Turn on thread page Beta

Teenage pregnancies and the benefits system watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The 'problem' of teenage pregnancies is exacerbated by easy access to welfare, but it's a problem because it encourages dependency on the state,
    You assume all benefits systems are unconditional - some people are necessarily dependent on the state - they may be unable to work because they are incapacitated or mentally ill or in this case raising a small child. Welfare needn't create state dependency, as Clinton's "tough love" welfare reforms demonstrated.

    creates a next-generation with low expectations,
    encourages the absent father trend, and creates unnatural dysgenic conditions wherein the congenitally feckless outbreed the sensible. It's not a 'problem' that the mothers are young.
    All of these are only true in conditions in which the benefits given are allocated wrongly and/or largely dependent on factors other than benefits - in a situation where 78% of all teenage pregnancies are unplanned (note teenage and not underage, suggesting the figures are far higher for underaged unplanned pregnancies) conditions in which the "congenitally feckless outbreed the sensible", whatever that means, cannot be attributed to a system of welfare provision. None of these listed problems are inherent in the concept of the state providing for teenage parents unable to provide for themselves.

    The state has deliberately used welfare to create easily controlled dependents with low expectations,
    That's a pretty incredible claim to make. Could you back it up at all? In opposition to it are rather obviously the increasing upwards social mobility and ever-expanding middle-class (if you'll permit me to talk in class terms), the government target of economic growth, indeed just about every policy of the last fifty years.

    but is now worrying about the accompanying social trends of unsocialised, unfathered children and a growing underclass consigned to unemployability and crime by their low IQ.
    These are perhaps even better refutations of your incredible plebe-creation claim than those I listed. The government was trying to create a "growing underclass consigned to unemployability and crime"? Also, "by their low IQ"? Because a lack of intelligence confines people to be unemployed and criminal? What justification is there to any of this and what possible benefit to a government?

    The only option for the state and the multinationals who own it is to increase global movement of the most capable worker ants and increase social control of the hapless masses. In the short term expect soft eugenics in the form of welfare reform and social censure of dependency, longer term expect Chinese and Indian hard eugenics to prompt similar measures here.
    Why? Because you say so? Demonstrate why this is the way in which a modern, liberal society will tackle a social problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by esx77)
    Benefits are effective in that they are encouraging birth's
    No one in this topic has yet proved that theory. We can all give the anecdotal evidence of the girl on TV who was trying for a second baby to get more benefit - it hardly demonstrates an elasticity of teenage pregnancy in response to changes in benefits for teenage parents. Someone find the graphs that compare welfare provision for teenage parents with the incidence of teenage pregnancy and then and only then make the above claim.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    2moro I'm not generally disposed to point-by-point rallies and won't necessarily have the time or will to post again if you respond to this. Some people enjoy the argument, I enjoy the posting.

    But I'll try and respond to your comments one by one...

    1) I actually assume benefits are conditional - no kids, no child benefit. The rest of your point backs me up - "Welfare needn't create state dependency"...yet you find that "some people are necessarily dependent on the state...raising a small child". :confused: And what prompted Clintons "tough love" welfare reforms if not the worry about the negative outcomes of welfare I identified?

    2) Next your argument is that awareness of a safety net doesn't induce a more reckless attitude - patently false. You reckon that none of the problems I list regarding teenage mothers are inherent to the state helping out parents who cannot cope alone - perhaps not in very different circumstances and society than we live in - but all very apparent in the real world (and safety net analogy).

    3) What has been the outcome of welfare for many communities in western society? Has it created dependency? If it has, and has conspicuously failed to lift these communities out of poverty - indeed the reverse - assume it's deliberate. The state is a massive and powerful machine and those at the top are fully aware of what allows them social mobility, and would reduce social mobility for others. Don't be so naive.

    4) You didn't notice my but "is now worrying about...". A lack of intelligence does not condemn a given individual to criminality or unemployment, but the correlations between IQ and these social outcomes is clear.

    5) I offer a prediction about how our elite will respond to these problems, you're entitled to do the same. I would recommend you take a look at the neocon think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and The Hudson Institute to see current trends.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    1) I actually assume benefits are conditional - no kids, no child benefit. The rest of your point backs me up - "Welfare needn't create state dependency"...yet you find that "some people are necessarily dependent on the state...raising a small child". :confused: And what prompted Clintons "tough love" welfare reforms if not the worry about the negative outcomes of welfare I identified (and safety net analogy)?

