If we want upward mobility for the poor, they need transportation and childcare

[Indy Texas]

These two issues repeatedly surface as obstacles in interviews with single mothers with no job and no public assistance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever the American-style welfare state has or has not done for these women, it's clear that we as a country do a pitiful job of ensuring that workplaces are welcoming to employees with children (and most adults do have children) with regards to time off and childcare options. And cash-based assistance does little to address the fact that simply getting around in our sprawling cities isn't feasible for the poor - between the cost of buying or leasing a car and paying for gas, insurance and maintenance, the poor are quite literally "stuck" with regards to finding and keeping jobs and pursuing better ones.

[freepcrusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDsOev5qAFg

[DC Al Fine]

A few quick points.

1) This is another good example of why single motherhood is a scourge on America. A couple has more options.

2) We have another good reason to make or cities more dense. Not super dense, but more pre-war suburb and less exurban.

3) Irregular hours suck for everyone except retirees looking for something to do.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) This is another good example of why single motherhood is a scourge on America. A couple has more options.

The State has a duty to help out single mothers so that they can make their own personal choices freely without risking falling into poverty.

[Cassius]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

[Badger]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

May I humbly suggest ever so lightly, that maybe--just maybe--government stepping in to make transportation and childcare more accessible to poor single moms just might be a less intrusive and more practical act than government taking their kids away to foster care?

[Cassius]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

May I humbly suggest ever so lightly, that maybe--just maybe--government stepping in to make transportation and childcare more accessible to poor single moms just might be a less intrusive and more practical act than government taking their kids away to foster care?

A potential problem with such policies is that they could be interpreted as condoning single parenthood. I mean, free bus passes for single mothers? Free childcare? Not that single parenthood is something that the majority of women, I'd imagine, want to befall them, but attempting to ameliorate such an lifestyle (that of poor single women with kids), is not, in my view, a particularly practical solution to the problem, as its hardly an incentive not to have kids. No, taking children off the hands of single parents and enabling them to be adopted by couples and families of means is a far better solution in my view; the mother no longer has to care for the child; the adoptive couple get a kid. Of course, this wouldn't neccessarily have to be a compulsory program; no, it could just be a voluntary one. Practicability is an interesting point, but I'm not sure of the feasibility of attempting to effect improvements in transportation and childcare facilities for single mothers (such efforts would have to be targeted very specifically).

[bedstuy]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

May I humbly suggest ever so lightly, that maybe--just maybe--government stepping in to make transportation and childcare more accessible to poor single moms just might be a less intrusive and more practical act than government taking their kids away to foster care?

A potential problem with such policies is that they could be interpreted as condoning single parenthood. I mean, free bus passes for single mothers? Free childcare? Not that single parenthood is something that the majority of women, I'd imagine, want to befall them, but attempting to ameliorate such an lifestyle (that of poor single women with kids), is not, in my view, a particularly practical solution to the problem, as its hardly an incentive not to have kids. No, taking children off the hands of single parents and enabling them to be adopted by couples and families of means is a far better solution in my view; the mother no longer has to care for the child; the adoptive couple get a kid. Of course, this wouldn't neccessarily have to be a compulsory program; no, it could just be a voluntary one. Practicability is an interesting point, but I'm not sure of the feasibility of attempting to effect improvements in transportation and childcare facilities for single mothers (such efforts would have to be targeted very specifically).

I understand the whole dry British humor thing, but this isn't very funny at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolcassius

[SPC]

What level of economic independence would be required for the single mothers to obtain in order to no longer qualify for the subsidized transportation and childcare? Unless one intends for this safety net to provide assistance for every single mother regardless of her actual need of assisstance, there must be some threshold or series of thresholds to determine eligibility. As the chart below demonstrates, this structure paradoxically encourages the very state of dependency it is ostensibly meant to prevent, as short-term upward mobility is a net less for the single mother in question. Callous as it may be to say, removing programs that provide an incentive toward using the welfare office as a surrogate father may be the most effective way to mitigate the problem, as such incentives on the margin only discourage deferred gratification with regard to selection of a potential spouse. How else could one endeavor to explain the astronomical rise in single parenthood since the Great Society even despite greater availability of contraception? While there will always be some who end up in this unfortunate circumstance, removal of the incentive structure would limit the problem to a frequency small enough that charitable efforts could be better able to assist them. While Cassius may have committed a thought crime by expressing a dissenting opinion, I fail to see what may be intrinsically offensive about acknowledging that a couple in a better financial state voluntarily cuckolding a child may in some situations be better able to provide for that child than a biological parent without the means to support a child.

