3 ms·

I sincerely believe the incentives are out of whack. In the US, at least the only way to "win" parenting is to not play. We should refuse to have children at al

I sincerely believe the incentives are out of whack. In the US, at least the only way to "win" parenting is to not play. We should refuse to have children at all. My hope is once we see total fertility rate shrink below one, we will start to see proper support for parents and children with things like paid paternity leave and medicare for all enshrined in our laws. That being said, I absolutely do not condone frequency jammers and were this to happen in the US, I'd argue a minimum of six months in jail is an appropriate sentence.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
Unfortunately the most realistic scenario where the birthrate drops below 1 comes from extreme economic inequality or authoritarianism. The birth rate does indeed drop as countries develop more, and as more people get educated about birth control, but controlling it beyond that is likely not a good thing. Jail time for frequency jamming seems very extreme (if you want to see the failure of jail time to curb behavior, look at how many people are in American prisons and how high their recidivism rate is).
- newjersey 5y ago
  > Jail time for frequency jamming seems very extreme (if you want to see the failure of jail time to curb behavior, look at how many people are in American prisons and how high their recidivism rate is). I find this comment interesting because I remember people were very supportive of Freakonomics (iirc) saying locking away people works. >> Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) wrote a paper in 2004 that concluded that 58 percent of the drop in violent crime during the 1990s was due to incarceration. (pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf) I am OK with no prison for the criminal in the OP. However, I would like a drop in jail time or prison sentences for more people at least for non-violent offenses. I agree that too many people are in prison in our country. > The birth rate does indeed drop as countries develop more, and as more people get educated about birth control, but controlling it beyond that is likely not a good thing. Sorry for my poor communication skills. I meant to say voluntarily, not through use of force or coercion. People are just way too optimistic about the future or maybe I am just too pessimistic...
NikolaNovak 5y ago
I think I agree with your message, though I see how it can be misinterpreted in this context. As a society, I think US is not doing enough to support parenting - paternity leave, work hours, health system, and myriad other ways to provide support and help and assistance and relief to parents. I'm in Canada, I'm lucky and blessed and privileged, my wife is getting 18 months parental leave, and parenting is STILL hard. I cannot imagine trying to do it in USA :O (If your post on the other hand is that you cannot win with the kids, you might need to elaborate to make your point clearer:)
barbazoo 5y ago
> That being said, I absolutely do not condone frequency jammers and were this to happen in the US, I'd argue a minimum of six months in jail is an appropriate sentence. Compassion much? What's the point of throwing them in jail? I can't see anything but a net negative for society. I'm having trouble understanding that desire for punishment.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  Try phoning the emergency services on a mobile phone when there's a signal jammer running.
  - barbazoo 5y ago
    And throwing them in jail does what exactly? How about educating people, how about going after those that sell these devices in the first place instead? Sure, give them a fine but jesus, don't throw them in jail.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    That doesn’t answer the parent question. Yes the jammer is dangerous and bad. Putting the father in jail doesn’t fix that or particularly help. A fine, community service or something like that seems more appropriate.
    - newjersey 5y ago
      >> That doesn’t answer the parent question. Yes the jammer is dangerous and bad. Putting the father in jail doesn’t fix that or particularly help. > A fine, community service or something like that seems more appropriate. First of all, a fine doesn't hurt everyone equally. A thousand dollars is huge for me. It is nothing for someone who makes lets say thirty eight million dollars a year. How do you say we do fines? Based on net worth? Previous year's tax return? (Allegedly, Steve Jobs paid a fine to drive without a license plate.) See, there is awareness that jail and prison are horrible places. Yet, our "solution" seems to be people like us should not go to jail or prison for things people like us might do. That is not a solution. This "tough on crime" nonsense needs to stop. 1. Jails and prisons should not be able to charge for necessities like food or hygiene products. If we can commit to keep someone locked up, we can afford to keep them clean, fed, and read on taxpayer money. 2. Nobody in jail or prison should ever have to work without their consent. No more free prison labor. 3. No for-profit private services. Phone calls from jail or prison (excluding common sense things like premium numbers) ought to be free of cost, not collect. Public libraries coming up with services like free video visitations is nice but it is not enough. It is also not available everywhere in the country. 4. I cannot believe I have to say this but zero tolerance to sexual abuse or physical in prison. If that means there can only be one person in one cell, then so be it. If it means maximum occupancy of facilities are lower, so be it. If we can commit to keep someone locked up, we can afford to keep them safe from abuse from others there. If not, we have no business locking people up. It is insane that otherwise "good people" joke about "don't drop the soap" in prison.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Unfortunately the most realistic scenario where the birthrate drops below 1 comes from extreme economic inequality or authoritarianism. The birth rate does indeed drop as countries develop more, and as more people get educated about birth control, but controlling it beyond that is likely not a good thing. Jail time for frequency jamming seems very extreme (if you want to see the failure of jail time to curb behavior, look at how many people are in American prisons and how high their recidivism rate is).

