Or, so said a highly professional type some years ago, online, in a casual conversation. (He wasn't an economist - IIRC, anyway.)

I don't get it. One might as well argue that owning a CAR isn't expensive, even after it's been paid for, whether or not you really need one. (Of course, a used car, even a decent one, might not turn out to be cost-effective in the long run.) And if you don't have kids but you do have and need your car, that clearly means that any future expenses will become all the more debatable.

Or that cats and dogs aren't expensive to feed and care for. Tell that to any parent who's had to explain to a tearful child why the family can't have one, since the neighbors do. Or to any adult who's been forced to surrender a beloved pet to a shelter.

How CAN people argue that, unless they make more money than the average American? Lots of American couples will tell you they'd like to have more children than they have, but they "just can't afford to." (And the birth rate is currently at 1.64.)

Somehow, I doubt that all such couples firmly believe in keeping up with the Joneses - or that every child in a family of six deserves a separate bedroom.

I suspect one GOOD reason children are more expensive than they used to be is that it's too easy, in this century, for your reputation to be ruined for life if you break the law, even if you were tricked into it as a teen. In other words, modern parents are desperate to keep their kids closely monitored, via after-school programs and such, so that when the kids' unsupervised peers get in trouble with the law, the other kids can prove they weren't there. (In the past, suburban kids, at least, were often under the eye of their homemaker mothers.)

Your thoughts?

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:49:16 AM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
> Or, so said a highly professional type some years ago, online, in a casual conversation. (He wasn't an economist - IIRC, anyway.)
>
> I don't get it. One might as well argue that owning a CAR isn't expensive, even after it's been paid for, whether or not you really need one. (Of course, a used car, even a decent one, might not turn out to be cost-effective in the long run.) And if you don't have kids but you do have and need your car, that clearly means that any future expenses will become all the more debatable.
>
> Or that cats and dogs aren't expensive to feed and care for. Tell that to any parent who's had to explain to a tearful child why the family can't have one, since the neighbors do. Or to any adult who's been forced to surrender a beloved pet to a shelter.
>
> How CAN people argue that, unless they make more money than the average American? Lots of American couples will tell you they'd like to have more children than they have, but they "just can't afford to." (And the birth rate is currently at 1.64.)
>
> Somehow, I doubt that all such couples firmly believe in keeping up with the Joneses - or that every child in a family of six deserves a separate bedroom.
>
> I suspect one GOOD reason children are more expensive than they used to be is that it's too easy, in this century, for your reputation to be ruined for life if you break the law, even if you were tricked into it as a teen. In other words, modern parents are desperate to keep their kids closely monitored, via after-school programs and such, so that when the kids' unsupervised peers get in trouble with the law, the other kids can prove they weren't there. (In the past, suburban kids, at least, were often under the eye of their homemaker mothers.)
>
> Your thoughts?

Institution of the family has suffered in the U.S., along with church, marriage, public schools, government, entertainment industry, military, and what's in the Constitution.

Our democracy has been exploited by organized crime, politicians, and the philosophy of relativism that rationalizes imbalances. Like economists explain that our inflated currency and higher taxes is balanced by more money in circulation and rise of salaries. Everything costs more, but wages rise accordingly. So right now, this month, congress is deciding whether a rise in the debt ceiling is necessary to continue funding excesses and deficit spending, AIUI.

The plight of women, historically subservient to men, and now complicated by their loss of function as mothers, family centers, and self-identity as a public attraction, is being improved by change in the "glass ceiling" of jobs and inheiritors of wealth, as women live longer than men. Vice-President Harris has said that as President she would ensure that reparations would be made for blacks as slavery survivors .

Possibly single women seeking support from social services to survive are responsible for bearing fatherless children, who in turn repeat the cycle. Probably a lot of the political chicanery, gangsterism, violence, drug trafficking, and prostitution comes from loss of family support? "Alone and afraid, in a world I never made."