# Why are fertility rates higher among lower-income American women? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785 "2011-09-27T18:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/81 "2011-09-29T14:15:28Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You seem to be wandering into irrelevant comments that don’t address my point. > > I said that malnutrition in the US isn’t caused by poverty, but by people eating unhealthy convenience foods that don’t require any preparation when healthy food that require cooking would actually cost no more or actually less. In the post I quoted, you were talking about the UK, not the US, and about some bloke claiming that immigrant groups use more fresh produce. I was explaining why that might be so. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/82 "2011-09-29T14:17:06Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I didn’t make a case. You certainly didn’t. You almost never do. > [@DianaG](#): > > I asserted nothing. Oh, please. You have a definite and specific position on the matter, which you are trying keep off the table because you know you can’t present a case for it. > [@DianaG](#): > > Bring it, or go home. I’ve already brought it. Deal with it. I don’t need to provide cites or evidence for a well-established fact. If you think there isn’t substantial abuse of our welfare systems, you need to deal with the fact that the number of fatherless homes among the underclasses has been growing steadily for decades and is closely associated with welfare. > [@DianaG](#): > > (Nothing from Stormfront will be acceptable.) Neither will anything from the SPLC, Mother Jones and their ilk. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/83 "2011-09-29T14:22:38Z")
> [@](#): > > well-established fact “Well-established fact” doesn’t mean the same thing as “stuff LP thinks”. You don’t speak English so good for a white guy. If it’s so well-established, take 30 seconds out of your life to show me a cite. Or shut up. Either’s fine. Insisting that everything you pull out of your ass is gold doesn’t stop the rest of us from recognizing the smell of shit. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/84 "2011-09-29T14:48:25Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > “Well-established fact” doesn’t mean the same thing as “stuff LP thinks”. Well, judging from the conversation so far, “stuff LP thinks” is a lot more likely to be factual than “stuff DianaG thinks.” > [@DianaG](#): > > You don’t speak English so good for a white guy. I have no doubt that my skill with the language greatly exceeds yours, though I admit you show a fair degree of facility for a colored woman.\* > [@DianaG](#): > > If it’s so well-established, take 30 seconds out of your life to show me a cite. Why? It is perfectly proper to refuse a demand for cites when there clearly is no need or when the demand clearly has not been made in good faith. Both conditions apply here. If you really think that’s not an established fact, surely you can take 30 seconds out of your life to show that it’s counterfactual. > [@DianaG](#): > > Or shut up. Either’s fine. Such eloquence. :rolleyes: > [@DianaG](#): > > Insisting that everything you pull out of your ass is gold doesn’t stop the rest of us from recognizing the smell of shit. Well, I suggest you see an OTO specialist, as you clearly don’t recognize the smell of what’s coming out of your mouth. \*And don’t go crying to the mods. You’re the one who dragged race into it. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/85 "2011-09-29T15:03:30Z")
So still no cite then? Okey dokey, the point that you’ve got nothing has been pretty thoroughly made at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/86 "2011-09-29T15:18:27Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You certainly didn’t. You almost never do. Oh, please. Personal comments like this don’t belong in this forum. > [@](#): > > I don’t need to provide cites or evidence for a well-established fact. If it’s well established, it should be easy to cite. “I don’t have to cite this because everybody knows it” is empty bluster, and it is indeed easier to cite an argument than it it is to insist over and over that cites are unnecessary. If you don’t want to support what you’re saying, there’s not much sense in participating in a debate forum. > [@DianaG](#): > > “Well-established fact” doesn’t mean the same thing as “stuff LP thinks”. You don’t speak English so good for a white guy. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I admit you show a fair degree of facility for a colored woman.\* Both of you need to stop this immediately. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/87 "2011-09-29T15:21:49Z")
