I've thought about this a lot over the years, as someone coming from a poor background but grew up around very wealthy kids, I never understood why people who cannot afford to give their child a good life have children. That may sound cold, and it might be, but I wondered it myself growing up in a poor household.
There's a great scene from a Michael Winterbottom movie called Jude where --spoiler-- a child asks his parents why they had him if they could not afford him and his siblings. The child doesn't like the answer and ends up hanging himself and his siblings.
I don't know if there is a solution. People want to have kids, even if they can't - in my opinion - afford them. Some religions encourage having lots of children - it's a big thing in the catholic community, at least where I grew up.
Anecdote: My cousin is married to a catholic latina, he's already struggling to make ends meet taking care of the one kid they have. He lives with her grandparents and cousins in a tiny apartment in a low income neighborhood. There is no way I could talk him out of having another child, even though I know it's fiscally irresponsible in my opinion.
I think it's a conversation worth having but I just don't know how it can go anywhere, and I have struggled to come up with an answer that isn't just me being upset with the parents.
> Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources?
Due to the way government assistance is structured it encourages parents to 1) not get married, 2) have more kids, 3) not begin working if they don't already work.
If we changed government assistance to encourage parents getting married that would help reduce fatherlessness and all of the negatives that come with that.
If we changed government assistance to encourage parents to have less children they would be better able to take care of the ones they have.
If we changed government assistance to encourage parents to work it would reduce the number of people who grow up on government assistance and live on it their whole lives. This would have long term positive consequences.
"If we changed government assistance to encourage parents getting married that would help reduce fatherlessness and all of the negatives that come with that."
That's not really a good idea. I know my godson's parents, and if they getting assistance was reliant on getting married, they would end up killing each other.
"If we changed government assistance to encourage parents to have less children they would be better able to take care of the ones they have."
How, exactly would you do this? And do it without punishing the kids by leaving their parents with even fewer resources?
Currently as a single mother, you can qualify for more things than you can as a married mother. This puts a financial incentive to stay unmarried. This incentive should be removed.
I don't have as good of an answer for reducing children. It would probably be best to work on reducing the number of children by providing easier access to birth control.
"Currently as a single mother, you can qualify for more things than you can as a married mother. This puts a financial incentive to stay unmarried. This incentive should be removed."
You're completely and utterly ignoring the fact that raising children, especially multiple ones, is an extremely difficult task, even for two people. I know of very few people who would opt to do it themselves, even if the financial incentives to do so were worth it (they aren't even close).
You're completely and utterly ignoring the fact that raising children, especially multiple ones, is an extremely difficult task, even for two people. I know of very few people who would opt to do it themselves, even if the financial incentives to do so were worth it (they aren't even close).
I just want to point out there are a lot of poor women raising significant numbers of children. The woman next to my mom has 5-7 (it's hard to tell, and she just had a new one). They father (of some of them) is around a little, but mostly not around. And it looks like there are several fathers. Yes, raising children well is hard, but I would not describe what this woman does as difficult. Older kids are raising the younger ones, etc, etc.
So, I would definitely disagree with your assertion.
I think this is a huge part of it. Even something as simple as free high-quality condoms or emergency contraception (morning-after) can make a huge difference when money is tight.
Even better would be free birth-control medication or IUD's, as these put the birth control in the hands of women, while condoms especially might not be used in the face of social pressure.
I like the assumption that the 5+ kids are all just due to irresponsible people popping children out and not, say, the results of generous people fostering family members who would be in even worse situations otherwise or a mother who is being raped by a partner.
This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
What, besides providing extra resources to underpriveleged children so they are not punished for their parents mistakes, can be done?
Unintended consequences. I believe it is generally accepted that the policies in the 70's led to the destruction (dismantling?) of the urban/poor family (yes, predominately African American).
Also, we've seen that this issue has significantly fueled the rise of people like our current POTUS.
It's a hard problem. I don't know what the solution is.
> I believe it is generally accepted that the policies in the 70's led to the destruction (dismantling?) of the urban/poor family (yes, predominately African American).
These problems existed long before then. For example, a famous and controversial report from 1965:
The problems are largely due to systematic oppression of African-American people for generations, denying them access to adequate housing, education, income, credit, access to legal protections, and exposing them to risks of violence by the state and by white people.
Which policies of the 70s and 80s contributed and where is evidence of that? I ask because I try to be careful to distinguish between oft-repeated narratives and hypotheses with actual evidence.
What, besides providing extra resources to underpriveleged children so they are not punished for their parents mistakes, can be done?
Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources?