Would single motherhood really decrease if child support and welfare were abolished?

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-04-22T14:43:10+00:00

here is a historic graph of the out of wedlock birthrate in the US

the black circle shows the civil rights act of 1964 and the extension of AFDC federal welfare to never-wed mothers. the red circle shows Clintons "ending of welfare as we know it". the subsequent rise shows when later admins started fiddling with welfare again

res ipsa loquitur

wingbark · 2019-04-22T13:46:52+00:00

That would remove the financial incentive so I’d think so, yes.

Barely-moral · 2019-04-22T13:52:01+00:00

Abortion rate would go up. I agree.

Cases of gold digging would also go up. Now people will have to consider money as a significant factor when deciding when to have children and with who. Money will also be a factor when deciding to leave a partner. I have no problem with any of those.

But the most important thing if you can't pay for the lifestyle you want and you realize that it is easier to achieve if you partner also foots the bill... then you will have money as a factor when you decide if you want to be an asshole to your partner.

People will have to be smart about their decisions instead of relying on the state to remove the consequences of their mistakes. That would mean single motherhood will decrease because now it has more negative consequences and less benefits. It is all about incentives.

Gravel_Roads · 2019-04-22T14:23:23+00:00

The already existing single mothers wouldn't just stop existing. So probably they would suffer even more than they already do, have an even harder time, more children would grow up starving and impoverished, and over the next few decades there'd be an increase in crime and homelessness as the minimum threshold for quality of life diminishes.

Men and women have been having children outside of wedlock since the beginning of time. All you would see is a rise in youth mortality rates, more kids in the foster system as parents fail to be able to care for them, and yeah, probably more women staying in shitty relationships, which in turn will teach their children that it's better to stay in a shitty relationship than to leave.

mydikishomofobik · 2019-04-22T14:31:47+00:00

Single motherhood wouldn't necessarily decrease. But the number of prostitutes would increase and prices would drop. There would also be more single mothers looking for relationships with men who could support them financially or working low-paid jobs.

Yonderlander · 2019-04-22T15:44:19+00:00

Slightly, I think, as more accidental pregnancies would be aborted.

However, human misery and societal problems would increase exponentially. Some people would never abort, they would live in poverty. Those who abort that wouldn't have done otherwise would be miserable. Many mothers have no choice but to become single further into the relationship, they would live in poverty. Others would stay in toxic relationships, miserable for both parents and the child.

It would be awful for everyone.

PrettyCicada · 2019-04-22T13:54:50+00:00

Nope. Nobody's signing up for single motherhood to get all those sweet welfare bux. That's just a right wing myth.

cxj · 2019-04-22T19:53:56+00:00

Imo it probably wouldn’t, the poor would keep shitting out unplanned babies and wondering why they keep starving to death.

It would take heavy social pressure to keep families together, which would require a non atomized society with genuine communities.

The root of the problem is low FTO of poors and frankly most people. A society requiring all people to pro actively plan their lives doesn’t seem to end well. The great western experiment of individualism and personal freedom may be coming to an end.

007MGTOW · 2019-04-22T13:45:58+00:00

Only people who actually want to have families will have them. The rest will simply be childless, or use contraception more wisely. Not everyone who has genitals deserves to be a parent. Putting the state and local government between families only benefits the government in the long term, at the expense of the common family.

Aaren_Augustine · 2019-04-22T14:07:11+00:00

I could also see some men using this to keep their wives/GFs from leaving.

Maybe women should NOT be so flighty. It doesn't paint a pretty picture for that type of woman that needs consequence in her marriage in order to act right.

Most men don't want to be an authoritarian to their spouse. Women say damn near the same thing when complaining about her husband not cleaning up around the house.

There would be more “intact families” but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

Right and hopefully, those weak willed people can start learning and paying attention to the joy of hard work. Do you think cohesive families aren't going to make a woman happy? And if it doesn't, why the fuck are these women married at all? Why are they even having children? This makes women sound like helpless idiots.

LillthOfBabylon · 2019-04-22T14:13:30+00:00

Why would anyone want child support to decrease? Sounds like a deadbeat dad.

I could definitely see the abortion rate going up. I could also see some men using this to keep their wives/GFs from leaving. There would be more “intact families” but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

More reasons that I am not fond of the manosphere. Too many of them don't think of the consequences, and when they do, they think it's a good thing. There's nothing attractive nor "Alpha" about supporting abusive situations.

So what do you think would happen if we abolished child support and the social safety net?

