oldschool CxC

Friday, December 22, 2006

I've looked over the blog a few times and I've been trying to properly phrase replies and comments to previous posts such that they mostly have gone by and may be out of mind.

so, to not lose more time, i will write a few words from whatever comes to mind.

In ref. to sony's post 12/12:
I can't figure out where this guy is coming from. Either this is done tongue-in-cheek or this guy truly dislikes doctors. If this is supposed to be some kind of joke, he probably needs to work on his delivery. If this is coming from his true feelings (and the other paper he references seems to point this way...), this guy is pretty sad. But if he doesn't think doctors help or are of any use, he doesn't have to go see them.

ref. s 11/21:
I want one of those too, but I'm not paying a scalper, and it's not worth my time to sit in the cold. sounds like a good birthday present...

ref. s 11/15:

This is the post I really wanted to comment on, and I have been thinking about it for awhile now, especially in reference to the concept of the "tragedy of the commons." This post got me thinking about children and what is needed to raise children in general. With respect to medicine, if you have money (even a bit), having children is rather expensive. If you have no money, having children is free and, in fact, beneficial, since many goods and services are offered to you for free. Thus, for a person of modest to comfortable means, children are financially disadvantageous more or less. People at the poverty level are presented with incentives to having children, and since some benefits expire at certain age levels, they are motivated to have more children to continue said benefits. And what of these children? If you believe in the cycle of poverty, they repeat the process, and their population will grow exponentially, leaving a large group of individuals which are in need of goods and services, with little or no contribution of their own.

I have other thoughts, but I'll send this out and see what you guys say (expecting to be flamed...). Maybe you can give me an alternative viewpoint. I'd love to discuss this.


Blogger REkz said...

Interesting on the having children is negative if you have $$$, but opposite if you're broke.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way perhaps is that the imbalances in the system were adjusted by social programs so that poor people (many who's ancestors had been enslaved) could have children and the family need not starve.

Generally, those children were the grunts that did all the hard labor jobs and worked in industries during our 'industrial revolution'.

Taking it a step further, the $$$ poor people get from social services from having kids could be seen as their only pay-back after years of back-breaking work where the boss got most of the profit.

Wealthy people generally don't need the same social supports b/c they can purchase better ones (medical, food, clothes, education, etc), and most are already taking advantage of the social infrastructure with businesses, properties, etc.

Perhaps the system is imbalanced too far the other way, this is possible.

I did like how in Austria the govt pays women to have children b/c the country's birthrate is down. The standard is men get 6 mo's off, and women get 2 years paid time to raise their children. Perhaps it has to do with wanting tons of White Aryans to be running around, or maybe it's bc their society is far more homogeneous than ours, but it seems like a good policy.

I think children that get quality time with their parents generally are better socialized and do better later in life.

Last point -- I think the USA just proved that, if it was a priority, the tax $$$ could easily pay for parents to have time off with their new children, free college educations for all, and a 'dole' (ie handout) to set a bottom-line of poverty in the country and end homelessness as we see it. I believe the war cost so far is impressive --> 'Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion | csmonitor.com'

But the ROI for social spending is more PUBLIC wealth, where-as the return on investment for war is more PRIVATE wealth.

At least, that's how I see it.

Unlike Glenn, I'm not open to getting FLAMED. But if you have a contrary point, as no doubt a few of you do, I'm interested to hear it.

3:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home