    2) Next your argument is that awareness of a safety net doesn't induce a more reckless attitude - patently false. You reckon that none of the problems I list regarding teenage mothers are inherent to the state helping out parents who cannot cope alone - perhaps not in very different circumstances and society than we live in - but all very apparent in the real world.

    3) What has been the outcome of welfare for many communities in western society? Has it created dependency? If it has, and has conspicuously failed to lift these communities of poverty - indeed the reverse - assume it's deliberate. The state is a massive and powerful machine and those at the top are fully aware of what allows them social mobility, and would reduce social mobility for others. Don't be so naive.

    4) You didn't notice my but "is now worrying about...". A lack of intelligence does not condemn a given individual to criminality or unemployment, but the correlations between IQ and these social outcomes is clear.

    5) I offer a prediction about how our elite will respond to these problems, you're entitled to do the same. I would recommend you take a look at the neocon think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and The Hudson Institute.
    Some people are dependent on the state with or without benefits - if you can't work and raise a child yet need to do both, you depend on the welfare of the state. This dependence isn't created by welfare - it is catered for by it. Clinton's welfare reforms were the correction of bad welfare policy - they were not an end to welfare because, properly implemented, welfare does not create dependency.

    Meanwhile, the words "patently false" and "very apparent" don't prove, refute or even support anything. Mothers who are unable to raise that child are enabled to raise that child through welfare - this does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that they vastly improve their quality of life by having a child. Call me wrong all you like but it is worthless without facts, figures, studies, empirical evidence. The overwhelming majority (78% in America, according to a fairly recent study) of teenage pregnancies are unplanned - this means the teenager does not intend to have a child. Welfare is there to ensure these children are not left in unacceptable conditions.

    In addition to which, your idea of the government as an omniscient machine expecting and desiring every outcome of every policy is factually inaccurate. I am not naive to deny it - it contradicts all the many and varied reports of the possible outcomes of government decisions we see, the lessons of pre-Clinton welfare policy and the dominance of reactionary corrective policy in modern politics.

    In the West, welfare policies where well implemented have addressed the dependency of some of society and in so doing ensured that people, particularly newborn children, aren't left to die. If the gaurantee of subsitence benefits made people state dependent who previously weren't unemployment in the Western world wouldn't be so incredibly low.

    As for your talk of IQ. How, in your opinion, did the government create dependent people with low IQs? By educating them to the age of 16? Creating two million more jobs? Introducing a minimum wage? None of the above. The government did not create these people, contrary to your quite ludicrous claim.

    As for the adoption of one-child birth policy as the Neo-Conservative approach to solving problems of dependency (of which, where there has been government failure, there is some) or the growth through multiplication of what you consider an underclass, you may see it as inevitable but I would still like to see why. That was my original question on the subject.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Are there any statistics on the crime rates and average incomes of people who were raised by foster parents and those raised by chav moms?
    Well, there are volumes of statistics that consider crime against average income and volumes of statistics that consider crime against parental upbringing so I don't think you'd need to be that much of a genius to correlate something.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, there are volumes of statistics that consider crime against average income and volumes of statistics that consider crime against parental upbringing so I don't think you'd need to be that much of a genius to correlate something.
    There are also statistics showing that foster parents aren't as good as real ones.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You could always force them to get a job at the pain of losing their benefits. That's what we do in the US. Seems pretty efficient too. The amount of people receiving benefits decreased by a quarter since Welfre Reform was enacted a decade ago.
    It may have been effective in reducing the numbers of people on benefits, but have the changes not brought about a variety of other problems, such as people working multiple jobs in order to make ends meet, thereby working long hours and not being able to be at home with their kids, causing problems in terms of lack of parental involvement etc etc?

    By the way, I'm not stating this as fact, I actually want to know whether this is the case in the US.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    There are also statistics showing that foster parents aren't as good as real ones.
    Is that compared to a stable couple with moderately high paying jobs or a single unemployed parent with possibly abusive partners and a drug habit?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peach)
    It may have been effective in reducing the numbers of people on benefits, but have the changes not brought about a variety of other problems, such as people working multiple jobs in order to make ends meet, thereby working long hours and not being able to be at home with their kids, causing problems in terms of lack of parental involvement etc etc?

