Foth hasn’t clarified what he means by ‘money-maker’, and apparently he believes in ‘welfare queens’. I stated far back in this thread that many young women make a deliberate decision to have children in order to live off these benefits. Living at a subsistence level that way is a far cry from making money. If he’s referring to the fraud often associated with this practice he might have a point.
Reread my posts, including post #44 et al.
No, it’s not. It takes money to live at a substinence level, and if you have kids the government gives you that money. If you don’t, they don’t.
Ok, then please clarify this statement:
That still makes it sound like a woman will end up with cash in her pocket after covering the costs of raising a child. There is no question that the woman is receiving money, goods, and services from the government without consideration. Can you establish that these exceed the costs of raising children?
On further reflection, I wonder what you’re up to.
In post #52 you wrote
And in post #58, you wrote
So you were clearly casting doubt on whether the benefits enhancements as a rsult of having children exceed the cost of the children. And yet now you say
What’s your game?
I don’t know what you’re referring to as “cash in her pocket”.
I mean money to pay for the food she eats, the apartment she lives in etc. I’m not sure if you call these “cash in her pocket”. If these are “cash in her pocket”, then it’s obvious that she gets these. Just look up the eligiblity rules for these and other programs. If this is not what you mean, then you’ve misrepresented my claim.
I wouldn’t call this a problem of poverty, rather than a problem of people acting like unsupervised ten year olds. If you can afford a bag of potato chips you can afford something healthy.
I remember Theodore Dalrymple discussing white people living on junk food in England while the Indian immigrants in the same neighborhood would actually buy produce at the local market and cook it. Even middle class families can have dietary problems if they eat too much take out and junk food.
That’s a good cite and in line with my experience: poorer women are more likely to continue their pregnancies because the opportunity cost for them is lower. It is not necessarily even an example of poor decision-making, as others have said; someone who’s got a good career and goes out to a nice restaurant every week and goes on holiday once a year has not only more to lose from having a kid, but also has more fulfillment in their everyday life than someone who’s working at McD’s and hoping to someday move up to supervisor role.
There’s also the question of role models and peer expectation. If many of your friends have kids in their early 20s, then it’s no big deal if you do too, and you might even have got broody by hanging out with those friends and their babies. If most of your friends wait till their thirties, you’re more likely to not consider kids to even be on the radar until you’re that age too.
When I had my daughter, I was studying for my master’s degree and had a low income. (I don’t want to get into personal reasons for why I had her). When I told my friends, usually later in the pregnancy when it was clear that I intended to keep the child, all of my middle-class friends were sympathetic about the horrible situation - one even said ‘I’m so sorry to hear that.’ My working-class friends congratulated me. Some of them wondered how I’d manage, but at least they did that as well as congratulating me, and didn’t react as if me having one child at 22 was the end of the world.
But the thing is, do those things actually pay more than not having a kid? The rental help is because a child needs somewhere to live. Without said child, the mother could work somewhere that would pay the rent and the rent would be lower due to less space being needed. All the other benefits (medical for the kid, food stamps) go directly to the costs of raising the child.
Knowing Dalrymple, that was probably a bit of a noble savage argument. Cooking lots of food is much more viable if you’re living in a home with lots of people; if he was talking about neighbourhoods where there are lots of Indian (or more likely Pakistani or Bangladeshi) immigrants, then they’re much more likely to live in multi-generational households.
IME, the Bangladeshi mums are also more likely to be expected to cook a huge dinner every night, get the kids to school, do the homework with them, iron their uniform, do all the housework, look after the grandparents and work during the day, whereas the white British Mums of the same income level would say fuck that, I need some time to myself too.
FWIW, a packet of crisps in my local supermarket costs 2p more than a single apple (and that’s if the crisps aren’t on a special offer - there’s usually at least one brand that is). It’s only this year that I’ve really noticed the increasing costs of fresh fruit and veg.
That’s nice but the mother gets to have her own apartment as well.
I noted this in my very first post on the subject and in subsequent posts as well. Yes, she could get a job somewhere instead. But this is a substitute for a job, and while low paying, is less work, and is commonly done. And yet again, I didn’t say they’re getting pregnant deliberately in order to get benefits (though I’m sure this happens too), but rather that it’s no big deal one way or the other, in contrast to someone who had prospects for a good paying career.
Yopu yourself seem to agree with me elsewhere in your poost, so it’s hard to figure what you’re arguing with here.
Just ain’t so.
Since Kadgarth didn’t cite, I’m not sure how much to trust that number, but Simplicio’s cite shows that half the expenditure on a kid (48%) is due to housing and child care. So… if the mother doesn’t have a job, and is willing to cram herself and the kid in the same space she was living in before (with grandparents?), the cost of raising the kid (~$5000) is at least roughly equal to the amount given by (a state like California’s) government (~$7200 if we trust Kadgarth), although it doesn’t seem like the mom could also live off of it.
You know, finding an actual citation for your assertions would take about as much time as you’ve spent arguing that they should be obvious to us, and would go a long way toward giving you a bit of credibility.
Apparently people from all walks of life make poor choices about how to expend their resources.
No, I’m not agreeing with you. There is a lower opportunity cost, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one at all.
The mother does not get to have her own apartment; she shares it with her child. As bad as many flatmates can be, I doubt many of them piss on your carpet and expect you to clean it up for them.
Childcare is also not less work than a job. It is, generally, more enjoyable work, but it’s not less work.
TBH, you really DO have to offer up some cites, because there have been numerous other threads on here where people have made statements about women doing OK off the income provided by having a child, and it was always pointed out that this hasn’t been true for about 18 years.
You haven’t said anything that contradicts what I said. I know plenty of woman that work full time jobs and still cook for their children. If the women you know rather watch the telly than cook for their children, then that just reenforces my point.
Apples are fairly expensive because of the manual labor involved in harvesting. A banana at my store is 22 cents American or 14 pence British. You would be better off eating a raw potato than a bag of potato chips.
**Fotheringay-Phipps **. LonesomePolecat. Your cites are thin. Furthermore: fertility declines with income in the 3rd world. Fertility declines with income in the first world. Fertility declined with income in the US during the 1800s. So there’s reason to believe that there is a more general process at work.
Admittedly one of these general processes encompasses your story: increasing welfare benefits decreases the costs of bearing children, whether or not the net cost is barely positive, barely negative or something else. But it is by no means the whole story: we know that because the effect is observed in societies without governmental safety nets.
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.
My entire post contradicted yours. 
Most of the mothers will cook for their children, but it won’t be big curries or stews cooked from scratch every night. Foods like oven chips cost more than the potatoes you could use to make your own, but they save a hell of a lot of time.
Bananas are 45p each at my local supermarket (a Tesco’s, not an expensive place). I’m sure they used to be a lot cheaper than that. Eating a raw potato would make you ill.
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.
You really do need to present a case of your own first. Obviously you and others on this thread hold the position that abuse of the welfare system is not a serious problem, but rather than argue openly for that position, you chose instead to throw the entire burden of evidence and argument on the other side. In any case, it is not always necessary to have a battery of bulletproof studies and scholarly papers to make a sound point.
When a poor woman can get greater security for her children and herself by marrying the state rather than a poor man, obviously many women will opt for marrying the state.
It is standard (and sensible) for the person making the positive claim to have the “burden of proof.”
“Can’t prove a negative” etc…
(You actually can but it’s immensely more difficult to do so. The guy with the positive claim can save everyone a lot of trouble by supporting his claim first.)
I didn’t make a case. I asserted nothing. Bring it, or go home. (Nothing from Stormfront will be acceptable.)
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.