Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rich people have less number of children?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:15:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Instead, it's more of a trend that working couples tend to pass on having children. I don't know if this is true, but the population trends do show this as happening.

What exactly causes this? Is producing more children looked down upon? Don't rich working couples find it necessary to have children anymore, and concentrate on their individual growth?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:16:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:15:03 PM, Indophile wrote:
Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Instead, it's more of a trend that working couples tend to pass on having children. I don't know if this is true, but the population trends do show this as happening.

What exactly causes this? Is producing more children looked down upon? Don't rich working couples find it necessary to have children anymore, and concentrate on their individual growth?

INB4 someone says "government paying poor people to have more kids so they have more poor liberal votes in the future."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:19:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You don't get rich by being a creature of instinct, breeding like crazy. You have to think. And if you think, you realize "Hey, setting myself up with a creature that costs time out of my day and a lot of money, for 18 years... Even in the event I wanna experience caring for such a creature, maybe I shouldn't do it more than once or twice?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:21:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In countries like Tanzania, having too many children can lead to more prosperity and wealth. The more private workforce you have within your family, the more well off you can be. In developed countries, something similar can be the case. However, it should be taken into consideration that wealthy people also tend to be more educated, knowing about prevention. The poor might not be very aware of that all the time.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:25:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:19:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't get rich by being a creature of instinct, breeding like crazy. You have to think. And if you think, you realize "Hey, setting myself up with a creature that costs time out of my day and a lot of money, for 18 years... Even in the event I wanna experience caring for such a creature, maybe I shouldn't do it more than once or twice?"

True, but society needs children to perpetuate itself. If this is true, shouldn't the rich be the ones to have them, seeing as they could spend the time and have the money to raise good children?

But the trend seems to be that children are a bad idea, for as you said they cost time out of your day and a lot of money......which taken to its logical ends would mean that it's best NOT to have any children!

Of course, there are people who think this is ok, and not such a bad idea...
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:21:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
In countries like Tanzania, having too many children can lead to more prosperity and wealth. The more private workforce you have within your family, the more well off you can be. In developed countries, something similar can be the case. However, it should be taken into consideration that wealthy people also tend to be more educated, knowing about prevention. The poor might not be very aware of that all the time.

This is what I was arguing about. In developed countries, having children seems almost redundant, and feels like a burden. Which is weird if you think about it.

The only reason I can think of is, priorities have changed....I still don't know if this is a good or a bad thing (though I tend to believe it's bad)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:33:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:25:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:19:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't get rich by being a creature of instinct, breeding like crazy. You have to think. And if you think, you realize "Hey, setting myself up with a creature that costs time out of my day and a lot of money, for 18 years... Even in the event I wanna experience caring for such a creature, maybe I shouldn't do it more than once or twice?"

True, but society needs children to perpetuate itself. If this is true, shouldn't the rich be the ones to have them, seeing as they could spend the time and have the money to raise good children?

But the trend seems to be that children are a bad idea, for as you said they cost time out of your day and a lot of money......which taken to its logical ends would mean that it's best NOT to have any children!

Of course, there are people who think this is ok, and not such a bad idea...

If you're only goal is to generate money, than that is the logical conclusion. thankfully many of us don't have that as our only goals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:33:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:25:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:19:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't get rich by being a creature of instinct, breeding like crazy. You have to think. And if you think, you realize "Hey, setting myself up with a creature that costs time out of my day and a lot of money, for 18 years... Even in the event I wanna experience caring for such a creature, maybe I shouldn't do it more than once or twice?"

True, but society needs children to perpetuate itself. If this is true, shouldn't the rich be the ones to have them, seeing as they could spend the time and have the money to raise good children?

But the trend seems to be that children are a bad idea, for as you said they cost time out of your day and a lot of money......which taken to its logical ends would mean that it's best NOT to have any children!

Of course, there are people who think this is ok, and not such a bad idea...

If you're only goal is to generate money, than that is the logical conclusion. thankfully many of us don't have that as our only goals.

