Politics

Altitude sickness said:

Being completely fair if Biden had done what Trump is doing with beef imports, I would be raising Cain that he’s pandering and doing it just before the midterms.

First his tariffs hammer farmers and cattlemen. Even with all-time high beef prices, the margins are still thin from overhead costs. Obviously Trump thinks he can afford to lose a formerly solid part of his base, farmers and ranchers.

Click to expand...

Big_Easy said:

Shocking, it's almost like the capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive has very poor outcomes for society, and especially children. But hey, gotta keep up those corporate profits at all costs!

Click to expand...

spike.t said:

Brilliant

Click to expand...

Tanks said:

First, USA has the highest single parent household in the world at 25%. If you break it down by race it goes up to 50% for blacks.

I’d submit breakdown of the family unit has more impact on children than parents working.

Click to expand...

Tubby’s Canteen said:

Someone’s gonna have to break the news to them that they have to throw all of their tea in the harbour…

Click to expand...

Tubby’s Canteen said:

Someone’s gonna have to break the news to them that they have to throw all of their tea in the harbour…

Click to expand...

Altitude sickness said:

A weirdo that’s a good person and good parent is better than a closet abuser or a negligent parent.

Trying to think what Dolly Parton would say.

Click to expand...

rigbymauser said:

I wonder if enough englishmen would want England to be part of the US, the US would/could support/arm the resistance?. The thought might be sweet but practical?..

Click to expand...

Big_Easy said:

Shocking, it's almost like the capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive has very poor outcomes for society, and especially children. But hey, gotta keep up those corporate profits at all costs!

Click to expand...

TX049 said:

How is the "capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive" a true statement for a measurable portion of the population? At what point are you removing agency from the individual? Is this sarcasm and I'm missing it?

I lived in the same terrible apartment in the same terrible area for 6 years so I could save money to buy my first home. When I bought my first home, I rented rooms to three friends who were ecstatic that renting a room from me was hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month cheaper than renting a a studio apartment--the same friends who for years made fun of me for living in that apartment. Meanwhile, my mortgage was essentially covered by the three of them, so I was actually saving money while building equity. Those same friends, rather than saving the difference in rent money, just inflated their lifestyles. Case in point: after moving in, my one friend bought a Maserati and then would make jokes about the "almost voting age" beater that I was driving at the time.

The home we live in now I bought for < 33% of the amount I was approved of for a mortgage--because that was the cap my wife and I set for ourselves. The real estate agent didn't understand why we were "limiting ourselves" (her actual words). We (and by we I mean my wife) furnished our house from estate sales after she looked at the cost of buying new real wood (buying particle board should be a crime) furniture and about had a stroke. We spent less than $6,000 to furnish the entire home--and this home is not small. I have peers who spent as much on a sectional as we did on all of our furniture--and these are the same people who tell us how "lucky" we are that we "found" such great items and tell us how much they love the look of our home. As an added bonus realized years later, it's hard to get mad at a 2 year old for scratching furniture that costs less than dinner for two with drinks these days.

I guess it's that same "luck" that let me quit my job and start my own business. I didn't take a paycheck of any kind for 18+ months. We lived off savings and we lived frugally. I was showing up to business meetings with shirts from Goodwill and wearing the same suit for days straight. We managed though because we didn't maximize the mortgage and our cars were paid for. We cooked our own food--my wife is an amazing cook--and treated going out to eat as an indulgence instead of routine, behaviors we still hold.

My issue with your post is it's about my peer group--those of child-rearing/bearing age--and presents as victims of circumstance instead of a product of choices we made. My wife stays home. We made that decision and we made it before I started the business and at a much lower income and comfort level. A level which went even lower when she stopped working. We decided it was more important for our children that a parent is present than having extra money to "buy more stuff." We traded income and lifestyle for time spent with family. We have two children and a third arriving shortly. Our toddler did not see a screen until he was 2 and his screen time is limited exclusively to TV and not handhelds and only while my wife prepares dinner. It's 30 minutes a day, tops. That was a sacrifice in more ways than one. Entertaining a baby and toddler is exhausting. A screen is a crutch. It's a choice to use the crutch though. And, yes, we can "afford" to forgo the crutch in part because we are "buying" the time and energy to parent. But this isn't free. The cost is the opportunity cost of the lost second income and associated lifestyle. We helped my in-laws relocate nearby so we would have childcare support--again, exchanging money for time--and my parents chose to relocate near us as well after retiring.

"It takes a village" is a seemingly forgotten aphorism these days. Very few of my peers live near their parents, having left home to pursue careers. I made the same choice, but then facilitated bringing the village to me, despite the financial strain it caused it at the time. It also helps I'm married, never divorced, and we live together with our children--which I acknowledge is becoming less common as others pointed out. Quite literally among my peer group, no one has a spouse who stays home full-time, and many are on second (or third) marriages--if they even ever married in the first place. I wonder if those same peers having the "village" we do might have altered outcomes. And what choices did they make along the way that showed they had other priorities?

