Child poverty

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
The Toronto Star is calling child poverty Canada's shame in todays editorial. A way to eliminate most of Canada's child poverty is for men and women to stop procreating outside of a committed relationship. Most children living in poverty are living with their single mom. The father has taken no responsibility for the child.
 

temperance

Electoral Member
Sep 27, 2006
622
16
18
That is about the stupidest thing Ive ever heard ,people were having 6-10 children back in the 50' . The problem is the cost of living ,the measly minumin wage ,the cost of hydro housing and not being able to afford daycare ,not saying daycare cost should go down no ,A family of two adults and two children ,the parents make 10.00 a hour ,they barley take home 280.00 a week each 125.00 daycare per child ,rent 800-1000a month travel to get to work ,hydro ,food --child poverty is about family poverty

Canada should be ashamed of its self ---Our government has everything to do with this allowing Corporations to rule our world --We are out fighting war , buying tanks and we haven't even got food for our kids --Some Native reserves that the govermnt ""helped"" look like third world countires --

Our government is greedy and so was the government before ,we need accountability

the social programs cost more to run than what the actual recipients get in funds --figure that out the system degrades people instead of supporting them back into the work force

A two income family barley gets by, what solution was offered -none -let them get credit !!!!!!!!!!1
so we can really get some money out of them ----

Why are there so many PAYDAY LOAN PLACES because people cant make it on thier salaries
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GenGap

able

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2007
139
2
18
I grew up during the 40s and 50s, and people took the time to check their finances before they had children. No one even considered the ludicrous prospect of raising children on welfare, because it didn't even exist as it is today. In those days, people walked for miles, gathering pop bottles or anything of value, in order to find enough money to buy food. Most churches didn't help out as they do now, people just hoped like hell that someone took pity on them, and gave them a few days work in order that they could pay the rent and possibly buy food as well. A normal family then had 1, 2, or 3 children, 4 or more was considered to be a large family. Three children or more was usually an indication that the father had excellent earning potential, nonetheless, if you couldn't pay cash for it, then you didn't need it. The cost of raising a family is no different than it is now, the people are different, everyone expects to have a champagne lifestyle but they only have a beer income. Being a single mother in those days was a sure formula for abject poverty, that meant the mother went without food so her children could eat, it also meant that the kids worked at what they could, in order to put food on the table as well. Toys were things you made or found in other peoples garbage. People today, can't even begin to know what poverty is, believe me, its a lot worse than you see on tv, in fact poor people never even had a radio, if someone didn't give it to them. Live the time, then you can reference it, people were far more caring and hard working then, because you didn't need a university degree to be a labourer, just a good strong back. A large number of the men were veterans, and they were happy enough that no one was trying to kill them, the depression was still a recent memory and people were still trying to figure out what they had done wrong, not what the gov't had done wrong, because they knew that if they were poor, it was their fault, not the gov'ts. People were self sufficient then, not like now, if you failed, it was your fault, if you did well, it was because you worked hard enough.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I grew up during the 40s and 50s, and people took the time to check their finances before they had children. No one even considered the ludicrous prospect of raising children on welfare, because it didn't even exist as it is today. In those days, people walked for miles, gathering pop bottles or anything of value, in order to find enough money to buy food. Most churches didn't help out as they do now, people just hoped like hell that someone took pity on them, and gave them a few days work in order that they could pay the rent and possibly buy food as well. A normal family then had 1, 2, or 3 children, 4 or more was considered to be a large family. Three children or more was usually an indication that the father had excellent earning potential, nonetheless, if you couldn't pay cash for it, then you didn't need it. The cost of raising a family is no different than it is now, the people are different, everyone expects to have a champagne lifestyle but they only have a beer income. Being a single mother in those days was a sure formula for abject poverty, that meant the mother went without food so her children could eat, it also meant that the kids worked at what they could, in order to put food on the table as well. Toys were things you made or found in other peoples garbage. People today, can't even begin to know what poverty is, believe me, its a lot worse than you see on tv, in fact poor people never even had a radio, if someone didn't give it to them. Live the time, then you can reference it, people were far more caring and hard working then, because you didn't need a university degree to be a labourer, just a good strong back. A large number of the men were veterans, and they were happy enough that no one was trying to kill them, the depression was still a recent memory and people were still trying to figure out what they had done wrong, not what the gov't had done wrong, because they knew that if they were poor, it was their fault, not the gov'ts. People were self sufficient then, not like now, if you failed, it was your fault, if you did well, it was because you worked hard enough.

