Look, our money will go to kids whether it's our own or someone else's. The more we have of our own, the less we have to give to others. The problem is the millionaires and upper classes of the past didn't use their wealth to drive reproductive growth, instead using it to expand their own living standards. I can think of nothing worse than having all of the money we save up given to some other guy's kids when we die. That's what will happen though, to each and every male who is letting socialist policies psychologically deselect him from the mating pool. As an environmental selector, socialism selects for having many children since others will be forced to pay for them. The solution is NOT to keep working and saving up and earning money and continuing to fund this, but to have your own kids, live frugally and teach them the same mindset. If it's so valuable to give this information to others, how much more valuable would it be getting it first hand from the very person you live with (from perspective of a son learning from their dad)?
New World Order wants to make people fear having children. Economic pain is the method. Go ahead and have kids but through the television out (save 100 per month) , get the kids reading books.
In Greece the out of work population is giving their children to orphanages where the government raises them. North Korean model.
Lots of screw ups all around from this administration but this one is not on Obama. Its just a natural consequence of the wealth concentration that started post 1970's
during this period the US worker grew measurably poorer (wages are down by about half since 1973) and as US is a representative government, albeit a weak one with a weakly social democratic party and has widespread immigration, its a certainty that demand for stuff like this would go up.
If people didn't want it they would have had to maintain border controls (as in basically near zero immigration) eschewed foreign goods even if they were cheaper and have made a real effort to actually hire people at a good wage.
That would have prevented it from happening.
There were many reasons it didn't, a mistaken belief in economic liberalism, a hunger for cheap labor and status and domestic race issues but thats how it would have been done.
Now a very responsible population with tight borders could get by without this sort of aid. IIRC we in fact hit this in the late 60's/early 70's with European (1.6 or so) birth rates.
Nations do take this course, Japan, Singapore and good chunks of Europe (even with redistribution) . Its not pleasant however, a Singapore style birth rate of say .7 (that is less than 1) is about 1/3 of whats needed for replacement. That is fine for a little while, even good but once population aging hits. look out. Having a shrinking population is more poison to capitalism than the State and as its voluntary response to market conditions, harder to fix.
You see population will probably never increase and may never even reach homeostasis again.
Yes I mean never.
Odds are unemployment and more crucially underemployment will continue to increase (right now its about 50% amount the early fertile 18-24 in Spain for example) as will peoples expectations and the actual costs of child rearing.
This means the natural tendency of cities to reduce births will continue its historical course an population will continue to fall
Thats good and fine till you have to sell something to someone and I suspect just as we see with subsidies we'll see the people and corporation alike becoming a bit more socialist
The only way to stop that is to get ages up and for employers to realize that your workers are your market. The less you pa, the less they can buy.
I think I remember reading in Freakonomics that peers, not parents, are the dominant influence in a child's life. If this is true, it won't matter if the parents raise the kids in a capitalism-focused environment. They'll be surrounded by lifelong welfare recipients and get socialism by the earful in school.
While at times I think having kids would have been fun, with the way the world is now, I think it's for the best that I didn't. Now I can enjoy my life and not have to worry about what kind of life my kids would have had.
As you can see in the chart at the top, use of WIC has been decreasing specifically for women and infants for the last few fiscal years. Despite some spikes in individual months, the overall numbers are heading down.
Also abortion is decreasing. Actually being broke is starting to affect behavior at the margins, despite presumed access to free stuff.
A lot of them, maybe a third to a half, are on baby formula paid for by WIC who would be fed naturally otherwise. Almost no one else buys baby formula because it's so expensive. I think it's over $100 a month for baby formula, possibly more if they get the expensive kind, all paid by WIC. I wonder how many are selling the the formula on the black market.
Yes, the baby formula industry is largely subsidized by WIC.
I also wanted to point out its even worse up in the frozen north.
Technically, EVERY baby gets a paid supplement in the form of a home visiting nurse ( Nosey ass wastes of space social worker, breast feeding nazis "nurses", Yes, please, let me fill out that 10 page questionaire about my entire life, did you want to, you know, see the BABY???) who go to everyones home, inspect it, make sure the baby is doing all right ( ie still alive after 3 weeks) etc etc etc.
And this is a direct result of the nurses union make work projects, not any kind of original legislation.
If you create a trough, the swine always show up...
Coming soon to an obamacare supported medical system near you...
What I'm getting from this is that single guys who care about the fate of the West should die with as much debt to pass on to the government as possible.
Anon 2:53 makes a very valid point. WIC pays for infant formula subsidizing Nestle or who ever makes the stuff. Search craigslist for "infant formula" and there are several posts listing it "for sale" in my area.
Another commenter touched on the $100 per month t.v. cable bill. People with terrible parenting skills (a nice way of saying they don't love their children very much) have always done something akin to spending the food money on brand name shoes or tv cable packages. That is why WIC was created. Unlike food stamps/EBT, WIC only allows the purchase of "nutritious" food (as defined by the FDA).
That way parents couldn't spend all the food money on popcorn and candy bars. They were provided subsidized beans and milk in the hope that some of it would be fed to the child. Of course the program really only helps out Dean Foods and other industrial food producers. *sigh* I don't really have a point other than my husband works and supports us and through forced taxation many other families. Additionally, even if we grow veggies and try to eat healthy food, our tax money is used to provide profit to special companies the government approves of.
Fascism is already here folks, it is just under a veneer of "food security" programs.
