U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2018, 10:31 AM
 
Location: California
1,134 posts, read 960,993 times
Reputation: 2056

Advertisements

Pretty good article about the challenges facing young couples. I find the comment by Paul Ryan at the end to be the equivalent of "Let them eat cake". Completely tone deaf and total lack of awareness of the challenges faced by working families.

Quote:
A few months ago, Paul Ryan asked Americans to have more children and said he had “done his part” by fathering three. I would argue that “his part’ is creating an America that’s truly family-friendly and he hasn’t done it at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...amily-policies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2018, 11:08 AM
 
17,605 posts, read 12,197,156 times
Reputation: 12821
My wife and I aren’t havibg children and while there are a host of reasons why her lack of coverage through her employer certainly came into play. She has two weeks of paid leave and then can do fmla unpaid, during the leave the company takes the cell phone and lap tops away, doesn’t pay the car allowance and any bonus comp earned during the quarter is forfeited if you did not actively work 8 or more of the weeks in the quarter. My company on the other hand is 16 weeks paid maternity leave that can be used in a flexible manner, no comp reduction nor lost bonus opportunities and allow me to take the maternity leave if I am the primary care giver meaning my wife has to go back to work after two weeks or lose her comp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 11:27 AM
 
9,815 posts, read 13,883,984 times
Reputation: 10707
Having children is very expensive. Major effort was done in that direction.

Having children "reduces quality of life" as how am I able to enjoy my life to its full, live every moment, etc, etc, etc, when I am bound to a child?

Effort to break down patriarchal families also brought proper results. In patriarchal families, generations lived together. Parents took care of their children, then, becoming grandparents, they took care of their grandchildren, then their families took care of them during their last years, and so it went for generations. There was no need for childcare, for example or skilled nursing facilities/assisted living. But to live the dream, who wants to stay in such binding set up?

I don't even want to go into comparison of social benefits between what I grew in and what there currently is here.

So what exactly did you expect? One always rips what one sawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 11:38 AM
 
494 posts, read 226,331 times
Reputation: 720
Honestly, who would want to bring up children in this Country today? Chances of getting shot at school outweigh most other civilized nations by about 25:1. Let alone the cost and other factors associated with having children these days. We made a decision 35 years ago not to have kids purely based on what we saw "some" other people's children were turning into. The way they treated their parents (Verbally) and the lack of appreciation they gave them.

Add what this country is turning/has turned into, and what the powers that be are teaching them, just fortifies our decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 11:49 AM
 
5,497 posts, read 3,352,872 times
Reputation: 13912
The birth rates in almost all the civilized, enlightened Western European countries are lower, often considerably lower, than the US, despite their "stable" societies and family-friendly policies. (The only exceptions are Iceland and Ireland). Germany has the 9th lowest birth rate in the world. Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 11:54 AM
 
Location: California
1,134 posts, read 960,993 times
Reputation: 2056
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot View Post
The birth rates in almost all the civilized, enlightened Western European countries are lower, often considerably lower, than the US, despite their "stable" societies and family-friendly policies. (The only exceptions are Iceland and Ireland). Germany has the 9th lowest birth rate in the world. Why is that?
I would like to see those breakdowns by ethnic groups. Some of the main drivers of the US Birth rate are the currently widely-despised, evil "immigrants".

I would be surprised if the birth rate of white Americans is materially different from that of Germany.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Honolulu, HI
4,550 posts, read 1,138,948 times
Reputation: 6517
Birth rates in 1st world developed countries are always low. Having a kid is not an economic asset like it is in a developing country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 12:37 PM
 
17,605 posts, read 12,197,156 times
Reputation: 12821
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot View Post
The birth rates in almost all the civilized, enlightened Western European countries are lower, often considerably lower, than the US, despite their "stable" societies and family-friendly policies. (The only exceptions are Iceland and Ireland). Germany has the 9th lowest birth rate in the world. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20 View Post
Birth rates in 1st world developed countries are always low. Having a kid is not an economic asset like it is in a developing country.

You do realize what historically low means comparing against your own history not some other undeveloped nation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, NYC
1,837 posts, read 1,086,754 times
Reputation: 1290
Birth rates don't really tell us much. People might not be wanting to have kids, or maybe less % of the population is in a relationship at a mature enough level to have them. Seems like a goofy thing to complain about given it's generally personal choice. Maybe if there was some disease that was causing fertility rates to go down I'd care more about that statistic, but come on.

Besides, isn't overpopulation a bad thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 01:10 PM
 
857 posts, read 642,065 times
Reputation: 1662
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokwaverider View Post
Honestly, who would want to bring up children in this Country today? Chances of getting shot at school outweigh most other civilized nations by about 25:1.

You're also about 25 times as likely to die from a lightning strike in the US as other developed countries. Take a very small risk and multiply it by 25 and its still very low.

Can you guess whether you're more likely to die in a school shooting or from lightning in the US? You might be surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top