Simple solution to poverty...?

Question

It always struck me as funny, but the simplest way to alleviate poverty would be for poor people to stop having children they cannot afford to feed (who will, in turn, have kids they cannot afford to feed...etc)

It seems that in our society, we do the opposite. We encourage more of this cycle by giving tons of programs and aid to support this behavior.

If you had a rat infestation in your barn, for example, would you go out there and place a piles of trash in the corner so the rodents could feed and breed?

Answer 1

Birth Control.

Access to education.

Self empowerment (means not relying on the government for a handout).

No social welfare, if you don't work you don't eat (exceptions given for the sick and elderly).

Answer 2

Congratulations. You've just compared people to rats. Nice.

First of all, contrary to popular belief, our society does not "encourage more of this cycle". The money provided to a mother with one child does not cover the entire cost of raising that child. Mothers do not make a profit on governmental aid programs; without any additional sources of income, they go into debt. If a mother receiving assistance has another child, the debt increases. Her costs increase by a larger factor than her benefits. In other words, her net financial change is in the negative direction.

From a behaviorist viewpoint (the reductionist viewpoint that your argument takes), she is not being reinforced, but punished! Having a second child results in more debt, not more profit. Governmental assistance softens the financial blow of additional children, but it does not make additional children profitable.

You still might argue that a reduction in hardship is the same as a reward, and that providing any assistance at all makes mothers more likely to have children and increase their level of poverty. Although this has a certain logic to it in the abstract, it doesn't turn out that way in real life.

Sociologists have conducted many studies of people who receive financial assitance from programs like AFDC and TANF (a.k.a. welfare.) The idea that welfare provides an incentive to have additional children is not supported by any data. (See the first soucre below.) Some states have tried experiments in "family-caps" -- limiting the amount of assistance that families receive for additional children. This has not been shown to have an impact on the number of births to women already on financial assistance. (See the second source.)

People living in poverty have had children and raised families throughout human history, long before the creation of governmental assistance programs. This may be because poor people do not think of themselves in the negative light that your "rat" analogy implies. They live their lives in spite of their poverty, seeking the same things that other people do: pleasure, love, happiness, family. They may not always be successful in achieving these goals, but neither are rich people.

Humans in general, rich or poor, are not automatons who behave predictably according to their financial interest alone. That's why the seemingly logical argument -- that "tons of programs and aid" encourage a cycle of birth into poverty -- doesn't hold up.

Answer 3

Actually, abortion being legalized in January 1973 was supposed to do many magical things like:
reduce poverty...since 1973 our economy has nearly made single income families extinct
reduce cases of chid abuse...completely false and since 1973 we now see our children killing each other in the streets and at their schools
liberate women...97.5 % of women say they regret their abortion and women will never be "equal" to a man riding on the backs of their dead babies
make "every child a wanted child"... "every child a wanted child" that is nonsense there is NO SUCH THING as an unwanted child, someone out there wants that child
I understand your theory, however, since when do the rich have a corner market on raising children?
Your argument is borderline Nazi Hitler thinking....please look up quotes from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, charming lady.
Oh, and comparing children to rats...funny irony...that is exactly where the slaughter aborted children end up, in the garbage where rats and stray dogs can feed from them.
God Bless America

Answer 4

Your theory has many flaws. First of all, poverty is linked to gender discrimination. Most of the people of the world who are poor are women. Why? Because the men that fathered their children left or died or are otherwise unable to provide for their families leaving the bread winning to the women. The women in turn are often uneducated or underemployed making it hard for them to care for their children properly. Second, poverty is linked to racism. Many of the poor people of the world are minority. Should we make it illegal for minorities to reproduce? I do believe that this would be considered genocide. Lastly, many of the poor people of the world are old. Should we make it so that people are euthanised at a certain age to prevent poverty in the aged? Again, there are some obvious moral conflicts here. A better question for you to ask would be how do people become poor? Get answers for that and then get real solutions to poverty.

Answer 5

limits on wages could also be applied, although i too agree i shouldn't have children, mainly because i didn't come to earth to kill children. like all our parents apparently did. and the fore fathers and mothers felt bad about it so they invented heaven to comfort the children they brought into the world where your final goal is to die. So it's really the parents fault that you will die eventually. That and the fact that God Most High wants you dead for the murder of his son.

but comments like this could cause riots and people have to eat so maybe if your hoarding you should give it up. hoarding is some countries when at war was a criminal offense. somebody should send a union rep to your house to see if your hoarding.

Answer 6

naturally having less children would help. i don't think anyone could ask someone who wants kids to have none-its a powerful desire.

many poor people do turn to abortion. we need more controceptives (free obviously) made avalible. we also need to work on education. people in poverty have a hard time rising out of poverty due to lack of education- some of which people education in poverty-stricken areas is not valued. we need to redirect education and end poverty.

we will always have a low class- but we don't need one that can't survive.

Answer 7

Ah, no.

Hitler tried this and we all know how that turned out.

China has a reproduction policy. I don't want to live in that kind of society, sorry.

Maybe if we stopped exporting funds and jobs, there wouldn't be as much poverty here.

Answer 8

I agree. Along the same lines, people that keep getting abortions because they can't afford the kids also the poor that continue to give birth at a nonstop rate should get their tubes tied, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Answer 9

OK, how would this be enforced? Would there be a poverty line, and anyone under it would be rendered sterile? What about when people get above the poverty line, then? Reversible sterilization? Who would determine the line? Who would pay for the procedures?

This idea is simply not feasible. And everyone has the right to a family.

Answer 10

Wow J B your not real popular anymore. Man they compared you to hitler, what an insult. I have to agree to a point. If only those that can't feed them or want them wouldn't have them but it seems to be right the opposite.

Answer 11

We need a 100% death tax. Plus rich parents should not be able to give their hard-earned money to their kids.

Rich people who did nothing to earn their wealth are the first to talk trash about the working poor.