Posted on 03/25/2010 4:50:59 PM PDT by NYer
success = succeed. Sloppy of me.
Well, for one thing, none of these stupi cataclysmic events are about to happen. The middle class will always be with us. Societies have a way of supporting themselves. You are describing an almost-impossible scenario.
What bothers me about your solution is that you see children as being a support system for you in your old age. That doesn't strike me as a primary reason to have children. It describes a person concerned about himself; the descriptive adjective is "selfish."
Again, sloppy of the OP. “stupi” did not belong. I was testing something.
You are 1,000% right!
Fantastic writing, btw.
Thank you. As you may have seen, rbg81 does not agree with me as to motivations. I turned 18 in 1958. Have you noticed that there have been no OldPossum children and grandchildren since then? The Earth just keeps on spinning and life goes on without them.
Thank goodness that you and I have the freedom to forego what most people want. Different strokes...
Brazilians (my future family-in-law) are very similar to Italians in the sense that religious devotion is strong in certain regions of the country (in Italy the former Papal States in the center, in Brazil the rural enclaves in the North), while very weak in others. Cafeteria Catholicism is very common throughout both countries. The differing factors in Brazil are 1. Unlike Italy, anti-Clericalism has never been strong in Brazil beyond a small group of politicians in the 19th century. 2. the shortage of priests relative to population has been a problem for much of Brazil's history, whereas in Italy, it has been a relatively recent phenomenon (although traveling priests covering multiple parishes were common in the Italian south even in the 19th century), 3. Italy doesn't have 15-20% of its population comprised of Baptists and other protestant groups, who are very vocal, very organized, and often antagonistic toward both Catholic and secular Brazilians.
In 21st Century Europe, I would put the Maltese (descendants from Phoenecians who speak a semitic language!) and the Poles at the top of the list in terms of religious devotion. France and the Netherlands probably have the least devout "Catholic" population (there are strong historical reasons for this, which I can start a whole 'nother thread on), with Austria following close behind.
You asked about Spain, which is an interesting case in point, particularly in looking at late 20th/early 21st century religious trends in Europe as a whole. While southern Spain has been a hotbed of hostile anti-clericalism for centuries now (largely due to the tenant farmer system in which the church owned the land the peasants rented, amongst other factors), you still have regions such as the Basque Country and Galicia where there are large numbers of the devout. There has even been a revival of sorts in these regions amongst young people. Nevertheless, the larger cities (Barcelona and Valencia especially, but also Madrid and Bilbao) have seen the secularizing trend that began with the fall of Franco continue unabated.
I have three kids, and I've arranged my finances so that my wife and I are unlikely to burden them. How many do you have?
As far as my scenario is concerned, it seems all too likely, particularly in Europe. The tax burden on the middle class is about as high as they will tolerate without exiting the country. The revenues needed to support the aging older generation will exceed the tax base somewhere in the next few years. Even in the US there is discussion of when (not if, WHEN) the social security pyramid will collapse.
I have no children, something for which I give thanks every day.
As to Social Security, that is no consequence to me. I have a safe retirement income.
My wife and I have two houses, one in Virginia, one in Pennsylvania, surrounded by 23 acres (VA) and 15 acres PA) of woodland. Quite idyllic, I might add.
Interesting that you identify yourself as “Papa”; I suppose that’s how you see yourself. As to me, when I was a kid I hunted possums and got the nickname “Possum”. Now, I’m OldPossum.
I could be talked into that...I think that you’re right that a huge welfare payment could backfire...and that a tax credit would do much more...perhaps apply the plan as stated, but as a tax credit only to those who pay taxes...something like that.
The key is government accepting its role in trying to keep the state from collapsing in one generation...as EVERY Western country, and modern Asian country, is in the processing of doing. After all what’s the point of having a government if it does not support the viability of the society.
I am guessing that you built a much happier, stable life after 18 than before. Given that, why would you think that you your (potential) kids would be subjected to the same fate? It seems to be your bad experiences would have been motivation to try to give them a better life. Not trying to pick on you, but I just don’t understand.
I think you’re right—we will never agree on it.
That’s from “Idiotocracy”, right?
While still a young man I became aware by way of reading some family histories that my siblings and I were likely the recipients of some bad genetic inheritances. Families on both sides were riddled with heart disease and strokes. I could find nowhere in the immediate families where any male has lived past 70. My mother died of the combination of a stroke and heart attack, my father died of a stroke. All uncles (with the exception of one who died of kidney failure at age 31) died in their mid-60s of heart attacks. I even have a younger brother (10 years younger than myself) who had a major, disabling heart attack at age 55.
I am 69, have already had one heart attack, and endured triple bypass surgery, and obviously am living on “borrowed time.” Why would anyone want to pass along such genes? Sure, you could argue that 70 is not bad but perhaps you have seen people affected by a stroke or two. Not pretty. Not living, in my estimation.
Anyway, notwithstanding the emotional toll of growing up, I never had any particular paternalistic feelings. So, everything pretty much coalesced into the decision I made, one I have never regretted. But thanks all the same; I appreciate your input.
Of course, you realize that life expectancy was much shorter a mere 100 years ago. Both my parents died of cancer, one at 67, the other at 74. Maybe that means I’ll only live to 70 too. So what? I still would have wanted my parents to have me even if I only lived to 21.
Its funny. You find it hard to believe that Materialism is a reason for not having children. But I find your perspective hard to swallow. I guess G-d just made people different. In the end. to live is to roll the dice—you just have to go with it. I have two kids and would not give ‘em up for the world.
In any case, all the best to you Sir.
Plus, why should I voluntarily submit to a system where being a male puts me at a HUGE disadvantage should a divorce or other potential bump in the road occur? No thank you.
The game has changed, mostly for the worse. You can't employ Civil War tactics in a guerrilla warfare setting and expect to win. If you do, prepare to have your ass handed to you, in pieces.
The Earth just keeps on spinning...
GOPsterinMA, I’ll amen that. A few years ago I saw a brother-in-law taken to the cleaners (the courtroom variety, that is) and largely stripped of his $1 million in assets by a vindictive wife. Children involved, of course.
The potential of losing one’s assets by decree of some family court judge is reason to be suspicious of parenthood. You are right on the money.
To address your overwhelming basis for avoiding parenthood, I think we both know what the current situation is and what the immediate future holds. Not particularly appealing is it? To have children in this political/social climate seems lunacy to me, it really does.
As an aside, political/social forces in our society weren’t always terrible. You obviously are much younger than I. I can remember with great vividness from the late 1940s on and I believe that the 1940s and 1950s, with the great freedoms we enjoyed, were a great time to be alive in America, one’s personal situation notwithstanding. If one were to be magically transported back in time to that era, having children would not be a bad idea...were one inclined to parenthood, in the first place. Not all of us are.
As far as children go, the current situation and the immediate future are more than enough for me to pass on that as well.
You certainly were fortunate to live in the times you did. No question things were better than, and it would have been an opportune time to marry and have a family, if one was so inclined. If time travel were possible, the time period you speak of is the one I'd travel to.
But, those days are long, long gone, and what has replaced that time period is a plague as far as I'm concerned.
When does a person become an adult?
I think you are right on the money when you say that what created the two income family was higher taxes. You can see that the trend started in the seventies soon after the big poison pill of all the big government LBJ “great society” programs. More money to the federal government, less money for American families.
You can see this also happening in the socialist countries of Europe where the government provides everything but the people have less and less.
Now many young adults are the children of parents who divorced in the seventies and eighties and they are fearful of commitment.
18 in my world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.