6 ms·

This may be a very American perspective, but I utterly fail at any sympathy towards the parents that had two kids and were doing fine, then decided to have two

by x0x0 10y ago

This may be a very American perspective, but I utterly fail at any sympathy towards the parents that had two kids and were doing fine, then decided to have two more and are whining that someone else didn't step up to pay for them. I mean, it's not as if babies being up all night is a predictable part of having a baby or anything. The mother whines that kids shouldn't be like a mercedes, where you decide beforehand if you can afford it. But that's exactly what kids are like. And if only there where some way (algebra) to know that per-capita income would shrink with each child! Hell, you may even think the country should pay for unlimited kids, but they couldn't be bothered to check before having the 3rd and 4th child if Germany does or not. They are irresponsible parents.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aminok 10y ago
Studies show that the rate of single motherhood increases dramatically with rises in welfare. It's no surprise to anyone whose eyes are open that people are generally rational, and act to further their own interests. It's morally abhorrent that it's accepted practice that people vote for politicians that promise them money taxed from others. Social democracy is simply authoritarianism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tehrei 10y ago
  Money? Did you print those money yourself? Did you issue that currency yourself? No. Those money belong to the state. The state giveth and the state taketh away. You're just allowed the right to make use of those money for the purposes of trade. As long as your wealth is in state-issued currency (whether on paper or in a bank), it's not yours. If you want to truly own money, print your own, hire your own army and become your own nation.
- camel_Snake 10y ago
  Yeah, well, you know that's just like uh, your opinion man.
- taneq 10y ago
  Do these studies show what proportion of those single mothers would otherwise be forced to endure some kind of abusive environment if welfare didn't enable them to get out?
  - aminok 10y ago
    The studies show that women are far more likely to give birth while unmarried when there are higher levels of welfare available, so this is not measuring the incidence of women who already have children in a marriage and then get a divorce. Given abortion, adoption and not getting pregnant in the first place are possibilities which a person has some control over, I don't think you can argue that all of those single mothers would otherwise be giving birth to children in abusive relationships if not for welfare. Furthermore, welfare is funded through abusive tax laws, which throw those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are kept in small enclosures, and often suffer mental illness and are subjected to physical and sexual abuse. There is nothing compassionate about authoritarian income redistribution.
k__ 10y ago
Children shoudnt be a risk. Everyone should be encouraged to have at least two and getting help from the government to raise them.
- aminok 10y ago
  Help from the government means forcing people, through threatening them with time in the dungeon, to help. It's collectivist ideology turned into dogmatic religion.
  - marchenko 10y ago
    That ship sailed a long time ago with the disappearance of the frontier and homesteading opportunities. Now that it's virtually impossible to completely opt-out of society, some safety net is a necessary correlate of removing that liberty.
    - brbsix 10y ago
      Because it's considered to be requisite to interact with society, it's necessary to initiate force to collect funds for a safety net? I don't really follow.
      - marchenko 10y ago
        it's now impossible to use foraging or subsistence farming as a last-ditch survival strategy because all land is claimed by public or private actors (not to mention regulatory and land use obstacles). With the disappearance of that formerly natural right, we are obligated to provide at least minimal support to persons we've locked into the modern system. While there might be other mire common justifications, the loss of the choice to opt out is the ultimate grounding behind the social safety net, in my view.
        aminok 10y ago
        We have no natural right to forage any given plot of land.
r00fus 10y ago
Instead of looking at this as "just desserts"n
rbehrends 10y ago
Well, it is official German policy to encourage people to have more children. So, if you have financial difficulties raising more than a couple of kids, there's a policy failure somewhere.
- golergka 10y ago
  Encouraging is not the same as making it free and completely painless for everyone, regardless of their income and how many kids they are having.
marchenko 10y ago
Well-adjusted and well cared-for children are the edifice sustaining both public and private investment - their future productivity will generate the demand that gives value to savings and investment. I suspect Germany will get a good rate of return on the rabbit-raising, goatherding,beekeeping, highly-valued Ehler kids.
- malcolmgreaves 10y ago
  As the article clearly points out, the Ehlers are not able to support and take care of 4 children. They all will not be well-adjusted and well cared-for children. They will not form a cornerstone of the German economy or society. They will not be as productive as they could be if they were being raised by mature, responsible parents who know their own limitations.
