Sounds like a good plan just needs a tweak. Instead of rewards for good behavior or grades the parent will continue to get welfare or whatever program they are on. Kid fails a test, welfare check is held.

Some thirty years ago, when the wife and I started decrying the rise of extrinsic rewards like pizza parties, stuff purchased from school slush funds, and the like, for behavior that should have been intrinsically encouraged, we were ridiculed by our friends. We had grown up with rewards like gold stars and adult praise, things with no extrinsic value in and of themselves, but which were symbolic of a larger good -- internal reinforcement of values and behaviors that are good for the child and the wider society.

Now, just like when you supply crack to addicts to feed an addiction, we have come to the logical end game of the bribery strategies instituted back then. People expect to be financially compensated every time they do something they should have been doing all along. When they are not, they consider it justification for not doing the right things. All a part of the larger context of people not being held accountable to proper standards, the root of so much that is wrong in the world.

While I agree that the main problem here is a lack of intact families, I'm not sure what a mayor can do about that. Anything he does try is highly unlikely to work and highly likely to appear very creepy and offputting. Heather can talk all she wants about a "campaign to educate teenagers and parents about the essential role of fathers," but isn't that, too, something that people "should" know at this point? Why does she think that's going to be any more successful at modifying behaviors than Bloomberg's approach? A class doesn't do much to counteract powerful local cultural trends.

Yes, the poor should know that doing certain things brings their own reward. In general, they don't. The people who live in permanent, multi-generational poverty in the U.S. are there because they lack the awareness of what needs to be done to succeed and thrive; those who manage to figure it out have to fight everything from discouragement from the culture around them to low-quality education. Bloomberg's system may be flawed, but he's essentially trying to get the message out that certain behaviors have certain rewards. My only concern would be -- does the program lead to improvement in the long term? If not, then cancel it. If so, see about ways to keep it up efficiently.

Look, I agree that the welfare system is a disaster and that the Great Society has much to answer for in the way of creating a semi-permanent class in poverty. But no one's going to be reversing that wholesale. Anything we try is going to be nibbling at the edges. I'd like to wait and see if Mike's program has any effect. I tend to think that monetary incentives work better than classes, but I could be wrong. Am I sure it's the best way to spend tax dollars? I don't know. Right now, a whole lot of tax dollars are spent on feeding, housing and incarcerating people in the community being targeted by this new program -- if it offers a way to reduce spending on some of those other areas, it could have a net benefit.

Oddly enough I don't really have an issue with this. I'd be great if they just cut welfare but it would back fire catastrophically and no is actually going to do it. If you get free money for doing nothing how would you develop any sense of reward or success? This is the first attempt to actually change the value system of the free loader class. This the most practical solution so far.

"We had grown up with rewards like gold stars and adult praise" I did to and personally I always though it was bullshit. No one goes to work for praise, though it can be nice. If adult praise and a gold star means more that pizza then great for you, never did shit to motivate me. While in my case the parents resorted to punishment which did work, albeit with a deep seated hatred for school. My brother who was all about adult attention lives at home still at 28. I work full time and have my own business on the side.

Have we really resorted to PAYING parents to be, well, PARENTS and actually give a shit about their kids education and future? If I had known that I could get PAID for my kid getting to school MOST of the time and passing a few tests, I would have gotten myself a baby daddy long ago! Are they really BRIBING single/poor/welfare parents to get thier kids to school? Shouldn't that be a priority anyway? Isn't success incentive enough anymore? Besides, public school is free. If nothing else, those parents (who aren't even contributing to the system because they are on welfare or poor) are at least getting a few hours of free babysitting.

This bullshit is ridiculous. Fuck.

"If I had known that I could get PAID for my kid getting to school MOST of the time and passing a few tests, I would have gotten myself a baby daddy long ago!" We already pay them more for each child per month. We have already incentivized bad behavior which I agree we should not have done.

I'd take a slightly different tack and pay the kids directly for good attendance and grades. What we've done so far hasn't worked.