newjersey 5y ago
> Jail time for frequency jamming seems very extreme (if you want to see the failure of jail time to curb behavior, look at how many people are in American prisons and how high their recidivism rate is). I find this comment interesting because I remember people were very supportive of Freakonomics (iirc) saying locking away people works. >> Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) wrote a paper in 2004 that concluded that 58 percent of the drop in violent crime during the 1990s was due to incarceration. (pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf) I am OK with no prison for the criminal in the OP. However, I would like a drop in jail time or prison sentences for more people at least for non-violent offenses. I agree that too many people are in prison in our country. > The birth rate does indeed drop as countries develop more, and as more people get educated about birth control, but controlling it beyond that is likely not a good thing. Sorry for my poor communication skills. I meant to say voluntarily, not through use of force or coercion. People are just way too optimistic about the future or maybe I am just too pessimistic...

NikolaNovak 5y ago

I think I agree with your message, though I see how it can be misinterpreted in this context. As a society, I think US is not doing enough to support parenting - paternity leave, work hours, health system, and myriad other ways to provide support and help and assistance and relief to parents. I'm in Canada, I'm lucky and blessed and privileged, my wife is getting 18 months parental leave, and parenting is STILL hard. I cannot imagine trying to do it in USA :O (If your post on the other hand is that you cannot win with the kids, you might need to elaborate to make your point clearer:)

barbazoo 5y ago

> That being said, I absolutely do not condone frequency jammers and were this to happen in the US, I'd argue a minimum of six months in jail is an appropriate sentence. Compassion much? What's the point of throwing them in jail? I can't see anything but a net negative for society. I'm having trouble understanding that desire for punishment.

robertlagrant 5y ago
Try phoning the emergency services on a mobile phone when there's a signal jammer running.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  And throwing them in jail does what exactly? How about educating people, how about going after those that sell these devices in the first place instead? Sure, give them a fine but jesus, don't throw them in jail.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  That doesn’t answer the parent question. Yes the jammer is dangerous and bad. Putting the father in jail doesn’t fix that or particularly help. A fine, community service or something like that seems more appropriate.
  - newjersey 5y ago
    >> That doesn’t answer the parent question. Yes the jammer is dangerous and bad. Putting the father in jail doesn’t fix that or particularly help. > A fine, community service or something like that seems more appropriate. First of all, a fine doesn't hurt everyone equally. A thousand dollars is huge for me. It is nothing for someone who makes lets say thirty eight million dollars a year. How do you say we do fines? Based on net worth? Previous year's tax return? (Allegedly, Steve Jobs paid a fine to drive without a license plate.) See, there is awareness that jail and prison are horrible places. Yet, our "solution" seems to be people like us should not go to jail or prison for things people like us might do. That is not a solution. This "tough on crime" nonsense needs to stop. 1. Jails and prisons should not be able to charge for necessities like food or hygiene products. If we can commit to keep someone locked up, we can afford to keep them clean, fed, and read on taxpayer money. 2. Nobody in jail or prison should ever have to work without their consent. No more free prison labor. 3. No for-profit private services. Phone calls from jail or prison (excluding common sense things like premium numbers) ought to be free of cost, not collect. Public libraries coming up with services like free video visitations is nice but it is not enough. It is also not available everywhere in the country. 4. I cannot believe I have to say this but zero tolerance to sexual abuse or physical in prison. If that means there can only be one person in one cell, then so be it. If it means maximum occupancy of facilities are lower, so be it. If we can commit to keep someone locked up, we can afford to keep them safe from abuse from others there. If not, we have no business locking people up. It is insane that otherwise "good people" joke about "don't drop the soap" in prison.