Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Good Jobs in MN

Here is an interesting article that I am sure will generate a lot of discussion over there. MP Good Jobs


My first question was if the Household Income Graph included the cash value of the government benefits a low income household can receive in MN. (ie Medicare, TANF, SNAP, EITC, Child Tax Credit, etc)  It is a great graph however I think that is an important detail.


Thoughts?



63 comments:

Sean said...

If you're going to add in the value of non-cash benefits for government program recipients, then don't you need to do the same for everyone? The cost of employer contributions to health insurance, for instance, would have a real impact on that graph.

Laurie said...

this essay was mentioned on the PBS news hour and I thought of you, John.

Column: This is what happens when you take Ayn Rand seriously

Are you still a Rand fan?

John said...

Sean,
Sounds good. Please remember that adding them in will change the households with higher incomes a much smaller percentage.

The households with $15,000 incomes and 2 kids are likely getting ~$20,000 extra in cash and services, which increases their income to $35,000.(133% increase) Whereas the extra $8,000 a company contributes to a $50,000 households income only adds up to ~$58,000. (ie 16% increase) On top of that I am assuming many things like SNAP, Tanf, EITC, Child Tax credit, etc are not taxed.

Laurie,
Yes I am, though I think your source is picking and choosing very carefully to make her point.

As for the "rape", checkout this interesting discussion.

Better Rand

jerrye92002 said...

B as in B, S as in S. A "good job" is anything that keeps the wolf from the door. All of that "potential advancement" and feel-good self-actualization nonsense is just that. And a job pays what the job is worth to the employer. If you don't think that is what YOU are worth, go somewhere else that will recognize it. The last thing anybody needs is having government decide what an employer must pay or what an employee should receive. So the whole exercise of "what is a good job" is a waste.

The Ayn Rand angle is more interesting. The effort is made to cast "enlightened self interest" as an entirely self-centered affair, when exactly the opposite is true. For example, Henry Ford decided, and was proven correct, that raising wages in his factory enabled his people to be more productive and let them actually purchase the cars they built. Sure, he got richer, but so did his employees. Just in general, "self-interest" is going to include things like perpetuating your genes, so your family gets a share of what your "greed" produces. Once you have enough of that, you start thinking about how you will be remembered, and thus you have things like Carnegie-Mellon institute, the Red Cross, the Carnegie libraries, Rockefeller Land grants to the Parks, and the Koch brothers contributions to PBS.

Somehow there is this notion is that government is all compassion, efficiency and altruism. It is to laugh.

John said...

Some comments I left over there...

"I guess I challenge that that education / graduation gap is "inextricably tied to race" in Minnesota. My point is that many people from different races do excellent in school.

"Education is the major one, a factor that is inextricably tied to race in Minnesota. Most of the state's well-paying jobs require a bachelor’s degree, a qualification where there are significant disparities between whites and certain minority groups."

The reality is that the education / graduation gap is tied to the same factors / behaviors that make certain people poor. Some of them may include:
- parents with low academic capability themselves
- single parent households where one parent is trying to fulfill dual roles
- parents who are not mature enough,trained adequately or disciplined enough to be a responsible parent
- parents who may be addicted to something
- parents/peer groups who do not show adequate respect, personal responsibility and effort regarding education, Teachers and work
- Other...

Thoughts?" G2A

"I am curious how DEED's living wage accounts for subsidies and services available to lower income households?

Per the table it looks like 500,000 MN households are living on under $30,000/yr. This seems misleading when we know many of these households receive free or reduced cost healthcare, food, housing, etc. And do the household income numbers include retirees who are receiving social security, Medicaid, etc.

Is this just a fact based article or an article with an agenda? Thoughts?

"Even for those who do meet DEED's living wage standard, however, the numbers come with a significant caveat: “It should be noted that the cost of living results represent neither a poverty-living nor a middle-class living, but rather a simple living that meets basic needs for health and safety,” said Tim O’Neill, a regional analyst with DEED. “There is no money built in for savings, vacations, entertainment, eating out, tobacco, or alcohol, even though some of these things may be considered part of a normal healthy life.”"" G2A

jerrye92002 said...

