Forum Post: Why do poor and middle class people have kids that they can't afford?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 11:58 p.m. EST by VladimirMayakovsky
(796)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Don't they realize how hard it is on the kids? Is the need to procreate really that strong that it overwhelms the rational parts of the brain? Birth control is freely available from Planned Parenthood. But instead people keep talking about how a family of four need this and that. I mean, get real. China has a one child policy. Why? Because at some point they realized that they can't afford to have people have two kids. Now, I am not saying that everyone in the USA should have just one kid. I am saying that people who can afford to have kids, that is they have a good job that enables them to bring up the kids without financial difficulty, should have kids. But there will be many who simply can't afford to have kids. It it plain selfish for them to have kids, as if they are getting a pet. Guys, how about some family planning? Also, you don't need to get married, OK? sure, you may want to have a steady state fuckbuddy, but there are alternatives. Marriage costs. So if you can't afford to get married and start a family, don't. You ill be doing yourself, your prospective spouse, and your potential kids all a huge favor. Plus you will need to whine much less.
You never thought about people who can't afford a $20 box of condoms. Or the couple that doesn't have health care. Or the ignorant teens, who aren't dumb, but made a childish mistake. Or the poor people that had to work when they were children and never went to high school for sex ed. Or children whose parents wouldn't let them have contraception because their faith wouldn't allow it. Or the woman that got pregnant but wasn't allowed an abortion.
There are many reasons why people have children when they can't afford them and unless you address the above issues, nothing will change. You can't just expect that young people will not have sex. That is unrealistic. But we can give everyone access to education and contraception to prevent this problem.
And give young people other opportunities to feel good about themselves!
Pursuing things that give them a feeling of accomplishment and pride, so they don't have to seek it through sex and pregnancy.
As I said below, for some teen girls, pregnancy is the only "rite of passage' to womanhood that they know.
Improve opportunity. Better schools, more chances to accomplish.
If you go to your local Red Cross, you can get BOXES of condoms for free.
Yes that's true, but the earlier poster was claiming every school gives out condoms for free. While some might, not all do. And what is wrong with free condoms anyway? Shouldn't we encourage people to use protection?
Nothing is wrong with free condoms. The premise of the OP was that poor people can't help having babies because contraception is so expensive and hard to get. As a former vvolunteer for the red cross, I know we used to throw away tons of condoms that expired every year.
I am OK with that. Let's teach everyone about birth control and hopefully people who can't afford kids won't have them. But I doubt that. The people are already shouting eugenics.
Yes we should teach people about birth control, but that is not the only reason poor people have more babies. This is an issue that has permeated throughout history and it isn't because poor people are ignorant. It stems fro mthe fact that people are going to have sex, regardless of their social class. But if you are poor and have the option of feeding yourself or buying contraception, you will buy food. I know it's hard for most people to believe, but there are millions of people in America who face this dilemma. What should they do? Not have sex? That is a ridiculous request.
Why is that a ridiculous request? If you dont have the means to prevent a pregnancy resulting from sex, then don't have sex. It's not like eating... you'll survive if you don't do it. Besides, it's not exactly hard to get free condoms.
Look, schools and colleges give out free condoms. Planned Parenthood gives out free condoms. I am all for the Govt having free condom fountains at every street corner. But seriously, we need to do something about it. Most Americans can't afford to have kids. They shouldn't. It is simply not fair to the kids. Just because mom and dad liked to fuck like bunnies the kids shouldn't suffer.
What else is 'life' if not suffering?
Wow! I suddenly want to hang myself with my Occupy Wall Street T-shirt that I bought from Jay-Z. Forlorn...
I am a student at an expensive university and I went to public school. I have never had the possibility of getting free condoms and I don't know where you got that impression from. And even Planned Parenthood is under attack. We live in a very conservative country and even the thought of a condom is looked down upon by many people. In a world where children can't have an educated conversation with their parents about sex, how do we expect these people to grow up and seek out contraception? Many families won't even alow that kind of talk. Seriously dude you are going around a crazy merry-go-round now and I don't know what you are arguing. Do you think the poor are just stupid for having babies? Have the poor people since the beginning of time been stupid for having babies? Don't you see there is a correlation between poverty and procreation and it has nothing to do with a certain class "fucking like bunnies".
BS Every health dept hands the things out like candy...you DO have to go get them though.
Excuses excuses. IT is not your fault that you had kids that you couldn't afford, it was society's fault.
"VladimirMayakovsky" = TROLL
@ T : It's a lot worse than that !
He steals a dead Revolutionary Russian Poet's name & totally inverts who & what the True Vladimir Mayakovsky was, ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSmayakovsky.htm ).
I would not be at all surprised if the originator of this thread was a nefarious occultist, desperately trying to channel & manifest 'Darkside Energies & Entities' ! L0L !!
fiat lux.
Why? Because he makes a good point that you don't agree with?