  - marchenko 10y ago
    From the brief description, and the photos, they appear to be raising healthy children in an orderly home with an level of enrichment and parental investment many children would envy. I suspect the burden of the financial strain is being borne largely by the parents. Poverty of this sort does not necessarily, or even generally, produce maladjustment. German politicians endlessly polemnicize about the need to increase the birthrate, and there are a lot of contradictory social pressures surrounding family size (Rabenmutters: yay or nay?). I am not surprised that based on political rhetoric and the confusing tangle of statutory entitlements the Ehlers expected more financial support than they eventually discovered. If it were possible to buy 'Ehler offspring futures', I would invest.
    - tamana 10y ago
      You can offer them a loan at a reasonable interest rate, and profit from their future.
Spooky23 10y ago
It's definitely a very modern, selfish American perspective. The net effect of that attitude is that larger families break up,are fully supported by the state and have worse outcomes. And when the "DINK" couples get old, society will be stuck supporting you fully after you become unable to manage without the type of support that adult children usually provide.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  > And when the "DINK" couples get old, society will be stuck supporting you fully Because countries like Germany force the current generation to pay for the previous generation (and you can't opt out, it's called "intergenerational contract"), which is the reason why they need to motivate people to produce children, so that somebody can pay for that system. It's basically an intergenerational ponzi scheme.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The distinction is merely accounting. "Saving for retirement" is just calling dibs on future production. You still need strong young backs to harvest the wheat to make cereal for old people, even if those old people pay for that cereal with money they "saved" for retirement.
    - imtringued 10y ago
      Most of our jobs are outsourced to a different country and automation is increasing our productivity. We don't really need more people.
      - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
        If a country stops producing useful things, it's currency will become worthless and they will no longer be able to outsource things. Any form of retirement inherently relies on the productive capacity of subsequent generations. There is no way around that.
- 10y ago
noobermin 10y ago
Here you go[0], figure 3. You are referring a shrinking fraction of households here in the US[1]. Interestingly though, combining this data with the total numbers of households[2] since 1970 means that in 1970 there were 13M households of 5 or more...while there are 12M now...so the total number of these households has remained constant--although the demographics of that group may be quite different today. [0] https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf [1] US, since you claim this is a "very American" perspective. [2] http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-househol...
xiaoma 10y ago
> "I utterly fail at any sympathy" agreed
allendoerfer 10y ago
That's (unfortunately) indeed an American perspective, that I totally share. Obviously nurses in Germany earn too little money. Obviously society would benefit if the state would help in cases like these. Still it bothers me that this family is actually paying off its house, which means they are taking part in capitalism and creating capital for themselves, but rely on the state to do so. They decided that the benefit they are already getting (3 year job security, 14 months of wage-like financial benefits), which every American parent can only dream of, are not enough for their child. Germans don't invest in the capital market (4,14% of Germans have stocks, compared to 23% in the UK or 56% in the US [0]), Germans - especially women - choose their careers without considering how much they will earn. Being rich has a dirty connotation in Germany. If you are rich, you better be a doctor or a lawyer, then you get an excuse, other than that you probably did something shady or just benefited from other peoples work. Business school is for people who were too stupid to become engineers. They will earn more, but be worth less, because they won't be a Diplomingenieur (okay, this one is gone now, the Master of Science has much less reputation). When Germans finally realize that a bit more would be nice, they complain that the state is not fixing their situation. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion%C3%A4rsquote https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion%C3%A4rsquote
- aortega 10y ago
  >Being rich has a dirty connotation in Germany. If you are rich, you better be a doctor or a lawyer, then you get an excuse, other than that you probably did something shady or just benefited from other peoples work. Business school is for people who were too stupid to become engineers. They will earn more, but be worth less, because they won't be a Diplomingenieur Wow, it's the same situation here in Argentina, word for word. Amazing considering the differences in culture and history.

