5 ms·

Is it just me that chill? when I read things like: > the expected returns to child investments by parents with > limited resources and uncertain futures may b

by neves 10y ago

Is it just me that chill? when I read things like: > the expected returns to child investments by parents with > limited resources and uncertain futures may be lower than > for more educated parents with greater and more secure > investment capabilities. Sure we live in a capitalist society, but treating my sons like an "investment opportunity" looks crazy.

metaphorm 10y ago
it's not just you. we live in a very sick society and the way language is used (by "the paper of record" in this case) is a reflection of that sickness.
dba7dba 10y ago
And people with such ideas are opinion makers. Now THAT is chilling.
throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago
The fact that you have an emotional attachment to your children is evidence of their value. Things that provide value are assets, and things that provide value over time are investments. A common share of Google may give you financial value in return, whereas a child will give you emotional or psychological return. Technically, children should be classified as more of an investment than stock because they can go work and provide for you financially while still giving you emotional value. Stock can't really give you emotional value (other than pride).
- Sone7 10y ago
  >Things that provide value are assets Things.
  - throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago
    Humans are things. What's your point?
- neves 10y ago
  This mixing of the meaning of "value" and the small subset of the meaning labeled as "monetary value" that is crazy.
  - throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago
    Ignorance in the face of facts is truly crazy.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Take a thing that you consider to have "value". How much money would I have to give you to convince you to give that thing up? That's it's "monetary value". There's an old saying: Everyone has a price. I'm not convinced it's 100% true for everyone on every topic, but in general terms, it holds quite well.
rcar 10y ago
By "child investments", they mean investments in children, not children-as-investments. In other words, they're suggesting that not only are children in these disadvantaged situations starting off in a worse place, but each additional dollar or hour of time spent on them gives less benefit than that same dollar or hour as a child from a more privileged background, further widening the spread between these two kids.
abandonliberty 10y ago
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/death-dynasties-rulers-for-rulers-follow-up http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/death-dynasties-rulers-for-ruler... Children were investment opportunities before capitalism. Retirement, genetic success, tribal power, I'm sure I'm missing some. If you interact with powerful families, the CGP Grey video above becomes very evident - you hit talk of people referring to families rather than individuals - "the kennedys are . . . ". Yes, it can be chilling to see someone explicitly state implicit calculations that have been done for centuries. How many times have you seen a powerful world leader without a family or children?

by neves 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

it's not just you. we live in a very sick society and the way language is used (by "the paper of record" in this case) is a reflection of that sickness.

dba7dba 10y ago

And people with such ideas are opinion makers. Now THAT is chilling.

throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago

The fact that you have an emotional attachment to your children is evidence of their value. Things that provide value are assets, and things that provide value over time are investments. A common share of Google may give you financial value in return, whereas a child will give you emotional or psychological return. Technically, children should be classified as more of an investment than stock because they can go work and provide for you financially while still giving you emotional value. Stock can't really give you emotional value (other than pride).

Sone7 10y ago
>Things that provide value are assets Things.
- throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago
  Humans are things. What's your point?
neves 10y ago
This mixing of the meaning of "value" and the small subset of the meaning labeled as "monetary value" that is crazy.
- throwawayyyyyyy 10y ago
  Ignorance in the face of facts is truly crazy.
- taneq 10y ago
  Take a thing that you consider to have "value". How much money would I have to give you to convince you to give that thing up? That's it's "monetary value". There's an old saying: Everyone has a price. I'm not convinced it's 100% true for everyone on every topic, but in general terms, it holds quite well.

rcar 10y ago

By "child investments", they mean investments in children, not children-as-investments. In other words, they're suggesting that not only are children in these disadvantaged situations starting off in a worse place, but each additional dollar or hour of time spent on them gives less benefit than that same dollar or hour as a child from a more privileged background, further widening the spread between these two kids.

abandonliberty 10y ago

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/death-dynasties-rulers-for-rulers-follow-up http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/death-dynasties-rulers-for-ruler... Children were investment opportunities before capitalism. Retirement, genetic success, tribal power, I'm sure I'm missing some. If you interact with powerful families, the CGP Grey video above becomes very evident - you hit talk of people referring to families rather than individuals - "the kennedys are . . . ". Yes, it can be chilling to see someone explicitly state implicit calculations that have been done for centuries. How many times have you seen a powerful world leader without a family or children?