Some of what I am about to say is state specific ( in my case IL ), so take this into consideration. Income is a consideration for any help. Married couple will have higher documented income, while unmarried cohabiting couple won't. In other words, single parent ( on paper ) will claim a child and with lower income have a better chance of being in the low enough income bracket.
I have zero idea how common that situation is though, but I know someone who structures their life around snap benefits ( or whatever they are called now ) and its kinda ridiculous, because her monthly benedit is on par with our family's grocery budget. I struggled not to report it as fraud ( the person in question is not poor; they are using - abusing?- the system ).
It is kinda fascinating. I just returned from US roadtrip ( UT region ) and there is a lot of unused space. Remote could help with a lot of it were it not for 'old school management'( quotation marks, because that is the current PC terms for luddites ).
Its effects may be more visible, because in previous iterations society condemned children out of wedlock so data on it was not as reliable. Naturally, potential solutions would result in rather unwelcome dystopias that could be encapsulates in a phrase 'oi you got loicense for those kids?'
Anecdote incoming. Usual disclaimers apply. I genuinely am not sure what true numbers are.
Couple#1
They are married for a good while with three kids. He is a cop in Chicago; she has semi-random kid watching gigs. While it did not happen, they did openly discuss strategic divorce to ease their financial situation.
Couple#2
She works corpo job. He works a cash only contracting job. They are married in every sense, but legally. Two kids. She would not marry for fear of losing existing benefits.
###
There are some benefits to being married, but the 'benefits of kids while not married' outweigh those. And you can't argue against those cuz then you are taking food away from the hungry.
Hmm. My point is that Carlin did not start with 7 words. That is what he is famous for, but he didn't magically show up that day to recors that line out of the blue.
I am too lazy to dig it up now, but youtube has multiple interviews that go over that stage of his life.
It is not that unpopular. I suppose I appreciate his contributions a lot, but I agree about the kernel of truth approach rather than holy gospel.
I just happen to think he forced a lot of people to think. This one of those things some of his contemporaries tried and failed to do ( not for the lack of trying, it is hard to care after certain point ).