# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/101 "2011-09-30T03:48:23Z")
> [@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. Actually, it is nothing like your poor analogy. Prior to 1996, you might have had a point. However, the 1996 welfare reform bill changed the system, requiring that payments stop after two years and limiting the total number of years in which an individual could receive such aid to five in that person’s lifetime. If you are going to pretend that there are women out there who are getting pregnant simply to have an income without a job or husband when that income will be exhausted before the child is out of diapers, you are going to have to provide a citation, and nattering on that “everyone knows” about a system that you appear to be unaware was radically changed over fifteen years ago is not going to give anyone a reason to trust your claims. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/102 "2011-09-30T03:50:37Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > 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. I’ve heard this argument before. The interesting part is you never hear any actual numbers to back it up because it is BS: [ul] [li]95% of American households do have vehicles. We live in a country where we have more cars and trucks than we have licensed drivers.[/li] [li]You don’t need fresh fruits and vegetables to have a healthy diet. The frozen stuff is fine. The canned stuff isn’t as nutritiousness but beats eating crap. [/li] [li]Most of nutrition you need can be derived from eating beans and rice. cheap to buy, easy to store.[/li] [li]In reality, these people you are talking about go home and watch TV. If you got time to watch TV you got time to cook.[/li][/ul] There may be a lot of people that don’t eat nutritious meals, but they aren’t victims. I understand them perfectly. I like eating crap also. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/103 "2011-09-30T03:58:28Z")
Fwiw, having children and living off of welfare can be a money maker, since you’ll receive more from the government in assistance (see: TANF) than you pay to the government in taxes 😛 Edit: It’s not the U.S., but… [Take it with a grain of salt, really](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-541598/Meet-families-ones-worked-THREE-generations--dont-care.html). ---
**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, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/104 "2011-09-30T04:09:20Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Edit: It’s not the U.S., but… No it is not the US. And the safety net in Europe is generally speaking far more generous than the US. Not surprisingly, the US has the highest child poverty rate among the world’s high income countries, with the possible exception of Israel. Cite: OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/105 "2011-09-30T11:21:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Fwiw, having children and living off of welfare can be a money maker FWIW, your word is no more credible than the people before you that claimed this with no evidence. If a US cite that supports your assertion exists, you should be able to find it, presuming you’re not using a very special Europe-only version of Google. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/106 "2011-09-30T11:32:45Z")
> [@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. Any planning you disagree with is, by definition, poor? If I’d gotten pregnant, I would have looked at giving the child up for adoption, because during the years during which I was having sex, I was still terrified that I’d be as lousy a mother as mine, her sister, their mother or their paternal grandmother. But, unlike other women I know who were surprised to find themselves pregnant, I knew the possibility of pregnancy existed even though I was taking measures to lower it. How is “considering all possibilities and not only the desirable ones” poor planning? ---
**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 30, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/107 "2011-09-30T13:25:47Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Fwiw, having children and living off of welfare can be a money maker, since you’ll receive more from the government in assistance (see: TANF) than you pay to the government in taxes 😛 > > Edit: It’s not the U.S., but… [Take it with a grain of salt, really](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-541598/Meet-families-ones-worked-THREE-generations--dont-care.html). It’s not about whether you receive more than you pay in taxes. It’s whether you can actually afford to live on that amount long term. Good job reading the thread before posting, though. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/108 "2011-09-30T14:01:39Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Generally, I don’t comply with requests or demands for cites… Yeah yeah yeah. Most people who make stuff up don’t. > [@](#): > > … 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. … More like demanding a cite for a claim that the sun and the planets revolve around earth. You can repeat old debunked myths as often as you like but it does not change the fact that the actual facts [are otherwise](http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm). > [@](#): > > Working families do receive “financial incentives” to have more children, and far larger ones than welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child. > > Not surprisingly, these “incentives” are too small to influence the behavior of potential parents, especially in a decision as life-altering and important as having a child. Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman’s decision to bear children. (2) > > Just one of these studies’ findings is that states with higher benefits do not see higher birthrates among its welfare mothers. According to a 1992 study by Child Trends Inc., the five states with the highest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women – Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada and New Mexico – all have AFDC benefits below the national median. The four states with the lowest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women – Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont – all have AFDC benefits above the national median. > > The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent. (4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless families to either side of this comparison.) > > And, contrary to popular belief, the size of welfare families has been declining over the decades … > [@OMG ...](#): > > … see: TANF … [This TNAF?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families) > [@](#): > > There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one’s lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods.[4] In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household. While on aid, there is a component requiring non-exempt clients to attempt to find employment. Unmarried minor parents have to live with a responsible adult or guardian. Paternity of children must be established in order to receive benefit … Five years max, with those provisos, including establishment of paternity, is hardly the moneymaker driver of large fatherless families that y’all imagine. “Family caps” also do [not](http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~gwallace/Papers/(11).pdf) have an impact. Back to the op - part of the answer (to the degree that it turns out to be true that the poverty is causative of larger family size) may be the very simple … access to effective means of contraception, and the power within a relationship to insist upon its use, correlates with maternal educational and income level. ---
**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 30, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/109 "2011-09-30T14:20:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Back to the op - part of the answer (to the degree that it turns out to be true that the poverty is causative of larger family size) may be the very simple … access to effective means of contraception, and the power within a relationship to insist upon its use, correlates with maternal educational and income level. Well the OP did point out that condoms are ridiculously accessible. I, too, often wtf at the lack of condom use. You can’t even take a piss in a bar without staring down a condom machine. Even with the 300% mark-up they’re affordable, for everyone else, drug stores sell them by the box for very little and are often open 24 hrs/day, plus many places give them away for free. It’s not like condoms are similar to other methods of birth control, which essentially mean if you don’t have money or medical insurance, they’re hard to come by. I don’t get the lack of condom use, because they _are_ very accessible to everyone. I say this as someone whose high school produced multiple single mothers while they were in high school. I don’t mean they grew up to raise children alone later in life. I’m not some sociology major at Carlton College peering over my eyeglasses into the mystical world of poor people, theorizing and reading a lot of well-meaning books by other sociologists who only understand the issues of the poor from the viewpoint of a book. I understand the real-life disadvantages that affect poor people everyday, I understand the psychology --I grew up in it–, I understand the neighborhoods, and know first-hand how terrible the schools are. I’ve watched the issues of the poor perpetuate themselves, and I understand it, and am endlessly irritated by people who don’t. Even so, I don’t get the whole condom thing. But I don’t think lack of contraceptives is the reason for the high birth rates. It may be somewhat of a factor, but it’s a tiny one, and even if we personally placed condoms on the night stands of every poor person in America, the birthrates would still be higher among the poor. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/110 "2011-09-30T14:51:09Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Well the OP did point out that condoms are ridiculously accessible. … Please reread the post of mine that you quoted and note the second portion “and the power within a relationship to insist upon its use”. ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/111 "2011-09-30T15:19:40Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’ve heard this argument before. The interesting part is you never hear any actual numbers to back it up because it is BS: > > [ul] > [li]95% of American households do have vehicles. We live in a country where we have more cars and trucks than we have licensed drivers.[/li] > [li]You don’t need fresh fruits and vegetables to have a healthy diet. The frozen stuff is fine. The canned stuff isn’t as nutritiousness but beats eating crap. [/li] > [li]Most of nutrition you need can be derived from eating beans and rice. cheap to buy, easy to store.[/li] > [li]In reality, these people you are talking about go home and watch TV. If you got time to watch TV you got time to cook.[/li][/ul] > > There may be a lot of people that don’t eat nutritious meals, but they aren’t victims. I understand them perfectly. I like eating crap also. Have you seen the price of gas lately? I rarely see beans and rice in convenience stores, when I do they are considerably higher in price than supermarket prices. After a ten or more hour day of hard monotonous work relaxing and watching TV may well be a better use of their time than cooking. Last, but not least tasty food (and usually the heavy calorie fattening stuff is what tastes good) can help lift a person’s spirits. It can provide comfort in a hostile world. It’s easier to get than Prozac and probably less dangerous than narcotics. ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/112 "2011-09-30T16:14:09Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Please reread the post of mine that you quoted and note the second portion “and the power within a relationship to insist upon its use”. Okay, read it, don’t think there’s a power dynamic in the sexual relationships of poor people that doesn’t allow women to insist on condom use. Maybe in, say, Eritrea, but not in Camden, New Jersey. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/113 "2011-09-30T16:29:47Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Have you seen the price of gas lately? > Every job I ever worked at, I shopped for groceries on the way home, so the gasoline cost was nil. > [@](#): > > I rarely see beans and rice in convenience stores, when I do they are considerably higher in price than supermarket prices. After a ten or more hour day of hard monotonous work relaxing and watching TV may well be a better use of their time than cooking. Last, but not least tasty food (and usually the heavy calorie fattening stuff is what tastes good) can help lift a person’s spirits. It can provide comfort in a hostile world. It’s easier to get than Prozac and probably less dangerous than narcotics. So to summarize your point, poor people aren’t eating food for nutrition, they are eating it for entertainment. That is just reenforcing my original point about unsupervised ten year olds. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/114 "2011-09-30T16:43:35Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > FWIW, your word is no more credible than the people before you that claimed this with no evidence. If a US cite that supports your assertion exists, you should be able to find it, presuming you’re not using a very special Europe-only version of Google. Surely, you’re joking. You want a cite showing that welfare programs cause certain persons to receive more money from the government than they pay out in taxes? > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > It’s not about whether you receive more than you pay in taxes. It’s whether you can actually afford to live on that amount long term. Good job reading the thread before posting, though. It’s amazing just how quick some of you are to come out of the proverbial woodwork to try to find fault with something typed out. You’ll find that **I** (key word) said nothing about long-term solvency or whatever you want to call it, but rather that one receives more by being on welfare relative to what they pay out to the government. That is a simple fact; anything beyond that is pointless posturing. Fwiw, your question serves no purpose. How do you determine whether or not someone can “afford” to live on welfare? Since it’s virtually free to them, how could they not? ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/115 "2011-09-30T16:45:19Z")
Seriously. Read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/116 "2011-09-30T16:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely, you’re joking. You want a cite showing that welfare programs cause certain persons to receive more money from the government than they pay out in taxes? No, I want a cite that > [@](#): > > Fwiw, having children and living off of welfare can be a money maker I don’t _expect_ one, mind you. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Seriously. Read the thread. If you really believe that would help, may I borrow a cup of boundless optimism? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/117 "2011-09-30T17:05:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Seriously. Read the thread. I did read the thread and I was responding to the convo on page one. I’ll take your reply as being an admission that you have no real response to anything I typed out, and instead just felt the need to respond for the heck of it. > [@DianaG](#): > > I don’t expect one, mind you. So you want a cite showing that welfare programs cause certain persons to receive more money from the government than they pay out in taxes? That’s precisely what I asked, only to have you tell me ‘no’. How about you not try to chop up my responses and ignore that which you wan to ignore? ---
**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 30, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/118 "2011-09-30T17:09:13Z")
Can you please shut the hell up in threads you haven’t read? Try following the conversation, and not just a couple of comments on page one. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/119 "2011-09-30T17:16:17Z")
I’m not so sure how you get to me not having read the thread because I responded to the convo going on on page one, but I digress. With that being said, I can respond to a comment made on any page. There aren’t any rules which say “You can’t respond to a comment (or conversation) made two days ago”. Don’t like the fact that I responded? Don’t read my response. Simple, huh? Otherwise, you just come off as a fool. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785/120 "2011-09-30T17:20:40Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > So to summarize your point, poor people aren’t eating food for nutrition, they are eating it for entertainment. That is just reenforcing my original point about unsupervised ten year olds. Shopping for groceries on the way home from work is not practical for many poor people. Poor people are more likely to rely on public transportion. The bus is not conductive to carrying home large bags of anything and the bus schedules can add another hour to an already too long day. Nor does everyone have access to 24 hour supermarkets to accomodate the non 8-to-5 work schedule. The convenience store however may be 24-hour. As for eating for entertainment, the poor aren’t automations. Everyone needs some entertainment are their personality turns feral. Would you perfer they found their entertainment in alcohol, drugs, or thrill-seeking vandalism? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-fertility-rates-higher-among-lower-income-american-women/597785.md?page=7)