Focusing on the immediate gains of a government (or any) program - while nice to read about - is just a terrible way to evaluate that program. If this is ever rolled out it will be a disaster. In fact, it will have the opposite effect in that it will produce more unwed mothers.
Giving money away based on certain criteria creates incentives for individuals to make decision based on that criteria. Why would you even think about getting married if you can get paid by the government?
And this also implies that the government should be taking a sort of parenting role in society just as child support implies that the father is responsible for the child. So, the mother would receive child support AND a free check from the government? Would you get married if you could essentially double your annual salary for having a child out of wedlock?
This is very simple economic theory.
And the race part of it is just plain insensitive - no other races have poverty issues, really?
41
@MM
You are wrong on nearly every point you make.
People do not respond consistently to incentives in the way you imply. No one is deciding to have a baby and be poor to qualify for $1000/month subsidy. No one is deciding not to commit a murder because of the disincentive of the death penalty.
If you read the article you'll see that these folks LOSE some government benefits as they get these subsidies so they are not doubling their salary by having children out of wedlock.
The program is a pilot and will be evaluated to see the result. If it is in keeping with most anti-poverty efforts that involve significant investments in children the ROI (return on investment) will be 3-4x the investment because we will avoid some of the negative outcomes (government dependence, prison, inflated medical costs) associated with adults who grow up in poverty.
This program--if successful--should be extended to all sorts of poor people and no one in this article said it couldn't or wouldn't be. It started here, perhaps, because African-Americans are disproportionately impoverished. Every race in our country has poverty issues because we have allowed the rich to create a society that exploits workers, robbing them of dignity and financial well being. I hope we can agree on that; if not, I don't think you are seeing things clearly.
32
@Jason
1) People do not respond nearly as well to punishment (e.g. death penalty) as they do with rewards. Not even close. This is well know.
2) People do respond VERY well to monetary incentives. Entire swaths of economic theory are derived from this premise.
3) I did read the article. A net positive reward is still a reward
4) I wish the program well. And if it holds up to rigorous (note that word) testing, then I would support it. But I would caution that throwing money at a problem is rarely the solution to that problem and more often than not it creates unintended consequences, which is what I pointed out.
12
@MM
Actually, throwing money at the problem of quality of life is very effective when the baseline is low enough. I have a secure, upper-middle-class job and and extra $12K/year wouldn't mean much to me. For those in poverty, it's another story. Similarly, international studies find that per-capita GDP is strongly associated with happiness (on a country by country basis) for poorer countries, but the effect tops off at a certain point.
14
Poverty is not the hallmark of a great country/society. Supportive help, provided with dignity, and personal responsibility is very worthwhile. We, that is elected officials and society have ignored poverty with platitudes and finger pointing forever. Strong, well-educated children are the backbone of our future yet that is not the message we hear from DC. People, kids especially, know when someone is genuinely trying to help. I am rooting for these families. And let's not lose sight when a small minority perhaps make less than ideal choices as they learn financial independence.
39
A lot of commenters seem to have the equation backwards. More money leads to fewer children, not the other way around.
How do you imagine anyone on such a low income can afford to pay for reliable birth control, let alone all the other things that reduce the number of children people have? (Higher education being the most obvious.)
If we want fewer children being born into poverty - or just fewer children, full stop - it begins with ending poverty and giving women more opportunities to obtain social status and personal satisfaction outside of motherhood.
50
@HB
Do we try to tell you pikers in Australia what to do?
Women have plenty of opportunities outside of motherhood. Because some women choose single motherhood instead of marriage, they block themselves out of those other opportunities.
Even an Aussie should be able to understand that.
11
@JND
I'm going with the Aussie.
Whatever the reason, most of the social ills correlate with poverty.
Reduce poverty and reduce the social ills.
It is equally true for poor black and poor white.
In the meantime, support Planned Parenthood and get women birth control.
25
This subject of universal income makes me angrier than any other topic. I am not generally an angry or selfish person, and have voted primarily Democratic for 20-plus years. It is not that hard to grow into a responsible young adult. After decades of very hard work and sacrifice, I WILL NEVER subsidize people’s lives when they CHOOSE to have multiple children with no education and live in communities where there is no work. This madness has to stop. I’m fully supportive of a social safety net but will never embrace universal income.
55
@Liz
And what will you say if technical advances really start to eliminate a lot of jobs? What if most truck drivers are not needed anymore? What if there are no more cashiers in the stores, no more servers in the restaurants? What if it really is different this time and there is no work for many of us?
15
@Liz I understand, and sometimes share, your feelings, but I also think you're taking too myopic view on the topic. Sometimes a relatively small investment is what enables people to better themselves, and it pays dividends in the end. Think about a time in your life when things just seemed to pile up and you were overwhelmed--and now imagine feeling that way all the time. If you could cut out some of the basic stressors for these people, they'd be in a place to make better decisions for their long-term stability.
I get where you're coming from, though.
18
@Liz
We're not really talking about WHETHER we will "subsidize people's lives when they choose..." because we already do. We will pay to address the needs of children born into poverty by either equipping their families to better parent and support them as children or (as we do now) deal with their needs as adults in the prison system or in myriad other government programs that are part of the social safety net you support.
