Posted on 07/05/2018 2:53:18 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Exactly, additional pay[bah] for a dependent. Yet, single joe of same years and pay grade does not.
Let's go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in history, shall we? During the early Middle ages, when the Catholic church held sway over most people's lives in the Western world, there were proscribed times which demanded sexual abstinance, for married couples ( which was the norm...people did get married, even if it was only the "at the church door" kind, and NOT just "hook up"/cohabit ), so fewer children were conceived. And supposedly, nursing mothers have a less chance of conceiving.
There were fewer children born, during the GREAT DEPRESSION , which began in 1930, due to lack of jobs, money, and "safety nets", which lasted through WW II.
When WW II ended, the BABY BOOM rushed in and most people had at least 2/replacement children with many having many more than that; even though by that time, contraceptives WERE legal and easily available to both men and women.
Go ahead...try to prove me wrong; diddums. LOL
If one lives in a not so hot neighborhood, in an major city, the chances are that the public schools STINK! Even many Charter and posh/elite private day schools STINK ON ICE, now.
Go ahead, tell me the schools in Chicago and NYC, in lousy neighborhoods, where the schools are worth any and you and your family are "safe". I triple dog dare you to disprove what I just said.
Whey my youngest was in junior high, my wife resumed worked at a dispatcher for the San Diego Sheriff's Office. That translated to police/fire/EMS dispatcher when we moved to Idaho. My oldest passed at age 32. Middle son lives in Pocatello working as a real estate broker. Youngest is in Oklahoma running a collections business.
And don’t forget that many Millennials majored in garbage “studies”, which hardly helps their debt and job situations.
Let me know when people are forced to live in cities.
Who said anything about quality land? Tillable land isn’t more expensive, the farm that it’s on might be but only because it would be a large area.
Look it’s clear you don’t have a clue about living in a cheaper area. Gasoline would be more expensive and that would have to be accounted for. As for Internet, been there done that in needing internet professionally (still do).
6 figures of student debt to change careers??? That’s an excuse and a pretty flimsy one. There are plenty of jobs out there that pay well without the big student debt.
And not everyone wants to live out in the boonies, or ev en exurbia, or suburbia.
It’s more than “clear”: that you don’t know what you’re talking about! There are lots of places, in exurbia, where land and houses cost a lot! Then throw in commuting, gas, property taxes, which makes moving there an even worse proposition for some.
Well OK then it’s not about having kids. Jobs can be changed and relatives can be visited less often. It’s about priorites.
Yes there are lots of places where land and houses cost a lot. Nobody is forcing anyone to live above their means. If the only places you can think of as good to live are very expensive then that’s materialism at work.
You're stuck in some weird bubble, where one can get some high enough paying job, so that people can have 5, or maybe 12 kids, the wife stays home, homeschools ( not everyone should nor can do that well, or even adequately !), way out in some "UTOPIAN PARADISE", 1OOs or 1,000s away from any family, but be happy as a lark. THAT'S JUST DELUSIONAL!
It's NOT "materialism" for many; it is where their job and families are and where they are comfortable.
Just as many people would HATE to live in a big city, or even suburbia, many others would loathe being stuck out in some nowhere place.
How many kiddos do YOU have and does your spouse stay home?
Please don't lie; it will only make you look more foolish than you already do.
Not so. Yikes. Who said anything about "first and foremost"?
Kids are people, and people exist first, for God, and then, for themselves, plural: for themselves and those others with whom they are in a relationship of mutuality. Anybody who thinks they'll own their kids as a kind of indentured social security -- well, they don't, and they're in for a rude awakening.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about living like normal humans. Which is to say, "We help each other. We're family."
This kind of interdependence is congruent with our social and psychological natures. We don't flourish, at any stage in our lives, as autonomous, isolated atoms or ego-units. We flourish in durable "molecules" bonded through the two sexes and, as they ebb and flow, the many generations.
Now back to reality. Your every argument to to use some extreme as an example. That’s not how the real world is. If a couple’s priority is to have children, They have to figure out how to afford it. Sometimes it means moving to a cheaper area and changing jobs.
Exactly right. My neighbors are young marrieds, and the wife mentioned to me the cost of her daycare. Are you ready for this??
$1600 A WEEK! For ONE kid! (She was expecting their second.)
I said to her, “Why are you paying that? Just stay home.” She replied, “My mother would kill me if I ‘wasted’ my college degree.” (Like I did, I guess...)
Regards,
You claim that "they" MUST figure out a way to have children, yet abandon their own parents, siblings, others who ake up their extended family, as well as their friends; not to mention "changing professions". LOL...that's one heck of an ironic argument you have there. And then, since that was their example, their own children will move faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from them, when they grow up.
Some jobs/professions require one to live in certain places. And if said job/profession is something that person has always wanted to do and can NOT do anywhere else ( and yes, there ARE such job !), according to YOU, they must give it all up and find something else, that they aren't equipped, nor like to do and which probably pays far less. Oh geee...you sound like far lefty libtard!
HOE MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE AND DO YOU LIVE IN THE BOONIES OF PA. ?
Mary Eberstadt has a really interesting book (published 2013) called "How the West Really Lost God," which makes the case that it's not just secularism that causes childlessness; it's childlessness that causes secularism.
The conventional wisdom is that the West first experienced religious decline, followed by the decline of the family. Eberstadt turns this standard account on its head.
It's t'other way around.
I'm just a couple of pages into it, but it's a-- wow -- different, insightful, brilliant historical/social hypothesis.
Most people do (or don't do) things because they are compelled to by circumstance.
“More comfortable than a bony gal!”
Exactly my thought, Mrs. Don-o! A little cushion for the pushin’...LOL
Amen.
Because women have become liberated from their status as economic prisoners for one thing. There has also been a new normal created. Most of these kids now don’t know what a real home is like so they can’t miss it. For many, what home life they have seen brings only bad memories. Why repeat that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.