3 ms·
That is one thing, and it is important, but what I said encompasses a lot more people and needs, so I think it doesn't quite "come down to" merely helping this
by pfkurtz 5y ago
That is one thing, and it is important, but what I said encompasses a lot more people and needs, so I think it doesn't quite "come down to" merely helping this one specific set of "problematic" adults you personally have some experience with. Maybe some problems are directly caused by what you said.
"Shoveling fiat into the household." We had the biggest drop in child poverty during the pandemic (too bad it's temporary), because we gave people money. If you want to limit the supply of dollars raise taxes on the top, that's where all the "fiat" (lol) ends up after just a couple steps.
What I said is much more general: our society must devote sufficient resources that all children have the opportunity to flourish.
- pfkurtz 5y agoSorry I read "all" but you wrote "also", which is more in accord. Sorry! Nevertheless I think what you said is a special case of what I said.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoSociety needs less kids overall imho, based on the quantity of capable family units fit to parent. Parenting and children should be a privilege, not a right. More money doesn’t fix terrible parents/households, and they’re numerous to say the least.
- pfkurtz 5y agoPeople have fewer children as economic opportunities increase. All over the world birth rates are falling—even India is approaching below-replacement. So you can probably move on from your concern, and focus on getting the benefits of economic development to everyone, problem solved!