"A Social Worker Advised Me to Have a Baby if I Wanted Public Money"

[daredtowork]

This articles packs an amazing number of truths about poverty into a few short paragraphs:
http://time.com/3453258/poor-disconnected-and-living-in-the-cloud/

Against the GOP shrug of "get a job", the article brings up the ramifications of age, gender, geographic location, particular education/career paths, how technology has changed the way we communicate and interact as a society. It gets right to the heart of what's wrong with all the political grandstanding over employment, all the lame "employment programs", the endless fluff pieces written by "human resources professionals": the entire system is predicated on ideas about local "social networks" that just aren't the reality for a lot of people anymore.

The part of the article that gets to the fundamental hypocrisy of our society, though, is the part where the author mentions - in an off hand way - how a social worker advised her to have a baby if she wanted "public money".

Most people know very little about the welfare system, or what's left of it. But I'm sure if they pass a beggar on the street, they justify not handing over any pocket change because "the State" will somehow vet their situation and give them something to meet their basic needs. After all, politicians are always screaming about "Welfare Queens" - Social Services must be writing monthly checks to poor people! This is untrue. While every county is different, by and large you don't get help just because you've run out of resources. In the county where I live, "general assistance" welfare is $336/month for 3 months out of the year. You can get that amount only if it's going to pay for housing: apparently it's much lower if you're homeless and using it for temporary shelters. Oh, and this money is a loan. If you get some small job, you can't save up because you will be paying back the State first.

But if you're a woman, and you have a child, suddenly you become eligible for programs for the child. You can also pool any aid you get with aid the child gets. Your situation is much more survivable as a woman with a child. You can stabilize your housing. You can get support to finish your education. There's a chance to lift yourself out of poverty. There is strong incentive for poor women to have children because everything in our current welfare policy is about crushing and destroying and outright torturing the poor instead of helping them.

This is why every time some GOP schmuck starts going on a tear about poor women having babies, I just gape in astonishment. How do these guys not understand that their own policies created this situation? Welfare policy gives women every incentive to have children, because the rules have made it abundantly clear that human beings have zero value in and of themselves. That baby is their only life line. Social workers do secretly give that advice, just as they have to give a lot of other advice to "work around" the utterly impossible system that's in place. If the GOP wants to change that, then the solution is a lot simpler than seizing control of every single uterus or implementing eugenics. All they have to do is realize that by making having a baby the only way for people to get welfare, they created an incentive for very desperate people to have babies.

The poor don't make "bad decisions". The rich are making bad decisions about the poor. The poor are actually making the most logical decisions in the set of circumstances they are being saddled with.

As a woman who has had to fall back on the welfare system because of the multi-year application process for SSI, I have resented the enormous pressure to have children to get any sort of survivable support. I frankly don't want to have children. I don't think this situation is fair for impoverished men, either.

[Wait Wut]

1. I was barely 18 when my son was born...

...31 years ago. I had a social worker deny me subsidized daycare so that I could work and go to school because I "should stay home and be a mother." Besides making me feel like the worst mother on the planet for wanting to improve our lives, I had to spend over 50% of my minimum wage pay for a neighbor to watch my son just to work. I couldn't afford to go back to school. I spent a year terrified that I would end up on welfare in a crappy, roach infested apartment with no way to better our lives.

I'm not sure what kind of training they get, but a lot of social workers need to find new lines of work. I don't know if they become jaded or just never cared to begin with, but they aren't helping. (Not all are horrible. I've had friends in the same line of work that are truly amazing and compassionate.)

[daredtowork]

3. Social Worker is kind of a contradiction in terms

In my county they do nothing but process paper work for very specific programs. They volunteer no information to get you on programs. The volunteer no information for community services outside the programs their department administers. For budgetary reasons they seem focused on trying to get people kicked off of programs. And they make a lot of errors which devastates the lives of people already living on the edge.

I appreciate these are not highly paid people and they have heavy case loads, but often it seems like they are working to destroy people instead of help them.

[redruddyred]

25. probably there's a lot of pressure to reduce budget

there's been an unfortunate misinformation campaign for at least 30 years now demonizing those who are least able to fight back.

my experiences with social workers have not been good either; I was audited for holding down a number of part-time jobs while waiting to be approved. when the social worker called to interrogate me I was bedridden with virally-mediated encephalitis and unable to respond cohesively. I was therefore a perjurer. shjesus.

