« Obama + Chicago + Olympics = FAILCharlie Rangel - The Obvious Elite »

Birth Rates by Income

10/01/09 | by Jim [mail] | Categories: Rants and Raves

There has been a follow up post. Original follows.

A situation somewhat close to me brought me to question this. A woman I know of, on welfare, has six children. One of those children, a 17 year old girl, already has two children of her own. Obviously those are also both on welfare. There are no signs this will stop anytime soon.

There is very little talk of this on the net that I can see, which really surprises me. This discussion is obviously very important to have. Here is a bit of what I was able to find:

Birth Rate 3X Higher for Women Receiving Welfare

For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women).

If people on welfare or in the lowest income brackets are producing the most children, we are on a dangerous road. It is guaranteed, not likely, guaranteed that this trend will lead to a complete failure of our social and economic system. Those of us who make money and can sustain our own lives can only take on so much of a burden. At some point, more and more of us will fall below the black line into the red, as the increase of these governmental dependents cause tax hikes that exceed our ability to pay.

Someone, somewhere, has to start talking about the real issues here. The mathematical, logistical issues. Caring about people is very important, but the poor have a responsibility to care about others as much as those who can fend for themselves do. Reality is not capable of being circumvented by an emotional need for things to be OK. We need a strong, courageous, intelligent, intellectually honest, charismatic man or woman, and we need them fast.

1 comment

Comment from: Rob [Visitor] Email
A somewhat controversial idea of mine, is that any genes which are good for success (whatever that is) - perhaps relating to IQ, attention span, aggression, etc - will gradually float to the top of the social hierarchy, whereas genes that are bad for success will sink to the bottom where fertility rates are higher. In other words, one might expect to find a higher concentration of "bad genes" thriving in low income areas. There are obviously many exceptions to this however, but I'm not sure if the gene pool is sufficiently "well stirred" enough to negate the effect entirely. Regardless of whether this is true or not, I don't think I want to live in a world where something is actually done about it, as any solution would likely be at odds with my liberal ideals, but a part of me worries about what this may lead to over time. Economic catastrophe is merely a short-term concern.
02/02/10 @ 21:21

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
To use reCAPTCHA you must get an API key from http://recaptcha.net/api/getkey