A little discussed problem in the United States, but one which causes most of society’s ills, is out of wedlock births. We know a lot about the statistics surrounding this, but little in the way of policy remedies have been promoted. There are a number of reasons for this. One is religious; certain religions would prefer that unwed moms have their babies. Some are racial; it is pretty well established that minorities have an even higher rate of unwed births than do whites. But anything that targets these populations is bound to meet with a thunderous political opposition.
First, let’s look at some of the problems these kids are likely to have. Well, we know that more than half the kids born to women under 30 are not within marriage. These kids are much more likely to be poor, fail in school, and have behavioral or emotional problems that plague them throughout their unproductive lives. Even when the parents live together outside of marriage, these living arrangements dissolve much more often than does marriage. When the kids grow up, they are much more likely to drop out of high school. Finding legitimate avenues of employment closed, they are much more likely to turn to crime and become incarcerated. Their entire lives they are likely to be a drain upon our nation’s resources, offering little to the rest of us in return.
When older or better educated people start families, they are much more likely to do so the traditional way; get married, then have kids. Those younger people who decide to have kids are much more likely to be poor already. Many of them come from single parent homes themselves, where the grandmothers-to-be work at awful jobs, when they work at all. They are unable to provide the emotional sustenance teenaged girls need. So, the girls find succor with any guy willing to give them a whirl. Once the guy finds out that she’s pregnant, often he moves onto the next girl willing to have sex to forget her futureless life. The girl, for a little while after the baby is born, finds herself an object of glamour among her friends. When this wears off is around the same time she becomes bored with the tediousness of actually raising a child. So, she then decides to breed again to try to regain some of her allure.
Why are girls so willing to bed the nearest guy? Well, part of the problem, I think, is the high rate of incarcerated minority men. More African-American men under 30 are part of the penal system than are in college. Thus, in minority communities, it is relatively unlikely that a girl will find a guy with some future outside of crime. Relationships thus become much more transitory than permanent. Their kids end up being neglected, or at best, lack the drive to succeed in school. Since the mother had little education, and no success dependent upon it, she does not consider this a pathway to achievement that more accomplished parents do. So, the kid might as well play basketball 6 hours per day rather than study.
This section turned out to be longer than I anticipated. Next, I’ll discuss some policy solutions that might mitigate this problem.









January 21st, 2013 at 10:32 pm
…and it gets a thunderous ovation from Republicans. Remember Bristol Palin.
January 21st, 2013 at 11:49 pm
From the guy who voted for John Edwards.
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:10 am
I think that many of these young women are having babies in their teens because they are seeking love. Not from the baby’s father so much as from the baby itself. They’re hoping to be repaid in love once their children get old enough to communicate such.
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:56 am
“We know a lot about the statistics surrounding this, but little in the way of policy remedies have been promoted.”
Interesting statement…. the right is always complaining about “overregulation” and “government interference” but you want policy remedies on THIS issue? Actually, a couple of policy remedies have already been suggested. Better access to and education about birth control, for example.
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:35 pm
While at the same time Planned Parenthood is consistently trotted out as a place to cut spending even though it is not costly. One of the most blatant examples of “selective” spending cuts (consider Governor Perry’s defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas and the enormous unintended consequences of that action).
Defense cuts? Absolutely not.
Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, ADC, Pell Grants, PBS, Unemployment Benefits? Cut, cut, cut.
Still funding the building of tanks even the Army says it does not need (pork, anyone?), yet taking actions that eliminate healthcare for lower income women?
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:51 pm
“Still funding the building of tanks even the Army says it does not need (pork, anyone?), yet taking actions that eliminate healthcare for lower income women?”
Stupid argument from one whos obviously clueless to the monster growing around us.
Been to North Africa lately BUZZ !!!!
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:57 pm
“and it gets a thunderous ovation from Republicans. Remember Bristol Palin.”
Once again Thinker leaves his irrelevant paw print.
The only reason you brought up Bristol was to get your rocks off
January 22nd, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Arriba…
I’ll bet Barrys policies are enticing enough for any girl to get knocked up.