[daredtowork]

33. Yep

There are so many "gotchas" in the system. From the minute you go into The System you are afraid to read the small print or ask questions for fear some random rule may surface that will work against you. But as long as you leave things along, it's in everyone's interest to do less work and just leave your benefits in place. That's the psychology of it, at least.

[redruddyred]

34. pretty much.

the only reason I got audited was because I asked for more money.
which I really, really needed.
I found it amusing that this woman wanted to take the time to go thru all my records when I had spent the last three years being too ill to get out of bed more than a couple hours a day. what I didn't like was the aggressiveness and the accusations of "cheating the system".

I have to admit, it's been tempting, if only because I rather enjoy eating. I don't think I can be blamed for that one tho.

[DeadLetterOffice]

29. Those are not Social Workers.

They are caseworkers.

Caseworkers need a high school diploma and in some states may even need a bachelors degree, but it could be in damn well anything. They are paid for shit, have ridiculous caseloads, and mainly serve to do needs testing of applicants for county or state social service benefits.

Social Workers must have either a BSW (some states let BSWs call themselves Social Workers) or more commonly a Masters in Social Work. After decades of fighting for it, the title 'Social Worker' in most states is now licensed and restricted. They are trained in mental health services (most mental health care providers are social workers -- 60% of mental health professionals are clinically trained social workers, compared to 10% of psychiatrists, 23% of psychologists and 5% of psychiatric nurses), as well as community organizing, policy development and implementation, and outcomes research. Most states require ongoing education to maintain their license. (Like caseworkers, they are also often paid for shit and have ridiculous caseloads.)

[IVoteDFL]

2. I've considered getting pregnant to get help

I live with my mom who has RA and is trying to leave her job and get on social security disability and we get a total of $80.00 a month in food stamps. I knew someone who was pregnant and gave it up for adoption to get her rent paid for nine months. I thought she was nuts, but as the winter months approach and I can only come up with about half of my rent she is looking more and more brilliant.

[daredtowork]

4. It's not brilliant but

it may be the only way out.

The GOP has to realize that they are leaving this the only way out. What they think is an "incentive to get a job" doesn't work for people who can't get a job, or at least can't earn enough to survive.

[Stargazer99]

5. Wait! The GOP could find a way to destroy welfare

they are trying now....Ayn Rand you know is their ideal.

[daredtowork]

13. This is my point

The GOP want to destroy welfare because of those "welfare queens" pumping out babies.

But the GOP essentially cornered impoverished women into doing that. Anyone who has actually been through the welfare system will tell you that it's designed to push you into homelessness if you don't have children.

[Trillo]

6. reward childbirth with various perks?

Just my two cents, I believe that promoting childbirth has existed since its promotion through Christianity. I don't know enough about its beginnings, but I learned from a documentary that a lot of the early Christians were against having children, they didn't believe the world was a good place, that earth was hell. If that viewpoint was accurate, it means the propaganda of the church evolved throughout the years to one in which the afterlife contained hell or heaven.

I've also read that many of the economic theories use expansion of the populace as a desired variable. Once again, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to come to my own conclusions.

Having a child deduction on income tax filings are another mark of historical promotion of childbirth.

It also fits the anti-abortion faction.

Thus, your observation that adult females with children are given the most amount of welfare assistance, in my view would seem to match the prevailing pattern.


I have often wondered why we have so many benefits for having kids while living on a clearly overpopulated world, draining its resources past the point of sustainable recovery. It would seem to me the logical course of action would be to financially reward not having kids.

At one time in our history it probably made a lot of sense to reward childbirth with various perks. Is that still the case?

[kelliekat44]

8. Ahhh....but we criticized the Chinese for the one-child policy. On the other hand, some religious

denominations historically promoted having large families to continue their numbers among their denominations and to build future, sustainable financial contributors to their particular denomination and support the bishops, elders, and pseudo Christ figures. Now their is push by the dwindling majority race in the US because of their fear of becoming the minority race.

My grandparents had lots of kids to help keep their farm going and help with chores around the barn...I don't know if that was their intent but that's how it turned out.

[daredtowork]

15. I agree that the GOP schizophrenia on the issue has a lot to do with race

I find it somewhat amusing that the GOP war on "welfare queens" is so driven by the conviction that the welfare rolls are non-white. If they really wanted to sponsor some white baby-making factories, they should actually be pumping money into welfare programs, which supports a substantial amount of the rural white poor.

[daredtowork]

10. Whether it makes sense or not

The GOP target "women having babies" for revilement, and use the "welfare queen" as a pretext for implementing eugenics policies.

