Pearls before swine.

I used to think that, Tobra, but I'm really beginning to wonder. In dealing with social welfare programs (both Federal and State), as well as experience in youth court/domestic relations litigation, I'm not so sure any more. I just don't see young, poor women saying "Punching out a baby (or babies) is gonna get me a check (bigger check)."

Rather, I see the attitude being "My life sucks. If I had a baby there would always be someone there for me to love and to love me back. And it makes me an adult." Almost like a kid wanting a puppy. I cannot recall the motivation being pecuniary...certainly not on the front end. Quite the contrary, I've heard the lament "How you gonna raise that baby...your check ain't gonna be enough." Often coming from the grandparents who inevitably end up being the primary caretaker.

As to the comments about the rationale for males to deny paternity to escape financial responsibility, point well taken. Nothwithstanding that, the male attitude does seem to have a similar "Look at me I'm a grown man because I can impregnate a number of women."

And before anybody wants to run this off into a partisan political diatribe, let's face the fact that both sides have to some degree contributed to our welfare state mentality with regard to public policy in this arena. There's plenty of blame to go around that we have 4th, 5th, 6th generation welfare families.

Things may have changed WRT more babies more money mentality in the last 10 years. I have not had as much contact with this social strata as I once did.

Still a very flawed study, unless there is much more to it than the abstract would indicate.

exactly - makes me wonder if I am not wasting my time -- at least with some of the people here

CLEARLY poor American men have far, far more children than rich American men.

Who is the idiot that wrote this study? I need to introduce him to reality.

I wonder if the fact that the government covers most of the cost of raising poor children while middle- and upper-class childrens' parents bear the brunt of the costs has anything to do with it?

If I had a dollar for every time I've wondered that.......

Still, I understand the motivation. For me, and for many, public policy formation is among the most important dialogues in societies. But the problem, for me and for many, and for you, is that while many people acknowledge the complexity of the questions and the answers, for some people both are exceedingly simple. Perhaps we should ask McDonalds for help. McLaws.

We feel exactly the same about some others on this thread, like you...

That is a good question.

I think both genetics and environment influence wealth generation, and they positively reinforce each other over time, growing wealth over generations.

Poor, unmaried, uneducated women absolutely DO have children for the benefits. It is ignorant and disengenuous to think otherwise. I would even go so far as to say 'most' do. It is a well established, well entrenched, transgenerational, politically correct industry. These women loose their eligibility when their children turn age 18 and literally dump them on the street. The girls then have babies, the boys wander aimlessly hanging with their babymommas or going to prison-on purpose. This is the most degrading, harmful, destructive, self-perpetuating human development imaginable. This is public policy that has no upside. The only true beneficiaries of this policy are the bureaucracies and bureaucrats charged with the responsibility to distribute other people's money. Cash benefit amounts have been decreasing, true. However, the non-cash benefits are skyrocketing (i.e., food cards, medical care, housing and energy subsidies, child care, home chore providers, etc.). This creates a permanent, angry, disenfranchised underclass with nothing to lose. And it is growing. If rich men are having more babies than poor men it is only because the state and federal gov'ts have replaced and displaced fathers and fatherhood. The richest man taking responsiblity for the most babies is Uncle Sam himself. If these subsidies ever stopped, you would see images on the streets of American cities indistinguishable from the most squalid, horrific, lawless, disease-ridden third world hell holes on dear Mother Earth. This is a reality too horrible to contemplate and is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole.