4 ms·

Maybe the fact that she's a single mom with 4 kids is a factor too. I think a janitor with a single dependent would have a more acceptable standard of living.

jaggederest 9y ago
Are you making a modest proposal that people should go from four kids to one, post facto? I think everyone deserves to be able to have vacation time, especially single parents.
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  I'm not proposing anything. Just suggesting that there are more factors than income that affect 'inequality'. An article that focusses on inequality due to low income should perhaps pick an example with a more typical family situation.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Rewind 50 years, and it would be highly typical for a janitor to support a wife and 3 kids on HIS salary - families were larger, and mothers didn't work. The fact that a working single mom can't support her four kids today is indicative in and of itself.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Would that janitor have many vacations too? And decent college funds? Healthcare?
      - jaggederest 9y ago
        Yes, yes, and yes. Janitorial staff at a Ford plant in ~1965 would make enough to own their own house, vacation once a year (probably not by plane but...), and college was percentage-wise ridiculously cheaper - 30x if my calculations are correct, which they probably aren't, but hey. Healthcare would have unquestionably been provided by their employer. And all that on only a single income for a family of four, no less.
        URSpider94 9y ago
        ... and with a defined-benefit pension as well, meaning no need for 401k contributions out of their salary, and no risk of losing that money due to poor investment decisions.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > I think everyone deserves To live a life free of consequences? As in have more kids, same quality of life? How will that work? > everyone deserves.. And who pays?
  - namarie 9y ago
    >To live a life free of consequences? To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear of not being able to adequately provide for yourself or your offspring? >And who pays? Since it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit it'd make sense for us, collectively, as a society to pay.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear And this comes, for free, with no obligations? What is the standard for a "fulfilling life"? One child? A hundred? If I think my life will be fulfilled by skydiving, or playing XBox, or hookers and blow - should the state pay for those as well? > it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit What you are describing is a market, but with no feedback or control; When someone ends up a burden on society due to a poor upbringing, does "society" get a refund? If we are paying for people to bring up children, it would make more sense if the we initiated it; rather than people self-select for parenthood and get child welfare as an individual right.

jaggederest 9y ago

Are you making a modest proposal that people should go from four kids to one, post facto? I think everyone deserves to be able to have vacation time, especially single parents.

jiggunjer 9y ago
I'm not proposing anything. Just suggesting that there are more factors than income that affect 'inequality'. An article that focusses on inequality due to low income should perhaps pick an example with a more typical family situation.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  Rewind 50 years, and it would be highly typical for a janitor to support a wife and 3 kids on HIS salary - families were larger, and mothers didn't work. The fact that a working single mom can't support her four kids today is indicative in and of itself.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Would that janitor have many vacations too? And decent college funds? Healthcare?
    - jaggederest 9y ago
      Yes, yes, and yes. Janitorial staff at a Ford plant in ~1965 would make enough to own their own house, vacation once a year (probably not by plane but...), and college was percentage-wise ridiculously cheaper - 30x if my calculations are correct, which they probably aren't, but hey. Healthcare would have unquestionably been provided by their employer. And all that on only a single income for a family of four, no less.
      - URSpider94 9y ago
        ... and with a defined-benefit pension as well, meaning no need for 401k contributions out of their salary, and no risk of losing that money due to poor investment decisions.
Chris2048 9y ago
> I think everyone deserves To live a life free of consequences? As in have more kids, same quality of life? How will that work? > everyone deserves.. And who pays?
- namarie 9y ago
  >To live a life free of consequences? To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear of not being able to adequately provide for yourself or your offspring? >And who pays? Since it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit it'd make sense for us, collectively, as a society to pay.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > To live a fulfilling life without the constant fear And this comes, for free, with no obligations? What is the standard for a "fulfilling life"? One child? A hundred? If I think my life will be fulfilled by skydiving, or playing XBox, or hookers and blow - should the state pay for those as well? > it'd be us, collectively, as a society who would benefit What you are describing is a market, but with no feedback or control; When someone ends up a burden on society due to a poor upbringing, does "society" get a refund? If we are paying for people to bring up children, it would make more sense if the we initiated it; rather than people self-select for parenthood and get child welfare as an individual right.