Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do people reproduce past their economic means?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why do people reproduce past their economic means?

    I really don't understand why some people -- particularly people within certain racial/social/religious groups -- choose to reproduce past their economic means to support themselves and their families? I mean, it isn't a hard concept. If you make $35,000 per year, you really can't afford to provide for 4 children. So why have them? It's a completely ludicrous concept.

    And the example I made applies to the Western world, where $35,000 per year is basically nothing. What about the Third World? Why is it that we see average birth rates of, for example, 5.54/woman in Afghanistan? What in the world makes them think they can support that?

    We don't have a poverty crisis, or a food crisis, or a potable water crisis -- we have a moron crisis. Until these idiots who choose to reproduce past their means learn that they shouldn't, then they will continue to die in droves (in the 3rd World) or be desperately poor/dependent on the government (in the US/Europe). And quite frankly, any religion or religious leader who tries to convince it's followers otherwise is both self serving and criminal.
    Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
    Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

  • #2
    don't go there, you will be called a racist

    Comment


    • #3
      That's cool, I've been called worse.
      Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
      Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        I really don't understand why some people -- particularly people within certain racial/social/religious groups -- choose to reproduce past their economic means to support themselves and their families? I mean, it isn't a hard concept. If you make $35,000 per year, you really can't afford to provide for 4 children. So why have them? It's a completely ludicrous concept.
        Let me ask another question. How many people could you support on 35,000 dollars a year before taxes?

        Is this number greater or less than the number you could support on 35,000 dollars a year after taxes?

        Is it immoral to raise the number of children you can afford on 35,000 dollars a year before taxes are taken into account?

        Why is it that we see average birth rates of, for example, 5.54/woman in Afghanistan? What in the world makes them think they can support that?
        Perhaps because it doesn't cost 35k a year to live in Afghanistan?

        That's a good question. You are aware that neighbouring Iran sees birthrates of 1.85 a year?


        We don't have a poverty crisis, or a food crisis, or a potable water crisis -- we have a moron crisis. Until these idiots who choose to reproduce past their means learn that they shouldn't, then they will continue to die in droves (in the 3rd World) or be desperately poor/dependent on the government (in the US/Europe). And quite frankly, any religion or religious leader who tries to convince it's followers otherwise is both self serving and criminal.
        What's the average birthrate worldwide, David Floyd? Is it an unreasonable number? We don't have an over population crisis. We have a people shortage.
        Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
        "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
        2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

        Comment


        • #5
          Lack of education, and knowing that the government will support you. What can you do though? Create laws on how many children a family can have based upon income? Only the chinese government seems to get away with that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by H Tower View Post
            Lack of education, and knowing that the government will support you. What can you do though? Create laws on how many children a family can have based upon income? Only the chinese government seems to get away with that.
            You're a turd, Third!
            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
            ){ :|:& };:

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey Floyd

              I don't know about stereotypes but I do know my father was born in the Great Depression and grew up dirt poor. He seems determined in his old age to give away or lose all his money and die dirt poor. I see this often with other people. His happiest memories are in those days of hardship.

              Last edited by Alexander's Horse; May 17, 2013, 19:32.
              Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

              Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

              Comment


              • #8
                BK,

                Let me ask another question. How many people could you support on 35,000 dollars a year before taxes?

                Is this number greater or less than the number you could support on 35,000 dollars a year after taxes?

                Is it immoral to raise the number of children you can afford on 35,000 dollars a year before taxes are taken into account?
                Is your point that we shouldn't pay taxes? If so that's an entirely different question. Clearly, more children could be afforded without taxes -- well, actually maybe not, depending on how much you rely on taxpayer money for various child-rearing purposes -- but the fact remains that just as clearly, taxes are a fact of life and irrelevant to my point.

                Perhaps because it doesn't cost 35k a year to live in Afghanistan?

                That's a good question. You are aware that neighbouring Iran sees birthrates of 1.85 a year?
                It doesn't cost 35k a year to live in Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan is still a desperately poor country, where the people cannot possibly enjoy a Western standard of living. Now, they may not want one, but the fact remains that a birth rate of 5.54 per woman clearly is an inhibiting factor to their wealth.

                And if you want even better examples, look at sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest birthrates and the highest poverty in the world.

                What's the average birthrate worldwide, David Floyd? Is it an unreasonable number? We don't have an over population crisis. We have a people shortage.
                Based on what objective measurement?
                Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Lack of education, and knowing that the government will support you. What can you do though? Create laws on how many children a family can have based upon income? Only the chinese government seems to get away with that.
                  Actually, my solution is to make receiving government assistance dependent on taking contraceptives.
                  Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                  Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is your point that we shouldn't pay taxes? If so that's an entirely different question. Clearly, more children could be afforded without taxes -- well, actually maybe not, depending on how much you rely on taxpayer money for various child-rearing purposes -- but the fact remains that just as clearly, taxes are a fact of life and irrelevant to my point.ng
                    I'm saying that taxes are not irrelevant because taxation levels play a significant impact on cost of living. If you are arguing that people should only raise the number of children they can afford - then taxation levels are part of the issue. Higher taxes, higher costs of living.