Let's see if the stigma of "acting white" is more powerful than a $100 bill. I don't see too many adults doing things they don't want to do without some sort of reward, monetary or otherwise.

I understand everything isn't money. I'm a lifelong blood donor, because society needs us, and it isn't really a big deal to do. The psychic reward of doing good is enough, but let's be honest. If I had to pay a lot to donate, or if I were treated badly by the Red Cross, I'd stop. The Red Cross does some recognition things, but those don't float my boat.

Why not reward kids for doing good? That's how we train our pets. That's what we do with adults. There are a lot of opinions about how things should be, but aren't. Why not do something that works?

I don't really agree with paying parents to be parents...but statistically speaking, it isn't "unwed motherhood and children without daddies" that keep the poor poor. That is an urban legend that has been around for decades.

Households that fall under the poverty line usually do so regardless of the presence of the father. In other words, if these "unwed mothers" suddenly married the father of their babies, they would STILL be poor. And so would the children.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, these people never should have been allowed to keep these kids in the first place. We need to stop paying people to sit on their asses and breed. Too many people with JOBS and a sense of RESPONSIBILITY want to adopt to allow this to continue. And frankly, I'd rather pay for a state-run orphanage than pay some woman to lay around all day not raising her kids. At least I'd know the kids were getting an education.

I know, I'm mean.

"We already pay them more for each child per month. We have already incentivized bad behavior which I agree we should not have done."

True. So true. And that pisses me off too.

"Oddly enough I don't really have an issue with this. I'd be great if they just cut welfare but it would back fire catastrophically and no is actually going to do it."

Oddly enough, this comes from the commenter that thinks a stay at home parent in a two parent system is a "slacker".

Let me ask you a question, Karen. Imagine with me a family with the man and woman working.

Now, one of them stops working. Does the income go up or down?

Now, the one that is not working has the one that is working removed by the cops, because she wants another man. Does the household income go up or down?

I realize certain so-called Progressives think it shouldn't change and so do a lot of extremely stupid judges. But, it does change, even if you impoverish the man removed from his house, to try to maintain the existing income.

This is not an urban legend. You are involved in the desire to portray single moms as capable of doing just as well as two parent families, if they just had more money, sigh. It is pure, utter nonsense. Single mom families are responsible for most of the people in prison in the US. Most of the unwed motherhood, and most of the poverty.

It is true, sons of single moms don't perform well. Why should they? Who taught them how to be a man, his mommy? Heeheehohohaha.

Black families before the Great Society started paying black women to toss out their men weren't that dysfunctional even when they were very poor.

Our inability to accept the truth about single mom families makes it impossible to do anything about it.

But that's okay, The Huns are coming and they are pissed.

"Oddly enough, this comes from the commenter that thinks a stay at home parent in a two parent system is a "slacker"." I'm sorry that I come from a class and income bracket that can afford a cleaning lady and a professional organizer. My wife would have nothing to do while the kid is at school.

And being educated she makes more working mothers hours than the organizer and cleaning lady costs.

"The Huns are coming and they are pissed"

Maybe, but they sure as hell aren't coming out of a retirement villa in Mexico.

I have to agree with Msgr. Paulson. Some people only respond to the carrot/stick approach. In this case the stick would cost less and I believe it would have an immediate and positive effect.

Vlad - You ain't everyone.

"Vlad - You ain't everyone. " And I suggested I am where?

Forgive me for the sin of success and careful mate selection. My evil knows no bounds.

Heres what we do.

K-7, you fall behind more than twice you get a job as a janitor or a burger flipper

To get into 8th grade you have to take a test, fail said test and either pay for 8-11 your self or join a trade union.

same thing for 12 - ASS/ASA can keep your grades up shell out the cash to pay for your coninuing eduaction or get a job. And if you havent gotted your assiociates degree within a set time frame your out and owe the money back to the tax payers

You fall onto welfare rolls the government gets you house and your car, you are housed in a communal building with other welfare recipients eating in a communal kitchen and sharing one tv per building
Everyone spends three hours per day doing various chores to upkeep the comunal housing facility

The incentive for wanting your children to do well in school is supposed to be so they can get a good job, make money, and afford a nice nursing home for you. Not so you can collect a few bucks from a misguided government program.

