[arenaninja]

Just because a plurality or even majority of people aren't doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As I've stated, I'm recounting these scenarios from my experience which isn't vast but it tracks in every state/city I have lived in (and I have lived in several).

It's a miserable living experience for their children. Welfare queens do exist even if they don't look like the media portrays them.

As I stated, I'm not against social programs, but I think there's substantial waste and program goals need to be realigned. It needs to be reimagined, and not from ivory towers like the techno-elite that gathers here on HN.

[pnutjam]

It's just a silly scenario. Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

People might scam the system because they can't afford the kids they have, but nobody is having more kids just to scam the system.

[phil21]

> Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

Absolutely utterly false. Witnessed it personally.

[michaelmrose]

Please give an example case in a real place based on actual benefit programs that exactly exist with links to information on said programs.

[pnutjam]

The 100% truth is that you had no idea of any of the detail about whatever you saw. Unless someone has a massive trust with a procreation requirement, there is no free ride for children in America.

[phil21]

I had direct 100% access to every single aspect of one individuals life. Talked directly about the subject dozens to hundreds of times.

I absolutely know both the financial details as well as personal motivations. Others in that sphere I do not have as much intimate knowledge of but they follow the same pattern and social circles.

This topic is something HN (or rather the demographics that tend to post on HN) simply has a giant blind spot on.

It's not so much that each kid is a net benefit. It's that having kids are a requirement to access many government programs in my state. Single folks simply don't get help. I still know people in my past life who have never worked a single day and have had all expenses paid for by the state using such programs. Add some child support in and it's a way to live, even if a pretty crappy one. There is also very little planning for when the benefits end as the kids age out.

I really think every young adult should have to spend a year living in a section 8 complex as an assistant super. It may open many eyes to the state of the US and our social condition.

[pnutjam]

You've just modified your previous statement. I absolutely believe someone might have a child to get child support or even qualify for benefits. I don't believe anyone is popping out multiple kids to rake in extra benefits. There is no situation where multiple kids make life easier for the poor in America.

[phil21]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. You pop out multiple kids so you extend the clock, not so you get multiples on any sort of payments (aside from perhaps child support, but that's a different topic). This is what OP meant by "extend the gravy train". Much subsidized housing is only practically available to women with dependent children.

As stated, I have personally witnessed this exact behavior. The common belief in certain circles seems to be this is unheard of and uncommon but I absolutely do not believe the mainstream statistics on the matter.

It's not just kids. It's a whole way of life. Usually SSDI is involved among other such shenanigans as well. It goes deep - to the point of ensuring your teenage kids show up to school exactly the minimum number of days to not get dinged on benefits.