Recently, an article came out decrying the rates of women in poverty. The article quoted the statistic that 42 million women and 28 million children live in poverty. This, of course, leads to the inevitable comments about welfare queens with multiple baby-daddies having kids they can't take care of.
I know, after all, if you do the math, 28 million kids distributed among 42 million women works out to--about 2/3 of a kid per woman.
Less than one.
I would love to meet the baby-daddies performing this feat of nature. Seriously, which two-thirds? Is it divided from the feet up or the head down? Or is it laterally? Those poor children hopping around with only a vestigial second leg. I have never seen a 2/3 kid, but I feel sorry for them.
Now of course, this does not mean that we have a rise in partial children. Statistically speaking, it means that at least one-third of the women living in poverty HAVE NO CHILDREN AT ALL! Yeah, so much for blaming the welfare moms. Also, since this is not China, women can have multiple kids. Therefore, this means that every woman in poverty with more than one child, means another woman with none.
So much for "can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." So much for the multiple baby-daddies.
So, what is the problem?
Wage price inequities. Henry Ford famously paid his employees enough to afford the cars they produced. Today, the minimum wage barely covers rent. When I was single and worked full-time (with a college degree and no children), my salary barely covered an illegal converted shed that I called home. My car was falling apart (and this was in California--you don't have a car, you're nowhere), and I once considered not using it because it needed repairs that I couldn't afford until payday three days later. Fish and cheese were luxuries--forget meat. I was in that statistic--and I had done the "responsible" thing by going to college and not having kids.
Plenty of people do the "responsible" thing and get burned. Remember that. And before you cry foul, do the math.