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.
Sounds like some people chose not to pay attention in school & now blame things on the school system instead of themselves. Personal responsibility & all that jazz.
Naw, I actually aced economics when I took it (wish they had more classes like that). I'm also one of the few that made it out of my 88% black neighborhood. What else you got?
Naw, I actually aced economics when I took it (wish they had more classes like that). I'm also one of the few that made it out of my 88% black neighborhood. What else you got?
The really puzzling thing is the second part of your post. Why is it that affluent successful people are not having more children? They're vastly better equipped to raise and support a large number of children after all, yet on average the richer you are the fewer children you have.
If you oppose abortion -- which I do -- then you've got to have some means of taking care of all the unwanted babies. If you've got a problem with all the kids being born now, how will we manage if there's a bunch more?
Poorer people often got where they are because they got pregnant and were unable to continue their education. Then they continue to make poor choices, often resulting in more and more children. Young mothers are trying to get by with only the dimmest of prospects. Young fathers are too busy paying child-support or otherwise supporting their kids to pursue the necessary steps towards higher income. Most people that I've known that are on welfare would really rather not be. It robs you of your personal pride to admit that you can't take care of yourself and your family. I don't know if studies have ever been done, but I expect that you would find that the majority of welfare recipients would rather be self-sufficient.
It all boils down to personal responsibility "before" you get pregnant. It's a fact that many of these poor mothers have baby after baby because they know that the government aka the taxpayer will take care of them. That has got to stop! I don't have all the answers to make it happen but there's got to be a way.
Those who have to pay themselves to raise them have fewer children. Those who know they can count on someone else to pay to raise them have more children.
Women receiving public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't.
The federal government financially incentivizes a higher birth rate among the latter group. Unfortunately, the children of that group are also those most likely to struggle as adults, as well. Hence, our country's downward spiral, and the widening income and wealth gaps.
I wasn't referring to numbers of children per se.
People will always have the biological instinct to reproduce. I'm in no way condoning taking advantage of tax payers however.
People will always have the biological instinct to reproduce.
Yes, but there are clear distinctions between how each of the two groups in my post manages those biological instincts. The group that has to bear the financial cost of reproducing is more responsible about doing so. The group that bears no/little financial cost for reproducing does so irresponsibly, foisting that cost onto others.
Quote:
I'm in no way condoning taking advantage of tax payers however.
I think this is a complex issue with no single answers.
I don't want to demonize the poor, according to webMD, almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Rich or poor.
There are many demographic, social and cultural factors.
Sexual intimacy might not be an immediate need for survival, it is still a pretty strong urge. In my ideal fantasy land, people will only start a family when they are ready (physically, financially, mentally, etc) but if you looked at the history of all mankind, it is not been a sure bet.
------------------
All these said, I want to comment on the word "afford".
Just because you are one low wage worker, doesn't mean you cannot afford a child. I have a friend who is a low wage worker, his wife is a stay at home wife. They manage to raise their adorable son with no helps from government. They budget, use coupons, work hard, wife also sells stuff on ebay, etc. Just because the society believes that they cannot afford it, doesn't mean they cannot raise their kid. As long as they can start a family without asking for government's help. I have no problems with it.
What I don't get is why welfare would be a motivator for having more babies. They can't be getting that much from the state. And kids are very expensive, financially and in terms of opportunity cost. Having 3 kids is far more work than just working at an office 9-5.
Often, not always but often, low income is due to poor life choices.
This is just one more.
Exactly, and they just do not think of the future. I am not going to say, only people in certain income levels should have kids or there should be a limit on how many children a family can have, but there should be a limit how much government help they can get and it should be cut off after a couple of kids. BTW, I don't hold the notion about pregnancy happening even when using birth control correctly. Of course accidents happen, birth control can fail, but when families living in poverty or close to poverty level and they have 5, 6 or more kids, getting pregnant using birth control isn't the reason.
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.
