This article illustrates why the discipline of economics, as much fun as it is for economists, doesn't explain much of anything.

"Why are there so many single moms who are black?" In response to this question, we get a rather long explanation of why there are so many single black women, particularly in places where a higher percentage of young black men are in prison.

So far, so good. But why are the single black women getting pregnant? In economic terms, wouldn't they be motivated to remain childless if they seek to attract a permanent mate? Women without kids are in a much better position when shopping for a partner, as are women who are educated and employed, and financially stable, and physically attractive.

The fact is, economic models are based on the "rational actor" principle, which does not account for all those "bad life choices" people make when they've given up. What economic model explains why a woman (of any skin color) shacks up with a drug dealer and gets pregnant at age 15, then dumps the baby on grandma so she can shack up with another drug dealer and have another kid? People don't act rationally, don't behave consistent with their self-interest, and can't be captured by economic models.

Excellent point. Not everyone acts rationally. Ain't that the truth?

However, every model has outliers. I believe your example is such a case. People do make bad choices, but what we should ask is whether populations make more right choices (read: logical and rationale) than bad choices.

Don't get me wrong, I agree, economists (imho) always seem to flip-flop on whether people act rationally or irrationally. Which is it?

Accurate or not, you have to admit, an economist's explanation never lacks interest.

Well, I think that perhaps the model doesn't assign enough value to family love and support.

A single black woman with shakey finances may decide (quite rationally) that her situation is unlikely to improve. Having a few children while she is young and healthy and her Mom, Aunts and Grandma are still young enough to help out may make perfectly good sense. After all, such families would cease to exist without children. Further, impoverished black women may have a much shorter period of time where they are fertile and can actually have healthy children.

I know I made career decisions that offered less pay so I could spend more time with my children. I'm not at all sorry. Theoretically, you could assign a dollar value to that decision.

At any rate, its a fun thought exercise.

"But why are the single black women getting pregnant? In economic terms, wouldn't they be motivated to remain childless if they seek to attract a permanent mate? Women without kids are in a much better position when shopping for a partner, as are women who are educated and employed, and financially stable, and physically attractive."

Yes, they would, but that's only if they are thinking long-term. It is no coincidence that the rate of unwed pregnancy and teen child birth began rising in the black (and other poor) communities after the creation of AFDC, and the effect accelerated in the 1960s and thereafter as benefit levels increased.

AFDC actually created an economic incentive for unwed parentage -- not one as good as being married to a productive spouse, of course, but one that was better than being married to an unproductive one. In fact, AFDC became a "career path" in certain communities. My aunt who is a social worker in South Carolina told me of young black girls who were advised to get pregnant because they were nearing 18 and their families would soon lose eligibility.

Now of course this is warped thinking, but you can't say it's entirely economicly irrational.