Shared publicly  - 
 
The authors of a new paper find that having children as a young, unmarried woman doesn't much hurt one's economic prospects. It's true that young, unmarried women who beget don't exactly thrive economically. But that's not motherhood's fault http://econ.st/KNGLCT
26
11
Sy Gulli's profile photoJulia Julia's profile photoZina Magdalina's profile photorosie hecker von danzig's profile photo
15 comments
 
I agree on that to because they are prcessing through how to do it.:<
 
Yeah it's not so bad because they are plied with benifits and incentives to have lots of children.
 
At my school many young girls (17/18) are having babies. Some of them are actually smart - so it is shocking when you find out, but the majority are less educated. Now it makes me wonder, why do they do it? They barely can look after themselves, yet they are having a child. Furthermore, they make the whole pregnancy a public affairs (desperate attempt to get likes?) and it isn't really that nice. Why would a 16 year old girl post pictures of her baby saying what a proud mother she is. How will you look after your child without any education in the future? 
 
As long as the woman is grown,the younger the better as far as less complications and pain in childbirth. This is just a point I am putting forward, I am not advocating 14 year olds to bear children!
 
Ahhhhhhh it's a big Shame but as long as there is a benefit culture, Hey, Keep having Babies. You know what? Those under 16's should have atleast 10 kids per household, who damn cares? Doesn't bother me? So long as benefits are being issues to brood the lazy culture in European big economies, this issue will go on and on
 
It is known fact that poor countries have high birth rates, the same is happening within society. I think that parents still play the largest role in sexual education of children, but we have two facts in mind: we can not expect teenagers to behave responsibly like an adults and second the risk of the first abortion.
 
interesting divergence between (single parent) unmarried female vs. male in a socio-economic sense. i am sure, but what does it really mean?
 
It takes $12K down and $1K per year in investments yielding 5% to afford a kid through an ivy league college. My two daughters went through it and I know.
 
Thought provoking; obviously not written by a woman ;) motherhood has some costs that seem unquantifiable
 
it does hamper your prospects, unless you come from a well off family
 
Future seems very foggy for under age girls and single mothers, one would imagine that we are regressing to the Dickensian times. Grim times ahead.
 
If you were trying to take that tax credit you would realize how little incentive it is. If all women had free contraception AND knew how to use it we might see a change.
 
You must get different tax breaks than me :) mine works out to $250.

Heather Benson
 
Upon reflection I'm probably not paying attention to my own taxes; or getting state and fed confused. I don't know a single person who has a child BECAUSE of the tax break; if it was actually cash in hand it would be a real incentive but it is just money that most paycheck to paycheck parents wish they had. $416.67 a month will not buy food, rent, clothing an health care for a freeloading minor in California :) It's not money you get, it's just money you don't lose. I do know lots of people who have children because of birth control failure or because they want accessories to go with their furniture and SUVs. If we go for full austerity like Greece is trying out we might also be treated to loads of children dumped in the streets or trafficked out of the U.S.; just like Greece or poor places in Asia. I don't think making children suffer just because their parents shouldn't have had them is really the way to go.
Add a comment...