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.
If you want to end generational poverty, pay them to not have children, not the other way around.
I’m all in for paying them $50k to get their tubes tied or snipped. .
I do agree that it is particularly galling when a family or individual that is unable to support themselves currently (i.e., on public assistance) goes ahead and has another child.
I'm not sure what the solution is; how do disincentivise having more children on public assistance.
Maybe some kind of system where families who do NOT have another child get more in public assistance than families who DO have more children?
I do agree that it is particularly galling when a family or individual that is unable to support themselves currently (i.e., on public assistance) goes ahead and has another child.
I'm not sure what the solution is; how do disincentivise having more children on public assistance.
Maybe some kind of system where families who do NOT have another child get more in public assistance than families who DO have more children?
The fact is there's nothing we can do that isn't either 1) cutting off compassion for a child or 2) a heinous overreach of the state into personal freedom. It's sad to say, but both the child and the taxpayer are essentially hostages. The kid didn't choose to be here, the only thing we can do is to pour money into education as well as find ways to grow the economy to make sure those children have a chance.
The fact is there's nothing we can do that isn't either 1) cutting off compassion for a child or 2) a heinous overreach of the state into personal freedom. It's sad to say, but both the child and the taxpayer are essentially hostages. The kid didn't choose to be here, the only thing we can do is to pour money into education as well as find ways to grow the economy to make sure those children have a chance.
But offering money to a single mother in exchange for her having only one kid does not (1) cut off compassion for her child - on the contrary, it offers to this child a much better chance of getting out of poverty than if he/she hadn't been the only child (there will be more money and parental attention for that child than if he/she lived in poverty with four other siblings). Also, offering this reward to the mother isn't (2) any heinous overreach of the state into her personal freedom. She can take the money and raise the child, or leave the money and struggle through poverty with multiple other kids - her choice entirely. If anything, the option to be paid more for having a single child plus tubal ligation than for multiple children would be one additional possible choice - and having more choices is equal to more freedom, no?
But offering money to a single mother in exchange for her having only one kid does not (1) cut off compassion for her child - on the contrary, it offers to this child a much better chance of getting out of poverty than if he/she hadn't been the only child (there will be more money and parental attention for that child than if he/she lived in poverty with four other siblings). Also, offering this reward to the mother isn't any heinous overreach of the state into her personal freedom. She can take the money and raise the child, or leave the money and struggle through poverty with multiple other kids - her choice entirely. If anything, the option to be paid more for having a single child plus tubal ligation than for multiple children would be one additional choice - and having more choices is equal to more freedom, no?
You make some good points.
In addition, at minimum, a 3-person family living in a 2 bedroom apartment in a NYCHA apartment project, for example, shouldn't be offered a 3 bedroom NYCHA apartment if they have another child.
They should simply continue to squeeze themselves into the 2 bedroom apartment (That's what most middle class families in NYC do, in any case).
They chose to have another child, that's one of the consequences.
In addition, at minimum, a 3-person family living in a 2 bedroom apartment in a NYCHA apartment project, for example, shouldn't be offered a 3 bedroom NYCHA apartment if they have another child.
They should simply continue to squeeze themselves into the 2 bedroom apartment (That's what most middle class families in NYC do, in any case).
They chose to have another child, that's one of the consequences.
Aaah, you are seeing the light finally :-). I think everybody (even I :-) agrees that completely destitute people should be given some bare minimum to survive miserably, but not so much that the handouts make "poverty" attractive - ie, nobody should be paid to live in NYC for free, when so many decent working people aren't able to pay for the privilege of living in NYC. Displacement of people on generational welfare into the boondocks is totally ethical and fair- it is particularly ethical and fair towards anybody, NY-born or "transplant", struggling to survive in NYC by means of honest work, who could use the affordable housing occupied by generational welfare. Every normal New Yorker should be happy to see the former group being displaced by the latter.
Aaah, you are seeing the light finally :-). I think everybody (even I :-) agrees that completely destitute people should be given some bare minimum to survive miserably, but not so much that the handouts make "poverty" attractive - ie, nobody should be paid to live in NYC for free, when so many decent working people aren't able to pay for the privilege of living in NYC. Displacement of people on generational welfare into the boondocks is totally ethical and fair- it is particularly ethical and fair towards anybody, NY-born or "transplant", struggling to survive in NYC by means of honest work, who could use the affordable housing occupied by generational welfare. Every normal New Yorker should be happy to see the former group being displaced by the latter.
Well, there's where we disagree.
I don't agree with displacing anyone,rich or poor.
I’ve noticed this about white People in America. People will read an article or two and declare themselves the ultimate authority on groups or things they know nothing about. New Yorkers have thus especially bad.
stop speaking so vaguely. please be more specific so we can have a further discussion.
I don't agree with displacing anyone,rich or poor.
Suppose I owed a mortgage on my home condo (I don't, but let's suppose I do, and I stand here as an example of any middle class person). If I became unable to pay back the mortgage, the bank would surely foreclose on my condo, and I would be displaced from it. So, why should the welfare poor be protected from displacement, when nobody else is?
I’ve noticed this about white People in America. People will read an article or two and declare themselves the ultimate authority on groups or things they know nothing about. New Yorkers have thus especially bad.
Holy Smokes .........for real?............I can't believe the discourse.........
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.
