I was reading some of the awful, recent statistics about Detroit. 47% of its population is illiterate, violence is off the charts, and 60% of its children live in poverty.

And I thought, Why are there even any children IN Detroit? Why would anyone with half a brain have children in such a place? Why wouldn't they move somewhere safe first?

The process "Democrat city" is fueled by taxes and wasted human potential. Focusing on a single slice of the humanity isn't going to help us devise a path to a more humane process. The iron law remains: you get more of what you subsidize.

Amy, there just isn't a way to force people to plan things like oh um... kids. You can't even really coax people to plan for these things. It's pulling teeth to get some people to even plan dinner.

I was food stamp poor growing up. I lucked out that I had decent sex-ed growing up. I stopped and thought about what I would do if I had an accidental pregnancy when I was 14. I knew exactly what I was going to do. Never had an accident.

Unplanned children are part of the issue.

But reading the whole article I can't find a point to the waste of ink if it was printed. About the closest I could come to any points:

* Being a low wager earner sucks
* A lot of fast food stores are run by idiots
* There isn't much they can do
* The natives are restless

Beyond that I really don't get why it was even written.

Why wouldn't they move somewhere safe first?

Because it is expensive to move, unless you're just going with the clothes on your back and whatever you can carry?

Because you'll have to pass a credit check to rent a place?

Because your extended family isn't moving with you?

And most importantly, because this is how you grew up, and you don't know of anything different?

"This isn't the life I want for my children. This isn't the life I want for myself."

Yes, so stop waiting for someone else to come in and fix your life for you. If not you, who? and if not now, when?

Go find a better job with someone who isn't inclined to steal from you. Then quit KFC. Then maybe pick up some part time work on the side to save up some money. Then maybe look for some online course work that will make you a more valuable employee.

You want to fix it? Stop subsidized housing, stop the "earned income" child credit. Substantaily reduce food stamps to the point where you cant use it to order Pizza Hut or go out to eat at the Olive Garden; reduce them to the point where you cant buy a loaf of bread and a bag of Doritoes at the gas station at thrice the price of a grocery store, hell reduce it to to point where you cant even buy DOrities at the grocery store.

You know they wont do that. If they earned more money they might not qualify for their free apartment

I live in downtown Houston on a street situated between the 2 branches of a homeless shelter called Star of Hope. Everyday I see groups of women and men walking back and forth between the women's shelter on one side of the freeway and the mens shelter on the other. What kills me is that I see far more children walking to and from the shelter and the gas station than adults. On any given day I see groups of upwards of 7 children led by pregnant women pushing yet another infant in a stroller on the way to the gas station down the street. What's even worse is when I see young children - couldn't be more than 9 years old - leading toddlers across the busy intersections with no adult around at all. The gas station has a policy of no more than 3 students at a time in the food mart, and even with that, I've seen far more children detained/arrested for shoplifting. After 3 years of watching this, I've come to the conclusion that whatever their situation is, once they became parents (for the FIRST time much less the fifth or sixth time), they have wholeheartedly volunteered for it.

What I saw from the excerpt is that she is married (for a change -- so many of these child-bearing women remain single) to a husband who is unemploeyd. Why can't he find some sort of job? I know that the job market is tough these days, but if he cannot repair antennas, he could still find something to do, even if it is cleaning offices or picking up trash at a park.

Having her slaving away at Kentucky Fried Maggots while he (apparently) sits around the house is despicable. He should strive for something better.

Is there anything that can be done to stop people from popping out children they raise in poverty? (And no, I'm not talking any sick, civil liberties-denying interventions or forcing others to subsidize them.) Or will people just continue to pop out children they can't afford, which truly isn't fair to the children?

There are things that can be done to try to stop people from having kids they raise in poverty (e.g. providing free birth control), but aside from civil liberties-denying interventions, I don't see what will stop people from doing that.

A woman has the right to have as many children as she wants, whether she can afford them or not. The government can't force her to not have children. To do so would be an aforementioned civil liberties-denying intervention.

Now, one could, of course, argue that although a woman has this right, she doesn't have a right to financial support for those children from other people. One could argue that other people shouldn't be forced to subsidize her choice to have kids that she can't afford. But that's just punishing the kids, who had no say in the matter.

I just don't think stopping subsidized anything helps. It's poor people all over the world that have this problem. And I've met people that were poor and still have this problem.

I've read studies that its basically about getting gratification as quickly as possible. For men it comes down to leaving a "legacy"'and they are working on instinct alone.

The one thing drummed to you when you are poor is:

"The greatest achievement is having children" I hear this all the time from poor people.

Case in point a relative who hates his kids, never took care of them but he says how having kids with multiple women gave meaning to his life! He never even visits them. At all.

