Welfare (as requested in the kid haters thread)

[starwarsfreek42]

I was urged in the Longest Pit Thread Evarr! to start a thread about a welfare system reform uh… thingy. I’m not sure if it was out of genuine curiosity or whether they wanted to see me get piled on again, but I guess I’m up for either.

So, in the thread, I proposed a theoretical system that would, hopefully, remove the incentive for people to stay on welfare by disallowing them to have children while on any type of government assistance. By any sort, I mean any sort at all–food stamps, disability, medicare/medicaid (perhaps with the exception of PlanFirst, which is a GOOD IDEA) pell grants, section 8 housing, unemployment compensation, you name it. The process by which this might work could be set up as follows:

1. When a female who qualified for such assistance went to pick up said assistance such as a check, food stamps, etc. they would be required to recieve a birth control shot, IUD or implant in exchange. Or, if it were direct deposit, they would be required to show up at the health department for a shot or implant at the designated intervals. Obviously this won’t work in every case because people have allergies, so exemptions would apply. The reasoning would be, of course, that if the person couldn’t provide for themself and the kids they already had, they have no right to bring another into the world. Anyone found to have concieved a child while on assistance is disqualified, men included.

2. For those children who are born to people who have been disqualified, medical care, food, clothing, diapers, and other supplies would be provided. Not in the form of debit card or check, but the actual product which would be picked up at a designated location, perhaps hospitals/health departments/schools. Older children could recieve toys and educational materials as well, and of course benefit from the public education system. The goal here is to provide the child with what he needs to succeed without giving the parents a free ride for 18 years.

3. Those jobless adults who are disqualified for assistance could still recieve a basic food/shelter/running water package so that they wouldn’t be starving on the streets. We are a civilised society, after all. They could not, however, recieve medical care except in emergencies and would remain disqualified for pell grants, unemployment, etc. Again no checks would be written, but bulk food items could be picked up at designated places and times. The idea here being, if you want a better life, go get a job and earn it.

4. Job counselling and training would be provided for anyone and everyone who was unemployed, whether they were currently on assistance or were disqualified. Daycare could be provided as well for those who couldn’t find or afford babysitters. Obviously those who wished to go to college could still get other private grants and loans to go to school.
   I have no special knowledge of economics, I just made this plan up as an example. College students who were on pell grants would finish that semester and be then be disqualified if they concieved a child. Yes, that includes men. Yes, it is possible for poor kids to afford college tuition without pell grants, I’m doing it right now. Nobody would go hungry, but they wouldn’t exactly be living comfortably either, until they got a job. Assistance in finding a job would, as I stated above, be provided freely. It’s not about discriminating against the poor either–a middle class white guy who lost his job and qualified for unemployment would be barred from conceiving children for the duration as well. Those who found themselves in need while already pregnant (or while their wives/girlfriends were already pregnant) could still qualify, provided they agreed to the birth control after the kid is born.

So I guess the debate here is, would it work? Would it be too expensive? And, is it moral/ethical to deny those who can’t provide for themselves the right to reproduce at the government’s expense? My thoughts are that it could be managed if done properly. It’s cheaper to give every welfare mom a shot every three months than it is to take care of all those extra unplanned babies. Is it moral? IMO, it’s more moral than letting all those unwanted/unplanned babies be born and having the taxpayers foot the bill. Those religious folks who refused the birth control could always turn to a private or religious charity if they really needed to or, heaven forbid, go get a damn job.

I’ll try to head off the flamewar by saying that I am female, with no kids, currently on Depo Provera, and while I do hate kids, I don’t hate women and I’m not a hypocrite. The above is pretty much the standard I hold myself to. Let’s try to keep this civil and rational and out of the Pit, please.

[Clothahump]

I think a simpler system would be this:

1. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out. You can be on welfare for a specified length of time and no more, say a year or so. After that, you get a job (exceptions for those physically unable to work, of course). Welfare benefits should include free job training and free daycare services for those attending that training.

2. Welfare is based on your family status at the time of signup. If you have two kids, you get payments based on two kids. You get pregnant and have a third, you don’t get any more money for it.

[starwarsfreek42]

That is simpler, but what about that third kid? What if the parents don’t find a job and are unable to feed it?

By giving welfare moms actual products rather than money, I think that makes the situation more of a hand up than a hand out. My sister in law trades the use of her food stamp card for cigarettes and crack. This system would eliminate that kind of crap.

