The Collapsing Betrothal: Part 2, Big Brother Replacing Weak Communities

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was initially established as part of the programs introduced under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, aiming to expand the social safety net. By the early 1960s, the program underwent desegregation to ensure that black households had access to these benefits. However, a lesser-known aspect of AFDC was the implementation of a “man in house rule.” The original intent behind this rule was to prevent able-bodied men who were capable of working from exploiting the system by solely relying on government assistance. In 1968, the case of King v. Smith (392 U.S. 309) was brought before the court to address the legality and implications of the “man in house rule.”

In summary, the case involved Mrs. Smith, a mother of four children, three of whom had lost their father. She was in a relationship with a man who had nine children of his own. The AFDC sought to terminate her benefits due to the presence of this man in her household. The court ruled that since the man had no legal obligations towards Mrs. Smith and her children, they should not be penalized by losing their benefits. Consequently, while the “man in the house rule” was deemed unconstitutional, it inadvertently created a disincentive for individuals to remain in relationships with the fathers of their children, as government support would only be provided if the father or husband was absent from the household.

The AFDC program provided assistance to individuals who were widows or leaving abusive relationships, offering a crucial support system. However, the scope of this aid extended beyond those specific recipients, as anyone who met certain age requirements could access the program. As a result, the program’s original intention, which was rooted in the biological sense of ensuring security before engaging in risky behaviors like sexual relationships, was weakened. This was because women now had the government as a surrogate, albeit providing a minimum level of financial support, which diminished the incentive for personal financial responsibility.

The BIG Three

Welfare and the war on poverty had three significant effects on women. Firstly, it provided a means of escape for women trapped in abusive marriages or abandoned due to circumstances like the death of a spouse or irresponsible behavior by men. Secondly, it inadvertently created a disincentive for marriage among those living in poverty. And thirdly, it facilitated a safety net that made it easier for women to recover from difficult situations and regain stability in their lives.

The Wager: Most single women who received benefits from government programs like food stamps, housing, etc were not in this category.

While I don’t have specific data on the number of women who took advantage of welfare programs while in abusive relationships or as widows, I believe that the responsibility for addressing these issues lies primarily with collapsing communities that failed to self-correct internally. As discussed in Part 1, the breakdown of marriages due to abuse, infidelity, and other marital issues can be effectively addressed when individuals share the same value system and submit their marriages to a higher authority. Similarly, a well-connected and proactive community tends to offer support, whether through providing food, assisting with household tasks, or local fathers mentoring and guiding young orphans. Unfortunately, communities that lack even the most basic structure, as described in Part 1, are unlikely to have other systems or procedures in place to help individuals during unfortunate events that may occur with some frequency, such as war, famine, or plague.

As communities became less involved and engaged, it is possible that the decline can be attributed to the shift towards the nuclear family model, where new families often settled in places without established community structures. Alternatively, it could be that older communities gradually secularized and prioritized abstracted desires over traditional values. In either case, the weakening of communities created a void where the need for assistance and support arose. Programs like AFDC, developed under the Economic Opportunity Act, expanded welfare to encompass various areas such as education, health, housing, employment, and standard welfare. Consequently, the government’s role grew, assuming the position of a surrogate community. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, this approach remained on the fringes and did not fundamentally alter how entire communities perceived the roles and dynamics between genders. On the other hand, increasing the costs associated with marriage can have a more significant impact on shaping the way different groups within a community view the opposite gender.

Easiest Route to a Reward wins

In “The Ethos of the Great Society,” I discussed a concept called “The Government Handout Gap,” which outlines how the government can inadvertently create a cycle of dependence for its recipients. When individuals receive government assistance, they are often required to adhere to certain rules and restrictions. For example, if someone receives government-subsidized housing in a specific area, their monthly income cannot exceed $1,800 in order to qualify for an apartment that, without government subsidies, would typically cost around $1,500 per month.

However, in the broader rental market, most landlords require tenants to demonstrate an income of 2.5 to 3 times the monthly rent to cover their expenses. Therefore, in order to move out of government housing and afford a similar apartment, the individual would need to earn a minimum of $2,750 per month. As their income surpasses the $1,800 threshold, they start losing other benefits such as food stamps, government phone assistance, subsidized utilities, and training credits. Additionally, they would now be subject to paying taxes on a portion of their income. It is challenging for most people to experience an immediate 33% increase in their income within a single month. Even if they could achieve this, individuals who rely on low-income housing would need to work significantly harder to maintain the same level of comfort they had with government benefits. This creates a difficult predicament where the transition away from government assistance may require increased efforts and potentially result in a lower overall standard of living.