You have to admit though that he makes good points. Abortions need to become a lot easier to obtain. If you are 18 years old, living in poverty already, why bring more people into poverty. Makes no sense.
how about just stop screwing arround?
Sex is fun. Just wrap it up or take a pill first.
How do you make abortions easier?
Taxpayer funded. I would rather pay a one time fee for an abortion than for a lifetime of government handouts.
Where I am they are taxpayer funded.
yea kill the baby - thats the answer. never mind being more responsible for your actions.
Incidentally, you're awfully uncomfortable with people having sex for someone who's interested enough in "mature blowjob gangbang scene" and material like it to post it up on this forum. I'm honestly with Mooks on this. Sex is (like it or not) a fact of life and trying to suppress it by forcing parenthood on people who decide to engage in it won't lead to less sex; it'll just lead to more kids. Honestly, I'd much prefer proper use of prophylactic contraception (condoms, diaphragms, the pill, Plan B, IUDs, etc) to abortions, and I'd like to see universal dissemination of family planning information (including but not limited to proper methods of use for the methods I outlined above). Now, that said, if for some reason the condom breaks or someone forgets to take a pill, then having available abortions as a last-ditch option for dealing with unwanted pregnancy is a good thing, both for the couple and for society in general.
We have had all these things for years and teenage pregnancies have increased drastically. Not only that, but the pregnant teen of no means generally goes on to mother several more.
yea - so kill your offspring in the event it's an inconvenience.
And applaud for the idea of a 30 year old man without insurance being left to die!
Only post-partum abortions should be allowed!
huh?
Figures you wouldn't get it. Porn-posting pro-lifer that you are.
First of all, it's not even an actual baby until it's viable outside the uterus-say about 24 weeks in, and most if not all abortions are done well before that. If we're talking after 24 weeks, then carrying the fetus to term and arranging for an adoption would be the default option barring threats to the life or health of the mother. It's still simply a uterine growth roughly the size and shape of a tadpole until about twelve weeks or so in, which is generally the cutoff point by which the majority of abortions are performed.
hahaha! ok - that's where we differ - I believe a human being is created from the moment of conception. that "tadpole" is your son or daughter that you just murdered. but if it helps you sleep better at night to think of your child as a tadpole - God bless you
So you're part of the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd then, huh? Honestly, until you hit about week 12 it's not a recognizable human, merely a dividing collection of cells that may become a human. If you believe in equating life and the potential for life, then I suggest you take a closer look at the logical ends of your beliefs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
far be it from me to stop you - go ahead - kill your offspring
By then they are past the point of responsibility. Responsibility would be not allowing yourself to become pregnant when you can't even support yourself, let alone a child (or 4).
In reality, real people love each other and start families out of meaningful relationships, money shouldn't be a deciding factor for a couple to have children out of love for each other. This system is devised to strip everyone the 99% of our basic rights, why should it cost so much to have children come into this world, why should it be unaffordable for the 99%, what only the rich have the right to have children, why should it cost so much to bury your loved ones......Simple !!! CORPORATE GREED, The RICH 1% who LOBBY and control the puppets in Washington with the filthy money they rob the general public
I love someone and will be married soon, but I had sense and CHOSE not to have children. Breeders breed for breeding's sake, smart people decide their futures and children are part of that. Don't delude yourself. Love means shit when there isn't enough food to go around. Love is a luxury and there is absolutely NO shortage of humans...although perhaps there is a run on intelligent and responsible ones.
It has nothing to do with corporate greed. It has to do with the rising cost of education. Education is run by non-profit universities. You are barking up the wrong tree here. Educational institutions are by and large liberals but they raise their prices much faster than inflation. Go figure.
You are a late-comer to the Marie Antoinette revival tea party. The southern ghouls did use Eugenics till 1974, right here in the US of A. With the hillbillies everything unrelated to neurons is possible.
I had kids because I was not taught about contraception in my school. We were told that abstinence is the best policy and we were also told abortions were not an option either. That is why many have children. Religions want more religious people to have children so their children can join the religion it is not about anything else
Why does society not allow middle class, and working class people to enjoy the lives that they have with their children?
I agree. We should not require the working and middle class folks to work. The rich should work and fund the working and middle class folks so that they can have fun with their kids.
Not only is the is repulsive because you are proposing that something completely natural be mandated.. but, it is simply illogical.
Let's say that someone waited until their life was 'perfect' and financially stable to have children. They were married, had a great job, and had 3 kids. Then, on the way home from work, one of the parents dies in a car accident. After a year, the insurance money is gone (assuming they had life insurance since they are 'perfect'.) and then what? The other parent is thrown into dealing with daycare and single parenthood. Suddenly, expenses are piling up.
What about people who have it all together and at age 11, their son is diagnosed with an illness and their health insurance drops them? Now they are paying out of pocket for meds, and cannot afford to feed their families.
