|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2011 : 14:48:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| Oh what does what even mean? You think you can shame most working class people into not having kids? |
Honestly, I don't know what the hell to do.......
| I give up. You go ahead and continue insisting that procreation is not an imperative, a necessarily component to living a fulfilling life for a great number of humans. |
Again, It is not my responsibility to make sure people feel fullfilled. I know you hate this argument but I see it as exactly the same thing as my Cadillac analogy in one of our past discussions. My wife and I are living, breathing examples of how easy it is to avaoid pregnancy for very little cost.
(As a side note, Even though we are approaching 40 years old we still get hounded by relatives about having kids. I wonder if it will ever end!)
| The bottom 90% of American households bringing in just over $30K |
I'd like to see where you got that figure. I cannot believe that my houshold income is in the top 10% of the nation.
From what you are saying, I gather that you think it is irresponsible for, say, a single woman earning around that much, who is 35 and running out of time to have a child, to decide to have a kid. I gather that you think it is irresponsible for a married couple who both work but who have lots of debt and earn only enough to break even to have a child. I do not find that irresponsible. I think when people make that choice in such circumstances, society should support them for the sake of the betterment of us all. But I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree here.
|
Yes and yes. Why the hell should "society" support people's wants?
Not judging, intentionally anyway. I am just conditioned to take women's feelings into consideration whenever I open my mouth.
LOL! Oh, yeah, that didn't sound condescending. ;-) I would hope all peoples' feelings would be taken into some account during a civilized debate. I've encountered some pretty sensitive men who I've had to apologize to for being overly zealous in an argument with.
Sorry for bringing that up. It's my hangup, not yours.
It's all good! You haven't offended me in the slightest, and now I'm just amused.
|
I find it amazing that my mouth is big enough and I am flexible enough to fit a size 10 1/2 foot into it so often.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 15:21:42 [Permalink]
|
In terms of using taxes to pay for daycare: I do think it is important to invest in our children. We will save more money in the long run by preventing or improving certain problems (drug abuse, mental health). it is obviously not a cure all for all of society's problems.
Sometimes parents are working long hours so they can provide for their children. Which generally means they have less time to take care of their children, which can lead to more behavioral problems. There are of course, parents who are using drugs and/or not doing anything productive. Do you punish all the parents just because of the bad apples.
I do think it will take more than money to solve these problems. There has to be a cultural shift where we value our children more than missiles and materialism. We also need to make sure childcare workers are getting good education and livable wages. Finland has the best education system in the world. Part of the reason they do is because there is a lot of respect for teachers, people who take care of their children.
I find the USA tends to be short-sighted and focus on doing everything the "American way." There are plenty of good models of childcare and healthcare around the world and it is not all purely socialist |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 15:26:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: Real median family income in 2008 and 2009 was around $50K. The median income of single mothers was around $32K.
According to this chart, a family income of over $150K was needed to be counted among the top 10% of earners in 2008. |
I've slipped in some of my wording in this discussion, but I got it right in my blog article. In my blog article I acknowledged:
| According to the 2008 Census, average household income is around $52,000. |
And then I added: | According to analysis of 2008 data by Emmanual Saez at the University of California-Berkley, the bottom 90% of American household's average income is just over $31,000. |
So it is not that 90% of Americans are making less than $32K, it is that the bottom 90% of Americans are averaging only $32K. I think that's a pretty sad and serious reality when we consider the cost of living. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 15:32:27 [Permalink]
|
alienist wrote: | There are plenty of good models of childcare and healthcare around the world and it is not all purely socialist |
I agree. But most Americans understand little of the real statistics and conditions on this country, much less what goes on in foreign countries.
I do have a question - what countries are "purely socialist"? As far as I can tell, market forces and capitalism are an important part of the economy of every developed nation in the world. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 15:48:40 [Permalink]
|
Ebone, it is not about society fulfilling peoples' wants.
As I've tried to get across to you over and over and over again, there are plenty of reasons why certain entitlements and social programs elevate society as a whole. The government buying you your dream car doesn't increase the overall productivity of the nation, it doesn't improve the quality of education and care of children which in turn results in more valuable human capital, it doesn't produce jobs, and it doesn't pour more money into local economies.
As I've also tried to get across to you over and over and over again, people who can't or who can barely afford to have kids will continue to do so. Moreover, the majority of their family, friends and acquaintances will even encourage them to have kids (up to a point. Few people are encouraged to have a ton of kids outside of the quiverfull community, and middle class people tend to stop after one or two because they want to maximize what they can give to that many children.)
