Posts: 300
Threads: 146
Joined: May 2016
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...ign=buffer
Quote:In nearly half of two-parent households in the U.S. today, children are raised by parents who both work full time. Yet most Americans say that children with two parents are better off when one of them stays home to tend to the family, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
The survey, conducted June 7-July 5 among 4,602 adults on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, found that 59% of U.S. adults believe that children with two parents are better off when a parent stays home, while about four-in-ten (39%) say children are just as well off when their parents work outside the home...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...ign=buffer
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(10-15-2016, 05:55 PM)Dan Wrote: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...ign=buffer
Quote:In nearly half of two-parent households in the U.S. today, children are raised by parents who both work full time. Yet most Americans say that children with two parents are better off when one of them stays home to tend to the family, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
The survey, conducted June 7-July 5 among 4,602 adults on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, found that 59% of U.S. adults believe that children with two parents are better off when a parent stays home, while about four-in-ten (39%) say children are just as well off when their parents work outside the home...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...ign=buffer
When I see polls like that, I always wonder how many of the participants have no children and are thus voicing an uninformed opinion.
I am not a big fan of day care - in which category I place public schools - but grandparents and other forms of in home child care can be pretty good, in my opinion. A stay at home parent might be even better, all other things being equal, but giving up one income means that other things are decidedly not equal.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
We have a paradox: a parent in the home is better for the child, but the parent who gets stuck with a child due to long-term unemployment is often someone inept at things other than paid work. The really-good mother is desirable as an employee, but the bad one is often unable to hold a job.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
I am bothered by the claims that "day care" is bad for children. My daughter thrived in day care. It exposed her to other children and it made the time that I spent with her special. I can say the same regarding all of my nieces and nephews, now all grown, who are successful adults, most in good stable relationships (the exception is my 24-year-old nephew, who is still in the process of "adulting".
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(10-17-2016, 11:11 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: I am bothered by the claims that "day care" is bad for children. My daughter thrived in day care. It exposed her to other children and it made the time that I spent with her special. I can say the same regarding all of my nieces and nephews, now all grown, who are successful adults, most in good stable relationships (the exception is my 24-year-old nephew, who is still in the process of "adulting".
As with schooling, good day care can do wonders. But if it should be inadequate it can do great harm. We still under-spend on education for the kids who need it the most (the poor) or have such nightmarish institutions as the Detroit Independent School District that gets huge amounts of money, spends it recklessly, and gets a poor result due to corruption. Liquor on the expense account of school administrators? Seminars on educational techniques in Hawaii? Really!
The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
You didn't expect her to watch reruns of Downton Abbey, did you? Or have her kids listening to Beethoven's piano sonatas, did you? If her ideal is to expose her kids to life-enriching experiences she can do so more effectively in three hours in the evening than my stereotype can do in twelve. If she wants to expose kids to great art, music, and drama, maybe she should be a teacher.
(We really need to go to the 6-hour workday because about two hours of the 8-hour workday are typically wasted on office politics).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(10-17-2016, 11:11 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: I am bothered by the claims that "day care" is bad for children. My daughter thrived in day care. It exposed her to other children and it made the time that I spent with her special. I can say the same regarding all of my nieces and nephews, now all grown, who are successful adults, most in good stable relationships (the exception is my 24-year-old nephew, who is still in the process of "adulting".
I think an issue is that a lot of parents cannot afford GOOD daycare, one parent staying at home often ends up cheaper than paying for daycare that isn't undertrained, abusive, or neglectful.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(10-17-2016, 03:21 PM)taramarie Wrote: (10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (10-17-2016, 11:11 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: I am bothered by the claims that "day care" is bad for children. My daughter thrived in day care. It exposed her to other children and it made the time that I spent with her special. I can say the same regarding all of my nieces and nephews, now all grown, who are successful adults, most in good stable relationships (the exception is my 24-year-old nephew, who is still in the process of "adulting".
As with schooling, good day care can do wonders. But if it should be inadequate it can do great harm. We still under-spend on education for the kids who need it the most (the poor) or have such nightmarish institutions as the Detroit Independent School District that gets huge amounts of money, spends it recklessly, and gets a poor result due to corruption. Liquor on the expense account of school administrators? Seminars on educational techniques in Hawaii? Really!
