I went through the same thing. I went back to school after being laid off and so didn't get unemployment because "I couldn't work." Strange, the program is designed for the students to be working and 95% or so of them do while taking classes. While it is true in that it can be limiting, I had a shot at a job which required 75% travel which I could not have taken - but then again, I wouldn't have had to since that is very different from my previous job and not common for that type of position. Oh, if I had already been taking the classes when I was laid off that would be no problem.

I was denied because the state didn't believe that I could work enough with school.

Sounds like she may have been willing to work. In essence, the government is paying her to not go to school to try and better herself. That seems silly to me.

According to the comments, someone claiming to be the author married an abuser and divorced him.

What I think is absent on so many people's minds is part of the reason we have so much illegitimacy now is a direct result of too much government gravy for single mothers.

I'm kind of on her side. Since people DO get unemployment, attending school to train for a new job shouldn't disqualify you from getting what you qualify for otherwise.

Now, whether people SHOULD get so much unemployment in the first place is another argument.

This is weird sounding to me.

In 2008, when I got laid off, the state was itching to send me to college. They said if I enrolled in a two year college they would pay several thousand dollars toward tuition. I was still going to get weekly unemployment benefits and I had the requirement that I couldn't work at all. They would also pay for transportation to school.

The only problem was the only covered vet tech program was in one of the worst neighborhoods. And on top of that, the traffic to and from school would be ridiculous. And, to top it all off, most vets in the area want to train their assistants themselves and then will pay for certification.

Now, I know that part of it was that my job was sent overseas but I also know plenty of other people that have used the same program in not quite the same circumstances. So I wonder if this particular woman was just too dumb to find the right person to help her. In that case, I'm not sure that nursing school is the right place for her.

What kind of dumbass doesn't call the state and say "I'm thinking about becoming a student - how will this affect my unemployment status?"

"No, you wait to have a child until you establish yourself as a worker and can support that child in an intact family."

Abso-fucking-lutely. It's unfortunate that so many people are utterly blind to that concept.

I blame all of us who came of age in the sixties. Yeah, there were big changes going on then. Too bad one of them was the complete rejection of all those concepts we were raised with.

You know, like the one where kids were raised to believe that young people waited til the man--that's right, the Man, had a stable job and a place to raise a family; after which he and a woman were married, and THEN thought about when to have kids.

I believe the new concept was that since families like the Cleavers didn't really exist and God was dead too, then everything we'd been brought up to believe was bogus.

Of course the idea of the perfect family was a crock. But it was true enough that we didn't have some of the problems that sprouted with the New Morality (which turned out to be anything but).

Oh well...I'm done with my rant. Who are you people? Where's my pudding and my pills...zzzzzz.

Aaannnddd...it's all gone downhill from there.

When people work they pay unemployment taxes so that they are covered should they lose their job. She paid for those benefits and deserves them whether she's a single mother or not. I'd prefer someone doing something productive with their lives while collecting unemployment over those who milk the system. If she were to get another minimum wage job, who would be home with her kid? No, its not your problem until she ends up on welfare and the state is paying her rent, food, medical, and daycare. She isn't some slouch trying to get something for nothing. She tried to make a bad situation better for her and her kid. How can you knock that?

YES. Everything Kristen said, times a thousand.

I'm deeply opposed to the "free ride" so many people feel entitled to. However, she's not looking for a free ride! She WAS working previously! And then, as soon as she was laid off (and discovered really f*cking quick that there just weren't jobs to be had), she jumped right back into school and started studying for a high-demand career in a field that would enable her to support her child. I'd rather she do that, while taking advantage of the unemployment benefits she paid into, instead of sitting on her couch eating bonbons and pretending to job search, or taking some shitty minimum wage job and accepting welfare and food stamps to support the kid.

And the other thing...Amy, I rarely disagree with you, but this drives me nuts: "you wait to have a child until you establish yourself as a worker and can support that child in an intact family". Unfortunately, life doesn't always work out the way you wanted it to. Maybe she WAS married, and her husband turned into an abusive cock or thought it was okay to sleep around with half the neighborhood. YMMV, but I think divorce is acceptable in limited situations, and the other spouse doesn't need to be ripped apart for not sticking it out.

I'm with Amy and Pricklypear on this one. Usually the reason "life doesn't work out the way you wanted it to" is because you didn't do the right things to MAKE it turn out the way you wanted it to. Marrying an abusive dick isn't exactly the same thing as finding out you have bone cancer. The former is due to stupidity and bad decision-making, the latter is simple bad luck. I think everyone is getting really sick of bailing people out for their bad decisions.

The complainer who is quoted in Amy's comment starts off her whole schtick - in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE - with "as a young single mother, it's been hard." And I think, well of COURSE it's been hard, you dumb bint! If you had any brains at all you wouldn't be a young single mother in the first place! Life is a lot harder for people who do dumb things, and the reason for that is that life is trying to teach you not to do dumb things. I hate the blatant play for sympathy. If she had said, 'As someone with muscular dystrophy, it's been hard,' she would have gotten a lot farther with me. My sympathy is all used up for people who choose their partners poorly and then can't figure out how a damn condom works.

I'm with Sarah. This woman had waited and dione everything right, and then life threw her for a loop, so she is trying to get back on her feet.
Unemployment rules that keep people form retrainng for new occupations are brain dead.

They presume that there is always a job available in exactly the kind of work you were doing. That may be the case if you get fired as an individual slacker, but then a factory closes (gets off-shored) or when a comapny collapses, that is pretty mcuh by definiton not going to be the case.

"No, you wait to have a child until you establish yourself as a worker and can support that child in an intact family." Ok great but not really an option here. As posted earlier she's not trying to milk the system for all it worth. She wants to become a full tax payer in a field that we as a country are short, even in ritzy hospitals. Also from the side of numbers. As a nurse her mid career salary will incur a tax roughly equal to what a minimum wage earner makes. We let her collect and go to school we all win, more payers less moochers, the kid is raised to value hard work and not free shit. We perch on that high horse and say you dun fucked up, no one wins. Two more on the welfare roles and the cycle continues.

At some point ones moral high ground has to be superseded by logic. Same goes for most of the hot button issues.

We perch on that high horse and say you dun fucked up, no one wins. Two more on the welfare roles ...

Or not, as budgets allow.

I'll admit I'm also a little tempted to call shenanigans on the "state won't support my getting educated" thing. Since going on unemployment (in my case it's supplementing my pay as my company tries to stay afloat for the next several weeks) the state of NC has been throwing information at me on Pell Grants, student loans, and FAFSA applications.

And I still think you're a dumbass if you don't look into how being a student will affect your unemployment/ food stamp/ WIC/ insurance status.

"Marrying an abusive dick isn't exactly the same thing as finding out you have bone cancer."

As a trying-to-be-former abusive dick, I have to point out that these things evolve and progress, specially when they are fueled by alcohol. Good, smart women have been drawn into this cycle too.

It sounds like what she really needs is a student loan. I sometimes think we should offer unemployment loans. It would provide incentive to use as little as you can. But then I see how the Feds pray on student borrowers and I don't want them picking on the unemployed too.

We waste a lot of education dollars on unmotivated 19 year olds. A struggling single mother who has seen the light would seem to be a better investment.

Elle, I wondered about that too. But the system can vary a lot from state to state. So I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Like Amy, I have no sympathy for the "poor single mother me" shtick. But it sounds like perhaps she learned that lesson already. I'm not going to rip on her too much for not understanding what going to school would do to her benefits, since if there's one thing I hate, it's people who spend all of their time devising ways to game the welfare system. And the problem does neatly illustrate how the system enforces the cult of dependency -- do anything to try to help yourself, your bennies get yanked.

One other thing: Kristen, in the U.S. at least, the connection between unemployment taxes and benefits is tenuous at best. It's not really an insurance program; it's more akin to Social Security, where people paying in support current dependents and just hope that the system will be there for them if/when they need it.

@Cousin Dave: Like Amy, I have no sympathy for the "poor single mother me" shtick. But it sounds like perhaps she learned that lesson already. I'm not going to rip on her too much for not understanding what going to school would do to her benefits
_______

I agree. Even if she learned her less, though, that doesn't make the consequences go away... one just hopes the mistake won't be repeated.