This critique raises an important point about the potential consequences of raising benefits to narrow the gap. One concern is that individuals who are hovering near the poverty line may be more inclined to remain in poverty if it offers greater benefits than striving for self-sufficiency. The underlying challenge that welfare programs have struggled to address is the issue of freeriding. Regardless of how society categorizes its population, there will always be a certain percentage of individuals who are content with minimal necessities such as food, shelter, and entertainment, especially when these needs are relatively affordable and subsidized by the government. However, rather than delving further into this particular issue, let’s return to the impact on marriage, as previously mentioned.

The early drive for men to work hard and establish their livelihoods at a young age stemmed largely from necessity. While it is true that there is a valid critique regarding the relative ease with which men could find employment outside the home, there is more to the story than this narrow perspective suggests. Men felt the need to prove themselves as dependable providers from an early stage in life if they wanted any chance of being considered worthy suitors, whether for marriage or even just to secure a date without being ridiculed by both women and their families.

Conversely, young women faced significant challenges in terms of limited job opportunities and the potential life-altering consequence of letting a Hen raid the eggs. Pregnancy. The availability of contraception only became widespread in the 1960s, initially restricted to married women, before eventually becoming more accessible to all. However, it still took several decades for young women to have widespread access to contraception. To illustrate, one example from my own family history is that my grandparents’ marriage in the 1960s could be described as a “shotgun wedding” due to an unexpected pregnancy.

Even with limited access to contraception, many women became aware of programs that provided assistance if they fell below a certain income threshold. Scholars have debated whether the decision to have children out of wedlock was a conscious choice made with the intention of obtaining government benefits or if there were other underlying factors at play. Nevertheless, an undeniable reality is that the path that leads most individuals out of poverty is often referred to as the “Success Sequence.”

The Success Sequence is often described as a pathway to upward mobility, involving three key steps: (1) completing high school, (2) securing a full-time job after graduation, and (3) getting married before starting a family. Depending on one’s ideation, some may view this sequence as a straightforward and achievable formula, while others recognize that it can be challenging without the necessary support structures in place. This is precisely why the concept of COMMUNITY plays a central role in every aspect of this narrative.

These programs targeted communities with existing vulnerabilities and attempted to compensate for those weaknesses by offering government handouts, masquerading as a form of community support. However, it is important to recognize that the primary motive behind these government handouts is to secure votes and maintain political power, rather than genuinely uplift individuals and communities. (Clientelism)[1]

These welfare programs did not prioritize or provide sufficient incentives for individuals to attain basic milestones such as completing high school, securing full-time employment, or fostering stable marriages. Instead of encouraging individuals to meet a standard of self-sufficiency, the programs perpetuated a cycle of dependency, gradually increasing reliance on government assistance. Consequently, individuals often found themselves trapped, needing extraordinary circumstances or luck to break free from the entanglement of perpetual reliance on the “free” resources they were receiving.

Consider this scenario: You’re a young woman who has recently graduated from high school and currently holds a part-time job. While you receive $1,200 in benefits, you’re also dating a man who shares a similar background and values, hailing from the same area. However, he earns $2,500 per month, which would place you just beyond the threshold to continue receiving your benefits if you were to get married. In such a situation, you might question the incentive to marry him.

In today’s society, the traditional community pressure to marry has significantly diminished, and many people you know may have experienced divorce or other challenges in their relationships. Given these circumstances, you might question the purpose of marriage. Additionally, if you were to have a child with your partner without him moving in, you could potentially receive additional income or benefits. This highlights the complex dynamics that individuals face when making life choices. Factors such as financial considerations, the changing nature of community support, and the incentives created by welfare programs can all influence decision-making processes regarding marriage and family formation.

Whether intentional or unintentional, welfare programs often had detrimental effects on individuals living in poverty due to poorly designed incentive structures. For instance, if you are a strong and independent woman who can support herself, why would you choose to leave the security provided by government assistance for a man who can barely make ends meet above the poverty line?

In an ideal scenario, a strong community support system would offer alternative avenues and resources. However, when the only support available is through government programs, it becomes understandable why individuals may hesitate to enter into relationships that could potentially compromise their financial stability. The reliance on these programs can create a sense of dependence and reinforce the belief that self-sufficiency is best achieved through maintaining a relationship with “big brother.”