The truth is that programs that support children have a much bigger return on investment than those that are designed to support adults. If we're wise and prudent (and frugal) we'd explore universal income and other programs that help children to save ourselves the pain that will surely come if we don't.
Finally, it is hard to grow into a responsible young adult, particularly if you're raised in an impoverished environment from birth. Heck, I ran a program for the college-aged children of millionaires who needed support organizing their days, managing their time, doing basic budgeting, and communicating with their professors. These young adults had every resource and opportunity and yet didn't have their lives together. Surely we don't think they're more worthy of support, care, and "subsidy" than the poor?
34
Beautiful. Talking about humans with humanity is something we need to do so much more of. I applaud this program and hope it succeeds and grows. How many prison cells will go empty, how many welfare checks WON'T need to be written, if we can raise children to be educated, productive, functioning members of society, and the path to doing that is thru the Moms. It's the only way to break the cycle of poverty and all the horrors it creates, that ALL of us have to deal with in our society.
58
I contribute to Planned Parenthood. In doing so, I believe I do much more good for society than by contributing to feel-good schemes that solve nothing. These women are poor because they are uneducated and keep having children they can’t afford. Single motherhood is not a problem: many professional women, especially in Europe, choose to become single mothers and the outcomes for their children are just fine. But before you breed, you have to become a full human being and a contributing member of society. And this means getting education and having a job. The best help the state can provide for poor women, of whatever color, is free contraception and abortion. Showering them with money means more kids will be born into both mental and financial poverty. Pilot projects of free income in Finland and other countries did not work out because it turns out that people need more than food and shelter. They need meaning in their lives. And too many uneducated women imagine that having a baby is in itself a meaningful accomplishment. It is not. But by the time they realize it, they will have produced another unnecessary child who they will be unable to raise properly. Teaching girls to live for themselves rather than for their offspring, and offering money to those who abstain from early breeding, is the way to reduce poverty.
27
@Mor
Somehow this commenter only blames the women. Women do not get other women pregnant. No woman impregnates herself. All these children of single mothers are the result of men who are sexually irresponsible, who refuse to use condoms, who engage in sex with underage girls, who do not stick around to help raise their offspring.
Make men responsible for the offspring they sire and maybe the men will become more responsible.
2
I am shocked at the prejudice, judgment, resentment and ignorance in the comments here. It must be nice to live in a world where you have been so fortunate to not understand how others could experience misfortune. For those bemoaning the lack of assistance they receive for their own hardships...would you wish to trade your entire situation for the that of the mothers participating in this program?
Our society is so unequal that it seems that the bottom 80% of the financial continuum is left to fight over table scraps and that leaves all those in that group willing to leave others out in the cold. I know that's not true because the 2nd poorest 20% of Americans donate more to charity (per capita) than the richest 5%, but it seems that the resentments here are real and deep.
There will always be those with better situations than ours and those with worse. It can be hard to have gratitude for what we have and empathy for those who have less, but our society will be an awful, dangerous, and brutal one if we can't figure out how to help each other. We can start be demanding that the least among us--those most vulnerable to poverty, racism, and violence--get a more fair shot. A more compassionate and supportive society will benefit us all.
117
@asdfj
I guess it would be better if we could all choose the circumstances of our births because, on the whole, that determines our opportunities and options in life...in turn, those things equip us to avoid "bad decisions."
Listen, we're going to pay for the choices of others one way or the other. We can invest in the lives of poor children or we can pay for their impact as adults who are all but destined to make poor choices that result in prison or dependence on government programs. We know that spending $1 now saves $4 later, so what's your move asdfj? Let's not make a "bad decision" as a society and wait to address the needs of these children until they're all grown up.
33
@Jason
I really believe that the vast majority of people on here want the best for those families. Seriously.
However, we disagree on how to help them.
A program like this must be carefully crafted in a way that takes into account the incentives that it creates. The article is written on the immediate gains, which is nice, but that's really a bad way to analyse any program.
If this is rolled out in the long-term, this program in my opinion will create more unwed mothers than it helps. Is that what we want the government or any organization to be promoting?
26
@MM
I would like to believe that most people here want to be supportive of these families. Resentment is not a sign of that, but perhaps that's just a handful of people here.
I would agree that we need to be particularly thoughtful about crafting such programs. I don't agree that this program is likely to lead to more people choosing the path of impoverished single mother. Life is messy. These folks had children before this small program was launched and others are unlikely to say, "wow! I think I'll become a single mother and lack appropriate resources so I can get $1,000/month..." Rational people (oxymoron) respond in a predictable way to incentives. Most people do not behave in the way we wish them to, despite incentives. Examples include the death penalty failing to reduce homicides and people failing to staying married despite all the financial incentive in the world to do so.
Hopefully the evaluations of these types of programs are thoughtful and longitudinal so that we can see the return on investment. I want government programs that raise the standard of living for all by giving direct help to those most vulnerable, boost the economy for those able to worker, and offer dignity and peace of mind to seniors who have, regardless of fortune, have labored in the workforce or in the home or simply to survive their own health struggles. We owe it to each other to find an equitable way to distribute our resources and the accrued benefits of our collective contributions.
9
In addition to equality, a successful society also needs citizens to productively contribute to the society. The idea on a "negative income tax" should work better than a simple guaranteed income because it encourages all citizens to contribute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
1
The comments to this article perfectly illustrate why Americans will never have the suite of social benefits that Europeans take for granted.