Generating money is not the only goal, in most cases. It's the spending of that money. Enjoyably. And children do take a large bite out of that time. This coupled with the thought process that it's ok to not have children, well, you know what can come out of that....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:54:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, you are equivocating material wealth to the ability to raise children and form a happy family. Spoiled kids are harder to deal with than rather spiritual and well-raised children. The lineage can be preserved by having many kids, the traditions can be conserved, and if you have too many kids, the chances that one or a few of them become wealthy and educated and then help the rest of the family out are pretty high (particularly in the developed states), so it is beneficial to have many children. Therefore, there are good reasons for poor people to have many children. I am certainly glad that not only wealthy people have (a lot) of kids. It is not easy for a society to deal with spoiled, arrogant tots.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:58:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:54:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
Well, you are equivocating material wealth to the ability to raise children and form a happy family. Spoiled kids are harder to deal with than rather spiritual and well-raised children. The lineage can be preserved by having many kids, the traditions can be conserved, and if you have too many kids, the chances that one or a few of them become wealthy and educated and then help the rest of the family out are pretty high (particularly in the developed states), so it is beneficial to have many children. Therefore, there are good reasons for poor people to have many children. I am certainly glad that not only wealthy people have (a lot) of kids. It is not easy for a society to deal with spoiled, arrogant tots.

well, if the rich people have more number of kids, it'd be hard for them to be spoiled...it's only when they have just one, or two, that they are.

And I'm not saying that poor people should not have children, just that the rich should....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 2:40:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rich people tend to be rich because they have good jobs, and tend to have good jobs because they're educated. Having kids later in life = less children.

Also, if you look at poorer, rural countries, who is going to take care of you when you age? Not the government---your children. More kids = greater likelihood that one or more of your children will be able to take care of you in old age.

In terms of North America though, it annoys the crap out of me that people have kids they can't afford >.<
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 2:43:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The reason people have less children when they are more wealthy is because in our capitalist society people who have more wealth have more liberty - this is indisputable.

It logically follows, then, without the need for any discussion of the means and ends of having children, that she who is more liberated will not be in the position to be levered into a sexual relationship before she is ready. That's what liberation means: freedom from leverage.

Education was mentioned before; education may be the proximate cause of the phenomenon, however realize that education is only incident upon liberation.
kfc
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 2:46:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 2:40:20 PM, nonentity wrote:
Rich people tend to be rich because they have good jobs, and tend to have good jobs because they're educated. Having kids later in life = less children.

Also, if you look at poorer, rural countries, who is going to take care of you when you age? Not the government---your children. More kids = greater likelihood that one or more of your children will be able to take care of you in old age.

In terms of North America though, it annoys the crap out of me that people have kids they can't afford >.<

It's ironical that it annoys you as you yourself have provided the reason for them having those kids....

So kids are just looked upon as support, not ... well, perpetuating society? :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 2:46:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 2:40:20 PM, nonentity wrote:
Rich people tend to be rich because they have good jobs, and tend to have good jobs because they're educated. Having kids later in life = less children.

Also, if you look at poorer, rural countries, who is going to take care of you when you age? Not the government---your children. More kids = greater likelihood that one or more of your children will be able to take care of you in old age.

In terms of North America though, it annoys the crap out of me that people have kids they can't afford >.<

It's ironical that it annoys you as you yourself have provided the reason for them having those kids....

So kids are just looked upon as support, not ... well, perpetuating society? :)

The reason I provided was for poorer countries that rely on agriculture... most people in Canada and the U.S. don't fall under that category of relying on farming/trading for sustenance. And in a culture that doesn't value filial piety, your 10+ kids will just drop you off in a home anyway :)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:19:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:21:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
In countries like Tanzania, having too many children can lead to more prosperity and wealth. The more private workforce you have within your family, the more well off you can be. In developed countries, something similar can be the case. However, it should be taken into consideration that wealthy people also tend to be more educated, knowing about prevention. The poor might not be very aware of that all the time.

Poor people never heard of condoms?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:25:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:19:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't get rich by being a creature of instinct, breeding like crazy. You have to think. And if you think, you realize "Hey, setting myself up with a creature that costs time out of my day and a lot of money, for 18 years... Even in the event I wanna experience caring for such a creature, maybe I shouldn't do it more than once or twice?"

True, but society needs children to perpetuate itself.
Society neither has needs nor a self.

If this is true, shouldn't the rich be the ones to have them, seeing as they could spend the time and have the money to raise good children?
What the rich should do is based off the needs of the rich.


But the trend seems to be that children are a bad idea, for as you said they cost time out of your day and a lot of money......which taken to its logical ends would mean that it's best NOT to have any children!
That is true for me. Many people gain such emotional satisfaction from it that it makes sense for them to have one or two, however.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:26:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:07:50 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/16/2011 2:46:26 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 2:40:20 PM, nonentity wrote:
Rich people tend to be rich because they have good jobs, and tend to have good jobs because they're educated. Having kids later in life = less children.