Excellent post

Child poverty cannot be blamed on the children. Child poverty is a result of stupid or irresponsible parents. The idea of having children you couldn't afford is ludicrous.
 

able

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2007
139
2
18
Juan, its off topic, but notice where you're from, is Jingle Pot (campground) still there?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The idea of having children you can't afford is normal.

It's pretty much been human history.

The poorer you are, the more kids you're likely to have. It's a basic function of humanity for some reason. No matter how the rich try to logic it out, they never seem to realize that their affluence is what gives them the unique mindset of being willing to put such a tight cap on their reproduction.

While we try to say it's all logic, I truly don't believe it is. I'm starting to think there is some underlying genetic tendency there which determines our attitudes according to our access to necessities.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Juan, its off topic, but notice where you're from, is Jingle Pot (campground) still there?

It is as far as I know. I haven't been over that way in a few months but I'm pretty sure it's still there.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It's pretty much been human history.

The poorer you are, the more kids you're likely to have. It's a basic function of humanity for some reason. No matter how the rich try to logic it out, they never seem to realize that their affluence is what gives them the unique mindset of being willing to put such a tight cap on their reproduction.

While we try to say it's all logic, I truly don't believe it is. I'm starting to think there is some underlying genetic tendency there which determines our attitudes according to our access to necessities.

I think that people once behaved exactly as you describe, but surely not today. I was married in 1966 and My wife and I had many discussions about the size of our family. We eventually decided to have two children based on our income and a few other things. I would have thought that the stupidity of screwing yourself out of a place at the table was obvious, though some did exactly that.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I think that people once behaved exactly as you describe, but surely not today. I was married in 1966 and My wife and I had many discussions about the size of our family. We eventually decided to have two children based on our income and a few other things. I would have thought that the stupidity of screwing yourself out of a place at the table was obvious, though some did exactly that.

affluent and educated, juan. You're here on the internet (thus own a computer), writing well thought out posts, so I'd categorize you as both. Of course you had fewer children and were more willing to put a tight cap on your family size.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's pretty much been human history.

The poorer you are, the more kids you're likely to have. It's a basic function of humanity for some reason. No matter how the rich try to logic it out, they never seem to realize that their affluence is what gives them the unique mindset of being willing to put such a tight cap on their reproduction.

While we try to say it's all logic, I truly don't believe it is. I'm starting to think there is some underlying genetic tendency there which determines our attitudes according to our access to necessities.

Goodday Karrie, I hope you're feeling well today. I think you're right about the underlying genetic tendencys, it seems we try to replicate our own little villages when the access to necessities is great enough to do so, much the same as many other animals. There's not much logic involved in human mating nor reproduction, it seems when conditions are favourable we'll go for a big family.
What do we know about child developement in large familys versus small familys. It seems to me that children develope faster and better in larger sibling groups. Maybe it's better socialization in larger numbers and sharing food and chores promotes better adhesion as a group, that must be an advantage.
 

SVMc

Nominee Member
Apr 16, 2007
86
7
8
Toronto
The Toronto Star is calling child poverty Canada's shame in todays editorial. A way to eliminate most of Canada's child poverty is for men and women to stop procreating outside of a committed relationship. Most children living in poverty are living with their single mom. The father has taken no responsibility for the child.

I grew up during the 40s and 50s, and people took the time to check their finances before they had children... People were self sufficient then, not like now, if you failed, it was your fault, if you did well, it was because you worked hard enough.

