Plague: Deprecation of Children

[LVSteve]

Mr. Braswell hit it: terrible for the economy. Really terrible for Ponzi-esque entitlements like Social Security, upon which lots of the graying population will be relying.

That says a lot about the usefulness of the construct that is the world economy.

Personally I feel that shrinking populations are the only way to guarantee continued human civilisation in the longer term. Yes, the economic and social shakeout to reach a more sustainable level will be unpleasant, but I find it preferable to Soylent Green.

 

[EugeneNine]

When I read depreciation I was thinking along the lines of devaulation. Children are considered a hindrance today. They get in the way of school, they get in the way of a career, they get in the way of a job, they get in the way off a social life, etc. They are valued as $, how much will it cost for day care to pay someone else to raise them, or how much $ can I get paid for them? How much does it cost to get rid of them if they were accidental. (very hard to express that without slipping into banned subjects, my intent was to try to not cross that line). Thats how society thinks of them.

People don't want kids bothering them, don't want to see and hear them in restaurants, don't want them in the way at the grocery store, etc. They when those kids become young adults they have no social skills or manners because they have been forced to stay at home to not bother people. For example we stopped to eat on a long trip so my 1 year old had been trapped in a car seat for a while and was fussy and whiny in the place. Some adult yelled out "can't someone make him stop". I started to open my mouth and my wife stopped me, I was going to shout back "He's only 1, whats your excuse". Adults have tried to run my kids over with shopping carts, cussed at them, blew smoke at them, etc because they walked a little slower then them and were in their way.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

IMHO a big part of the problem is this "It takes a village" nonsense. It doesn't take a village to engage in the sexual activity to conceive a child or to carry it to term, the village has no say in who becomes a parent, why should it get stuck with the bill? Whenever the question comes up of additional school funding for schools or recreational activities I always say if the parents of these kids don't care and unwilling to foot the bill and make the sacrifices, why should the rest of us?

 

[jlrhiner]

AND..... They're noisy and they smell bad!

 

[Erich]

AND..... They're noisy and they smell bad!

Yeah, yeah . . . and they need to stay off your nice lawn.

 

[nawilson]

Mr. Braswell hit it: terrible for the economy. Really terrible for Ponzi-esque entitlements like Social Security, upon which lots of the graying population will be relying.

Bingo! Of course, that same graying population collectively created the problem by having fewer children than their parents did. I don't begrudge anyone their personal decisions, but understand the implications of those decisions.

 

[jlrhiner]

Yeah, yeah . . . and they need to stay off your nice lawn.

When I had Grandkids I child proofed the house.

But they still get in!

 

[dcxplant]

I sure wish we could have more....

My wife and I met late in life. We have our miracle boy and we've been trying ever since, but with her at 45 and me at 46, this may be it.

We've tried a few things with the fertility doc, but funds are not unlimited.

I get profit sharing check this year as well as a bonus, so we may be able to try a donor egg later in the year, if we scrimp/save and sell some stuff. We are very picky though, we insist on blonde/blue and O-Neg blood. We haven't looked into the matter seriously enough to know if those things are an option. We're not trying to build a master-race or anything, so please no one get all excited and freak out..... We both are like that, and we would want our other child to have some sort of family resemblance with their very fair mommy and daddy and brother.

I am an only child and I hated it. My wife is from a big family (one of seven) and she can't imagine our boy growing up alone.

Maybe we'll get lucky.

 

[LVSteve]

Then there is the question of who the governments of the world would PREFER to procreate. In typical style the Chinese government has not been slow in berating professional women who are 27 or older who are not married and having a child. They have even created a derogatory term, "leftover women". See this BBC article. BBC News - China's 'leftover women', unmarried at 27

In Britain in Victorian times, the "great and the good" became alarmed at the rate of population increase in the lower classes, especially in London. Middle and upper class families were encouraged to breed at an increase rate. Eugenics was actively suggested and to some degree enacted in that period. In the 20th century it was recognised that this was a gross interference in the the basic freedoms of the world's population. The last bunch caught doing it were convicted of crimes against humanity at a place called Nuremburg in 1946.

