Amy Alkon has a column at PJM about rich people having too many kids. Okay, maybe adopting kids around the world like a fashion accessory like Angelina Jolie is a bit much but in general, I'm glad those with money are having kids. Would it be better if they were poor?
posted by Helen at 11:43 AM
23 Comments:
If the rich want to have a bunch of kids then they should go for it. Just as long as they agree to pay for their children's health insurance, their schooling, and give them a strong enough moral compass so that they don't break any laws when they get older. I'd rather have the rich having the kids than this latest group from the middle class who now feel that the rest of us should pay for their kid's medical needs. Enough already, pay to play.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm with Cham on this one. Why should we care what the rich pay for nannies, etc. as long as they pay it?
You could easily create a long list of advantages of rich people having kids vs. lower economic classes having kids. But, then, you'd be labeled every kind of bigot in the book. Attacking the rich is a favorite past time of liberals. Many of whom are rich themselves, or close to it.
She didn't even write an article... she just quoted someone else. And the "articles" just sound like jealousy or confusion because someone else is doing something they wouldn't do. I didn't see any indication of a problem other than "I don't understand why they do this."
The gist of the article was "Rich people are having lots of kids and spending lots of money to raise them." Duh?
Maybe she had a deadline and couldn't think of anything to write...
EI
I think I just saw a movie about this kind of debate. "Idiocracy"
In general, birth rates decrease with affluence, so I think we are talking about a very small segment of the world population.
Personally, I would prefer that those with the means adopt. The world has a glut of starving children; if you have the means, why not do something for the human race right now instead of creating an exponentially expanding family of heirs?
Having all of those kids doesn't just mean that you have to provide for them. Ultimately all of their offspring must be provided for as well. I think we all know of cases where wealthy peoples' kids didn't inherit the genes which enable them to create wealth.
I'm sure we'll all do fine as the human race marches onward into the future, but I think there is something a little selfish, even arrogant, about reproducing like a rabbit.
"I think there is something a little selfish, even arrogant, about reproducing like a rabbit."
Why? Tumbling birth rates in the developed west are a far greater concern. If you can support and raise a large family why not do it?
"Sorry, I don’t think the rich are having children because they are “fun.” And come on, are they? For the most part? "
Is the author questioning that the wealthy have children because they are "fun", or questioning whether children are, for the most part, fun? That would be odd coming from a parent.
When reading her opinions, one must consider the source, a person who literally takes pride in being a bitch. I do, however, agree with her view on BJs.
tomcal --
Your preferences are something for you to live by, not others.
How is the adoption of a malnourished child from another place on earth doing something for the human race and bearing and raising a healthy one not?
Keep in mind, by worldly standards of wealth, you should be adopting a couple at the moment.
If you can afford it, I say you should have as many children as can handle. It's nice to bring children up in a comfortable environment. In third world countries, plenty of people have lots of children, but that tends to recreate the poor environment. People in wealthy countries should be having more children if they are capable. I don't understand why Molly Jong-Fast thinks it's better if the children are from several families. According to Wikipedia, Amy Alkon is a staunch atheist. My uncle is an agnostic is also against large families. I would think they were support passing on your genetic line.
I find this ridiculous. At least they can afford it.
I am the middle child of five. Were I an only child, perhaps I'd have had better bicycles growing up.
As a dad, kids are expensive to raise. But boy, have we had fun along the way.
I'm at a loss as to why this particular article was even written. Like earnest iconoclast said, maybe she had a deadline and was drawing a blank.
One problem is that cute little fashion accessory babies grow up to be teenagers. Are these rich parents going to so enthusiastic then or toss them aside? Just asking.
I disagree with Amy Alkon's assertion that "we’d all be better off" if the rich didn't have kids. Her argument is based on the fact that it costs a lot of money to raise them, but isn't that good for the economy? Millions of dollars being spent on education, clothing, and consumer goods that never would have been?
I think that a better argument could be made that we’d all be worse off!
Quite so. Round these parts it's the poor who breed like rabbits, and frankly it's not doing anyone much good. I always say, don't have kids you can't afford. If you can afford more you can have more.
I'm just saying..... seems some folks have babies when the rent goes up. You know... a pay raise.
oliginicella:
I have.
Oligonicella:
I don't know whether the difference between bearing a child or a adopting a child does anything for humans, but you can imagine the diminished carbon foot print (using the latest PC language here) if you simply find a kid already exists and will exist anyway, as opposed to creating a whole new one. Maybe no impact on humans but a heck of an impact on the earth.
I have one child. That is all I felt I could properly support, but if you got it, flaunt it.
My only argument is with people who expect my taxes to take care of their spawn.
For millenia, the richer have had more kids than the poorer. The ability to do so is one of the great driving forces us as humans.
It is only recently that the dynamic has switched, with those making more having fewer kids. Part of that is the cost of raising kids and part is the cost of often having to give up a second income to do so.
When I was growing up as a Baby Boomer, it seemed like most families had four or five kids. Now, families of that size seem to be mostly concentrated in the poor, in the fairly rich, and in some religions (ever been to Utah?) In the rich, it seems to be another example of conspicuous consumption. Indeed, my experience is that the one place outside of Utah where I have seen a lot of 4 and 5 kid families is in prep schools.
I would suggest that the real reason for this complaint about the rich is that they are not acting politically correctly. But then, private jets, 10,000 square foot (or larger) houses, etc. are not politically correct either.
but you can imagine the diminished carbon foot print (using the latest PC language here) if you simply find a kid already exists and will exist anyway, as opposed to creating a whole new one. Maybe no impact on humans but a heck of an impact on the earth.
I'm not sure if you really buy into this argument, but I think the women who really refuse to have children because of this should be given a Darwin Award.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
情色交友色情遊戲情色視訊色情色情網站非常好色天下第一色站免費視訊辣妹色色辣妺視訊免費線上a片85cc免費影片絕色影城hinet遊戲網嘟嘟成人網h漫avhello成人電影院h大奶妹做愛影片視訊做愛百分百成人av圖片aa片免費看影片
Post a Comment
<< Home