                    You're a libertarian, this is basic economics. The less government intervention the lower the cost of living on everyone. This means that people can afford to have more children.

                    It doesn't cost 35k a year to live in Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan is still a desperately poor country, where the people cannot possibly enjoy a Western standard of living. Now, they may not want one, but the fact remains that a birth rate of 5.54 per woman clearly is an inhibiting factor to their wealth.
                    If one believes that the economy functions according to supply and demand - would we expect an economy to grow where population growth is flat or negative? Would we expect the same economy, all else being equal, to expand or grow where population growth was positive?

                    And if you want even better examples, look at sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest birthrates and the highest poverty in the world.
                    And look at China with the lowest birthrates in the world. They ought to be the richest and wealthiest people in existence? Are they? Why not?

                    What's the average birthrate worldwide, David Floyd? Is it an unreasonable number? We don't have an over population crisis. We have a people shortage. Based on what objective measurement?
                    Birthrates worldwide are about 2.4 children per woman. That's not an unreasonable number by any stretch. Are you saying that the world cannot support a population where every woman has two children and 1 in 5 have a third?

                    As for a population shortage - look at the workers to retirees ratio. It's 1:1 already in the united states. There are something like 116 million working and 106 on some form of benefits. Is this sustainable? Look at the population curve. There are not enough young people and young workers to sustain the growth in benefits and debts already accrued. There's a reason Obama is borrowing so furiously. The only other choice is cutbacks on benefits.
                    Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                    "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                    2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, my solution is to make receiving government assistance dependent on taking contraceptives.
                      Actually, the situation as it stands is that every taxpayer in america is required to pay for contraceptives. So your solution is actually less extreme than the current administration.
                      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm saying that taxes are not irrelevant because taxation levels play a significant impact on cost of living. If you are arguing that people should only raise the number of children they can afford - then taxation levels are part of the issue. Higher taxes, higher costs of living.

                        You're a libertarian, this is basic economics. The less government intervention the lower the cost of living on everyone. This means that people can afford to have more children.
                        I am arguing that people raise more children than they can afford, due to irrational reasons -- religion being one of the main ones. Regardless of my political beliefs, the income tax is not going away. If your point is that without the income tax, people could afford more children, then I would simply say this -- perhaps. But why would they want them? More importantly, the income tax (or taxes in general) pay for many things that defer the cost of having children, such as public education. Yes, I'm aware that you are a home school fan, but that doesn't change the reality that most people are not. Particularly, most minorities, which are statistically the groups with higher birth rates in this country, do not homeschool their children. In that sense, without taxes, they would probably be even worse off.

                        If one believes that the economy functions according to supply and demand - would we expect an economy to grow where population growth is flat or negative? Would we expect the same economy, all else being equal, to expand or grow where population growth was positive?
                        All else isn't equal, and more people does not necessarily indicate a greater economy. I will turn your point against you, which you make later in the argument - if high population equals economic prosperity, then shouldn't India and China be the largest economies in the world? Yes, they are certainly major economies, and projections indicate that in the next century one or both MAY overtake the US, but that's a simple matter of volume. If we are talking per capita, most nations with massive populations are not considered prosperous. Consider the following list of nations:

                        China -- 1.3 billion
                        India -- 1.2 billion
                        US -- 313 million
                        Indonesia -- 248 million
                        Brazil -- 193 million
                        Pakistan -- 190 million
                        Nigeria -- 170 million
                        Bangladesh -- 161 million
                        Russia -- 142 million
                        Japan -- 127 million

                        With the exception of the US and Japan -- and MAYBE Russia -- which of those high populous nations would you want to live in? Any of them? I doubt it. As for the US and Japan, their systems of government allow for a higher standard of living. The US is further aided by massive natural resources, but then again, Russia, Nigeria, and Brazil possess major natural resources, so it isn't about that either, is it?

                        And these aren't even the fastest growing nations per capita -- those nations are even poorer.

                        And look at China with the lowest birthrates in the world. They ought to be the richest and wealthiest people in existence? Are they? Why not?
                        Their system of government. Simple answer, which you well know.