It is these types of attitudes that go the furthest towards ensuring that children in poverty will not get help that the cycle of child poverty will continue.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the upstanding citizens will support that it is not the child's fault that the child was born into poverty and they will support increased sex education and increased education programs for families below the poverty lines, or measures to get single mothers off of social assistance and into jobs that actually pay a living wage where a parent can afford to work one job, daycare and be a parent. But I'm guessing like the endless deluge of this unthinking mentality that the response will be abstinence is the answer, society shouldn't pay for someone elses "mistake" and my favourite paradox is that typically this view goes hand in hand with thinking that pregnancy is the punishment for women who have unwed sex and the woman should be punished by having a child to raise in poverty rather than have access to abortion.

Seriously? End child poverty by an anti-sex campaign?

If that hasn't worked in the last 2,000 years why is it going to work now?

Let's start by turning off the rose coloured glasses on the "golden age" of our youths and stop pretending that teenage pregnancy didn't exist in the past. 1957 was the highest (US) teen pregnancy rate since the 1940's at 96.3 / 1000 (2004 41.1 / 1000) Source. Teen Pregnancy has been in decline since the 1950' s in large part due to better sex education. According to the Guttmacher Institute

The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990.

So, why am I talking about teen pregnancy. Well simple if we know that the vast majority of children who live in poverty live in poverty because their parents are in poverty then we need to look at who is having children, when and why. The simple reason is that most poor children are the result of teenage pregnancy.

So, it makes no sense to talk about ending child poverty unless we also talk about how to reduce teenage pregnancy. Ending teenage pregnancy has a lot to do with keeping teens in school, with access to education and specifically sex education that is more than just abstinence. This does not mean that abstinence should be left out, only that it is clear that abstinence only sex education is not effective.

English speaking developed countries have significantly higher child poverty rates than those of Europe. Source It is hard not to see that it is also these countries that have higher resistance to sex education and do less to support single parents and have less social securities in place for single parents.

In 2000

The US had 21.9% of children living below the poverty line, and 52.1 of every 1,000 births was a teenage mother. In Canada 16.3% child poverty, 20.2 of every 1,000 births was a teenage pregnancy. Source

Compare this with Europe overall 9.0% child poverty, and 10.4 of every 1,000 births a teenage pregnancy and France in particular 7.9% child poverty and 9.3 of every 1,000 births a teenage pregnancy. See source above.

It is very important to look at child poverty and teenage pregnancy as cyclical. Children who are born into poverty (1997 US stat) 34.1% drop out of school , and 40% of girls from this poorest demographic (born into child poverty) have children as teenagers. From the UK if the family is poor with the child is 7,11 or 16 the demographics show that 87.9% of these children have left school at the earliest (UK) legal age of 16, compared to 67.9% overall. 16% of females from this demographic are lone mothers by the age of 23 compared to (UK) 6.3% average. Source.

What should be clear from all of this (especially if you've read the source material) is that child poverty un-addressed will lead to increases in child poverty. The Guttmacher report and accompanying sources is a clear indicator that better education and better sex education is the number one way to reduce teenage pregnancy. And teenage pregnancy needs to be reduced to reduce child poverty.

Sure, we can stand by and take a bizzare hard line and say that if these girls had sex, and became poor parents then they deserve what they got... but really? Does making motherhood / parenthood a punishment do any social good?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Goodday Karrie, I hope you're feeling well today. I think you're right about the underlying genetic tendencys, it seems we try to replicate our own little villages when the access to necessities is great enough to do so, much the same as many other animals. There's not much logic involved in human mating nor reproduction, it seems when conditions are favourable we'll go for a big family.
What do we know about child developement in large familys versus small familys. It seems to me that children develope faster and better in larger sibling groups. Maybe it's better socialization in larger numbers and sharing food and chores promotes better adhesion as a group, that must be an advantage.