If it were reversed, and we were talking about a father who knocked up his girlfriend, he may very well learn his lesson, but I doubt many would say that the state should start paying his child support while he goes to college.

I won't rip on her not understanding the benefits issues either... government paperwork is so complex sometimes that even a responsible person can overlook some detail while juggling two children.

Looks like she got some good advice on the comments on the linked article.

I might end up with a duplicate entry, my computer's getting weird. But just in case that post got lost somewhere, I'll say it again:

The LW has more than one child, and says she might lose them. She says not one word about the man or men involved. No mention of abuse or cheating behavior at all. I think maybe there's some projection going on.

As usual, I need more specifics before my sympathy button is pressed.

She says she lost her job, which makes it easy to lump her in with other people displaced by the economy. But we don't know why she lost her job, do we?

She says there are no programs for her. I have no idea as to the truth in that, but it's a little hard to believe, and she doesn't say what she's tried to do. Some of my past acquaintances could probably write books about how to take full advantage of the system.

As the letter is laid out, she is one more victim of a harsh bureaucracy. Amy (if I'm interpreting correctly) is trying to tell other young women to think BEFORE they end up in the same situation.

I know from my own experience that being broke and in a bad situation all by yourself is no picnic. I was always grateful that at least I wasn't dragging a kid along with me.

Yes, she should have thought before ending up in this situation... but... hey, this is an advice blog, right? Going back in time isn't practical advice... what advice would we give this young woman, now, in her situation as it is?

In my opinion, this women is the poster child of EXACTLY what welfare should used be for: temporarily assisting people who have fallen on hard times so that they can get back on their feet and become contributing members of society again. (The key word being temporary.)

I would much rather have my tax dollars go towards paying for someone's education in a well-paying, important, and high-demand field that they've already has experience in and aptitude for (she says she's been working since age 14 in nursing positions) than to support her on welfare for the rest of her life.

Yes, we get it: don't have kids you can't afford. But she can't exactly give the kids back. She's trying to make the best out of a bad situation in a way that will ultimately benefit society. As vlad puts it, "At some point ones moral high ground has to be superseded by logic."

> She tried to make a bad situation better for her
> and her kid. How can you knock that?

"Trying to make things better for her and her kid" is the plainest description of self-interest you could have made. Are you asking the rest of us to be impressed with her for asking for our help?

See Amy's comment re: single motherhood by widowing vs. single motherhood by other means. It's almost a statistical certainty that the reason she's asking the rest of society to cut her some slack is that she made some bad choices.

How much effort are the rest of us expected to shoulder on behalf of "the kid" whom she didn't love enough to provide with a loving, responsible father?

I think others have expressed what I was thinking a lot better than I did.

And I still think you're a dumbass if you don't look into how being a student will affect your unemployment...

I looked into when I was considering go back to school. It is a very confusing matter and a lot of it is up to the Unemployment Officer's choice in many cases. You might be eligible for re-training if they deem your job a declining job. But maybe not. If you are going full-time during the day then no you cannot get unemployment unless you got into the special re-training option. In between, who knows.

When I read the rules I thought I would have no problem, part time at night where most students are working full-time so clearly I was available for full-time work. Luckily I talked to some people involved with the program and found out that often times they decide you can't collect. In my first class, 4 of us were trying to do this. Three of us were denied, one was granted it. The only difference we could see is that the one was only taking a single class, not enrolled in the program, and his contract ended rather than actually being laid-off from a employee position.

Since I was no longer able to collect unemployment I went fulltime and lived off savings.

Well, she doesn't get my sympathy, because she most likely created the situation that she's in, but I'd argue that that someone shouldn't get any type of government benefits unless they ARE actively making themselves more employable. I'd rather "single mom going back to school for a job in a field that's actually in demand" get state benefits than "second generation never-married single welfare mom with four kids by three different men.' Of course, that's looking at it from an investment standpoint... and taxes aren't an investment, their wealth redistribution.

As a side note, and this is regarding welfare, not unemployment, I think that people on the dole should have their expenses audited every month, and they should be drug tested and have mandatory IUDs implanted. If you are dependent on the state long term, you deserve to be treated like a child on restriction. (And no, I'm not talking about people who take unemployment for a couple of months while they really are looking for a job.)

And now, I have to go log in for an online bartending/food server certification course, so I can work some catering gigs over the weekend... because that's the type of thing you're SUPPOSED to do when your family needs the money, but you don't have a regular job.

"...what advice would we give this young woman, now, in her situation as it is?"

Apply for a Pell Grant, to start with. If you don't have a single friend or parent to help, and if the father of your kid or kids is worthless, then don't be afraid to turn to Welfare to help with the expenses of your situation. As Shannon mentioned earlier, that's what it's there for.

But if you really mean what you wrote, then you get your ass back off of it ASAP, because you know it sucks you in. And by ASAP, I don't mean when it's convenient, I mean just as soon as you can squeak by without it. Live a modest existence that keeps you and your kids going, and raise them with a work ethic instead of that good old sense of entitlement.

There. Advice.

In the comments, someone claiming to be her said she divorced from an abusive marriage.

Even if she was widowed (she wasn't, but let's just put that to the test), shouldn't two people who marry and bring two children into the world have given some though to life insurance?

My wife has had cancer twice, but we took responsibility to have health insurance before one of us got sick. (Otherwise, it isn't an insurance plan, it's a payment plan.)

We had two children last year. Had the family structure for it beforehand.

My wife was laid off this year. We didn't collect unemployment... had not only the family structure, but we put aside part of our income every month for emergencies. Scaled back our lifestyle.

And if one of us dies, the other is a millionaire, because we didn't wait until one of us was sick to get life insurance.

I know not everyone does this, knows to do it, or their circumstances otherwise get in the way. If we would have skipped a step, we would have endured the hardships... why would we bother if Uncle Sam would step in if we didn't?

What some people mean when they say they are being punished is they are suffering the consequences of their own choices.

No sympathy from me.

However I will say that the author has a point, if someone is in school so they can get a job, why yank their benefits? It does seem like it locks a person into a most untennable situation.

Now I'm not saying we should make it easy on the tax payer's dime...but lets be practical here, single motherhood and poverty are fingers on the same closed fist that keeps so many clenched in the same cruel hand for generational cycles.

That doesn't do society any good either, so the ones who are willing to work, get an education, and get off the dole as quickly as possible, should be able to do so. (I'd not endorse however, frivolous degrees such as womyn's studies, theater, art history, etc.) They have to get an education in something employable.

> if the father of your kid or kids is
> worthless, then don't be afraid to turn
> to Welfare to help with the expenses of
> your situation. As Shannon mentioned
> earlier, that's what it's there for

Jesus Fuck on a stick.

Says who? What on Earth --what possible force in the cosmos, child-- makes you think "that's what it's there for"? That's one of the most deranged sentiments I've ever seen on this blog, and the competition is bloodthirsty. You seriously believe that when welfare was created, society's intent was to make the selection of loving fathers and husbands irrelevant.

Well, my cynical little friend, I have good news for you! History has put the wind at your back!

Firstly, by giving us so many young mothers who're too socially incompetent to select, court, and sustain a loving man in marriage and fatherhood... But nonetheless equipping those women with the ego and biology to believe the world would just fall out of the sky if they didn't have children.

Secondly, the dementia of our society has innured us to this selfishness, such that rhetoric like yours passes without remark.

"That's what it's there for."

Christ on a stick.

I remain skeptical. Her letter did not mention support of the babies (plural) daddy(s?), her family or any other resource. She just put out her hand and complained when it didn't fill. We, the tax payers that support such people, are right to be skeptical when someone that has done really short-sighted and/or downright stupid behaviours and then wonders why people may not believe proclamations of noble intent

History has put the wind at your back!

Firstly, by giving us so many young mothers who're too socially incompetent to select, court, and sustain a loving man in marriage and fatherhood... But nonetheless equipping those women with the ego and biology to believe the world would just fall out of the sky if they didn't have children.

Secondly, the dementia of our society has innured us to this selfishness, such that rhetoric like yours passes without remark.

I loves me some good CRID!

And I did that with ONE HAND!

(Platelet donation day. Why, what did you think?)

