And from there the law of unintended consequences takes over, big-time.
I don't have any good answers. Paying welfare is better than letting
people starve if they can't find work. Paying welfare to a single
mother is also fine for the first child, provided the mother is under
the age of adulthood.

What happens if the single mother decides to have another child? Soon,
for a minority of people, you're in the business of providing income
for people to have babies. That might not be so bad, considering the
general decline in fertility in the Western world, if those kids
actually grew up to go to school, learn useful things and then get a
job. I think we've seen after 30+ years of welfare that this doesn't
happen in practice, in the majority of cases.

There are a lot of issues WRT single parents on low incomes. Adopting
the kids out was one solution. Caused other problems - hence law of
unanticipated consequences. Orphanages - ditto.

Bit different here. Everyone has access to reasonable health care so
that's not such an issue (provided you're not in the outback
somewhere). Childcare is an issue. The real answer is for women not to
get pregnant until they can support a child, whether this is on their
own resources or in a partnership/extended family. Easy to say.......

Meanwhile, healthy teenagers and 20-somethings who aspire to positions
beyond their education, training and intelligence should get a grip on
reality and start digging potatos or sandblasting rusty steel on a hot,
humid day.

PDW

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

I agree also, but keep in mind that a single mother who takes a minimum
wage job with no health benefits, who possibly has to travel a long distance
to get to the job, isn't going to be able to take care of her kids. Who is?
There's not much of a safety net in place, and thus we have welfare, etc.