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.
They got rid of the one-child law because of social reasons. Chinese are expected to take care of their parents in old age. It's hard for one child to take care of one old parent, and two might be too much. There were other issues such as people preferring boys and because if they could only have one child, they aborted a girl fetus until they got a boy. So even before officially allowing everyone to have two children, they allowed people who had a daughter to keep having children until they have a boy. They may get rid of child control policies altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy#China
With all modifications of the law, the fact is that the majority of people in China for a few decades had only one child, and practically nobody had more than two. Killing of female babies that ensued was certainly not inherent in the one-child law, but in a culture that strongly prefers male children. Taking care of old people can be done institutionally, and China could do that, but does not appear to need to (old people do not suffer of neglect in any particularly worrisome numbers over there).
They completely solved the problem of severe mass poverty in a single generation. Now they can do whatever they want - of course they can abolish the law when they don't have a large amount of poverty to deal with, and people have obviously realized that having only one or two kids is GOOD for them personally (and good for the kids). In other words, China abolished the one-child law not because it was flawed, but because it is no longer needed.
That is exactly what I said a million times: if poor people stopped reproducing poverty, then poverty could completely disappear in a single generation. Poor people having excess kids (and for completely unemployable people, one child is excessive) is the only reason why there is poverty in the US - not the cotton industry or slavery which ended more than 150 years ago. Presence of poverty is not mandatory, and there are a few countries that have reduced poverty to almost zero (all of them have low reproductive rates and, incidentally, low crime rates). Of course such countries can allow themselves to relax certain societal rules, either legal or informal.
Libraries are an outdated function, city's literally paying for "book warehouses"
Go online and get it.
Mod cut: personal attack and don't have an interest in using it, does not mean that libraries are an outdated function. I use library services more than any other services except public transportation. I use a library incomparably more often than I use the kitchen oven :-). Most of the functions of public libraries (about which you have no clue, apparently) ARE online. Very few public libraries warehouse many books any more - they get a few new editions, and the classic books for which there is a permanent high demand. There are less than half a dozen public libraries in the nation (thank goodness, Boston and SF are among them) that do warehouse one or two copies of most old books, that are possible to read only in the library, you can't take them out. I don't know what to say about NYC public library, except that I looked for two not very old or valuable books, and the library had 3 and 5 copies listed in its catalog, respectively - but after a detailed search at all the applicable NYC library branches, it turned out that all 3 and 5 copies were stolen, and the library did not in fact have a copy of either book at all :-).
Last edited by SeventhFloor; 12-28-2019 at 10:07 AM..
First purely theoretical question: does a person know how to use public library if the said person thinks that the only function of public library is warehousing printed books?
Second purely theoretical question: is my first question a personal attack??
With all modifications of the law, the fact is that the majority of people in China for a few decades had only one child, and practically nobody had more than two. Killing of female babies that ensued was certainly not inherent in the one-child law, but in a culture that strongly prefers male children. Taking care of old people can be done institutionally, and China could do that, but does not appear to need to (old people do not suffer of neglect in any particularly worrisome numbers over there).
They completely solved the problem of severe mass poverty in a single generation. Now they can do whatever they want - of course they can abolish the law when they don't have a large amount of poverty to deal with, and people have obviously realized that having only one or two kids is GOOD for them personally (and good for the kids). In other words, China abolished the one-child law not because it was flawed, but because it is no longer needed.
That is exactly what I said a million times: if poor people stopped reproducing poverty, then poverty could completely disappear in a single generation. Poor people having excess kids (and for completely unemployable people, one child is excessive) is the only reason why there is poverty in the US - not the cotton industry or slavery which ended more than 150 years ago. Presence of poverty is not mandatory, and there are a few countries that have reduced poverty to almost zero (all of them have low reproductive rates and, incidentally, low crime rates). Of course such countries can allow themselves to relax certain societal rules, either legal or informal.
Thank you
Always said. If you can’t afford to have a kid, don’t have one. There should be mandatory laws for that.
It’s mostly the poor that reproduce at an alarming rate, breeding poverty basically.
With all modifications of the law, the fact is that the majority of people in China for a few decades had only one child, and practically nobody had more than two. Killing of female babies that ensued was certainly not inherent in the one-child law, but in a culture that strongly prefers male children. Taking care of old people can be done institutionally, and China could do that, but does not appear to need to (old people do not suffer of neglect in any particularly worrisome numbers over there).
They completely solved the problem of severe mass poverty in a single generation. Now they can do whatever they want - of course they can abolish the law when they don't have a large amount of poverty to deal with, and people have obviously realized that having only one or two kids is GOOD for them personally (and good for the kids). In other words, China abolished the one-child law not because it was flawed, but because it is no longer needed.
That is exactly what I said a million times: if poor people stopped reproducing poverty, then poverty could completely disappear in a single generation. Poor people having excess kids (and for completely unemployable people, one child is excessive) is the only reason why there is poverty in the US - not the cotton industry or slavery which ended more than 150 years ago. Presence of poverty is not mandatory, and there are a few countries that have reduced poverty to almost zero (all of them have low reproductive rates and, incidentally, low crime rates). Of course such countries can allow themselves to relax certain societal rules, either legal or informal.
No need for the government to limit number of children.
Just don't pay any welfare for children and that will reduce the problem greatly. Government run daycare could help. Anything to remove a financial incentive to have children.
No need for the government to limit number of children.
Just don't pay any welfare for children and that will reduce the problem greatly. Government run daycare could help. Anything to remove a financial incentive to have children.
Of course. That is what I always say when this subject comes up (I am sure it is embedded somewhere in my comments on this thread too). Welfare handout should be a fixed amount per adult, kids not counting. It would be the responsibility of that adult to decide whether they can raise a kid (or kids) on that miserable amount, and even a basic moron would be aware that additional kid would decrease the amount of $ available per person when the "income" is truly fixed (of which they are not necessarily aware when they get extra welfare $ for an extra kid, even though the extra amount is very low - any extra amount of $ handed out looks like an incentive to them. At least that is the impression I got from my interactions with that type of people). That is why I like the idea of UBI replacing all traditional welfare: UBI is fixed and independent of family size.
Libraries are an outdated function, city's literally paying for "book warehouses"
Go online and get it.
Some scholars and academics still use libraries for necessary resources. Some professors even limit how many online internet sources one can use now a days. If you want NYC to do away with libraries and biblotheques. You must get rid of physical publishing and go complete virtual. Academia is a multi billion dollar business, trillion globally. Or if not, let nyc reform the housing market so that everyone can have personal libraries. Problem solved.
Last edited by Checkmarkblue; 12-28-2019 at 06:44 PM..
Put trades back into the public high schools for starters, and add IT
Also add 3D printing tech.
My best bet would be doing away with the department of education in Washington DC which pushed heavily in doing away with vocational education in public schools across the country, in favor of more higher education.
I could think of a thousand things to do with that gal then kill her.
This is just wrong.
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.