The problem with getting an education after having a kid(s), even when you're married and have a husbnd to help, is that kids are a huge responsibility and a compelling distraction. Being a single mother and trying to focus on an education sounds very noble and, up until I had my disabled mother move in with me, I was one of the hordes of people who applauded these women.

What changed?

Well, having a battery of homecare workers in and out of my house has given me a new perspective. Many of these homecare workers are single mothers and got their education while they were single mothers. The problem is that being distracted can have real consequences for the people they look after.

What are these consequences?

Well, my severely paralyzed mother has been dropped a couple of times. Or, I've come home to find her half-sliding out of her wheelchair because she hasn't been properly placed. Or the homecare worker hasn't known how to work a mechanical lift (when they really should). I know how to do these things because I had a homecare worker friend spent a few hours showing me how to.

One really annoying thing is when they leave her (or try to leave her) in bed all afternoon because they're busy studying. Because, in my neck of the woods, a significant percentage of homecare workers do the job to support themselves while they study nursing. And they bring their books to work, even when they're asked not to. It's that old demon "time crunch" that's forcing them to make compromises and guess who gets the short end of the stick? That's right, sometimes it's disabled people like my mother.

I'd like to make it clear here that we've had some wonderful homecare workers, but at least half of them are like the ones I've described above. I agree with Amy that the time to get an education is before you have kids. And once you've got kids, it's not just about YOU getting YOUR education. Sometimes it's about who else gets hurt along the way.

"You seriously believe that when welfare was created, society's intent was to make the selection of loving fathers and husbands irrelevant."

....uh...OH YEAH?

Way to sum it up, Crid! Wow. Talk about projecting.

You must be aware by now of my general attitude toward single motherhood. Sorry if my attempt to respond to NicoleK's query confused you.

In response to her post as to actual advice for this woman in the situation as it stands now, as opposed to continuing to berate her for screwing up, I wrote the following:

"IF you don't have a single friend or parent to help, and IF the father of your kid or kids is worthless, then don't be afraid to turn to Welfare to help with the expenses of your situation. As Shannon mentioned earlier, that's what it's there for."

Since you gave me what for (and I'm finally reading it), I looked up Welfare. Gee, it turns out is was created to help people in need, particularly children. Which, if I give this woman the benefit of the doubt (as I did for the purpose of responding to NicoleK), that is the situation as it stands.

To help the needy. That is, indeed, what it's there for. I also said she needed to get back off it as soon as possible, if she was sincere in her letter.

I didn't include my own criteria for what "needy" includes, and I didn't take the opportunity to suggest neutering. I was focused on the "back to school" part.

Otherwise, I regret nothing!

And you spelled "inured" wrong.

> You must be aware by now of my general
> attitude toward single motherhood.

Nope. I don't maintain a spreadsheet or anything. When people say preposterous things, I call them on it... Things like "That's what it's there for".

> Gee, it turns out is was created to help people
> in need

I need that Ferrari! DON'T YOU HAVE ANY COMPASSION? I mean, for shit's sake, you don't actual expect me to earn one, do you?

> Otherwise, I regret nothing!

You lie! The shame burns! The scorching regret for your insensitivity will hound you for a long, long time, chewing your enthusiasm, poisoning your mood....

> And you spelled "inured" wrong.

That happens in times of distraction. Be grateful for the capitalization, OK?

(Y'know, Peep's, if you're not into weird sex or illicit drugs, YOU could donate platelets, too.)

Actually, I used to give blood on a regular basis. Than I got diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and the general attitude from the health care industry is that I probably shouldn't, even though none of them seems to know for sure.

More power to you, though, and everyone else who donates!

Chewing my enthusiasm, poisoning my mood...pretty good. I like an old Charlie Brown cartoon, wherein Lucy says "Tell him I'll break his binding and dim his outlook."

You don't keep a spreadsheet of my opinions? Man, no matter how much I tell people it's all about me, they just don't get it. Now that darkens my features.

Great- You get it. So why this reflex to say things like that? Consider the woman you were speaking to. Do you suppose she was going to assume that society's machinery for her assistance was a short-term benefit? If don't suppose that, then why did you phrase it that way?

As it happens, I'm partial to women with MS. Well, I have favorites, anyway.

I read her letter, which indicates that she is aware of people who get on welfare and stay there for years or longer, and she does not want to be one of them.

I also commented earlier on the points she left out of her letter, like where the father was. Or fathers. And for that last post to her, (or at least in her general direction), I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.

If what you're questioning is my indication that the father may be useless, I'm afraid that's because women who end up in this situation are not known for using good judgment in choosing men, as you pointed out.

She keeps men out of the letter entirely. As Amy noted, if she was widowed, she probably would have mentioned it. There is no indication that any man in her life is useFUL, so I leaned in the other direction. And that leaning is due to the southern Michigan town I grew up in, and the quality of far too many men who lived there.

It took about forty years, but I finally concluded that the evil that was fucking up these families was not disproportionately masculine. These women don't WANT to have to deal with men in their lives, and they don't want their children to having loving fathers. It's too much work; men are smelly and difficult. And worst of all, loving fatherhood dilutes their pathetic fantasies of heroic girly self-sufficiency... While government handouts, inexplicably, do not: This woman thinks we're giving up a terrific opportunity to show our compassion by wiping her ass. She thinks she's doing us a favor, and is confounded by our hesitation.

Even in southern Michigan, masculinity isn't the problem. (And yes, I was born in Michigan City, about two minutes from the Lake.)

I strolled over to Slate for a little while. Read about how Tori Amos influenced Mick Foley.

Anyway..I was born in Sturgis. The Kick-Off City. In the old days it was like a rotten peach. Anyone from around there who wants to be offended: So sorry. In your heart you know I'm right.

I knew a lot of girls who dropped out of school at sixteen, got pregnant, almost always left home to marry the men involved. It could have been a prom theme. Maybe by now it has been.

The guys...I know there were some decent ones. I knew two. My dad and one brother-in-law. I know there were more, there had to be.

The ones my idiot friends got knocked up by were a different story, a soap opera that played out through people all over the social scale. They were married, both partners worked. Frequently they also missed the day after payday due to hangovers, the men beat their wives, screwed around as much as possible, thought getting the kid or the dog drunk was the height of humor, etc.. The place was, maybe still is, a friggin' caricature.

Yep, autumn and cardinals and fireflies. That's all I miss.

Oops, forgot to add that the girls were indeed no better than the guys, but they were more likely to go after their GED's and try to improve their situation. The guys just didn't. I don't know why. Never cared enough to ask.

"...people on the dole should have their expenses audited every month, and they should be drug tested and have mandatory IUDs implanted. If you are dependent on the state long term, you deserve to be treated like a child on restriction."

That would solve many, many problems. Need welfare? Fine, but you are clearly in no position to provide for (additional) children. Want to have children? Fine - but you'd better have a way to support them.

Over the long term, this would most noticably improve the situation of inner-city blacks. That means, of course, that organizations like the NAACP would vehemently object - because there would be less need for them if the problems were actually solved.

@Amy: "A big part of being able to have a relationship with a man is knowing what to leave alone, what to shut up about, what to know isn't about you but is just about a human being who's wired a little differently from you, who doesn't notice or care about the same things."
____________________

A generation ago, that was obvious to anyone.

I wonder what the divorce rate would be today if we wouldn't have started brainwashed people to contradict common sense, and wouldn't have started paying wives huge sums of money to abandon their marriages.

"I agree with Amy that the time to get an education is before you have kids. And once you've got kids, it's not just about YOU getting YOUR education. Sometimes it's about who else gets hurt along the way"

It's kind of about how stupid our whole system is in training people to be productive. We could do it in high school, but we prefer to act as if every child will (or should) go to college, and feign shock when so many don't.

I've had a lot of men and women on my property (trailer park) through the years who were extraordinarily smart, but never got a degree. And some dummies who have a degree but can't screw in a lightbulb.

We reward the degree regardless because that's how our system is set up...which is all about academia, not what's best for society.

If we're going to financially reward people with an arbitrary piece of paper more than others, then we're going to have a lot more people needing support. And that's not even counting the ones who got a degree and discovered it was basically useless as far as employment.

I'll put it simple. I am a taxpayer and I don't want to pay for someone else's education when I don't think I can afford to educate myself. End of story.