Also, if you look at poorer, rural countries, who is going to take care of you when you age? Not the government---your children. More kids = greater likelihood that one or more of your children will be able to take care of you in old age.

In terms of North America though, it annoys the crap out of me that people have kids they can't afford >.<

It's ironical that it annoys you as you yourself have provided the reason for them having those kids....

So kids are just looked upon as support, not ... well, perpetuating society? :)

The reason I provided was for poorer countries that rely on agriculture... most people in Canada and the U.S. don't fall under that category of relying on farming/trading for sustenance. And in a culture that doesn't value filial piety, your 10+ kids will just drop you off in a home anyway :)

Yes. A culture that doesn't value filial piety, combined with individualism and materialism does spell doom for children!

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:51:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?

Yes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 3:55:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:51:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?

Yes.

And what's your opinion of those that care about how things will be once they are gone?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 4:01:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
greater access to birth control is a big one. i know in the early 20th century a LOT working class women in the US wanted desperately to stop having so many children but birth control was actually illegal at that time... and so difficult to obtain. thats when the trend towards upper class women having less children than the poor really began.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 4:06:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rich people are too busy making money to have sex
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 4:38:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:55:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:51:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?

Yes.

And what's your opinion of those that care about how things will be once they are gone?

That if they care so much they should start f***ing and making money to feed the children, and quit bugging the rest of us about it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 4:41:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 4:38:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:55:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:51:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?

Yes.

And what's your opinion of those that care about how things will be once they are gone?

That if they care so much they should start f***ing and making money to feed the children, and quit bugging the rest of us about it.

But don't you see, holding the stance that you hold, your actions may interfere directly with their choices and appear to them as if you are the one who's bugging them?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 5:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 3:26:30 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes. A culture that doesn't value filial piety, combined with individualism and materialism does spell doom for children!


I don't get the reason for your sarcasm or how this is in any way relevant to what I said.

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Society would be better off.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 5:45:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 5:23:49 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:26:30 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes. A culture that doesn't value filial piety, combined with individualism and materialism does spell doom for children!


I don't get the reason for your sarcasm or how this is in any way relevant to what I said.
Wasn't being sarcastic....was just expounding further on the effects that a lack of filial piety combined with individualism and materialism could have, i.e. people will increasingly choose not to have children.

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Society would be better off.
Well, in the case that I specified, there would be negative population growth, which would necessarily mean the end of society if taken too far. Is that how society would be better off?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 5:45:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 5:23:49 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:26:30 PM, Indophile wrote:

Yes. A culture that doesn't value filial piety, combined with individualism and materialism does spell doom for children!


I don't get the reason for your sarcasm or how this is in any way relevant to what I said.
Wasn't being sarcastic....was just expounding further on the effects that a lack of filial piety combined with individualism and materialism could have, i.e. people will increasingly choose not to have children.

Darn, I thought I was finally getting the hang of internet sarcasm :(


If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Society would be better off.
Well, in the case that I specified, there would be negative population growth, which would necessarily mean the end of society if taken too far. Is that how society would be better off?

There could only be negative growth if no one could reasonably afford to take care of one child. I don't think society would be worse off if people had less kids.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:42:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 4:41:38 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 4:38:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:55:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:51:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:37:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/16/2011 3:28:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

If in this society, those who can't afford to have children, reasonably don't, what do you think will be the fate of this society within generations?

Who cares? Society doesn't, it doesn't care about anything.

Are you saying that we should only be concerned with what happens only as long as it has the potential to affect us personally?

Yes.

And what's your opinion of those that care about how things will be once they are gone?

That if they care so much they should start f***ing and making money to feed the children, and quit bugging the rest of us about it.

But don't you see, holding the stance that you hold, your actions may interfere directly with their choices and appear to them as if you are the one who's bugging them?

No, I don't see. I haven't taken any actions. It's my inaction they disagree with. But, you see, I own my ****, I am not their slave, hence, they have no right to tell me to impregnate someone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:48:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 7:17:55 PM, nonentity wrote:

There could only be negative growth if no one could reasonably afford to take care of one child. I don't think society would be worse off if people had less kids.

Blah, never mind, that didn't make any sense.