Hope it works.

The program in Mexico, Oportunidades, has been very successful, from what I read. I would like to see some of the program points implemented in our own current welfare programs, particularly the one which puts a ceiling on how much money a family gets per month.

More babies equals less money to spread around, just like in the regular working world. What an intriguing notion.

If the New York program had the same results as are noted in the articles I read, I'd be all for it, (same as for the women who are being paid to get tubal ligations) but as a replacement for our current system, not in addition to it.

"The incentive for wanting your children to do well in school is supposed to be so they can get a good job, make money, and afford a nice nursing home for you." CtG

This is the part that we as working people fail to figure out... immigrants can't figure it either. We are used to looking at everything as a challenge to our own fortitude, and doing what is needed to make stuff happen.

This whole group of people don't seem to do that... I haven't an idea why. But if we could actually get their children through school, maybe the next gen would feel it.

"Forgive me for the sin of success and careful mate selection. My evil knows no bounds."

Why do you assume those with a two parent (stay at home system) in the home are unsuccessful or has selected an improper or unwise mate? Just because you make more money? Or they chose to put their money elsewhere instead of towards housekeepers ..etc?

Seems to me your only sin is elitism. But you make so much money, you don't mind having the rest of us pay for irresponsibility too. How lovely.

"Or they chose to put their money elsewhere instead of towards housekeepers" Um no. If they choose to make money less money for some romantic ideal of the stays at home that's there problem and choice not mine. We have more money to spend and still have the same amount of time with the child. She's not at home scrubbing pots and floors.

"But you make so much money, you don't mind having the rest of us pay for irresponsibility too." You really do have an English comprehension issue. Are you an immigrant like me or is it willful?
"We already pay them more for each child per month. We have already incentivized bad behavior which I agree we should not have done." Not only did I write it but Sabrina quoted it. I'm all thumbs up for taking the whole entitlement system away but there are few if any in DC actually trying to do so.

Vlad - How do you know this? How do you know its some romantic ideal and not for what;s in the best interest of the children?

Do you have kids?

Anyways. About the English deal - it's a tough one for me. I was raised by an immigrant who was so mentally ill and addicted to alcohol and other substances that I went my entire childhood without getting help with my homework - every single time I asked for it, I was never given help once. As a result, I developed terrible writing habits . My Father was too busy caring for Mom, so thats how that went.

Now that I am older, I take responsibility for suffering miserably at grammar, etc. but I got bigger fish to fry right now with other neurological stuff going on. Most of my time and energy for grammar and spelling and sentence structure gets devoted to my job, which I am good at, not to blog comments.

Also, for clarification:

"But you make so much money, you don't mind having the rest of us pay for irresponsibility too."

All this money you brag about making, yet you are "oddly enough" okay with these bribes. Bribes that come from other people's pockets...like mine, or like the parent "slackers" that stay at home.

What I am saying is that it must be easy for you to have this position since the financial impact on you is less than it will be on most of middle class America. You know, the ones that stay at home to raise their kids instead of hiring a housekeeper?

(Better?)

"How do you know its some romantic ideal and not for what;s in the best interest of the children?" Beyond food, shelter and safety the best interest of the child is a matter of opinion. Is going to a top notch private school more or less valuable then a home cooked meal? Is having mom or dad greet you at the door more important then not graduating with a ton of debt?

"the financial impact on you is less than it will be on most of middle class America" That absolute bullshit. I don't get all those great tax breaks of those average middle class Americans, 45% of which pat no tex. I also did not qualify for any grants and neither will my child. Nor will I get to take their education as a tax deduction or anything else.

