5 ms·

>I can't find a reasonable human being that can agree with the pension system for state employees (I am actually unsure if it applies to teachers), which has to

by parfe 16y ago

>I can't find a reasonable human being that can agree with the pension system for state employees (I am actually unsure if it applies to teachers), which has to be the biggest money whole I could ever conceive. The issue with pensions is that everyone used to do it. Private and public sector both. It's just easier for the private sector to declare bankruptcy and throw away their obligations. Pensions themselves are a giant scam to steal money from future generations. It isn't a failure of government or the public sector. It's a failure of one generation to consider their children or grand children. The only people who ever thought pensions are a good idea are old or already retired. You're unlikely to meet a person like that. >It's funny how subjects like bad parenting or horrifying home lives never come into this conversation. The Leave It to Beaver household never existed. What makes you think home life has degenerated in the last 50 years?

anamax 16y ago
> The issue with pensions is that everyone used to do it. Private and public sector both. No, everyone didn't do it. At its peak, which was decades ago, 30% of the private sector was covered by pensions and many of them were pretty crappy. Pensions are now fairly rare in the privat sector.
hammmatt 16y ago
To address you comments: PENSIONS I didn't mean to criticize all pensions. Just the State of California's where you can retire and make 90% of your PEAK income for rest of your life. It is simply an unsustainable amount given how much the public sector workers make. There was a case a few weeks ago of a police chief from a small town in California who was going to earn ~$900,000 a year in retirement. It is purely ridiculous. HOMELIFE I don't think that has degenerated that much. I do think that we see the population of people who are dysfunctional emotionally, socially, and intellectually is growing at a faster rate than those who socially responsible. I do not have numbers to quote here, but is it unreasonable to assume that main factors that determine children per generation, period (in years) of a generation, and survivability of said generation. One could argue that survivability is a huge factor when it comes to inner city youth. Gang violence, malnutrition, high infant mortality rate, ext. However, in terms of the total population it is very small. However, we have a real division in class since the dawn of birth control in our country. One where people wait to have children and build a career and what-not. And another where people do not. There has also been a steady rise in teenage pregnancy. This creates a separation in the rate of a generation. We can assume that the number of children born per family are close to equal. But the truth is that families that are poorer typically reproduce more. Or maybe, the families that reproduce more are more poor. Or it could be that the people who have more money, have less children. This all doesn't mean much until you throw in a little human psychology. Given that most family dysfunctions are generational (alcoholism, sexual abuse, ext) and that these dysfunctions are commonly tied children who have poor education scores in poor families. You quickly begin see an inflation of emotionally damaged people, who just quite frankly don't have emotional resources to invest themselves in an education. Every once in a while, you get some that power through, but the human condition only permits so many. However, why the kids in functional families systems are screwing up in school? I have no idea. If I had to guess, I'd say that the way our brains learn have been changing rapidly since the invention of the internet.
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  Or it could be that the people who have more money, have less children. I don't have real numbers, but it also seems like the very rich also have quite a few children. Super rich financial people in NYC have loads of kids, almost like a hobby. I've met super rich guys here who have 8 kids with 3 different wives. It seems to have a lot to do with whether or not your kids are going to effect you negatively economically. Super rich? Who cares... Super poor? who cares. Middle class or even sort of rich? Kids are going to make your life a financial headache.
  - hammmatt 16y ago
    I found some numbers to support and condemn my earlier statements. http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/view http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5... Shows that poorer households on average have more children. However, it also shows that that population is shrinking in unison. Relatively. However, addition graphs on the website show how many dysfunctional households there are in poor communities. Which have been growing, so I stand by the original argument.

by parfe 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> The issue with pensions is that everyone used to do it. Private and public sector both. No, everyone didn't do it. At its peak, which was decades ago, 30% of the private sector was covered by pensions and many of them were pretty crappy. Pensions are now fairly rare in the privat sector.

hammmatt 16y ago

To address you comments: PENSIONS I didn't mean to criticize all pensions. Just the State of California's where you can retire and make 90% of your PEAK income for rest of your life. It is simply an unsustainable amount given how much the public sector workers make. There was a case a few weeks ago of a police chief from a small town in California who was going to earn ~$900,000 a year in retirement. It is purely ridiculous. HOMELIFE I don't think that has degenerated that much. I do think that we see the population of people who are dysfunctional emotionally, socially, and intellectually is growing at a faster rate than those who socially responsible. I do not have numbers to quote here, but is it unreasonable to assume that main factors that determine children per generation, period (in years) of a generation, and survivability of said generation. One could argue that survivability is a huge factor when it comes to inner city youth. Gang violence, malnutrition, high infant mortality rate, ext. However, in terms of the total population it is very small. However, we have a real division in class since the dawn of birth control in our country. One where people wait to have children and build a career and what-not. And another where people do not. There has also been a steady rise in teenage pregnancy. This creates a separation in the rate of a generation. We can assume that the number of children born per family are close to equal. But the truth is that families that are poorer typically reproduce more. Or maybe, the families that reproduce more are more poor. Or it could be that the people who have more money, have less children. This all doesn't mean much until you throw in a little human psychology. Given that most family dysfunctions are generational (alcoholism, sexual abuse, ext) and that these dysfunctions are commonly tied children who have poor education scores in poor families. You quickly begin see an inflation of emotionally damaged people, who just quite frankly don't have emotional resources to invest themselves in an education. Every once in a while, you get some that power through, but the human condition only permits so many. However, why the kids in functional families systems are screwing up in school? I have no idea. If I had to guess, I'd say that the way our brains learn have been changing rapidly since the invention of the internet.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago
Or it could be that the people who have more money, have less children. I don't have real numbers, but it also seems like the very rich also have quite a few children. Super rich financial people in NYC have loads of kids, almost like a hobby. I've met super rich guys here who have 8 kids with 3 different wives. It seems to have a lot to do with whether or not your kids are going to effect you negatively economically. Super rich? Who cares... Super poor? who cares. Middle class or even sort of rich? Kids are going to make your life a financial headache.
- hammmatt 16y ago
  I found some numbers to support and condemn my earlier statements. http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/view http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5... Shows that poorer households on average have more children. However, it also shows that that population is shrinking in unison. Relatively. However, addition graphs on the website show how many dysfunctional households there are in poor communities. Which have been growing, so I stand by the original argument.