 

[Old TexMex]

My hot air balloon is full now, thank you. I need to go to the shooting pits.

 

[Big Fred]

I have a younger sister and to be completely honest my life wouldnt be any less different if I were the only child.

As for children....I dont want any. Dont really care who's gonna be an aunt or uncle to whom. Kids are expansive, they never go away, you have to take them everywhere with you, there is no more time for yourself. Right now I can call my boss and tell him I'm leaving work early, go home, pack my bags and just go on any vacation. Cant do that with kids. Cant stay out late with kids, cant take em with you to some places. They cry, scream, dont sit still, get annoying...the more of them there are the more they cost..etc...etc. Funny thing is I actually like kids AS LONG AS I CAN RETURN THEM.

I have friends that have kids. I see how it is and ....HELL NO! You cant invite them anywhere cause the kids have to go too and even if you could they'd leave soon after cause the kids need to go to bed.

On the other hand...dogs cost money too for the first year, then its just food and occasional vet visit. Dogs are ALWAYS happy to see you, they will NEVER not be loyal, they will ALWAYS give their lives to protect the pack (they dont know your an "owner" just an Alpha dog). Humans (in a general sence) change their minds, grow to dislike eachother, stab eachother in theback, kill each other for sport, hurt each other for fun. Lock your wife and your dog in a trunk of a car for a day. Then open it and see who still loves you!

Ive got nothing against people but dogs make better people then humans do

Arik, I'm not trying to argue with you, It's a PERSONAL descision for each to decide to have kids or not.

All I'll say is the time I spend with my 27 year old son is PRICELESS to me. Just yesterday we were both off and he came down and we visited all the LGS's together.

 

[EugeneNine]

Right now I can call my boss and tell him I'm leaving work early, go home, pack my bags and just go on any vacation.


Ive got nothing against people but dogs make better people then humans do

My kids love taking random vacations, until we got a pet, now we can't just pack our bags ago go because we have to arrange for someone to take care of the pet.

 

[Alpo]

Then there is the question of who the governments of the world would PREFER to procreate. In typical style the Chinese government has not been slow in berating professional women who are 27 or older who are not married and having a child. They have even created a derogatory term, "leftover women". See this BBC article. BBC News - China's 'leftover women', unmarried at 27

That there is interesting. Seein's as how just a few years ago the population of China was getting so large that they said families could only have one kid. And since girls aren't anywhere near as valuable as boys, girl babies were being killed so that families could try for a boy, next time.

And now they are upset because women are NOT having children?

 

[Erich]

The Wall Street Journal had another OpEd today that is relevant to this subject (and to the theme of my post from yesterday):

Sol Trujillo and César Melgoza: The Economic?and Demographic?Case for Immigration Reform - WSJ.com

The authors argue a demographic and economic case for immigration reform, maintaining that Latino immigration would be beneficial in confronting the issues of our aging US population.

 

[Bat Guano]

Just thought I'd throw in the fact that Teddy Kennedy, aided and abetted by successive politicians, made that decision for us with the 1965 Immigration Act that skewed immigration toward Third World countries, particularly Mexico. Decades of enforcement neglect, the '86 amnesty, and more neglect followed. Most of the people who facilitated that are now either long dead or very comfortably enjoying an "honorable" retirement on your dime.

Right or wrong, good or bad, fairly or unfairly, the face and culture of this country changed "while we were sleeping". Pretty hard to unring the bell. All the current sound and fury about immigration now ignores the fact that the elephant has been in the room for a long time now.



Full disclosure: all things being equal, ethnicity is about as consequential to me as the color as a man's socks. But I don't like my living arrangements turned upside down without the courtesy of being consulted about it. And we weren't.