The "just go ahead and admit we're rewarding them for having babies" scenario is not even on the table.

[redruddyred]

26. I'll give that a resounding 'NO'.

if we want to survive as a species anyhow.

if we want to bring C02 production back to reasonable levels, we've got to reduce the population. reduce consumption, yes, but reducing the number of people on this planet should do some good things too.

[BuelahWitch]

7. That is a sad article

That woman did everything "right"- got an education, worked hard, did *not* have children she couldn't care for financially. Yet she's homeless and jobless due to greed and a society that feels single women with no children have no value, and once they get past a certain age no one gives a damn about them. She *might* have been better off having some kids to get some benefits (although IMO that brings its own problems).
What got me was the comment from a former coworker when she tried to do some networking, “Everyone here is done as far as socializing goes. You’ll need to look elsewhere for that.” Very blunt and cold, not willing to help out someone who needs it.
Our greedy society.

[daredtowork]

11. Her story could be told over and over.

The women of my generation received a very strong message to focus on work and avoid contributing population problems if we didn't feel innately moved to motherhood. Yet society didn't step up and provide the appropriate safety nets for the women who followed that path.

As you get older the punishments for not having children multiply. There is no "family" to fall back on. No one to call in emergencies. No one to drive you places or help you get groceries. No one for you to stay with when the hospital releases you two days after you had a stroke.

And single women are especially vulnerable to the economic chaos inflicted by the new "gig-based" economy. They need more bridges and safety nets to keep them afloat in lieu of traditional secure full time jobs and the ability to build pensions. Moreover, as you perceptively point out, the people who most desperately need to live in the social centers of cities are most likely to be priced out of being able to live there because those same social centers are "highly desirable" and the rent is way too high for them to be able to afford. The San Francisco Bay area is an epic example of this problem. This problem is even more disgusting when you find out a great deal of this downtown property is unused: it's purchased as investments or temporary pied a terres by the super wealthy. Meanwhile the people who need accessibility the most are pushed further and further out toward the fringes.

[redruddyred]

27. I was informed by a couchsurfer

that the same is true in New York. often foreign investments, what's more.

what a stupid way to run an economy.

[Prophet 451]

9. The term here is "benefit scrounger"

but is used in much teh same sneering way. Makes me want to stab people.

[daredtowork]

12. The scrounging occurs because people need it

Women don't have babies because it's fun. It's painful. It involves a lot of responsibility. Babies increase the stress in your life a thousand fold because their life is now on the line as well as your own: and everyone is judging you on how you treat that baby whether you have resources or not. A baby means you can no longer devote all your time to your own interests and goals: you have to attend to the baby's needs on demand.

From the poverty-stricken mothers I've met, I would say that a baby grants one powerful advantage besides being the only way to avoid homelessness in the current welfare system. Once you have a baby, you become a lot more assertive in getting your needs met. It's very hard to advocate for yourself. People always challenge and deny your own right to survive. But once you have a child, there is an unwritten rule that a mother will do anything to defend her child. This is a great psychological pass key, empowering a woman to demand more from the world around her on behalf of that child.

[Prophet 451]

23. Preaching to the choir, dude

As someone who relies on the welfare/benefits system (I'm disabled for reasons of both physical and mental health), the sneering contempt much of teh public holds to those claiming such benefits drives me to spitting fury.

[daredtowork]

24. the contempt is magnified by ignorance

and that ignorance is deliberately disseminated by politicians who think they can get away with political grandstanding at the expense of the "welfare queen" because that particular segment of the population is too weak to do anything about it. The constant stream of lies do burn.

The fact that welfare programs are implemented differently in not only every State but also every county makes it impossible for even the recipients to speak with a unified voice. Note the despair of LeftyMom here who seems to have access to even fewer resources than a destitute mother would get in California.

[LeftyMom]

14. Nothing you said about women and children is actually true.

First of all if you have a child to care for you're eligible for more programs, no matter your gender. The only programs specific to women deal with pregnancy and postpartum/lactation for the benefit of the child.

Second, while people with children qualify for a few more programs, those programs are hardly generous enough to come out ahead by having children. Your housing becomes more expensive, jobs become harder to get, childcare benefits connected to welfare are slow to kick in (and too stingy to pay for decent care) while work requirements are immediate and inflexible.

Single parents haven't discovered the trick to tipping the social services vending machine.