"We waste a lot of education dollars on unmotivated 19 year olds. A struggling single mother who has seen the light would seem to be a better investment."

Note to self: Do not hire this person as an investment portfolio manager.

My point is that at least this woman is trying to get qualified in a field of high demand. In this economy, she very easily could've already been to college and majored in a field where she'd have found herself unemployable anyway, and had to return to school, with a child or not. Many people are in that boat now, not just due to irresponsible actions.

You pay into unemployment, so it's not exactly like pure welfare, and, even if it is, I'd much rather welfare be spent on people trying to better themselves.

We can bemoan irresponsible actions, but it doesn't seem wise to have a policy that would pull benefits for going back to school, yet allow someone to receive them to loaf around all day. There are folks out there who won't take jobs now because their unemployment is higher than what they'd make! It's stupid.

I mean, if we're going to criticize someone for being divorced or foolishly having a child too young, we might as well blast someone for getting a liberal arts degree or some other degree that'll probably put them near the poverty line. That's just as stupid, but our system encourages it. A high percentage of college graduates do not end up making a living in what they majored in.

We need apprentice programs and more tech schools. Everything should not rest on higher education. Our schools already get 12 yrs to educate us in something productive and employable - the vast majority occurring before any procreation would be possible. Why not utilize those years better?

My 16 year old is in a tech school program. He loves it because it actually is teaching things that are interesting and relevant. He gets to learn and do rather than just sit and listen and then write about stuff taught by teachers that have never ever been outside of a classroom.

His math class utilizes gears, electrical current, tape measures, figuring area and volume for real world math (Like how many trucks of asphalt will be needed to pave a road x long laying down y deep and z wide if each truck holds v volume? It is very no-nonsense and he never ask "why would I ever need to know this?" as he did for regular math classes

He'll be one that will have his name embroidered on his shirt for life. And he'll employable. And for the first time he actually likes going to school.

we might as well blast someone for getting a liberal arts degree or some other degree that'll probably put them near the poverty line.

I already do. I know too many people whose children are moving back in with them at the age of 25 because they are unemployable due to getting degrees in "communications" or some such nonsense.

Because we've had a generation of imbeciles telling us you need a college degree in something, anything, to be considered employable.

Meanwhile the 24 year old son-in-law of my friend already has his own plumbing business and is starting a family.

There's a lesson there, if anyone wants to suss it out.

Hey LS, you've touched on two important things. Yes, higher education today has largely degenerated into credentialism. But the dirty little secret is that the credentials aren't worth that much outside of academia. Much is being made of the fact that girls are overwhelming boys in college, but the other side of the story is that an awful lot of those girls are being fobbed off with educations and degrees that are worse than useless. Not only do they graduate with $70K of student loans hanging over their heads, but they've actually been mal-educated -- in terms of knowledge, they'd be better off if they had not gone to college at all.

The other thing is the perverse incentives built into the welfare system. The reason we now have fourth-generation welfare mothers is because the system makes it lucrative for them to do that. Eliminate the perverse incentives, and the problem largely disappears. Unfortunately, the corruption is so deeply hardwired now that, most likely, the only way to fix it is to eliminate the system altogether.

> My point is that at least this woman is trying to get
> qualified in a field of high demand.

The fuck she is. The fuck she's "trying". Consider her words on this topic:

> For years now, I have wanted to be a nurse,
> and as a young single mother it's been hard.

That's all the aspiration she's demonstrated. "Years" might be two. There's no reason to think she's put ANY effort into this whatsoever, beyond

> Lincoln Land Community College to begin
> my nursing prerequisites

(emphasis mine)

More to the point: Being a nurse means much, much less to her than being a Mom. She certainly made being a Mom her priority, and here we are. If you're going to help her skirt around the choices she's made in life, I want my damn Italian sports care.

In this economy,
> she very easily could've already been to college and majored in a field where she'd have found herself unemployable anyway,

> But she can't exactly give the kids back. She's
> trying to make the best out of a bad situation
> in a way that will ultimately benefit society.

Golly, I just don't see that effort.

> "At some point ones moral high ground
> has to be superseded by logic."

And I keep waiting for someone to demonstrate that logic, but no one ever does. No one ever asks these women (or the miscreant fathers) what the fuck they were thinking, and why they didn't get their ducks in a row before bringing dependents into to world for the rest of us to care for. You're not just being flighty when you say 'water under the bridge', you're being avoidant and cowardly.

When this happens, I want society to stand up and shout at this woman, with arms extended and index fingers pointed: YOU FUCKED UP, so now we'll have to help you. After that, no one could begrudge the money.

But actually having to apply shame is something you're not up to. Re-read your comment!:

> At some point ones moral high ground
> has to be superseded

You're squeamish about considering the behavior of strangers in the context of morality. It's easier for you just to silently pay them to go away. (Because as most any child of a single mother on welfare will tell you, the money doesn't make the problems go away.)

The torrent of fatherless poverty floods onward, and you think you're being "logical".

I'm glad some understand what I'm saying. I don't disagree that she made poor choices, but I also think the system, as it is, gives very little leeway. One "wrong" move - even a poor choice of study - and you're at a disadvantage. As Dave says, college has basically degenerated into creditialism rather than teaching truly employable skills.

I also think we're fighting biology. 100 yrs ago, girls married and had babies at 13 or 14. Now, they don't even get out of the high school phase of education until 18. We've extended childhood, yet we're hardly making the best of it in terms of giving them credentials that will make them employable AND able to raise a family during their peak years of fertility. No, we expect them to postpone having children for even another 4 years while they supposedly get some REAL credentials.

Not that it can't be done, but it would seem smarter to have the credentialing done BEFORE age 18. We spend all our tax dollars giving kids high school diplomas that are virtually worthless in the job market. How foolish is that?

When I first moved to FL in the 80s, you could apprentice with an attorney for 5 years, then take the bar, and, if you passed, become an attorney yourself. They did away with this (probably due to legal lobbying against the competition), but apprentice programs make sense. It gives those, of any age, who may need to support a family, the ability to work while bettering themselves.

Most people cannot take time off, or afford financially, to go back to school. And many people don't even understand what they want to be or what they're good at until later - often after they're supporting a family. Our system gives very few practical options to those people.

I reread the original letter and all the responses at the linked article. I find it interesting that the original LW repeatedly states she is not looking for handouts.

Who is providing health care for her kids? Who will tend the kids while she heroically attends classes full time and works? She has no spouse, doesn't collect child maintenance, has no family support and essentially no support base.

It seems like while working, she has been accepting multiple handouts. How can she say she hasn't?

And now that she is not working, she wants unemployment to cover her time while she makes herself unavailable for employment while attending classes full time. D'oh!

I'm not impressed by her claims. Not at all.

> One "wrong" move - even a poor choice of study -
> and you're at a disadvantage.

Please address the following matters:

#1. Why the scare quotes? Presuming as we do that she isn't widowed, is there any doubt that her choices were in fact wrong? Is there some irony to your perception of events that you can't quite find the words for? We'll wait patiently for you... But please put it in a sentence.

#2. "One wrong move" –or as you put it, "One 'wrong' move"– suggests an exceptionally hazardous circumstance. It what way is her life remarkably difficult? Why should a "wrong choice of study" be something for which the rest of society (or your own children for that matter) be expected to carry a burden?

#3. Why should being "at a disadvantage", especially through the circumstances you describe, offer any exoneration for misconduct? How goddamn lucky does a person have to be before they're held accountable?

> we're hardly making the best of it in terms of giving
> them credentials that will make them employable
> AND able to raise a family during their peak
> years of fertility. No, we expect them to postpone
> having children for even another 4 years while
> they supposedly get some REAL credentials.

I don't care if women have babies or not, so long as society doesn't have to pay for them. In other words, if you want have babies, I expect you to demonstrate the character and execute the responsibilities to do it well, and I expect you to do those things beforehand. If you do that (marrying well, lining up the money and support from friends and family) and then an unpredictable tragedy occurs, I'll be happy to help.

The bigger point is that getting the average person into a condition where they can really generate value in the lives of others (that is, educating them to make money and pay taxes) takes more than 12 years of grade school. To really do well, you need to season your mind for a few years, and then work like a dog at something really challenging as an adult for even longer. Teachers have been trying to make educate more effectively for millenia...