A UBI pilot program involving black single mothers is enough to turn people against UBI. Never mind that this is not the only pilot program. Never mind that UBI would go to everyone, so "responsible" people would also get an extra $1000 per month.
No, let's all allow ourselves to become triggered by the idea of a black woman using "our tax dollars" to raise her children. Where are the fathers!!!!
People would actually reject an opportunity to receive an extra $1000/mo. out of fear that a black person might receive slightly more. Unbelievable.
And to think, these comments were written by "progressive" voters.
2
Oh, good grief. The best thing any would-be parent can do for the planet — and the future for all children — is to not reproduce. If you want to raise children, adopt or foster kids who have no one to care for them.
6
I didn’t know trusts can discriminate with programs exclusive to blacks. Imagine if a trust provided benefits only for whites.
5
Welfare has been paying out per child for decades with food and sec 8 housing included. This has caused the business model to go out of control from the beginning ,with millions of absent fathers.Yet,it seems ,for Democrats ,there's never enough coming from the working taxpayer,always another program ,not to mention that undocumented migrants instantly receiving more than most Americans in need and there's no end to the amount of money or recipients as long as the border is wide open.We are beyond the breaking point now ,so throw all caution to the wind financially ,no ,even the less astute American knows better.
15
Universal basic income (guaranteed income) is simply not feasible for financial and political reasons.
The limited test trials in Europe have been terminated early because they have been shown to be far too expensive to be scaled up to entire countries. Further, voters are inclined to replace politicians who give additional taxpayer money to people who do not work and who often spend the extra income on fast food, liquor, drugs and frivolous items.
A recent study in the UK, sponsored by unions, pointed out that if government spends billions or trillions of additional dollars giving basic income to poor people, less money would be available to improve the wages of working people (union members, especially government employees).
Free everything, including guaranteed income, for everyone is a socialist dream but a prescription for economic catastrophe.
17
Let’s celebrate these wonderful results from spreading a modest sum of money around to a deserving group of women ! Bravo ! Now that we see what might be, and the positive impact on their children, could we possibly get our borders under control ? We spend over $200 BILLION every year in this country to take care of people who are not our responsibility. We need to take that money and use it to help our poorest citizens bootstrap themselves out of poverty and hopelessness. Poor citizens of every color and geographic area can benefit and regain dignity and productivity, each in their own distinct way. Maybe we can save lives and even more money by getting the drug problem diminished. Happy people with futures to look forward to generally will eschew the escapism drugs offer.
9
Mia Birdsong is quoted as saying that the writers of the founding documents of this country were landowning white men. I would amend that to say that most of them were slave- owning white men.
As for the commenters who complain that these mothers are being rewarded for having out of wedlock children, and if a Democratic candidate proposes some kind of universal basic income for poor people, they'll vote for Trump: Fine. You want to make sure that Planned Parenthood is defunded, that women can't get abortions, and that they have to "live with the consequences"of having children out of wedlock. Net result will be even more hungry children. Let's continue to punish the poor and ignorant and starve their children so that you can enjoy your self-righteous sadism.
21
African Americans Arte disproportionately poor, but America has far more poor whites than poor blacks.
The U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Poverty Report (Table 3: People in Poverty by Selected Characteristics) shows that 26.4 million white Americans, 8.99 million black Americans and 1.95 million Asian Americans live below poverty level. Whites make up 70.72 percent of Americans below poverty level.
We need programs that lift people of all races out of poverty.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.pdf
17
Single mothers.
What happened to their husbands?
14
@Jonathan Katz They left the abusive ones and they persevered despite the ones that abandoned them.
11
Liberals and conservatives might be able to agree on a policy of natalism.
Why should we subsidized single-parent households when those households have worse child outcomes than average?
12
@JDK
Ah, but what if the worse outcomes were based on life experiences that began under times of profound poverty?
The effort to discover what a few extra dollars would do to change previous outcomes is a worthy experiment.
During my time dealing with the poorest of poor mothers, I never once saw one that didn't sacrificingly love her children.
The mothers' education and experiences may have been lacking but the devotion and determination to see things work out for the better was always there.
19
Free income sounds great, I want all I can get of it! Responsibility-shifting is the fundamental leftist modus operandi, it has worked well since at least the end of WWII. It depends for success on the ability of the government to keep borrowing money to cover deficits, and that depends on the U.S. producing the world currency--U.S, debt becomes the monetary base and transactional medium for the whole world economy, the treasury just keeps rolling the debt over, nobody ever demands actual repayment. Someday that could end, someone else might be the producer of the world currency, we were not the first, we may not be the last. When that happens we Americans could have to start living within our own means. What happens then? Pffft! There goes free everything and self-responsibility again raises its ugly head. I hope I won't be around when it happens; explaining to the free-riders that they have to start supporting themselves won't be fun.
11
@Ronald B. Duke
I worry about the national debt as much as anyone, but a thousand bucks a month per household isn't going to crash an economy.
8
@Ronald B. Duke
Deficits go up under Republicans and deficits go down under Democrats.
And after 8 years of relentlessly railing about the debt under Obama, the Trump / Republican tax bill of 2017 will have the deficit rising from $600 Billion to $1 Trillion next year.