The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
You didn't expect her to watch reruns of Downton Abbey, did you? Or have her kids listening to Beethoven's piano sonatas, did you? If her ideal is to expose her kids to life-enriching experiences she can do so more effectively in three hours in the evening than my stereotype can do in twelve. If she wants to expose kids to great art, music, and drama, maybe she should be a teacher.
(We really need to go to the 6-hour workday because about two hours of the 8-hour workday are typically wasted on office politics).
Be careful Pbrower. My mother raised me all on her own with no help from my asshole runaway father who should be the target of your scorn than the parent who bloody well stuck around and cared for their child. My mother could not get a job because of the law against her to leave me on my own. It was illegal. I pretty much destroyed the good part of her adult life because she had to care for me and she had to rely on welfare because at the time she could not get work because of that law. Daycare is expensive for a single mother just scraping by on welfare. Yes, be careful. Be VERY CAREFUL. I admire my mother for what she had to go through.
If your mother wasn't one "who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children", then she isn't one of those he's talking about. There are, however, many in the U.S. who fit that definition and choose welfare even though they are allowed to work.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
To be honest, it just seems stupid to prohibit parents from working when their kids are at school.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Some people transcend the difficulties of life. Some difficulties overpower people. With those difficulties that don't completely destroy just about everyone, the ability of people to transcend those difficulties may matter more than the difficulties. Congratulations, taramarie! The choice between welfare and hunger is one that I would choose easily in favor of welfare. Of course some well isolated from consequences and unable to feel guilt of their choices (someone else starves) find the choice easy.
Yes, the single mother is often the result of a runaway father, father cast out for good reason (like abuse) widowhood, or divorce. There may be no conscionable choice except welfare in some cases. Many jurisdictions have been going after the runaway father, only to find that there is nothing behind him. He may be at most a marginal and sporadic participant in the economy.
Crackdowns on welfare generally backfire, doing more harm to children on the edge than causing people to decide to work two jobs for bare sustenance (the usual objective of the economic Right in America). Creating a wholesome environment for one's children is itself a difficult effort, as much intellectual as economic.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
(10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
That stereotype is about 20 years out of date. The number of single mothers on welfare is vanishingly small these days. Cash benefits are time limited to 5 years nationally, and for 1-2 years in many states. Welfare reform, coupled with work supports such as expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, was very successful in moving single mothers to work; they now work at the same rate as single childless women. Moreover, even if one is destitute because one can't find or keep a job, it can be extremely hard to actually access any cash benefits. Just read Kathryn Edin's book "$2 a Day: Living Almost Nothing in America" at http://www.twodollarsaday.com/.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(10-18-2016, 02:26 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
That stereotype is about 20 years out of date. The number of single mothers on welfare is vanishingly small these days. Cash benefits are time limited to 5 years nationally, and for 1-2 years in many states. Welfare reform, coupled with work supports such as expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, was very successful in moving single mothers to work; they now work at the same rate as single childless women. Moreover, even if one is destitute because one can't find or keep a job, it can be extremely hard to actually access any cash benefits. Just read Kathryn Edin's book "$2 a Day: Living Almost Nothing in America" at http://www.twodollarsaday.com/.
Limiting the analysis to cash benefits leads to a misleading conclusion. The Clinton era welfare reforms did limit cash benefits, but they have just been replaced by increases in other forms of benefits such as section 8 housing and food stamps.
More than 8 million children with single mothers get food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...aphic1.jpg
That's the opposite of "vanishingly small".
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(10-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (10-18-2016, 02:26 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
That stereotype is about 20 years out of date. The number of single mothers on welfare is vanishingly small these days. Cash benefits are time limited to 5 years nationally, and for 1-2 years in many states. Welfare reform, coupled with work supports such as expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, was very successful in moving single mothers to work; they now work at the same rate as single childless women. Moreover, even if one is destitute because one can't find or keep a job, it can be extremely hard to actually access any cash benefits. Just read Kathryn Edin's book "$2 a Day: Living Almost Nothing in America" at http://www.twodollarsaday.com/.
Limiting the analysis to cash benefits leads to a misleading conclusion. The Clinton era welfare reforms did limit cash benefits, but they have just been replaced by increases in other forms of benefits such as section 8 housing and food stamps.
More than 8 million children with single mothers get food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...aphic1.jpg
That's the opposite of "vanishingly small".
