3 ms·

You're barking at a wrong tree here. Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. You solve nothi

• 2ion 9y ago
  > Absolute absolute majority of children in poverty and without access to education are born outside the USA. That's a fact. Just that doesn't mean that the USA would do better now or in the future with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children inside its own borders. Also, I wasn't explicitly limiting my argument to the United States on purpose. > You solve nothing other than being explicitly mean to (I assume) your compatriots. [I'm not American.] All I'm advocating is a realistic and pragmatic approach to demographic management. The goal should be to ameliorate life for any given compatriot in the long run. Though of course in the long run, the population of the present will be dead.
  • thriftwy 9y ago
    > with more poor people giving birth to more disadvantaged children Maybe they wouldn't be poor if not for excessive charges in some areas? How is that for an idea? Many people who are considered "poor" in the USA, would be considered "totally ok, just in slightly disadvantaged line of work" in less polarizing locales. That after a safety net that won't put $10k worth of charges on you after hospital visit. There are poor and marginal, who should probably be incentivized to avoid children - and then there's working poor, who should have their condition fixed. That's all.