Whenever somebody talks about a "living wage," I always want to ask, "a living for WHOM"? Most of the people making minimum wage our kids living at home and don't need much, nor are they worth much until they learned their trade and become familiar with such odd ideas as showing up on time, looking presentable, and being polite to the customers. Others are seniors supplementing their income, people with another job, or living in a household with someone else that has a job. It is a typical liberal conceit that one poor person is just exactly the same as any other and that none of them can succeed unless government intervenes, usually by redistributing someone else's wealth. The problem with welfare, pure and simple, is that it is DESTRUCTIVE of wealth. Wealth is taken from someone else who earned it, and given to someone who produces nothing in return. The wealth gets "eaten up"in the process.

Anonymous said...

"...someone else who earned it..."

The existence of society allows this to happen. It does not happen in a vacuum. Neither does poverty.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Do you truly think that society is required for 2 people to negotiate a deal?

Let's say that one person knows how to make wheels, another knows how to farm and a third really has no skill or desire to work...

Does the third person deserve to be given a cut of the transaction between the first 2? What is your rationale?

John said...

By the way, I agree that the government facilitates transactions, trade, transportation and enables property rights. That is why we pay taxes.

Not sure what is owed to that third person who just happens to be living within the borders of the country...

By the way, people within our society also determine the value our products, services, labor, knowledge, etc through the free market. (ie Teachers paid less than NBA stars)

Smart capable hard working people paid much more than people who do not offer those values to others in our society.

Anonymous said...

"...and a third really has no skill or desire to work..."

You think so little of poor people, it simply boggles the mind.
Your first response is always that the poor are lazy, shiftless, and stupid.
Laurie, Sean, and I have done our best to help you see your erroneous characterizations, but here you are...

Joel

John said...

Why do you think they are poor?

Why do you think other people in our society are not willing to pay them more for their services?

I am very curious. I have several friends who have very low income jobs or a hard time keeping a job. I love them dearly however they just have very little in capabilities that people are willing to pay for. Or they tend to do something foolish at work that gets them fired. (ie inappropriate jokes, argue with boss, argue with peers, fall asleep while working a guard shack, etc)

I have great compassion and empathy for my friends, yet I have no good way to help them. They need to change, improve, etc so that another person in our society is willing to pay them more.

John said...

For ref: Why are Poor People Poor?

Sean said...

It's easy to point the finger at people who make obviously poor life choices. The real problem, though, is that many of the poor aren't in that scenario.

jerrye92002 said...

There is a subtle but essential distinction between blaming poor people for being poor and suggesting that they have a responsibility for themselves. If you do not make that distinction, you are left with the suggestion that somebody else should be responsible for them and, from there, that to NOT throw endless hard-earned wealth at these "unfortunates" marks one as an evil monster unfit for polite society.

And the big problem with that (if I may label it so) "liberal" viewpoint is that it simply doesn't work. Government cannot dictate what someone's labor is worth to another, or even that such a transaction or exchange must take place. Most attempts at this distort the free market and result in less total wealth for the society.

jerrye92002 said...

I used to get so disgusted with politicians saying things like, "America should be great enough so that there is a job for everyone who wants one." Phooey on that, say I. This country should be great enough that there is a job for everyone whether they want one or not, and if they don't want one they don't have to eat.

John said...

Sean,
That is a very unfulfilling answer. "many of the poor aren't in that scenario." So what is the reason poor people are poor from your perspective then?

As for me pointing fingers at those "who make obviously poor life choices"... The unfortunate reality is that people are poor because they do not get paid much or they spend too much. And they don't make much because they do not offer enough value to perspective or current employers to justify higher wages.


Society already provides every citizen with 13+ years of free education, and apparently many squander that. And I am even happy if society can offer them a hand later in life to increase their value to future or current employers, however the individual must be the one to seize the hand and work very hard to improve their circumstances.

