4 ms·

Don't you think it's telling that you're saying they can't afford it, meanwhile much poorer people are still having children and starting families? The hidden

by mod 4y ago

Don't you think it's telling that you're saying they can't afford it, meanwhile much poorer people are still having children and starting families? The hidden catch in your comment is perhaps that they can't afford to have children and raise them in the way you (or whomever) thinks they should. I don't think it's a fail for our species at all. I could agree to disagree that it's a failure of some of our current societies.

notch656a 4y ago
Much poorer people can't afford it either. Something like half of births in US are on medicaid premiums paid for in part by taxpayers who themselves can't afford to have kids.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I don't think it's the births themselves people are complaining about the cost of. More things like housing.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Being reliant on public benefits to support and birth your family is pretty much the definition of not being able to afford it.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      I dunno, where I live hospital care (including birthing) is free (tax-payer funded) for everyone. In which case it seems to make more sense to say that everyone can afford it, not that nobody can. It's the things the state doesn't pay for that people can't afford, not the things it does.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        In the US, the mother being on Medicaid is highly correlative with them and/or the child being on other public benefits. On the micro level (an individual birth), it implies nothing other than they were eligible for Medicaid. On the macro level ("nearly half of births") it implies a lot more. When health-care is universally tax-payer funded, the differential between the free-market unregulated premium you would pay for what you get and what you actually pay in taxes for it represents the net public benefit you've extracted. If you earn nothing, then odds are you can't afford health care even though you get it.
        nicoburns 4y ago
        I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? There may be many other things that that person can't afford, but the thing provided to them is not one of them.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. It makes more sense when you step back and realize it isn't provided for free. If you don't pay taxes, it was provided by others who could afford to pay for it on your behalf. Someone else could afford it, and you got it. If you otherwise could have afforded it on your own or paid the tax that represents at least the free-market rate at which you would have got it, then you could have afforded it. >Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? The unsubsidized cost of the road for an individual isn't the cost to construct the road, it's the free market value of the utility the road provides them. While not perfectly reflected, a toll charged by a private toll road will give a ballpark of what that cost is. Similarly if you earn nothing, have no money, and use the roads freely provided to you then you cannot afford the roads. But you're still provided use of the road. Someone else was able to afford the roads, and they paid for it instead. You're completely dependent on the charity of the public to allow you using roads you yourself didn't pay for -- and that would be pretty much the definition of being unable to afford something you were provided. Whereas if you paid taxes commensurate with your use of the roads, then it's safe to say you can afford to use the roads. In this manner, people often have kids they can't afford, and instead others who can afford to pay (at least partially) for them do so in the form of Medicaid / WIC / EBT / Section 8 and other benefits.
hiram112 4y ago
Can't speak for other countries, but in the US there is a point where being poorer would almost certainly make it easier to have and raise children than being middle class. Most social benefits in the US (besides entitlements for older people which are, by far, the most costly) are distributed primarily to women with kid(s) and low income. Though it greatly depends on the state, a single mother with low income could expect: * full health insurance through Medicaid * Food subsidies i.e. SNAP, WIC, etc. * Section 8 housing (which can often times be very nice housing in extremely desirable neighborhoods of large cities like DC, NYC, SF). * TANF a.k.a. welfare cash * free tuition / grants / job training through dozens of federal, state, and private programs * free daycare (again through dozens of fed, state, and private programs, often included with job training grants) * public transportation vouchers * down payment and first-home buyer programs. Compare that to the same-aged single or married woman living in the exact same city making $75K. She may literally live next door to the theoretical subsidized woman described above, yet be paying 60% or more of her take-home pay in rent alone. She will be paying hundreds of dollars / month for health insurance and have a $2K deductible to boot. No food or any other subsidies. Add a few hundred dollars / month for her tuition loans, and she has $0 left at the end of the month which means she will (correctly) feel unable to afford a child, especially when child-care will cost her up to $2K / month. But at least her corporate employer will pay for her abortion!
- mod 4y ago
  That's a great creative example, except that she has a lot of options with her $75k/yr salary to afford kids. In your example she's making an absolutely terrible financial decision to spend 60% of her income on housing--rent, no less. And that is apparently inflexible. I wonder what percentage of children is raised in homes making under $75,000? I would venture a huge majority in America, and approaching 100% when you account for the whole planet.