If we discourage parenthood more, we'd end up with SJWs governments justifying uncontrolled immigration even more than they already are.

There's no getting out of paying for child care subsidies, at least in America. Liberals love government programs too much and conservatives hate abortions too much.

geyges · 2019-04-22T14:25:38+00:00

but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

No one is happy. As with all policies its about what type of behavior you're incentivizing.

Why are you getting pregnant if you don't want to?
Why are you having children if you can't afford them?
Why is society obligated to help you with those personal endeavors?

Difficult questions of law and philosophy. But to answer your question, if single motherhood or fatherhood was more difficult than it already is, then yes, more people would avoid it at all costs. Even though it would never eliminate it.

tylmin · 2019-04-22T14:55:42+00:00

The U.S. implemented several controls on welfare in the last 80s/90s.

It did not reduce the rate of single motherhood, which continued to rise, but it did increase the rate at which single mothers were employed:

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/116/3/1063/1899757

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465303765299891

LessonzLEarned · 2019-04-22T15:19:21+00:00

You are lumping disparate issues together. Kids need support from both parents, whether the parents are married or not, in today's world.

The welfare system is known to support cases of women getting somewhat locked into stay at home parenting or part-time outside the home work, because they can fall back on that resource rather than being particularly careful and just continuing to reproduce.

Both parents should always support their children though.

0kool74 · 2019-04-22T17:09:17+00:00

Well the problem with this is in the assumption that such a direction would curtail the whole reason it exists in the first place...and it wouldn't!

Women will still fuck losers and pop out their womb filth...maybe not on as grand a scale, but it will still happen. However, as others have mentioned in the comments, it will cause a significant calamity. Once their pump and dump monsieur has dropped them like a hot potato, the suffering will be extreme as she is unable to provide for either herself or the child. She'll be banished to working low level retail or food service jobs, have a hard time putting food on the table, and always on the verge of losing the roof over her head.

Having said that, I will say that this would be a good thing. I have no sympathy or use for bastard womb filth or stupid women that can't keep their legs closed just because she gets the Chad "gina tingles."

Melohdy · 2019-04-22T19:50:20+00:00

No. What would decrease it is if men weren't vilified to the point that they just don't care anymore. Men in this society are ridiculed and blamed for the ills of society. Women think they don't need the father in the picture and is ruining society.

mrelevenoutoften · 2019-04-22T14:05:56+00:00

of course not

anyone who thinks welfare and state support make up for the costs of raising a child is moronic

abaxeron · 2019-04-22T18:35:54+00:00

There would be more “intact families” but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

FALSE. Abolition of gynocentric safety network would result in men's wages going up.

Let's see what it could result in:

Males with much lower income than their wives were 2.27 times as likely not to have sex

Women's attractiveness ratings of men are 1,000 times as sensitive to salary than vice-versa

Aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband explains 29 percent of the decline in marriage rates

On a Chinese dating site, women with high income more often visited male profiles with even higher income. Such preferences do not exist in men

Photoshopping a man into a luxury apartment made women rate him as ~33% more attractive

My bet is that we'd have more legitimately harmonious families.

This damn feminist wet fantasy that men need their own money that they earned to "financially abuse" their wives, while women's attraction to men is not dependent at all on their income - is getting old. It's obviously false.

speltspelt · 2019-04-22T14:29:49+00:00

the UK tried this at one point. single motherhood spiked because there were no consequences for men. extreme social pressure on men to marry and stay with women they get pregnant are necessary to eliminate single motherhood, along with consequences for getting women pregnant that they have no intention of marrying. (combined with similar pressures on women).

AutoModerator · 2019-04-22T13:39:09+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-04-22T14:43:26+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Orange_Paisley · 2019-04-22T15:07:02+00:00

No. There would just be more children living in poverty. And why the hell should child support be abolished? Two parents made a kid; two parents should support them. You know people in general but men in particular are not going to stop wanting to have sex so illegitimate children are an inevitability in this world.

WestsideMoonWalker · 2019-04-22T15:21:53+00:00

That's how you get an even greater wealth gap between rich and poor. If we got the full GOP wet dream, they'd cut social programs and abortion so you'd mostly end up with poorer families with no upward mobility, and even greater poverty.

The right wing in general has a problem with understanding the concept of negative externalities.

