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.
What can be done/ should anything be done about irresponsible procreation, bringing new life into the world that one cannot afford, just because you can?
What might the long term impact be if half as many children were born and US population substantially declined?
There's a 50 year track record of outsourcing. There's a 50 year trend towards part time jobs. There's a 30+ year track record of tech eliminating middle class jobs. Walmart overtook IBM as the country's largest employer in the 80's.Then came McDonalds and Yum brands which made IBM #4.
Despite this, the US population seems to have maintained a perception that we are somehow entitled to more. Politicians of all persuasions pander to this.
Who is going to elect the guy who tells the masses " it sucks to be you"?
Who is going to elect the guy that makes it clear the personal choices made by the masses have a direct impact on their outcomes?
Who is going to elect the guy who tells the masses their standard of living will likely decline over time, no matter what?
What happens to the economy if the masses suddenly began to live within their means?
What happens to the economy if federal, state, county and municipal governments suddenly began to live within their means without accounting gimmicks?
Guess it's easier for politicians to tell people what they want to hear, play the blame game and create the perception that they will magically make it all better.
Great Post. Get's to the heart of the matter. I think from a purely practical viewpoint and not a moral viewpoint there is a very, very harsh lesson to be gleaned from this and similar threads on C.D.
And that is a "life" as traditionally understood in the popular mind and popular culture of America is now only for the top 20% of individual and household income earners of America. Marriage, the 3 kids, mortgage in a suburb, a vacation a year, newer car/s, sending the kids to college, paying for wedding/s, retirement etc... All the stuff you popularly consider as "living" is and will continue to be unrealistic for the vast majority of people now and especially going forward. Even for people with Bachelors Degrees unless they have "connections" or are in a very marketable field.
I'd suggest that the procreating from a purely practical viewpoint be left to those with means. Meaning the top 20% and above. The future of the economy looks bleak for children born below that income level unless they happen to be exceptional in Math and can venture into high finance, actuarial statistics, possibly accounting etc... Or they're smart enough to get into a top level law school or become an M.D. Other than exceptional ability or perhaps teaching in certain school districts or a skilled trade (as of today's world) they're looking at a life of drudgery barring some luck. The cost of living coupled with the average salaries today is simply out of whack for the majority to marry, save for college for the kids, pay off their own student loans, handle a mortgage, save for retirement and stashing money in 401k's, having medical insurance for everyone, dental bills car bills plus the million everyday expenses and monthly bills.
As Malloric (I think) points out, the harsh reality is there are just too many people vying for an increasingly small number of opportunities of well paying, full time jobs with benefits. And that's not changing in the future. If it looks like you're one of these people in paycheck to paycheck mode and you're not already doing all the things in this post like paying a mortgage, paying off your student loans, saving for the children's college, have reliable cars, health insurance, saving for retirement etc... Then you should seriously consider cutting your loses and either going it alone and concentrate on your own survival. Or if you're the type of person who simply can't go it alone finding a partner who does not feel the need to reproduce and being together for companionship but not for the purpose of trying to have a family and attempt to do something that you're simply not financially equipped to do.
I know this may sound harsh to a lot of people. But reality can be a pretty harsh thing also. And I suggest that the reason to do this is not so much because you can't afford to live the "lifestyle" that popular culture feeds us through T.V. and other avenues but also for the hypothetical children you may bring into the world. I can't tell you how many kids, now adults, from "working class" pay check to paycheck backgrounds are dead from drugs, have or had drug or alcohol problems or are themselves just living "lives of quiet desperation" if they've managed to avoid the other pitfalls along the way.
No, this world as it's currently economically structured is not for anyone except the upper middle class and rich. If you're not them then attempting to live a lifestyle you can't afford will only lead to much debt, stress, and possibly children who suffer from too much debt as well as other potential problems involving scores of other issues that go along with a lack of adequate income.
It's like these people think that others should have absolutely no fun whatsoever. No phones, no going out for dinner EVER, no video rentals EVER, no vacations EVER. Give me a break. What a wonderful life that would be chained to your apartment living a life simply so you can put money into savings & nothing else. Again, that's not reality. Life is for living. Again, judgmental & on their high horse.
I was going to respond to your post but read up to middle-aged mom and decided hers began to sum it up better to what I was leading into which is that living is for those that can afford to live. If you're struggling to "live" a life beyond survival then you by definition can't afford to "live". Although technically you're alive and breathing you're certainly not living any kind of fulfilling existence. And if you're in this situation and attempt to try to live a lifestyle you think you should live then you're setting yourself up for failure. But more importantly then that unless your offspring are especially talented in a certain in demand area are setting them up for more of the same.
No the more I observe and get down to brass tacks the more convinced I become that the living should be left to those who can afford to do it. If you can't afford a certain lifestyle but are bound and determined to try anyway you'll be potentially setting yourself up for disappointment on a number of levels and fronts including most importantly any children you attempt to have but can't truly afford. Because they won't be starting on third base with a potential homerun in their future they'll be sitting in the stands without a uniform. And only exceptional ability in certain subjects and areas will get them into the dugout going forward.
I've never met any poor person who wants to remain poor or chooses to. But I'm sure you're an expert on everyone else's life circumstances and finances.
If you are poor and earn X amount of dollars and voluntarily incur additional expenses that eat into those dollars, then YES, you are choosing to remain poor. You can choose to SPEND your money or you can INVEST your money. One keeps you poor, the other doesnt.
Big TVs and smart phone plans aren't even that expensive anymore... I got a 60" name brand on black friday for less than $700, and I pay $40 a month for my smart phone. The TV thing really gets me... is this from some bygone age where a 32" tube TV set was considered the height of luxury and cost $5,000 (in today's dollars at least)? Even poor families can afford a decent TV these days.
What people really waste their money on is things like weddings, jewelry, cars, luxury vacations, and homes that are out of their price range. We've been raised on a left wing ideology that the government will take care of all our needs forever, and that investing money is something rich, white old men in top hats and tailcoats do. People will need to figure out how to save money on their own, unfortunately most will learn the hard way once it's too late and the social security fund dries up.
So you wasted $550 dollars going with the 60-inch because you could have gotten an equivalent 32-inch flatscreen for $150.
It ain't rocket science. Don't have damn kids if you can't afford them! I am a single man, 37, no children, finally making a decent income and I would not have children until I reached my financial/career goals in life.
I know several couples here who have a combined income of less than 70K/year and are having their fourth child. People are just stupid, period!
It ain't rocket science. Don't have damn kids if you can't afford them! I am a single man, 37, no children, finally making a decent income and I would not have children until I reached my financial/career goals in life.
I know several couples here who have a combined income of less than 70K/year and are having their fourth child. People are just stupid, period!
I agree........that is why I never had or, wanted children.
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.