It is important to recognize the complexities and challenges faced by individuals in poverty, as well as the limitations of welfare programs in fostering empowerment and self-reliance.

MARRIAGE PUNISHMENT

Marriage plays a critical role in our economy, serving as a foundational pillar. [2] However, programs like the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) inadvertently discouraged impoverished couples from getting married. In 1975, the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) program was introduced as an attempt to address this issue. However, one crucial oversight is that receiving a larger tax refund at the end of the year does not address the immediate financial needs of individuals accustomed to a regular monthly income. [3][4]

The reality is that individuals in poverty require immediate financial support, and relying on an annual tax refund does not provide the same level of stability as a consistent monthly check or government subsidy. Even recent reports from the Congressional Service in 2022 highlight this fact. [5] [6][7][8] Furthermore, certain aspects of programs like the EITC may inadvertently disincentivize married women from seeking employment. [9] It is crucial to consider the immediate financial needs of individuals in poverty and ensure that welfare programs and policies are designed to provide timely support and incentives that align with their circumstances and aspirations.

Penalties, penalties, penalties. [10][11] It’s important to me to acknowledge that summarizing other people’s work and cherry-picking statistics can lead to skepticism or a tendency to discount information. I understand that you may prefer to conduct your own research and form your own conclusions. It is worth noting that within the realm of welfare programs and policies, there have been discussions surrounding penalties and unintended consequences. If you’re interested in exploring this further, I encourage you to delve into unrefuted studies on the subject. Engaging with reliable research can help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential drawbacks associated with welfare programs.

However, it raises significant concerns when we recognize that marriage is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of society, communities, population stability, wealth accumulation, and economic growth. In light of this, it is disheartening to acknowledge that government programs have been aware for decades that these initiatives adversely impact the incentives to marry, particularly for those in poverty who tend to have a higher number of children per capita. This suggests that either some of the aforementioned benefits associated with marriage were intentionally targeted, or, at the very least, there was a troubling level of negligence in addressing the consequences of these programs on the institution of marriage.

“ESCAPE NOW” *BuTTon*

It is noteworthy that the majority of divorces are initiated by women, and many of these divorces stem from a perceived lack of commitment rather than infidelity. [12][13][14] In light of this observation, I propose that welfare programs, coupled with a decline in community support, have made it easier for women to seek an exit when they no longer wish to remain in their marriages. Contrary to the feminist narrative that emphasizes independence for single women as a means to escape poverty, statistics indicate that marriage is the most effective path for women to elevate themselves out of economic hardship. [15] It is important to note that this observation applies not only to women who are already in the middle class or above, but also to women experiencing poverty. Various metrics consistently demonstrate that marriage has a greater positive impact on women’s economic status than any other choice they could make.

Based on the 2021 billionaire census, it is evident that women comprise only 11.9% of the billionaire population. It is noteworthy that slightly over half of the female billionaires are heiresses, while another 30% have a mix of inherited and self-created wealth. Within the broader female billionaire group, 16.9% can be classified as self-made billionaires, while 53.5% have accumulated their wealth through a combination of inheritance and self-generated means as of 2017. [16] These statistics provide insight into the composition and sources of wealth among female billionaires, and that the true “Boss Babes” are or were married.

Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that the presence of fathers in a neighborhood plays a crucial role in predicting upward income mobility for the children growing up in that community. Even when accounting for various factors such as the quality of schools, racial composition, or ethnicity, the influence of fathers remains significant. This well-established fact highlights the importance of intact families and strong parental involvement in promoting economic advancement.

However, it is unfortunate that there is often a lack of financial incentive to foster family unity. Fragmented families tend to spend more on individualistic pursuits since the absence of togetherness necessitates individual expenditures. Drawing upon the concept discussed in “Degenerate Ad Men: The Mythos of the Nuclear Family,” it becomes evident that consumerism thrives on the fragmentation of families. In such circumstances, individuals are compelled to acquire their own possessions for consumption, as opposed to sharing or borrowing within a unified family unit. This consumer-driven dynamic capitalizes on the disconnection and absence of familial cohesion. By prioritizing family unity, not only can individuals enjoy the advantages of shared resources and reduced expenses, but it also nurtures stronger communities and facilitates upward mobility for future generations.

In contrast to the previous section, this aspect revolves more around convenience or even a dislike for one’s partner. The availability of an exit strategy means that individuals may consider walking out the door. In the past, there was a higher threshold for justifying such a decision, as it required explaining oneself to friends, family, and community members. Breaking up a family demanded a stronger justification or excuse. Furthermore, as mentioned in Part 1, the involvement of a “higher authority” in the form of a marriage minister could provide guidance and boundaries.

