Philadelphia paying women to get pregnant have babies

[mike]

While I have misgivings about programs like this, I'd rather spend money on this than missiles to blow things up and kill people halfway around the world, or oil or big ag or big pharma subsidies.

Sure. Plus, six million dollars for the city of Philadelphia is probably the economic equivalent of a bit of pocket lint.

[Josh]

While I have misgivings about programs like this, I'd rather spend money on this than missiles to blow things up and kill people halfway around the world, or oil or big ag or big pharma subsidies.

Sure. Plus, six million dollars for the city of Philadelphia is probably the economic equivalent of a bit of pocket lint.

I'd agree with Josh, but experience shows us that this $6 million is likely to turn into more like a $6 billion or $600 billion permanent entitlement (and anyone who dares speak against it will be accused of being "racist").

Overall, no, I don't think the government should dole out cash payments and benefits to out of wedlock mothers. Out of wedlock pregnancy is bad and the rest of us should not be forced to pay for it.

[ken_sylvania]

$18,000 to be precise

Philly gets closer to launching $1,000-a-month cash assistance program for pregnant residents to improve health outcomes

I think it is terrible that the country has come to this - meaning in terms of morals that single mothers have become so common place that the government is stepping in. And that families are so broken that extended families cannot/will not take care of the single mother. And that people do not go to churches, and churches do not step in and help these single mothers meet their needs. And that the economy is such that a man cannot even meet his wife and families needs by working and his wife staying at home.

But given that this is the case, if this meets a critical need, I'm for it.

Well, it's not a new government program. It is a one-time experimental trial to see if it actually accomplishes anything. Presumably the results will be public and peer reviewed and then we will have a better idea if this sort of program is worth the cost or not. It is probably the kind of thing we should do with more government programs.

Are you saying it's not new? If so, that's weird.
Are you saying it's not government? If so, Philadelphia City would beg to differ.
Or are you saying it's not a program? If so, it seems the various agencies involved have failed to get the memo. They say it is a program.

[ohio jones]

Seems to me like Philadelphia's money would be better spent, and their population more financially prosperous in the long run, by covering relocation expenses to send their black residents (pregnant or not) to San Francisco.

[Ken]

It's not a government program. Not all pregnant women in Philly get the money. Only a test population. So it would be more properly labeled a government study. If the results are excellent and it becomes a budget priority then it might become a government program. But we are a long ways away from that at this point.

It's run by Philadelphia's city government, and funded by donations from a couple of orgs that probably receive government funding. I'd call it a pilot government program that is very likely to become permanent if implemented.

Philadelphia leaders and city health officials said they need to raise a total of $6 million to get the local program started. Donations have so far been made by the William Penn Foundation and Spring Point Partners.

Fine, call it a pilot program if you want. I don't think, however, that it is likely to become permanent. Not if I know anything about Philadelphia finances. We would be talking hundreds of millions or billions of dollars annually. And I doubt the city has that kind of money to spare, not with all its other priorities. They might be able to raise a one-time $6 million grant from private foundations. But not $600 million per year or whatever it would cost. And a national Federal program of that nature would cost trillions over time. And seems unlikely in this political climate also.

Again, I don't object to the government or private organizations experimenting around with various social welfare ideas. That is certainly better than implementing big programs without having done that sort of research. Like we did with the Pandemic relief funds.

I actually think the government should be doing more experimentation and testing of ideas before implementing them.

[Josh]

Here's a much better idea: how about fathers support the mothers of their children?

[barnhart]

While I have misgivings about programs like this, I'd rather spend money on this than missiles to blow things up and kill people halfway around the world, or oil or big ag or big pharma subsidies.

Sure. Plus, six million dollars for the city of Philadelphia is probably the economic equivalent of a bit of pocket lint.

Cities are where the rubber of government policy meets the road of real human experience. Density amplifies. Theories and ideology have their place, but cities are where facts catch up with the best of ideals. If something seems incomprehensible, it's probably because there was a lot of history leading up to that situation.

For example, cities did not invent or cause urban poverty, it thrown on them by forces like war, famine and de-industrialization separating people from capital investment and productive economies.

They are also places of creative experimentation when the status quo is not working. Necessity is the mother of invention. I'm ambivert about programs like the Philly experiment, let's wait and see what it produces.

[Josh]

Could you enlighten us about which war or famine afflicted these pregnant persons in Philadelphia?

[barnhart]

Seems to me like Philadelphia's money would be better spent, and their population more financially prosperous in the long run, by covering relocation expenses to send their black residents (pregnant or not) to San Francisco.

OJ, I usually appreciate your point of view but this feels a bit callous, maybe it comes across in ways not intended. But how would you feel about a society that decides you are not productive enough and wants to move you 3,000 miles away.

Possibly you were protesting the underlying assumption that economics should dominate policy without concern for human cost?

[mike]

Here's a much better idea: how about fathers support the mothers of their children?

Single moms with dependent children are a byproduct of our society and its choices over the past decades. I don't care how much welfare the government or private charity sends their way, they will always suffer financially and otherwise from their situation. And I'm not saying that aid should not be given. If men won't be responsible to provide for their own families voluntarily, then let them do it through the tax, alimony, and child support payment systems.

The unfortunate thing is many of these men are not motivated to work to the best level of their productivity because of the child support and alimony they have to pay. And so it is likely that the working families who are not in these situations end up paying for the programs that support people who are suffering from their own bad choices. It's just the way it is.

I'm glad it's not on me to solve these problems. Those of us who were born in settings where our parents and communities taught us how to manage our lives and live by rigid social standards ought to thank God for it, and try to be understanding toward those who weren't so privileged.