George Will wrote a piece about welfare reform.
A small piece of it...
After the liberalization of welfare in the mid-1960s, the percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers reached 50 by 1976 (it is almost 70 today), and within a generation the welfare rolls quadrupled. But DeParle says people mistakenly thought people like Jobe were organizing their lives around having babies to get a check. Actually, he says, their lives were too disorganized for that.
P6 responds in a manner that's appropriate, I think. So, here's a quote from him:
You cannot read this paragraph without coming away feeling Mr. Will is implying the entire quadrupling of welfare rolls was due to the increase in Black children born out of wedlock. If asked was this his intent I'm sure he would say no. And yet you cannot read this paragraph without coming away feeling Mr. Will is implying the entire quadrupling of welfare rolls was due to the increase in Black children born out of wedlock.
One of the more under reported results to come out of a study about oow pregnancies was that a large majority of women did not do so with welfare in mind.
In fact, most women on welfare had no more children while on welfare.
The data doesn't match the hype.
Next, isn't it amazing at the number of unemployed people who stay in W. Virginia, despite the lack of jobs?
There is no data that supports the proposition that people have kids to either get ON welfare, or to get more money.
NONE.
So is it idiocy, or racism, that perpetuates the idea? Or is it just that some people don't respond well to data?
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 31, 2004 11:47 AMWell, I don't know why, but people still think that welfare doesn't have time limits, even though welfare reform has been in place for 8 years, so if they can't even get such a basic idea, I don't think they can get data like that.
I guess it's because of bias, but I don't see why thier biases are so strong that they block out facts..
Posted by: animeg3282 at December 31, 2004 08:34 PM"...There is no data that supports the proposition that people have kids to either get ON welfare, or to get more money..."
There is a substantial correlation in that before the generous Great Society programs, oow births were relatively scarce, and regarded with a degree of dishonor. As benefits grew, the oow rate increased to about 70% in the Black community.
But welfare reform has seen a reversal in these trends.
Cause and effect? The proof is left to the student. But the correlation is quite clear.
Posted by: True_Liberal at January 2, 2005 09:34 PMBut the correlation is quite clear.
Social Science 100: Correlation does not equal causation.
Fact: OOW birth rate for Blacks started falling before welfare reform became an issue.
Fact: An overwhelming majority of women on welfare, had no more children while on welfare.
Fact: Most women on welfare were only on welfare for no more than 3 years.
Fact: A large marjority of teenager women who got pregnant, did so within the first 6 months of becoming sexually active.
Posted by: EBrown at January 2, 2005 09:44 PM"There is a substantial correlation in that before the generous Great Society programs, oow births were relatively scarce, and regarded with a degree of dishonor."
What does "relatively scarce" mean?
When you say "regarded with a degree of dishonor" how are you measuring that? What are you basing this on? Survey data? Individual level interviews? Focus groups? Experiments? Myths? What?
As benefits grew, the oow rate increased to about 70% in the Black community.
As benefits grew from what to what? What are you talking about? WIC? Social Security? AFDC? What? What time period are you talking about? When you say 70% is that because of an increase of oow births or a decrease in wedlock births?
If you can't answer these questions, then how can you talk about correlation even, much less causation? Note that I didn't even begin to talk about migration patterns, alternative hypotheses, etc. etc.
Posted by: Lester Spence at January 3, 2005 02:10 AM
Sorry, but po'folk (rich folk as well) DO respond to incentives in their environment. When the incentive is to have kids outa wedlock, be a couch potato (we'll get you a TV, doncha worry, honey), and lose the daddy, is it any wonder that this behavior manifests itself? And that it's passed down to successive generations?
One of the real values in the trad family is the kids see one parent rise early every morning and go off to a job and bring home a paycheck. When that is missing in a kid's life it's a real tragedy.
Posted by: True_Liberal at December 31, 2004 09:06 AM