The ten year projected increase in the debt is $12 Trillion or $80,000 per tax payer.
And Clinton got almost 50% more jobs than Reagan and Obama go almost 400% more jobs than W Bush.
And that was after getting us through the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And 20 Million people got healthcare.
If you care about the deficit and debt, don't vote for Republicans.
Seriously, go look at the numbers.
Then tell all your friends and neighbors and have them tell all their friends and neighbors.
Then vote Democratic and put back some of the taxes on the rich the Republicans have been cutting since Reagan.
10
@Independent
WHO ran up as much debt as was left from EVERY previous president? Barack Obama.
He ran up $4.1 BILLION day in borrowed money duing his first year.
8
Like winning the lottery this give away lifts the prospects of a few. But neither is a substitute for a fair tax policy and a worthwhile safety net. Such policies can empower people to improve their circumstances, as some of these women have. The roi in that is both economic and moral. The racism that has produced so much black poverty also requires remediation.
6
Reading all the comments just makes me despair for the human race ... even more than I had before. i won't even address the child issue, but as someone who is only in her early 50s, who worked so hard to overcome so many obstacles (a father with a 3rd-grade education; a mother who didn't graduate high school; both parents from abusive homes; a father suffering from PTSD as a result of his experiences in WWII; hardships induced by the United States Army denying my father the treatment and benefits he had earned by great sacrifice--being more highly decorated than John Kerry; having to endure discrimination not based on my race but my economic class; being without health insurance for many years and not having my own mental illness covered thus meaning It had to go untreated). Despite all that, I went to an Ivy League university; made Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated magna cum laude. I have excellent skills and work experience, yet I cannot even seem to get job interviews. I am overqualified; I have "too much experience;" I don't "fit the culture." I am ghosted after second interviews. I had to accept a position in Americorps, which pays about $15,000. And I live in Manhattan (and, ironically, I can't afford to move because I do not qualify for a cheaper apartment because I do not earn 50 times the monthly rent). And, unless someone out there wants to give me about $10,000 to relocate, moving to a less expensive city would be a problem. I have so much to offer, but no one cares
10
"...with a prorated additional amount for African-Americans."
Is that equal protection under the law?
9
@Mark Their thinking is that the slavery and property laws did not protect a race of people .This type of plan would help begin to approach equity for those whose legal rights were ignored and even diminished through all sorts of laws over our history.
7
...Guaranteed income could be a plausible policy akin to reparations."
No need to look backwards. Sociologists and economists have overwhelmingly documented that in averaged transactions between American whites and blacks, blacks pay a quantifiable price for being black. Whites disproportionately reject mortgage applications, job seekers, and even devalue property they think is black-owned, all without realizing it. The racial disparities are at least 20%, and sometimes 100%. This is one way "we make it so hard for people to live full lives," and casts a race-based bonus in a fairer light.
15
@Andrew
Sorry Andrew. I can’t agree. My mother’s family were hard scrabble coal miners in the armpit of Appalachia where they were indentured servants to the mine owners in a shanty town owned by the company. They were poor, filthy and dirty and hungry. When the mine was exhausted along with its workers, they were abandoned. My uncle bought his house for $100 with a toilet surrounded by a curtain next to the kitchen. No, not the same experience as slavery in the South, never. But if we are spreading money around to better our society, we need to consider all races of our citizens for aid.
17
As a clinical social worker in an area outside of Philadelphia, I serve a mixed population of all races (majority white) with incomes ranging from lower socioeconomic to middle class. While I love my work, I try to limit my work with younger, single mothers with multiple children because it’s so harmful for the children and the system can only do so much, especially for the boys. I try not to judge the mothers who are often not more than children themselves, but these children are so disadvantaged, and we live in an area that provides significant services! By age five many of the children are receiving mental health support, case management and CYS may have been called. The mothers cannot cope so they too get plenty of case management services as well as counseling. When mothers have more than one or two children they cannot support emotionally or financially, it limits the opportunity for both. The services are there, but the school districts are not great, and the parents have limited skills to move the children forward. Every child deserves opportunity, and while I don’t have the ultimate answer to breaking they cycle of poverty, it might help to give the mothers major incentives to practice birth control after two children and also to consider permanent open adoptions (not foster care). Children deserve better!
19
@Susie, this is confusing. You try to limit your work with younger, single mothers with multiple children because clinical social work with such mothers is harmful for the children? And cannot offer that much for boy children?
Can you explain this more? Are you saying it is harmful because such mothers should not take the time to engage with social workers because their time should be focused on the children?
2
GRH, it's clear: The writer spends her time with these families because their need is greatest.
And birth control is the only real remedy. Limit: two kids.
I say the limit should be one child. No birth control, no subsidies. Women who cannot educate or take care of themselves should not be having babies that will become everyone else's responsibility. That goes for all races and creeds.
9
@GRH To try to clarify, while we here are fortunate here to have resources to help children and families, there is a taboo about directly addressing having and/or keeping more children than you can raise effectively even with societal supports. It seems that the children that are already here (especially boys) are being sacrificed because there is a taboo about offering incentives not to have multiple children. Everything is done to keep a newborn/child with their parent, when maybe open adoption would be a better option for the child. Then before you know it, the child is in the system, mom can’t handle the kid and group homes and juvenile detention becomes the options.As a mental health provider, I am not immune to personal bias and like to work where I feel I am effective, and I don’t feel that with young, single parents (of all races). This is an extremely complicated situation and I am grateful we at least have supports here. Unfortunately since there are so many problems in the world, there are many other populations I can work with.
