You shouldn’t have hedged and you didn’t go far enough. For lower-income women, having children is a money-maker.
Because parents of children are eligible for a lot more social assistance than people without children. And if you don’t see your career prospects as all that promising anyway, and if most of the people around you have social assistance as one of their primary sources of income, then this looms large.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that all these pregnancies are planned with an eye to getting more welfare. But it means that the prospect of getting pregnant is not as alarming to a person in this state as it might be to someone else, where their plans for financial security (i.e. career) would take a huge hit from an unplanned pregnancy.
[I’ve also seen it written that some girls from broken homes look at having a baby as the opportunity to have someone who loves them.]
There is a big difference between “unplanned” and “unwanted.” There is a lot of space between “OMG, having a kid would ruin my life forever!” and “Steve and I are trying to conceive- we’ve already painted the baby room and are tracking our ovulation.” 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. I mean look at your job- how many of you conducted a systematic job search versus how many stumbled in to their jobs by chance?
What, exactly, is wrong with being mildly unambitious? For 99.9999% of human history “I’d like to raise a family that’s not starving to death” is all anyone really asked out of life. It’s not a bad thing. Some people just want to have a family, really don’t mind having an apartment instead of a McMansion, and find the sacrifices to be worth it.
Look at our own grandparents. How many of you had grandmothers who graduate high school, had some kids, and settled down to a pretty ordinary life? Is that a tragic thing? I think it’s pretty normal.
Actually, I think most self-absorbed yuppies have kids in the equation. They are perfect kids, of course, with every minute of the day planned and supervised.
Sixty years ago a guy could drop out of highschool, get a job at a car company and earn a middle class income, more than enough to support his teenage bride and their 2.5 children.
That’s gone. Being mildly unambitious now means a life of poverty. Hell, even being mildly ambitious isn’t a guarantee.
So to “raise a family that’s not starving to death” requires a lot of planning and ambition.
I actually think middle and upper-class parents (shit, why is everyone talking about women…as if they just up and decide to spontaneously reproduce?) need to assess their own family-making decisions. All this, “I’ll go to college, do Peace Corps or travel the world, then go to grad/professional school, followed by several years of working up the corporate ladder until I finally start a family–and oops! I’m 43 now! My eggs aren’t what they used be! Guess I gotta go to the doctor and get pregnant!” craziness is just that. Craziness. Maybe not crazy for monetary or cultural reasons, but for raising a family? Middle-class women are starting to have babies when their ovaries are drawing down the curtains. Instead of having three or four kids, they feel lucky if they can have one or two. That’s all well and good if you want zero or negative population growth, but not so good if you actually want the population to keep on keepin’ on.
Contrast with a woman who’s not on this track. They graduate from high school, hook up with a guy who seems to dig them, and the inevitable happens. This happens to middle-class women too, by the way. They just go get abortions…because what about college?! What would the neighbors say?!!! You can’t have a baby and do Peace Corps too!
It’s also true that poorer people tend to be more religiously devout. This might put a damper on abortion-talk, but it might also mystify sexual behavior so that it becomes an act of rebellion to engage in it.
You also have to take into account that people from lower on the SES scale are more likely to be from bigger families and live in communities where larger families are the norm. Having one or two kids when you’re over thirty seems weird to them, the same way not having any kids or having the first of four kids when you’re 17 seems weird to middle-class career people.
I can, but I can’t be bothered. This type of informatioin is well known to anyone who is even slightly familiar with social assistance programs, and - more importantly - it’s readily available to anyone genuinely interested in finding out.
My purpose here is just to note this to those interested in knowing. If anyone refuses to accept this without a cite and doesn’t want to look into it themselves, that’s fine with me too.
You must provide support for the abovequoted statement.
You’ve already typed one certified falsehood–that the abovequoted is well known to anyone slightly familiar with social assistance programs. I myself am slightly familiar with social assistance programs, yet I do not know the abovequoted to be true.
Your credibility, then, is in doubt. Two unsupported statements, one of which is certified false.
It is to your benefit, then, as well as others reading the thread, to support the statement quoted above.
Not obvious to me either. And while my Google-foo is pretty good, I have a hard time thinking of a search that will confirm or disconfirm the claim. “lower-income women children money-maker” mostly brought up this thread. So, yeah, a few cites would be nice.
I don’t know why the all are, but there is a reason that they should be.
Across cultures there has been a fairly consistent association between female educational attainment and fertility. When the female members of a society have more education fertility rates go down. Male educational level plays less of a role.
Except for the phrase ‘money-maker’, his post is accurate. I imagine he believes in welfare queens.
I think that without education (or specialized skills) women are primarily valued for their bodies, as sexual objects or incubators. It doesn’t seem surprising to see a lower birthrate for educated women.
From Larry E. Jones, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt, 2008: Fertility Theories: Can They Explain the Negative Fertility-Income Relationship? I present the abstract, adding separating some points and adding bracketed comments.
More:
That men tend to marry women with similar levels of education has been one recent driver of household income inequality, btw.
The two key papers on intelligence, education, income, and fertility are the 2006 study by Rosemary Hopcroft using the GSS and the 2008 study by Daniel Nettle using the NCDS.
Intelligence decreases fertility in men and women, education decreases fertility in men and women, and income decreases fertility in women but increases fertility in men. This is not due to multiple offspring or multiple families, but solely because a higher income lowers male lifetime probability of childlessness. Dumb rich men are the most likely to reproduce, and there are probably a lot of pro athletes and entertainers who could illustrate this.
There are at least two major financial benefits to having children (though at opposite ends of the spectrum).
Earned Income Credit - Almost $6,000 if you have 3 kids.
Welfare - As much as $600 a month in liberal states like California.
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, one of my friends in the military grew up “on the streets” of Chicago. According to him there are many minority mothers there who will have a child once every five years so they can stay on welfare until their eggs dry up. After that they’ll look after their grandchildren (mind you, they’re barely in their 40s) and continue gaming the system.
Take a look at the movie ‘Precious’ for instance. The grandmother is thrilled to have two children to look after just to get the checks every month.
Kids cost more then 2,000 a year, though. I’m not convinced anyones making a net gain by churning out kids.
But in anycase, the relationship between education, income and fertility is pretty general across countries and time-periods. I doubt poor woman in Afghanistan or 19th century America were having more kids then their richer compatriots to get on welfare.