MN Unemployment Stats
Graduation Rates

Laurie said...

In my experience there is a very wide range of capability. In my job I work with the less capable. I hope that in 20 years my students will have a living wage job, even if John, and other republicans, believe they don't deserve it.

John said...

I believe every American could have a good paying job if American consumers felt it was important, unfortunately they don't. So wages will stay low as long as Americans:
- are fine with illegal immigrants residing in America and putting downward pressure on wages
- continue sending their money overseas by buying low domestic content products and services

As I often say, if Liberals truly believed in helping American workers to be paid more they would pay more for high domestic content products and services that are built in strong union factories...

Unfortunately the ones I know typically don't, and my license plate game indicates the same. Link to something more scientific

So if you really care for the low paid American worker, wouldn't it make sense if you spent your money on products and services where it found its way into their pockets, not into the pockets of workers in other countries?

John said...

One more source. WT Buying Habits

John said...

"I hope that in 20 years my students will have a living wage job."

It sounds like a great idea... How do you see this happening exactly?

Should a 25 year old who dropped out of High School at 16 years of age, and who has a questionable work ethic be guaranteed this?

What a single woman with 3 children from 3 different Dad's? Does that living wage have to be high enough for her and the 3 kids?

If you were running a small business would you be willing to hire them and pay them that much? Even though they are not too capable/reliable, you have over seas competitors that pay far less, and you are loosing local consumers to them? Who are you going to employ when you have lost the majority of your customers?

jerrye92002 said...

Sounds like everybody has a way to cure poverty, all of them involving pushing on a very long string. John wants government to force people to buy American, thereby artificially driving up US jobs and wages. Some want to force American companies to arbitrarily employ more workers and pay artificially higher wages. And others think Americans should just get paid for doing nothing at all. I am appalled that anyone actually believes that the laws of human nature and the law of supply and demand can be repealed by a majority vote in Congress!

John said...

Jerry,
Please explain where I ever said I want the "government to force people to buy American"...

Laurie said...

Maybe it would be better to use the safety net for less capable people and provide support in housing, food and healthcare or use the EITC to supplement their income. How to your low income friends get by? Do they live on $9 per hour? I think if is easier for people to survive on low wages in small towns where housing is cheap. I have some relatives in WI who get by, one I know lives in low income housing. One bought a cheap house with a help with the down payment from a govt program. I don't know what other support they get.

Would it surprise you to know that I support Hillary and her proposals rather than Bernie. I don't think we need the same min wage in San Fransico and Jefferson WI. I think free college is a bad idea.

Back to topic how do you think someone working at Arby's and living in Mpls should get by on say $1000 a month?

jerrye92002 said...

OK, not in those words. But you don't expect Americans to do it on their own, do you? That is simply contrary to the laws of supply and demand and of human nature. The only way to do it is for government to throw up huge tariffs and restrain free trade.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, PMFBI, but I just don't see how government can decide that EVERYBODY "working for $9/hour at Arby's" can NOT "get by on ... $1000/month." And that's the problem. Everybody is different in their abilities and circumstances, and needs to find a way to be responsible for themselves.

I'll tell the story again, about the first round of welfare reform. One of the major networks went out to find a "sob story" about how terrible reform was going to "hurt" people. They found a working mom who was getting some sort of welfare, I forget what. Her widowed mother was living in a big, paid-off house and looking after the granddaughter while Mom worked. So the story was that this poor woman was going to have to move back in with her Mom! Horrors! Mom even admitted liking the idea, not being alone in the big house, being more easily able to care of the granddaughter, sharing the cost of utilities, etc. Government doesn't see these "simple" solutions, and neither do people unless government gets out of the way of those individual, free-market decisions.

John said...

Of course I expect people who say they STRONGLY support union workers and higher wages for American workers to PAY a little more for the products and services that are aligned to their stated convictions. If they don't, wouldn't that make them incredible hypocrites?

It would be like Jim Baker preaching Purity and Christianity while having sex with the Secretary... Wouldn't it?

