Why do people reproduce past their economic means?

[H Tower]

You're a turd, Third!

huh?

[giblets]

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?

Because
1. They want to be taken care of in their old age. This is how people saved for retirement in the bad old days.
2. The standards for raising a child are low. Schooling is optional, especially for girls, and child labor is okay. How much does it really cost to feed and clothe a child?
3. Mortality rates are high in Afghanistan so some of them are going to die anyway. They want to be very sure that they have some surviving sons.

[Donegeal]

huh?

Ender's Game quote. In the book, families are restricted to 2 children because of world wide over population. The only exception to this is if the government grants you permission because your genes/previous children are proven to be of exceptional stock. However, thirds (as third children are refered to) are still very much frowned upon (and they get picked on big time in schools, which is actually where the quote comes from).

[David Floyd]

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.

It's irrational. Children aren't a blessing, they are a biological fact. Having 1 child vs. 8 children isn't the difference between being blessed 8 times as against 1 time, it's the difference between being able to afford a reasonable standard of living and, well, not. At least in many cases. Don't get me wrong. If you can actually afford 4, 5, 6, etc, children, and can raise them in a reasonable manner that enables them to join the 21st Century, I'm all for it. But most people can't. The problem arises when they CHOOSE TO DO SO ANYWAY. For example, Juan and Consuela absolutely cannot afford to have 3 boys and 2 girls -- but if you look at the demographics, that's what is happening! Those children are being raised in poverty, for no other reason than their parents want more children based upon what they feel the Church thinks they should do.

But Ben, here's the thing -- I pretty much don't care. If parents want to have 5+ children, past their ability to economically support them, than fine. My problem is where my tax dollars have to support their bad decisions. And that includes education. I am paying a far higher burden for Juan and Consuela's decisions, as it pertains to education, than the two of them are, given that I have 0 children, and they have 5. It's ludicrous. But there's a snowball effect. What are the odds those parents have health insurance? Well, statistically, and taking race out of it, just adjusting for number of children, probably not all that great. Wonderful. That means that I am either paying for their emergency room bills, or now, for ObamaCare.

I'm not sure you're clearly comprehending my point. I'm not against having children. What I'm against is having children you can't economically support, and for whose support you have to rely on others. Those children are basically leaches, as are their parents.

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.

So, do you think America would be more prosperous with a higher birthrate?

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.

And I'm suggesting that Ngombe Mpbamda in sub-Saharan Africa has no say in whether he lives in a market economy, yet he chooses to have children anyway. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. While he should have the ability to do so, the United States should not provide food aid to him.

[David Floyd]

Because
1. They want to be taken care of in their old age. This is how people saved for retirement in the bad old days.
2. The standards for raising a child are low. Schooling is optional, especially for girls, and child labor is okay. How much does it really cost to feed and clothe a child?
3. Mortality rates are high in Afghanistan so some of them are going to die anyway. They want to be very sure that they have some surviving sons.

All good points, except for the fact that in nations like those, the economy is in the ****ter, and the majority of the population lives in abject poverty.

[giblets]

All good points, except for the fact that in nations like those, the economy is in the ****ter, and the majority of the population lives in abject poverty.

And? Even if they're desperately poor farmers their situation won't necessarily be worse if they can have children who can do agricultural labor.

[David Floyd]

I'm calling them idiots. I'm not saying the US should intervene and prevent them from having babies. I'm just saying we shouldn't support their babies.

[Al B. Sure!]

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

Too late. He is.

[Al B. Sure!]

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

Too late. He is.

[giblets]

I'm calling them idiots. I'm not saying the US should intervene and prevent them from having babies. I'm just saying we shouldn't support their babies.

The US government does **** all to support third world babies. Poor people in the US have 2+ kids on average for totally different reasons and Afghanistan is not really relevant to a rant about their behaviors.

[Ben Kenobi]

Too late. He is.

I'd wager it's substantially more likely that Floyd is dating someone not of his race tonight than you.

[Kidlicious]

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.

People are stupid and irresponsible. Wealthy people also don't have enough children. It's ****ed up. Poor people don't tend to be married or stay married either, yet they have more children. Wealthy people get married and stay married and hardly have any children.

