None of the above adds up to “having a kid is a moneymaker.” If true, it shows that many women think that its worth having a kid in exchange for receiving the money mentioned. But none of the above shows that they are right, nor does it show they think they are “making money.” Maybe they think this is the most they can make but they are wrong, or maybe they think they could make more but they don’t care to and this at least offsets the costs enough, or maybe they’re thinking they could make more but it would be unreasonably difficult, etc.
And in some cases, maybe they really can’t realistically pull in more than $13,200 in a year and so having 3 kids is a genuine “money-maker”–but if that is true of some individual mother, what are we to do? Deny her the possibility of assistance? But she may have kids anyway and so now we’ve just turned poverty stricken, fed kids into homeless starving kids.
We could forbid her from having children, of course.
Unplanned pregnancies are more common among lower socioeconomic classes in Spain, too.
For some, the last one is actually a factor, from those whose mistaken beliefs include “you can lose your virginity from using tampons” and “if it’s only the tip it’s ok”, to those whose parents didn’t realize that the time to have The Talk is before your daughter starts having her period - specially if the family’s previous generations had the first girl in each generation get unexpectedly pregnant! (The other girls in each generation having learned from their cousin’s experience)
For simple fertility, not unplanned pregnancies, the biggest factor in Spain is that people who aren’t going to college and want kids start trying to have babies in their early 20s, whereas those who are going and want kids leave it to at least their late 20s - more often, their 30s or 40s. It’s just biology.
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.
I think I see what your problem is. You seem to have interpreted “money maker” as “makes more money than she can make elsewhere”, while I meant “makes more money than the cost of the kids”.
As I wrote in subsequent sentences in my original post on this subject
Right. And now we’re asking you for a cite that that is the case. It might be true, but its far from obvious, as kids are pretty expensive (10,000 a year for a single parent, according to the USDA, and that doesn’t count the opportunity cost of time spent raising them.)
I think that there are many factors to why a person would choose to have many children. To start off, you asked the question, “why are fertility rates higher among lower income women compared to the middle class” but then in your first statement you said, “why do women from lower income households tend to have more “unplanned” pregnancies”. These are two very different statements. The first has no mention to a major player, the man. For many cultures having many children is seen as a positive thing and both the male and female seek to reproduce so it is a life choice not an unplanned incident. People coming from that belief choose not to use the western taught idea of contraceptives because the idea of not having children is not an option. Many of these cultures for many different reasons tend to be in the working class. Now of course there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy in poorer classes but that has do with the poor parenting that is so often associated with poverty. The poor class has classes within itself. Many people come from other countries to our wonderful country to make better lives for themselves and start off with nothing. Then you have people who are where they are because of poor life choices. Then you have those who never had the opportunity to see that they are capable of getting out from where they are because of environment and poor parenting. The two latter examples tend to be the ones who don’t put enough effort into their futures to care or not whether they get knocked up and have 2 babies or 7 babies that will allow them to get the bigger welfare checks at the end of the month. So I think there are many answers to your question.
All these costs are heavily subsidized or completely paid by welfare programs, for low income single mothers. Plus, a single mother is herself eligible for some types of assistance for which singles without children don’t qualify, which is where the “money-maker” aspect comes in.
As previous, “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”.
You can take it or leave it.
ETA, I’ve addressed opportunity cost in my prior comments.
There’s definitely some chicken/egg swapping going on here (pun unintended).
It’s pretty clear that lower income tends to result in increased fertility. However, it should be equally clear that increased fertility lowers income (particularly for women, on whom most of these metrics are based).
emacknight alluded earlier to the bygone days when a man dropped out of school and got a factory job to support his shotgun bride and unplanned kid. Nowadays, girls drop out of school and get jobs to support their unplanned kids.
[QUOTE=F-P]
As previous, “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”.
[/QUOTE]
Translation: I made it up, so how am I supposed to offer citations?