The system is inadequate for everybody.

edit: The writer of the article was advised to do so by a social worker *25* years ago. The rules were different. Hell, maybe that wasn't terrible advice then (hell if I know, I was in grade school...) Adding a child to your case post 90's welfare reform raises your food stamps but not your cash aid.

[daredtowork]

16. Hmm you mistake my purpose I think

Yes, men can also benefit from "for the children" welfare policies. That's not the point of the article at all.

I will second your point that NO welfare programs are generous. I'm only saying that having children give you access to more - and thus puts you in a more survivable position than not having children. Single people are relentlessly driven toward homelessness in the welfare system.

I also agree with everything you say about ways your life becomes harder when you have a child. See an above comment I made to that effect. Again, I think you missed the purpose of the article I was quoting from - which was simply to say that having a child makes the welfare system SLIGHTLY more survivable.

There is no "social services vending machine". Absolutely agree.

Ps. You become "eligible for more programs" in the sense that you will be able to pool what your child is eligible for.

[LeftyMom]

18. It doesn't though.

Housing assistance still takes years and years to get, if the waiting list is even taking names. Cash aid is still far less than it would take to pay for even the cheapest apartment in the worst neighborhood (though TANF for two is a bit more generous than GA for one- about $500 instead of about $300.) You're still fucked if you make any effort to make outside money and double fucked if you don't. Only now you have the CPS sword of Damocles hanging over your head if anybody decides that your poverty is neglect (and the vast majority of CPS complaints are for neglect.) And if you fall into homelessness you are likely to lose your child to that system (and have fewer options in terms of car, friends' couches, etc.)

So yeah, you're still basing your argument on an entirely incorrect assumption. The system fucks over parents every bit as much, if not more.

[daredtowork]

21. I understand about housing assistance

The Section 8 Waiting List will NEVER open up where I live. But if I had a child, I would be able to get the General Assistance for that child and the food stamps for that child. In California there is also the CalWorks program that provides support for housing, basic needs, and even education for 5 years.

I totally understand about the trying to earn the outside money. Click my sig to see how well I understand. I also lost Medi-Cal for a month as well as all the issues mentioned in my sig.

I do believe what you're saying about the system tries to punish women for having children. After all the GOP are constantly grandstanding against the "welfare queens" for having children. But for your tiny amount of GA, imagine the single person trying to find a place to live on only one single GA check. It is possible to be even MORE frakked because you didn't have children.

[hughee99]

17. I have to take a little issue with this. The women aren't encouraged to have a child because of GOP

policies. If the republicans had their way, poor people wouldn't get any assistance whether they had children or not.

[daredtowork]

19. Welfare Reform

My understanding is even though "Welfare Reform" largely occurred under Clinton, it was largely driven by the GOP desire not to give money away to people who could, in theory, work. The theory of who could work was really stretched until it had the effect of denying aid to people in hopeless situations.

However, having children increases your resources within the system set up post- "Welfare Reform". That's why I attribute the situation to the GOP even though, as you say, they would like nothing better than to get rid of welfare all together, and they frequently hold up the baby-making "welfare queen" as the pretext. Can you see the set up here?

[LeftyMom]

20. The title quote is from 25 years ago. Just want to make sure any skimmers catch that. nt

[daredtowork]

22. I was told the exact same thing a month ago.

I've been trying to fight back because my attempt to work to earn money for basic necessities was taken out of my rent money. Moreover, when I legally report it, it automatically cut everything off: general assistance (the rent check to my landlord), food stamps, and Medi-Cal. It's taken endless hours and a very stressful fight (all while I was greatly debilitated because of the loss of Medi-Cal medications and treatments) to deal with this.

All of this happened to me because I was attempting to do the right thing. The treatment I received under the ACA had improved my condition, and I was trying to help myself. I did some work. I legally reported it. I even tried to call my case worker to ask how to report the work I did. (call never returned).

During my dealings with this I was told confidentially by someone in Social Services that I would have been better off if I had a baby because I could have gotten into CalWorks.

Interestingly, the person who wrote the article is also from California. Are you? Welfare programs vary widely in different places. Perhaps you're from someplace with even fewer options for families.

[kestrel91316]

28. For people who insist that a woman's only real goal in life should be to produce babies, they sure

do get their panties in a twist when they actually have babies.

[daredtowork]

31. home truth.nt

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Pah, small potatoes. As social worker advised ME to design a trillion dollar jet fighter that

doesn't, actually, fulfill any of the requirements of the service branches it is designed for, and in fact may not really be able to fly very well at all:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

[daredtowork]

32. LOL! nt