So, #4: If you've found a shortcut, speak up.

#5: When you say "Our system gives very few practical options to those people," you describe a world where policy is the only constraint to happiness, as if your whole life was only what was provided to you be civilization heretofore. This is not the case, not for parents. Loving, competent ones make SURE they're able to shelter their children before bringing them into the world.

> I find it interesting that the original LW repeatedly
> states she is not looking for handouts.

This is why I'm so sensitive about this stuff. When people say 'that's what welfare is for' without any other instruction or judgment, then basically, welfare (and other supports) cease to exist in the moral calculus. The people who consume those resources think that somehow they've been earned, rather than taken from the lives of working people at gunpoint. And those very people who provide them –the glib commenters in this forum, for instance– grow ever-more removed from the actual lives of the people they imagine themselves to be helping.

Alright, we all know that's the way it's supposed to be done, but we also know that a sizeable percentage are not doing it that way. And that we end up supporting them, and their offspring, long after we have already paid for them to supposedly be educated for 12 freaking years (more when you add in headstart and kindergarten)!

So how foolish is that for a culture? Our founding fathers didn't go to school for 12 years, and they were better educated and better equipped to survive in the real world than kids today.

The four extra years of credentialing is like an exclusive entry fee. Academia makes it exclusive, for its own ego, not for the good of society. But the very fact it is exclusive means that the vast majority will not achieve it.

So, what to do with them? Wouldn't it be better to educate and properly credential our young people before there could be a possibility of having babies at all? At least, that way, if they did make a foolish choice to have a baby - a choice many of them just naturally seem to make around 18 or so - they could at least support it! WTF are our tax dollars doing for 12 years...merely testing them to see if they have what it takes to join the exclusive world of academia, where they'll really be trained?

We're all paying for this, but we're not getting a good return on our investment. They should be credentialed and skilled (like LauraGr's son) after 12 years of schooling. A high school diploma should be worth more than a job at McDonalds.

That way Amy wouldn't have to give so many lectures...tell so many girls to wait. They're not waiting! Just like they haven't waited for most of history. Biologically, 30 is old to start having babies.

Reform and speed up the educational process and we'll be ahead of the problem.

> we also know that a sizeable percentage
> are not doing it that way

Right. And of that sizable percentage, I'd say a much larger sizable percentage aren't doing it that way because you're not even asking them to.

Here's an "educational process": LET PEOPLE KNOW WHEN THEY'VE FUCKED UP AND ARE BEING AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN TO OTHERS.

I don't believe there is a tactful way of saying this. Teens need to be told that having babies is WRONG and STUPID. They need that message to be loud and clear. That message has been lost.

There is no reward for responsibility, but if you fuck up you get a free ride. Totally bass-ackwards, that.

Upon reflection, I cannot name a single couple that stayed together long enough to raise a child to maturity when the parents were under age 20 or so. Not one.

LET PEOPLE KNOW WHEN THEY'VE FUCKED UP AND ARE BEING AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN TO OTHERS.

Yeah. Just like that.

"Right. And of that sizable percentage, I'd say a much larger sizable percentage aren't doing it that way because you're not even asking them to."

No, they know we are asking them to. It's just the system is messed up.

My daughter has a friend, a very smart girl, who has dropped out of high school. Her home life was really bad for a couple of years (she's the lesbian whose mom kicked her out). Imagine trying to study and keep up with your work when you're being kicked out of the house. So, her grades tanked those years. Unfortunately, that was freshman and sophomore years....so she's screwed as far as her GPA or getting scholarships to a university, which is the only way she could go to college.

Her life options were this limited by 10th grade! She saw no hope, so she quit. And she'll probably have a baby (though the odds are better since she's not with boys).

This shouldn't be happening! We're creating these situations with our stupid system, then blaming those who are basically cornered into making bad choices by the lack of good choices.

Even worse, we beat them up when they try to pull out of it, when they try to better themselves. That's absurd.

Not everyone is college bound. One wrong move - a few bad teachers, or a couple of lousy years, disqualifies you from the successful track. There's no "do-over". Nobody in the system offered to help this girl...it's just, "Oh well, you're failing. We don't care why. I guess you'll drop out now...probably have a baby, go on welfare..." She's hispanic. She looks the part. Not college material. And college is everything in our system. But it shouldn't be.

College is not the only path to success. My father never went to college. After a rotation in the Navy, he worked as a machinist, cab driver, armored truck driver, and a machinist again. Then he started his own business.

Not only that, but college is not a guarantee of success. I know several people whose children went to college and are not prepared for anything better than a clerk job in some cube farm. And these aren't stupid kids, they just got bad advice and took it because it came from an adult in a position of authority, so how could it be wrong?

> It's just the system is messed up.

This is psychopathology. You just don't think other "souls" are real. You won't credit anyone with agency:

> We're creating these situations with
> our stupid system

No. "We" didn't create dick. This young woman created this. You can't concede this point... You're positively tickled, absolutely fulfilled, when you can say "Well, it's done, so what do we do now?"

> One wrong move - a few bad teachers,
> or a couple of lousy years, disqualifies
> you from the successful track.

You keep saying that. As if selecting a father for your children was like selecting fruit instead of fries for a side with your burger at the diner.

No. These are patterns of behavior, individually pursued, no matter how inanely silent the larger society has become about them. The world is just not that treacherous.

> And college is everything in our system.
> But it shouldn't be.

If you learn to sustain yourself by creating value for others without going to college, no one will complain.

Maybe fetal resorption is the answer. Like the bunnies do. (Insert witchy cackle here).

"we might as well blast someone for getting a liberal arts degree"

Indeed, we should. Students who major in these subjects are either idealistic (read: unrealistic) suckers or else looking for the easiest way to any sort of college degree. They are generally unemployable, because they have learned no useful skills.

So Crid... it seems everyone agrees that this lady fucked up.

She did. She fucked up. She can't turn back the clock and un-fuck up.

What would YOU recommend she do, now, at this point, to move forward?

Say she's a family friend, and she comes to you and says, "Crid, I've fucked up... what do you think I should do from here on out?" What would you tell her?

Brian... she's a single mom, apparently without a very good support system... would you really recommend the military for her? Who's gonna watch her kids?

As to waiting to have kids... yes, its a bad idea to have them when you're 16. At the same time, isn't it a bit messed up that we spend our fertile years taking pills to make us infertile, and our infertile years taking pills to make us fertile?

"We need apprentice programs and more tech schools. Everything should not rest on higher education. Our schools already get 12 yrs to educate us in something productive and employable..."

We used to do this. Europe still does. In much of Europe, 9 years of school is all you need - after that you can quit school and join a formal apprenticeship program.

In the USA (and in the UK), any incompetent can hang out a sign claiming to be a carpenter or a plumber. The quality of the work usually reveals just how, ahem, well-qualified they aren't. In Europe, the quality of work done in the trades is massively better. You don't have to wonder "is this random plumber any good" - because if he weren't, he would have failed his (or her) apprenticeship.

This has all gone lost in the USA, because everything thinks they live in Lake Wobegon. The fact is, no more than maybe a quarter of the population ought to see the inside of a college. At least three quarters of the people would be far better - and far happier - learning a trade. For most jobs, a college education is just plain wrong.

The bonus is: people entering apprenticeship programs start earning real money as teenagers. This is a lot better than starting their careers later, with a massive student debt from a useless college "education" that they can't use.

Thanks, Bradley13. You're absolutely right. And if a couple could graduate at 16, skilled in some sort of trade, we wouldn't be so pissed off if they had a baby. It's not their youth that's really the problem; it's their dependence. Our system is set up to keep young people dependent until at least 22 (now 28 under ObamaCare).

And NicoleK makes a point. There's a reason nature wants us to have children when we're young. Almost no other culture does it the way we do it - encouraging women to wait until 30. Fresh eggs and sperm make for healthier young.

Also stamina is an issue. I was 26 when I had my first child and 30 with my second. I was by no means established in a career with my first, but I'm thankful I didn't wait much longer. Middle-aged parents still dealing with little kids are more tired and easily frustrated.

It would be much wiser if we put the 12 years of mandatory education to better use - place kids on certain tracks based on aptitude and intelligence, as they do in Europe - but we're so equalitarian that we don't have the stomach for that. We'd rather pretend that everyone can go to college, then bitch when they don't.

