A 124 Hour Work Week???

[jillian]

First of all, I stated that, if they want what is best for the child and themselves, it is something that should be considered. More often than not, things don't get better for people in the type of situation we are discussing. More often than not, the result of these type of situations is a continuing cycle of poverty, handed down from generation to generation.

I think it unreasonable. But that's just me. I also think it's better for the children to be with the parent.

As for putting her (and it could just as easily be a his) kid(s) with strangers, I would suggest that the first option would be to approach family, see if someone in the family can care for the kids until such a time the individual in question is on his or her feet and can care for them. It would beat the hell out of having them ripped from the arms of the parent by Child Services and being put in foster care. How many wind up on the streets? Homeless? Would it not be preferable for the children to be in a home? Even if they are with strangers?

While it could be a *his*, it couldn't just as easily be a *his* because the reality is that its women who get left with the kids. And even if a man gets left with the kids, he probably hasn't interrupted his work life to have and raise them, so he wouldn't be in the same financial situation. And no one rips the kids out of the arms of the parent because of poverty. That's why we have a social safety net.

For the record, I was kicking no one, while up or down. That's not my game. Quite frankly, I don't care what they do. It's their life, not mine. Their kids, not mine. As I stated previously, I can only make decisions for me and mine, and where my kids are concerned, I only want what is best for them with no regard for myself.

I don't think you'd give up your children just because you were poor.

And what percentage of that 50% come from homes that also had a single parent? What percentage are the result of unprotected sex with a boyfriend? what percentage are teenagers?

That's a reasonable question, but the report specifically said that divorce was the cause, which means married, two parent home.

 

[Shattered]

Umm.. I think that figure refers to renting a 2 bedroom apartment, not a house.

So now I guess you're next statement will be "anyone making minimum wage should not have children"?

Bingo. If you can't even afford an apartment, you SURE as hell can't afford children.

Want to make more than minimum wage? Then do it.

 

[hjmick]

I think it unreasonable. But that's just me. I also think it's better for the children to be with the parent.

I don't think it is unreasonable, necessarily, but I would agree that it is less than desirable. By no stretch of the imagination is there a simple remedy for a situation such as this.

While it could be a *his*, it couldn't just as easily be a *his* because the reality is that its women who get left with the kids. And even if a man gets left with the kids, he probably hasn't interrupted his work life to have and raise them, so he wouldn't be in the same financial situation. And no one rips the kids out of the arms of the parent because of poverty. That's why we have a social safety net.

Damn it, I got nothing. You're right.

I don't think you'd give up your children just because you were poor.

It wouldn't be my first choice, no. However, were the situation desperate enough, and if I was unable to adequately provide for the health and well being of my kids, I think it might be a consideration. Luckily, I'll never have to find out. Now, my wife's daughter is another story...

That's a reasonable question, but the report specifically said that divorce was the cause, which means married, two parent home.

Okay, we're good.

 

[Alpha1]

Strawman bullshit to perpetuate a lie.....

 

[Zoomie1980]

That's what it would take for a NJ resident making minimum wage to afford the average two-bedroom rental in that State



(More)

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/n_j_rental_housing_remains_ver.html

So what? Most minimum wage jobs are teenagers flipping burgers. In fact, at least here, even burger flippers make more than minimum wage (going rate is $8.50 hr).

"Minimum Wage" was NEVER intended to support single wage earner FAMILIES.

It use to be in the Marine Corps an enlisted man was FORBIDDEN by regulation to marry under the rank of E-4 because the Corps did not want its young troops to be distracted by providing for families at their income level before learning to be functional Marines.

Minimum Wage is mostly for TEENAGERS and for people getting out of PRISON to work themselves back into functional society. If you have NO SKILLS you have NO BUSINESS having children and taking on additional responsibilities in life when you can't even provide for yourself yet!!!!

Bottom line, SELF RESPONSIBILITY!!! Do you get that concept? Why do you bring a child into this world when you can't even feed yourself? Whose fault is that? Why is that MY problem again????

 

[Zoomie1980]

maaaybe when they started seeing those solid job opportunities shipped to india and replaced with low end service jobs...


not to be contentious but these are the types of jobs that were paraded around during the last 3 years as evidence of a stable economy despite where we all knew we were heading, yes?

