4 ms·

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Lets fix that first with basic income. Not to mention that kids are a way to go

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Lets fix that first with basic income. Not to mention that kids are a way to government benefits and tax benefits, financial concerns are not the real issue here anyway. It is time off to care for babies. Hell, time off to be sick for a day. These jobs have the least responsibility but have the most rigid level of service.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying (again, with the understanding that there are accidents, people who get laid off from better jobs, etc.)
- lghh 11y ago
  So you're suggesting a sort of eradication of the poor over a generation due to the lack of ability to bear and support a child?
  - VanillaLime 11y ago
    So you're suggesting that being poor is a genetic condition (and one that apparently should be perpetuated)? Because that sounds even more dehumanizing than suggesting that the poor consider their resources before choosing to have children.
    - lghh 11y ago
      No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty and people not born in poverty are much more likely to stay out of poverty. Poverty is generational, social conditions can be passed down from parent to child without being genetic.
      - Turing_Machine 11y ago
        "No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty" And I am advocating for fewer people being born into poverty. Why are you opposed to this?
        lghh 11y ago
        I agree that having fewer people being born into poverty is a thing we should strive for, so I am not opposed to it like you claim I am. What I am opposed to is your method and reasoning for that method. Your method is that poor people should not have kids due to their inability to easily provide for those kids. In not having kids, they bring less people into an impoverished social standing that is hard to break out of. By this reasoning, should people with less desirable traits (history of heart disease, cancer, etc) not have kids to help eradicate those traits? There is a chance their child will not have those specific traits or htey will take, like there is a chance that a child will move out of poverty. Of course not, that's absurd. Other than the self regulation of impoverished people to not have kids to help eradicate poverty, which is what you are describing, I would rather see social means to help those people escape poverty.
- baq 11y ago
  maybe minimum wage should be enough to sustain a family?

Turing_Machine 11y ago

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying (again, with the understanding that there are accidents, people who get laid off from better jobs, etc.)

lghh 11y ago
So you're suggesting a sort of eradication of the poor over a generation due to the lack of ability to bear and support a child?
- VanillaLime 11y ago
  So you're suggesting that being poor is a genetic condition (and one that apparently should be perpetuated)? Because that sounds even more dehumanizing than suggesting that the poor consider their resources before choosing to have children.
  - lghh 11y ago
    No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty and people not born in poverty are much more likely to stay out of poverty. Poverty is generational, social conditions can be passed down from parent to child without being genetic.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      "No, I am suggesting that people born into poverty are much more likely to stay in poverty" And I am advocating for fewer people being born into poverty. Why are you opposed to this?
      - lghh 11y ago
        I agree that having fewer people being born into poverty is a thing we should strive for, so I am not opposed to it like you claim I am. What I am opposed to is your method and reasoning for that method. Your method is that poor people should not have kids due to their inability to easily provide for those kids. In not having kids, they bring less people into an impoverished social standing that is hard to break out of. By this reasoning, should people with less desirable traits (history of heart disease, cancer, etc) not have kids to help eradicate those traits? There is a chance their child will not have those specific traits or htey will take, like there is a chance that a child will move out of poverty. Of course not, that's absurd. Other than the self regulation of impoverished people to not have kids to help eradicate poverty, which is what you are describing, I would rather see social means to help those people escape poverty.
baq 11y ago
maybe minimum wage should be enough to sustain a family?