You seem to forget that buying/demand decisions are usually driven by more than just the cost of the good or service. And American citizens are free to pay slightly more in price, repairs, etc to support domestic workers.

Unfortunately where the corporate headquarters is, where the R&D center is, where the manufacturing plants are, etc rarely enters into the thinking of or buying criteria for most US consumers.

Remember how I said I was concerned that major appliances were going to be the next industry that left the USA... Well apparently GE agreed. I mean why would a US company try to compete in a cut throat business when the consumers are happy buying Samsungs and LG's from Korea?

The irony is that the Liberal Pro-Union Preachers will extol the evil of this action by GE as they go to get a juice from their Samsung refrigerator...

John said...

Laurie,
I somewhat agree with Jerry though it does not have to be living with family. When I was making little I lived with multiple room mates. Same for my wife before we got married and she was still working in daycare centers for near minimum wage.

Now please remember also that 2080 hours x $9/hour is $18,720 / yr. (ie $1,560/mth not $1,000/mth) And almost all of the light industry jobs around the city pay significantly more. Look at this for info for forklift drivers.

Now imagine a couple with 2 $30,000 jobs and 2 kids... Does $60,000 seem like a livable wage?

John said...

Somehow we need to encourage high school drop outs to take responsibility for their lives and strive for improvement. Insisting that Arby's pay $15 /hr for a questionable employee is not the answer.

By the way, most of my low income dysfunctional friends have one excellent thing going for them... They stayed married through good times and bad. That gave them 2 working adults to help pay the rent, raise the kids, etc. Also, ironically both the wives slowly but steadily worked their way up to $15/hr jobs in manufacturing / food processing companies.

Laurie said...

I think many/most min wage workers work less than full time. I think many of the families in my school make use of the safety net for housing, food, healthcare etc. I hope it will still be there for my students.

I think it would be difficult to raise a family on $60,000 and give your kids the opportunites you want to such as sports, music lessons etc. I think one would need to shop second hand stores etc any may qualify for reduced price lunch for the kids at school.

John said...

How many children do your families typically have?

How many should a family be allowed to have if they are on public assistance? (ie tax payers paying to raise their children.)

And if one truly wants more for their children, they should be highly motivated to learn, change and improve their value so they can be paid more. Many of my co-workers worked their way up from forklift operator, operations supervisor, warehouse manager, etc and those jobs pay $60+k...

John said...

It looks like they are like the "old time" big Catholic farmer families back home... Probably without the huge garden out back to help feed them.

"Role of fathers
In a Somali home, the father is the wage earner and decision-maker for the family and represents the family outside the home. When a father is absent, that role is passed on to an older male relative or adult son.

Role of women and children
Women have considerable influence in the home and their status is enhanced by the number of children they have. According to Islamic tradition, men and women do not touch members of the opposite sex outside the family, such as shaking hands. Women must cover their bodies, including their hair, although most Somali women do not wear a full-face veil.

Traditionally, Somali women marry and have children early—birth control practices are not widely used. Somalis commonly have large families. Women are responsible for the children, who are valued highly in Somali culture. Spanking is considered an acceptable practice."

"MFIP provides enough help to survive, but not to
make progress:
• Many participants need more English skills and formal
education for better-paying jobs.
Parents with large families cannot be self-sufficient
with low-paying jobs.
• Many are interested in starting their own business, but
MFIP doesn’t provide that kind of help. "

Laurie said...

those were interesting links. Based on the demographics of families at my school and how they seems to have their basic needs met, my impression is that the MN safety net is mostly adequate. I don't sit around worrying the the future of my students, but I do think I can help to ensure them a better future by supporting democrats as a voter.

John said...

You kinda skipped answering my simple questions...

How many children do your families typically have?

How many should a family be allowed to have if they are on public assistance? (ie tax payers paying to raise their children.)

Laurie said...

I thought you answered your own question with your links. Somali families tend to be large. I don't think you can change a culture over night. So is your idea to put large families into the street rather than offer them subsidized housing?