[Caveat_lector_1]

If this is such a problem, and I think you need to show data that it is a major problem, then why not just hand out the goods to everyone? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but things like food stamps and public housing are also for people who do have jobs, but don’t make enough. So your point that they can somehow fix this by getting a job isn’t necessarily true. Also, as they would loose assistance if they conceived a child, you would make it harder for them to educate themselves to a level where they could get off the program.

Next, though your intention isn’t to discriminate against the poor, I’m pretty sure that is what the result will be. A middle class person would remain on this for a short period of time, while a poor person might not, despite trying very hard, get off it ever.

Also, I’m not sure setting up large distribution centers with the employees that would require would actually be cheaper.

However, I am much more troubled by the thought of the government getting into the business of deciding who has the right to have more children. I don’t think I want them having that power at all. Screw any slippery slope it might cause. I don’t even want them on the top of the hill. It also seems to be verging on a kind of coercion to say be temporarily sterilized or else we take away your benefits.

[cerberus]

You might add in a component about bringing the biodad in for his end of the costs.

The contraceptives remind me a bit of the “trap/spay/neuter/shots/release” approach to managing feral cat populations.

[starwarsfreek42]

@Caveat_lector_1

If this is such a problem, and I think you need to show data that it is a major problem, then why not just hand out the goods to everyone? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but things like food stamps and public housing are also for people who do have jobs, but don’t make enough. So your point that they can somehow fix this by getting a job isn’t necessarily true. Also, as they would loose assistance if they conceived a child, you would make it harder for them to educate themselves to a level where they could get off the program.

Next, though your intention isn’t to discriminate against the poor, I’m pretty sure that is what the result will be. A middle class person would remain on this for a short period of time, while a poor person might not, despite trying very hard, get off it ever.

Also, I’m not sure setting up large distribution centers with the employees that would require would actually be cheaper.

However, I am much more troubled by the thought of the government getting into the business of deciding who has the right to have more children. I don’t think I want them having that power at all. Screw any slippery slope it might cause. I don’t even want them on the top of the hill. It also seems to be verging on a kind of coercion to say be temporarily sterilized or else we take away your benefits.

Currently I don’t have any cites for it being a problem. I was asked to open this thread, and it’s almost my bedtime. I’ll be back tomorrow though, hopefully with some data. By disqualifying them from assistance I haven’t made it harder for them to educate themselves; loans are easily had. I’m up to my ears in them.

Discrimination, in my book, requires intent. The plan doesn’t intentionally target the poor, it’s designed to help them not dig themselves in further by having kids they can’t care for. If they do, they kid will still be cared for but they will lose their own pell grants/unemployment, etc.

I think you are right, you can qualify for food stamps or section 8 if you have a job. If you are taking advantage of those, under this plan, you don’t get to have more kids.

It doesn’t seem like coercion to me. It’s a simple requirement for being dependent on the government. A contract. You can survive without it, but not comfortably. Hopefully people won’t like the lifestyle and will take advantage of the job training programs in order to get out of it.

[starwarsfreek42]

@cerberus

You might add in a component about bringing the biodad in for his end of the costs.

The contraceptives remind me a bit of the “trap/spay/neuter/shots/release” approach to managing feral cat populations.

Well isn’t that program still in place? My own biodad is currently in jail for failing to pay child support, in the amount of $41,000. From jail, he isn’t going to send my mom any money. Since I’m over 18, I think it’s irrelevant, but nobody listens to me.

Yeah, it is sort of like the feral cat thing, but it’s not permanent. Everybody still has the right to have as many kids as they want, technically, just not while receiving government benefits.

[Caveat_lector_1]

@starwarsfreek42

Currently I don’t have any cites for it being a problem. I was asked to open this thread, and it’s almost my bedtime. I’ll be back tomorrow though, hopefully with some data. By disqualifying them from assistance I haven’t made it harder for them to educate themselves; loans are easily had. I’m up to my ears in them.

You have made it more difficult, because now they’ll be coming out of college in debt. Yes it is still possible, but is undeniable now more difficult. Also, if they may be unable to get a lane that they can reasonable handel.