5
Everything in America depends upon having money. Given the forecast for jobs disappearing due to automation or AI (and the reluctance of employers to pay for the experience they claim they need, i.e. age discrimination) the idea of a guaranteed decent income for all should start to look very attractive to our politicians and leading pundits.
What this country does to poor people, unemployed people, or any person who doesn't have enough money for whatever reason, is dehumanizing. I keep hearing how rich America is. Rich enough to give tax breaks to the richest corporations and the top of the economic ladder. Not rich enough to provide a first class universal medical system to all. Not rich enough to ensure that no one goes hungry, is homeless, or doesn't have to choose between paying the bills, the rent/mortgage/education loans, and having a halfway decent life.
We seem to confuse poverty and laziness and skin color. It's laziness when politicians and pundits assume that poor people want to be poor, are lazy, and are usually African American. It's easier but it's not entirely true. One becomes "lazy" after trying over and over to improve things and getting nowhere.
5/8/2019 8:33pm
15
Paying a living wage is also an option. The average person in this pilot made $11K per year and netted an additional $600 per month in the pilot ($1000-$400 in reduced benefits). $11K annual income is working 30 hours per week at minimum wage. If that job paid $12 instead of $7.25 that would provide $600 more per month. And may incentivize someone to work more hours.
14
I don’t oppose this suggestion but it would be a good idea to reform the way in which workers are treated by corporations at the same time a guarantee in put into place. No one who works at a full time job should have to be on food stamps or other government programs but they are in their county. No one should have to work two or three or more jobs just to make ends meet.
I don’t many people who could live on 12,000 a year with kids. They will likely still need to work. Doing both is the best thing to do.
14
Want to do even more good? Give young women $1000 per month as long as they DON'T have children. I'd be in favor of giving it to young men too as long as they don't sire any, but that is harder to keep track of. Have a baby, lose the subsidy. If you are well off enough that losing the subsidy would not be a barrier, then you can support your kids and are ready to have them. Otherwise, there should be an incentive to avoid unmarried motherhood. Sure, we'd end up supporting a lot of useless women who don't want to work, but at least the cycle would end there. For those who really wanted to better themselves, $12,000 would go a long way toward paying for an education, paying for transportation to a job, or moving expenses to go to a city with more opportunity.
41
@Nikki....your ideas smells of the road towards eugenics. The dead giveaway? Here is a quote you stated: "Sure, we'd end up supporting a lot of useless women who don't want to work, but at least the cycle would end there.".....Supporting a lot of USELESS WOMEN? It seems like you are making preconceived notions due to the women's socio-economic condition.....One of the same criteria that eugenicists made back in the early 20th century.
1
The Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposes that all American adults over the age of 18 receive a basic income of $1000 per month. He thinks that if every American had a basic income, it would do a lot to fix inequality. Go to his website to find out more.
9
People respond to incentives. If you pay for single motherhood, you will get single motherhood. Let’s not. Let’s pay for a married and cohabiting couples. Keep the men involved in the lives of their babies. It will do them all good.
85
@Doctor
Rational people (oxymoron) respond in a predictable way to incentives. Most people do not behave in the way we wish them to, despite incentives. Examples include the death penalty failing to reduce homicides and people failing to staying married despite all the financial incentive in the world to do so.
Life is messy. These folks had children before this small program was launched and others are unlikely to say, "wow! I think I'll become a single mother and lack appropriate resources so I can get $1,000/month..." I applaud you if your life hasn't been messy and you are consistently rational and manage to get rewarded by following society's incentives, but I encourage you to not harden your heart to the less fortunate.
44
@Doctor
We sure could use governmental policies that would support cohabiting couples and young families. Great idea, but many in our nation view such things as the dread "s" word - socialism, and Bill Clinton "ended welfare as we know it" long ago. The U.S. has the thinnest, most tattered "safety net" of all the so-called "rich" nations, the highest infant mortality, the worst income inequality. As for this program, I fail to see how giving a hand up to young mothers and their children - without judging how they "came to be" - could ever be construed as a bad thing.
19
@Ellen
And, yet, it will be ... by our nations of good Christians.
1
There are many reasons that people ill-equipped to have children end up with them and people who are motivated and prepared to support a brood of them don't have any.
Our existence as a species has depended on procreating NOT being a rational choice based on incentives. "Be fruitful and multiply" was not a qualified with "if the government creates an incentive for you to do so." People are going to have babies and we need to decide if we're okay with children growing up in poverty or not. If the answer is "no," we must have a policy response that addresses it. Money spent on children in poverty has a much better ROI than money spent on adults who were raised in impoverished circumstances.
I choose taking care of impoverished children, which means we find a way to support their families. Let's follow these children and see if this intervention makes a difference in their lives. Unfortunately there will be far too many other children in poverty to serve as the control group for this study.
12
If you're single and poor, how does it make any sense to bring another person into existence when you can't even support yourself? And how is it good public policy to provide a monetary incentive for someone to add another person to a world that already has too many people?