by x0x0 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

aminok 10y ago

Studies show that the rate of single motherhood increases dramatically with rises in welfare. It's no surprise to anyone whose eyes are open that people are generally rational, and act to further their own interests. It's morally abhorrent that it's accepted practice that people vote for politicians that promise them money taxed from others. Social democracy is simply authoritarianism.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tehrei 10y ago
Money? Did you print those money yourself? Did you issue that currency yourself? No. Those money belong to the state. The state giveth and the state taketh away. You're just allowed the right to make use of those money for the purposes of trade. As long as your wealth is in state-issued currency (whether on paper or in a bank), it's not yours. If you want to truly own money, print your own, hire your own army and become your own nation.
camel_Snake 10y ago
Yeah, well, you know that's just like uh, your opinion man.
taneq 10y ago
Do these studies show what proportion of those single mothers would otherwise be forced to endure some kind of abusive environment if welfare didn't enable them to get out?
- aminok 10y ago
  The studies show that women are far more likely to give birth while unmarried when there are higher levels of welfare available, so this is not measuring the incidence of women who already have children in a marriage and then get a divorce. Given abortion, adoption and not getting pregnant in the first place are possibilities which a person has some control over, I don't think you can argue that all of those single mothers would otherwise be giving birth to children in abusive relationships if not for welfare. Furthermore, welfare is funded through abusive tax laws, which throw those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade in prison, where they are kept in small enclosures, and often suffer mental illness and are subjected to physical and sexual abuse. There is nothing compassionate about authoritarian income redistribution.

k__ 10y ago

Children shoudnt be a risk. Everyone should be encouraged to have at least two and getting help from the government to raise them.

aminok 10y ago
Help from the government means forcing people, through threatening them with time in the dungeon, to help. It's collectivist ideology turned into dogmatic religion.
- marchenko 10y ago
  That ship sailed a long time ago with the disappearance of the frontier and homesteading opportunities. Now that it's virtually impossible to completely opt-out of society, some safety net is a necessary correlate of removing that liberty.
  - brbsix 10y ago
    Because it's considered to be requisite to interact with society, it's necessary to initiate force to collect funds for a safety net? I don't really follow.
    - marchenko 10y ago
      it's now impossible to use foraging or subsistence farming as a last-ditch survival strategy because all land is claimed by public or private actors (not to mention regulatory and land use obstacles). With the disappearance of that formerly natural right, we are obligated to provide at least minimal support to persons we've locked into the modern system. While there might be other mire common justifications, the loss of the choice to opt out is the ultimate grounding behind the social safety net, in my view.
      - aminok 10y ago
        We have no natural right to forage any given plot of land.

r00fus 10y ago

Instead of looking at this as "just desserts"n

rbehrends 10y ago

Well, it is official German policy to encourage people to have more children. So, if you have financial difficulties raising more than a couple of kids, there's a policy failure somewhere.

golergka 10y ago
Encouraging is not the same as making it free and completely painless for everyone, regardless of their income and how many kids they are having.

marchenko 10y ago

Well-adjusted and well cared-for children are the edifice sustaining both public and private investment - their future productivity will generate the demand that gives value to savings and investment. I suspect Germany will get a good rate of return on the rabbit-raising, goatherding,beekeeping, highly-valued Ehler kids.