@starwarsfreek42

Discrimination, in my book, requires intent. The plan doesn’t intentionally target the poor, it’s designed to help them not dig themselves in further by having kids they can’t care for. If they do, they kid will still be cared for but they will lose their own pell grants/unemployment, etc.

If it is reasonable foreseeable that a program will be discriminatory there is a problem. Also if your that concerned about them digging themselves in deeper then why not just provide free birth control? Why make it mandatory? (Never though I’d see the day I’d argue for giving out birth control)

@starwarsfreek42

It doesn’t seem like coercion to me. It’s a simple requirement for being dependent on the government. A contract. You can survive without it, but not comfortably. Hopefully people won’t like the lifestyle and will take advantage of the job training programs in order to get out of it.

It is not a simple requirement. It is a very invasive one. Your not asking them to attend classes your asking them to under go a medical procedure.

I’ll point out again that if this is such a problem that we should just hand out goods to everyone on assistance. It would be easier, but I doubt it would be cheaper. I’ll also restate that I think the government has no business getting into the realm of telling people when the can have kids. Government power has a tendency to expand and that could have bad results, but even if it didn’t the government has no business regulating fertility.

[cosmosdan]

I agree welfare is meant to be a hand up. People need different levels of help but I believe they also need to be pushed into being responsible for themselves. It isn’t easy for a program to make that judgment call.

A couple of years ago I talked to a man whose wife suffered a severe medical problem. It would have ruined them if not for some programs that helped pay the bills and medical bills. Because of the help they received they were able to again be productive tax paying citizens.

OTOH we have citizens who have become dependent on welfare even across generations. I knew several women who lived in subsidized housing, got food stamps, while their live in boyfriend worked full time.

I tend to favor workfare in which people able to work are required to do something in order to receive help. I think there should be limits on welfare payments. I believe in New Jersey a few years ago the Governor limited payment amounts and the birth rate actually went down. It may be hard to accept but some women will have children just to increase their welfare check and if they know there’s a limit they will practice better birth control.

[starwarsfreek42]

Free condoms and spermicide can be had at almost any health department. When I used to make lots more money I paid for my Depo shot every three months, but since it’s on a sliding scale and I make less now, I get my shot for free. If I preferred a patch or pills, or an IUD, those would also be free.

Free birth control has not stopped all those unaffordable babies.

[Caveat_lector_1]

@starwarsfreek42

Free condoms and spermicide can be had at almost any health department. When I used to make lots more money I paid for my Depo shot every three months, but since it’s on a sliding scale and I make less now, I get my shot for free. If I preferred a patch or pills, or an IUD, those would also be free.

Free birth control has not stopped all those unaffordable babies.

So the people either don’t know about it (which would not surprise me at all) or they don’t want it. If they don’t want it you are trying to get them to take it by stripping them of their benefits if they don’t. How is that not coercive?

[starwarsfreek42]

@Caveat_lector_1

So the people either don’t know about it (which would not surprise me at all) or they don’t want it. If they don’t want it you are trying to get them to take it by stripping them of their benefits if they don’t. How is that not coercive?

Slow down, there. I’m not trying to do anything. I’m a poor college student studying for final exams and trying to keep my head above the water. All of this is hypothetical. I’m not lobbying to strip anybody of their benefits from anything.

It’s not coercive because it would be honest. As in, if you do A, you get B. If not, you don’t. If, hypothetically, they had such a problem with birth control, they don’t have to take it. You don’t think the government should have the right to decide who can and can’t reproduce, but I don’t think those who want to reproduce should have the right to burden the rest of society when they can’t afford it.

[RickJay]

@starwarsfreek42

2. For those children who are born to people who have been disqualified, medical care, food, clothing, diapers, and other supplies would be provided. Not in the form of debit card or check, but the actual product which would be picked up at a designated location, perhaps hospitals/health departments/schools. Older children could recieve toys and educational materials as well, and of course benefit from the public education system. The goal here is to provide the child with what he needs to succeed without giving the parents a free ride for 18 years.

I think you’re vastly underestimating the staggering expense and scope of what you’re proposing. You’re suggesting a degree of logistical complexity that would stand an excellent chance of being even MORE expensive than any current system, especially given that you’re going to be asking the government to run it.

For all its faults, the advantage of simple welfare is it’s simple and cheaply administered; here’s a check, go buy food. Having to have an entire system of distributing goods to an ever-changing roster of recipients sounds to be like an organizational nightmare, and presents a bazillion different perverse incentives and ways of gaming the system. I’m totally confident it would cost more and accomplish less.