[Хahar 🤔]

The non-sociopathic solution to this issue would be not to means-test programs.

[pbrower2a]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

Are there not enough prisons and workhouses for your taste?

We have right-wingers attacking contraception in America.

[Cassius]

I think, perhaps, that it would be better for those single mothers who were unable to look after their offspring for the state to step in, remove their children, and put them up for adoption. It would be better for both parties.

Are there not enough prisons and workhouses for your taste?

We have right-wingers attacking contraception in America.

What do prisons, workhouses and contraception have to do with this point?

[memphis]

If we want upward mobility for the poor, they should be better paid. Obvious point is obvious. Also, single mothers typically have family resources outside of the absent father. While I concede the situation is often less that ideal (as life usually is), the notion that a unmarried woman can't possibly raise a child without the assistance of a man, with whom she has signed exclusive legal documents, and should therefore, have the child removed at gunpoint is absurd. Anybody with any familiarity whatsoever with poors (I understand many posters live in secluded suburban enclaves with little interaction with poors) knows the critical importance of extended family networks. Aunties, big mommas, cousins, and the rest all work together to ensure childcare and upbringing. Resources are informally pooled and distributed constantly. The 20th century nuclear family, which Middle Class White People take for granted as a given even when they frequently don't live in them either, isn't really a thing amongst poors. It's not just the absent father who breaks the patters. Who is included in family arrangements is just as important as who is excluded.

[AggregateDemand]

The non-sociopathic solution to this issue would be not to means-test programs.

That's the answer a moralistic liberal sociopath would give.

The correct answer is to reduce the effective tax rates on the poor until equity is established with the rest of the population. Use marginal phase-out of benefits as a person's income increases, rather than using the current system, which creates benefit cliffs.

The poor will never stop acting like the poor until they are treated like normal people: 1. Get to work like everyone else 2. Marginal tax rates that encourage financial sustainability

[Brittain33]

"Are there no orphanages?" hasn't aged well as an argument since Newt Gingrich used it in 1994.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Are there no orphanages?" hasn't aged well as an argument since Newt Gingrich used it in 1994.

You mean since Ebenezer Scrooge used it in 1843.

[TNF]

Workplaces are never going to be "welcoming" to employees with children unless they are forced to be "welcoming" to employees with children. The only way you're going to make workplaces "welcoming" to employees with children is by organizing unions and forcing employers to adopt shorter workweeks and higher wages. Likewise, the only way you're going to be able to force every single workplace in the country to do the same is to enact a high minimum wage, a shorter workweek, paid leave, and establish a national childcare program.

Likewise, if you want to address the transportation issue, you can't do that by relying on the free market, because it will never develop transportation for use rather than for pure profit. That means taking transportation (all of it - buses, trains, light rail, airplanes, auto companies) into public ownership and using that capacity for the public good. We could eliminate fees on public transit entirely, progressively phase out car use from our cities (or even better, limit car use in urban settings to fully electric or hybrid vehicles, with the feds picking up trade-in costs for those who want to participate in such a program), rapidly expand the production of driverless cars (and eventually phase out all non-automated car usage), and institute single-payer auto insurance for those of us who don't live in cities and have to rely on the automobile as our primary means of transportation.

[DC Al Fine]

Callous as it may be to say, removing programs that provide an incentive toward using the welfare office as a surrogate father may be the most effective way to mitigate the problem, as such incentives on the margin only discourage deferred gratification with regard to selection of a potential spouse. How else could one endeavor to explain the astronomical rise in single parenthood since the Great Society even despite greater availability of contraception? While there will always be some who end up in this unfortunate circumstance, removal of the incentive structure would limit the problem to a frequency small enough that charitable efforts could be better able to assist them.

