100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Understanding out of wedlock statistics | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Mon 08/12/13 02:12 PM
|
|
no ones going to allow their reproductive choices to be governed especially when, as stated half a dozen times and backed up with REAL numbers,,,, poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out of wedlock births,,, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births" "States with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty." "Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent." "There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation." "Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births Since the link between poverty and out-of-wedlock births is definitive, out-of-wedlock births can and do affect the rise or fall of poverty rates because family size is part of the equation used to determine poverty rates... what you have pointed out is a CORRELATION,, which only implies that there is a FACTOR,, it doesn't show that poverty rates are dependent upon that factor since, at our HIGHEST time of poverty in America, we had our LOWEST out of wedlock birthrates there is a stronger correlation between ECONOMIC factors and poverty,, than there is out of wedlock birth,,, The argument being made is that out-of-wedlock births contribute to poverty. So, if a single woman wishes to avoid poverty, then it would be in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. However, when a single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse, she increases the chance that she will become pregnant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you think if newer more permanent forms of birth control such as hormone implants and IUDs were made more readily available and without shame that more women would use them and this stuff wouldn't happen in the first place? again, I go back to believing that although it is better for parents to be wed,, the state of the economy plays a much larger part in how 'stuff' like poverty happens,,, if more permanent living wages and substantial/AFFORDABLE/equal education were more readily available,, poverty rates may decrease amongst both the wed and unwed,,, How do you mean permanent living wages and substantial/AFFORDABLE/equal education were more readily available? Spread the poverty around? Via Socialism? If, if's and but's were candy and nut's, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas. what I Mean is people shouldn't go to work 40 hours a week and still live below poverty if that equates to 'spreading povrty' ,, to some folks, they don't understand the point,,, Minimum wages are meant for young single adults who are just entering the work force, people who don't have high living expenses. If an adult makes wise choices pertaining to work, then that adult will build up a work history that demonstrates the person is worth being paid more than minimum wage. not in a right to work economy, or an economy with so many people competing for the same jobs in such an economy,, employers have much more leeway to pay minimum wges regardless of what an employee is 'worth' therein lies the rub if , as employees, we are in a culture where 'any job' (meaning any payrate) is better than no job we become only 'worth' as much as the jobs are willing to pay,, and with so many of us competing for the same jobs,, accepting what is given is much more common than expecting what we are 'worth',,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no ones going to allow their reproductive choices to be governed especially when, as stated half a dozen times and backed up with REAL numbers,,,, poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out of wedlock births,,, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births" "States with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty." "Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent." "There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation." "Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births Since the link between poverty and out-of-wedlock births is definitive, out-of-wedlock births can and do affect the rise or fall of poverty rates because family size is part of the equation used to determine poverty rates... what you have pointed out is a CORRELATION,, which only implies that there is a FACTOR,, it doesn't show that poverty rates are dependent upon that factor since, at our HIGHEST time of poverty in America, we had our LOWEST out of wedlock birthrates there is a stronger correlation between ECONOMIC factors and poverty,, than there is out of wedlock birth,,, The argument being made is that out-of-wedlock births contribute to poverty. So, if a single woman wishes to avoid poverty, then it would be in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. However, when a single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse, she increases the chance that she will become pregnant. of course they contribute, but the poverty rates aren't DEPENDENT Upon them in any way,, they rise and fall despite what out of wedlock birthrates are because they are about the ECONOMY,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no ones going to allow their reproductive choices to be governed especially when, as stated half a dozen times and backed up with REAL numbers,,,, poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out of wedlock births,,, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births" "States with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty." "Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent." "There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation." "Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births Since the link between poverty and out-of-wedlock births is definitive, out-of-wedlock births can and do affect the rise or fall of poverty rates because family size is part of the equation used to determine poverty rates... what you have pointed out is a CORRELATION,, which only implies that there is a FACTOR,, it doesn't show that poverty rates are dependent upon that factor since, at our HIGHEST time of poverty in America, we had our LOWEST out of wedlock birthrates there is a stronger correlation between ECONOMIC factors and poverty,, than there is out of wedlock birth,,, Your statement, "poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out-of-wedlock births" is false because there is a correlation...A substantial correlation... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not in a right to work economy, or an economy with so many people competing for the same jobs in such an economy,, employers have much more leeway to pay minimum wges regardless of what an employee is 'worth' therein lies the rub if , as employees, we are in a culture where 'any job' (meaning any payrate) is better than no job we become only 'worth' as much as the jobs are willing to pay,, and with so many of us competing for the same jobs,, accepting what is given is much more common than expecting what we are 'worth',,,,,  A right to work economy? "Right to Work" is irrelevant, because a person can refuse to take a job that pays less than the person wants. By the way, the worth of a job is determined by the free market, not by the employee who has the job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no ones going to allow their reproductive choices to be governed especially when, as stated half a dozen times and backed up with REAL numbers,,,, poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out of wedlock births,,, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births" "States with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty." "Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent." "There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation." "Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births Since the link between poverty and out-of-wedlock births is definitive, out-of-wedlock births can and do affect the rise or fall of poverty rates because family size is part of the equation used to determine poverty rates... what you have pointed out is a CORRELATION,, which only implies that there is a FACTOR,, it doesn't show that poverty rates are dependent upon that factor since, at our HIGHEST time of poverty in America, we had our LOWEST out of wedlock birthrates there is a stronger correlation between ECONOMIC factors and poverty,, than there is out of wedlock birth,,, Your statement, "poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out-of-wedlock births" is false because there is a correlation...A substantial correlation... no, Leigh, its not substantial,,,, again, in the years when our poverty rates were HIGHEST , we had our lowest out of wedlock birthrates and during years when out of wedlock births were INCREASING , poverty rates were coming down ,,the correlation mentioned above looked at just ONE years information,, that does not make proof of a strong correlation between poverty and oow rates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not in a right to work economy, or an economy with so many people competing for the same jobs in such an economy,, employers have much more leeway to pay minimum wges regardless of what an employee is 'worth' therein lies the rub if , as employees, we are in a culture where 'any job' (meaning any payrate) is better than no job we become only 'worth' as much as the jobs are willing to pay,, and with so many of us competing for the same jobs,, accepting what is given is much more common than expecting what we are 'worth',,,,, A right to work economy? "Right to Work" is irrelevant, because a person can refuse to take a job that pays less than the person wants. By the way, the worth of a job is determined by the free market, not by the employee who has the job. I thought that's what I just said,, working hard so that you are 'worth' more is not realistic,, although it doesn't hurt but its unrealistic for the very reason that you will only be WORTH what the 'free market' (employers) decide you are,, and since you are the one seeking employment, you are the one with the least power to negotiate anything different |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no ones going to allow their reproductive choices to be governed especially when, as stated half a dozen times and backed up with REAL numbers,,,, poverty rates do not rise and fall upon out of wedlock births,,, "Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births" "States with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty." "Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent." "There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation." "Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births Since the link between poverty and out-of-wedlock births is definitive, out-of-wedlock births can and do affect the rise or fall of poverty rates because family size is part of the equation used to determine poverty rates... what you have pointed out is a CORRELATION,, which only implies that there is a FACTOR,, it doesn't show that poverty rates are dependent upon that factor since, at our HIGHEST time of poverty in America, we had our LOWEST out of wedlock birthrates there is a stronger correlation between ECONOMIC factors and poverty,, than there is out of wedlock birth,,, The argument being made is that out-of-wedlock births contribute to poverty. So, if a single woman wishes to avoid poverty, then it would be in her best interest to avoid becoming pregnant. However, when a single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse, she increases the chance that she will become pregnant. of course they contribute, but the poverty rates aren't DEPENDENT Upon them in any way,, they rise and fall despite what out of wedlock birthrates are because they are about the ECONOMY,, Excellent spin as usual my friend, but it is spin....Although it's true that poverty rates rise and fall in DIRECT correlation with the rise and fall of the economy, women living at poverty level who continue having out-of-wedlock babies affect a CONTINUED RISE in the poverty level irrespective of what is happening on the economic front..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, and I know gibmedats will find this difficult to grasp, the women who want to avoid poverty don't go getting themselves knocked up.
They do the responsible thing. They either don't have sex or, they protect themselves against pregnancy. Pond scum dwellers haven't been taught responsibility. They need to be ordered to quit polluting. Or, if they refuse free help, there's always the covert way and use sterilization additives to favorite junk foods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, in the years when our poverty rates were HIGHEST , we had our lowest out of wedlock birthrates and during years when out of wedlock births were INCREASING , poverty rates were coming down ,,the correlation mentioned above looked at just ONE years information,, that does not make proof of a strong correlation between poverty and oow rates msharmony, I have seen the statistics that support your point, but we are getting away from the reason that out-of-wedlock births were being discussed in the first place. Regardless of what the economy is like, a child born out of wedlock is more prone to grow up in poverty that a child born within wedlock. So, a decrease in out-of-wedlock births would help to decrease the amount of poverty that exists. Also, as stated earlier, the economy in the USA isn't causing out-of-wedlock births to take place. They are taking place (in general) because single women are choosing to participate in sexual intercourse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If, and I know gibmedats will find this difficult to grasp, the women who want to avoid poverty don't go getting themselves knocked up. They do the responsible thing. They either don't have sex or, they protect themselves against pregnancy. Pond scum dwellers haven't been taught responsibility. They need to be ordered to quit polluting. Or, if they refuse free help, there's always the covert way and use sterilization additives to favorite junk foods. we are talking about children, last I checked it took the man and the woman to create them so why the focus on demonizing the women? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not in a right to work economy, or an economy with so many people competing for the same jobs in such an economy,, employers have much more leeway to pay minimum wges regardless of what an employee is 'worth' therein lies the rub if , as employees, we are in a culture where 'any job' (meaning any payrate) is better than no job we become only 'worth' as much as the jobs are willing to pay,, and with so many of us competing for the same jobs,, accepting what is given is much more common than expecting what we are 'worth',,,,, A right to work economy? "Right to Work" is irrelevant, because a person can refuse to take a job that pays less than the person wants. By the way, the worth of a job is determined by the free market, not by the employee who has the job. I thought that's what I just said,, working hard so that you are 'worth' more is not realistic,, although it doesn't hurt but its unrealistic for the very reason that you will only be WORTH what the 'free market' (employers) decide you are,, and since you are the one seeking employment, you are the one with the least power to negotiate anything different If you believe that you are worth more than you are being paid, then you are free to change to a job that pays more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, in the years when our poverty rates were HIGHEST , we had our lowest out of wedlock birthrates and during years when out of wedlock births were INCREASING , poverty rates were coming down ,,the correlation mentioned above looked at just ONE years information,, that does not make proof of a strong correlation between poverty and oow rates msharmony, I have seen the statistics that support your point, but we are getting away from the reason that out-of-wedlock births were being discussed in the first place. Regardless of what the economy is like, a child born out of wedlock is more prone to grow up in poverty that a child born within wedlock. So, a decrease in out-of-wedlock births would help to decrease the amount of poverty that exists. Also, as stated earlier, the economy in the USA isn't causing out-of-wedlock births to take place. They are taking place (in general) because single women are choosing to participate in sexual intercourse. Dodo,. I hate these blurred lines,,,, the number of births to unwed mothers HAS BEEN DECREASING,,,so in a talk about poverty, focusing on oow birth rates is irrelevant the oow birth rate is increasing as a result of the rate of births to married women decreasing at a FASTER Rate than the rate of births to unwed women is but both groups HAVE BEEN having fewer children and the poverty levels have STILL been rising and falling throughout ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,that's it for oow birth rates having significant affect on poverty RATES as to is it best for children to have married parents ABSOLUTELY but again, that is a TWO Party decision,,,,and one cant guarantee what the other party will or will not do either before, during, or after a child comes into the picture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not in a right to work economy, or an economy with so many people competing for the same jobs in such an economy,, employers have much more leeway to pay minimum wges regardless of what an employee is 'worth' therein lies the rub if , as employees, we are in a culture where 'any job' (meaning any payrate) is better than no job we become only 'worth' as much as the jobs are willing to pay,, and with so many of us competing for the same jobs,, accepting what is given is much more common than expecting what we are 'worth',,,,, A right to work economy? "Right to Work" is irrelevant, because a person can refuse to take a job that pays less than the person wants. By the way, the worth of a job is determined by the free market, not by the employee who has the job. I thought that's what I just said,, working hard so that you are 'worth' more is not realistic,, although it doesn't hurt but its unrealistic for the very reason that you will only be WORTH what the 'free market' (employers) decide you are,, and since you are the one seeking employment, you are the one with the least power to negotiate anything different If you believe that you are worth more than you are being paid, then you are free to change to a job that pays more. if I can find one that doesn't have a half dozen or more others competing for it with more 'impressive' documents and references,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is about knocked up women and poverty.
Responsible women plan kids they can take Care of. Pond scum pump scm and expect the freebies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is about knocked up women and poverty. Responsible women plan kids they can take Care of. Pond scum pump scm and expect the freebies. and asinine men think women make babies all by their lonely,, and should take care of them that way too,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, there are two topics being discussed on this thread. You are addressing one, and I am addressing the other. It isn't an "either/or" situation.
Again, I have seen statistical evidence that supports what you say about the correlation (if any) between the OOW birth rate and the poverty rate. During the Great Depression, the poverty rate in the USA was high, while the OOW birth rate was low. As one of my college professor used to say, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yet, none of that does away with the fact that, the fewer OOW births there are, the fewer children who grow up in poverty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is about knocked up women and poverty. Responsible women plan kids they can take Care of. Pond scum pump scm and expect the freebies. and asinine men think women make babies all by their lonely,, and should take care of them that way too,,, Sperm don't survive in a responsibly protected woman. Pond scum, like those on Jerry Springer, could give a fck. Well, they do but, don't protect themselves. Why wouldn't you want women to be responsible? We'd see a better quality of human. Anything wrong with that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is about knocked up women and poverty. Responsible women plan kids they can take Care of. Pond scum pump scm and expect the freebies. and asinine men think women make babies all by their lonely,, and should take care of them that way too,,, Sperm don't survive in a responsibly protected woman. Pond scum, like those on Jerry Springer, could give a fck. Well, they do but, don't protect themselves. Why wouldn't you want women to be responsible? We'd see a better quality of human. Anything wrong with that? willing2, it takes 2 people to make a baby. So, men have just as much a responsibility as women to prevent out-of-wedlock births. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Mon 08/12/13 03:03 PM
|
|
Understood.
My point, and I'll type slowly, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, SHE protects herself or, makes sure the dude is rubberized. |
|
|
|
|