@lovelysoul: I have a problem with some of the single mothers who are trying to do it all...kids, career, etc. It's as if they are on some sort of journey, a la Oprah, and in their attempt to "follow their path" (God, I hate some of that language), they seem to forget that there's an actual job that comes with the journey.

To wit, I have a lot of these women coming through my home who seem to be there for themselves more than for my mother, if you know what I mean. It's clear that their priority is to further themselves because it's themselves they usually want to talk about. They hear what I do for a living and it's all I can do to get them to keep their focus on my mother.

For example, when I interrupt them to ask them to change my mother's diaper, more often than not I get something of a cold stare and then the cold shoulder. It's like they're expecting me to stand back in awe of all they're doing. Most days, I'm just too tired to care--I've got a lot on my plate too.

Now, I want to be fair, not all of them are like this, but a significant number are and it's bloody irritating. (There's a job-streaming program where I live and so a high proportion of the homecare workers we get are also in a local nursing program.)

I have a graduate degree and a relatively prestigious job, and yet I've learned how to change an adult diaper and do the other physical labour associated with looking after a disabled person. I've cleaned up an awful lot of poop this last year and nobody's handing ME a medal.

It's just this attitude of entitlement that kind of gets me. Some of these women see themselves in heroic terms, when the reality is, they've made some bad decisions. I don't want them to feel bad about themselves, but a more realistic grasp of what's what wouldn't hurt either. Yes, they've got kids, yes, they're getting an education, no, this does not make them heroes.

I don't know, ie. To me, anybody that changes an adult diaper, paid or not, is a hero. I'm very sorry about your mom.

All this really boils down to how one views life. There's the Crid-style view that almost anything bad that happens to someone (save for widowhood or disease) can be traced directly to their bad decisions. This view requires a belief in an almost omnipotent vision, where at any one fork or turn in the road, the person should've known where the path would lead.

I obviously don't believe life is that clear cut. I've known many people who made what seemed at the time very clearheaded, well-reasoned decisions - such as choosing a particular spouse - and things still did not end up well, despite their best efforts.

Not every cheater, alcoholic, drug addict, or abuser starts out that way. Often, events of life, which are beyond our control, intervene and create those situations.

And, in my dealings with people, I try to bear in mind that I can't know which of them are downtrodden by choice or action and which have been dealt very unjust blows by life.

I also don't necessarily believe that those who seem to make the best decisions - follow all the rules, get the right kind of education, etc, are better off. In some ways, yes, but many are lonely and isolated by their perfectionism.

Crid will naturally disagree, but I think we need a certain degree of compassion, or at least the ability to see the near-misses and almost-disasters in our own lives that have lead to us being in a stable position while someone else is not.

Basically, you either believe it could happen to you or it couldn't. I personally take my good fortune in life as only partly attributable to wise decisions. The rest was pure luck.

I'm not so focused on what caused their problems, lovelysoul. I'm more irritated by their heroic view of themselves. It's a form of narcissism, albeit one that isn't often recognized as such because lots of other people hold the same view--that these women are "heroes."

I'm sorry, but I don't like this kind of pride because it interferes with the kind of care my mother gets, and I'm serious. I have a bit of choice (at times) over who the local authority sends, and I've gotten into the habit of asking for the older workers, the ones in their 50s and 60s. I ask for them because they aren't in this streaming program and they don't have this basically tiresome "Look at me, see what a strong, heroic woman I am!" attitude. The downside is that the older workers are less physically capable of moving my mother--so I have to stay closer to home--but, in general, these women are SO much easier to be around.

It's true that some people just don't get a lot of breaks in life. But there are also a lot of people who mistake their own bad judgements for bad breaks and that's what I think Amy was getting at in this blog.

What Crid said, first time, second time, and third time...and fourth time...and fifth time...and sixth time...and seventh...eighth, nineth...tenth 'insert applause'

-------------

"we might as well blast someone for getting a liberal arts degree"
I agree! I don't see how the system encourages it though. Its just an available degree, who is encouraging people to get that one? It sure isn't employers. I've never seen a t.v. commercial for it, or a character on t.v. talk about how important his liberal arts education was. Hell the only mention I've seen of it in media was when Scott Adams made fun of the degree in "Dilbert".

------------------

a very smart girl, who has dropped out of high school." You contradicted yourself.

"This shouldn't be happening! We're creating these situations with our stupid system,"

Ok, so lemme ask you this question, did you do anything to help? Here is where the problem is. You're looking for the system to solve a problem that needs only a decent person to do the right thing themselves.

And before you ask, I've had people with hard luck stay with me from time to time rather than looking for the system to take care of them.

Crid, I don't disagree with your assessment of the particulars of this story. What LS and I are riffing on is the bigger picture, which can be summarized as this: Government rewards bad behavior (And it does so with your tax money.) Without that, this particular story would likely not be taking place. I'll say it again: When considering the average behavior of large groups, Skinner rules. (And I'm not talking about Ronnie Van Zant's gym teacher.)

BTW, I'm still holding out for a McLaren.

"Ok, so lemme ask you this question, did you do anything to help? Here is where the problem is. You're looking for the system to solve a problem that needs only a decent person to do the right thing themselves."

I gave her food and shelter many times, but I cannot change the academic system. I cannot change the rules about GPA. Unless some teachers come forward and willingly change her grades, that is it. She is inelligible for college, regardless of her talents and intelligence. That's what wrong with the system.

Lovelysoul- have your friend find out about credit recovery. It can really help. Guidance/career counselors at the high schools can help. And going to college is not the sure bet for a happy life. Your friend needs to take control of her choices and make some good ones.

And seriously? Kicked out at 14 or 15? For being a lesbian? Maybe your friend needs to learn some people skills. She must have been completely obnoxious about her emerging sexuality to make it an issue as a freshman

Again, she should talk to the guidance counselors. There are posters all over my son's school on how to be a student if you are homeless (booted out), living on someone's couch or whatever. The resources are there.

Like this:

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/nassp_homeless.aspx

> What would YOU recommend she do,
> now, at this point, to move
> forward?

Great question.

You couldn't stop there, could you? You had to keep going:

> Say she's a family friend, and
> she comes to you

Y'know, I believe there's a demon in the feminine heart. (There's a demon in the masculine heart too, but tonight we're talking about the sisters.) Women are too often tempted to think that the feelings and the feelings of their loved ones are of paramount importance. ESPECIALLY when those feelings are made verbal.

So here we are, with you wanting to peer into my blog-commenting little soul and imagine what it would be like IF IT WERE HAPPENING TO ME OR SOMEONE I LOVED... Because THEN, you presume, we'd all know the truth about this person's sense of decency.

And that's silly. Because this woman and I are NOT intimate. And there's no reason to pretend we are. She's a number on a standardized federal (or state or county) document. I'll never know whether she really understands how pissed and disappointed I am in her failure to acknowledge certain unpleasant truths in an adult manner, or if she's grateful that I'll be making sacrifices on her behalf. Indeed, if my sister or my niece or a friend or any other number of other women in my life came to me for support in that kind of crisis, I'd respond with whatever generousity I had at hand.

But we're not talking about intimacy today, are we, girls? Nope! We're talking about policy.

For lefties often but women especially, there's a temptation to say "But how would YOU feel if (x +y or Z) happened to YOU?!??!? " Such lefties and women presume to know far more of human character than they actually know.

Does that answer your question? Probably not, because I fear you're incapable of separating your understanding of policy towards strangers from your own dearest, most closely-forged connections.

If THAT woman, THAT woman came to me, I'd ask What's your fucking problem? Why couldn't you marry well before having kids? Why the fuck am *I* being asked to set aside some of my never-so-precious income because of *your* interpersonal incompetence? How the fuck is this value ever going to be returned to me? How do I do I know you won't go out and do this again? Are my fellow taxpayers and I going to be expected to make other allowances for your kids, those brats you didn't love enough to provide with a caring father? How is it you came to believe that real life was such a reckless daydream of babymaking and womanly fulfillment? In the years ahead, what will you be saying to the girls and young women you meet about how motherhood is best pursued?

So there you go.

Also, I might call her names.

Hell, I forgot a passage for NicoleK:

> She can't turn back the clock and un-fuck up.

