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.
That's the problem... most of what is "being done" perpetuates and encourages the problem.
And just to be very clear...
the "problem" is the unplanned and unprepared for conceptions
by those least able to provide for themselves let alone for another.
---
What COULD be done to fix it?
Good education generally.
Sex Education in particular.
Effective and uncomplicated birth control. FREE.
Include Pharmaceuticals like Ru486. FREE.
Prompt uncomplicated local access to abortion services. FREE.
CASH rewards to women at age 25 ...who have had NO children.
CASH rewards to women at age 45 ...who have had TWO children (or fewer).
---
See? It's not so difficult. Some would say the solution is obvious.
Gimme my money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But the people who you think most need to heed this are not looking at 20 years down the road - they are thinking about tomorrow and the next month. Just like murderers don't think about a life sentence or even the death penalty...
How about some kind of monthly stipend in cash for as long as they stay under the max # of kids - and if they have kids, of course any assistance is limited to non-cash waivers for services.
Well, given that global birth rates are dropping like a rock, your premise may be borne out. Problems caused by overpopulation might be resolved by the end of the century.
Right now, most of the industrialized world, including countries such as China and Brazil, have birth rates well below the replacement rate. Only France and the US are even close. In the developing world, India has seen its replacement rate plunge to somewhere around 2.5 births per couple, a number that's expected to decline further.
Japan is already seeing depopulation, and China's working-age population is in the middle of a precipitous decline. Between now at 2050, China is expected to lose around 250,000,000 workers, while the United States will gain 50,000,000 during the same time period.
99% of couples have children with no money in the bank it's not just poor people. All these people just wing the money part because they are soooo in love "honey we will worry about the money later i love you" blah blah blah.
I read it costs over $300k average to raise a child from birth to 18 years old and that's just one most couples have 2-3. So if they have 3 that's close to a million dollars to raise the kids.
Then if the children have any medical issues obviously that cost rises big time.
To the OP I say check your family tree. There's a good chance if everyone used your if you can't afford them don't have mindset you may find you wouldn't be alive.
99% of couples have children with no money in the bank it's not just poor people. All these people just wing the money part because they are soooo in love "honey we will worry about the money later i love you" blah blah blah.
I read it costs over $300k average to raise a child from birth to 18 years old and that's just one most couples have 2-3. So if they have 3 that's close to a million dollars to raise the kids.
Then if the children have any medical issues obviously that cost rises big time.
Do you honestly think that a couple making $30k a year spends the same amount on each child as a couple making $150k? No - there is an incredible range. Kids don't have to have all new clothes and toys and private schools - those are discretionary and you can be danged sure that if you're poor, you don't spend that kind of money.
To the OP I say check your family tree.
There's a good chance if everyone used your if you can't afford them don't have
mindset you may find you wouldn't be alive.
Correct. But that's describing different times in a different world...
in particular a world that had decent paying no/low skilled jobs and a fair few of them
and a world that had a wholelot few people in it.
When "It's A Wonderful Life" came out in 1947 the US had 144 Million people.
---
That is no longer the world we have today...
where more and more no/low skilled jobs disappear every day.
The principle reason why what remaining no/low skilled jobs pay so poorly
is because of the supply:demand reality of having so many competing for so few jobs.
So if you're going to poke around in your family tree...
look for how well you and your 3rd & 4th cousins who all share the same heritage...
are doing in comparison to each other and what the differences are between the ones
who have "made it" compared to the others in the family.
This sounds Politically Incorrect, which means that it is probably true. I'm not sure that "most" of the worlds problems could be solved, but it would lessen problems. Mans nature apart from Gods influence is the biggest problem, and creates many other problems in our world.
Although I don't agree that most of the world's current problems are caused by poor people having too many children -- I think that power-hungry, greedy, psychopathic egotists are more to blame than poor people! -- I do agree that if poor people would stop having so many children, that the U.S. would be MUCH better off. I also think that the current U.S. "divide" is more of a "haves" vs. "have-nots" than a "Euro-white" vs. "non-Euro-white" problem.
I came across three links that, combined, seem to prove my point.
1. In 2016, approximately 1.03 TRILLION dollars ($1,030,000,000,000) was spent on welfare programs, excluding Medicare and Social Security, in which personal contributions are withdrawn from paychecks. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/me...l%20Budget.pdf
3. Of those 125,820,000 households, 21,102,093 of them had SNAP (the most common form of "welfare" assistance), which means that less than 105,000,000 households are not likely to be receiving "welfare" (again, this does not include Social Security and/or Medicare) but who are supporting those who are. https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defau...SNAPcurrHH.pdf
So, if one divides 105,000,000 (households) by $1.03 trillion, that means that the average non-welfare household pays approximately $9,800 to welfare. Now, that is not actually true, of course, because many of the government monies come from places other than from individual taxes! However, if at least part of the money spent on welfare programs could be redistributed to programs that would benefit everyone (such as reduced medical costs and insurance premiums) -- and if there were more restrictions about welfare -- I think that fewer middle-class and wealthy people would have as much resentment toward those "on welfare" as so many of us do now.
(Btw, my resentment comes from having direct knowledge of two white women on welfare who would fit right in with the stereotypical black "welfare queens" -- both are under-educated single mothers with criminal histories, and poor backgrounds. Despite those who would say otherwise, the problem of people relying on welfare is not just a racial problem!)
NOTE: Although I know that many people object to the terms of "welfare" or "being on welfare", I used those terms for brevity, and I mean no offense.
Last edited by katharsis; 04-19-2017 at 12:21 PM..
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.
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.