Here's my question to you: if a public daycare option could be implemented in a way that produces all the benefits to society that I suggest it would, would you support it, or would you still oppose it based on principle, regardless of the benefits to society? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 16:54:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, it is not about society fulfilling peoples' wants.
As I've tried to get across to you over and over and over again, there are plenty of reasons why certain entitlements and social programs elevate society as a whole. The government buying you your dream car doesn't increase the overall productivity of the nation, it doesn't improve the quality of education and care of children which in turn results in more valuable human capital, it doesn't produce jobs, and it doesn't pour more money into local economies.
As I've also tried to get across to you over and over and over again, people who can't or who can barely afford to have kids will continue to do so. Moreover, the majority of their family, friends and acquaintances will even encourage them to have kids (up to a point. Few people are encouraged to have a ton of kids outside of the quiverfull community, and middle class people tend to stop after one or two because they want to maximize what they can give to that many children.)
Here's my question to you: if a public daycare option could be implemented in a way that produces all the benefits to society that I suggest it would, would you support it, or would you still oppose it based on principle, regardless of the benefits to society?
|
Since we are talking about some sort of fantasyland that you've concocted, as long as those benefits can be realized (which, they can't) I could support it.
I am assuming a few things.
1) Government will not use these daycare centers to push social programs which forward religion.
2) Government can do so without an undue burden on the middle class (who typically shoulder the burden now)
3) The program is open to ALL people with children and not subjected to means testing or a sliding payment scale.
4) The government can afford this program indefinately by using very modest increases on income taxes.
I have exactly zero confidence in the current political situation present within the US that this can happen. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 18:23:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, it is not about society fulfilling peoples' wants.
As I've tried to get across to you over and over and over again, there are plenty of reasons why certain entitlements and social programs elevate society as a whole. The government buying you your dream car doesn't increase the overall productivity of the nation, it doesn't improve the quality of education and care of children which in turn results in more valuable human capital, it doesn't produce jobs, and it doesn't pour more money into local economies.
As I've also tried to get across to you over and over and over again, people who can't or who can barely afford to have kids will continue to do so. Moreover, the majority of their family, friends and acquaintances will even encourage them to have kids (up to a point. Few people are encouraged to have a ton of kids outside of the quiverfull community, and middle class people tend to stop after one or two because they want to maximize what they can give to that many children.)
Here's my question to you: if a public daycare option could be implemented in a way that produces all the benefits to society that I suggest it would, would you support it, or would you still oppose it based on principle, regardless of the benefits to society? |
And you call me an idealist?
My Cadillac would make me happy which in turn would make me more productive. My Cadillac would help keep people in decent paying jobs by giving them a product to build, sell, and service. The money they earn can be used to support their children's education.
I have just demonstrated how My Cadillac would have an immediate positive impact on the economy. It is simpler than your plan.
I shall call it " My Cadillac Plan"
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 19:14:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
So it is not that 90% of Americans are making less than $32K, it is that the bottom 90% of Americans are averaging only $32K. I think that's a pretty sad and serious reality when we consider the cost of living. |
Sure, but that's a pretty bizarre metric to use. The bottom 90% of Americans includes a several hundred thousand (if not millions) who make $149,999. People who are pretty well able to afford day care, especially if they have access to a 125 plan. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 19:16:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I have exactly zero confidence in the current political situation present within the US that this can happen. |
I still fail to see the value of discussing the possibility of public day care as if it could only be implemented tomorrow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 19:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
I shall call it " My Cadillac Plan" |
Great! We'll jack your taxes up to cover the cost of your Cadillac. Which model do you want? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 20:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | Since we are talking about some sort of fantasyland that you've concocted, as long as those benefits can be realized (which, they can't) I could support it. |
Public day care is a reality in many developed nations; it is hardly a radical proposal. So to call it a "fantasyland" seems a bit harsh. I called Ebone's solution of sterilizing and permanently removing children from poor, mediocre parents an emotionally-indulgent fantasy because that is not something that has ever been done with any kind of success in any place ever, and the practical reasons why it is not a feasible "solution" to the problem of generational poverty are pretty obvious.
I am assuming a few things.
