One study finds as such....http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1407081

Hey, I have an idea.
Lets make it easier on these people in poverty, lets give them federal and state aid, lets give them free cell phones, lets give them food stamps, lets make it so they do not have to work their way out of poverty and instead learn to live this life of dependence and perpetual poverty. That ought to work just swell!?

freeman3 wrote:One study finds as such....http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1407081

I am looking into data on this, but I have a hypothesis.

Perhaps the drug arrests are in conjunction with something else? A black teen is arrested for gang issues, and drugs found on the defendant will bring a drug charge. Possible?

What would your solution be then, Tom?

freeman3 wrote:What would your solution be then, Tom?

http://www.heritage.org/childpoverty

Pretty solid data there...

some help, some assistance is a good thing. But this system of perpetual dependence is flat out wrong. Take this cell phone example. Since when did a cell phone become a necessity? Heck, when did a PHONE become one? You could find a neighbor or a pay phone or find an alternative if you can't afford a phone, but a CELL PHONE?! There must be a way to wean people off this dependence or (as has been shown) people will depend even more on it! In "the old days" people would move heaven and earth to find a job, any job. They would work three jobs before accepting a government hand out, I am not saying we need to cut all funding, but the "need" to find a job certainly does lead to people working.

Even Babuska's post, marriage reduces child poverty. No kidding ...two incomes, two times the attention, better moral values, more focus on schooling, more structure, it all makes sense. Again, "in the old days" children out of wedlock was an abomination! Now, it's no big deal to have single mothers with kids from multiple fathers and it's simply no big deal. More kids equals more money from the government, a system of dependence that simply does not work and in fact one that spirals downward!

If you are looking for work, a phone is pretty useful, and a mobile is more useful still.

In the 'old days', we treated women who'd had kids out of wedlock very badly- and messed the kids up as a result. We made it harder for people to divorce abusive partners, endangering them and their kids.

Besides, how do you guys propose that you get the poor to marry and thus solve their problems?

danivon wrote:If you are looking for work, a phone is pretty useful, and a mobile is more useful still.

In the 'old days', we treated women who'd had kids out of wedlock very badly- and messed the kids up as a result. We made it harder for people to divorce abusive partners, endangering them and their kids.

Besides, how do you guys propose that you get the poor to marry and thus solve their problems?

How did people EVER have a job before cell phones... It is inconceivable!

As to marriage, I submit the following theory. The poor are not poor until the have a child out of wedlock, and try to make enough in a single parent situation. I think you are confused about a cause of poverty.

I suggest a cause of poverty is out of wedlock birth and single parent households.
You appear to suggest that poverty causes out of wedlock births and single parent households.

I offer that your cause and effect are reversed.

I think we discussed this before. The cause of the lack of marriage in the inner-city was that black men could not get jobs to support their families. Then black women started getting welfare because they had no husbands to support them and their children. And so the cycle began. I certainly don't have the time to do a doctoral dissertation to prove this (though there is certainly evidence that black men were not able to find employment when manufacturing jobs declined in the 1960s and 1970s), so I suppose there is room for belief here that corresponds to one's socio-political beliefs

freeman3 wrote:I think we discussed this before. The cause of the lack of marriage in the inner-city was that black men could not get jobs to support their families. Then black women started getting welfare because they had no husbands to support them and their children. And so the cycle began. I certainly don't have the time to do a doctoral dissertation to prove this (though there is certainly evidence that black men were not able to find employment when manufacturing jobs declined in the 1960s and 1970s), so I suppose there is room for belief here that corresponds to one's socio-political beliefs

So... With the "pro-choice" option available, what good reason is there that people would bring a child into a situation like this, thus increasing their poverty situation?

Brad, I don't think that by getting pregnant that they are making their situation worse. You are talking in many instances about women with not that much education and few job skills--for them getting pregnant so they could get a check from the government most probably bettered their situation.
And by the way breaking this cycle is extraordinarily difficult. The author of the study noted that all of the women had low IQS--how do you break out of poverty if you have an IQ of 80 or 85?

Sorry, Brad, but I did not say that poverty causes people to have children out of wedlock or be single parents. Not sure where you get the idea that I did, or seemed to say that.

But now I am confused. You appear to be saying that 'the poor' are not poor until the immoral impregnation occurs, making them poor (I will point out that my boss, who earns more than I do and is definitely not poor has children out of wedlock), but does that mean that in the "old days" before such moral calumny was condoned by society we had far less poverty?

On cell phones, the world and the job market have moved on. We didn't use to live in a world of instant communication. Is it vital to have one to find a job? No, and I did not say so, but it does help, especially for getting work quickly.

and having a car would also help people find a job, should we buy them cars as well? Having a nice suit would help on an interview...buy them new suits? Of course a phone helps but it is not required, buying them things they do not NEED helps keep these people exactly where they are ...if they strat working a low wage job, they could lose out on the freebies they are currently getting so instead of slowly working their way out, they stay put!

danivon wrote:Sorry, Brad, but I did not say that poverty causes people to have children out of wedlock or be single parents. Not sure where you get the idea that I did, or seemed to say that.

But now I am confused. You appear to be saying that 'the poor' are not poor until the immoral impregnation occurs, making them poor (I will point out that my boss, who earns more than I do and is definitely not poor has children out of wedlock), but does that mean that in the "old days" before such moral calumny was condoned by society we had far less poverty?

All I am saying is that adding a child to your current economic situation does NOT help. Certainly subsidization from the government will help, but that is not a good reason to have a child.

Freeman:

The author of the study noted that all of the women had low IQS--how do you break out of poverty if you have an IQ of 80 or 85?

I think this is an incorrect (and elitist) sentiment. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for making a suitable living. Hard work, the right attitude, and doing one, two, or three thing very well can go a long way towards success.