Those jobless adults who are disqualified for assistance could still recieve a basic food/shelter/running water package so that they wouldn’t be starving on the streets. We are a civilised society, after all. They could not, however, recieve medical care except in emergencies and would remain disqualified for pell grants, unemployment, etc.

I don’t know if you realize this, but this pretty much is what welfare is NOW.

Welfare payments are miniscule. Yes, it’s a check, but the truth is that in most jurisdictions it’s a tiny amount of money that will be eaten up by any shelter and meal plan more favourable than a cardboard box and eating from Dumpsters.

I don’t know where the idea got started that welfare’s a lot of money, but it’s a preoposterously tiny amount that, in most cases, ISN’T enough to keep a person housed and fed. In the State of New York the basic payment for a woman with one child is $398, including both basic welfare and housing allowance. Even throwing in food stamps (Assuming they’re even eligible, which is under dispute) it’s about five hundred bucks. Perhaps my standards are higher than most, but I can’t see myself and a kid getting by on $500. If we did it’d be one goddamn dreary, horribly Spartan lifestyle.

Is a system that hands out such paltry amounts really in desperate need of change? Where is the evidence the system needs fixing?

[starwarsfreek42]

@RickJay

I think you’re vastly underestimating the staggering expense and scope of what you’re proposing. You’re suggesting a degree of logistical complexity that would stand an excellent chance of being even MORE expensive than any current system, especially given that you’re going to be asking the government to run it.

For all its faults, the advantage of simple welfare is it’s simple and cheaply administered; here’s a check, go buy food. Having to have an entire system of distributing goods to an ever-changing roster of recipients sounds to be like an organizational nightmare, and presents a bazillion different perverse incentives and ways of gaming the system. I’m totally confident it would cost more and accomplish less.
I don’t know if you realize this, but this pretty much is what welfare is NOW.

Welfare payments are miniscule. Yes, it’s a check, but the truth is that in most jurisdictions it’s a tiny amount of money that will be eaten up by any shelter and meal plan more favourable than a cardboard box and eating from Dumpsters.

I don’t know where the idea got started that welfare’s a lot of money, but it’s a preoposterously tiny amount that, in most cases, ISN’T enough to keep a person housed and fed. In the State of New York the basic payment for a woman with one child is $398, including both basic welfare and housing allowance. Even throwing in food stamps (Assuming they’re even eligible, which is under dispute) it’s about five hundred bucks. Perhaps my standards are higher than most, but I can’t see myself and a kid getting by on $500. If we did it’d be one goddamn dreary, horribly Spartan lifestyle.

Is a system that hands out such paltry amounts really in desperate need of change? Where is the evidence the system needs fixing?

My sister in law and her ilk are the evidence that the system needs fixing. I don’t have cites tonight, I’m about to feed the dogs and head for bed.

It may be more expensive to hand out actual goods, but hopefully over time less people would be using the system and for shorter amounts of time. I know welfare payments are minimal but that doesn’t stop people from handing the baby to their parents for the week and blowing it all on… blow.

[Caveat_lector_1]

@starwarsfreek42

Slow down, there. I’m not trying to do anything. I’m a poor college student studying for final exams and trying to keep my head above the water. All of this is hypothetical. I’m not lobbying to strip anybody of their benefits from anything.

It’s not coercive because it would be honest. As in, if you do A, you get B. If not, you don’t. If, hypothetically, they had such a problem with birth control, they don’t have to take it. You don’t think the government should have the right to decide who can and can’t reproduce, but I don’t think those who want to reproduce should have the right to burden the rest of society when they can’t afford it.

I think it is fairly obvious that you, yourself, are not out doing this. However, it is your proposed system.

Just because there is a choice doesn’t mean it is not coercive. When the Feds threatened to pull highway funding unless the states upped the drinking age that was coercion.

Its not necessarily the right the reproduce. That is far narrower than what I’m looking at. The government should not be in the business of coercing adults (you still haven’t persuaded me it not coercion) adults into medical procedures. It is not a good road to go down.

Also, I see RickJay has elaborated upon my previous point that what you are proposing will not be cheaper. How are you going to distribute the goods? Are you going to deliver it to their door? To every town? Are you going to build centers? Where? If you don’t build them everywhere your going to have to provide some kind of transport or you might as well not distribute goods.

