employer pushes the costs onto the consumer, they are miniscule, like literally pennies. But if more people have more money to spend, they will buy more stuff, which creates jobs, which grows the economy. We probably do need to put some checks in place for some of these greedy corporations so they will stop gouging the market and our pockets, but typically raises are a good thing. Maybe if we actually hold these companies responsible for the well-being of their employees instead of us allowing them to push that responsibility off onto the government, they wouldn't be so eager to make things unaffordable??
Look at it this way...if you're a young lady getting ready to go whoring around, you'll think twice before doing something if you will have all of the responsibility of the outcome.
If a woman is married to a man with a good paying job, she is not eligible for welfare. If she divorces him, she is.
In my state the ex husband has to pay child support which off sets some of the cost of assistance. Most people on welfare have never been married and not planning to be. Boyfriends of these women have it made and he usually has been the baby daddy of numerous children. On check day they become very attentive and get a handout from each baby momma. Thats life in the big cities!
I have always wondered if welfare gives poor people a reason to have babies that they could not otherwise afford on their own. Do you think that the generosity of of tax dollars incentivizes these people to be irresponsible and if we changed welfare through reform would it greatly reduce the cycle of poverty. The reason I ask is that it really angers me when I see poor people having so many kids and are rewarded for it. It really does disgust me. What do you all think?
Of course. If you subsidize something, you will get more of it.
"The study also found that most children born to unwed mothers do see their mothers enter wedlock. Sixty-four percent of the unwed mothers get married..."
64%
Testing the Economic Independence Hypothesis: The Effect of an Exogenous Increase in Child Support on Subsequent Marriage and Cohabitation
Maria Cancian , Daniel R. Meyer
Demography
June 2014, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 857-880
I wanted to see this for myself and the test pool was 672 single mothers. Here are some interesting findings from your source. Nowhere in that study does it support what you stated. FAIL
"In about one-fifth of all cases, the child support system official records of paternity show that the mother had had children with more than one father. Most mothers lived in Milwaukee County, the primary
urban county in the state." Page 865
"We divide mothers into four categories based on mothers’ self-reports. At the time of the third-wave interview, 11 % of mothers were married, 72 % were single (no partner), 7 % were cohabiting with a father of one of their children, and 10 % were cohabiting with someone who is not a father of one of their children (a “social father”)." Page 868
Look at it this way...if you're a young lady getting ready to go whoring around, you'll think twice before doing something if you will have all of the responsibility of the outcome.
If you are "whoring," you probably have deeper problems and are not thinking much at all. Especially of the future.
LOL!
You really think that individual would be more responsible and accountable if welfare did not exist? That person sounds rather careless to me.
Almost everyone thinks that, and we're all right. It's obvious that the 1996 changes made a big difference in how welfare mamas do things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
