Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:10 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,838,343 times
Reputation: 40634

Advertisements

Fair enough, I don't have any close friends that met their spouses by their mid 20s. Or not any that aren't divorced by 40. It seems mid 30s is when people seem, in general, to have enough experience to be able to meet and identify a good partner.

We obviously disagree on that, but I'm glad it is working in your situation.

Edit: Now that I'm thinking of it more, I know of no one married before 30 that is still married to the same person by mid 40s. Not a huge sample size, but it is what it is. Lots of single parents out there. My dating pool is probably 80% single parents.

Edit2: I also think it would be good for the country if people that are responsible like that (and you, you had earning potential) were the ones having kids and waiting. We need far fewer children being born. It's benefited Japan a great deal. While their spaces issues are obviously more acute, and some say their economy languishing (and has for decades) it isn't really true. When you look at their GDP and their shrinking workforce, the GDP per person has risen a great deal as have the standard of living. We, of course, get a ton of influx in immigrants that they do not, but in general, the fewer the children the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
2,992 posts, read 3,402,735 times
Reputation: 4944
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
.
Edit2: I also think it would be good for the country if people that are responsible like that (and you, you had earning potential) were the ones having kids and waiting. We need far fewer children being born. It's benefited Japan a great deal. While their spaces issues are obviously more acute, and some say their economy languishing (and has for decades) it isn't really true. When you look at their GDP and their shrinking workforce, the GDP per person has risen a great deal as have the standard of living. We, of course, get a ton of influx in immigrants that they do not, but in general, the fewer the children the better.
Our population increases in the US come predominantly from immigration. If you don't grow the native population, you'll just import more and thus have achieved nothing. Japan is a xenophobic society with a pure race ideology and thus have negligible immigration while also decreasing its population. And it has no contiguous border with any other country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,049 posts, read 12,381,538 times
Reputation: 10380
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
Fair enough, I don't have any close friends that met their spouses by their mid 20s. Or not any that aren't divorced by 40. It seems mid 30s is when people seem, in general, to have enough experience to be able to meet and identify a good partner.

We obviously disagree on that, but I'm glad it is working in your situation.

Edit: Now that I'm thinking of it more, I know of no one married before 30 that is still married to the same person by mid 40s. Not a huge sample size, but it is what it is. Lots of single parents out there. My dating pool is probably 80% single parents.

Edit2: I also think it would be good for the country if people that are responsible like that (and you, you had earning potential) were the ones having kids and waiting. We need far fewer children being born. It's benefited Japan a great deal. While their spaces issues are obviously more acute, and some say their economy languishing (and has for decades) it isn't really true. When you look at their GDP and their shrinking workforce, the GDP per person has risen a great deal as have the standard of living. We, of course, get a ton of influx in immigrants that they do not, but in general, the fewer the children the better.
Hmm... Japan was supposed to be the next super power a couple decades ago. I think many people would disagree with you here. Seems like Japan is really screwed.

Fewer children from irresponsible, bad parents is better. More children from responsible, good parents is good. I don't think everyone should be having like 10 kids, but personally, I think if you have the means and are good people, you should think about replacing yourself for the future generation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 01:44 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,838,343 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
Hmm... Japan was supposed to be the next super power a couple decades ago. I think many people would disagree with you here. Seems like Japan is really screwed.

Japan isn't screwed at all. The data is being misread / misinterpreted. It is being revisited though now. They're overall productivity has reduced, but their per capita productivity and standard of living has increased. That (to me) is what is important. They're doing very well, really, when you get in the weeds. 1000 units per 20 units is much better than 1500 units for 40 units. That is what is happening to Japan in essence, the world media and banking system just looks and sees 1000 is less than 1500. But the people are experiencing the benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 02:54 PM
 
1,768 posts, read 3,229,162 times
Reputation: 1592
It costs society lot more to have old parents than many people realize. Mother nature is wise to limit fertility. Obviously there are plenty of technologies that will let you "cheat", but how smart is that?

I agree that it should not be deemed irresponsible to have kids in your prime. It is well established fact that younger parents have healthier offspring.

Also think of implication for your own old age and when you need care, if there are no new doctors, therapists, pharmacists, because we all collectively decided that it is better to quit and do not to breed anymore?

