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.
That is a very valid good point and well taken. The system itself, makes it easy for certain types of people to pop babies out like they are pop tarts.
Maybe they should try a fixed limit, have to start someplace, which is better then doing nothing.
And some people never learned the meaning of personal responsiblity, having had no parental guidance while they were growing up. Children, teens, do learn by example, but you have to set a good example for the children, for them to even learn by example.
So many of these children i understand from cousins and friends who work in Social Security offices across the Country, say it is so sad, that so many children are left to fend for themselves. Not a very good beginning. Being self sufficent and knowing what personal responsiblity means, never hurt a soul.
wouldn't leaving children to fend for themselves enhance the development of personal responsibility?
Government workers are overpaid, especially those workers doing jobs comparable to mine (food service, cashier, janitor). I believe no private sector worker should have to pay a higher effective federal tax rate than government workers doing the same or equivalent job.
Same or equivalent job? There aren't very many public sector jobs with private sector equivalents, and the determinants of how much employees in each are to be paid is a result of a very different set of criteria. You have to also consider the odd nature of taxing public employees' incomes - essentially, it amounts to paying someone for doing a job for you and then taking back some of that money you payed them - it would honestly make more sense to just pay the individual without taxing them, but factoring in the tax rate in the determination of what one's salary/wage should be.
Same or equivalent job? There aren't very many public sector jobs with private sector equivalents, and the determinants of how much employees in each are to be paid is a result of a very different set of criteria. You have to also consider the odd nature of taxing public employees' incomes - essentially, it amounts to paying someone for doing a job for you and then taking back some of that money you payed them - it would honestly make more sense to just pay the individual without taxing them, but factoring in the tax rate in the determination of what one's salary/wage should be.
Food service, cashier, janitor, these are jobs I have done and these jobs all have government equivalents which pay much better.
Yep. Way too many out of wedlock babies being born on welfare and this means higher crime and more taxes.
The obvious question is what are the best set of policy approaches to address the problem of child poverty. It's not really the fact that the children are born out of wedlock that is driving up crime, taxes and welfare payments - that's a spurious correlation. The real issue is poverty broadly, combined with a relatively weak and ineffective social safety net along with a spattering of other institutional and policy problems.
Whether or not a couple is married when they have a child is irrelevant. Having a single parent who is largely, if not solely, responsible for raising the children. Marriage certainly reduces the likelihood of the child being raised largely by a single parent, but there are plenty of couples who have children out of wedlock and raise the child together without marrying. Divorced couples or single-parents who are no longer together doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as detrimental either; if each parent is responsible and loves the child joint custody can allow the child to spend plenty of time with each of their parents.
However, when you have a single parent (typically we talk about single mothers with custody of their children, which represent the vast majority of single parents, but there are single fathers with sole custody as well - I was one of them - and the number of single fathers with custody is on the rise) and the other parent is either dead or does not get involved with their child or provide any sort of financial support.
Of prime importance is the lack of viable childcare services. Childcare in the US is a disaster - demand is far higher than supply, costs are outrageous yet quality is extremely low. Thus, a single parent not only has trouble finding childcare so they can work but they also have trouble paying for it. If you have a 2 year old and you're a single parent then, in order to work full-time, you have to be able to access childcare for 40 hours a week and ensure that it is available for the times you work (particularly hard for parents who don't work a standard 9 to 5 shift). If you can find childcare then you have to pay for it - 40 hours of childcare a week is incredibly expensive. Reliability may be low unless it's an actual business (much childcare in this country is informal with a stay-at-home mother watching other peoples' children for supplemental income, sometimes it is provided by family members such as a grandparent too, but these are both unreliable - the childcare provider may get sick, or have an emergency, or go on vacation leaving the parent in a predicament that could threaten their job security). Childcare centers are better insofar as they are far more reliable, but they cost a ton and often suffer from poor regulation and quality. Thus, a single parent is forced to pay a sizable chunk of their income to be allowed to... earn that income! Many developed democracies provide tax-payer funded (or partially funded) universal childcare; some go further and provide childcare in an educational setting so that children are not only being watched and socializing, but also begin receiving education at a much younger age. Would universal childcare be expensive? Yes. But it would end up paying for itself because it increases labor supply, educational attainment, etc. - the return to investment is huge.
Second, instead of worrying about unwed couples having children, let's worry about children having children (If you're 21 or younger you're a kid in my eyes). How do we do this? Completely eliminate abstinence-only sex education and require real sex ed. Start sex ed at a young age, stop acting like its taboo to talk to children about sex - we have an odd cultural aversion to exposing children to information about sex, yet little aversion to sexualizing children (look at the kinds of clothes young girls often wear, look at youth beauty pageants). Sex ed needs to not only be taught in a comprehensive manner, it needs to be mandatory (so private schools and homeschooled children shouldn't be exempt) and it needs to AVOID scare tactics that over-the-top. Honesty is most important. Kids have sex; always have, always will. Instead of telling them abstinence only, we should teach them that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STIs but that condoms and other forms of birth control can be very effective so if you are going to do it, do it safely. I believe condoms should be readily available to teenagers - some will argue this promotes sex among young people but young people already are screwing. They are going to whether or not they have access to contraception so provide contraception! Teach middle/high schoolers about the cost and responsibilities involved in having and raising a child. Emphasize that sex isn't 'bad' but must be practiced safely, encourage youth to not try having children before they finish their education and begin a career.
Third, provide more opportunities for young children to learn how to be good citizens and workers. After school programs that emphasize healthy activities, teaching children about budgeting, requiring much more advanced civic and ECONOMIC education beginning in middle school. Make school mandatory til the age of 18 and provide incentives to finish high school. Provide more funding for college - less loans (and lower interest rates on them), more grants and much more federal and state funds for colleges and elementary and secondary schools. Expand vocational programs and work to remove the stigma of vocational education relative to university education.
Food service, cashier, janitor, these are jobs I have done and these jobs all have government equivalents which pay much better.
Government equivalents of these jobs represent a very small percentage public sector jobs. The fact that they pay more than private sector jobs you've worked in that are equivalent is due to the criteria by which wages are determined. The private sector runs on supply and demand, as long as there are individuals willing to take these jobs at a low wage then the private sector will provide lower wages. The government sets universal payment standards that are not subject to supply and demand and not motivated by profit. I don't get the problem or issue here at all? It's the nature of capitalism - the lower wages in the private sector help maintain lower levels of unemployment - these jobs are not really meant to be careers - they are for young people just getting into the world of work, they are for supplementing incomes from other jobs, they are for elderly individuals who want to do a bit of part-time work... they are a stepping stone. The low wages in the private sector, in my opinion, are a good thing for these jobs insofar as they help incentivize education and a desire to find a better job that pays more, is more enriching and rewarding.
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.