Life is not perfect or predictable. You cannot assume that people are irresponsible, and you cannot mandate or legislate something natural.
Edit: or, and let's be really controversial here.. what about the fact that it is okay that someone who is not rich have children. The poor are not subhuman. Most of the greatest people the world has ever encountered have come out of poverty.
I was about to say the same thing. I have one child. Why? Because at age 30 I was diagnosed with whatever the medical term is for premature menopause. Well, surprise surprise, age 34 I am pregnant. Married to the baby's father, have a stable family, everything is fine- until I get injured. Then I can't work. When the doctor(s) said I could not work anymore and was declared disabled, I worked anyway. Why? Because kids are expensive, it's true. But in doing so, I only furthered the injury and it was not in the best interest of my family, so now I am pretty much SOL. You can do everything right and still wind up in an unexpected situation. I'm poor, I have a child. I am seriously sorry if that offends people! And even if I were poor before having my son, I would have had him anyway, just because I was told it would never happen, to me he is a miracle and is priceless. I just try to keep my head above water.
Yeah, but it is just fine to mandate and legislate the completely natural feeling to earn more money.
I am not talking of the people who planned and then fell on hard times. I am talking about people who didn't plan at all. Nice red herring.
It was not a red herring. It was proof that life is not perfect. People have sex. They get pregnant. Sometimes things are good, sometimes they are bad.
And some people plan their families because they are not morons and some people don't because they are. You want the former group to subsidize the latter.
You equate having kids...with having a pet?. The singe most creative element on planet earth. And you view them some sort of parasitic organism. I guess you never really felt love.
You're fucked up dude. I mean really fucked up to view humans like that.
You can love a parasite. I love my gut bacteria...they help me out quite a bit. :)
i don't think that should be the question - how about why - in the richest country the world has ever seen - are there people (often people who are working full time) who cannot afford to have children? in sweden each couple with children is given a grant of $200 per month for each child - sweden! not nearly and rich as the united states - does it have something to do with war spending perhaps?
Swedes do that because their birth rate is low and no one wants to immigrate there. So it's a bribe so that people have kids. The US population however is growing so we do not need such bribes.
not relevant - the question was about people not able to afford children - doesn't matter why sweden does what it does - the point is that it does it! we are the richest country by far - we could support people who have children if we have the political will
Entirely relevant.
Since we do not need to do that as the immigrants are providing lots of people already, why should we do that again? Just so people can stay ignorant about family planning?
as i said the original question was about people having children who couldn't afford them - the question should be why are they so poor that they can't afford to have a family - you are on a different track
They are so poor because they were born to poor parents who couldn't afford to raise them to compete in a global world. Their parents should have thought twice before bringing children to this world. They didn't. It is a shame at how selfish the parents were.
once again not relevant - can you read
Ok, that is a bit assholeish. Education changes the game, if it doesn't then the socialists DO have a point in their favor....
you are right - seemed to me he asked for it - i should be nicer but some of these people are just trying to cause trouble - once again - you are right
Education does change the game, but you can't get a good education without money. Think about it, a kid gets born to dirt poor parents can go tot he best public school, but hungry, with no guidance from parents at home, and amongst a lot of violence, at home or on the streets. That kid is not going to succeed academically. The parents need to think about this. Education happens about 30% in schools and 70% at home. On the other hand, rich parents who will get tutors and all kinds of extra curricular opportunities for their kids will produce offsprings who will then go to the top colleges and then go on to become bankers.
Vlad, in keeping with Haloween, is a Dracula Troll
everything was fine until the the jobs disappeared.. and its too late now are you talking to the next generation?
Some of you have good points about unexpected setbacks in life, and I think there should be some help in place for situations like this. For instance, if someone has a child with a disability or medical problem and is no longer able to work because they cannot afford the extensive care the child needs while they are at work (I know a situation like this), or perhaps one spouse dies unexpectedly, etc. However, I do think there are people who take advantage of the system and they either intend to or don't mind doing so. I used to live in a small town where teen pregnancy was a real problem. Teen pregnancy happens to cost taxpayers in the billions of dollars each year in federal housing, food stamps, TANF, healthcare, child welfare workers to monitor. It results in increased abuse, and sons of teen mothers are more likely to be incarcerated at some point. It was not due to lack of education regarding pregnancy or sex, and there were certainly enough teen girls floating around school who were pregnant, to see that it can and does happen. I'm not going to specify the predominant race here, but many of these girls were excited to be pregnant. Many of these girls went on to have multiple children, often from different fathers who were not involved. I specifically heard several of them mention that they liked having more kids because they could receive more assistance that way. There is one woman my family knows who had her first child at 19 after a one night stand. She went on public assistance and proceeded to have 3 more children (also several miscariages) from different fathers to collect more assistance. She's a horrible mother and she has allowed one of the paternal grandparents to raise all of her kids. None of her kids live her but she collects child support from each father, food stamps, has free medical insurance, receives housing assistance, and collects financial assistance. She also receives income from the illegal alien she lives and doesn't report it, thus she's able to keep all of her assistance. She gives nothing to the paternal grandparents who raises her kids and no one will ever report her because she will take the kids back (and no one wants that because she is neglectful and abusive). I'm just saying that teens shouldn't be having babies, and we should make it more so easy for them to want to have more children.