Yes Beaver, I am feeling well today, thank you. But you see, you've gotten it backwards. When conditions are favorable, we seem to quit breeding. We clam up, put a lid on it, and call two or three kids good. When conditions are poor, we seem to breed like rabbits. Take Africa, or any poor trailer park, as an example. Breed, breed, breed. Perhaps its the human way of ensuring that your own genetic material gets spread out enough to get more access to resources. Whereas, if you have unlimited access to resources, you don't need to cast your net as wide, and one or two children will do the trick. It's an oddity.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
My Dad, born circa 1900, used to say that people in his day had twelve kids so that at least eight or nine survived to help on the farm. I guess the other thing was that "breeding" was cheap entertainment.....at least in the immediate sense.
 

able

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2007
139
2
18
Call it believing in a diabolic conspiracy, but has anyone noticed how AIDs continues to run rampant through the third world, it seems to me that the industrialized world is content to allow it to run it's course. This benign neglect will certainly cull the third world flock, I think this phrase should cover it " hold your nose, and carry on reguardless". When America brought in 5 years and you're out welfare, I thought there would be tremendous ramifications, there weren't, the people on welfare found jobs, and became productive citizens. Call me silly, but a history of welfare reform is in progress, and I see this one coming north. Most companies give applicants an IQ and psychological profile test, and that's only for a job, how long before prospective parents get the same routine appraisal. After all, children have to be far more important than a job, believe me, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Overpopulation is looming large on the horizon, the common good of the world will cause many cherished freedoms to fall by the wayside, society has always done whatever it had to do, in order to preserve the species.
 

able

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2007
139
2
18
SVMc, had a look at one of your charts, noticed that teen pregnancies peeked while I was in high school. Mine had 1,000 students, that would mean more than 500 were females, problem is, I can count on one hand the number of girls that got pregnant, even if they got married, ( which they always did) the rest of us could still count the months. I must have gone to an exceptional school, or your charts are highly inaccurate. I know this concept is alien to you, but people did actually blame themselves for being poor. It was called self respect.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Poverty as a indicator of family size - just a couple of issues I thought about...

One thing people aren't mentioning here is large families seem to make more large families and the children of these grow up without any sense of consequence or responsibility for their actions. Having babies seems part of life - with little decision-making or planning involved.

If one is trying to survive and just keep the family fed and clothed - there is not much room for teaching the societal ramifications of love, lust, and pregnancy. These are accepted as natural as finishing school, getting a job, and having babies - and worse now it doesn't even seem to include marriage as a requisite.

Our first teachers are our parent(s) and extended family members and if they tend to have large families, some of the children will follow that pattern.

Not all families in poverty have children who join the military either Karrie - I saw that back farther in the thread. Some of the finest universities in the U.S. are military institutions where they educate the future military and governmental leaders - and many of them are from wealth not poverty.

These days a 'join by choice' military also offers a complete university education to young people who may miss out on college because of financial constraints. They come from all walks of life - and to point that poverty is the impetus for military commitment would be perhaps one-quarter of those who sign on.

When my dad was growing up in Canada the government used to pay my grandparents a sum per month per child. I can't remember how much it was - but the government did contribute to the family for the child support - even with both parents in the home.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Overpopulation is looming large on the horizon, the common good of the world will cause many cherished freedoms to fall by the wayside, society has always done whatever it had to do, in order to preserve the species.


Any population control program based on letting disease run its course, or on putting government enforced caps on family size, ends up having the opposite effect intended. Prosperity and education are the only two things which curb population growth. Canada's statistics are proof of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libra Girl

GenGap

Electoral Member
Mar 19, 2007
120
3
18
Ottawa, Ontario
They have to stop blaming things on the father. It takes to 2 have a child.

It is wrong to condem a father who still loves his child yet can not afford child payments, then label him as not being responsible enbough. After all the other person with the child gets the baby bonus.

Sometimes it is better to stay at home and raise your family, then to work also.


The Toronto Star is calling child poverty Canada's shame in todays editorial. A way to eliminate most of Canada's child poverty is for men and women to stop procreating outside of a committed relationship. Most children living in poverty are living with their single mom. The father has taken no responsibility for the child.