zlacker

>>tysone+(OP)
The lady in the example is 33 has a diabetes, 3 kids to support, and presumably also have to support for her disabled mother. To make the matter even more sad she had no higher level education. I can imagine how hard and tough it is for her. But I don't think raising the minimum wage or a mandated salary increase/promotion is the real solution here. The real solutions would be to: 1. Educate parents on the importance of children education. 2. Educate people to not have kids before they're financially and emotionally ready. 3. The importance and responsibilities that come with having kids.

Having been born in a developing countries and went to US for university and work sometime there, I can say that US minimum salary and the other related perks are already significantly way better of most of emerging countries.

>>blacks+oW
You don't need to 'educate' parents as to the importance of education. It is a typical rich person bias to believe that poor and disadvanted people need to be told that.

Likewise, people know that getting pregnant at 16 is not a great life plan. But the fundamentalist right have been campaigning for decades to control women's reproduction, including to prevent sexual health education, prevent contraception, and to deny access to abortion.

Lack of a social safety net (including health care) means that if you get a few bad breaks you could be living in your car with your kids. Essential medicine (like insulin) which should only cost a few dollars actually costs someone on minimum wage all their disposable income.

Saying that its better than a developing economy misses the point, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, and ordinary people are systematically taken advantage of by their own system of government. It's just tragic.

>>angry_+hh1
What's tragic is that millions of poor children are being raised in households considered poor because there is only a single earner. We have to address the cultural issues leading to the epidemic of single parent households.

That will do far more for the children of the future than anything else.

>>goblek+ar1
That is one part of the problem, but I think you are being hyperbolic in describing it as the key. In many countries single parents (or single income families) are not automatically poor. Having a single income (at minimum wage) be above the poverty/food stamp line would be a start. Sick/carers leave and subsidised childcare also have huge impacts in allowing mothers to retain higher paying jobs.

The real question is: why won't America care about children?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2012/07/16/the-rise...

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

>>angry_+wE1
Because the American philosophy is that people who make good decisions should not have to subsidize the poor decision making of others.

America has a significant social safety net, but should responsible citizens pay for the upkeep of someone who has multiple children out of wedlock before the age of 20 without any means to support those children? Absolutely not.

People must take responsibility for their own actions.

>>goblek+mO1
Kids don‘t ask to be born, they don’t choose poor parents.

>>ahakki+uS1
Does that mean we should choose good parents for the kids? They didn't ask to have a crackhead for a father, after all.

But somehow I think you meant we should improve the lot of the parents in the hope that that would help the kids.