Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty; first time in 50 years

[dps]

Maybe it's lack of access to affordable birth control more than irresponsibility per se.  OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

[garbon]

OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.

[dps]

OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.

I didn't say it was typical;  I said that anecdotally, it seems to be a more common attitude among poor people.  To be honest, though, it seems pretty damn obvious that poor people in general are less responsible when it comes to using birth control.  Are you guys seriously contesting that point?

[Jacob]

OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.

I didn't say it was typical;  I said that anecdotally, it seems to be a more common attitude among poor people.  To be honest, though, it seems pretty damn obvious that poor people in general are less responsible when it comes to using birth control.  Are you guys seriously contesting that point?

Do you have any data for this, or is this more based on the classic narrative?

[Admiral Yi]

I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.

[dps]

I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.

If you've been that irresponsible, you must be really, really tired.  Even if you aren't poor.

[Razgovory]

I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.

So are you arguing that responsibility is tied to race?

[derspiess]

Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?

If they have more kids than they can support, yeah.

[Monoriu]

As I understand it, the gap between the reproductive rate of the upper class and the lower class is still increasing.  Those who can afford to have children don't;  those who can't afford them do.

This is actually a fairly common reaction to poverty - having enough children so they can work and support the family.  It is logical if the persons who are having the kids believe that things are going to get worse and they need the bodies to support the family.  It  isn't about taking the resources available and fitting the budget to that - it is about believing the resources are going to shrink over time and the only way to react is to have more people in the market.  Of course, this mixed with the nuclear family and the complex capitalist system has a bit of disconnect...

I don't understand.  If you have a farm, and more hands will lead to higher productivity, this may make sense.  But most people don't have farms these days.  Even if the child wants to support the family, it is going to be at least 15, or 16 years before the child can legally work in most places.  And that's a big if.  Are you saying this is hard-wired in the DNA or something biological? 

[garbon]

As I understand it, the gap between the reproductive rate of the upper class and the lower class is still increasing.  Those who can afford to have children don't;  those who can't afford them do.

This is actually a fairly common reaction to poverty - having enough children so they can work and support the family.  It is logical if the persons who are having the kids believe that things are going to get worse and they need the bodies to support the family.  It  isn't about taking the resources available and fitting the budget to that - it is about believing the resources are going to shrink over time and the only way to react is to have more people in the market.  Of course, this mixed with the nuclear family and the complex capitalist system has a bit of disconnect...

I don't understand.  If you have a farm, and more hands will lead to higher productivity, this may make sense.  But most people don't have farms these days.  Even if the child wants to support the family, it is going to be at least 15, or 16 years before the child can legally work in most places.  And that's a big if.  Are you saying this is hard-wired in the DNA or something biological? 

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled by his narrative as well.

[Malthus]

Could the causation not work the other way - that (say) those who have more kids (for whatever reason) are simply more likely to be poor, because they have lots of kids - kids being very expensive?

[derspiess]

Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?

[CountDeMoney]

Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?

Aren't you assuming the poor are getting assistance that matters?

[derspiess]

Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?

Aren't you assuming the poor are getting assistance that matters?

So the assistance they get here and in Canada doesn't matter?  I thought food stamps, Head Start, WIC, CHIP, etc. helped a great deal.  If it doesn't matter, I suppose we can shut down those costly programs.

[CountDeMoney]

So the assistance they get here and in Canada doesn't matter?  I thought food stamps, Head Start, WIC, CHIP, etc. helped a great deal.  If it doesn't matter, I suppose we can shut down those costly programs.

LOL, "costly".  I realize you continue to operate under the narrative that The Damned Dirty Negro^tm is somehow ripping you off, but those programs have been systematically reduced to such a degree that the "assistance" is relatively negligible in most parts of the country.