Uhhh... going rate for call center "agents" $9.50hr....well above min wage. I know of no jobs here that even pay min wage...even teenager stock boys at HyVee.....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Umm.. I think that figure refers to renting a 2 bedroom apartment, not a house.

So now I guess you're next statement will be "anyone making minimum wage should not have children"?

I'll say that with absolute conviction. You don't bring children into this world you cannot hope to care for, PERIOD. The only one's you hurt by doing so, are the starving babies you sire....

 

[Zoomie1980]

And if they drop out of the work force or school to have children, then hubby runs off and they have to get the only job they can do, which is probably a minimum wage job, should they then give up the kids?

And where was their character judgment in picking their hubby? And why did they not take the tough courses in high school? Why did they get married and have kids before they finished college or developed a marketable skill of their own so they could support themselves?

Sorry, but but TOUGH SHIT LADY, you were STUPID, so now you HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!

The greatest service I EVER did for my daughter was to burn into her mind that she was to NEVER EVER depend on a man to provide for her and to NEVER bear a child until she was able to support that child ON HER OWN if she had to. I raised and INDEPENDENT young woman who now has a masters degree and at 24 a 50k+ a year job so she can AFFORD a kid if she wants to have one REGARDLESS of whatever the man does that impregnates her....

 

[Zoomie1980]

First of all thinking people should give up their children is silly. And you do realize that you're suggesting that this person who's ex left her in the lurch with the kids should now put those kids with strangers and ruin what's left of her life... because her job doesn't pay a living wage????

I'm afraid I couldn't get behind that since I'm not into kicking people when they're down.

All I'll finish by saying is that more than 50% of the cause of people being on public assistance is women finding themselves alone with the kids.

This is the classic liberal disconnect. The issue here is WHY THE HELL she have a kid BEFORE she could feed the thing? WHY!!!

Why is it ok for a man to father brats and run off. that's what most LOW LIFE men do!!! And we all place blame, rightfully, on them. But what about these IDIOT women who spread their legs willing for these LOSERS???? Where is THEIR responsibility???? Where???

Why didn't she FINISH school before having kids? Why did she have such horrible judgment in picking a mate?

Does she not understand the concept of birth control pills?

Sorry "cookie" but there's a major level of PERSONAL RESPONSILBILITY that falls SQUARLEY on the SHOULDERS of the WOMAN here. Sorry, but her BAD CHOICES are not MY problem. Lord knows, I have enough problems of my own creation to deal with....namely twin 16 year old teenage boys.....

 

[Zoomie1980]

I think it unreasonable. But that's just me. I also think it's better for the children to be with the parent.

The reality is, that in most cases....it is NOT. The parent is typically utterly DYSFUNCTIONAL and will ALWAYS be that way. Society is finally beginning to realize that a biological connection is not particularly meaningful at all. I can't seem to count the number of adoptive parents who have provided great homes for many of these kids only have the dysfunctional biological parent show up and ruin everything. Most courts are finally beginning to shun the biological preference....thank God.

While it could be a *his*, it couldn't just as easily be a *his* because the reality is that its women who get left with the kids. And even if a man gets left with the kids, he probably hasn't interrupted his work life to have and raise them, so he wouldn't be in the same financial situation. And no one rips the kids out of the arms of the parent because of poverty. That's why we have a social safety net.

To a point. The reality is most foster homes, as tough as many may be, they are usually much better than deplorable conditions of the biological parental home that got these kids into their horrible state to begin with

I don't think you'd give up your children just because you were poor.

I many cases...it is the RIGHT thing to do.. for the child. There so many capable adoptive parents out there now that these hapless biological dead beats cannot hope to provide for their kids the way these adoptive parents could.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

One thing our government (at the Federal level) really needs to do is to shut down the "less than full time" benefits loophole. This is how big companies (i.e. Wal-Mart) get around paying benefits to their employees.

What we need to shut down is our convoluted tax code.

That's why we have the completely illogical system of health insurance paid for by employers, as opposed to just giving employees a bigger lump sum of cash and letting them get their own insurance, just like with car insurance and house insurance.