                        Birthrates worldwide are about 2.4 children per woman. That's not an unreasonable number by any stretch. Are you saying that the world cannot support a population where every woman has two children and 1 in 5 have a third?
                        The "world" may be able to in theory, but in practice the people having the children can't. Are you suggesting a socialistic system where the wealthy and/or childless transfer their resources to support those with children? Because that's what it sounds like. It is not even arguable that in the United States and the Western World in general, those with less children are wealthier on average.
                        Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                        Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Actually, the situation as it stands is that every taxpayer in america is required to pay for contraceptives. So your solution is actually less extreme than the current administration.
                          You miss my point. By and large, those on the various welfare programs have higher birthrates than those who are not on welfare. My solution is to force them to choose between contraceptives and welfare. The fact that various government insurance programs may or may not cover contraceptives is a red herring to my point, which is that I am proposing a bright line choice. Either you cease having babies or you cease getting government assistance. Simple.
                          Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                          Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am arguing that people raise more children than they can afford, due to irrational reasons -- religion being one of the main ones. Regardless of my political beliefs, the income tax is not going away. If your point is that without the income tax, people could afford more children, then I would simply say this -- perhaps. But why would they want them? More importantly, the income tax (or taxes in general) pay for many things that defer the cost of having children, such as public education. Yes, I'm aware that you are a home school fan, but that doesn't change the reality that most people are not. Particularly, most minorities, which are statistically the groups with higher birth rates in this country, do not homeschool their children. In that sense, without taxes, they would probably be even worse off.
                            Ok, well, here's the rub. The Catholic church teaches that contraception is immoral because they believe that sex and children are blessings. Is that rational, or is that irrational? If the issue is the presuppositions, then that's the crucial point, not the total number.

                            I don't believe that it is society's responsibility to educate children. I believe that it's the responsibility of the parent. Society through public education is stating that they believe it is the responsiblity of the state to educate. If the state is unwilling to bear the burden, then the state needs to step back and relinquish it.

                            Much of the cost of education has to do with state financing of it - take the financing out of the equation and education will find the market demand. You know this, I know this - this is why I support private education / homeschooling - mostly because it reduces the cost of education drastically. Low overhead, high effectiveness!

                            All else isn't equal, and more people does not necessarily indicate a greater economy
                            You're a libertarian, you get this. The point is to assess the relationship between the economy and population growth - negating external factors.

                            This isn't a difficult question - low and declining population does damage to the demand curve, and lowers, eventually, the supply curve if the economy is permitted to act on market forces. Population growth on the other hand, increases the demand curve, and will eventually increase the supply curve. Look at the growth of population in Europe during Industrialization increase side by side with economic growth. The biggest boom in real incomes in the US came in the 50's and again in the 80s when all the boomers entered the market. Why? Again - not hard to figure. Greater demand == Greater supply.

                            I will turn your point against you, which you make later in the argument - if high population equals economic prosperity, then shouldn't India and China be the largest economies in the world?
                            Is China a market economy? This relationship only works for market economies that allow supply and demand to function.

                            Yes, they are certainly major economies, and projections indicate that in the next century one or both MAY overtake the US, but that's a simple matter of volume. If we are talking per capita, most nations with massive populations are not considered prosperous.
                            Aside from the granddaddy of them all - the United States. There's a reason for American exceptionalism. You get back into the system - why is America successful while these other nations are not - going back to the system - they have had a longer and more stable existence as a market economy than anywhere else in the world. You would expect this built in advantage to translate into greater prosperity.

                            The "world" may be able to in theory, but in practice the people having the children can't.
                            So my question is this. Is the problem the people who cannot support 2.4 children per family - or is the problem the system that prevents them from supporting this many?

                            Are you suggesting a socialistic system where the wealthy and/or childless transfer their resources to support those with children? Because that's what it sounds like. It is not even arguable that in the United States and the Western World in general, those with less children are wealthier on average.
                            I'm suggesting that those not in a market economy become market economies. 1. I'm suggesting that those in a market economy, the United States, stop spending money that they don't have in order to chase socialist cradle to grave schemes and start paying down the debts and accrued obligations. That they shrink their intervention on the economy, permitting malinvestment to get destroyed allowing for proper allocation of capital.

                            Get the economics right and the family structures will follow. Stop using economic and fiscal policy to prop up bad outcomes!
                            Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                            "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                            2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You miss my point. By and large, those on the various welfare programs have higher birthrates than those who are not on welfare. My solution is to force them to choose between contraceptives and welfare. The fact that various government insurance programs may or may not cover contraceptives is a red herring to my point, which is that I am proposing a bright line choice. Either you cease having babies or you cease getting government assistance. Simple.
                              Couple things here - the best implementation of this would be to drop people off of social assistance if they have a child after getting on it - far less intrusive.

                              Second, I'm not really sure how this is superior. in a libertarian argument, to doing away with government assistance altogether and relying upon private charity.

                              I feel this is the far stronger Randian argument.
                              Last edited by Ben Kenobi; May 17, 2013, 18:18.
                              Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                              "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                              2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                              Comment

                              Working...