You know, in my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, you didn’t have to ask whether you could afford to have children. Most people did, even working class or low-wage workers. Minimum wage now is equivalent to what it was in 1958, with the peak reached in 1968 (http://http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html).
Yes, people now have to ask whether they can afford to have children, and not just those earning minimum wage. I’m a professional, living in the Bay Area, would have loved to have had kids, but couldn’t afford it on one salary. Given not only the personal joy of parenthood but the contribution to society of being able to raise children without being constantly under financial stress, you’d think society would realize the advantages of raising the minimum wage to above the poverty level…
I think that’s kind of a cop out. The poor people that have children certainly don’t ask themselves “can I afford to have children?” they just do it.
If “professionals” can’t be brave enough to have kids with way more resources than poor people could remotely hope for… who can?
In a civilized society, having a family wouldn’t be restricted to the well-off. America used to be a civilized society - that’s the point. Anyone with a mind open to the facts is aware of the increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the disappearing middle class in this country. Having middle class people (like me) feel they can’t chose to have kids is a symptom of this situation.
This http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ has to make it’s way into this conversation at some point.
Ow, my balls!
Ironically - the richer you are, the less kids you are likely to have. That is one reason why the panic of being out bred by Muslims in France or where ever is baloney. Repeatedly, as poor minorities assimilate into the culture they immigrated to and their personal wealth goes up, their birth rate goes down.
I think kids also went with out a lot of stuff that people find very important today. I think even in today, poor people just do with out, while medium to high income people are conscience of all of these added expenses they feel are important to their children. If they didn’t indulge in some “luxuries”, they too could afford to raise more kids. This is one reason why birth rates fall as people move up on the economic scale. They start spending more money per kid, and thus are forced to limit their production.
Examples:
Cloth vs disposable diapers
braces
name brand clothing
expensive entertainment (video games, etc)
lessons and sports (dancing, soccer, etc)
private schools
For sure I know I’ve spend a ton more money on my kid than my parents ever did with us three. Partly because I can afford to, and partly because we choose to involve her in activities that cost money.
Like your dad did?
You drag the argument down to name-calling and he’s the creep? He’s presenting a fairly innocuous opinion. You can disagree with his opinion, question his evidence and then present a counter-opinion backed up with your own evidence, but once you start to attack him instead of his argument you discredit yourself.
There’s a lot of fluffy thinking on emotive subjects like this but the truth is at some point in the future we may have to actively curb population growth and make it easier for people to self-select for euthanasia if that’s what they want to do - and that could well be getting to the point where they’d rather not become an economic burden.
Consider that it may be POSSIBLE to extend a person’s life indefinitely but that to do so will require infinite resources - that’s simple economics. To extend anything forever requires infinite resources. To put it mildly, that’s not really practical.
What is the meaning of ‘minimum wage’ if you’re allowed to pay people less than that?
If you can’t find a way for your business to pay the people doing the work at least minimum wage, then perhaps you shouldn’t get that work done. What people expect to pay for a product shouldn’t even come into it: the cost of making a burger includes the cost of paying the people who make it minimum wage or higher. Yes, you could lower the price (or make more profit), if you could pay less, but if you’re going to do that, why not just have slaves, or unpaid orphan children do it?
Yeah just like my dad did, who didn’t have kids till he could afford to have them. Theres a 10 year age gap between himself and my mother… because he married and had children later in life.
But you seem to have missed my point… or maybe you just went for the cheap dig.
Wouldn’t the cheap dig have been along the “cradle robber” lines then? Your dad was a seriously ugly dude, and it took him 10 years to find a lady? I can go on, but… there are a lot of reasons to have children (and marry - Uhh, do people have to be married to have kids?) I’m not seeing any other point to that comment.
From your prior commentary, I had the impression you thought poor people bred poor people.
I guess then I should be more clear.
I’m challenging the idea that poor people have kids because the TVs broke, or they can’t make intelligent decisions since they grew up in poverty and are uneducated. I used my father as a handy and concrete example of someone who waited to start a family till he could afford to.
I could give others. Many cooks I worked with at the diner I was at saved up money to start families. Many waitstaff I worked with looked for better jobs they could use to support a family later on. I myself realize I can’t afford to have kids, and think about what I would have to do to have them.
Assuming poor people are incapable of rational action is a kind of prejudice against them.
Its probably more of a factual statement to say poor people breed poor people, given that persons generally stay in the socioeconomic category they are born into. Its just not a very nice way to say it…
I guess its then fair to say I’m against poor people breeding. Which is quite possibly the most inflammatory way to say that people shouldn’t have kids they can’t afford to take care of. But I do prioritize the welfare of children higher than the right of a person to have kids. I think that is the most ethical position.
