Rabbi stabbed in Brighton (Washington: violent crime, good schools, high income)

[ocean900]

In every large family I've known the older kids took care of the younger kids, so no nannies. People from church also help. The whole family would get together cook huge meals in giant pots. No restaurants, only gatherings at church or at other peoples houses. Kids are "home schooled", clothes and other possessions get passed from one kid onto the next kid. It's a different life style in every way, totally different expenses.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by msRB311

It does. It also causes a burden for extended family members in a way. If I have a sibling or close friend who decides to have 12 kids they might not be invited to any parties. We actually know someone with 5 kids and having them over can be a burden. I couldnt imagine going out to eat with a party of 14 everytime...i mean you kind of can't go out to eat unless you make a reservation...taking 12 kids to an amusement park, the movies, Disney world? Enrolling them in a private or heck even public school. I mean come on...what normal person wants 12 kids?

None of what you list is a burden to society. It's a burden on themselves but they chose to have a large family. At my Catholic church there are a couple of families with 10+ kids and they seem very well adjusted and doing well.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by robr2

None of what you list is a burden to society. It's a burden on themselves but they chose to have a large family. At my Catholic church there are a couple of families with 10+ kids and they seem very well adjusted and doing well.

Do their tax payments cover the cost of their services utilization? If every family operated in this manner our schools funding would absolutely fail, but this could very well be seen a funding structure issue.

There is research of varying veracity indicating that larger family units directly impact IQ, educational achievement, and occupational performance. Not something I wish to see regulated, but the lifestyle does seem less fit for an economy which heavily favors skilled-labor and critical thinking.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

If every family operated in this manner our schools funding would absolutely fail, but this could very well be seen a funding structure issue.

If every family had operated in this manner since, I don't know, 100 years ago, the US would have the population of China. Massachusetts would have 25-30 million inhabitants. CA would have north of 150 millions.
Either we would have completely devastated the country and depleted even the most inaccessible resources or, much more likely, our lifestyle would be completely different. I don't know if our lives would be worse but definitely they would be very very different....and forget about going home to a 2500sqft SFH with 1/4 acre.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Lampert

If every family had operated in this manner since, I don't know, 100 years ago, the US would have the population of China. Massachusetts would have 25-30 million inhabitants. CA would have north of 150 millions.
Either we would have completely devastated the country and depleted even the most inaccessible resources or, much more likely, our lifestyle would be completely different. I don't know if our lives would be worse but definitely they would be very very different....and forget about going home to a 2500sqft SFH with 1/4 acre.

And if every family had had the current 1.9 kids, we would look a lot different today as well. Can't say that's necessarily all bad, but it certainly would have hindered our growth and standing in the world. I'm not at all saying every family should have 12 kids or that is in our best interest, but until the day we are no longer dependent on 3rd world immigration then I say bring it on to whoever is willing.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Do their tax payments cover the cost of their services utilization? If every family operated in this manner our schools funding would absolutely fail, but this could very well be seen a funding structure issue.

There is research of varying veracity indicating that larger family units directly impact IQ, educational achievement, and occupational performance. Not something I wish to see regulated, but the lifestyle does seem less fit for an economy which heavily favors skilled-labor and critical thinking.

I have doubts on the value of most of those studies, given the varying dynamics among that group and trying to apply control factors. I mean four kids raised by a single welfare mother in a chaotic environment, sure. That is a large chunk of "large families today". But at the other end, you have those like these Jewish Orthodox people, or big Mormon families...sure they have their disadvantages but at the same time they are often home schooled, have much stricter than average rules regarding things like diet, screen time (things like that which also negatively impact IQ and achievement). And then you have self sufficient people like the Amish, I mean when was the last time you heard of one of them being on welfare?

[mp775]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Do their tax payments cover the cost of their services utilization? If every family operated in this manner our schools funding would absolutely fail, but this could very well be seen a funding structure issue.

There is research of varying veracity indicating that larger family units directly impact IQ, educational achievement, and occupational performance. Not something I wish to see regulated, but the lifestyle does seem less fit for an economy which heavily favors skilled-labor and critical thinking.