The vast majority of people on food stamps have a job, so if you are trying to imply that these people are lazy and unwilling to look for work you are wrong.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(10-19-2016, 07:09 AM)Odin Wrote: (10-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (10-18-2016, 02:26 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
That stereotype is about 20 years out of date. The number of single mothers on welfare is vanishingly small these days. Cash benefits are time limited to 5 years nationally, and for 1-2 years in many states. Welfare reform, coupled with work supports such as expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, was very successful in moving single mothers to work; they now work at the same rate as single childless women. Moreover, even if one is destitute because one can't find or keep a job, it can be extremely hard to actually access any cash benefits. Just read Kathryn Edin's book "$2 a Day: Living Almost Nothing in America" at http://www.twodollarsaday.com/.
Limiting the analysis to cash benefits leads to a misleading conclusion. The Clinton era welfare reforms did limit cash benefits, but they have just been replaced by increases in other forms of benefits such as section 8 housing and food stamps.
More than 8 million children with single mothers get food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...aphic1.jpg
That's the opposite of "vanishingly small".
The vast majority of people on food stamps have a job, so if you are trying to imply that these people are lazy and unwilling to look for work you are wrong.
I notice you have no figures or references to back you up there. At any rate, the assertion being rebutted is about how many single mothers are "on welfare", not whether they have a job. Some have a job, some don't.
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
(10-19-2016, 08:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (10-19-2016, 07:09 AM)Odin Wrote: (10-18-2016, 04:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (10-18-2016, 02:26 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: (10-17-2016, 12:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The single mother collecting welfare (yes, this is a stereotype, but there are people who fit this pattern, and I know some people who fit the stereotype) who vegetates in front of an idiot screen while getting fat on junk food with little more to offer her children is far worse than what daycare has to offer. She might as well get a job in retail, domestic service, sweatshop manufacturing, or farm labor, and have her kids get some organized play and a little learning in day care. At least she will have a little more money to spend on hair-dressing and clothes... better this than exposing her kids to reality television in which a man calls his wife a slut and throws a chair at her boyfriend.
That stereotype is about 20 years out of date. The number of single mothers on welfare is vanishingly small these days. Cash benefits are time limited to 5 years nationally, and for 1-2 years in many states. Welfare reform, coupled with work supports such as expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, was very successful in moving single mothers to work; they now work at the same rate as single childless women. Moreover, even if one is destitute because one can't find or keep a job, it can be extremely hard to actually access any cash benefits. Just read Kathryn Edin's book "$2 a Day: Living Almost Nothing in America" at http://www.twodollarsaday.com/.
Limiting the analysis to cash benefits leads to a misleading conclusion. The Clinton era welfare reforms did limit cash benefits, but they have just been replaced by increases in other forms of benefits such as section 8 housing and food stamps.
More than 8 million children with single mothers get food stamps:
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census...aphic1.jpg
That's the opposite of "vanishingly small".
The vast majority of people on food stamps have a job, so if you are trying to imply that these people are lazy and unwilling to look for work you are wrong.
I notice you have no figures or references to back you up there. At any rate, the assertion being rebutted is about how many single mothers are "on welfare", not whether they have a job. Some have a job, some don't.
I've got some statistics. From the report, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2014, table A.16 shows that 5.6 million households were headed by a single parent and children. Of these, 2.3 million had earned income (someone in the household worked), 963,000 had zero cash income of any type, and only 877,000 were receiving cash welfare benefits. Many of the remainder were receiving disability or Social Security survivor's benefits. The source is http://www.fns.usda.gov and click on "research". The report with 2015 data is in clearance and will be released next month.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities ( http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/...s-sec2.pdf), housing subsidies reach about 4.8 million households, which is only one-quarter the number eligible. Since many housing subsidies are targeted to the elderly and disabled, it probably serves fewer single-parent families, although this is speculation on my part.
In any case, food stamps alleviates hunger but it does not pay rent, provide shoes for the kids, or fix the broken brakes on the car so that single Mom can get to her job.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Raising a child to be a competent adult is a legitimate activity. What says that the welfare system couldn't give bigger incentives for doing better for one's kids? Maybe you want Mommy to watch Sesame Street with her kids and react to it instead of watching some reality TV. Maybe you want her to take her child on an outing to the zoo. Music lessons? Expensive -- but well worth the cost, in view of what music lessons do for later performance in mathematics and science.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