1) Government will not use these daycare centers to push social programs which forward religion. |
Well, yeah, that is the law. Obviously people in certain sheltered, local communities break the rules in public schools, and would probably do so too with public day cares, but in such communities the kids are likely to be brainwashed by religion from a young age no matter who is taking care of them. And if any parent objects, they can fight it - as parents of children in public schools have many times - and the law is on their side.
| 2) Government can do so without an undue burden on the middle class (who typically shoulder the burden now) |
I think it is pretty obvious that I view that as a whole other big problem in America. I'll say it again, there need to be more tax brackets to reflect growing wealth of the people at the top and the growing disparity in income, and we need to tax the rich a lot more. You could call that a fantasy, but it has precedent in this country, and was 1944 really that long ago? I'm with Dave - just because we can't see something happening tomorrow doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't worth discussing or working toward.
| 3) The program is open to ALL people with children and not subjected to means testing or a sliding payment scale. |
I would prefer such a system. France does it and with great success. Costs a lot, but personally I think early childhood care and education is that important, and I see it as an investment in the future of our country that has the potential to reduce the number of people on the government dole and increase productivity of our citizenry.
| 4) The government can afford this program indefinately by using very modest increases on income taxes. |
Here I disagree. I think we need huge increases in taxes on the rich. And by rich I do NOT mean people who earn $250,000, which is currently the start of our highest tax bracket. We first need more tax brackets that start in the millions and tens of millions, and THOSE people should be paying more. A lot more. That is probably the biggest hurtle seeing as hardly anyone even talks about this, most Americans are totally ignorant to the real facts about disparity of wealth in the United States and tax brackets, and our current tax code is so ridiculously complex and full of loopholes that often richer Americans ends up paying a lower percentage than the upper middle class. Not to mention that money is power and the rich (save a few decent ones with a sense of fairness like Warren Buffet) obviously have an stake in keeping things just as they are. The challenges in resolving these issues are huge.
| I have exactly zero confidence in the current political situation present within the US that this can happen. |
Well if we give up before we even try indeed nothing will ever get better.
A lot of people seem to want to just trust the private sector and market forces because that is so much easier than doing countless scientific studies of various programs and policies to sort of what works better and what doesn't work. Not to mention dealing with all the political roadblocks to making decisions based on scientifically gathered data rather than special interests and what is popular but not practical or efficient. Not saying this about you, but a lot of economic conservatives seem to have a sort of blind faith in market forces to fairly distribute resources, and I can see the appeal. Like faith in religion, it seems like the easy way out to me, as if dealing with the real and incredibly complex problems in society and politics is just so intimidating that the idea of some unseen benevolent force will take of everything is we just submit to is irresistible. In my opinion, this just then serves as one more roadblock to the reforms necessary to move forward, slowly but steadily toward a better world. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 20:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: And you call me an idealist?
My Cadillac would make me happy which in turn would make me more productive. My Cadillac would help keep people in decent paying jobs by giving them a product to build, sell, and service. The money they earn can be used to support their children's education.
I have just demonstrated how My Cadillac would have an immediate positive impact on the economy. It is simpler than your plan.
I shall call it " My Cadillac Plan" |
Seriously? You choose to totally miss the point and are now forcing me to pick this apart? Damn, man. But okay:
-Please show me studies that show that having a luxury car opposed to your current car would make you more productive. You aren't going to miss days of work or quit your job, or work part time, or miss out on promotions because you are sitting at home sad about not having a Caddy. Just saying it would make you happy and that would make you more productive is meaningless. Do you think I just pull these ideas out of my ass? Do you think I'm sitting in an armchair at home feeling all weepy and sympathetic about the plight of working people and just coming up with solutions out of my own imagination? I do read, y'know, and the information I gather helps me form my opinions. There is actual evidence out there that access to quality day care improves the productivity of parents. Where is your evidence that owning a Caddy will improve your or anyone else's productivity.