Don't miss that these people vote for anyone promising a higher minimum wage. They cannot understand that the dollar is devalued and shortly everything will cost more because of the hike - all they can see is a bigger check, which their hero forced that nasty businessowner to pay.

I just don't think stopping subsidized anything helps. It's poor people all over the world that have this problem. And I've met people that were poor and still have this problem. -- Ppen at July 5, 2013 12:05 PM

The subsidies hurt everyone. The recipients world is shaped by sucking at the government teats and limited because of that fact. If they go to work or look for work that actually pays they lose the benefits. But in that window between decent paying jobs with benefits and getting off the government teats there is usually a period of time when there is zero extra anything.

Having children doesn't help them make the jump because there is nothing in the gap. But if there is nothing from the government to suck on in the first place they have no choice but to make it.

And the subsidies also don't help businesses to be responsible either. Have you ever looked at an apartment complex that accepts Section 8 housing? I wouldn't want to live in most of them. But unless the government comes down on the property owner the place goes to shit. If the government does and withdraws the Section 8 then the landlord will kick the family(s) out and/or sell off and/or demolish the building.

Then there is the Obamaphone.

The government messing in social issues has many issues. But of course there is the whole issue of the government not enforcing the immigration laws and messing in business.

There is a the whole issue of how Yum! foods was abusing illegal immigrants through the tomato pickers for Taco Bell. If the workers were legal they wouldn't have had to go through a strike for fair wages and decent working conditions.

The one thing drummed to you when you are poor is:

"The greatest achievement is having children" I hear this all the time from poor people.

Posted by: Ppen at July 5, 2013 12:05 PM
_____________________________________

And, from the introduction to columnist Katha Pollitt's book "Reasonable Creatures":

".......To say that unwed mothers cause poverty is like saying hungry people cause famine, or sick people cause disease........

"........It would be closer to the truth to say that poverty causes early and unplanned childbearing. Across the income spectrum, after all-and to an extent that would horrify their parents if they knew about it-young people are having sex and young girls are getting pregnant. Strangely enough, however, you don't find many 15-year-olds dropping out of exclusive private schools to have babies. Girls with bright futures-college, jobs, travel-have abortions. It's the ones who have nothing to postpone who become mothers.

"What none of (those) who have dominated the welfare discussion betray any sign of understanding is that babies are a centuries-old way that women have put meaning, love, pleasure, hope and self-respect into their lives. If society is serious about cutting down on teenage
motherhood, it will have to offer girls another way of obtaining these things. I'm not saying teenage motherhood is a great idea. It isn't, either for women or for children, and whether or not marriage is involved. But if impoverishing women were a deterrent, it surely would have worked by now....."

Two very good books on this subject:

"When Children Want Children" by Washington Post journalist Leon Dash (1989)
(Dash mentions that teenage boys want babies as well, if only because "with her on the Pill, I couldn't feel like a man." Incidentally, Dash, like most of the teens in the book, is black.)

"Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage" by Kathryn Edin and Maria J. Kefalas (2005)
(the authors claim, IIRC, that many poor women simply feel that it's better to be a single mother on welfare than never to be a mother at all, and given the lack of job opportunities and shortage of men with non-criminal records, they don't feel they have a choice)

I assume the guy was an employed antenna worker when he had the kids

For women, thoygh, youre in a bind... If you have them young people whine about how you had them before your career was set. You wait till your thirties you start having fertility issues( not everyone, of course but it gets much more common). You say a mans financial stability is a factor in who you date, and you get called a gold digger. You cant win.

What none of (those) who have dominated the welfare discussion betray any sign of understanding is that babies are a centuries-old way that women have put meaning, love, pleasure, hope and self-respect into their lives.

I knew a girl in high school who wanted a baby because she wanted someone to love who loved her unconditionally.

I asked her is she loved her mother like that (I knew she didnt), when she said no I asked her what made her think it would be any different with her own child.

"impoverishing women were a deterrent, it surely would have worked by now....."

Thank you lenona.

I just don't think stopping subsidies stops these people.

And lujlp thanks for that, I hear too often how a baby loves you unconditionally and that is why I should have one.

the authors claim, IIRC, that many poor women simply feel that it's better to be a single mother on welfare than never to be a mother at all, and given the lack of job opportunities and shortage of men with non-criminal records, they don't feel they have a choice.

On one hand, you've got people who say, "You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them." But on the other, you've got women saying "Fuck that. Just because I'm poor and can't afford to provide for kids doesn't mean I can't have them."

Nicole: You say a mans financial stability is a factor in who you date, and you get called a gold digger.

It depends on what a woman's definition of financial "stability" is. Is it a guy with a steady job who's not in debt? Or is it a guy earning $150,000/year with a lot of assets? I highly doubt that most men would call a woman a "gold digger" if she's looking for the former type of man.