Maybelowsmv · 2019-04-22T15:22:44+00:00

it'd decrease, maybe. abortion would increase, but a lot of women do still wind up being single mothers regardless. some people have strong family ties too. my family would support me if i became a single mother

Christian_Kong · 2019-04-22T15:33:51+00:00

I think it would both decrease, and there would also be more abortions. Without the safety net helping them(it is no amazing thing but can help with the decision to keep a kid/risking having one) there would be a drop, but I do not know how much of one.

retardradical · 2019-04-22T15:37:16+00:00

Agreed on all points you made. Single motherhood would go down but who wants a woman who doesn't wanna be with you or a parasite. I don't mind being the BB to the women getting government assistance as long as I get to be the AF to the women at the bars.

LinkedFerret69 · 2019-04-22T16:35:41+00:00

I heavily disagree with that idea. I don't think any mom would become a single mother because of government checks.

If it does though, that is a bad thing. That would mean moms are being forced into being in a relationship that they may not want to be in. The real reason IMO for single mothers is more so the lack of wanting the dad in the kids life for personal reasons, like he's an ass or abusive. So yeah, the families may be "intact" but they would be worse off.

PanderjitSingh_k · 2019-04-22T16:53:25+00:00

Almost all women understand how pregnancy occurs and are aware of the many ways they can prevent it. Almost all women understand that pregnancy can lead to childbirth and that childbirth can led to possession of a child and are aware of the numerous ways they can prevent that.

So it’s perfectly fair to say women have complete control over whether or not they become a single mother.

Given that women have the power I think it’s certain that proper incentivization will cause them to adjust their behavior.

I’m completely opposed to abolishing child support though. Men know exactly what they are getting into and absolutely should support their children.

daniellederek · 2019-04-22T17:14:53+00:00

In the game of what ifs. Abortion rate would increase. Polygamy would be legal in 5 years or less. Prostitution (sugar baby arrangments) would be legal

GuyWithTheStalker · 2019-04-22T18:03:44+00:00

Ask questions about absurd far-right-wing or far-left-wing talking points. Get absurd answers.

"Welfare reform" is - and I hate to sound corny here - the name of the game, and if you want to play it, or at least pretend to play it, then I think you really might want to begin the discussion with some specific issues and views which aren't coming from a flank of the American political ideological spectrum.

Just sayin'... Not trying to be a tool here...

Suck-Less · 2019-04-22T19:08:20+00:00

The real question is: would single motherhood decrease if alimony was abolished, DNA paternity tests were mandatory and child rearing was assigned automatically as 50/50 custody in divorce courts.

[deleted] · 2019-04-22T19:40:36+00:00

People who ought to be using contraception or abstinence would be using it a lot more, and that's a good thing.

Incentives DO have an effect on society and behavior, even though many on the political left don't like being told this. Poor young women and men alike would be more careful about unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancies if they knew the results might include having to actually marry each other or raising kids together. It wouldn't JUST be a matter of abortions going up, although I'm sure they would (and I'm not sure that's even a bad thing, better that than flood the system with unwanted children).

In the end, people DO have personal responsibility, even though the government does not like this and wants to get rid of it via socialized everything and pushing individual consequences onto the collective. In fact, the more society organizes itself around the idea that this personal responsibility exists, the more it does exist. Ideas have a certain self-fulfilling power... hence, the more society tells you to go out, be your own person, deal with your own shit and carve your own destiny, the more people are likely to actually do that. Conversely, when you spread ideas like victimhood or helplessness (as the modern left does) you really do end up making more helpless, whiney victims incapable of taking responsibility for themselves.

Also, the idea that having to get married to raise a kid together automatically = terrible, abusive marriage is... not realistic. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the US are unintended. Imagine how much higher that number was decades ago when BC didn't exist. Having to shack up with the mother of your kids is just how shit was back in the day. People adjusted and made fine marriages out of it.. not saying they all were sunshine and roses but men and women thrown together by fate or dumb decisions nevertheless made it work, loved each other, supported each other, etc. Growing into the role is a thing.. not even a bad thing as its often portrayed now. Sometimes events can cause a person to really step up and grow in ways they otherwise would not.

zayelion · 2019-04-22T23:42:59+00:00

In a word, yes. See "The Denzel Principle"

MercedesBenzoAMG · 2019-04-23T11:34:28+00:00

What you're basically asking is do humans respond to incentives?

The answer is of course they do.

poppy_blu · 2019-04-22T17:23:40+00:00

Because conservatives are full of shit. Living off open ended welfare hasn’t been a thing since reform in the late 90s (passed by a democratic president and congress, but i digress). Welfare is now supplemental and requires you to have a job.

