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.
I'm one of six. As adults, we don't interact...more or less at all. I'm the only one taking care of 'our' elderly mother. Our 'family cultures' consists of maybe a handful of shared memories. I have no desire to interact with my nephews or nieces, nor will I serve as a free babysitting service. I don't ask my siblings for help, and they don't ask me.
So, yeah, I'd say a large family guarantees nothing.
Who said it "guarantees" anything? We're talking probabilities here. A certain percentage of all families will be dysfunctional.
You don't have to "get into it" with me: just acknowledge that immigration, while perhaps desirable for other reasons, is a poor substitute for natural population replacement and growth.
I'm not going to acknowledge it because I don't agree with your assumptions.
Who said it "guarantees" anything? We're talking probabilities here. A certain percentage of all families will be dysfunctional.
The thing is...we weren't dysfunctional. We had great parents, never got into any major trouble, didn't torture each other beyond typical sibling stuff...but we're still not close. And it still didn't give my parents a 'safety net' in their old age beyond myself.
You can have a close family of three. You can have a distant family of fifty. I would consider a cultural issue, not a family size issue. Our culture does not support close family ties after adulthood overall. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this.
I'm afraid you're going to have to take this to the next level. First, look up the word "family". Then look up the word "culture". Each of these will give you several definitions from which to choose. Then, from the context of this discussion, make an educated guess in each case as to which of those definitions is the most relevant. Once that determination has been made, put the words together in order to form a separate and distinct concept. Make sure to get the order right: "culture" is modified by "family", not the reverse. Let me know what you come up with.
Our forebears survived the Great Depression because they had lots of relatives - a cousin had a spare room, an uncle had a job, a sister could send a little money, etc.
Big families also meant more mouths to feed.
The only family among my kinfolk that had ANY money had ONE child. That particular aunt had 12 brothers and sisters. As generous as she was, "help" didn't stretch very far.
As far as numbers go, that's one "solution" and it seems to be the one we have chosen. But it's not just the numbers: it's also the quality of the numbers in terms of skills and productivity, and the integration of those numbers into the greater society.
Those "numbers" are actual people. Immigrants are great - I married one of the best of 'em - but apart from marriage they are not family and don't generally feel any obligation towards us natives. If I'm unemployed and don't have an uncle with a job to give me, I can't really expect to fall back on the goodwill of unrelated immigrants. They're taking care of their own.
I think you're missing a critical link in the chain. Some regions of the US integrate immigrants much faster into the job market when job opportunities are available to them as well as educational opportunities and training programs to succeed. So, it has to do with the best allocation of human capital, and that is where the US stands to improve across the board compared to other advanced countries.
You don't have to "get into it" with me: just acknowledge that immigration, while perhaps desirable for other reasons, is a poor substitute for natural population replacement and growth.
Because natural population growth comes with familial, cultural, and often religious obligations. It comes in the context of pre-existing relationships that make people happy and secure. That's a good thing and makes for a stronger society. Immigrants do not generally share family ties with the natives, nor do they feel any special solidarity with them, or responsibilities towards them.
Once again, I'm not arguing against immigration per se - there are valid reasons to favor certain kinds of immigration - but it's a poor substitute for natural population replacement and growth.
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.