I just don't think stopping subsidies stops these people. -- Ppen at July 6, 2013 12:02 PM

I can't disagree with you. I also don't think subsidies help these people either.

As I noted above the government teat takes away responsibility from them for their own survival.

I would also like to see where in the U.S. Constitution you can find welfare, food stamps, Section 8 and all the rest.

"If society is serious about cutting down on teenage motherhood, it will have to offer girls another way of obtaining these things."
Gee, sounds like another mandate for government to do something.
Did somebody really say that removing a subsidy would have no effect? Shouldn't you be on a 12-step program somewhere?
This completely ignores the perpetuation of the fatherless family by welfare systems nationwide. A FAMILY provides those necessary things, and when government is the baby-daddy, all family life is poisoned.

... and JD proves my point.

If you marry an antenna salesperson, you're irresponsible and shouldn't have kids.

If you marry someone on the high end of middle class (or middle end depending where you live), you're a gold-digger.

There's a very narrow acceptable range.

This is one way in which society discourages women from making poor choices. JD is effectively implying if a woman marries someone who earns $150k, which is a good salary on which you can support a family, and either have a stay at home parent and a house in a middle class neighborhood, or have both parents work and live in an excellent school district, she's a gold digger.

Look at how many movies have the woman ditching the stuffy accountant and going for the schlubby but loveable loser. Especially romantic comedies, which are targeted towards women. The message is clear. Don't go for the straight-laced guy with good career prospects.

There's a whole segment of society with an anti-success attitude. This whole, "Don't overreach" attitude, which in the ghetto translates as not "acting white".

I say, go for success, in education, in career, in marriage, in family, and in social life. Maybe you can't be successful at all of them, but you ought to be in some.

It depends on what a woman's definition of financial "stability" is. Is it a guy with a steady job who's not in debt? Or is it a guy earning $150,000/year with a lot of assets? I highly doubt that most men would call a woman a "gold digger" if she's looking for the former type of man.

Posted by: JD at July 6, 2013 12:35 PM
_________________________________

Most men? Well, at least 60% of men would be polite enough not to say that, I hope.

(I know a well-educated man who's had a hard time with employment over the years - he's in his mid-40s - and a few years ago, he told me that in his opinion, asking a man if he has a job is "an act of hate." But I doubt he would have said that had he been employed all this time.)

For women, thoygh, youre in a bind... If you have them young people whine about how you had them before your career was set. You wait till your thirties you start having fertility issues( not everyone, of course but it gets much more common). You say a mans financial stability is a factor in who you date, and you get called a gold digger. You cant win.

Posted by: Nicolek at July 6, 2013 9:13 AM
___________________________________

Not to mention that conservatives are mostly (always?) the ones who frantically complain about the drop in the U.S. population, AND the ones who complain about welfare mothers and "anchor babies"!

They should make up their minds. (Hint: Childfree people don't make the best parents when forced into parenthood, and poor people who want children but choose not to have any should get paid first before being guilt-tripped into having them.)

JD is effectively implying if a woman marries someone who earns $150k . . . she's a gold digger.

Nicole, I can understand how you perceived that as the implication but that's not what I was saying. I said that, given two different types of men -- a guy with a steady job who's not in debt and a guy earning $150,000/year with a lot of assets -- I highly doubt that most men would call a woman a "gold digger" if she's looking for the former type of man. In otherwords, they're not going to call a woman a "gold digger" just because she seeks financial stability in a guy (which is what you asserted.) That doesn't mean that those men will turn around and call a woman a "gold digger" if she's looking for the latter type of man. They may of course, but it doesn't mean that they will.

Most men? Well, at least 60% of men would be polite enough not to say that, I hope.

Lenona, I don't think politeness has anything to do with it. I don't believe most men are even going to think of a woman as a "gold digger" if she just wants a guy with a steady job who's not in debt.

Gotcha, JD. But, how are you defining "steady job"?

Why wouldn't antenna/minimum wage qualify as a "steady job"?

Lenora, the conservatives arent being contradictory... they want population growth, but only within a certain demographic. They want immigration, but controlled.

Lenona, the conservatives arent being contradictory... they want population growth, but only within a certain demographic. They want immigration, but controlled.

Posted by: NicoleK at July 8, 2013 5:19 AM
__________________________________

I know. But whether the conservatives are being driven by racism or not, last I heard, the "undesirables" aren't having ENOUGH babies to make up for the lack of future taxpayers.

Why wouldn't antenna/minimum wage qualify as a "steady job"? -- NicoleK at July 8, 2013 5:19 AM

Minimum wage is a steady job. The problem is that for a family of five the income is under the EITC. Or in other words they get more back than they paid in. It is deficit spending.

Nicole, you initially used the term "financial stability." To me a "steady job" provides stability. That doesn't mean it pays a lot. It just means that it provides a stable stream of income.