question for Beastie

[_EAllusion]

People have gotten better access to birth control. Has it reduced the number of children in poverty? On the contrary, poverty among children has continued to rise. A growing number of women are having these children on purpose, bottom line

That's not really true. Poverty among children has risen significantly since the 2007 recession, but that's tied to specific poor economic conditions. Otherwise, what you are saying doesn't explain the trend well.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq6.htm

More to the point, the general reproduction rate has significantly declined over recent decades, so fewer children are being born into poverty. It just so happens that this is a general decline, so it doesn't impact the relative rate. As far as the history of the rate goes, it massively declined in the 60's, plateaued in the 70's, increased moderately in the 80's, decreased again in the 90's, started slowly increasing in the 2000's, then shot up after the financial collapse. It's still beneath where it was prior to the 60's. The two main drivers of the trend seem to be political policy and economic conditions.

[_ajax18]

That education correlates strongly with reproduction rate suggests your skepticism is misplaced.

I really don't think it's about education in the developed world. Many women have the oppurtunity to work in the developed world whereas women in underdeveloped nations do not. If your oppurtunity cost is a minimum wage job at WalMart going nowhere, it makes a woman more likely to choose family life.

Yes it is disappointing to see my race declining in number and strength. If that makes me a racist, than I'm no different than most people of any other race. It's just that I happen to be white and for white people alone, loving your own race and your own family is sinful. If someone from another race helps his own race, he wins a Nobel prize.

[_ajax18]

That's not really true. Poverty among children has risen significantly since the 2007 recession, but that's tied to specific poor economic conditions. Otherwise, what you are saying doesn't explain the trend well.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq6.htm

That's just the United States. Isn't the general reproduction rate in the world still increasing exponentially? I find it very difficult to believe that the principle reason for people in the third world having children is due to lack of birth control. I think more often than not it's a choice that they make.

Secondly, how accurate is that census report? Does it count illegal immigrants? How would you know if they were born into poverty or not if everything they earn is under the table? Why would they volunteer that information? And if they did, why weren't there any legal consequences to the employer for not paying taxes on these people.

This is just a curiosity that I'm throwing out. People under communism in Russia did not reproduce out of control. From the people I've talked with, people had an incentive not to have too many kids (and this in a country that was planning a war with the U.S.)

[_Bond James Bond]

People would have fewer children into bad situations if they had more available access to birth control in all its forms. They also would have fewer children if they would have more honest education about birth control and stop shoving abstinence down their throats.

How much fewer? People have gotten better access to birth control. Has it reduced the number of children in poverty? On the contrary, poverty among children has continued to rise. A growing number of women are having these children on purpose, bottom line.

This is a serious problem and I believe it's one of the biggest reasons we will all progressively be dragged down into deeper poverty as a country. Living off the state sure isn't a good living, but as the state expands and the problem continues to increase, that will become the new standard of living for more people, and every last dime seized from the few 1% isn't going to change that a bit.

Birth control is under attack. As evidence I submit the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh episode along with Rick Santorum's rollback on discussion of contraception. Ending Planned Parenthood has been far more important to the 2010 Republican Congress than jobs or lowering unemployment or working with Obama on something important. Abortion has been under new attack in Republican controlled states across the country since 2010:





And it's difficult to find abortion access in some Republican controlled states (like Virginia and Alabama where they're basically trying to outlaw abortion clinics). Enough said in my opinion but I agree that some people have children because of the economic benefits in terms of welfare. Some people just want to have children and the American govt (through child tax credits) encourages children as well (at least for the middle classes who might best take advantage of tax credits). Perhaps we should pay women to not have children? Perhaps we should get rid of that part in the Bible about "go forth and multiply"? Neuter the Duggars? What's a realistic plan that doesn't look like eugenics or an invasion of privacy or personal freedom?

by the way the wealth of the richest 400 Americans grew 13 percent this year to 1.7 trillion dollars. That's 1,700,000,000,000 dollars. You really think the rich are losing their wealth?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-forbe ... erica.html

[_just me]

Enough said in my opinion but I agree that some people have children because of the economic benefits in terms of welfare.

Srsly? Do you know how much a kid costs?

.....

The reason women and children have the greatest risk of poverty is because mothers have the lowest wage!

People need to get their heads out of their asses. Having children is not an economic benefit. It is a risk factor for poverty. A woman may start out middle income, but when she has a kid her income (statistically) goes down. The more kids, the worse it gets. The father, otoh, generally starts to generate more money. By the time they divorce...well, we see how financially disastrous that is.

Our society gives lip service to how important mothers are but near I can tell it is a bunch of BS. Mothers create the next generation of workers for free. Not only free, they pay for it in lost wages, careers, pursuits and social security benefits.

(this goes for stay-at-home fathers, as well)

If anyone has more than anecdotal evidence that there are women out there living in poverty and purposefully having babies to "make money off the government" I'd like to see it.

[_ajax18]

by the way the wealth of the richest 400 Americans grew 13 percent this year to 1.7 trillion dollars. That's 1,700,000,000,000 dollars. You really think the rich are losing their wealth?

No I don't think they're losing it nor will they ever. Liberals are rich too mind you. But there aren't that many of rich people. Those that stay rich find ways around the tax laws. The cost of all this unwed motherhood that is encouraged by our welfare system is going to be squarely upon you and me as middle class taxpayers.

[_Bond James Bond]

Enough said in my opinion but I agree that some people have children because of the economic benefits in terms of welfare.

Srsly? Do you know how much a kid costs?

.....

The reason women and children have the greatest risk of poverty is because mothers have the lowest wage!

People need to get their heads out of their asses. Having children is not an economic benefit. It is a risk factor for poverty. A woman may start out middle income, but when she has a kid her income (statistically) goes down. The more kids, the worse it gets. The father, otoh, generally starts to generate more money. By the time they divorce...well, we see how financially disastrous that is.

Our society gives lip service to how important mothers are but near I can tell it is a bunch of BS. Mothers create the next generation of workers for free. Not only free, they pay for it in lost wages, careers, pursuits and social security benefits.

(this goes for stay-at-home fathers, as well)

If anyone has more than anecdotal evidence that there are women out there living in poverty and purposefully having babies to "make money off the government" I'd like to see it.

In my best politician walk back let me state that I meant "some ill informed people have kids because they think there will be benefits but in reality kids are expensive bundles of evil who will eat their parents' lives". Also people have kids because of religious guilt about abortion as well as the ancillary pressure of familial religious conviction.

[_EAllusion]

.

Yes it is disappointing to see my race declining in number and strength. If that makes me a racist, than I'm no different than most people of any other race. It's just that I happen to be white and for white people alone, loving your own race and your own family is sinful. If someone from another race helps his own race, he wins a Nobel prize.

It's like you're Cameron from American History X.

Ok. Maybe Seth.

[_ajax18]

If anyone has more than anecdotal evidence that there are women out there living in poverty and purposefully having babies to "make money off the government" I'd like to see it.

So why do women choose to have these kids if they can't afford them?

[_EAllusion]

So why do women choose to have these kids if they can't afford them?

Yeah, what's the appeal of this sex thing that people keep talking about?