NM ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/88 "2011-09-29T16:04:24Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > If you’re poor, your birth control option is probably just condoms, unless you’re lucky enough to have access to sliding-scale health care, smart enough to seek it out, lucky enough to have it nearby, and brave enough to walk in if it’s a Planned Parenthood and you’re worried about someone you know finding out you’re entering “an abortion clinic” or braving any protesters. I suppose bravery being a requirement to go to Planned Parenthood must depend on where you live. I relied in Planned Parenthood for many years, and no bravery was required. There were no picketers or bomb threats, and going into a PP was just as eventful as going into a Rite Aid. Another thing is people might be ignorant of what PP’s benefits are in their area, which is easy, considering they vary by location. In Los Angeles, for example, there were no questions asked, outside of the necessities like name and address, in order to administer birth control. I moved to MN and opted for PP while I had no health insurance, and they required proof of citizenship, along with a small laundry list of requirements before shooting me with Depo. I thought PP was supposed to be for people whose options were otherwise limited, yet my experience in Minneapolis may as well have taken place at a regular freakin’ hospital. Okay, sorry about that little mini-rant there. > [@even\_sven](#): > > Sometimes, people say “Eh, I might end up pregnant. Let’s see what happens.” I know I’ve done that before- I’m 30 years old, not quite financially where I should be, but not too far either, and while I’m certainly not trying to get pregnant, if I did it would be fine with me. Some people just aren’t planners. You’re single and have a low income, and you have such casual disregard toward whether or not you have a child? I’m not a planner either, but some things should involve at least cursory planning. > [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Want to bet. The serious illnesses which lead to death are not the same in America as they are in the Third World, but malnutrition (as in not getting the right kind of food) is a problem and people are dying from it. Our obesity rate is skyrocketing leading to increases in diabetes, hypertension, etc. The lower socioeconomic groups have a greater problem with this because lots of cheap, but emotionally satisfying food is fattening. Poor nutrition which leads to illnesses is a far cry from people “starving to death.” The answer to the OP’s question is, of course, all of the above, with the exception of this silliness about having children being profitable. The Welfare Queen image was something dreamt up by the right wing in the 1980s and doesn’t exist. There may have been some clever people here and there able to scam the system out of “hundreds of thousands” of dollars, but for the most part, Welfare moms aren’t exactly hobknobbing with Robin Leach. Even if they become eligible for social welfare programs that they would not have been without a child, they hardly net a profit, and certainly not one worth having a child over. To classify money as a motivation to bare children is just plain asinine. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I won’t bother with cites for professional welfare mothers. There is no reasonable doubt about that, and I just don’t have the time and energy to argue about it. Please, humor us. What you’ve given thus far (stray bands of Mormons) fails. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/89 "2011-09-29T17:21:17Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Well, here’s an article about [Mormon polygamists gaming the welfare system](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/earlyshow/main4005519.shtml). I won’t bother with cites for professional welfare mothers. There is no reasonable doubt about that, and I just don’t have the time and energy to argue about it. I have reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/90 "2011-09-29T17:41:34Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Please, humor us. What you’ve given thus far (stray bands of Mormons) fails. Generally, I don’t comply with requests or demands for cites. My experience has been that such requests are too often made in bad faith to justify the investment of time and energy. In any case, there really isn’t anything to debate here. For several generations and decades now, our welfare systems have brought about a huge increase in fatherless families, and demanding a cite for that is like demanding a cite for the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I have neither the time nor the patience to indulge needless demands for cites. If someone thinks they can make a case that our welfare system has not been a major factor in the immense increase in fatherless households, I’m all ears. But they’re going to have to do better than shake their heads and say “Nuh _uh!_” over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/91 "2011-09-29T18:28:44Z")
:rolleyes: In other words, you what you perceive as flaws in the Welfare system is directly responsible for more unwed mothers having children for the sake of making money, but refuse to provide anything that supports this claim. Your claim is entirely false, and if you believe my asking for a citation is in bad faith, and thus you refuse to do anything but peddle shallow stereotypes that have no basis in reality, perhaps you can tell me how much financial benefit you believe, roughly, a woman stands to gain by having a baby? Please no tired generalizations that you heard on the radio. Enlighten me, sans citations, on what you think these women gain from bearing children. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/92 "2011-09-29T18:35:16Z")