43
@Earl W.
For the thousandth time (sorry you're the recipient, Earl), having children is not really a rational choice that is carefully made 100% of the time. There are many reasons that people ill-equipped to have children end up with them and people who are motivated and prepared to support a brood of them don't have any.
Our existence as a species depends on this not being a rational choice based on incentives. "Be fruitful and multiply" was not a qualified with "if the government creates an incentive for you to do so." People are going to have babies and we need to decide if we're okay with children growing up in poverty or not. If the answer is "no," we must have a policy response that addresses it. Money spent on children in poverty has a much better ROI than money spent on adults who were raised in impoverished circumstances. I choose this.
9
@Jason
Sure, not every single person alive is rationale, but on the margin, people respond to incentives. To ascribe to any other worldview is to resign ourselves to chaos. If you want less prosperity, tax productive behavior. If you want more poverty, subsidize the choices that lead people to be poor. It's not really rocket science.
25
So those of us who have made rational choices will now be punished by having to pay for the irrational choices of others? How about guaranteed minimum income but you actually MUST work, not get arrested, and your children attend school? Or are we just supposed to gift people our money?
11
If the eventual democratic nominee even so much as mentions nonsense like guaranteed income or reparations I will be voting for Trump.
22
a state that ranks close to last in everything; it's a start.
8
First, people don't go around having children to get government benefits. If we provided free birth control and free or subsidized health care, this would not be an issue.
Second, this is a PILOT project, meaning that 25 families were chosen to participate. This meant that they had to understand that any government benefits or subsidies would likely change. (Participants were notified beforehand.) And what did participants do with the money? Went to the dentist, took a sick day off work, paid for gas, took the kids to McDonald's. It's called stability and dignity.
Third, participants gathered to figure out how to make the money last. My mother did this as an immigrant who spoke little English and worked as a babysitter, caring for elderly people, cleaning houses and hotels. That's what people do when they are learning to budget. They take what little extra they have and decide if they can splurge on a tank of gas, or if they should instead use it for bus fare, or perhaps purchase a new pair of shoes for a child. These are not crimes.
And remember, this is a project, an experiment. It's not a law. It's looking to see if the woman who makes $10/hour as a personal assistant perhaps needs to make more to be able to have more financial stability. Her rent went up, but she didn't care because she said "I'm moving toward independence."
21
Surely this is satire. Yes, it must be.
34
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has proposed a universal basic income of $1000/mo for all us citizens 18& older. Yang2020.com
4
@Mary E Farrington that would cost over $3 trillion a year. Paid for by...?? The entire third world wants to come over the border and collect free healthcare, K-12 education and now this proposal? That will completely bankrupt the country.
22
@Mary E Farrington It appears Yang can't make up his mind on who gets UBI.
During the first week of January (https://web.archive.org/web/20190108022954/https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/), his web site said that only those 18 through 64 would get UBI because people 65 and over would get Social Security. Apparently he believes that people should start taking their Social Security early (and accepting the reduction in benefits that entails) and it's just tough if your SS benefit isn't at least $1,000/month.
Then (https://web.archive.org/web/20190116060438/https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/) he eliminated the upper age limit and the statement about SS but says "welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefit or $1,000" - without specifying if SS qualifies as a "social program".
SS beneficiaries (who paid into SS for their working lives and receive a benefit scaled by how much they contributed) aren't going to support not getting UBI. This is especially true when they realize that the 10% VAT tax to help pay for UBI would increase the cost of things they buy by, about, 10%.
Also, he only gives UBI to "citizens" - there are permanent residents who have lived here for many years but just haven't become citizens (perhaps because their native country doesn't allow dual citizenship) who seem as deserving of UBI as a freshly minted citizen.
2
@Mary E Farrington I was surprised he wasn't mentioned in the article.
pretty silly how this writer completely ignored the fact that a semi-major Democratic Presidential Candidate is running on having a Universal Basic Income. worth mentioning
5
I see nothing here about advising women to quit having babies they can’t afford and cannot care for. Taking responsibility for your actions is the real fundamental step to human dignity.
Food and housing are fundamental are not fundamental human rights. Someone has to take the risk, do the labor to produce food. Ditto housing. They are not obligated to do this for free because someone feels it is their right to have things they don’t pay for.
41
@LKC
How would you propose taking care of today's children? Do you not believe that children are entitled to food and housing? Or is your expectation that they "take the risk, do the labor"?
I'm not about to blame children for being born into poverty and you're probably not willing to do so either. We cannot help these children develop into responsible adults who contribute to society without helping their families move out of poverty. Please think through your views to see if, in your hurry to have people "take responsibility", you are not punishing children for the place, time, and family of birth.
10
@LKC It would be nice if Mississippi had comprehensive access to sex education, accessible and affordable birth control, abortions (I think it is impossible or close to to get one in the state now), mentors that could guide women who don't necessarily have models for making positive choices. There is apparently a TV show around young white women who get pregnant while teenagers. It would be nice if there was the same outrage to that as their is around a program like this.
13
Jason, I absolutely agree.
My problem is that since the days of LBJ we have been subsidizing young women who have not used welfare to get an education and a job, but who, on the contrary, for 3-4 generations now have been having babies and letting boyfriends mooch off of them and perpetuating the cycle of dependence.