I got lucky in life, yes, but I also set conditions which enabled me to capitalize on that luck. I'm in my mid-30s and my friends joke I'm 3X going on 7X--perhaps more of a reflection of differing priorities than an indictment. We prioritize immediate gratification and screens embody this, all while we ignore the downsides and the costs associated. The phone does exactly what we designed it to do: keeps us entertained. But what's the cost? Realizing that money and time are convertible with an exchange rate set years before its realized is now seemingly the counter-culture. I guess I was lucky to realize this before I hit retirement and not after.

Back to the point though, what is this "capitalist machine" you're describing? Is this the social pressure placed on fully-grown adults with presumed autonomy? If so, who are you blaming and how are you going to fix it? Or is this just an expression of disgruntled sentiment because actual structural changes have real--and sometimes uncomfortable--tradeoffs?

Click to expand...

TX049 said:

How is the "capitalist machine forcing both parents to work 50+ hours a week to survive" a true statement for a measurable portion of the population? At what point are you removing agency from the individual? Is this sarcasm and I'm missing it?

I lived in the same terrible apartment in the same terrible area for 6 years so I could save money to buy my first home. When I bought my first home, I rented rooms to three friends who were ecstatic that renting a room from me was hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month cheaper than renting a a studio apartment--the same friends who for years made fun of me for living in that apartment. Meanwhile, my mortgage was essentially covered by the three of them, so I was actually saving money while building equity. Those same friends, rather than saving the difference in rent money, just inflated their lifestyles. Case in point: after moving in, my one friend bought a Maserati and then would make jokes about the "almost voting age" beater that I was driving at the time.

The home we live in now I bought for < 33% of the amount I was approved of for a mortgage--because that was the cap my wife and I set for ourselves. The real estate agent didn't understand why we were "limiting ourselves" (her actual words). We (and by we I mean my wife) furnished our house from estate sales after she looked at the cost of buying new real wood (buying particle board should be a crime) furniture and about had a stroke. We spent less than $6,000 to furnish the entire home--and this home is not small. I have peers who spent as much on a sectional as we did on all of our furniture--and these are the same people who tell us how "lucky" we are that we "found" such great items and tell us how much they love the look of our home. As an added bonus realized years later, it's hard to get mad at a 2 year old for scratching furniture that costs less than dinner for two with drinks these days.

I guess it's that same "luck" that let me quit my job and start my own business. I didn't take a paycheck of any kind for 18+ months. We lived off savings and we lived frugally. I was showing up to business meetings with shirts from Goodwill and wearing the same suit for days straight. We managed though because we didn't maximize the mortgage and our cars were paid for. We cooked our own food--my wife is an amazing cook--and treated going out to eat as an indulgence instead of routine, behaviors we still hold.

My issue with your post is it's about my peer group--those of child-rearing/bearing age--and presents as victims of circumstance instead of a product of choices we made. My wife stays home. We made that decision and we made it before I started the business and at a much lower income and comfort level. A level which went even lower when she stopped working. We decided it was more important for our children that a parent is present than having extra money to "buy more stuff." We traded income and lifestyle for time spent with family. We have two children and a third arriving shortly. Our toddler did not see a screen until he was 2 and his screen time is limited exclusively to TV and not handhelds and only while my wife prepares dinner. It's 30 minutes a day, tops. That was a sacrifice in more ways than one. Entertaining a baby and toddler is exhausting. A screen is a crutch. It's a choice to use the crutch though. And, yes, we can "afford" to forgo the crutch in part because we are "buying" the time and energy to parent. But this isn't free. The cost is the opportunity cost of the lost second income and associated lifestyle. We helped my in-laws relocate nearby so we would have childcare support--again, exchanging money for time--and my parents chose to relocate near us as well after retiring.

"It takes a village" is a seemingly forgotten aphorism these days. Very few of my peers live near their parents, having left home to pursue careers. I made the same choice, but then facilitated bringing the village to me, despite the financial strain it caused it at the time. It also helps I'm married, never divorced, and we live together with our children--which I acknowledge is becoming less common as others pointed out. Quite literally among my peer group, no one has a spouse who stays home full-time, and many are on second (or third) marriages--if they even ever married in the first place. I wonder if those same peers having the "village" we do might have altered outcomes. And what choices did they make along the way that showed they had other priorities?

I got lucky in life, yes, but I also set conditions which enabled me to capitalize on that luck. I'm in my mid-30s and my friends joke I'm 3X going on 7X--perhaps more of a reflection of differing priorities than an indictment. We prioritize immediate gratification and screens embody this, all while we ignore the downsides and the costs associated. The phone does exactly what we designed it to do: keeps us entertained. But what's the cost? Realizing that money and time are convertible with an exchange rate set years before its realized is now seemingly the counter-culture. I guess I was lucky to realize this before I hit retirement and not after.

Back to the point though, what is this "capitalist machine" you're describing? Is this the social pressure placed on fully-grown adults with presumed autonomy? If so, who are you blaming and how are you going to fix it? Or is this just an expression of disgruntled sentiment because actual structural changes have real--and sometimes uncomfortable--tradeoffs?

Click to expand...

rookhawk said:

Always the victim. FORCING both parents to work is your term, implying coercion. The responsible call it CHOICES.

Click to expand...