malcolmgreaves 10y ago
As the article clearly points out, the Ehlers are not able to support and take care of 4 children. They all will not be well-adjusted and well cared-for children. They will not form a cornerstone of the German economy or society. They will not be as productive as they could be if they were being raised by mature, responsible parents who know their own limitations.
- marchenko 10y ago
  From the brief description, and the photos, they appear to be raising healthy children in an orderly home with an level of enrichment and parental investment many children would envy. I suspect the burden of the financial strain is being borne largely by the parents. Poverty of this sort does not necessarily, or even generally, produce maladjustment. German politicians endlessly polemnicize about the need to increase the birthrate, and there are a lot of contradictory social pressures surrounding family size (Rabenmutters: yay or nay?). I am not surprised that based on political rhetoric and the confusing tangle of statutory entitlements the Ehlers expected more financial support than they eventually discovered. If it were possible to buy 'Ehler offspring futures', I would invest.
  - tamana 10y ago
    You can offer them a loan at a reasonable interest rate, and profit from their future.

Spooky23 10y ago

It's definitely a very modern, selfish American perspective. The net effect of that attitude is that larger families break up,are fully supported by the state and have worse outcomes. And when the "DINK" couples get old, society will be stuck supporting you fully after you become unable to manage without the type of support that adult children usually provide.

elcapitan 10y ago
> And when the "DINK" couples get old, society will be stuck supporting you fully Because countries like Germany force the current generation to pay for the previous generation (and you can't opt out, it's called "intergenerational contract"), which is the reason why they need to motivate people to produce children, so that somebody can pay for that system. It's basically an intergenerational ponzi scheme.
- rayiner 10y ago
  The distinction is merely accounting. "Saving for retirement" is just calling dibs on future production. You still need strong young backs to harvest the wheat to make cereal for old people, even if those old people pay for that cereal with money they "saved" for retirement.
  - imtringued 10y ago
    Most of our jobs are outsourced to a different country and automation is increasing our productivity. We don't really need more people.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      If a country stops producing useful things, it's currency will become worthless and they will no longer be able to outsource things. Any form of retirement inherently relies on the productive capacity of subsequent generations. There is no way around that.
10y ago

noobermin 10y ago

Here you go[0], figure 3. You are referring a shrinking fraction of households here in the US[1]. Interestingly though, combining this data with the total numbers of households[2] since 1970 means that in 1970 there were 13M households of 5 or more...while there are 12M now...so the total number of these households has remained constant--although the demographics of that group may be quite different today. [0] https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf [1] US, since you claim this is a "very American" perspective. [2] http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-househol...

xiaoma 10y ago

> "I utterly fail at any sympathy" agreed

allendoerfer 10y ago

That's (unfortunately) indeed an American perspective, that I totally share. Obviously nurses in Germany earn too little money. Obviously society would benefit if the state would help in cases like these. Still it bothers me that this family is actually paying off its house, which means they are taking part in capitalism and creating capital for themselves, but rely on the state to do so. They decided that the benefit they are already getting (3 year job security, 14 months of wage-like financial benefits), which every American parent can only dream of, are not enough for their child. Germans don't invest in the capital market (4,14% of Germans have stocks, compared to 23% in the UK or 56% in the US [0]), Germans - especially women - choose their careers without considering how much they will earn. Being rich has a dirty connotation in Germany. If you are rich, you better be a doctor or a lawyer, then you get an excuse, other than that you probably did something shady or just benefited from other peoples work. Business school is for people who were too stupid to become engineers. They will earn more, but be worth less, because they won't be a Diplomingenieur (okay, this one is gone now, the Master of Science has much less reputation). When Germans finally realize that a bit more would be nice, they complain that the state is not fixing their situation. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion%C3%A4rsquote https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion%C3%A4rsquote

aortega 10y ago
>Being rich has a dirty connotation in Germany. If you are rich, you better be a doctor or a lawyer, then you get an excuse, other than that you probably did something shady or just benefited from other peoples work. Business school is for people who were too stupid to become engineers. They will earn more, but be worth less, because they won't be a Diplomingenieur Wow, it's the same situation here in Argentina, word for word. Amazing considering the differences in culture and history.