Except Judaism strongly favors education, and Orthodox Jews typically send their children to private Jewish schools. I have friends with 12+ kids who are brilliant, and know plenty of dumb kids from one to two child households. Any such study would probably have too low a sample size to be valid.

It's appalling that a guy was stabbed and most of the reaction here is complaining about how many children he has.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I have doubts on the value of most of those studies, given the varying dynamics among that group and trying to apply control factors. I mean four kids raised by a single welfare mother in a chaotic environment, sure. That is a large chunk of "large families today". But at the other end, you have those like these Jewish Orthodox people, or big Mormon families...sure they have their disadvantages but at the same time they are often home schooled, have much stricter than average rules regarding things like diet, screen time (things like that which also negatively impact IQ and achievement). And then you have self sufficient people like the Amish, I mean when was the last time you heard of one of them being on welfare?

We don't need illegal mass third world immigration, big business needs cheap labor. We also don't need to import as much tech and medical from India and China, but we do if Big Tech and academia want cheap talent. I think the dog is, in part, wagging the tail on why middle classes are not having kids. In contrast, I think there has been an uptick in families of the top 1-2 percent having more kids.

There are many opinions about why middle-class Americans (and Europeans) are not reproducing at sustainable levels. I don't think it's surprising given the economic impacts of raising kids on middle/lower middle class families as well as the changes in perception of what motherhood and family means to women. These aren't generally considerations for those coming from developing nations who are more traditional, and for whom anything economically is a vast improvement to what they are accustomed to. It may be time for American society to look at more creative ways to provide some type of support to those from the working and middle classes, while simultaneously directing much more energy toward discouraging the poor from having kids they can't raise without being on the public dole. Compounding matters, many of those third-world immigrants end up on such programs along with the native born poor.

[msRB311]

I don't know of any Catholic families who have 10+ kids these days.

Also many of these religious families with lot of kids don't always operate in the healthiest ways that you're describing. There can be a lot of sexism that takes place where there is simply less expected of the women in terms of goals other than take care of house, cook and do chores. They are basically raised to go on to be baby making machines themselves. I would imagine there are more cases like this out there and this was one was pretty extreme:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/539694...t-cult-leader/


https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/0...-settings.html

The Duggars also come to mind as an example crazy religious people who kept having kids because God told them to. Doesnt seem like that worked out too well for them.

Not saying this rabbi was like this by any stretch, I have no idea...but feels like people are assuming that these big religious families are filled with joy, laughter and love. I'm just surprised there are so many people who think it's ok to have 10+ kids. Most people can't afford or manage this these days. The ones who truly can afford it arent doing it...

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

We don't need illegal mass third world immigration, big business needs cheap labor. We also don't need to import as much tech and medical from India and China, but we do if Big Tech and academia want cheap talent. I think the dog is, in part, wagging the tail on why middle classes are not having kids. In contrast, I think there has been an uptick in families of the top 1-2 percent having more kids.

There are many opinions about why middle-class Americans (and Europeans) are not reproducing at sustainable levels. I don't think it's surprising given the economic impacts of raising kids on middle/lower middle class families as well as the changes in perception of what motherhood and family means to women. These aren't generally considerations for those coming from developing nations who are more traditional, and for whom anything economically is a vast improvement to what they are accustomed to. It may be time for American society to look at more creative ways to provide some type of support to those from the working and middle classes, while simultaneously directing much more energy toward discouraging the poor from having kids they can't raise without being on the public dole. Compounding matters, many of those third-world immigrants end up on such programs along with the native born poor.

I agree with with most of this, except the "numbers" part. You cannot run from the fact that with the current fertility rates of Americans, our country would suffer a long term economic collapse if we don't at least "sustain" our current population levels. And since Europe is reproducing at an even lower rate than we are, they aren't going to be helping us out much. So it's basically a choice of "have more of our own kids" (which as you identify there is no clear answer to), or keep bringing them in from the developed world (which of course comes with the given risks to national security, lack of upward mobility, etc.).