Did you mean doctor tube, when you provided that web link?

My personal opinion is he does not need to have anymore children, nor do - or - should, the women that gave birth to all those children suppossedly.

The artical seem suspicious in its presentation. I did hear something about it a few years ago.

I know it doesn't. That is exactly my point. Helping them is not my job. Child care is very expensive so why are the providers' salaries so low? Is it really best for so many of our children to be institutionalized at such an early age? ( for as long as 8-10 hours a day - more hours often than the parents work)?

What are our priorities? Do we actually LIVE those priorites? Are we really best off in a society where it is often necessary for both parents to work 40+ hours a week to have even a basic middle class lifestyle?

What are we willing to give up or change to demonstrate that children are the priority, not just as individuals, but as a culture?

There has to be more to the answer than simply more gov't programs that , since the beginning of the Great Society, have not been completely successful. It;s a large question and there will be no easy answer.

Also, it is not up to me to help those people. It is up to them, the parents, to help themselves. But as far as my assistance in terms allocating my share of taxes. I can think of worse ways to spend the $$ than on kids.

My issue is not helping kids. It is how gov't programs have been mismanaged and how parenting is viewed in our culture.

there has to be give and take

I think Brittain was an example of someplace that successfully addressed the SPECIFIC issue of CHILD POVERTY, by doing just that,,,,

I know there are some smaller European nations that have implemented some interesting work life balance programs for young parents.

IDK how well that would go here in the US. My point is that it is "telling" the degree to which children are impoverished in our country with respect to our words..."Oh my yes kids are the most important thing." blah blah

....compared to our actions...as individuals (who HAVE to drive a new Mercedes - just an example) and as corporations and government and how they allocate spending, policies and profits.

If our mouths matched our values we wouldn't need gov't to step in and legislate FMLA (as an example) because the 1%ers would be already doing that. that is what I mean.

It shouldn't be happening at all in this day and age? All kids should be allowed the best opportunities that we can give them in life, not one of poverty and deprivation, that unfortunately a lot of them face.

Money will not make a 16 year old girl a better parent... an education will. Birth control and better education is the best way out of poverty. Having a husband is a better time to get pregnant than being broke and single.

The human lifespan is plenty long for people to start having children after they have gotten a reasonable education and learned how to support themselves.

Government intervention is seldom a cure for anything.

I just wanted to provide an idea as what an in-home child care provide can make in a month, not that you worked in the industry. To address your question about child care provider's earning's.

Many of the businesses one take's their children to need to create a business plan. Not like someone who is certified and works from there personal home. These business plans one goes to a Community Business Development Centre (CBDC) and submit's their plan to start a new business in the area of child care. These investors' at the CBDC know how much child care is need in there communicty (they are a team of investors). One may go to a financial institution, but generally you need more cash equity than one may need for a CBDC. A financial institution will generally advice you to visit a CBDC (at least here). These investors from the CBDC are associated with the financial institutions.

Now the people opening the new Child Care Business (CCB) generally need a building. This building needs to meet certain Building Standards (BS) and the cost to rent one of these buildings' that meet the BS are costly. Then there are the insurance cost associated with not only the rental property, but the employees and for the safety of the children. To sum up what I am trying to breifly explain is the costs are very high to open and run a CCB. The place where the cost can be controlled is labour. It is very difficult to argue with a utility company, insurance companies, city hall, or a land owner who is renting; and have the cost of running reduced, so the employees can earn more money. That is just not going to happen.

Most people want to work and have a family. None hope to live in the low to low-middle class of society, but is how society is run. Many of these people have a great education, but no job to acquire the needed experience as I mention on the first page of this thread.

Our priorities should be to employ adults, educate the adults in many areas of the business societ (life sciences also), so they can help there children learn. This helps the teachers and students need to help each other learn (at a very young age). This is difficult to accept, but children need to learn that learning is a game (play), so do adults. They need to acutually play for health reasons also.

I believe a lot of people try to live those priorities, which I will try to explain below. My opinion or observations of life and society.