Throw in mandatory birth control. You want a check, you don't get pregnant more than once. It should have been part of the deal from the get-go. The rub: maybe it wouldn't have worked. And can we really let children starve?
1
No one alive today owes reparations for the slave trade.
If that's your introduction to this program, forget it.
Too harsh? I really don't care.
And if the Dem candidate for Pres starts talking about reparations, I know I won't vote.
And if that candidate looks like he'll win, I'll vote for Trump after all.
56
@znlgznlg No one alive today who can prove that they have not benefited from their slave-owning ancestors owe reparations.
1
It sounds like the chief beneficiary will be McDonalds. Which will not improve anyone's health.
Don't poor people know how to cook beans any more? That's what I eat.
39
Some good ideas ... but let's not make them race based, but let's use income based criteria.
27
@BD
Be careful, that's pretty close to suggesting that need-based financial aid is sufficient for college applicants and that the (explicitly-racial) affirmative action policies are just useless identity politics that only sows racial tension... And that kind of rationality is not welcome round these parts.
12
@asdfj ... the intent is to make the suggested programs available for all in need; all races, genders, family arrangements, etc.
6
"The magic of black mothering."
No doubt, in many cases, particularly when everything was done right and then tragedy struck.
But for others, how much better it would be if both white and black young women could get educations, decent jobs, and partners they could rely on, and only then deliberately embrace motherhood.
Even in Mississippi, where thanks to the mostly white voting public who routinely reject enlightened public servants, education and job opportunities are substandard.
12
Articles like this make me ready to vote for Republicans.
51
@Rich Murphy
Have at it. You'll join millions upon millions of people who vote against wise investments in children and slant our economy toward the few at the top.
Rich, I'd ask you to think about the value of investing $1 to make $3-4 in return. You'd do that in a heartbeat but we as a society routinely choose to forgo that strategy and pay the bill for adults who end up in prison or other government programs as a consequence of growing up in poverty. Republicans who oppose good sex education and limit access to abortion ensure that many more children are born into poverty than we would like.
Unfortunately, it seems many people are fine with a few people getting most of the economy's benefits while the rest suffer. They're called republicans and they would welcome your vote.
13
@Rich Murphy Such an interesting comment. What do you think about those who work two and three jobs to make ends meet if that? Do you think a life of constant worry and anguish is worthwhile and to be envied? What about sick children and not having enough money to pay for care? Also something to envy in a life of hardship and anxiety.
How rich Murphy that you are so very, very complete in your life with no worries about money to buy food, pay rent, see doctors - so joyous and free of care.
1
@Jason No one is stopping you from investing your money as you want to force everyone else to
1
One presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, has made universal guaranteed income the center of his platform. He proposes giving every American (18 and above) $1,000 a month, no strings attached. Like Springboard to Opportunities, people would have the choice to opt in and replace their benefits for $12,000 a year, or continue receiving their existing benefits.
6
@CityCabin Just what the US needs, more entitlement programs. The debt and deficit are exploding. This does not bode well for the future. Standards of living will only go down as the dollar is inflated and interest payments eat up more of the budget.
19
@Michele
Hi,
It's not an entitlement program. I urge you to review his thoughtful proposal, which addresses your concerns about cost and inflation.
5
@Michele
Every time someone is given cash they spend it. People on the bottom of the income distribution--the poor--spend it on commodities that push money into the economy and increase employment. The standard of living of all rises.
13
I appreciate the approach and that the various organizations are finding a cooperative approach, and listening to the mothers.
Too often this discussion devolves into "should have" "shouldn't have" sniping. You can't stuff the kids back in folks. We need to deal with the conditions as they exist NOW in conjunction with working toward a more ideal future. Support birth control, population reduction, and responsible parenting. These ripples matter.
28
i think it's time the NY Times took a hard look at race as a useful topic of reporting.
it's simply not true that race has much to do with poverty or disenfranchisement, given the "yellow vest" (all white) protests in france or the deprivations of the rural populace (mostly white) in the USA.
the structural joints and sinews of power don't operate on race any longer: they operate on the mass of humanity conceived as a mass. your race has as much to do with it as your nationality.
we're looking at the future through the lens of the past. race has the odor of nostalgia for the '60s and the feelings of justice that were invoked then.
we are in the century of heat. the wealthy will suck your freedoms and your well being from you, white or black, gay or straight, trans or cis. you have a wallet, the wallet has money; they want it. you have a wallet, there's no money in it, you're trash.
20
@drollere
Agree but I think you are guilty of out dated thinking too. The rich are not driving climate change but rather “the masses”. The rich are not installing Trump, “the masses” freely and passionately voted for him. The rich are not keeping America awash with guns, the guy/gal next door NRA members are The rich have a lot of power but nothing like the masses do in our democracy. There isn’t an easy explanation nor solution for our own ignorance, apathy and poor choices. We could commandeer the bank accounts of the rich, but would our society look much different? Sad to say I’m very skeptical.
4
@drollere "the structural joints and sinews or power don't operate on race any longer..." That would be news to anyone conversant in current research on racial disparities. On average, American whites who think a job, mortage or account application is from a black person will decline that application 20% or more often than an identical application with a white-sounding name. The same audit studies cover an enormous range of quantifiable interactions, almost all demonstrating the objective cost in our society of being (thought to be) black. None of this bias is conscious or intended. All of it is vastly expensive.