The term “moneymaker” was certainly a poor one, but there is no doubt that there are substantial numbers of people who game our social welfare system (as well as others who are stuck on the welfare treadmill and can’t get off, but that’s a different thread). Most women who use pregnancy and child-raising to game the system basically are accepting a relatively low standard of living in return for not having to work, though there are occasional welfare queens who manage to scam the system out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. A scam on that level usually involves multiple accounts set up with phony or stolen identification. A scam some polygamists pull is to have only one marriage legally recognized. Children born to the other wives then draw money from the state, since legally they have no husbands or means of support, and the entire household benefits financially. This is somewhat common in fringe Mormon sects and among recent immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.
But the context was Frylock’s uncertainty as to whether for low income people the costs of having a child were low or zero, and my point here is that it’s negative, i.e. that increased social assistance is greater than the costs of the child.
To be clear, I’m referring to the former and not the latter. (I’m not sure I would call it gaming the system, though.)
On this note, I was recently speaking to an accountant/tax preparer that I know and he said it’s extremely common for people to “sell” their children for Earned Income Credit purposes. For example, suppose the income for the guy with the kid(s) would not maximize the value of the EIC, they allow someone else to claim that kid in exchange for payment. He estimated that 75% of all EIC payments are fraudulent in this manner. (I’m not sure if one guy’s experience is enough to make a valid generalization, of course.)
Interestingly, shortly after that conversation I read that DSK’s accuser was doing just this sort of scam.
Note: this is a comment on LP’s post, and is independent of my other comments to this thread.
Foth, do you have a cite for an actual ‘welfare queen’? Or anyone actually gaining more than the costs of a child from these programs? Yes, it has been done illegally, but you are implying there is a legal means of actually profitting from government programs administered as intended.
Umm, while I understand that real and true death from starvation is rare in the United States (people CAN find food somewhere, whether it is a local church, food bank, or the dumpster behind McDonald’s), have you met many very poor people? There are many with serious health problems which may be exacerbated by poor diet (e.g. if all you can afford is a bag of potato chips). Also, people who are poor may have less nutrition education or may not see nutrition as such a big deal as most middle or upper class people see it.
Well, here’s an article about Mormon polygamists gaming the welfare system. 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.
Again, what I’m saying is that single parents of minor children are themselves eligible for various forms of assistance (and/or exempt from accompanying work requirements) for which they would not be eligible (or exempt) if they had no minor children, in addition to the programs that pay for the children themselves. The first of these is the “profit”.
I find it hard to believe that anyone remotely familiar with these programs would deny this, which is why I think people demanding cites are either ignorant & lazy or are not arguing in good faith.
There is no doubt that parents of minor children receive benefits from the government. But you still seem to contend that these benefits would exceed the costs of the children if properly applied. That’s what everyone finds doubtful.
I don’t believe that “everyone” finds it doubtful.
There are programs that cover the basic costs of the children, i.e. food, medical. The only major expense that does not have an associated program is clothing.
Offsetting that, the mother becomes eligible for foodstamps (for herself), TANF, a HUD subsidy for her own apartment etc., in addition to the programs which pay for the children.
I agree in large part with what F-P is saying (although I don’t have any cites either). I don’t think F-P is saying that disadvantaged moms are making money having kids; rather, he’s saying that disadvantaged moms are able to receive funds they otherwise wouldn’t be eligible for if they didn’t have kids. It’s not the case that “I’m going to have a kid because then I’ll make bank!” it’s more of a case that, “I’m living with my mom now with my siblings, and if it happens that I get pregnant, then I’ll be able to get TANF or WIC and that’ll buy us all food.” I don’t believe that disadvantaged teens actively try to get pregnant, but it’s no big deal if they do.
When your entire family and everyone you know lives the same scraping by life where having kids at young ages is commonplace and not seen as a negative, you’ll probably feel the same way and won’t sweat it so much if it happens to you. You know that there are avenues available for help, and there’s no “shame” or negative connotations to taking advantage of those avenues. When your entire family and everyone you know lives the same expectations of going to college and getting a job, then perhaps making time for marriage and family, and that having a kid is highly detrimental to those goals, and that accepting government assistance is anathema and highly shameful, you’ll take steps to avoid pregnancy. I don’t think it’s that strange a concept.