<p>Years ago we had a reading that attempted to define what made people poor. It concluded that the best answer was that the poor were “radically present-oriented”. There is a lot of truth in this. </p>
<p>@dadx - that sounds like a nice way of paraphrasing the quote from Gloria Steinem:</p>
<p>The rich plan for the next three generations</p>
<p>The poor plan for Saturday night</p>
<p>Some areas still do not mandate accurate sex ed, let alone support clinics like planned parenthood where teens can get information to prevent pregnancy & sexually transmitted disease.</p>
<p>I was shocked to realize that only ** 19 states** require that sex ed be accurate.
IMO, it not only needs to be accurate, but sex ed needs to be presented in middle school, before kids are sexually active.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://sites.tufts.edu/publichealth/2014/02/14/biased-sex-education-in-the-united-states/”>http://sites.tufts.edu/publichealth/2014/02/14/biased-sex-education-in-the-united-states/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While lower income households may not pay income tax (the kind visible on IRS Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ), they do pay Social Security and Medicare tax on their wages/salaries - such payroll taxes are routinely ignored by those people who interpret “47% of Americans pay no income tax” as “47% of Americans pay no tax”). Of course, there are sales taxes that all people pay when buying things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=46189”>http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=46189</a> lists Gini coefficients both before and after taxes and transfers. Both before and after taxes and transfers Gini coefficients have been rising in the US over the decades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that is a vicious cycle. In poverty environments, there may be little hope for the future, and present needs are very pressing (e.g. is there enough food for tonight?) so poor people may have more incentive to prioritize the present over the future. Of course, that also makes it harder to climb out of poverty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Health-textbook-too-explicit-for-some-East-Bay-5670660.php”>http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Health-textbook-too-explicit-for-some-East-Bay-5670660.php</a> indicates that there is still considerable parental resistance to sex education.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus: Good point about social security taxes. However, the figures in the article I quoted did reflect social security taxes (not just Federal income tax).</p>
<p>I am not a big fan of the Gini coefficient, based on the numerous articles about the flaws in its methodology:</p>
<p><a href=“Home - GeoCurrents”>Home - GeoCurrents;
<p>
Or we could reattach the stigma to having a child as a single young teen, a child you can not support on your own, a child who by circumstances of birth is pretty much now on the same path as mom. We could stigmatize the non contributing sperm donor’s.</p>
<p>" Buying them out of this pit requires not only a big chunk of money but also a means of giving it to them without stigma - if they were excluded or “lesser” because they were getting free money, then all of a sudden that baby starts to look more appealing than the money! "</p>
<p>People don’t have problems taking money for what is perceived to be the right thing. You put the stigma on having babies when you’re young and single, not for NOT having them. I realize that people are trying to be kind hearted and helpful by making it easier for young, single girls and women. Putting daycares in the high school, normalizing it, helping with money and support. Many girls look at this as the normal thing to do, it is accepted and desired. While showing support may seem the humane thing to do, really the humane thing is to prevent it in the first place. There are ways to go about it. It’s tough enough having kids when you are older, financially set and married. Show girls the reality of many people’s lives…the welfare runs out, now they’re working three low paid jobs with no man in sight, wondering what trouble their kids are getting into. </p>
<p>At my kids high school, they didn’t hear about a single girl who was pregnant. Not one. Not that it couldn’t happen (obviously), but they didn’t have babies. It wasn’t acceptable, it would have been embarrassing. Not an option. And this was not a religious school. I don’t know why our leaders aren’t lecturing about this, constantly. It would stop so much poverty, gang violence and neglect too. Just one of my rants.</p>
<p>Wow, from middle class to babies? My kid’s school started sex ed in the 4th grade starting on simple things like personal hygiene in gender segregated classes. There was a girl who had a baby and kept it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were pregnancies not carried out. The study I read relate teen pregrancy to lack of sense of direction in life. I don’t know how much distributing BC will help. I should add these kids come from top 5-10% households.</p>
<p>busdriver: The middle-class kids in your kids’ high school most likely had access to birth control that they could afford, and if it failed, mom hustled them off to a clinic for an abortion that could be afforded. Statistics would probably show that the middle class kids have about the same percentage of sexually active kids as do lower-income kids; it’s just not as obvious.</p>