    By the way, I'm not stating this as fact, I actually want to know whether this is the case in the US.
    Welfare paid about the same as one minimum wage job. If people were able to survive on welfare, why aren't they able to survive on one minimum wage job? If they're working two jobs, obviously they want to have a more comfortable lifestyle, and that's their choice.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Is that compared to a stable couple with moderately high paying jobs or a single unemployed parent with possibly abusive partners and a drug habit?
    The latter wouldn't be able to adopt children.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peach)
    It may have been effective in reducing the numbers of people on benefits, but have the changes not brought about a variety of other problems, such as people working multiple jobs in order to make ends meet, thereby working long hours and not being able to be at home with their kids, causing problems in terms of lack of parental involvement etc etc?

    By the way, I'm not stating this as fact, I actually want to know whether this is the case in the US.
    In any case, parents who work long hours to support their family are better role models than those who sit at home watching Trisha and moaning about how they don't get enough benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The latter wouldn't be able to adopt children.
    So what are you saying? I must have misunderstood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Bismarck]Welfare paid about the same as one minimum wage job. If people were able to survive on welfare, why aren't they able to survive on one minimum wage job? If they're working two jobs, obviously they want to have a more comfortable lifestyle, and that's their choice.
    QUOTE]

    When you talk aboiut forcing people to work, are you talking about the welfare for work (? can't remember if this is what it was called) scheme?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    So what are you saying? I must have misunderstood.
    For various reasons, people who adopt children aren't able to raise them as well as would real parents. This isn't necessarily their fault, but it's true nevertheless. You have to weigh the benefits of taking a child away from a chav mom with the costs of giving it to a foster family. I don't know whether the benefits or the costs are higher, which is why I was asking for some statistics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peach)
    When you talk aboiut forcing people to work, are you talking about the welfare for work (? can't remember if this is what it was called) scheme?
    No, that's mostly for the unemployed (if you don't accept a that's offered to you after you've been unemployed for more than 6 weeks, you lose your unemployment benefits, with some exceptions).

    People are allowed to stay on welfare for 2 consecutive years and 5 years in their entire lives. If they don't get a job in those 2 years, they lose their benefits. Most states exempt 25% of their welfare recipients from this, so it's not as harsh as it might sound.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    For various reasons, people who adopt children aren't able to raise them as well as would real parents. This isn't necessarily their fault, but it's true nevertheless. You have to weigh the benefits of taking a child away from a chav mom with the costs of giving it to a foster family. I don't know whether the benefits or the costs are higher, which is why I was asking for some statistics.
    Well obviously, you can't just take away children willy nilly. If their lives are in danger - for example im the chav mum is neglecting it or if she can't afford to keep it fed and clothed, then adoption is justified.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    No, that's mostly for the unemployed (if you don't accept a that's offered to you after you've been unemployed for more than 6 weeks, you lose your unemployment benefits, with some exceptions).

    People are allowed to stay on welfare for 2 consecutive years and 5 years in their entire lives. If they don't get a job in those 2 years, they lose their benefits. Most states exempt 25% of their welfare recipients from this, so it's not as harsh as it might sound.
    Are the 25% mostly exempt through being unable to work (due to physical or mental reasons), or are some also single parents and so on?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peach)
    Are the 25% mostly exempt through being unable to work (due to physical or mental reasons), or are some also single parents and so on?
    I believe this includes the disabled, but most of the exempt people are single moms. It depends on how generous the state is. In New York (one of the most left-wing states in the country), we have people protesting about being told to find a part-time after sitting on welfare their entire lives. :rolleyes: In places like Texas, don't expect to get welfare for more than the minimum amount of time unless you're dead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I believe this includes the disabled, but most of the exempt people are single moms. It depends on how generous the state is. In New York (one of the most left-wing states in the country), we have people protesting about being told to find a part-time after sitting on welfare their entire lives. :rolleyes: In places like Texas, don't expect to get welfare for more than the minimum amount of time unless you're dead.
    OK, thanks, that's really interesting. I will stop dragging this thread off topic now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Perhaps there should be mandatory abortions for unwed pregnant teens.
    Why kill an innocent kid just because the parents were STUPID?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Perhaps there should be mandatory abortions for unwed pregnant teens.
    Now we get into debate on rights and wrongs on abortion. While i have no probs in making the teens suffer for they're mistakes I think the idea of mandatory abortions is terrible, why make the baby pay for having a slutty chav mum anymore there it already will?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,078

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.