Just 44% of custodial parents get the full amount of court ordered support they’re due. This is census data, inb4 “here derp feminazi lies!!!” https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps03.html

My last point: OOW births may have been statistically lower pre 1960s, but that largely because:

-shotgun weddings followed by “premature” births -adoption was more common and the system was less formalized -no data on abortions because they were illegal and the govt doesn’t track things which are not supposed to exist

Tl;dr Child support and welfare would have little bearing on reducing the number of OOW kids. OOW births have always happened just not out in the open.

And btw all single mothers are not careless hood rats who got knocked up by losers or tried to trap some dude with a kid. believe me if they were trying to trap a guy for his “resources,” they’d be aiming for dudes who actually have resources.

welcometothejl · 2019-04-22T14:34:08+00:00

I think you'd see many single mothers bail if men and women were treated equally in the court system.

KrispyMcSockington · 2019-04-22T15:01:45+00:00

Not quite. What you need to do is make citizens pay a fine if they have kids out of wedlock or have more than x number of children. Then make sure there are plenty abortion clinics and lots of birth control options available. This is more population control, but it gets the same job done.

Pope_Lucious · 2019-04-22T15:02:09+00:00

It would decrease, but so would child wellbeing.

Realistically, it’s a political either/or.

Either the taxpayers get fucked or men get fucked.

flamingoinghome · 2019-04-22T17:13:42+00:00

This is one of those "thought experiments" like "what if prostitution were........legal?!" where the answer is right there in other countries.

The answer is, not really. Countries without welfare states still have huge numbers of single mothers--or, as often, orphanages. Unplanned pregnancies and people who don't stick around have always existed, and always will.

maljo24 · 2019-04-22T18:01:52+00:00

PHOENIX_THE_JEAN · 2019-04-22T18:32:13+00:00

NGL, OP. I've had 4 abortions and it has nothing to do with child support / welfare. I knew the men would never be there for me and I didn't feel like being a single mother.

Have you considered the fact that most women who are single mothers weren't single while pregnant, or weren't single moms during the first few years/months of the child's life. The men usually change / switch up the equation once the child is born and they bail. How would the abolishment of welfare / child support help these women who weren't single when they had their babies, but who now are because men changed their minds and walked out??

GertrudeMcGraw · 2019-04-22T18:51:52+00:00

The problem with this argument is that the same people who want to slash welfare are also the same people who want to restrict access to abortion.

Want fewer single mothers? You need to provide more abortions. We've known since time immemorial that for humans, abstinence just ain't gonna cut it.

debatingsquares · 2019-04-22T18:59:22+00:00

Why does everyone here seem to think that all single mothers plan on being single and have babies against the will of the potential father? Lots of people were not “single” during conception and birth, but eventually become single mothers when the relationship ends. How would letting the man dump his family and never have to pay for a family he (said he) wanted help reduce the number of single mothers? If a man can just change his mind, and have no financial responsibilities going forwards what is his incentive NOT to do that?

shipiaozi · 2019-04-23T00:23:41+00:00

Yes, monogamous relationship exist because female can't raise children alone and need a provider. Welfare and child support make polygamous relationship model much more viable. To reduce polygamous relationship, here are some possible policies:

Make abortion easy and available to all.
Only married couple could get child support.
Cut welfare to single mother and child's father, or even fine them.

Sea_Weird · 2019-04-23T01:09:48+00:00

I could definitely see the abortion rate going up. I could also see some men using this to keep their wives/GFs from leaving. There would be more “intact families” but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

If whatever hypothetical right wing force had the power to abolish welfare then it would be certain that abortion would have already been done away with.

Anyhow even if single motherhood decreases it only does so because the mothers have to be dependant on the fathers. Much more importantly though, if you have abolished welfare things like poverty, violence, crime, etc et al are going to increase, and likely by a lot. So really anyone who believes this scenario is preferable is a fucking retard.

michiganwinter · 2019-04-23T01:52:19+00:00

This is just a great way for rich folks to get out of paying.

couldbemage · 2019-04-23T04:07:57+00:00

Wouldn't help at all. It's like red light cameras. Actually running red lights is so dangerous no one actually does it in purpose. So red light cameras are actually linked with higher numbers of crashes.

Single motherhood isn't something that is at all connected with long term thinking.

HereWeGoAgainTJ · 2019-04-23T04:20:22+00:00

Google "Amelia Elizabeth Dyer".

