Ten Reasons to Have Three or More Children (average, daughters, learn)

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

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.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Before I answer this post, define "family culture".

No.

Here, use this.

[Marlow]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

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.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

No.

Here, use this.

Well golly gee pilgrim, I already tried that and looky what I found:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family%20culture (broken link)

family culture
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

If you want to make up phrases as a framework in a debate, have the common decency to define your parameters, especially when asked.

I'm sure that would be just old fashioned kindess.

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

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.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Well golly gee pilgrim, I already tried that and looky what I found:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family%20culture (broken link)

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.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

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.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

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.

[Lucidkitty]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

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.

Why is it a poor substitute?

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Why is it a poor substitute?

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.