The reason both parent work have always been the same as in history, but more so your question is in today's society do they need to work. This depends on the income the family needs to live a suitable life style. I believe a lot of people make more than is really required to live a suitable life style, but I given the choice would I like to earn their income; of course I would.

The above two questions is: Is society better off putting two people to work each receiving half the pay to preform the professional job. I mentions this earlier also on page one of this thread.

To change as a society mean we need to look away from prisons, so people can talk about there past life. This will help society to understand what is need to change in raising the next couple of generations.

It is not about more government programs' or increased funding. Yes they can help in the short term, but a cost in the long term, which is a national, provincal, or state deficit. I mention a few months' ago about wealthy people being mentors' and opening up job positions. This is one way of helping society, but if your have a couple of million dollars in savings and investments are you going to retire early.

This is were the business cycle has people globally. We need to look at financial restraints on a global scale, because of the indifferences in countries. These indifferences is what causes national problems and restrains the country's government and concerned business people (people with heritage and would sacrifice there life for their country, not other individuals) from taking greater chances on social measures to help people. My distant family went through this hundreds of years ago with people who could not afford to pay land taxes. People forget that back then some of those people gave there land back to the government to cover the taxes they could not collect from the common people. What is one going to do; put people in jail because they cannot pay taxes. That leads nowhere. Everything now day's is still about money, bottom line on the large side of life and society. So much I have not included.

Many people have problems that society may not agree with, but let's set those issue aside and look at people in poverty that are trying to stay employed or are employed. Many of these people work dam hard for what they earn. The live in the low to middle income bracket of society.

A single person no children still finds it difficult to survive if single. The want to find a relationship, this cost money and the business machine has know about this issue for over a hundred years (do not kid yourself) (The truth hurts). A single person can live and save on this income but by what measures do we measure one's ability to live life. Look how much rent costs a single person to live in a good apartment and community area.

Single parent earning the same amount, may not have money to invest/save; because of raising a child.

Two parents both earnig the same amount as a single person; and these parents have children now people can raise a family and save money again. Just because they are saving money does not mean they are living life at a standard that will prevent poverty upon there children.

Yes providing an education does help in understanding the world, but in 2015 the only thing an education show's and employer is that you can learn. That is stated by colleges and university members. The problem leads back to what I said in my first couple of paragraphs.

We cannot separate adult needs and children's needs. They both need to be looked at; at the same time. Why? An adult needs to live also. A parent needs to live and support a child(ren). If the adults do not have the proper means to support a family, teach there child(ren) [parent needs to be educated somewhat], how will the child be taught and learn to survive beyond societial means of poverty.

What do we consider as poverty??? A life style that the business and marketing machine presents to us. Many people are explores at heart, but do not see themselves as one.

I do not know anyone who really wants to be homeless and not be able to save and go on a wonderful vacation.

The government problem is caused by everything I tried to touch on above. Not everything is the governments fault, but what people want and government has tried to provide. For every good change, bad changes occur at the same time. Science and Philosophy a thread about "... Does the universe naturally produce complexity and reason?..." relates to this subject.

The issue at hand is poverty, not just child poverty. As stated above, children did not ask to be born to those parents, and we know the parents are the reason a child is in poverty in most cases. To eradicate child proverty, the government must be able to create jobs for the parents and create universal child care grants/benefits.

Here in Canada, both the federal and provincial goverments provide substential financial help to families with children under 18. Things like monthly child tax benefit (per child) and the government picking up about 3/4 of the daycare tab is especially beneficial to single parents who need to work.

While a good job and steady income should definitely be part os the battle against poverty, as metalwing mentioned, the education of the parents is primordial.

Just my 2 cents-

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

only the dumbest poor people will argue about what all the rich people tell the dumbest poor people to argue about.

Tell that to their parents.

Nobody owes anybody a job.

I am aware, the economy is set up for a certain percentage to NOT WORK,, as a matter of fact

but people still need food, water, shelter, and we have more then enough resources to not be ashamed that we have children without it,,,or to whinge about investing to make sure they do