So they don't have to later. Today's uneducated student is tomorrow's unemployed, criminal, or welfare recipient. Most East Asian nations would disagree. And while the Asian Tiger phenomenon was exaggerated, their GDP growth suggests that maybe there's something to their argument that educational investment is a solid growth strategy.
I'm not sure that any amount of government incentive programing will have an impact on the number of unemployable burdens to society that's in any way significant compared to the impact done by lazy parents. I will never understand why we license street performers who mime for loose change - but let any moron who wants too raise a child. We either need to massively incentivise parents to be better parents, massively disincentivize parents from being lazy and stupid, or add some kind of barier to entry that prevents the stupid, lazy and disinterested from being entrusted with a child.
And I would agree, the impact is obviously less. I look at it as more of "make do with what we got" sort of thing.
Welfare (<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Fam ... t_Children</a>) should be abolished too, as it's essentially a subsidy for poverty and single motherhood. Subsidizing something only gets you more of it. Historically speaking gains in income don't result in higher standard of living because it's offset by higher birthrates (the Malthusian Trap as discussed in "Farewell to Alms"). With this in mind, welfare is also dysgenic, as single mothers will pass on their low impulse control, intelligence and future time-orientation to kids that wouldn't have been born if not for welfare. I'm not saying all poor single mothers are low in impulse control, intelligence, and future time orientation, but if you're a poor woman as it is and let someone raw dog you and bust in you, chances are you probably aren't the brightest decision-maker. East Asian nations and their emigrants are successful because they have parents who care and are driven, not because their governments throw money at apathetic/incompetent poor families.
This is a long shot, but what about those single mothers that didn't have any choice but to go on welfare to make sure that her kids didn't starve because their fathers didn't pay child support? And yes, I say this from personal experience. What about the steel worker that got laid off as a result of the recession with a wife and two kids? If we did away with welfare, 4 people go hungry because of something completely out of his control. You can't completely do away with a social service like welfare simply because it gets abused by some people. However, I have zero problem hanging welfare cheats by their heels from street lights and letting taxpayers beat them with whatever is handy.
Knowing they won't have a nanny-state bailing them out, women would be a little more careful not to be knocked up by absentee or otherwise unsavory would-be fathers. Bailouts are a moral hazard. The decision to have kids is a choice. Kids can't starve if they weren't conceived and born. And as for the construction worker, that's why you're supposed to save. Saving is not out of his control. When a rainy day comes up, you'll have something to fall back upon. But obviously that's not as much fun as pumping out kids, buying a house (because it's an entitlement as an American!), cars, and trinkets like iPhones and Playstations and TVs--and if you can't afford it, doing it on credit. I don't view it as abusing a system. The line between "abusers" and legitimate "users" can be rather thin. I think of it as people responding to incentives set up by the "system," and thus we should set up the system with the long-term in mind.
How did I know that this thread was turning into a shitfest as soon as it reappeared at 5 pages at the top of the list? How did I know? Bryan: First, last, and final warning. Scootah, Jimmy, Others: You know better than to feed the trolls.