Of all the Misanthropic ; Human-Hating ; Supremacist ; Exclusivist and Exceptionalist - Abject Drivel that I've ever read in all my born days (or at least on this OWS forum!) ; '"Vlad The Impaler (of the 'undeserving' poor)" & his Psychopatic, Ayn Randian BullSH!T post here, gets the 'Dr. Joseph Mengele Prize' for Services to Humanitarian Discourse.
So 'Vlad', Which, What, Where & Who are "The people (who) are already shouting eugenics." ?! EUGENICS !! You rancid human-hating scum-sucker !!!
Just because 'Vlad' has Only Ever 'Impaled' anyone following a Commercial Transaction, does that make him any kind of authority on Love & the Mysteries of The Human Heart ?!
Have you ever loved anyone or anything 'Vlad', other than yourself ? Has a piece of art or a some bars of music or the laughter of a child ever left you speechless or moved to tears ?!!
When The Unconscionable Human-Hater, 'Vlad' says, "Why do poor and middle class people have kids that they can't afford ?", can anyone really imagine that He gives a Rat's Ass for The 'Kids' ?!! NO ! At the very most, all that he is worried about is the Taxes he may (or may NOT!) be paying !
Note also how Hate-Boy, 'Vlad' mentions "the poor AND middle class". Thus, it is a reasonable inference and fair deduction that he regards himself : a) Very Highly Indeed & b) As One of The Parasitic <1% !
Contrast therefore Vlad's sort of Psychopathic <1%er with another explicitly, honestly professed and Highly Honourable 1%er - "AZDesertRat" ( cf http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-persons-view-from-his-1-perch/ ), who in contrast made his own money (as I'll bet 'Vlad' inherrited his!) AND (unlike 'Vlad') clearly possess a Still Beating & Feeling Human Heart !!
Finally 'Vlad', you should be even further exposed for the Spineless C*nt that you are.
'Vlad' might have some literary pretensions as he has stolen and wholly appropriated the name of a well known Russian Revolutionary Poet as his moniker. Indeed I'll bet that there are folk out there who think 'Vladimir Mayakovsky' is possibly this twat's real name ...
Perhaps you should buy a pistol and do like the real and original "Vladimir Mayakovsky" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Mayakovsky ) is 'Supposed To Have Done (tho' I myself think that he was 'suicided') !!!
I'm NOT a violent person & relatively unlikely to be coming to The U$A any time soon but IF I were & IF I did, then I'd volunteer to 'suicide you' 'Vlad' - you Satan Spawned Scumbag.
I despise (& I use the term very loosely here) "people" like you 'Vlad' and whoever or whatever you are, I forego future Karma to Curse You & Your Cold, Dead, Loveless Heart through Space and Time and For All Eternity.
Creatures like you 'Vlad' bring out & manifest 'The Beast Within' in others - as evidenced from some of the other posters on this thread (& indeed, given my previous paragraph, 'mea culpa' !). Here's an idea you Hell-Bound, Hate-Monger ; Why not Eat SH!T And Die, as that way your mouldering corpse or dry ashes can be used as fertiliser and at least then you'll finally serve a socially useful purpose yourself ?
I pity your mother ... and you .. as your fire awaits .
ignis natura renovatur integra !
{~*~}
How many kids do you have?
None ... You Disgusting C*NT but I : a) Have nieces & nephew and friends with children & b) I have some kind of an idea what LOVE might mean or may be ...
multum in parvo ...
I am very happy that you didn't have kids that you couldn't afford.
If only you knew what happiness was, you fraudulent f**k-wit ...
Simple: because they planned their families to be able to afford children, but then the federal government changed the rules.
The fed allowed the prime lending rate to sink to nothing therefore spurring lending for houses and a sky-high rise in housing prices (the law of supply and demand). Ordinary citizens thought they could get a cheap loan on an expensive house and when the cards fell, hundreds of thousands of families were in the street.
The fed funds child support which pays the state to split up families to assign child support and get federal matching funds, No couple expected such a result.
The fed funds child protection where a fraudulent allegations can be filed in a court and the judge will sustain that claim and take the case through trial. This happens even if there is no risk at all to a child. In most states, these payments are triggered by mere "marks" on a child's body and litigation goes on for years.
These fraudulent allegations can lead to forced adoptions under ASFA and again, the fed finances the shifting around of families and their financial priorities.