by mod 4y ago

notch656a 4y ago

Much poorer people can't afford it either. Something like half of births in US are on medicaid premiums paid for in part by taxpayers who themselves can't afford to have kids.

nicoburns 4y ago
I don't think it's the births themselves people are complaining about the cost of. More things like housing.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Being reliant on public benefits to support and birth your family is pretty much the definition of not being able to afford it.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    I dunno, where I live hospital care (including birthing) is free (tax-payer funded) for everyone. In which case it seems to make more sense to say that everyone can afford it, not that nobody can. It's the things the state doesn't pay for that people can't afford, not the things it does.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      In the US, the mother being on Medicaid is highly correlative with them and/or the child being on other public benefits. On the micro level (an individual birth), it implies nothing other than they were eligible for Medicaid. On the macro level ("nearly half of births") it implies a lot more. When health-care is universally tax-payer funded, the differential between the free-market unregulated premium you would pay for what you get and what you actually pay in taxes for it represents the net public benefit you've extracted. If you earn nothing, then odds are you can't afford health care even though you get it.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? There may be many other things that that person can't afford, but the thing provided to them is not one of them.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. It makes more sense when you step back and realize it isn't provided for free. If you don't pay taxes, it was provided by others who could afford to pay for it on your behalf. Someone else could afford it, and you got it. If you otherwise could have afforded it on your own or paid the tax that represents at least the free-market rate at which you would have got it, then you could have afforded it. >Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? The unsubsidized cost of the road for an individual isn't the cost to construct the road, it's the free market value of the utility the road provides them. While not perfectly reflected, a toll charged by a private toll road will give a ballpark of what that cost is. Similarly if you earn nothing, have no money, and use the roads freely provided to you then you cannot afford the roads. But you're still provided use of the road. Someone else was able to afford the roads, and they paid for it instead. You're completely dependent on the charity of the public to allow you using roads you yourself didn't pay for -- and that would be pretty much the definition of being unable to afford something you were provided. Whereas if you paid taxes commensurate with your use of the roads, then it's safe to say you can afford to use the roads. In this manner, people often have kids they can't afford, and instead others who can afford to pay (at least partially) for them do so in the form of Medicaid / WIC / EBT / Section 8 and other benefits.

hiram112 4y ago

Can't speak for other countries, but in the US there is a point where being poorer would almost certainly make it easier to have and raise children than being middle class. Most social benefits in the US (besides entitlements for older people which are, by far, the most costly) are distributed primarily to women with kid(s) and low income. Though it greatly depends on the state, a single mother with low income could expect: * full health insurance through Medicaid * Food subsidies i.e. SNAP, WIC, etc. * Section 8 housing (which can often times be very nice housing in extremely desirable neighborhoods of large cities like DC, NYC, SF). * TANF a.k.a. welfare cash * free tuition / grants / job training through dozens of federal, state, and private programs * free daycare (again through dozens of fed, state, and private programs, often included with job training grants) * public transportation vouchers * down payment and first-home buyer programs. Compare that to the same-aged single or married woman living in the exact same city making $75K. She may literally live next door to the theoretical subsidized woman described above, yet be paying 60% or more of her take-home pay in rent alone. She will be paying hundreds of dollars / month for health insurance and have a $2K deductible to boot. No food or any other subsidies. Add a few hundred dollars / month for her tuition loans, and she has $0 left at the end of the month which means she will (correctly) feel unable to afford a child, especially when child-care will cost her up to $2K / month. But at least her corporate employer will pay for her abortion!

mod 4y ago
That's a great creative example, except that she has a lot of options with her $75k/yr salary to afford kids. In your example she's making an absolutely terrible financial decision to spend 60% of her income on housing--rent, no less. And that is apparently inflexible. I wonder what percentage of children is raised in homes making under $75,000? I would venture a huge majority in America, and approaching 100% when you account for the whole planet.