Also, in your explanation, be sure to spell out why Welfare is the **reason** there has been an increase in fatherless families, in case you were not intending to do so. If you’re going to make such claims and provide no proof, I would at least like a detailed explanation as opposed to reverting to the same “Welfare Queens” trope with no further information. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/93 "2011-09-29T19:54:20Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > You’re single and have a low income, and you have such casual disregard toward whether or not you have a child? I’m not a planner either, but some things should involve at least cursory planning. Eh, it’s not like I’m a teenage runaway. Already I’m in a far, far better position to provide materially for children than anyone in my family has ever been, ever. As for being single- it’s my experience that not being single when you have a baby is no guarantee you won’t be single at some point later. I’d rather be a planned single parent than an unplanned one. Anyway, there is no perfect time for anyone- if we waited until all circumstances were ideal, the human race would have ended a few million years ago. Sometimes you have to jump off that cliff and figure you’ll cross the bridges when you come to them. It’s not like I’m running around having unprotected sex to get knocked up or anything. But I think most women hit a point where they say “You know, in the non-zero chance that my birth control fails, I think I’d keep the baby.” ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/94 "2011-09-29T20:15:18Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You seem to be wandering into irrelevant comments that don’t address my point. > > I said that malnutrition in the US isn’t caused by poverty, but by people eating unhealthy convenience foods that don’t require any preparation when healthy food that require cooking would actually cost no more or actually less. There are many other factors to consider in the cost of food. Many poor people do not live within walking distance of a supermarket. They do live within walking distance of a convenience store. To go to the market where the fresh vegetables, fruit, bulk quantities samples, etc., are they either need a car (which also entails insurance costs) and the money to pay for gas or money to pay for a taxi. It’s possible to get a few bags of food home on the bus (which is still going to require some money to ride), but that may add another hour onto a day in which they have already worked ten or more hard hours, not to mention late nights at the bus stop are a darn good way to end up a crime statistic. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/95 "2011-09-29T21:33:37Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > (Inspired by this Slate article, arguing that the sharp divide between fertility of middle-class and poor American women will work to further entrench class differences from generation to generation: [America's Fertility Class Divide: What new numbers from the Center for Work-Life Policy and the Guttmacher Institute reveal.](http://www.slate.com/id/2304649/pagenum/all/)) > > Why do poorer women, all else being equal, tend to have more unplanned pregnancies than middle-class ones? The above-linked article cites education and access to family planning services as a major factor, and this seems reasonable at first glance. But - well, condoms are _cheap_, and I can’t recall the last time I saw even a convenience store that doesn’t sell them. (Well, I don’t think the store on the first floor of my office building does - but then, it’s meant to cater to the needs of working drones, who - presumably - can do without from nine to five). I suppose that the very, very poorest women might be unable to afford even a few bucks for condoms - but that seems like it would have be an extreme case even in the lower classes. Further, there are plenty of services (especially in cities) where one can pick up condoms for free, at will, no paperwork needed. Heck, the Presbyterian church a block from my apartment does this. Thanks, Presbyterians! > > And as for education: “Condoms prevent pregancy and most disease transmission.” Or, slightly more nuanced: “If properly used, condoms are very, very likely to prevent pregancy and transmission of most STDs.” That isn’t a difficult message to pick up. Is there really a substantial reservoir of Americans who don’t know this? And if not, what in Ford’s name do they think condoms are _for_? > > So, what’s going on here? Is greater religiousity amonst the lower classes inhibiting condom use (but not sexual activity)? Are lower-class women likelier to be in coercive relationships, and thus unable to insist on condom use? Or is it just that the price of condoms really is prohibitive for a very large demographic? > > (Note: Posters offering racist explanations shall be fired. Out of a cannon. Into the Sun.) Obviously there is high correlation between Presbyterianism and wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/96 "2011-09-29T21:49:42Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Generally, I don’t comply with requests or demands for cites. My experience has been that such requests are too often made in bad faith to justify the investment of time and energy. In any case, there really isn’t anything to debate here. For several generations and decades now, our welfare systems have brought about a huge increase in fatherless families, and demanding a cite for that is like demanding a cite for the heliocentric theory of the solar system. > > I have neither the time nor the patience to indulge needless demands for cites. If someone thinks they can make a case that our welfare system has not been a major factor in the immense increase in fatherless households, I’m all ears. But they’re going to have to do better than shake their heads and say “Nuh _uh!