You think you're being matter-of-fact and logical. I think you're being stupid and heartless. In fact, that same error is going to be made again, hundreds of times. Then thousands, then hundreds of thousands of times and then millions. BECAUSE YOU WON'T EVEN SAY OUT LOUD THAT IT'S AN ERROR. And you won't ask the person who made that error to say it out loud, not even once.

You'll just assume that it's understood and start cutting checks... From other people's bank accounts.

This is not how virtue works.

> In Europe, the quality of work done in the
> trades is massively better.

I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a moment. Quality always, always comes at a price. If it didn't, you'd move to Europe... But here you are.

The best Eastern European wood craftsman I ever met lived in the Ozarks. His TV control room consoles were legendary, better than anything I've seen in twenty years in Hollywood. But he didn't take enough baths, so he smelled, and his accent was so thick you couldn't understand what the fuck he was saying. It didn't matter. It took years to get on his waiting list.

> if a couple could graduate at 16, skilled in some
> sort of trade, we wouldn't be so pissed off

Great!

No, really... That's just ducky. If you know how to teach people to earn a good, dignified, fulfilling income by age sixteen, teach them! We'll all be watching the progress of your students very carefully...

But I don't think you're equipped to turn the world around that way.

> I have a graduate degree and a relatively prestigious
> job, and yet I've learned how to change an adult
> diaper and do the other physical labour associated
> with looking after a disabled person. I've cleaned up
> an awful lot of poop this last year and nobody's
> handing ME a medal.

You needn't be too proud or disappointed. Anyone, ANYONE who's lovingly connected to other human being is going to wipe some (non-self) ass at some point. It's a small price to pay for loving other people.

> She is inelligible for college, regardless of her
> talents and intelligence.

This is what Brian was getting at, and forgive me for praising him, howsoever grazingly: When someone's talented and intelligent, college isn't that big a deal.

> I think we need a certain degree of compassion,
> or at least the ability to see the near-misses and
> almost-disasters in our own lives

I think you're too morally blind to distinguish a FAR-miss from a bulls-eye. This woman says she's dreamt "for years" of being a nurse but hasn't yet (even) begun the perquisites. And you assume we've lost a brain surgeon. Can she be trusted with a bedpan? Does she know ANYTHING of human nature?

> What LS and I are riffing on is the bigger picture

Methinks you too taken with yourself.

"But we're not talking about intimacy today, are we, girls? Nope! We're talking about policy."

It seems to me, Crid, that you're the one who so often forgets this. You eloquently express your outrage and judgement of other's poor choices but rarely offer or even seem willing to ponder any solutions. Your whole mantra is that if only we criticized people like this more they'd stop making bad choices.

Although I agree that a little more shame and stigma would have an influence, that's not really a policy. We may prevent a higher percentage of mistakes that way, but ultimately, society will still have to handle some mistakes...still have to deal with some unwed mothers. So, why not assist them going back to school? As a policy, that seems productive rather than wasteful, which most of our policies are.

And I never said I could teach, but our tax dollars pay plenty of people who are supposed to be doing that job. I guarantee George Washington or Abe Lincoln were perfectly able citizens at age 16. That age was not viewed as too young to work, run a business, go to war, or raise a family for most of history. We're just a culture who wants to keep our children infantized and babysat by the school system for as long as possible, and well past the point where their hormones are raging and telling them to procreate. As a policy that seems counter-productive.

LaurenGr, thanks for the info. She didn't get kicked out of school for being gay. Her mom kicked her out, and she has a rough homelife in general, but she's not really homeless. At this point, things have settled down, and her mom has accepted her being gay, but unless there would be some sort of grade forgiveness or credit recovery, her options for college are limited.

However, I agree with Brian that college doesn't necessarily lead to success. I have no college degree, and I'm quite well-off as a businessperson. Many of the wealthiest people I know didn't attend college. In fact, I would say most didn't.

The academic system tends to breed subservience, rather than initiative. They're training people to work for others, not take the risks that usually leads to great wealth.

lovelysoul- One thing my own son is doing is taking some classes online thru BYU independent study.

http://ce.byu.edu/is/site/

They offer both high school and college level courses.

My son's tech school, and the necessary travel time to and from limit his options to get the remaining required credits at his home high school in a timely manner. He is taking a couple of BYU courses (with prior approval from his school) to get the appropriate credits.

If your friend has not yet earned her HS diploma or GED, these classes are a good way to get the credits. If she has graduated, she can take college level courses and build up a portfolio of her work. Then she can enroll in a community college to finish up undergraduate studies.

It is really up to her. She needs to decide to do these things for herself. Talking to a career counselor at the high school is a good start.

She needs to look both 1 year and 5 years ahead and plan the paths she'll need to travel to meet her goals.

> You eloquently express your outrage and
> judgement of other's poor choices but rarely
> offer or even seem willing to ponder
> any solutions

Solution #1: DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.

And it will happen again, millions of times.

You, like so many commenters here, are explosively horny to say 'But what's done is done! How should we respond now?!?', as if this incompetent woman and her Godforsaken child were the only ones affected, and the only ones to have ever faced this problem.

But it's worse that than.

I think women like to emote, and pretend they're feeling what other women are feeling, and pretend that through some kind of womanly connectedness, they could make things feel better.

So you don't really want this problem to go away... The drama is just too attractive. Like an x-ray tech living near by a ski lodge, all those wounded people bring you fulfillment. You'll scoff and say it's nature that does the damage, as irresistible as gravity.

But if people ever really got their shit together, and society simply told young women that this must not happen, a great deal of this would have gone away. (See also seat belt use, drunk driving, etc.) You and your precious, psychotic "compassion" would be shit out of luck.

You as much as say so:

> We may prevent a higher percentage of
> mistakes that way, but ultimately, society
> will still have to handle some mistakes...

This suffering means nothing to you, and preventing it would mean even less. You're only interested in these people when they've been shattered and torn.

Psychopathology.

"This suffering means nothing to you, and preventing it would mean even less. You're only interested in these people when they've been shattered and torn."

That's absurd....and "explosively horny"? geeze.

There's no such thing as a mistake free life, Crid. You would love to believe in that, but it doesn't exist. And simply saying, "don't let bad things happen" isn't a POLICY.

> That's absurd....

Any evidence to the contrary? You will always, always come down on the side of incompetence and heartbreak and tragedy. Just keep the nightmare's comin' girls... Jus' keep 'em comin'.

>> In Europe, the quality of work done in the
>> trades is massively better.

>Quality always, always comes at a price. If it didn't,
>you'd move to Europe... But here you are.

Ahem. Actually, I did move to Europe. Here I am.

The quality comes, in this case, from an educational system that doesn't thing everyone needs to go to college. An system provides an educational path for the rest of the population: real training for real jobs, rather than "xxx studies" or whatever other racket colleges have cooked up to separate suckers from their student loans.

But we've drifted a bit from the topic...

Enjoy your stay over there. But for the record, no tears re:the international sitch, OK? The USA is still holding the umbrella.

(What happens when you need a plumber on Sunday?)

To be just a little clearer:

> The quality comes, in this case, from an
> educational system that doesn't thing
> everyone needs to go to college

I'll always think that "quality" comes with the socialist enthusiasm which emerges when a superpower across the oceans stands ready to defend your international boundaries. Suddenly there's a lot more room in your budget for day care and community colleges.

But for now, the "quality" of European economic performance is very much a matter of concern.

(I love that line from McArdle: "Profanity is too weak, really.")

Um, Crid, I DID say it was an error. I didn't say it out loud, true, I typed it. Also, after I finish typing this sentence I will ignore the fact that you called me a demon because I don't buy your curmudgeony old grouch persona for an instant, and strongly suspect you of being a kind-hearted softy IRL.

So what I'm hearing you say, is if it was someone you knew you would help them out as best you could, but since it isn't, you don't have any advice for them?

Actually, you make a good point, in that people should be looking at their personal safety net first, before they turn to the government for help.

Anecdote... a French one, even!!! I know a young man whose father is filthy rich. The young man decided to get a "fun" job, but he goes from contract to contract. Contracts usually last 8 months or so, then he collects unemployment in between. This pisses me off. Does unemployment exist so that rich kids can have "fun" jobs? Is that why French autoworkers, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, teachers etc are paying unemployment taxes? Frankly if he really needs money, he should look to his family first. If the family won't help, he should cut back on expenses (he has a very nice apartment in Paris) and save while he IS earning money. This pisses me off far more than Miss Nurse above.