With the promise of big government holding our hands from cradle to grave its no wonder were not up to our eyeballs in Octomoms.
January 22nd, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I commented on this weeks ago about the Army saying “no thanks” to more tanks (something the Army is certainly “not” prone to do) as they have a desert full of them and no plans on either repairing those or needing new ones. unless of course the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor again.
Money, however, was still designated for new tanks (something about jobs in certain districts).
“Really, we don’t need the money”. “Ah, well, take it anyway”.
I have no idea how this is relevant to North Africa.
January 22nd, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Micky you are right. The main problems is our emerging culture of entitlement in which these women are enabled by liberal social programs to have babies. There is not a big enough penalty to pay for adding babies to poor family environments, in fact they are rewarded financially for it.
Bill Clinton’s best act was signing the welfare reform bill, which unfortunately has mostly been undone now. That was the right answer — motivating people to work rather than have more babies — by taking away the freebies.
January 22nd, 2013 at 6:52 pm
“I have no idea how this is relevant to North Africa.”
Then you have no business in political blogging.
I wont even dignify that level of idiocy with any kind of debate whatsoever.
January 22nd, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Are we entering a tank war in North Africa?
With whom?
Rommel?
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:06 pm
In the big picture tanks/military spending are just a gnat on the tip of the economic ice berg.
Dont worry Buzz, if theres any tanks to spare Obama will give them to The Muslim Brotherhood.
Al Queda is taking over N. Africa.
The Muslim brotherhood has taken over Egypt.
This not the time to military spending.
10 years ago we entered a war with an enemy that has no country, and that is anything but over.
Both Bush and Obama have said this will be a long war.
The only thing we can do is make the enemy uncomfortable wherever they go.
This will take time and additional funding when you compensate for inflation.
Focusing on one weapon such as tanks would be stupid when considering all the truths involved.
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:25 pm
So when would have been the time to cut defense spending?
According to the right the answer is never.
“Oh no, not now, there might be trouble”.
Supposedly we are extracting ourselves from two wars, but “not now”.
Unpaid police force of the world.
This puts us at an extreme economic disadvantage
We haven’t even begun to pay for our folly in Iraq.
The extended health benefits, both mental and physical will be extraordinary.
Healthcare funding? Of course not, but military spending? Yeah, no problem.
Backwards thinking.
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Military spending over the last 5 years.
2009-$782 billion
2010-$855 billion
2011-$838 billion
2012-$868 billion
2013-$851 billion
Are you kidding me?
The U.S. spends more on defense than anything else, including Social Security or Medicare. For FY 2013, the Federal government has budgeted $851 billion for security spending, more than the $820 billion requested for Social Security, or the $523 billion for Medicare.
Security spending includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingencies, and departments such as Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and the State Department. If there were no need for defense spending, the budget deficit would be reduced to a mere $50 billion.
No one is proposing we eliminate Defense, but the right complains about waste, I know from experience that the Defense Department are really poor shoppers.
I have mentioned my friend that turns an easy $400k a year selling fasteners (nuts and bolts) to the military out of an office in his garage.
The price he charges the Defense Dept. is 500% of what he bills General Motors. All it takes is copious amounts of paperwork and a little wining and dining.
Of course, if we could just shut down PBS and Planned Parenthood…
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:44 pm
“So when would have been the time to cut defense spending?
According to the right the answer is never.”
Obviously you cant answer the question with anything informative.
All you is ask more rhetorical bullsht questions.
Seeing as how you’re clueless to whats unfolding between Egypt and the rest of N. Africa,(Bali,Algerians, etc)theres no point in talking to you
January 22nd, 2013 at 8:46 pm
“The U.S. spends more on defense than anything else, including Social Security or Medicare. ”
And only a partisan loon doesnt know why.
You’re really getting quite boring and predictable.
Whats your next “irrelevant beef” ?
Assault rifles ?
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Assault rifles are irrelevant, defense spending needs to be increased, healthcare simply needs competition, taxes need to be cut, regulations need to be eliminated, yada, yada, yada.
Boy, I am sure glad there aren’t enough of you anymore to win national elections.