John said...

Is your answer to keep raising taxes on people with no or few children so they can help pay for the children of irresponsible parents who have more children than they can afford?

John said...

So about how many kids per family?
6, 10,

Laurie said...

I really don't know the average # of children. One family I work with has 3 children, another family has 4 children, another 2 kids. I think many families are larger than this. Some Somali staff have 3, 4 or 5 children.

I think the current safety net is adequate to subsidize housing for large families with no need to turn kids out into the street.

jerrye92002 said...

John, you're worse than I am. "How many children should a family be allowed to have"?? Really? A family should be allowed to have as many kids as they want, so long as they are responsible for them-- food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care. It is absolutely none of my business, and it should not be any of government's business "on my behalf," either. It should be made clear, by "society" and by government that there will be NO help for you if you get yourself and your kids into dire straits because of stupid decisions you made. YOU work it out.

Now if it is through no (or limited) fault of your own, ask a private charity for temporary help while you work through it. If you really don't know what to do, I can see government paying to counsel you and explain about the reality that you need to work and earn enough to take care of your kids. Maybe you have to move the whole brood in with Mom for a while; it's your responsibility. As a next-to-last resort, maybe we get you some temporary financial assistance, so long as you are making the effort, and as a LAST resort, if you refuse, we give the kids a better home, at least for a while. All of this is simple compassion and humanity, with elements of "tough love," but that is what is essential to preserving our society, economy and humanity. It's a long ways from where we are and the transition BACK will be difficult, but it needs to start. Mandating "good jobs" and "living wages" is just going further in the wrong direction.

Think about this: American workers PLUS capital investment can compete in the world market with anybody. But when you give people benefits for NOT working, or mandate pay that is above the value of what they produce, you reduce the availability of the capital needed for the US to compete and pay those generous wages. Other nations ought to be afraid that we will "get our act together" and all start working.

John said...

Jerry, you really should read my comments more carefully... I said how many... "If they are on government assistance"...

Remember that I am more libertarian than most GOP folks.

jerrye92002 said...

I somewhat regret that comment because it might be perceived as an insult, but it was simply an observation from a more "liberal" point of view. And your clarification that you are libertarian makes it worse. No libertarian would tolerate government interference in the most basic right to "life" for one's offspring. Now if what you meant was "no payment for children /conceived/ while on welfare" I would agree with you. It should never have been otherwise, and welfare should never have been allowed to become a lifestyle. A libertarian stance, in my opinion, is exactly where I started, which is that you are responsible for yourself and your kids, period. My "compassionate conservative" approach would allow that some people need to be "straightened out" and that private charity or government could offer that training/counseling/encouragement, but without regular, ongoing financial assistance. And I'll even allow that some sort of ongoing assistance might be necessary during the (possibly long) transition out of the current welfare mess that has created excess dependency. It doesn't start with good-paying jobs; it starts with people gaining job skills and then looking for work. Full employment, without the drag of the non-productive, will raise wages and wealth soon enough.

Laurie said...

so when I try to make sense of your libertarian views it seems to me if you were in charge Minnesota would not be welcoming any large Somali refuge families who have no way to survive when first moving here other than through "welfare" programs.

I have recently put my name on the wait list for a book discussed on NPR called City of Thorns, about life for Somali's in the world's largest refuge camp. Clearly we are not going to help all 300,000 refugees, but I think we have the capacity to help some.

John said...

No insult taken, I just thought it was amusing when you say almost the same thing.

"A family should be allowed to have as many kids as they want, so long as they are responsible for them-- food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care."

That "so long as they are responsible for them" is quite the exception. And then to follow it up with "My "compassionate conservative" approach would allow that some people need to be "straightened out" and that private charity or government could offer that training/counseling/encouragement, but without regular, ongoing financial assistance."

Now you say that you care for the "unlucky kids" yet you would cut off the "ongoing financial assistance' that helps keep them fed and housed.

Now my question is what are you willing to do to Parents who have kids that they can not afford? Preferably something that does not punish the innocent children...