However, in the absence of a cohesive extended family, a dwindling sense of community, and friends who can easily be dismissed if they question one’s unwise or foolish decisions, there is no longer a system in place to hold individuals accountable for their behavior or newly adopted mindset. The witnesses who once acted as guardians have lost their influence, and now the government provides guaranteed funds once a husband or partner is pushed out. This situation creates an environment where individuals can benefit from a husband who pays the bills without having to deal with his emotions, a scenario that some may consider a feminist ideal of independence. Yet, it is a dream that society is now paying the price for. It is important to reflect on the unintended consequences of such shifts in societal dynamics and consider the broader implications for family structures, community support, and personal responsibility.

I want to clarify that I am not endorsing the idea of trapping individuals in undesirable situations. However, it is worth noting that having a backup plan often undermines the success of the primary plan. In the context of relationships, when there is an easy way out or an alternative option readily available, the commitment made in Plan A tends to lose its significance. In today’s world, where instant gratification is prevalent, commitment is often undervalued because we have become accustomed to immediate satisfaction from our smartphones, food, and various sources of instant gratification.

Communities are built upon shared values and principles that guide the behavior and interactions of its members. When communities fail to transmit and uphold these values, they can experience a decline in cohesion and effectiveness.

Marriages, as a fundamental institution within communities, reflect and embody these shared values. They serve as a microcosm of the community, representing the commitment, trust, and mutual support that are essential for its overall well-being.

Just as weddings have witnesses who attest to the commitment made by the couple, marriages themselves require the ongoing support and involvement of the community. These witnesses symbolize the role that the community plays in upholding the values and principles that underpin successful marriages.

When marriages face challenges or break down, it can have far-reaching effects on the community. Divorce or marital discord can erode trust, weaken social connections, and disrupt the stability of the community. Conversely, strong and healthy marriages contribute to the vitality of the community by fostering positive family dynamics, providing role models for future generations, and promoting a sense of unity and purpose.

Marriage, therefore, serves as a foundational institution within communities. It provides a structure for building and maintaining strong relationships, transmitting values across generations, and nurturing the social fabric of the community.

To ensure the strength and resilience of communities, it is crucial for individuals, families, and community institutions to prioritize and support healthy marriages. This involves teaching and reinforcing the values that underpin successful relationships, providing resources for relationship education and support, and fostering a culture of commitment and mutual respect.

By recognizing and valuing the role of marriage as the foundation of communities, we can work towards building stronger and more cohesive societies that thrive on shared values and meaningful connections.

Community and proper child rearing should be fundamental priorities in society. Reliance on government assistance can potentially limit individual autonomy and lead to a sense of being part of a client class. Breaking free from this mindset requires personal reflection, repentance, and a commitment to reform from the perceived mental servitude to an overarching authority. Building strong communities and fostering effective child rearing contribute to self-reliance, mutual support, and a sense of freedom. Receiving financial assistance from the government implies becoming a recipient within its support system, which may affect one’s sense of personal freedom until a mindset shift occurs. [17][18] This shift involves reassessing one’s dependence on external support, considering personal responsibility, and pursuing reform to overcome any perceived mental servitude to a larger authority. CLIENTELEISM.

In the upcoming weeks, we will explore several related topics, including the origins of population regulation through birth control, the Mandela effect on the civil rights movement, and the phenomenon of religious leaders becoming followers of trends.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/clientelism

[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=2CQ46PgqyKsC

[3] https://welfareacademy.umd.edu/pubs/family/Marriage_Penalties_in_the_Modern_Social-Welfare_State.pdf

[4]https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A20952678&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=58b71d99

[5]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11843#:~:text=EITC%20marriage%20penalties%20occur%20when,were%20unmarried%2C%20as%20illustrated%20below.

[6] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20000920.pdf

[7] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/bidens-expanded-eitc-adds-significant-marriage-penalties

[8] https://fordschool.umich.edu/news/2021/earned-income-tax-credit-affects-intergenerational-marriage-and-childbirth-decisions-says

[9] https://www.nber.org/digest/apr99/married-women-work-less-because-eitc

[10] https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/hmrf_marriagepenalties_paper_final50812_6_19.pdf

[11] https://www.aei.org/articles/welfare-reform-and-marriage/

[12] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/