The teen pregnancy rate is up (4 percent) for the first time since 1991, but nobody is sure exactly why, reports Health News.
Some researchers say it’s just a “blip in the data.” Others blame TV shows and young celebrities like Jamie Spears, who told OK! Magazine:
Being a mom is the best feeling in the world!
The mayor of Gloucester, Mass., blamed inadequate sex education when 17 of the town’s teenagers became pregnant this year.
But maybe it’s just economics, writes the Financial Times’s Chris Caldwell, quoting sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas:
[Poor teen mothers] have about the same long-term earnings trajectories as similarly disadvantaged youth who wait until their mid or late twenties to have a child.
As it becomes more difficult to get out of the social class you were born into, says Caldwell, “the opportunity cost of being a young mother falls. … Might not the teen years be a prudent time to become a single mother, while the financial and day-care resources of one’s own parents are still available?”
Whether it’s driven by the economy or pop culture, what might a continuing boom do to crime rates or the prices of baby photos?
(Hat tip: Gregory Theunis)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“So as it becomes more difficult to get out of the social class you were born into, says Caldwell, the opportunity cost of being a young mother falls — and having a baby earlier may make more economic sense.”
I am always confused when I hear statements like this. Does this mean that we assume that impetuous teenagers make a cost benefit analysis before they decide to get pregnant? It seems doubtful. If not, through what mechanism does this economic theory translate into teenage action?
I work in medicine and have had many occasions to inform teens from the projects/ghetto that they are pregnant. They are often giddy/giggly on the news. It makes them important. They matter.
A child tax should be instituted, would help everything so much.
Teens are having sex. Sex leads to babies. I think it’s that simple.
What I find disturbing, though, is that society has decided to cast a negative light on teens like Spears for being happy about her motherhood, while at the same time society casts a negative light on teens who reject motherhood.
You can’t have it both ways. I think it’s a wonderful thing that Spears is so publicly excited about being a mom (adults get excited/scared about it too, afterall). She can serve as a role model not for all teens, but for teen parents who feel the weight of the world crashing down in a very difficult time,
Ultimately, parenthood should be celebrated – whether you’re 17 or 27. Perhaps we need young celebrity teen fathers to begin publicly expressing their happiness so young men will step up to the plate more often and embrace their new roles as fathers.
There are a group of people in our society who think Sex education will keep people from having sex and thus keep teens from getting pregnant. They are the same idealists who believe D.A.R.E programs keep kids away from going drugs. Teens are going to do these things despite any sex/drug education.
I wouldn’t be suprised if there was a large contingent of teenagers looking to get pregnant because Jamie Lynn Spears said it was cool, there are a boatload of idiots in this country.
#2.
“I work in medicine and have had many occasions to inform teens from the projects/ghetto that they are pregnant. They are often giddy/giggly on the news. It makes them important. They matter.”
I assume the male teens are giddy also?
Wouldn’t it make sense to just pay teenage girls not to get pregnant?
For example, if some foundation with more money than it knows what to do with (hello Bill and Melinda) opened a storefront office somewhere and said we’ll pay any woman between the ages of 13 and 18 who lives in some defined state, county or region $50 each month they can demonstrate that: (1) they are in school; (2) they meet income eligibility for school lunch programs, and (3) are not pregnant. Lets say there are 100,000 young women in the region who meet those criteria and participate in the program. That’s $5 million per month, $60 million per year. Put the money on an ATM-style food stamp program card or as a gift card to local store. Positive economic stimulus is a nice side benefit. Cheating (getting paid more than once per month, for example) is possible but largely preventable. Management costs are minimal. And I’ll bet – even if you doubled the monthly amount to $100/month or $120 million/year – it’d be more effective dollar for dollar than just about any social intervention or sex education program.
Aren’t most teen mothers living with their parent(s)? It’s certainly tough love to kick your kid and grandbaby out. Shelter and at least some meals are “free” to the teen parent, because the parent(s) were supplying this to begin with. This is not the case for the twenty-something “disadvantaged” parent. So yes, it would be economically advantagous to have your baby early, when you have an support network.