All of these reasons gave rise to OWS and I cannot imagine a single family not against federal family policy as it is being implemented across this country.
Yeah yeah yeah it is all the fault of the Fed and no fault accrues to the public. Someone put a gun to their head and forced them to buy the McMansion at ridiculous prices just because interest rates were low.
Bush said he wanted every American to have a small business and to have a home.
There you go.
Because there is no FREE EDUCATION , and no FREE HEALTH CARE... with both young ladys will know how to protect themselfs. The will have free anticonceptios pill, free condoms, and with education they will know when and how to use them.
K-12 education is free. Medicaid is free. PP is free. People just want to breed.
'Animals' breed ... 'People' have children (tho' who or what had you is a moot point ..)
momento mori .
Then american dont have good education and good health system then, looks that they are in real troubles...
You're command of the English language is a disgrace! Mine is bad too!
China's policy is one child and you must be pre-approved prior to spawning. It used to be two. The consequences for violating this, in China, are dire. India too, allows only one spawn. I do not know the specifics..
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
http://www.globalfirepower.com/
I don't know if any of your are aware of the saber rattling going on with regards to India, China and Russia...superpowers numbers 2,3 and 4
it's interesting to look at their numbers and know they have been piled up in Kashmir with itchy "trigger fingers".
Why, because everyone fucks.
The nature of the irrational human animal precedes and trumps the concept of 'affordability' which is ideology. Education can balance the situation.
Re. "Education", please see The Excellent & Award Winning Documentary Film 'INSIDE JOB' : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28189.htm . Narrated by Matt Damon .."It's a powerhouse of a documentary that will leave you both thunderstruck and boiling with rage."
fiat lux ...
Your idea is good in theory. People should only have children who can afford them but you are forgetting that America is steeped in religion especially from the Judeo-Christian tradition which says "Be fruitful and multiply". America as a country has pushed reproduction for years until very recently. I never had children and acted responsibly and have been persecuted for Not Having children. So there is a history here of heavy pressure to reproduce.
I know that. I live here too. But it is just plain dumb. That's my point. All this BS talk about living wage would by and large be a non issue if people only had kids when they could afford to. Otherwise minimum wage provides for what people need, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, transportation. Instead we have this bellyaching about how the rich is getting richer.
But the 1% are getting richer at the middle class expense. And what about the poor who are childless and have to eat at soup kitchens? or worse the homeless population? All Americans who are uninsured? The old who are on Social Security who the 1% want to cut and let them starve. By the way if just Social Security were cut there would be 74 million Americans without incomes. What are the 74 million supposed to do?
What does that have to do with having kids? People on SS are not having kids.
Less children=less work force. Less work force=less taxes. Less taxes=less Social Security. The children of today WILL be paying your Social Security payments. Sure you want people to stop having kids?
The immigrants can pay social security (while not being eligible for benefits). Win-win.
I find it reprehensible that you are advocating having kids so that they can pay for your social security.
You called them pets.
So then the immigrants will need to continue having children-who can grow up and pay into social security.
I didn't call them pets, I said people look at them as pets. Immigrants will come in, pay SS, and not have kids if they can't afford to. New immigrants will come in to take their place. Why bring kids to this world if they are growing to grow up poor?
I don't know any people who look at their children as pets. If you do, I'm sorry for you. Some of us have children because we love each other and we want to share that love and give "new" mortals a chance to experience all the amazing things about life. "Poor" is often a mentality and I know plenty of "poor" people who are happy and their lives are satisfying BECAUSE they have a family.
Where will the "new" immigrants" come from if you make poor people stop having children?
Then why all the whining if poor is just a state of mind?
If they had a job available to them, they would have much less time to reproduce. Poverty doesn't work.
91% of Americans have jobs.
That is propaganda...
Fact, actually.
Well, then quit screwing around! lol.
I don't like to feed trolls but I am going to indulge him this time.
Personally I think each person is allowed to have one child. I.e. if a couple has a child that child they can only have one more. If they want more children then they have to split up and who ever they meet must not of had a child yet. This way population growth is zero. Perhaps if the growth rate is negative people can apply to have another child which are selected through a lottery.
This proposal is spawned from the facts that world population is exponential. In 70 years we will be at 14 billion, and as we bring more out of poverty the toll on our environment will be too much. Are we smarter than yeast? Yeast grow exponentially until alcohol levels lead to die off. I'd rather handle the problem before nature does it for us.
Are you Malthus?
Yes. The arguments against Malthus was always centered on the competence of government and technogy. I believe we are growing at a pace that technology can't keep up. And the competence of government can easily be argued as faltering.
Actually, technological pace has become much faster in recent years than in the time of Malthus. If anything, technology is getting so good that it is replacing humans for most everything. So, you are just plain wrong. The total human population will be fine. Now, the question is, given that having kids is OK, who should have kids? People who have the resources to raise kids, or people who will have to raise the kids in poverty?