If welfare was sufficient, and the safety net actually existed in a meaningful form, and minimum wage was a living wage then I wouldn’t be against poor people breeding. Then it would be fine, because it wouldn’t result in children in poverty. I’m all in favor of the changes to make this happen, but not having children into poverty before it does.
I gather this is an unpopular position.
What’s the term for kind of reversing the sense of a statement so it doesn’t come out quite so bad?
I think your expression of your position is the least unethical representation.
Ultimately, deep-down, everyone understands your position. If we were talking puppies, we wouldn’t let them be bred into awful conditions. But we’re not. Let alone the ethics of even so much as analysing whether people should have children, the practicalities are unmanageable in anything except the most totalitarian state. Even China can’t keep to the one-child policy. In some pockets we’ve heard stories of kids being killed by the governors etc, but that has been insufficient deterrent to the Chinese.
For many people, myself included, the deep desire to have kids trumps just about everything. Shagging is a massive, universal driver, and sweet babies are too. I know people who’ve had kids because they saw the attention their siblings got when they had kids. I know people who “bred” on a date. It all happens, and always will.
So it’s going to happen. Bright underprivileged people who understand they’re digging a deep hole for themselves and their future kids will, nonetheless, have kids.
So the trick is? Make a better world. The best education for everyone. Break down barriers to entry to decent pay. Teach people not to let themselves get fucked over. Make them practice.
That’s what I meant about “upstream”.
I agree with almost everything you’ve said except the part about people not being able to plan their families, or even make the tough decision to not have children, or more children, rather than let their families fall into poverty.
Its as if you are against the prevention of teen and unplanned pregnancy.
I don’t disagree with you, just trying to follow the logic and see where it comes out.
Should a paper boy make a living wage? If not why not? How about shoe shiners? I’ll bet some shoe shiners in NYC make bank but what about one in say Anchorage Alaska? Where do you draw the line between job that should pay a living wage and job for which there is no demand and should therefore probably not exist? Or should all jobs go on indefinitely?
Also I don’t think that article says what you think it says. It says they pay some workers $15. But, they pay teens only $8 and they push hard to hire teens for that reason. It says they replaced some workers with computers. And it says they replaced other workers by being more efficient. So effectively it seems like you’re suggesting they solve this problem by exploiting teens and getting rid of a lot of employees so a few can have $15 jobs. Is that the solution? Less jobs but higher paying?
Who knows though. Maybe that is the solution. Raise minimum wage to $15 and maybe those people who no longer have $8 jobs because they disappeared will end up working in new industries (being serious, not snarky).
my that was swift…
I’m horrid like that. I’m very persuasive, devilishly so. It’s a bit mean, I’m all shades of NLP.
I’m pro-planning, pro-birth control, but I know that if people want to have kids, they will. You don’t prevent teen pregnancy by enforcement or threat, you educate and show example.
A lot of people don’t ever decide anything. They go with the flow, they’re driven by emotion, they respond to their perceived needs - in the minute, hour, day, whatever. The consequences have to look after themselves - they’re satisfying a need, be it emotional loneliness, fighting the aging population, whatever.
People already in an underprivileged position generally only see underprivileged time coming their way. Babies are immensely time-consuming and structuring, they give a sense of purpose. Many people lack that, they “spin in infinity”.
And why, they ask themselves, must I be deprived of a child, simply because I am not the rich man?
I abhor child suffering. I contribute to Save The Children, emergency relief for kids and families, a bunch, every month. But I know one thing for sure - everyone will keep having babies. My strategy is to change the way those babies learn from the world, to give them extra opportunity, and to not let them fuck it up.
You seem to come from a pragmatic background, with decision-makers and learners at the fore. That’s actually rather rare - even in the wealthy classes. Kind of Ben Franklin-esque.
But you have to learn to see through the fog, get down to those raw human drivers, see the confusing world we’ve all created around us, and how the less well off fare in it, how they actually live minute by minute composing some sense.
It’s really - really - worth considering when you spend your money. Is it going into economic channels that assist the underprivileged, or is it simply ending up in Goldman Sach’s coffers?
Every penny counts.
Other peoples’ thinking is always fluffy compared to your sharp and awesome mind. But the US population would be decreasing if it weren’t for immigration. Almost all of the rich nations are seeing population declines. So really, it’s poor brown people you’re volunteering for euthanasia.
In fact, didn’t you just advocate the death penalty for the poor? I think I’ll stick with fuzzy thinking, thanks.
