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.
Think of the crime, poverty, economic, and educational issues facing our country. My solution doesn't cost anything, and actually saves us a substantial amount of money. Yet when I suggest this in person, people say I am a monster.
Is it really radical thinking to suggest that many of our problems are due to people having children before they have the means to provide for them and that the logical solution is to promote not having children until you have the means to provide for them?
Don't have children until one or both parents have the finances and time to raise them right and provide for them without creating an undue burden on the system and your community.
I think this is common sense, but I have alienated a lot of my millennial peers by saying this.
How do you define what is "affordable". And I hope you like third world immigrants, as our population suddenly falls off a cliff with no one to replace the workers that keep everything afloat. See: Japan
Think of the crime, poverty, economic, and educational issues facing our country. My solution doesn't cost anything, and actually saves us a substantial amount of money. Yet when I suggest this in person, people say I am a monster.
Is it really radical thinking to suggest that many of our problems are due to people having children before they have the means to provide for them and that the logical solution is to promote not having children until you have the means to provide for them?
Don't have children until one or both parents have the finances and time to raise them right and provide for them without creating an undue burden on the system and your community.
I think this is common sense, but I have alienated a lot of my millennial peers by saying this.
Yes, I think this is a great idea. I commend you for bringing up this subject! It's not a coincidence that many of the states with the youngest average age of a first time mother are also among the poorest states: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21_table2.pdf
Up here in New York most people don't start having kids until their late 20s or early 30s. I am 27 and most of my friends are only just getting to the point where they start to even think about kids. Result: our poverty level is much lower than many Southern states where people start having kids at much younger ages. Waiting until your late 20s will lead to a much more positive life for your little ones. More toys, more vacations, etc = happier memories.
Only if we closed the borders. Otherwise we'll just end up importing more and more third world people who are illiterate and come from conditions of crippling poverty to make up for the babies we choose not to have because we are being responsible. Apparently we have to keep our population growing at all times even though all of our jobs are supposedly going to be taken over by robots. This should end well.
Think of the crime, poverty, economic, and educational issues facing our country. My solution doesn't cost anything, and actually saves us a substantial amount of money. Yet when I suggest this in person, people say I am a monster.
Is it really radical thinking to suggest that many of our problems are due to people having children before they have the means to provide for them and that the logical solution is to promote not having children until you have the means to provide for them?
Don't have children until one or both parents have the finances and time to raise them right and provide for them without creating an undue burden on the system and your community.
I think this is common sense, but I have alienated a lot of my millennial peers by saying this.
Prime earning years tend to be those too old to raise children.
Children require loads of energy to raise best done before 30 or 35. In fact if kids turned 18 when M&P turned mid-40s it would be about perfect.
It does seem that poor people have their kids young. Is it on purpose or a mistake? I suppose it comes down to expectations and education and family. I know some young ladies 20-28 that came from a solid family, they are highly educated, have good jobs and their future looks bright as they are living life, traveling and having good times.
On the flip side of the coin I know another who is 22, she came from a broken family that never had any stability, she didn't go to college and she works 3 jobs. She is due to have a baby in a few months. The boyfriend and she live in a tiny apartment. Their future is going to be a struggle, it is now but add a baby and they will be going on public assistance. Was baby planned or a mistake I don't know?
I do think that couples should hold off having kids until they are financially and mentally stable.
I think education and a strong family background is key but as we all know accidents do happen.
ain't gonna happen. with the college tuition free if sanders gets what he says he wants, people will cut loose even more. everyone goes to college and gets a useless degree.
it's in the interest of the Left to create permenantly dependent people, upon whom you can expect permenantly loyal votes. It's good for the Democrats, and they are smart about it.
Think of the crime, poverty, economic, and educational issues facing our country. My solution doesn't cost anything, and actually saves us a substantial amount of money. Yet when I suggest this in person, people say I am a monster.
Is it really radical thinking to suggest that many of our problems are due to people having children before they have the means to provide for them and that the logical solution is to promote not having children until you have the means to provide for them?
Don't have children until one or both parents have the finances and time to raise them right and provide for them without creating an undue burden on the system and your community.
I think this is common sense, but I have alienated a lot of my millennial peers by saying this.
Common sense and liberalism are like matter and anti-matter meeting. They cancel each other out.
Think of the crime, poverty, economic, and educational issues facing our country. My solution doesn't cost anything, and actually saves us a substantial amount of money. Yet when I suggest this in person, people say I am a monster.
Is it really radical thinking to suggest that many of our problems are due to people having children before they have the means to provide for them and that the logical solution is to promote not having children until you have the means to provide for them?
Don't have children until one or both parents have the finances and time to raise them right and provide for them without creating an undue burden on the system and your community.
I think this is common sense, but I have alienated a lot of my millennial peers by saying this.
Can't say I am a bit surprised that your "millennial peers" are alienated by common sense.
Stand firm. You are the one that is rational and correct.
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.
It's not a coincidence that many of the states with the youngest average age of a first time mother are also among the poorest states: 