Even if it doesn’t cost more it’ll still cost so I’m going to pull out the ol’ slippery slope and say that it won’t take long before people start asking why we don’t put anyone on any kind of assistance (even the bare minimum you proposed) on birth control. After all they’ll still be having children that will require goods which will cost.

@starwarsfreek42

My sister in law and her ilk are the evidence that the system needs fixing. I don’t have cites tonight, I’m about to feed the dogs and head for bed.

It may be more expensive to hand out actual goods, but hopefully over time less people would be using the system and for shorter amounts of time. I know welfare payments are minimal but that doesn’t stop people from handing the baby to their parents for the week and blowing it all on… blow.

I think you over estimate the number of people who are willingly on government assistance. For most people its not a cushy life. Also those who work, but don’t make enough aren’t living anything close to a nice life. Their jobs are often dirty, tiring, and low paying.

Also your system will not fix people handing the baby to their parents and wasting the check. As long as they take their shot they get their check. How is rendering them unfertile going to fix them wasting it or trading it for drugs?

[starwarsfreek42]

It won’t, but it’ll stop them from having crack babies.

[flickster]

Sorry if this was already included and I missed it…

All recipients of assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc) must submit to initial, and be available for random, drug testing as long as they are receiving benefits

[Dallas_Jones]

All forms of government assistance?? If you already had a child receiving an education at a public school, no more kids for you! Kid in college and your income allows him to get federal student aid, back on birth control! Drive on the freeway to get to work? No donut! Build your own road! Government assistance is just a matter of degree, everyone is getting some form, and I mean everyone, even the richest person.

What you are really talking about is a government enforced eugenics program where only the very privileged will be able to reproduce. You yourself say that you are a poor college student, under your new world view you would not exist.

[Broomstick]

@starwarsfreek42

1. When a female who qualified for such assistance went to pick up said assistance such as a check, food stamps, etc. they would be required to recieve a birth control shot, IUD or implant in exchange. Or, if it were direct deposit, they would be required to show up at the health department for a shot or implant at the designated intervals.

So… screw any right to privacy, bodily integrity, the right to refuse medical treatment or, for women, control over her own body? This is inherently discriminatory because this part of the plan solely affects women and ignores the fact that men are 50% responsible for any child generated.

What if a woman doesn’t show up for her “direct deposit” exam? Will you have her arrested?

You are talking about coercively forcing women to undergo medical treatment.

The reasoning would be, of course, that if the person couldn’t provide for themself and the kids they already had, they have no right to bring another into the world.

Again, this process appears to disregard that whenever a child is brought into the world there is a man involved.

Anyone found to have concieved a child while on assistance is disqualified, men included.

So there’s a birth control failure and you kick two people to the curb? You do realize that there will be conceptions despite birth control even when both parties do everything right, correct? So… your birth control fails and two people are now without any form of assistance at all. Good show.

How about a free abortion being offered? Oh, right - can’t kill the unborn, let’s just make their parents even more destitute…

2. For those children who are born to people who have been disqualified, medical care, food, clothing, diapers, and other supplies would be provided. Not in the form of debit card or check, but the actual product which would be picked up at a designated location, perhaps hospitals/health departments/schools. Older children could recieve toys and educational materials as well, and of course benefit from the public education system. The goal here is to provide the child with what he needs to succeed without giving the parents a free ride for 18 years.

Hey, why don’t you just snatch the little rugrats away and give them up for adoption?

Seriously - who decides what “supplies” are needed? Which toys? Does this include school uniforms (which even some public schools require) or are such kids just out of luck? You’re proposing a logistical nightmare.

3. Those jobless adults who are disqualified for assistance could still recieve a basic food/shelter/running water package so that they wouldn’t be starving on the streets.

Excuse me - they’re disqualified for “assistance” but they’re being given basic food/shelter/water? Isn’t that assistance?

Frankly - guarantee of basic food and shelter is more than many people are getting TODAY from government assistance.

We are a civilised society, after all.

No, we’re not.

They could not, however, recieve medical care except in emergencies and would remain disqualified for pell grants, unemployment, etc.

In other words, pretty much just like today if you’re uninsured and your unemployment benefits have run out.

Again no checks would be written, but bulk food items could be picked up at designated places and times.