_” over and over again. What if we can point to places that have an even more liberal welfare system, but with a smaller percentage of fatherless households? Would you then abandon the idea that the American welfare system causing fatherless families is as established as the heliocentric theory of the solar system? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/97 "2011-09-30T00:57:33Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’ll throw in another hypothesis from the economic demography literature. Gary Becker argued that higher income households actually invest a lot in their kids: that is they pour a lot of resources (eg education) into fewer higher quality children. Yes, the guy actually stated there was a “Quality/Quantity” tradeoff with children, and the terminology stuck in the literature. I borrowed this Becker (1960) cite from Jones, Schoonbroodt and Tertilt (2008) linked earlier: they don’t find Becker’s argument persuasive: I don’t find their critique overwhelmingly compelling, though I don’t have an opinion on Becker’s argument and I’ve just skimmed this stuff. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > As you’ve provided no cites of your own, your complaint carries no weight. The evergrowing horde of fatherless children in both the white and black underclasses is all that is needed to prove substantial abuse of our welfare system. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > From Larry E. Jones, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt, 2008: Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship? I present the abstract… separating some points and adding bracketed comments. The thread is about the relationship between income and fertility. Alleged abuse of the welfare system is not sufficient to show this, as the preceding relationship occurs in countries and time periods without welfare systems. As I and others noted earlier. > [@DianaG](#): > > So still no cite then? > > Okey dokey, the point that you’ve got nothing has been pretty thoroughly made at this point. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/98 "2011-09-30T01:14:20Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > But I think most women hit a point where they say “You know, in the non-zero chance that my birth control fails, I think I’d keep the baby.” That kind of thinking is why there are so many women in poverty. We really need to actively work against it. In the Western world, in the 21st century there really isn’t an excuse for such poor planning. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/99 "2011-09-30T01:46:03Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > That kind of thinking is why there are so many women in poverty. We really need to actively work against it. In the Western world, in the 21st century there really isn’t an excuse for such poor planning. Some things are more important than “poverty.” My family is tiny, not exceptionally healthy, and there is only one person in it under 50. I’m honestly looking at the possibility of, in the nearish future, having _no family at all_. I really, really, really don’t like the idea of spending 35 or so Christmases without a family dinner, watching everyone I’m related to die without any births or weddings to look forward to and dying with at best one family member to remember me. For someone who was raised in a tight-knit family like myself, just thinking about it makes me want to cry. I’m not ready to be alone on this earth. I want to have people in my family, and I can’t really make someone else produce them (my various gay uncles are certainly no help), so eventually I’m going to have to kids. I’m turning 31. I have some time, but not infinite time. If that puts me in the poorhouse (which I’m pretty sure, at this point, it won’t) than so be it. I was raised poor and survived, and it was far from the worst thing in the world. Anyway, its not time yet, but if my body makes it happen anyway, it’ll be a joyous (if difficult) thing. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/100 "2011-09-30T01:53:34Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > That kind of thinking is why there are so many women in poverty. We really need to actively work against it. In the Western world, in the 21st century there really isn’t an excuse for such poor planning. I’m not actually sure what “poor planning” you’re talking about. Are you insisting that any woman who doesn’t get an abortion (or give the kid up for adoption) when her birth control fails is ipso facto a poor planner unless she has a certain minimal income? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785.md?page=6)