Look, our money will go to kids whether it's our own or someone else's. The more we have of our own, the less we have to give to others. The problem is the millionaires and upper classes of the past didn't use their wealth to drive reproductive growth, instead using it to expand their own living standards. I can think of nothing worse than having all of the money we save up given to some other guy's kids when we die. That's what will happen though, to each and every male who is letting socialist policies psychologically deselect him from the mating pool. As an environmental selector, socialism selects for having many children since others will be forced to pay for them. The solution is NOT to keep working and saving up and earning money and continuing to fund this, but to have your own kids, live frugally and teach them the same mindset. If it's so valuable to give this information to others, how much more valuable would it be getting it first hand from the very person you live with (from perspective of a son learning from their dad)?
ReplyDeleteWow, by these stats, it proves how good of a job our government is doing. Keep it up, Barry O!
ReplyDeleteWorth noting that WIC use is decreasing and has been through this recession (fewer births).
ReplyDeleteAnon 435,
ReplyDeleteYou've piqued my interest.
New World Order wants to make people fear having children. Economic pain is the method. Go ahead and have kids but through the television out (save 100 per month) , get the kids reading books.
ReplyDeleteIn Greece the out of work population is giving their children to orphanages where the government raises them. North Korean model.
Lots of screw ups all around from this administration but this one is not on Obama. Its just a natural consequence of the wealth concentration that started post 1970's
ReplyDeleteduring this period the US worker grew measurably poorer (wages are down by about half since 1973) and as US is a representative government, albeit a weak one with a weakly social democratic party and has widespread immigration, its a certainty that demand for stuff like this would go up.
If people didn't want it they would have had to maintain border controls (as in basically near zero immigration) eschewed foreign goods even if they were cheaper and have made a real effort to actually hire people at a good wage.
That would have prevented it from happening.
There were many reasons it didn't, a mistaken belief in economic liberalism, a hunger for cheap labor and status and domestic race issues but thats how it would have been done.
Now a very responsible population with tight borders could get by without this sort of aid. IIRC we in fact hit this in the late 60's/early 70's with European (1.6 or so) birth rates.
Nations do take this course, Japan, Singapore and good chunks of Europe (even with redistribution) . Its not pleasant however, a Singapore style birth rate of say .7 (that is less than 1) is about 1/3 of whats needed for replacement. That is fine for a little while, even good but once population aging hits. look out. Having a shrinking population is more poison to capitalism than the State and as its voluntary response to market conditions, harder to fix.
You see population will probably never increase and may never even reach homeostasis again.
Yes I mean never.
Odds are unemployment and more crucially underemployment will continue to increase (right now its about 50% amount the early fertile 18-24 in Spain for example) as will peoples expectations and the actual costs of child rearing.
This means the natural tendency of cities to reduce births will continue its historical course an population will continue to fall
Thats good and fine till you have to sell something to someone and I suspect just as we see with subsidies we'll see the people and corporation alike becoming a bit more socialist
The only way to stop that is to get ages up and for employers to realize that your workers are your market. The less you pa, the less they can buy.
I think I remember reading in Freakonomics that peers, not parents, are the dominant influence in a child's life. If this is true, it won't matter if the parents raise the kids in a capitalism-focused environment. They'll be surrounded by lifelong welfare recipients and get socialism by the earful in school.
ReplyDeleteWhile at times I think having kids would have been fun, with the way the world is now, I think it's for the best that I didn't. Now I can enjoy my life and not have to worry about what kind of life my kids would have had.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/37WIC_Monthly.htm
ReplyDeleteAs you can see in the chart at the top, use of WIC has been decreasing specifically for women and infants for the last few fiscal years. Despite some spikes in individual months, the overall numbers are heading down.
Also abortion is decreasing. Actually being broke is starting to affect behavior at the margins, despite presumed access to free stuff.
This is going to end badly,
ReplyDeleteA lot of them, maybe a third to a half, are on baby formula paid for by WIC who would be fed naturally otherwise. Almost no one else buys baby formula because it's so expensive. I think it's over $100 a month for baby formula, possibly more if they get the expensive kind, all paid by WIC. I wonder how many are selling the the formula on the black market.
ReplyDeleteYes, the baby formula industry is largely subsidized by WIC.
I also wanted to point out its even worse up in the frozen north.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, EVERY baby gets a paid supplement in the form of a home visiting nurse ( Nosey ass wastes of space social worker, breast feeding nazis "nurses", Yes, please, let me fill out that 10 page questionaire about my entire life, did you want to, you know, see the BABY???) who go to everyones home, inspect it, make sure the baby is doing all right ( ie still alive after 3 weeks) etc etc etc.
And this is a direct result of the nurses union make work projects, not any kind of original legislation.
If you create a trough, the swine always show up...
Coming soon to an obamacare supported medical system near you...
Discovery Channel gunman was obsessed with 'Parasitic Human Infants'
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Communications_headquarters_hostage_crisis
What I'm getting from this is that single guys who care about the fate of the West should die with as much debt to pass on to the government as possible.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:53 makes a very valid point. WIC pays for infant formula subsidizing Nestle or who ever makes the stuff. Search craigslist for "infant formula" and there are several posts listing it "for sale" in my area.
ReplyDeleteAnother commenter touched on the $100 per month t.v. cable bill. People with terrible parenting skills (a nice way of saying they don't love their children very much) have always done something akin to spending the food money on brand name shoes or tv cable packages. That is why WIC was created. Unlike food stamps/EBT, WIC only allows the purchase of "nutritious" food (as defined by the FDA).
That way parents couldn't spend all the food money on popcorn and candy bars. They were provided subsidized beans and milk in the hope that some of it would be fed to the child. Of course the program really only helps out Dean Foods and other industrial food producers. *sigh* I don't really have a point other than my husband works and supports us and through forced taxation many other families. Additionally, even if we grow veggies and try to eat healthy food, our tax money is used to provide profit to special companies the government approves of.
Fascism is already here folks, it is just under a veneer of "food security" programs.