U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2009, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,807 posts, read 17,638,732 times
Reputation: 9440

Advertisements

user_id wrote:
......the people in power are generally not in power because they earned it, deserve it or are worth their pay. Most people on top are slugs that suck wealth from the little serfs below them.
If you preface your statement above with the words, many of, it would become one of the most accurrate statements posted on the entire city-data forums! As it stands, though mostly true, it is merely an over-generilization.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2009, 11:55 AM
ncc
 
95 posts, read 281,709 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by drshang View Post
Hindsight,

For many of us the solution to the problem is to not have kids. It solves about 90% of potential financial problems that the world is facing (high health care, education costs) and alleviates so much financial pressure. I would rather live an upper-middle class yuppie lifestyle than live a frugal lifestyle just for the privilege of having children. The fact that kids turn upper-middle class young people into frugal people is just ridiculous, IMO. Between increased healthcare costs, saving for college, private school (or paying way more for a good school district), daycare costs (or the loss of one income) and household expenses, it's just SO much higher compared to a generation ago. By all accounts we make quite a bit of money, however, we are conservative. When I think of the expenses of having one or two children it makes me absolutely cringe.
Italy, Germany, Spain, and Greece are doing the absolute same thing. Their population growth is actually negative. Sorta scary huh?? Some of your ideas come off in a selfish way, but hey, it's your life and your business. Being conservative however, i know you take personal responsibility seriously.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
32,685 posts, read 53,252,167 times
Reputation: 22735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncc View Post
Italy, Germany, Spain, and Greece are doing the absolute same thing. Their population growth is actually negative. Sorta scary huh?? Some of your ideas come off in a selfish way, but hey, it's your life and your business. Being conservative however, i know you take personal responsibility seriously.
Japan fears the drop in population; so they are now paying $300/month child support for every child being raised in Japan.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,369 posts, read 3,065,651 times
Reputation: 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncc View Post
Italy, Germany, Spain, and Greece are doing the absolute same thing. Their population growth is actually negative. Sorta scary huh?? Some of your ideas come off in a selfish way, but hey, it's your life and your business. Being conservative however, i know you take personal responsibility seriously.
I do think it's somewhat selfish, not going to disagree with you. But we live in a country where the government and society feels the need to basically put implicit tax after tax on having children (healthcare, education increasing at 2-3x inflation) and continues to kill funding for schooling and other things that children need anytime there's a spending problem. I mean I realize people can do it and it can be done, but that's not really the point...the point is, year after year, the economics of having children deteriorate. In this case, there's a really fine line between it being selfish and being rational, I completely agree. Part of me thinks it's sad - the people with the most education have the fewest kids by far. Are those people the most selfish, or merely the ones who have the resources to really evaluate and think about the problem? I don't know.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 02:24 PM
 
16,072 posts, read 28,469,779 times
Reputation: 27971
Good heavens, having children is a choice, not a requirement in life. Why is choosing the childfree life "selfish?" Does anyone have kids because the pension systems need more workers? "Selfish" means putting your needs and desires over another who is more needy/deserving. Not having kids hardly takes away from anyone, especially the kids you choose not to have.
People should have a child/children because they really want to spend the next 18+ years of their life, energy, resources and relationship on family life and needs. It's a lifestyle choice. One could argue (I do) that it's an expensive private hobby (and yes, I pay tons of property tax for public schools, as is proper).
Do note that healthcare costs go up for everyone, childen and otherwise. In fact, "family plan" insurance pricing means that non-family people are subsidizing other people's children. Hardly "an implicit tax" on children.
You might say this is a major point of discussion for me.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,896,589 times
Reputation: 1702
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Again what? You said something wrong, someone that "buy-n-holds" bonds is not exposed to the same issues as someone that does the same with stocks. They are not equally foolish in this regard.
No, you read it wrong...again. I said that in a bond dislocation scenario, a mixed bag of bonds will be as bad as a buy-n-hold portfolio of stocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Pensions are entitlements, so is social security. Also, most pensions have shortfalls precisely because people have not paid enough into them. They made a bunch of ridiculous projects on imagined 10% returns decades into the future.
It's much more complex than that. Many pensions were adequately capitalized but misused along the way as a slush fund by management, others were underfunded not by the worker, but by the company funding the pension plan. An unearned entitlement like welfare, ADC etc, is a much different animal than a pension earned as a benefit of work. It may be characterized as an "entitlement" by the budgeteers, but then so should a person's bank deposits...they're entitled to draw that money out by virtue of putting money into the account. The pensioner is entitled to draw the pension after putting value into the company.