Wrong as usual, Vlad. The "Green Revolution" has plateaued, not mention the fact that oil supplies are getting to peak production. Improved computer chips don't feed people. http://www.infosud.org/spip.php?article8168
Ever heard of alternative fuel? We have an excess of food in the planet right now. You want Americans to get even fatter?
Oh, and yes of course, all americans must reach at least 500Lb each.
Did you read the article? What alternative fuel do you think can replace oil?
Solar. Nuclear. Wind. Geothermal. Hydrogen.
A cost effective means of producing hydrogen has not yet been developed. Uranium may run out by 2013. (see link) That leaves wind and solar. While it may be conceivable to power the world on these sources, it would most likely have to have been started decades ago to avoid a severe crunch. The other obvious caveat is that these will not serve as transportation fuel without expending trillions to covert to electric vehicles http://futurismic.com/2009/11/18/peak-uranium-our-nuclear-future-might-be-shorter-than-we-thought/.
So back to bullock carts?
Could be.
If malthus is wrong, then how do you describe all the starving people in the world. If it is not caused by lack of resources (which technology is supposed to solve), than it is caused by the inability to adequately distribute (i.e. incompetence in governance)...
It is due to lack of purchasing power. But that is changing as more and more jobs go from the rich world like the USA to the poor world like China. I applaud that.
Yes, please tell us all about how China enforces that one child policy.
My Planned Parenthood organization needs some new techniques!
This is not a socialist state regardless of what the OWS folks want, so there is no need for enforcement. I am merely saying that people should not have kids if they can't afford to have kids. Otherwise, they can whine all they want, but it is hard for me to be sympathetic.
Well, Vlad, you and everyone reading this might be interested to know that birth rates have, in fact, been declining:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/04/06/us-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/08/us_birth_rate_falls_again.html
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=25
And I'd be really surprised if anyone expected your sympathy! You haven't shown much capacity for that very human emotion thus far, and I doubt you'll be developing it any time soon.
You are still not getting my point. I am not asking for declining birth rates. I am asking for people to think twice before having kids. I would expect to see the rich have more kids than the poor but the reverse is the case. The birth rate has been declining for educated professional women, while I would have expected to see it decline for unskilled working class women, who can least afford to have kids. That's not the case, and there is a lot of whining coming out of that.
I'm not sure what the differences are between birth rates across all income levels, but I do know that if we just compare the welfare population to the non-welfare population, there are recent studies that show the birth rate as much as 3x higher among welfare families.
That leaves out any possible differences or distinctions between working poor and middle class which you pointed to in your post but I guess it is a place to start looking at any possible differences in income classes.
I can even explain a bit about why welfare vs non-welfare women would choose to have more babies. People who live on welfare have few other things to feel "special" or good about. They don't have the careers, education and striving that the middle & upper classes use to fill their time and to experience a sense of accomplishment. Having babies fills that empty place. It's also pretty much a rite of passage - if everyone else in your family and your immediate social circle is having babies by a certain age, and you don't, well what is wrong with you? Some women are aware enough to say as much in interviews. "I always wnated to be a mom, I couldn't wait to get pregnant" It is all some women have to aspire to.
I found another fertility survey with data from 25 states that does show as incomes have risen and fallen in the past few years, so has the birth rate, on a pretty much similar curve. But again, the data isn't broken out into specific social and economic classes.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/behavioral-marketing/states-with-declining-fertility-see-economic-decline-12668/pew-birth-rate-tracks-per-capita-income-apr-2010jpg/
So you basically agree with me. Poor people have more kids who they can't afford. They have kids because they think of kids as pets, something to keep them entertained and fill up their life. Instead they should be thinking of kids as a responsibility. And I am supposed to feel sympathetic about this? All this whining about how people can't make ends meet on a minimum wage stems from the fact that having kids is a rite of passage in US society. We need to do something about that. Earning more should be a rite of passage, not having kids.
Yes, we agree on that. Having children that one can't adequately care for should not be a consciously undertaken act or a rite of passage, especially if the parents are not even in a stable relationship with one another.
I am shocked by your lack of sympathy. Are you a paid agent of the Koch brothers?
Well, some have called me a nazi eugenicist so maybe.
I'll have to check and see if the Kochs have sent PP any donations lately ; )
I sent mine. I send PP a lot of money. They helped me when I needed help.
Why do poor and middle class people have kids that they can't afford?
Umm - I suspect that some of it is due to the shame generated by the right to life movement as they attempt a hijack of a woman's freedom to choose when and with whom she will bear children . . .
Some of it is. But a lot of it isn't. People sort of take it for granted that they must get married and have kids and live in the suburb with a minivan and a dog. Why? If you can afford it and more - go for it. If not, just think hard before having the kids anyway and then subjecting them to a life of poverty which will severely curtail their education and income potential down the line, furthering the cycle.
yeah- but I don't think those in the middle class had actually expected to be squeezed as hard as they have been since 2008.