Every time I talk about punishing such Parents or holding them accountable in anyway, you fight against the concept. Remember some of my favorites:
- Teachers grade Parents and society takes action.
- Welfare family has baby and society takes action.

That action could be mandatory parental training, removal of child(ren) from home. forced adoptions, etc. Now what do you recommend that punishes or force trains the parents, without punishing the kids?

John said...

Laurie,
Or maybe we only help refugees who are willing to limit their family size to 1 or 2 children...

I don't know if you answered this question. "How many children should a family be allowed to have if they are on public assistance? (ie tax payers paying to raise their children.)"

The reality is that most citizens who choose to work to maintain 2 Parent homes and a good job(s) and 0 to 3 kids become pretty well off and end up paying a huge amount in taxes. Is it fair that they pay much more in taxes to subsidize those who make different lifestyle choices?

John said...

Laurie,
Now I perceive that it is the right of someone in America to be guaranteed housing, healthcare, food, clothing, etc no matter if the choices they make or effort they show. Is this correct?

Do you also believe that people should have the right to procreate as many dependents as they want no matter the choices they make or effort they show?

In my view being part of a functioning society comes with both benefits and responsibilities. What do you think people must be required to do to be a responsible part of our society? Or do they just need to live within the borders of our country?

Laurie said...

I view it as more of a goal that everyone has access to housing, food, and healthcare, which we come close to meeting but still fall short, especially on healthcare and housing.

As for requiring people to use contraception to receive welfare benefits how would this work? Would they pick up their welfare check at planned parenthood only after they had received a birth control shot or other form of longlasting contraception?

I don't agree with this approach and would be more in favor of making access to contraception free and educating people about alternatives and benefits. I might be persuaded to go along with extra benefits for recipients who participate in family planning.

I am guesing that women in the refugee camp don't have access to contraception, but I could be wrong about this.

John said...

Ah... But they would have access to healthcare when they got here...

John said...

"that everyone has access to housing, food, and healthcare"

So again, does that everyone really include everyone???

Even those who choose to not work, choose to not learn, choose to become addicted, choose to have more children than they can afford, choose to illegally enter our country, choose to not conform to American social norms, etc???

jerrye92002 said...

"Now you say that you care for the 'unlucky kids' yet you would cut off the "ongoing financial assistance' that helps keep them fed and housed."

You've put your finger on the problem. This formulation only works after you START making people responsible for their choices by simply not subsidizing the poor choices. Our current welfare system seems to subsidize bad choices and ignore, if not discourage, good choices. We have built up a HUGE reservoir of bad choices and their aftermath that needs to be "cleaned up." But imagine if welfare moms (or potential welfare moms) were told, "have another child and your benefits do not go up"? Do you think they would be discouraged from having more children out of wedlock? Or if "baby daddies" were routinely made responsible for their kids? If in the meantime Mom was "encouraged" to find work by a short-term and a lifetime limit on benefits but with education and job training and childcare available, do you think she would see the necessity of doing so? Sure, it has to start with "tough love" on the parents, but that kind of "natural consequences" act as a great incentive for better choices. And just like the case of choices in education, you don't take harsher action until after you offer folks real choices.

John said...

Now what you are proposing may work if these folks were mature educated responsible self disciplined adult self starters. Of course if they were, they likely would not be in the place they are...

And as Sean has mentioned before, apparently constraints are already in place. Link 2

Or according to this article, he may be wrong in most states.

John said...

And if that irresponsible "Baby Mama" or "Baby Daddy" keep being irresponsible by making more babies they can not afford... Are you really okay with withholding funding that would feed the innocent baby?

And do you really think what you propose will "start with "tough love" on the parents" only?

Pull your head out of the sand... If you cut funding to the household, you punish the children...

John said...

And what about this? "you don't take harsher action until after you offer folks real choices."

Are you trying to back track on your statements that having sex is a choice?