Throwaway_acctz · 2019-04-23T05:45:39+00:00

What would happen if child support and social safety nets were abolished? It would result in more efficient uses of tax revenue. I can't think of many things more wasteful to spend tax revenue on than supporting families that have children they can't even afford to raise. It's one thing to struggle financially when you have some bad luck but it's full retard to bring a child into the world when you never had the means to raise them in the first place.

Willow-girl · 2019-04-23T05:58:53+00:00

Prior to 1960, the rate of out-of-wedlock births was below 5%. We have better birth control options available now, so it probably would be even lower than that if we quit incentivizing single motherhood.

Bedtimeshine · 2019-04-23T17:01:40+00:00

Maybe... but access to cheap birth control and abortion would be a better place to direct money.

guy_24601 · 2019-04-24T19:17:37+00:00

I'm a lefty, but one of the hardest things for me to grapple with is how to balance compassion and barbarism. I'm with Thomas Sowell who said something to the effect that you get more of what you subsidize.

I dont find letting people starve acceptable, and its certainly not affordable to do so.

I dont know how to fix the problem but brutality until the problem fixes itself after a few generations of suffering pushes everyone strongly back into gender roles and stigmatizes pregnancy unless a woman has locked down a provider? that doesn't go anywhere good.

Thomas Sowell also says there are no solutions only tradeoffs.

attempting to discourage single motherhood would probably result in more women tolerating abusive relationships and coercion being a larger factor like it used to be before women entered the workforce.

I'm wary of the entire situation because it has so much political influence. The same reason I cant easily accept some right wing opinion that wefare caused the issue is the same reason I'd have with the left saying the opposite.

Likely the truth is far more complex, both less scary than those on the right believe, bu worse than most on the left would acknowledge

That's polarization for you. When we cant agree on the "facts"' what good are they?

xoxuv · 2019-04-26T14:07:59+00:00

Single motherhood would be reduced if polyandry had better support from society.

Alphas would not be forced to choose between one woman and all the rest.

It would not fix all of single motherhood, but would help many cases.

songofmelancholy · 2019-04-22T14:22:03+00:00

what were the rates of single motherhood when 1964-68 welfare programs and child support for single mothers did not exist?

Exactly.

diffdedbed · 2019-04-22T14:36:49+00:00

Guess when the welfare state really started in the US?

OneJealousGod · 2019-04-22T15:02:01+00:00

No, would probably increase. The only solution would be for the State to step in and fulfill that role, enabling the tendency towards single motherhood even further. Single motherhood is not a terrible thing because of lack of money. Money could be lack with both parents. The problem with single motherhood is just that, "single" parentage. All kids are technically 50% mother and 50% father. What would happen to a population that grew up in mass with no father around, or good father figures? Most of those children would be lack in the basic human social skills and traits. Why? A father develops different traits and characteristics then a mother would. Both are essential, no on can do it on their own, raise a child who is emotionally healthy and well-adjusted. We have over a century now of sending off to war and death the most masculine men, imprisoning any and all dissenters, raising the next generation without fathers, from which the boys will be coddled mamma's boys with entitlement and no discipline, and from which girls with no clear idea of what a man should be, lacking internal control or discipline to establish and maintain a healthy family, perpetuating the cycle indefinitely.

wobbleelbbow · 2019-04-22T16:29:31+00:00

Women would start to use their agency and being responsible for their poor decisions

bigdaveyl · 2019-04-22T14:44:36+00:00

So let’s play.....let’s say we abolished child support and welfare? What would happen?

We'd likely see the amount of children born out of wedlock go down.

We'd also see a decrease in the divorce rate because people couldn't get out as easily and get a payout in all but the extreme cases.

There would be more “intact families” but they’d be as happy as a mosquito in Antarctica.

There's plenty of unhappiness in the current system. Do you think the single mom who had 3 kids by 3 dads is living a happy and fulfilled life? The children are likely not either.

So what do you think would happen if we abolished child support and the social safety net?

People would have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

DXBrigade · 2019-04-22T22:20:46+00:00

Probably but I Don't think it's a good idea. Society needs kids.

Title	Would single motherhood really decrease if child support and welfare were abolished?
Author	azngirl7689
Upvotes	50
Comments	489
Date	April 22, 2019 1:39 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/bg27qb/would_single_motherhood_really_decrease_if_child/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-single-motherhood-really-decrease-if-child.256126 https://theredarchive.com/post/256126

Comments