"All this money you brag about making, yet you are "oddly enough" okay with these bribes." As opposed to the status quo which has them rewarded for making as many out of wedlock children as possible. And having NO incentive to get their shit together.

"You know, the ones that stay at home to raise their kids instead of hiring a housekeeper?" Now it's gone past not having English as a first language. Look up what "Mothers Hours" means. We will be the primary care giver for the child. It's all that shit that has to be done in the periphery of the child that will be handled by other. Hiring a housekeeper and hiring a nanny or and governess are not the same thing. They take care of the stuff that stay at homes do while the child is at SCHOOL. Unless you don't think children should go to school?

"It's all that shit that has to be done in the periphery of the child that will be handled by other."

Its not an English thing, Vlad. It's a value thing. There are parents that manage both those things who you choose to call "slackers".

I wasn't talking about a governess or nanny. I was talking about you being okay with the system that takes money from other people (who don't have the money for a housekeeper because they are raising families on one income and NOT leaching off the rest of society) and gives it to irresponsible jerks. Just because you can afford to hold this belief doesn't mean everyone else can. It's taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to those who didn't. Bottom line. Something which anybody with any sane set of core beliefs will be able to understand. Earn your own way, and don't steal things from others like an entitlement brat!

"As opposed to the status quo which has them rewarded for making as many out of wedlock children as possible. And having NO incentive to get their shit together."

It's that type of absolute thinking that has us in this mess to begin with. Who started placing incentives on single motherhood? The government. There are other options. Like instead of bribing these mothers with other peoples money why don't we work to re-appeal laws which give incentives to single parents all together. Allow charities to help these single parents until it makes single mother hood super unattractive to the next generation of girls.

That will fix the problem. Removing the consequences does not.

vlad, you ignorant slut. When we had one child we could fairly well shuffle the load when we both worked. When the next ones came along, the wife tried to continue working, but I was on the backend responsibilities (pick up from daycare, cook dinner, etc). I became acutely aware that leaving everyday right on time was putting a huge damper on my career. On top of that, one of us would have to stay home when kids were sick, on vacation, etc. It became much easier for my wife to stay at home. It gave me the fleixibility to move up the ladder and to earn more money, plus the kids always had a mom that could drive them around from one function to another at will. The kids won and I won. Oh and BTW, up until WWII working women were generally unheard of after marriage. Staying home with the kids was the way it was, and some may try to deny it, but society was a hell of a lot better for it.

Wow. Look what happens when somebody here appears to be "the rich". Vlad is automatically the enemy, to be fought, and things must be invented about him so that he can be fought.

I sure wish you people could recognize the difference between what vlad said and what you made up for yourself.

There are people in the world who "get" money. It's not the gray/green/orange paper in your wallet, nor is it an hourly wage. The single distinguishing difference between the "rich" and the poor anywhere is that the rich do not earn an hourly wage. Take a lesson: if you want to be rich, you must see what poor people do and then DON'T DO THAT.

I notice that vlad has not claimed greater expertise in parenting or other things he's been called out for - and I bet your time would be better spent speculating just how people actually do have housekeepers and the like.

Rad - with all due respect, I ain't poor.

My point started out because on a previous thread he had harsh words to say about stay at home parents being "slackers". Yet, he thinks government handouts are a preferred method of the state parenting children where single moms fail. This costs us all money.

I don't have class or wealth envy.

My point started out because on a previous thread he had harsh words to say about stay at home parents being "slackers".

If I recall, vlad's objection was to SAHMs staying home after the kids are in school, not staying at home in general.

I think paying parents to do the right thing is icky, but if it works, it may be a solid way to break the cycle. Clearly, they should be making sure their kids are in school because that's their job as a parent. But they aren't. If this saves us money in the long run and elevates kids out of poverty, I'm willing to test drive it and give it a shot.

Well we have tried for generations paying people for bad behavior, (welfare state) with it increasing people needing welfare. I definately prefer the concept of paying people for good behavior than paying people for bad behavior.