4
"What we really need in order to reach our goals is cash,” Ms. Nyandoro said.
Well yeah, no kidding! Those of us working 60 hour weeks, trying to pay down debt, trying to save to buy a home, struggling to save enough to afford retirement, etc. In other words, we could all use some more cash - even those of us who have been responsible enough to not have children out of wedlock. I'm all for education spending to give people the skills to pull themselves out of poverty, but this is ridiculous.
The global population is over 8 billion. We need everyone to have fewer kids - particularly those who can't even care for themselves without other people's money. The best way to break the cycle of poverty is to break the cycle of poverty - stop having multiple children you can't care for.
And stop asking the rest of us who already working long hours to try and make ends meet, to pay ever higher taxes to support people who are irresponsible.
77
@JP
No one is asking you to pay higher taxes to support such people as these. Those multi-billion dollar companies and people who are presently paying NO or few taxes, need to be taxed to the hilt! These programs actually benefit all of us if children grow up with parents who encourage them to get more education or training, for instance. Widen your view of the world - it can work for everyone with a little help!
29
What makes you think that none of these women are working 60 hour weeks, or haven’t in the past? Why stereotype unwed mothers? They come in all races, too! Keep in mind that poor people struggle to pay for birth control or abortions and have higher rates of unplanned pregnancies than their better off counterparts.
23
@JP
Yes, you are right. But how do you implement your program in a practical way?
Do you, by legal and police methods, require each person or family to prove they can afford to have a child, or another child?
How do you implement your program in a reliable, and lawful, manner? How?
5
Doesn't this encourage irresponsible behavior? Choosing to have multiple children without a plan to provide for them should not be subsidized by taxpayers.
63
@Jason . Thank you for this. I'm appalled by the lack of humanity in these responses. Your comments above are spot on regarding the root cause and state of things.
10
@Jason. Listen, Jason, I have been around for a number of years and have worked in health care settings serving poorer populations, and let me assure you, this “behavior” has been going on for generations. No amount of financial assistance, incentive or social programs has put a dent in it. It is a rewards program, pure and simple. Yes, it is unfortunate children are the victims of this but without social change in the communities themselves, there will never stop being unfortunate children paying the price of irresponsible choices. The inhumanity is not in the stating of it, but allowing it to continue by finding new ways to finance it.
7
@Michele
Life is so full of nuance and individual choices are based on the options available. My guess is that becoming the single parent of multiple young children is not always (or necessarily even usually) a function of irresponsibility. Access to health care, sexual education, and opportunities for education and employment all have an impact on the ability of young women to make "responsible" choices about their health and about when and in what circumstances to attempt pregnancy and motherhood.
Besides, please forget about the "behavior" of the women and consider the social costs and taxpayer responsibilities associated with raising children in poverty. Those children are more likely to suffer from poor health (Medicaid costs paid by taxes), insufficient educational support (additional years of education and additional supports paid by taxes), poor employment outcomes (housing and food subsidies paid by taxes) and involvement in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems (big $ from taxes).
We KNOW from research that early intervention in the lives of these children has a return on investment of greater than 400% (for every dollar spent on anti-poverty and education programs for young children we save $4 later) so why not do this?
38
What a wonderful read, to already hear the impact the pilot is having on these families truly warms my heart. I hope that this pilot will expand to more communities.
29
@Leah funded by you
16
@Michele
Funded by us all...as an investment to save later on Medicaid, prison, and food stamps.
Where are the fathers? For most working men 1000 per month is in the range of child support. These women described have multiple small children so they are not dealing with one night stand mistakes. Are we to consider the fathers disposeable? If the answer is that there is no work it argues persuasively that we need to address immigration and force US employers to hire US citizens even if they are poor workers. I know the area of Mississippi being reported on and I know the farmers prefer to hire Mexicans and Central Americans to "domestics" who talk back, don't show up, and do poor quality work. But if you want a business in the US with US security and law as a benefit, you should be forced to hire US workers as bad as they might be secondary to bad parenting, which this program is trying to address.
41
@as Read some more NY Times articles: there are many reasons the fathers are not present. One of them -- at least for Black men -- is up to a third of young Black men are in jail. If you look into why, you will find reasons like a justice system that discriminates based on skin color, lack or adequate legal representation, imprisonment for minor fines that add up, etc. Once they are in jail -- whether they actually end up being convicted or not -- their absence at work puts them at risk for losing their job. Once they get out, their prison record makes getting a job hard again.
1
Men, no matter their skin color, end up in jail because they lack self-control. Self-control is a skill taught by parents. It might also be part of an inherited trait.
Poor adults who have had good parenting do not end up in jail. They work 2-3 jobs and go home to their families at night.
Young poor people with good parenting stay home and study so that they can do well in school.
5
Can't we do something about the horrible salaries in this country? That might fix some problems. Maybe one reason they're so low is because employers expect their employees to use gov. assistance.
16
Do you mean like the US government? A few years ago 23,000 military members were on Food Stamps.
7
@Rich Murphy
More likely Walmart. Most of their employees are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps. A prime example of welfare for corporations in this country.
5