Who said anything about "only people with nice houses in nice areas should have kids"? Nice is purely subjective - for some people it will be in a "poorer" area, for others it will be in a "prestigious" area - that is subjective based on the couple in question.
Erm, you did a couple of posts up. I even quoted you.
Granted, people should not expect the government to pay for their children, however do you not think that the government have created this problem and then people have cottoned onto this and abused a flawed system?
Also.
Every single working family with one worker in the workplace provides enough value to society to warrant raising a family. Why is it they could do this in 1492 but not now!
The reason is that we thought we would be smart and send women into the marketplace. This saturated the marketplace with labor. This and many other things meant employers could pay below subsistence wages.
The real question is: Why in the 21st century do we expect people to contribute to society--usually both spouses--without making enough money to raise two kids.
Employers and taxpayers should not expect to reap from someone's labor "if they cannot afford to" pay them a subsistence wage.
And NO, it is not about McMansions. It is about basic homes that our parents used to live in, that now a single college grad cannot afford.
Our parents could afford a 1500 square foot home with one income generator and 2.5 kids and two used, if not one new, cars.
Why is it now hard to have the same with TWO income-earners? Only the highest-paid single professionals I know can buy a house these days, without getting a partner or roommates.
Because we have chosen for it to be that way. Because we are working harder and harder but pure free-market economics means we will continue to get paid as little as possible.
They are blaming the victims.
Where are the rewards of a lifetime of skyrocketing technology? They are not shared with the machines of productivity, the workers, nor do pure free-market capitalists believe they should be.
I am in no way a socialist, as conservatives everywhere love to label people. I simply think if we could make a living by one person working in 1492 or 1970 we should be able to do so now with the skyrocketing advances ALL WORKERS have contributed to.
Working harder, advancing productivity, building technology to enhance production....the average worker's lifestyle in terms of ability to live month to month is going DOWN.
WHY?
Because in terms of pay we are simply owing our souls to the company store because the average worker makes less than enough to buy a reasonable house and car and future. Then, optimistic creatures we are, we try to make up for it on credit.
Solutions include many things, including:
*Entrepreneurship, but many fall victim to pyramid schemes and such
*Adjusting taxes to allow someone subsistence income
*Balancing pay for the common man who, like AIG execs, may just have a motivational problem showing up for less than a million dollars a year.....OK, it doesn't have to be a million for most....
*Reinstating the "Death Tax" which to this day no dead person ever complained about, only rich "entitled" heirs.
*Encouraging entrepreneurship
*Requiring any govt. contractor to pay a living wage.
When we have 1% of the population with 90 or 99% of the wealth, yet workers unable to afford families, we DO have a problem with wealth distribution.
Fact is that we could afford more, even equal for equal, in 1970 by far than now. ONE person supported a family instead of TWO struggling.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}