As for the people making money off your Caddy, wouldn't that be cancelled out by the money you would have been spending on some other car? Presumably, you'd still be paying for repairs, gas, insurance on some other car if you didn't have a Caddy, so really, in buying you a Caddy, the government is just giving money to that particular car company. And this is where this analogy really falls apart. Are you saying the government would only buy you a Caddy? If so, that's just a dumb analogy because it is so random and absurd. So what is the hypothetical here really? That the government could give a Caddy to everyone? At $25K a head, that's a pretty impractical suggestion. So what point are you actually making? I mean, here I'm suggesting something that many other developed nations do with success, and I'm making an intelligible argument. Now whether you agree or disagree with my arguments, can you at least pose non-absurd analogies? Because your "Government should buy me a Caddy" one is just silly. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 20:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Sure, but that's a pretty bizarre metric to use. The bottom 90% of Americans includes a several hundred thousand (if not millions) who make $149,999. People who are pretty well able to afford day care, especially if they have access to a 125 plan. |
You are the man. Thank you for keeping me more honest with others and myself. I came across the bottom 90 percent figure, and while it is accurate, it is a weird number to bring up, and you make an excellent point. It is more direct and less confusing to stick with the median income number of $52K. After all, the national average cost of daycare is $11K, and that is still one fifth of that median, and a whopping one third of the median income of single mothers. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 21:42:08 [Permalink]
|
So nobody has touched on the feminist aspects of this issue. I barely touched on it in my blog, but I did mention that it is mostly mothers who sacrifice their careers to raise children. In my play group, there is 1 stay-at-home dad, and everyone else is a stay-at-home mom. We all worked before we had kids, and the majority of us even have graduate degrees.
I would imagine it is women who sacrifice their careers for two main reasons. First, husbands tend to make more money than their wives. Indeed, in my play group, all of our spouses (including the one stay-at-home dad) make more than we did when we were working full time. (Actually, I'm still working full time, just from home. But that's beside the point.) Second, women in general seem more drawn to and/or pressured to take on childcare responsibilities. We're typically encouraged to play with dolls as kids and grow up observing women taking care of babies and children way more than men. Women tend to even have lists of favorite baby names long before they become mothers. Men do not. Women in college discuss how they plan to balance motherhood and career and are known to make educational and career decisions based on such future goals. I'm pretty sure most college men do not normally have these same conversations.
Anyway, it seems clear that the disadvantages with regards to productivity and career advancement after having kids are dis-proportionally a problem for mothers, not fathers. As a woman, and as a mother, I'm currently making career sacrifices for my kids, while my husband is not. In fact, he's using his status as our bread-winner to takes steps to further his career and earning potential. This inevitably puts a greater burden on me for child care and home maintenance, and while those things are important, were I to ever get a divorce, I would have been really fucked by these years while he would have personally gained from them. Not that I'm planning to ever get divorced, but it is an unsettling position to be in that adds new tensions an dimensions to our relationship. I've identified as a feminist since my teenage years, but it was only after I had my daughter that I felt personally at a disadvantage because of my status and upbringing as a woman. I don't like feeling this way. I don't like being in this position. But I like the alternatives to it even less, so I guess I gotta just put up with it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/06/2011 21:44:19 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2011 : 04:21:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| I would imagine it is women who sacrifice their careers for two main reasons. First, husbands tend to make more money than their wives. Indeed, in my play group, all of our spouses (including the one stay-at-home dad) make more than we did when we were working full time. (Actually, I'm still working full time, just from home. But that's beside the point.) Second, women in general seem more drawn to and/or pressured to take on childcare responsibilities. We're typically encouraged to play with dolls as kids and grow up observing women taking care of babies and children way more than men. Women tend to even have lists of favorite baby names long before they become mothers. Men do not. Women in college discuss how they plan to balance motherhood and career and are known to make educational and career decisions based on such future goals. I'm pretty sure most college men do not normally have these same conversations |
I sure would think that a main reason is that in most mammals it is the birth-giver who cares for the baby. Women are physically equipped to do so, men are not.
| Anyway, it seems clear that the disadvantages with regards to productivity and career advancement after having kids are dis-proportionally a problem for mothers, not fathers. As a woman, and as a mother, I'm currently making career sacrifices for my kids, while my husband is not. In fact, he's using his status as our bread-winner to takes steps to further his career and earning potential. This inevitably puts a greater burden on me for child care and home maintenance, and while those things are important, were I to ever get a divorce, I would have been really fucked by these years while he would have personally gained from them. Not that I'm planning to ever get divorced, but it is an unsettling position to be in that adds new tensions an dimensions to our relationship. I've identified as a feminist since my teenage years, but it was only after I had my daughter that I felt personally at a disadvantage because of my status and upbringing as a woman. I don't like feeling this way. I don't like being in this position. But I like the alternatives to it even less, so I guess I gotta just put up with it. |
It all comes down to a little story about cake and eating..... |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