The reality is that these folks have many choices already thanks to the celibacy choice, Planned Parenthood and similar organizations, abortion being allowed in the USA, adoption being available, etc. How many choices do you want before you agree with tougher actions to protect the kids?

jerrye92002 said...

Wow. I looked at both of those cites, and the one thing that just jumps out of the text is the unbelievable stupidity of the welfare system. The debate over whether women who have additional children while on welfare should get additional benefits or not should NOT be about whether she should or shouldn't get more benefits, or whether she is "gaming the system" if she does. The question should be HOW that is physically possible!! She is receiving benefits because there is no "man in the house" to provide for the family. But if she has another child, there was most assuredly a man in the house someplace along the line! That child is THEIR responsibility, not the taxpayer's!

Instead, the welfare system either flatly denies extra benefits, or ignores biology and provides them. BOTH are wrong because they are simply rules that are imposed, never a "choice" that is explained and understood long beforehand, with alternatives (like naming the Baby Daddy or even getting married) offered.

In a way, what you are proposing, "Are you really okay with withholding funding that would feed the innocent baby?" is a false choice. I'm not withholding funding from the baby. I am proposing making the parents responsible for the baby before and after conception, and drilling that into their heads by strong "tough love" enforcement and available alternatives, like having a menial job just to keep the child fed. Look, I don't want to be taking away every kid whose folks fall on hard times, even through bad decisions. I want to prevent as many bad decisions as possible by holding out the stick for the bad one and reward for the good ones. Then we need to find a way to start correcting all of the past bad decisions made because of our massively failed welfare system. Let's not confuse what welfare should have been doing all along with how we get from where that has led us to where we need to be.

John said...

The reality is a poor woman gets pregnant, and she is struggling to get by due to her past irresponsible choices. (ie maybe no HS degree, addiction, bad taste in men, etc) Then the baby arrives who requires child care and drives a lot of extra expense...

Now you can say the following all day long and yet it still will not be true. "I'm not withholding funding from the baby."

The only way to punish and hold the Parents accountable without punishing the baby is to isolate the baby from the situation...

jerrye92002 said...

That's an interesting turn of phrase, using the passive voice, "a poor woman gets pregnant..." How do these things happen??? Is no one actually responsible for this situation? How does that one poor choice suddenly make the rest of us responsible for the outcome, in any way? Why do you insist that one poor choice cannot be remedied without harsh measures that cost families and society so much, and for a lifetime? "Tough love" isn't intended to be brutal and unforgiving. And it's cheap.

John said...

Please explain this cheap "tough love" that will work?

Please remember that the mother:
- earns around minimum wage or somewhat more
- likely has low academic capability
- is likely not fully mature / responsible
- needs to care for the baby or pay for daycare
- needs to pay for baby food, diapers
- needs to pay for baby healthcare
- needs to sleep

From my view you are the one recommending "harsh measures" that will make the baby suffer for the poor choices made by the parents. (ie cutting subsidies that hopefully go to caring for the baby/child)

Personally I like the forced adoption concept... If you don't have money to raise your child, someone else can. That way the baby is cared for and the Parents lose out. Now that is what I call tough love.

John said...

"How does that one poor choice suddenly make the rest of us responsible for the outcome, in any way?"

Based on your support of Ohio cutting the funding of Planned Parenthood, it seems you want to take responsibility for the fetus... At least until it is born, then you want to walk away and give the screaming hungry baby back to the Mother.

jerrye92002 said...

" it seems you want to take responsibility for the fetus... At least until it is born"

If necessary to save the life of the child, yes, but the responsibility for conceiving the child and for subsequently bringing the child to term AND its care until maturity still lie strictly with the parents. They can always CHOOSE to give the child up for adoption, and if they PROVE to be totally incapable parents, even after all the help and guidance "we" provide, then and only then do we remove the child by force. Making "us" responsible under any other circumstance means "somebody else," usually, not the one demanding that government FORCE the parents to do better, under penalty of having their child taken away.