My issue this approach is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube. When the Great Society was introduced, society discouraged single motherhood. Now single motherhood is normal. Removing subsidies wouldn't affect illegitimacy overnight. It would take a generation or more to turn back the clock with significant short term pain.

That is the $64 000 question; how does one reduce the pain of a social ill without encouraging it?

[Nutmeg]

We could eliminate fees on public transit entirely

This. Public transportation benefits everyone, not just those who actually use it.

[SPC]

Callous as it may be to say, removing programs that provide an incentive toward using the welfare office as a surrogate father may be the most effective way to mitigate the problem, as such incentives on the margin only discourage deferred gratification with regard to selection of a potential spouse. How else could one endeavor to explain the astronomical rise in single parenthood since the Great Society even despite greater availability of contraception? While there will always be some who end up in this unfortunate circumstance, removal of the incentive structure would limit the problem to a frequency small enough that charitable efforts could be better able to assist them.

My issue this approach is that the toothpaste is already out of the tube. When the Great Society was introduced, society discouraged single motherhood. Now single motherhood is normal. Removing subsidies wouldn't affect illegitimacy overnight. It would take a generation or more to turn back the clock with significant short term pain.

That is the $64 000 question; how does one reduce the pain of a social ill without encouraging it?

Such is the problem of the ratchet effect. However, as with the analogous issue of Social Security, I believe there could be ways to tweak the incentive structure for existing dependents so as to mitigate the fallout of a transition to a society of personal responsibility. Subsidized contraception would be a temporary measure to prevent existing illegitimacy from contributing to the problem, although individuals such as yourself may find such an option unsavory. Providing an assurance that assistance will exist for the entirety of her existing children's childhood would help to reduce the fear of losing benefits by exceeding the eligibility threshold. Likewise, threatening to cut off benefits for any additional children would serve as quite the deterrent to continued illegitimacy. However, in order to ensure the sustainability of such a proposal, it would be necessary to limit the initial beneficiaries to only those in the most destitute of situations, as providing an 18-year free pass to single mothers without qualifications has too much potential for abuse.

[Indy Texas]

I am not suggesting specifically targeting better transport and childcare options to poor single mothers - these are things that benefit everyone.

I once mulled over taking the bus to work for a couple of months to help save some money to pay back a student loan. I went to the website for Houston's transit authority and it was literally not possible for me to use public transport to get from my house in the suburbs to my 9-to-5 job in town. For me, it was an inconvenience - I had a car anyway and just had to find other ways to cut back. But for someone who can't afford a car, how is that person supposed to get a job? If she can't get back until 8pm because the bus only runs two trips a day and she has to leave her kids at daycare longer, that's eating up whatever meager wages she's getting. If she gets fired because she was told to work an early morning shift and had to say no because there are no buses at that hour, what do you expect her to do then?

1) This is another good example of why single motherhood is a scourge on America. A couple has more options.

DC, this article might help you understand why a poor, uneducated woman has nothing to gain from staying with the poor, uneducated man who dumped his little swimmers in her one night.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children." - Murray Rothbard aka the libertarian solution to single motherhood in a world without social safety nets.

[Kushahontas]

A few quick points.

1) This is another good example of why single motherhood is a scourge on America. A couple has more options.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/what-happens-if-you-have-no-welfare-and-no-job/372685/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SPC]

1) This is another good example of why single motherhood is a scourge on America. A couple has more options.

DC, this article might help you understand why a poor, uneducated woman has nothing to gain from staying with the poor, uneducated man who dumped his little swimmers in her one night.

You are only looking at one side of the equation. Absent the incentive structure that exists, poor, uneducated women will be marginally disinclined to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse with a man that she does not believe could provide for his "swimmers". If you doubt that such an explanation is adequate, then to what do you attribute the spike in unwedded single mothers in the years after the Great Society? Single parenthood as a consequence of divorce would be expected to rise as a consequence of increasing ability of women to act as breadwinners, which would explain why such situations rose in the 1940s and 1950s.