[Aeson]

Here everyone is Catholic, but that doesn't seem to be the main reason why contraception isn't used. (It probably was much different in the not-so-distant past.) It's difficult to afford contraception when you have no money. Sex is still fun of course. When you don't have a job, you probably have more time and energy for sex.

We (the developed world) could of course easily change things so that the positive birth rate worldwide wasn't a problem but rather an opportunity. But we're still too worried about the color of peoples' skin and/or what lines they were born between.

So yah, we have a moron crisis ... but it's not just limited to those who have lots of kids in poverty.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's irrational. Children aren't a blessing, they are a biological fact. Having 1 child vs. 8 children isn't the difference between being blessed 8 times as against 1 time, it's the difference between being able to afford a reasonable standard of living and, well, not.

What if I told you that's exactly how the Catholic church sees it?

It's a very different perspective from your view which is Malthusian. The real core of the conflict is between the Catholic church and Malthus. We're just intermediaries....

At least in many cases. Don't get me wrong. If you can actually afford 4, 5, 6, etc, children, and can raise them in a reasonable manner that enables them to join the 21st Century, I'm all for it. But most people can't. The problem arises when they CHOOSE TO DO SO ANYWAY. For example, Juan and Consuela absolutely cannot afford to have 3 boys and 2 girls -- but if you look at the demographics, that's what is happening! Those children are being raised in poverty, for no other reason than their parents want more children based upon what they feel the Church thinks they should do.

Again - it goes back to the whole perception of what a child is. A child is a blessing. Seeing a child as a blessing is very radical. Think of it this way. Poverty is just suffering for you in this life here. After you die, is anyone really going to care about how well you lived this life? No. But your children? They will be out and walking around long after you are gone.

If you value say the 30 or so good years that you get here is one thing - but what about what happens with your family and what your family manages to accomplish. To me it's a no brainer. Even if you are the smartest person on the planet, it is not hard for your progeny to do more things for the world over time.

But Ben, here's the thing -- I pretty much don't care. If parents want to have 5+ children, past their ability to economically support them, than fine. My problem is where my tax dollars have to support their bad decisions.

Agreed wholeheartedly. This is why I brought taxes into it. Taxes are never irrelevant. Taxes are always relevant as the public has a say in their tax dollars. If they don't like where the money is going then they have the right to speak up about the spending.

Whether Juan or Consuela's, or John and Constance have a child shouldn't have anything to do with you. This is the problem with Obamacare. Since you are paying for their contraception and their health care - suddenly their family planning decisions become your problem - since your tax dollars are being collected to fund them.

On the other token - it works both ways. John and Constance's children will have to support you if you don't have any children. Is that right? I would argue no - your well being isn't their concern anymore than theirs is yours. If they want to help you that is one thing - being forced through social security to help you is quite another.

And that includes education. I am paying a far higher burden for Juan and Consuela's decisions, as it pertains to education, than the two of them are, given that I have 0 children, and they have 5. It's ludicrous. But there's a snowball effect. What are the odds those parents have health insurance? Well, statistically, and taking race out of it, just adjusting for number of children, probably not all that great. Wonderful. That means that I am either paying for their emergency room bills, or now, for ObamaCare.

Why do you think I attacked Obamacare so fiercely?

I'm not sure you're clearly comprehending my point. I'm not against having children. What I'm against is having children you can't economically support, and for whose support you have to rely on others. Those children are basically leaches, as are their parents.

I do comprehend. This is why I'm saying that the problem isn't the children, the problem is the benefits.

So, do you think America would be more prosperous with a higher birthrate?

All else being equal? Absolutely.

I think America would be even more prosperous without the welfare state. The less parents have to pay in taxes the more children they are likely to have, and the better off the parents and children will be.

And I'm suggesting that Ngombe Mpbamda in sub-Saharan Africa has no say in whether he lives in a market economy, yet he chooses to have children anyway. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. While he should have the ability to do so, the United States should not provide food aid to him.

Say you're Ngombe. You read Rand when it falls out of a balloon when Paul does one of his airdrops, and realizes that the system is **** and you aren't going to be able to fix it.

What's the single greatest action you could take to ensure that the views of Rand are passed on to others within your society?

It's not stupid - I think it's very rational. But it requires a different perspective on things.

[Elok]

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.

If there's one thing we don't have enough of in this country, it's proposals of simplistic solutions to complex problems. You are a true American hero, DF.