In other words, food pantries and soup kitchens. Of course, if you’re so poor as to have lost your home good luck cooking “bulk” items like beans without a stove…

The idea here being, if you want a better life, go get a job and earn it.

How charming - you obviously haven’t been unemployed and looking for a job recently. Yesterday I heard on the radio there are four jobseekers for every available job right now - guess 3 out of those 4 are just screwed, huh? Your system presupposes there is a job at a living wage for everyone able-bodied. Right now, there isn’t.

So, if your plan were implemented right now you’d have 75% of the people currently looking for work S.O.L - the women would all be forcibly sterilized (albeit temporarily) and if they did get pregnant said woman and her significant other would be stripped of all aid without recourse to an abortion (which they would not have the money for and, not being a medical emergency, they would not qualify to get under your plan). The alternative being to receive no help whatsoever which benefits them… how?

4. Job counselling and training would be provided for anyone and everyone who was unemployed, whether they were currently on assistance or were disqualified.

Which does squat if employers aren’t hiring.

Daycare could be provided as well for those who couldn’t find or afford babysitters.

So far, this is the only part of your proposed system that I feel has any merit whatsoever.

Obviously those who wished to go to college could still get other private grants and loans to go to school.

I’m sorry - what makes you think that anyone in the private sector would loan money to someone stripped of all means of support to the point of being unable to house themselves?

Nobody would go hungry, but they wouldn’t exactly be living comfortably either, until they got a job.

I have TWO jobs at the moment, and I still wouldn’t say I’m living “comfortably”.

Assistance in finding a job would, as I stated above, be provided freely.

Which, again, is only helpful if employers are hiring and if the jobs available provide a living wage. A full time minimum wage is NOT enough to live on in most urban areas.

It’s cheaper to give every welfare mom a shot every three months than it is to take care of all those extra unplanned babies.

Right, because everyone woman on welfare is a “welfare mom” and no one middle class ever falls on hard times. :rolleyes:

I have a sister who for the first 45 years of her life lived a middle class lifestyle with a job and income. She and her husband very much wanted and planned and provided for her children. Well, at this point she no longer has a husband, she’s trying to get her boys out of high school and into college, and yes, she’s on welfare - so suddenly she’s a “welfare mom” and her boys are “unplanned” because right now they’re going through hard times. I mean, she hears it all the time. It’s just one example of a kneejerk assumptions that people make all the time. The assumption is NEVER that you’re a responsible person fallen on hard times, if you’re poor today the assumption is you’ve always been poor, and you will always be poor.

Of course, I understand why people do that - if they ever admitted that someone might up poor through no fault of their own, that you can do everything “right” and still wind up destitute it would just rock their little world. It means that simply “being responsible” won’t guarantee that Bad Things never happen to them.

[Broomstick]

@starwarsfreek42

I think you are right, you can qualify for food stamps or section 8 if you have a job. If you are taking advantage of those, under this plan, you don’t get to have more kids.

Food stamps currently provide $100 in food per month. $25 per week. Wow, that’s a lavish amount!

Are you aware that Section 8 housing in some areas has a ten year waiting list?

It doesn’t seem like coercion to me. It’s a simple requirement for being dependent on the government. A contract. You can survive without it, but not comfortably.

Right, because that $100 food allowance and living in a cardboard box for 10 years while you wait for an apartment is SUCH a deal…!

Hopefully people won’t like the lifestyle and will take advantage of the job training programs in order to get out of it.

You know, the poverty life style SUCKS. I am working two jobs trying to get out of it. You know what I REALLY need, more than foods stamps or Section 8 or someone forcibly sterilizing me? I need a job that pays a living wage. You know, enough to cover my rent and food and a few toiletries for me and my husband - a husband who is disabled, but has been told he doesn’t qualify for disability (we are fighting that with a lawyer at present).

You are very naive if you think “job training” programs will solve poverty. What will solve the poverty problem is a job that pays enough to live on, not “training”.

Oh, and just for the record - my husband and I both have college degrees. I have over 20 years in the work force. I got laid off at the beginning of our current economic mess and have been scrabbling to get by ever since. Sorry, honey, education alone isn’t going to get you work if there’s no job openings. Getting just any job won’t work, you need a job that pays enough for you to meet your monthly expenses - which, even for the most frugal, minimum wage won’t do in my area.