Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
seriously dh,
You do know how much this nation spends on social programs.
I don’t by any means deny the importance of that, by the way. My initial statement is hitting at the “bleed over” into all strata of society, of a certain entitlement mentality which is simply at odds with both our societal structure and human nature.
What’s the criteria for being able to afford to have kids.
A job? How much you earn? But that fluctuates.
If you talk about numbers I probably can’t afford to have my kid.
…and don’t worry about the “rich” having too many kids,
studies show that most wealthy, industrialized nations decline in birth rate as they become wealthier.
…and even if they have rich kids, by the 3rd generation that wealth is usually gone due to the previously mentioned axiom:
“the devil soon finds work for idle hands to do”
Tune in to Celebrity Rehab if you don’t believe me.
Question for those who dispute my contention: if you think that job, income and population growth are not effective metrics for measuring the effectiveness of policies, than what metrics would you advocate?
bfarwell, that Trulia listing for the Elkins House has so much wrong information it may as well be for a different building. Let’s start with the building’s date. 1910? Are they nuts? How about 1853? Big difference.
dh,
The beauty of this nation is that it actually gives the “poor” a chance to get ahead, unlike other nations.
jessibaby,
The innocence of children forms the basis of this nation’s moral authority. The idea that every child gets to prove him/herself in a society without restrictions on achievement.
You aren’t both denying that this nation takes care of its poor are you?
Also, the flip side of the caring for the poor argument is that one cares most effectively for the poor by providing them opportunity to achieve.
seriously dh,
You do know how much this nation spends on social programs.
I don’t by any means deny the importance of that, by the way. My initial statement is hitting at the “bleed over” into all strata of society, of a certain entitlement mentality which is simply at odds with both our societal structure and human nature.
What’s the criteria for being able to afford to have kids.
A job? How much you earn? But that fluctuates.
If you talk about numbers I probably can’t afford to have my kid.
…and don’t worry about the “rich” having too many kids,
studies show that most wealthy, industrialized nations decline in birth rate as they become wealthier.
…and even if they have rich kids, by the 3rd generation that wealth is usually gone due to the previously mentioned axiom:
“the devil soon finds work for idle hands to do”
Tune in to Celebrity Rehab if you don’t believe me.
“You aren’t both denying that this nation takes care of its poor are you?”
I think we’re rapidly moving away from that.
Question for those who dispute my contention: if you think that job, income and population growth are not effective metrics for measuring the effectiveness of policies, than what metrics would you advocate?
“In the U.S. in 2011, a decision to have kids NEVER makes sense as an economic decision.”
Hasn’t made sense since land was cheap and labor was expensive.
In the U.S. in 2011, a decision to have kids NEVER makes sense as an economic decision.
bfarwell, that Trulia listing for the Elkins House has so much wrong information it may as well be for a different building. Let’s start with the building’s date. 1910? Are they nuts? How about 1853? Big difference.
dh,
The beauty of this nation is that it actually gives the “poor” a chance to get ahead, unlike other nations.
jessibaby,
The innocence of children forms the basis of this nation’s moral authority. The idea that every child gets to prove him/herself in a society without restrictions on achievement.
You aren’t both denying that this nation takes care of its poor are you?
Also, the flip side of the caring for the poor argument is that one cares most effectively for the poor by providing them opportunity to achieve.