As for Miss Nurse... here's what I would advise her:

1) Check her social network... could she live with her parents, a friend, a sibling, an aunt to save expenses.
2) If not, could she find a roommate who is also a single parent, with whom she could exchange babysitting services
3) Get a day job, and enroll in a nursing program that meets at night, a couple times a week, someplace that doesn't cost a lot. Not something that meets every night.
4) Look into non-profits and other charities that provide low-income childcare, and can steer her to government programs she DOES qualify for (you may not think they should exist, but they do, so she may as well use them)
5) Study hard, hang in there, and eventually become a nurse
6) Examine why she made such a poor choice in choosing a mate, and start looking for better options.

On to the Europa, Europa question...

I'm in Switzerland, and the quality of the house we bought is MUCH better than anything we could afford in the states. Its gorgeous. I'd say, though, that you CAN find really good quality in the States, its just that you can also find crap. It seems to be that the Bell Curve has a wider spread in the US.

Our plumber was on vacation when we called, and sent a colleague in his stead. They come in for emergencies on Sundays. Switzerland isn't a socialist country, though.

I liked it when Swiss relatives would come visit us in the States and I could drive them around and show them the crumbling infrastructure and shock them. It was always entertaining.

Bradley, was it you who was also here? I know there's another poster in Switzerland but I forget who. Are you in Romandie, or in the Barbarian East on the other side of the Rosti curtain?

> the quality of the house we bought is MUCH
> better than anything we could afford in the states.

Amy's blog attracts a lot of people who can't do the math on this: Nation XYZ is in some economic way more attractive because of the globally-important behavior of the United States, not by any excellence of that particular nation. There IS no "Europa, Europa question." You're still indebted to the United States taxpayer (and soldier), whether or not you're reminded to thank him every day.

I just had a Swiss guest. She told us that she is train ticket agent - only selling about 30 tickets a day - but she makes the equivalent of $150,000 a year because it's a gov job. Also gets plenty of vacation time.

If that's true, I think I'm moving to Switzerland.

The bell curve of salaries is more narrow here... the working class earns more, and the upper class earns less (but they are still plenty wealthy). I'm not quite sure how they managed that.

Cost of living is higher here, though, but not terribly so, not enough to eliminate the pay difference.

Crid, the US is no longer the great global influence that it was. Switzerland's peace owes more to geography, a willing to sacrifice the plateau, and banking (there are lots of Swiss angry at the immoral banks, I say don't bite the hand that feeds and protects you) than it does to the US. The US is great, I love it, I loved living there, would happily live there again, but it ain't what it was when my parents were kids.

> Switzerland's peace owes more to geography,
> a willing to sacrifice the plateau, and
> banking

Cock-suckingly preposterous.

I'm reminded of this: "The greatness of its institutions...."

Oh, and Lovelysoul?

GO.

It wasn't the Allies that kept Hitler out of Switzerland, Crid, it was the banking and other political and economic deals. (The reduit helped, but it wasn't finished until near the end of the war... however, the willingness to fight made it less worthwhile to attack and more worthwhile to cut business deals). In fact, the Allies bombed Basel. (Oops.)

America's influence is declining, Crid, that's just the way of things. It's military might is declining... wasting money on losing wars that gain us nothing if we were some how to win them.

It's nice that you live in a fantasy land where the US still holds the cards it did in the 50s... but that reality doesn't exist anymore.

You can't take this point: Europeans aren't creating enough value to protect themselves even from each other. More grotesquely, for a woman I presume to be American (or at least western), you describe your own pettiest interests as the height of human aspiration, as if you could never have loyalty any greater investment. Thirdly, for the last FORTY years, I've seen that anyone who prattles about "the 50's" is, without exception, a shallow student of history: Such people think the world began with network television.

If you wanted to come off as more small-minded, what would you say?

First of all, Crid, "Europeans" are not a unified block. "Europe" is not a country... and the productivity varies from country to country. The US production rate... high tech and and other, is DOWN. The US is not what it was. This is a fact. This is something that ought to be fixed. The US is throwing itself away, wasting money on foreign soil when it should be looking at its own infrastructure.

I'm binational, American and Swiss to answer your question about my ethnicity.

Here is a list of national debt compared to GDP, you will see that while many European countries have a lot compared to the US, some have very little. The much-maligned France has less than the US, for example, though they still have very high debt.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/list-of-national-debt-by-country/

Your point about the military is taken, but right now I don't see the US being able to defend Europe if it is attacked, frankly. The US has its hands tied right now.

I'm a bit confused about the loyalty any greater investment sentence... are you saying its disloyal not to pretend that everything is rosy in America and that America is the savior of the world? I would love to see America fixed, frankly, I like the idea of America as a global economic and political leader. I think the principles of democracy are great, the problem is, I think America has gone astray. First it has betrayed democracy, with the spying and violation of civil liberties... this to me is the biggest crime, but also it is losing a lot of its own infrastructure which made it great. I'd love to see America bounce back. And the schadenfreude in European papers annoys me to no end.

And to answer your last question, Crid, I know the world didn't begin with network television... it began in 1977 when I was born! ;)

> "Europeans" are not a unified block.

Tell it to Angela Merkel, or to any member of the EU. Did you read the earlier links?

> The US production rate... high tech
> and and other, is DOWN.

I wish I hadn't used up the word "horny" earlier in this thread. You're apparently obsessed with saying things like this about America, perhaps to help you sound more sophistimicated and worldly for being all of 33. I haven't even bothered to contest them except for their inanity, but make no mistake: America is still a world leader in productivity, and in wealth creation in too many fields to mention. Specifically, we're ahead of Switzerland, even in recession. A few bad quarters in a global slowdown hardly diminishes this truth. There's much more to economic power than debt against GDP. That there are things "that ought to be fixed here" is essentially irrelevant, when it's noted that we're so much more than other places have ever been, when our power and our decency have meant so much around the world.

You say you're not counting on the US for defense, but according to the CIA factbook Switzerland spends 1% of GDP on her military... You're counting on somebody else, as is the rest of the continent. Wikipedia says:

During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the Germans,[28] but Switzerland was never attacked.[22] Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion.[20][29]

Most of all, I think it's odious to talk about national pride as a matter of consumer fulfillment... As if you expect admiration for thinking only of getting the best possible value in exchange for the money in your pocket. I was serious about the question at the end of the last comment... What could make you seem more small-minded?

This afternoon I was thinking about how, when I was a little boy, the United States put a man on the moon. (I think of this almost every time there's a new moon.) And then, in the 70's, we kind of lost interest and decided to dance disco and spend the money on other things. So here I am on the cusp of old age, and no other nation has even bothered. No other nation has even tried. We are that badass. For essentially my whole life, every kid who's looked to the night sky has seen a globe where the only footprints are American. Our dominance of world taste is legendary, as is the reach of our internet, the might of our schools, the harvest of our farms and (of course) the muscle of our military. We're the best.

And people know it. Over the course of YOUR lifetime, Little Miss 1977, the United States has accepted more immigrants than all other nations combined. (Cite on request.) Your mention of "binationality" does NOT describe "ethnicity", which is of no interest to me anyway. But in a recent election, Switzerland gave us campaign posters like this and this to discuss immigration: Apparently ethnicity means a great deal to you.

Yours is not the voice by which I'll be scolded about "infrastructure".

I think you're going a bit far with this one. As Kristen so aptly pointed out, she was working, which means she was paying into the system for unemployment benefits, which she took only when entitled to them. The unemployment system, like all government systems, is one-size-fits-all, with no flexibility and little connection to reality.

Did I ask for money whilst a student? No, but I was fortunate to have parents who paid for my education. Was I a single mother? No. But you don't know what her situation was - it could range from raped and decided to keep the baby to divorced. Certainly, no one SHOULD be a single mother, but that's not going to help her right now.

NicoleK: You still out there? Grrrr!

Choika: Do I hate it when people ask themselves their own questions, as if they were demonstrating rhetorical magnanimity rather than withering condescension? Yes, I do hate it.

(You're right about everything else, though.)