And you're completely missing the point. The idea of "tough love" is based on "natural consequences," something that was once well understood. If you got a girl pregnant, you had to marry her. Your alternatives were to pay for her abortion (highly frowned upon) or skip town. Her alternatives were to "go visit her aunt" (Florence Crittendon) for a time and come home with a new baby sister or to give the child up before returning. Since government has interfered in those natural consequences and passes out welfare willy nilly, these natural consequences no longer follow. They need to be restored-- the tough love part-- in the hopes of PREVENTING the mess we now find ourselves in. We have to stop making matters worse. THEN we can start addressing the mess government has created.

John said...

Again you are assuming that the young Mother has a capable familial support system to help care for the unplanned baby and her...

And you are pretending that the Baby Daddy men have some amount of dignity and a sense of personal responsibility. Remember the Baby Daddy in this video...

Are you living in the days of "Father Knows Best"?

John said...

"If necessary to save the life of the child, yes, but the responsibility for conceiving the child and for subsequently bringing the child to term AND its care until maturity still lie strictly with the parents."

So let me get this straight, you are happy to encourage big government to get between this woman and her doctor to prevent an abortion. And yet after the baby is born you are against government ensuring that the baby is kept safe, healthy, fed and educated...

Because that is the Parent's responsibility... You want to trust the life of that baby with the same irresponsible Parents who conceived it while out of wedlock and broke...

Our is it because blocking abortion costs you nothing... While ensuring every baby is raised well does cost tax dollars.

jerrye92002 said...

First, this: "A multi-year research project was just completed by our friends at the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) regarding the work requirements established in 2013 for able-bodied childless adults who receive food stamps in Kansas. The results of the new work requirement? “More employment, higher incomes, and less poverty. And, the higher income more than offset lost benefits, providing a boost to economic activity.”

Gee, government "encouraging" good choices that turns out better for everybody. Huh.

jerrye92002 said...

"So let me get this straight, you are happy to encourage big government to get between this woman and her doctor to prevent an abortion. And yet after the baby is born you are against government ensuring that the baby is kept safe, healthy, fed and educated..."

OK, let's DO get it straight. I am happy to get government between the woman and her viable baby to prevent a murder. I am not happy to pay for the murder if it occurs earlier than that. Since I did not partake in the conception, it's not my responsibility, as an individual or as a taxpayer, to pay for it. I don't say she can't have it (early), but I would hope with some realistic "choices" presented-- informed consent, like for any other surgery.

After the birth, I am against government throwing money at bad choices without "encouraging" good ones that would be better for everybody. [Far from the system we have and have had, thus creating the problem, but we have to start doing it right, at some point.] I do favor government ensuring babies aren't neglected or harmed, but we already have criminal laws for that. I am against government do-gooders and bureaucrats making such determinations whimsically, prejudicially and pre-emptively.

jerrye92002 said...

"And you are pretending that the Baby Daddy men have some amount of dignity and a sense of personal responsibility."

Not at all. I am saying that they presently have none because the government, acting for society in general, has allowed them to escape all such responsibility. (Dignity I don't care about; they're dogs.) If government law said that women must name the father to get welfare, and that the father had financial responsibility first, I'm sure that would change. And women would be less likely to participate knowing he was a worthless bum. Maybe not quickly, maybe not ever completely, but a definite step in the right direction. Just a matter of government "encouraging good choices" and leaving taxpayers out of the subsidization of bad ones.

jerrye92002 said...

"Our [sic] is it because blocking abortion costs you nothing... While ensuring every baby is raised well does cost tax dollars."

Well, since paying for PP to do abortions costs me something, I assume a ban would cost me less. But the same would be true if women paid for their own abortions, would it not? In fact, enforcing an outright ban on abortions might cost me more than simply keeping taxpayer money out of it, so I think I'll settle in the "middle," here, where everybody is responsible for themselves first.

What's really baffling is how "ensuring every baby... is raised well" costs me anything at all? Certainly it's not my responsibility. And do you believe that the government, acting on my behalf with my tax dollars, is performing that function? What's wrong with making people responsible for their own kids, and helping/"encouraging" them to do that well?