<p>They even had condoms in the school restrooms. But many young women aren’t getting pregnant because of lack of birth control, they are doing it intentionally or just carelessly.</p>
<p>When people talk about their own tax burden, they usually refer to all the taxes they pay. When they talk about other people’s taxes, they usually talk only about federal income tax. </p>
<p>When people referred so disparagingly to the 47% who paid no taxes, my mom was part of that 47%. She was 90. She enlisted in the army during WWII and served for the duration, earning field promotions to the rank of sergeant. She worked hard on their farm her whole life. There are two brass plaques honoring her (unpaid) community work. She didn’t have much money, so she was what certain people refer to as a “taker” who paid not a penny of federal income tax. But for the last 10 years of her life, she paid over 30% of her annual income in state income and property taxes. What a moocher, right?</p>
<p>Your blaming (and perhaps correctly, to an extent) ONE segment of the lower- income group distracts from the real issue of poverty in America. I notice that people do that a lot. The many struggling to get by are ignored while pregnant teens and the few who use food stamps to buy an expensive cut of meat (maybe for a birthday or anniversary?) get pointed to and used to say that EVERYONE is taking advantage of their assistance or undeserving of help.</p>
<p>The working poor is a group that really needs attending to. Where would you middle class people be without your house cleaners, barristas, Whole Foods shelf stockers and the like? People make fun of those jobs, but depend upon them. For many these are not entry level jobs but the only ones they can aspire to because it is too hard to escape poverty.</p>
<p>The people I work beside for my moonlighting job (home health aide) can work full time and make just enough that they can’t qualify for food stamps or childcare assistance; most of them will be paying the fine for not having health insurance because that is less expensive than getting insurance, since PA did not opt to expand Medicare - some of them are paying monthly on old medical bills and will be for a very long time. Those women would be better off NOT working than working, but out of pride they struggle to survive by doing work everyone else looks down upon.</p>
<p>Most of the people living in the homeless shelter where my church prepares breakfast have jobs. For the people like that, there is no good way out of poverty for themselves of their children. Federal student loans don’t provide enough to get a job that will have decent earning potential. </p>
<p>Today a guy stopped by my church for help. He has a job lined up, but couldn’t afford a pair of work boots to start on Monday. THAT is poverty in America. I drove to the shoe store and brought my checking account down to the absolute minimum before having to pay a monthly charge (and I have nothing in savings) to enable him to start work. </p>
<p>A moocher is an able bodied person who can work but prefers not to even when jobs are available. No one thinks seniors or disabled or kids are moochers.</p>
<p>KKmama, Great post. </p>
<p>I saw a sign in the neighborhood deli. Help wanted. Will pay $10- $15 an hour based on experience. </p>
<p>My brother worked in a deli 30 years ago. He was making $15+ and hour. 30 years ago.</p>
<p>The share of the economy that workers receive is at decade and decade lows. Workers used to share in productivity gains. Not anymore. </p>
<p>“If we have an economic system where enough people dont benefit, why should those people support the system?”
They should not, I agree, they should leave, it is worthwhile to find something better.</p>
<p>The people can make this system better. ;)</p>
<p>“Your blaming (and perhaps correctly, to an extent) ONE segment of the lower- income group distracts from the real issue of poverty in America. I notice that people do that a lot. The many struggling to get by are ignored while pregnant teens and the few who use food stamps to buy an expensive cut of meat (maybe for a birthday or anniversary?) get pointed to and used to say that EVERYONE is taking advantage of their assistance or undeserving of help.”</p>
<p>I certainly hope you’re not talking about my posts, and I’m not sure whose posts are saying that. You may be putting words in people’s mouths, unless I missed a post that said that, and that is a straw man argument.</p>
<p>I believe that people need to solve this problem, if we can. Just like an illness that we know how to prevent. Focus on the prevention, not just on the treatment without making any effort at prevention. The real cause of many cases of poverty, is young women having babies before they can support them. Can there possibly be any argument with that? Is it blaming people to tell them the truth? Could we prevent large segments of people from being impoverished if they don’t have children while they are so young? It’s not the only reason, but it’s a huge one. I think the lack of willingness to address this honestly is part of the problem.</p>
<p>"The people can make this system better. "
-In their dreams or in discussions on CC. </p>