Isn't it self-evident that fours kids cost more to raise than one or two? I would understand if it was the early 1900's and you lived in the countryside, but what economic advantage is there to having five kids in a single room apartment. Yes, you get tax advantages, but you still have to feed them, don't you? Do you think they should start handing out condoms and birth control pills with the welfare checks?
2007-02-10
15:18:53
·
16 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Other - Society & Culture
I realize that one could have one or no children and still be struggling financially. But, doesn't it make sense that if you are struggling financially to raise one child, that it would be impossible to raise five?? It's obvious that people with lower education have lower incomes, but if any adult doesn't know what a condom is, they are living in a cave. Don't try to say all five kids were accidents. That's just carelessness
2007-02-10
15:42:29 ·
update #1
"Do you think they should start handing out condoms and birth control pills with the welfare checks?"
YES!!! You also just answered your own question. Many low-income families can't afford basic medical services, let alone condoms and birth control pills. In more enlightened areas, the county medical clinic has condoms all over the place for free. You can just walk in the door, walk up to the giant bowl, take some and leave. But good luck getting anyone out in the bible belt/Bush Country to put birth control in the county budget. It's against many of their religions out here, so they simply don't use it and would rather pay to support eleventybillion impoverished children than let anyone else use it for free.
~Morg~
2007-02-10 15:28:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by morgorond 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Funny folks....low income doesn't mean relying on welfare. I had one child when minimum wage was a little over 3 dollars and now that I am making 5 times that, it is not much easier.
Never on welfare, so there are many low income family that do not have a million kids-If I would have chosen welfare, I would have had 440 a month and Milwaukee supposedly paid a lot for welfare. That doesnt pay my rent. I seriously doubt that people are doing it for the money.
If many of us that are parents lost our jobs today, we would not be able to afford our "kids." Why do some rich people have kids that are taken care of by nannies....not being responsible. Or mentally unstable people having kids......
On the other hand, you might not want to judge these people that upo see with a lot of kids....loss of job, death of a wageearner, disability, anything could have happened.
2007-02-10 15:57:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by exhaling2day 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
ill give a crude statement cause i dont care...
mexicans an other illegal aliens come over and are just starting out so there automatically low-income but mexicans an alot of others are also catholic an catholic people do not use birth control.. or they are just uneducated an dont care.
and the "other" people use kids as welfare checks an dont care about quality of liveing case the tax payers will do it for them.
they know either way society will feel sorry for theri kids they made an create a good chance in life for them with public schooling welfare an college breaks , thats if they make it alive since they most likely live in the ghetto
2007-02-10 15:50:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by peeps you 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A lot of people are going to bring up factors like - irresponsibility, undereducation ect ect. I can't rule out any of those factors but all I can think about is when we look back hundreds of years ago the same trend existed there - poorer families had more children. When we look at countries like African where most of their population is living in extreme poverty those families have more children then families who live in some of the richest countries in the world. I'm sure there are lots of reasons why this happens but I remember reading an evolutionary psychology paper that said it may have something to do with children from lower income families more likely to die at a younger age from illness or other causes - so they have more children to ensure their genes make it to the next generation. Where as families from richer areas have the financial resources to access better health care and medicine and as a result they have lower infant mortality rates. Its up to you whether you think this is rubbish or not but have a lot at the infant mortality rates of different countries - or different socioeconomic classes within a country and you will see a trend of those countries or classes with higher infant mortality rates (rates as in percentage NOT numbers) having on average more children per family. Just something to consider
2016-03-29 01:41:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aid to dependent children is one reason - thanks to U.S. Welfare System; another more insidious reason sounds mean or insensitive but here it is, the same characteristics in a person that makes them low income producers makes them unable to see the consequences of their actions in a long term future context. Poor education, low self-esteem, and cannot participate in delayed gratification strategies even if they will benefit from following them. They actually brag about how many children they have because they see quantity as good, not realizing that a large quantity of liabilities is bad.
2007-02-10 15:28:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sterling403 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
State and Federal pays for them all year long. Subsidized housing, food stamps, allowances for each child, and yes $1200.00 at the end of the year for each one. Do I think they should start handing out birth control? No. I think they should start cutting their balls off and tying their damned tubes into knots. Us working class who can't afford to live as it is don't need to be spending any more of our money on these people.
Stinkypants, you are an idiot.
And Lena, Yes we do have to feed them. Do you think the Russians are sending money over here to support these f'ing bums?
2007-02-10 15:26:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by m_h 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
So people should not have big families bc the world is overpriced??? I know a lot of people struggling that have no kids. If people didn't have kids bc they were poor then the population would steadily decline. Some of the best people grew up poor. Being low income does not mean you can't love and nurture. And the gov't should pay for everyone's housing, food, utilities, medical, etc.
2007-02-10 15:24:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I do think they should insist that one use birth control of some sort if they were to receive assistance such as money, food, shelter etc. AS far as why they have so many kids would be because they do not have any money to go out and have fun so they stay home and have mone made fun.
2007-02-10 15:22:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bridghid 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that's exactly true, most of the women I know who are struggling financially (from the inner cities) have degrees and one child. Most of the high births seem to be concentrated outside of the inner cities.....yes its true.
2007-02-10 16:23:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Diamond in the Rough 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Idiot. I have struggled all my life but I only have 1 child. It was a choice I made after her birth. I am disabled. There are many different situations where people have to rely on help. Hope you never have bad health.
2007-02-10 15:24:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