Can you really import all of these trades to fill every gap? And even if you could, are you willing to learn new language at tender age of 75 because your doctor or people in the town hall are not fully fluent in English? There are real implications of low birth rates that many like to gloss over. You can not import that many people. Humans need to have babies. Families and healthy and able population perpetuate circle of life and economy. Life doesn't just begin and end with you.

Since COL are pushing parenting out of natural and optimum circle, it costs us all more. Kids are sicker, parents much older (pregnancy can be dangerous and lot more taxing for older female). You also get more expensive health care, taxes and even public schools as a result. If we stop breeding on the other hand, we need more immigration, which I am not against, but I do not believe that all is resolved through immigration and easily so. That scale of immigration would bring other sets of problems and costs. And how you lure so many people to one of the coldest, oldest, and one of the most expensive areas in the US?

In the end, I think that living only to be able to earn money and survive, should not be above having family and living your life to the fullest, even if one needs to move away from MA to be able to achieve more balanced life. Kids are our future, as corny as it sounds. As one of the oldest states, we need every kid in MA we can keep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 07:09 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,838,343 times
Reputation: 40634
We're in no way shape or form close to, or even being remotely close to, depopulating. We're not running out of people. It's just not happening. We may debate who is having children and who should have more and less, but there isn't too much without a heavy handed government we can do to change that. There are things... but they aren't palatable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
2,992 posts, read 3,402,735 times
Reputation: 4944
Speaking of playgrounds and birth rates...

Today's article
Americans are having dogs instead of babies – Quartz

Quote:
If you’re wondering why playgrounds around the city are so quiet and dog runs are packed, a new report has an answer: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size canines.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29 corresponds with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women, reports the business-news site Quartz.

“I’d rather have a dog over a kid,” said Sara Foster, 30, the proud owner of a French bulldog named Maddie, the New York Post reported. “It’s just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You … don’t have to get a baby sitter.”

There’s also evidence people are treating their dogs a bit more like little humans these days. Premium dog food, the most expensive kind, has grown by 170% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for 57% of of the overall dog food market.

Last edited by Guineas; 04-11-2014 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,731 posts, read 21,879,869 times
Reputation: 14109
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
We're in no way shape or form close to, or even being remotely close to, depopulating. We're not running out of people. It's just not happening. We may debate who is having children and who should have more and less, but there isn't too much without a heavy handed government we can do to change that. There are things... but they aren't palatable.
Could you even imagine the outrage if the government (especially this administration) tried to take measures toward population control or controlling who can/can't reproduce? Obamagenics. I think people's heads would literally explode.

Personally, I'm in the "I'm fine without having children" camp. I'm 28, and I have absolutely no desire to have kids. The more I became sure of that, the more I was concerned that I would never date again because no woman would want to be with a guy who doesn't want kids. That hasn't been the case. I'm floored at how many women don't want kids. I'm not talking about, "I don't want to have kids yet, but maybe someday." I'm talking about "I don't ever want to have kids." It's amazing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
6,301 posts, read 9,613,477 times
Reputation: 4797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas View Post
Speaking of playgrounds and birth rates...

Today's article
Americans are having dogs instead of babies – Quartz

Yes, I was in Beacon Hill the other day, young fashionable women with handbag sized dogs everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2014, 02:52 AM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,838,343 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
Could you even imagine the outrage if the government (especially this administration) tried to take measures toward population control or controlling who can/can't reproduce? Obamagenics. I think people's heads would literally explode.

Personally, I'm in the "I'm fine without having children" camp. I'm 28, and I have absolutely no desire to have kids. The more I became sure of that, the more I was concerned that I would never date again because no woman would want to be with a guy who doesn't want kids. That hasn't been the case. I'm floored at how many women don't want kids. I'm not talking about, "I don't want to have kids yet, but maybe someday." I'm talking about "I don't ever want to have kids." It's amazing.

Even more subtly than that... lets say curbing the extra resources you get if you're on public assistance for additional children. Even that basic thing wouldn't fly... I don't think on either side of the aisle as it would (understandably) viewed as punishing children.

I dunno. I'm with you, but I'm older, and I meet women that don't want kids all the time. Though I hate yip yip dogs (love spaniels and labs, and most working dogs).

I'll save the rest of the rant I want to go into for now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top