The squeeze has been on for 30 years. Where have the middle class been? Anyway, at this point at least people should stop having kids that they can't afford, do you agree?
I think that if people have jobs that provide a sustainable wage, and if they are not being gouged at the gas pump or every single time they pick up the phone, then there really is no reason for us to debate whether someone's economic situation can be justification for some new twist on a rather old and highly discredited theory of eugenics . . .
People do have sustainable wages. The minimum wage guarantees that. Now, the minimum wage doesn't guarantee having enough to raise a family. Is that eugenics? Well, that's a rather twisted way of looking at things.
news flash -
minimum wage won't allow you to both feed and shelter yourself - much less transportation, healthcare . . . unless you live in a one room apt with ten other people and eat nothing but beans . . .
Guess you haven't had to live on minimum wage for some time now, eh?
Show me the math again? I have challenged a bunch of people to do that and everyone came up with excuses like what about a few little extras like a cellphone? But it is easy - you can shut me up by picking up a town in Podunk, ButtFuckState, and show me how the minimum wage is not enough to live. Yes, you will have to share an apartment, but your college students do that and it doesn't kill anyone last I checked.
Planned Parenthood was founded on this belief. It was a method to control the birth rates on the undesireablle poor and minorities. Sick thinking
People have kids because they exist. If people did not have kids, humanity would cease to be. Reproduction, which includes the want for sex and the want to have kids, is the biggest driving force in a human's life. Little boys have boners and they don't know why. The need and thus want to reproduce has been forged in our DNA since our ancestors who were simple cell organisms.
What kind of society do you live in if you ask some of its citizens not to have children? This is the very act that builds society. The next step in your master plan is to bring eugenics into the equation. If we can stop the rich from having babies, perhaps we can also stop the poor and the rich.
A true beautiful and modern society does not ask some of its citizens to refrain from having children, but instead encourages everyone to because this society wants to spread as much as possible. The solution is not to take more away from the poor, but to help them acquire more.
I am all for helping the poor acquire more. That's why I am in favor of offshoring that is bringing millions of Chinese poor into the middle class. But what is your solution? People will have kids because it is animal instinct, and then the kids will suffer because the parents have no money? Are you OK with taking these kids away from their parents and raising them in orphanages where society can provide for them? If not, do you think everyone gets a $30k/year subsidy just for having a kid (that's what it costs to raise a kid these days). What's your solution?
I'm from Canada. You can a subsidy from the government when you have kids in that country. I think it is admirable.
and honorable instinct.
That's because Canada has so few people. That's why the Canadian Govt bribes people to have kids. Having kids is nothing honorable. Being a good parent and raising a good kid with adequate resources is honorable. If you don;t have the resources don't have the kid. Otherwise you are just falling for the propaganda that having kids is honorable and breeding the next generation of what you guys like to call slave labor.
True honor is not when a man is a good parent and raises good children, but when a man enables his society to be formed of good parents who raise good children. When a man who is able helps others who are unable to become able like himself, he has learned true honor, and has become a pillar of hope and courage not only for his children, but for all the children in his society. We must not forget that the children of our neighbors our also the children of our society, making them the children of us all.
What have you done for the children of your neighborhood?
I teach free English classes for the neighbor kids here in Indonesia. When I was in Canada, I gladly paid high taxes so the government could provide them with free health care and free schooling. Complaining that we should all be individuals and keep money for ourselves is not honorable for society.
Screw Indonesia. So, all you did when in Canada was pay the same rate of taxes as your neighbors, and to you that qualifies you as an honorable individual. ROFL!
Why not just admit that you did shit for neighborhood Canadian kids? I am not saying that you should have. You paid your taxes and that's it, your job was done. Same for me in the USA. I pay my taxes and I am done. So what's the difference between you and me? You post honorable BS on OWS site and I post hard reality?
I was a student in Canada. I did not have means to help others. In Indonesia, I am in a position to help.
However, what you have done is thrown a red herring on the floor. The issue we were discussing is what is true honor. You believe it is an individual quest, and I believe the highest honor is a communal quest. I respect your opinion and you should respect mine.
So, it was not possible for you to give free lessons when a student? You are kidding me, right?
You are honorable because you believe in socialism and I believe in capitalism, is that it? Even though action wise we are identical? Every year I pay taxes that it would take 6-7 median American households to earn, or 10-12 median American working class folks to earn. I never complain. I just try to earn even more, and am happy to pay more taxes next year as well. But that's not honorable.
Now, I really don't give a shit about honor. I am a pragmatic person. I know that we need to pay taxes to fund the Govt to run its operations. But all the empty talk about honor makes me LOL.
