Doug is correct, a large part of the increase in 'unwed' births are due to the decreased fertility of married women. Just to add a few more points: 1. The largest proportion of increase in 'unwed' births is to caucasian women. 2. I think the decrease in births to married women is in part due to the aging of our population -- baby boom women who married in their teens and early twenties are now approaching menopause. Younger women are marrying at a lesser rate. 3. Teen pregnancies are generally presented (by male economists) as an almost complete negative. Several feminist perspectives have it that women bearing babies in their teens can actually result in an economic plus down the line. A woman who has finished her child bearing and the most labor intensive years of child rearing by the time she is 19-20 (child years 1-4), can look forward to a relatively uninterrupted 30-40 years in the job market. This resolves the issue faced by many professional women: continue up the job ladder or stop to have babies. Women who have their babies at a young age are not subject to that 'choice' 'problem' presented by many neoclassical economists -- i.e., they 'choose' to leave the market during some of the years when they earn their highest income. From this perspective, teen pregnancies are indeed a very rational choice. There has been some preliminary reasearch which shows that teen mothers do not necessarily do worse in the long run than single heads of households at any other age. 4. Wed lock is not a weird word. it is a word used to describe the role of women in married -- a lock on personal freedom. 5. Any attempt to statistically relate fertility to welfare has failed. In fact, the fertility rate of welfare mothers is no higher than similary cohorts of women not on welfare. 6. The average length of stay on welfare is less than two years -- not enough time to have lots of babies. In fact, not enough time to have more than one baby. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 96-11-22 16:03:29 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) writes: >Subj: [PEN-L:7543] Re: Technology Shock and Teen Pregnancy >Date: 96-11-22 16:03:29 EST >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >At 12:22 PM 11/22/96, Eban Goodstein wrote: > >>The "theory" sounds persuasive to me-- the large rise in out of wedlock >>births clearly reflects changing social norms, which in turn are affected in >>major ways by technology. Attempts to reduce the phenomenon either to the >>availability of welfare or the decline in the pool of marriageable males >>seem like searches for a magic policy bullet to solve "the problem" of >>poor single moms. > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that the increase in the >share of births to unmarried women (weird word, wedlock) is the result in a >decline in the fertility rate of married women, while the rate for >unmarried women has stayed fairly constant? > >Doug > >-- > >Doug Henwood >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >USA >+1-212-874-4020 voice >+1-212-874-3137 fax >email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html> > > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:00:57 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <v01540b04aebbc1d3a13c@[166.84.250.86]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) >Subject: [PEN-L:7543] Re: Technology Shock and Teen Pregnancy >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Progressive Economics >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Mime-Version: 1.0 --------------------- Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-11-22 16:03:29 EST At 12:22 PM 11/22/96, Eban Goodstein wrote: >The "theory" sounds persuasive to me-- the large rise in out of wedlock >births clearly reflects changing social norms, which in turn are affected in >major ways by technology. Attempts to reduce the phenomenon either to the >availability of welfare or the decline in the pool of marriageable males >seem like searches for a magic policy bullet to solve "the problem" of >poor single moms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that the increase in the share of births to unmarried women (weird word, wedlock) is the result in a decline in the fertility rate of married women, while the rate for unmarried women has stayed fairly constant? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