Of course the pension only exists as long as the company remains viable. If the union and/or management drives the company into the ground, well, that's bad news for the pensioner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
And to say it again, I've said nothing about being "owed" a college education, down payment, etc. Rather I've said these things can make good sense from the parent's and child's perspective granted that the parents have the means in the first place.
It's sold by many in society as a fundamental parental obligation. I challenge that assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Kids from poor/middle-class families rarely remove themselves from serfdom. For everyone that does, there are many thousands that do not. Financial support from the parents is one way to better your kids chances.
It's far more common than you imply here. I'd like to see a credible source that only one in thousands escapes their childhood circumstances. I personally know literally hundreds who have risen from poverty in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
And the world simply does not care. The kid with a paid for education will had more time to study and make connections while in school, in the meantime the kid waiting tables will be busying being a peasant.
The kids with paid-for educations were not spending that extra time studying. And a lot of the connections they were making was with the local drug dealer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Again the belief in a meritocracy. We don't live in a meritocracy, the people in power are generally not in power because they earned it, deserve it or are worth their pay. Most people on top are slugs that suck wealth from the little serfs below them.
Yet you aspire to be one of those in power. How quaint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
I'm talking about how students think about the debt. You are suggesting that building debt to pay for school some hold builds character, but that is silly. The student does not have to service the debt at all while in school, from their point of view its just free cheese. It is only after school, that they start to learn what it means to take on debt and pay of such debt. But then its too late... To say it again, building debt does not give you perspective, rather paying it off does.
You seem to believe that nobody in your generation has the foresight to understand the burden that paying off debt will impose. I give them more credit than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Gee, I don't remember talking about "local artisans", rather educated artists and musicians. Anybody can paint some crap and call themselves an "artisan".

Speaking of perspective, please get some. Every billboard you see is designed by an artist, every movie produced involves designers, artists, musicians, film makers, photographers, etc. Every TV show made involves artists, designers, musicians, film makers, etc. Every magazine involves numerous artists, photographers, etc. Every professional website involves designers, etc. The vast majority of products produced involve designers. The vast majority of buildings and homes built involves designers, artists, etc. The majority of books published involves designers, artists, etc. The majority of software created involves designers. And...the list goes on. You see, very little is created without someone from the arts being involved! These are all good paying jobs.
Lots of those artists have the talent to do the things they do without a college education in art. And most of the commercial artists and photographers I know (around 40-50) are being paid more in the $30K-40K range, not $70K+.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,412 posts, read 24,075,168 times
Reputation: 28320
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The baby boomers as a whole seem to refuse to retire, or at least anytime soon. I wonder whether what effect this will have on the unemployment rate. From my experience with boomers, there seems to be a few reasons why they are avoiding retirement.
I know a number of older people who have the means to retire very comfortably, workaholics, who have never know anything else but work and are terrified of freedom, changing course, enjoying the fruits of their many years of labor. These people, through counseling, are capable of doing many great things with the remaining years of their lives with their sufficient incomes, and free up some jobs for those that are truly in need of them.
Death counseling could also be of help as may of these people's lives revolve around fear, fear that the social security system is going to go broke, their pension is going to disappear, and fear of bank failure. It's a vicious cycle for many of these people.

On and on they go, never stopping to think that their lives could be cut short tomorrow and their surviving relatives will then enjoy the fruits of their labors.

I work in a health care facility. I work with some baby boom nurses who are still working 60-80 hours a week, houses/car paid for, but they keep trudging on.
A couple of them are so restless, to sit down in front of a televison set would be like sitting on needles. They feel compelled to work, work, work. Do they need the money? Oh please! And meanwhile, they're depriving others of a source of income. What these types really need is help, counseling, perhaps go to Workaholics Anonymous. Time to enjoy all the fruits of their labor, get a new life before it's too late.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,412 posts, read 24,075,168 times
Reputation: 28320
Default Aging Population effects

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncc View Post
Italy, Germany, Spain, and Greece are doing the absolute same thing. Their population growth is actually negative. Sorta scary huh?? Some of your ideas come off in a selfish way, but hey, it's your life and your business. Being conservative however, i know you take personal responsibility seriously.
The Economist magazine did an 8-page spread recently on the Aging Population of the world. It was said it is one of the greater threats to the world.

Even in the poorest countries, they're only a few decades away from having their own aging populations.

Then what?

Are we going to have bidding wars on immigrants to come to our countries if we can't increase our fertility rates?

I can just see it now. One country offers a free house and car if you move to their country, another country offers substantial tax breaks, another offers free food, another offers return trips to their country for vacations.
And on and on.

It's all very, very scarey, the worldwide aging population scenario.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,369 posts, read 3,065,651 times
Reputation: 1496
tijlover,

The funny thing is, when I was growing up, in elementary school (in the 1980s), there were all these doomsday scenarios of overpopulation and how it will destroy the world. It is sort of amusing that the entire scenario has flip flopped in about 25 years.

There is no economic reason to have children any more. Traditionally children existed to work on the family farm/business/etc and were a necessity for labor purposes. Now they are not, and the cost of raising them becomes more prohibitively expensive every year. Maybe one of these years governments will do something about it before the problem becomes too expensive to repair. I mean you can always build robots to take care of people, I guess.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2009, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
32,685 posts, read 53,252,167 times
Reputation: 22735
Quote:
Originally Posted by drshang
I do think it's somewhat selfish, not going to disagree with you. But we live in a country where the government and society feels the need to basically put implicit tax after tax on having children (healthcare, education increasing at 2-3x inflation) and continues to kill funding for schooling and other things that children need anytime there's a spending problem. I mean I realize people can do it and it can be done, but that's not really the point...the point is, year after year, the economics of having children deteriorate.
I disagree.

There is no child tax.

Healthcare insurance does not go up for each child you have.

Only homeschoolers pay for the education of their children. We homeschooled our children; for us it cost $150 per grade-level, and each grade-level was used again and again for each successive child.

The national average for public-funded school systems is $8,000 per child per grade-level. But that cost is spend out through out the community, it is not taxed to the individual family.

Nobody is taxing you for having children.

In fact by raising children you pay less taxes.
Rate this post positively 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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