I could have given free lessons as a student, but I was very busy and everyone knew English where I was in Canada. In any case, this is not the point. A theory is not necessarily wrong if the theorist does not practice that theory. That's a fallacious argument on your part. You shouldn't use ad hominem techniques, and instead concentrate on my argument.
I don't believe in socialism, I believe in capitalism. Canada is a capitalist country and it has one of the systems I think is the best. I think you don't know what socialism and capitalism are.
The only reason we talked about honor is because you brought it up. Go read your posts. I only offered the opinion that working for the community is more honorable that working for one's self. You made a big fuss about it. Just say you disagree and move on. Instead you don't attack my argument, but you unleash ad hominem after another. That's weak. It wouldn't even pass as a high school paper.
All I am saying is that people like to talk about serving the community but instead serve themselves. That says a lot.
Where I live they only get 16,800 a child. That combined with free delivery is why so many of our minorities have so many of them.
The 1% will stop at nothing. They are cheating the poor out of their legitimate income. I call for $30k/child, which by the way doesn't include new Chinese made Macs every year, or Chinese made iPhones with a generous data plan. This is what we are fighting for.
I don't know... I know several illegals with five or more kids. They have six figure incomes and never so much as think about employment. I suppose you're right - in a just world we would all live so well. During much of my life I have averaged a 50 - 60 hour week; much of it involved some form of manual labor.
yes, the desire to reproduce, especially among women, is very high. We need more education and birth control in middle schools, and high schools. It is nearly a death sentance for a poor person, who has no real reason to be with the father of their baby, to be really responsible in parenting. They are just happy they have someone who loves them unconditionally, even if it is beyond their capacity to understand wehat they are being used for.
All out of wedlock babies should get equal treatment under the law. There should be NO child support by anyone to anyone. It should joint custody as the standard.
If young girls knew they would half to share their baies with the father half the time, and would never get a dime of child support, they might become more interested in birth control.
Although not all married people have kids, so that can be considered irrelevant on one hand.
Just for the record, I am not talking about African Americans here. Caucasians have plenty of kids that they can't support.
Great question. Responsibility goes both ways.
Yea, Especially those Black folk. They're the worst with out of wedlock kids. Let's take it up with them.
I'm coming to NY for Thanksgiving. I'm planning on lookin you up Vlad
Well, one thing's for sure, you're not living in a glass house because if you were you'd be able to plainly see that certain members of the population are much more emotional, far less cold or calculating, and far more driven to yield to impulse. And much less inclined to accept familial responsibility.
That's the problem. These are the people who end up shitting in Zucchini Park. What do you think we should do about these people? They will forever remain poor because that's what happens to people who let their emotions dictate their actions. They could have been richer if they were cold and calculating but they won't and then they would impulsively blame others for their own fuck ups. How can we fix this social problem?
I don't think you see at all what I'm getting at. What I am saying is that these differences are very real and they exist for evolutionary, or genetic, reason. Some were of a world of abundance; others were not. Now who do you suppose might be of the more cold and calculating type, and thus less prone to yield to impulse? Why does this occur? There is also a direct correlation here in terms of how we perceive organizational structure because this is also a direct reflection of desire.
In reference to the Park People I don't think there is a universal that can be applied. We are far too cold and calculating for that.
No, I hear you. You saying that some people are morons and hence don't earn much and the rest of society has to subsidize them.
Re."No, I hear you. You('re) saying that some people are morons and hence don't earn much and the rest of society has to subsidize them."
NO !!!
You Graceless PR!CK !!
Do NOT Put Your Hideous, Hate-Filled 1%er-Exceptionalist, Words in (betua$)'s mouth {no matter how right-wing or conservative he may be} ... he did NOT say that ... YOU DID .. you disgusting, despicable, double-dealing, Demonic Dolt !
YOU "Vlad The Self-Impaler" ARE THE POSTER CHILD OF THE 1% !!
Enough Of Your SH!T ... I'm off for a Cup o' Tea ..
Yawn .
You know, you set a domesticated canine lose in the woods and he will starve to death. He's still possessed of the physical ability to hunt but on the evolutionary level he is no longer possessed of the economic logic. And I don't think it's so much a case of us domesticating them as it is a case of them domesticating us. We have evolved in conjunction with each other as mutually supportive.
The same is true of generational subsidies; in the sense that we have human beings that smile at us, wag their tails, and then, rather than hunt, beg to the point of demand.
It's also highly demoralizing to be deprived of ones self determinism. Let desire rule the day and all will seek their own happiness.
good question !
I personally don't believe you should be having kids without the 250K in the bank to raise them with. And no, you can't finance that over 18 years. Don't buy something you can't afford to pay cash for!
You don;t have to have it in the bank but for fuck's sake look up the agricultural department's estimate of how much it costs to raise a kid and then ask yourself the hard question - can you afford a kid? If not, is it fair for you to have the kid anyway and when whine that society is not supporting you?
Easy one... It's free! Swipe yo EBT baby!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII