Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Being poor changes your thinking about everything

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#31

Post by Raphmedia »

Raphmedia wrote: post #16
murtali wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lack of access to contraceptives or family planning services?

The answer is "love", you robots.

This is an answer to "Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet?"

No, lack of contraception is not the issue here either. What, do you think that because you have low monetary gain you are perpetually unhappy and would not want to have children? That all procreation coming the poorest are mistakes and accidents?

That's quite a nice bubble there. Sorry to burst it.

If two people love each other enough, they might want to have a child. Yes, even if the future is unclear. Yes, even if it means selling the car, taking the public transportation and working over time and having multiple jobs. Whether the situation is permanent or temporary is not even an issue here.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#32

Post by discostrings »

wolfgke wrote: post #13
teddyh wrote: post #2

I'm very much reminded of these: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-... http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-devel... http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-... Especially the last one. EDIT: Fixed last link

Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? Strokes of fate that lead to poverty are one side, but the side is reproding if you are poor: I consider thi…

Responsibility is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#33

Post by wolfgke »

alexqgb wrote: post #22
wolfgke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? Strokes of fate that lead to poverty are one side, but the side is reproding if you are poor: I consider thi…

You don't have to be terribly intelligent to realize that the percentage of people who can be "100% certain" that their finances will not implode at any point in a quarter-century span is vanishingly small. Seriously, think about what you're saying here. Also, be aware that severe poverty is actually the best reason to have children. If some manage to survive, they're your best chance for care in old age. Indeed, tha…

> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having children in the first place.

Libertarians would never come up with the idea that only the richest should be allowed since this would be a deprivation of freedom (which libertarians appreciate).

I didn't they that only the richest people should have children. I only claim that it is irresponsible to produce children if you don't have enough financial security: both for the expenses and for the fact that the child will suffer from the poverty.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#34

Post by Aloha »

wolfgke wrote: post #19
Raphmedia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is "love", you robots.

Does it really show love towards your partner, if you give him/her a big future financial burden? Also: does it show love towards the prospective child to give him birth into a family where it will suffer of the poverty?

People dont produce children, Humans have sex, make babies. We've been doing it for as long as humans have existed.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#35

Post by wolfgke »

discostrings wrote: post #32
wolfgke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? Strokes of fate that lead to poverty are one side, but the side is reproding if you are poor: I consider thi…

Responsibility is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.

Because of the costs for the child there's even an incentive for the poor not to produce children.

In other cases (for example ecological awareness etc.) there is - unluckily - a chance that you are right.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#36

Post by Raphmedia »

wolfgke wrote: post #19
Raphmedia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is "love", you robots.

Does it really show love towards your partner, if you give him/her a big future financial burden? Also: does it show love towards the prospective child to give him birth into a family where it will suffer of the poverty?

That's implying that you "give" a child as a "surprise" when you are living with a partner.

Accidents being the exception, having a child is a huge decision. Especially if you are quite poor.

I have no idea what your personal experience of life is, nor your background. But you seem to have some skewed vision of life if you believe that "these people" shouldn't "produce children" as if the poor were not even humans.

Poor people have children for the same reasons rich people do. The only exception being that there are less gifts at christmas.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#37

Post by hosh »

discostrings wrote: post #32
wolfgke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own feet? Strokes of fate that lead to poverty are one side, but the side is reproding if you are poor: I consider thi…

Responsibility is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.

That sounds really profound, except it isn't. That assertion is another way of justifying or rationalizing learned helplessness.

It is true that there are a lot of things that suck, that few people with access to resources really empathize with those in scarcity trap. Thing is, people are not as helpless as they like to think they are.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#38

Post by alexqgb »

wolfgke wrote: post #33
alexqgb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be terribly intelligent to realize that the percentage of people who can be "100% certain" that their finances will not implode at any point in a quarter-century span is vanishingly small. Seriously, think about what you're saying here. Also, be aware that severe poverty is actually the best reason to have children. If some manage to survive, they're your best chance for care in old age. Indeed, tha…

> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having children in the first place. Libertarians would never come up with the idea that only the richest should be allowed since this would be a deprivation of freedom (which libertarians appreciate). I didn't they that only the richest people should have children. I only…

Sorry dude, but you very specifically said that parents need to be "100% certain" that they can provide for their kids until their kids can provide for themselves. In America, that standard means one thing and one thing only: the richest of the rich.

Also, it doesn't take much education to become aware of this country's long and unbroken history of race-based brutality (slavery, Jim Crow, and the War on Drugs to say nothing of the outright genocide inflicted on Native Americans). Nor do you have to be exceptionally thoughtful to recognize the resulting correlations between race and poverty that persist today. And given how deeply engrained these problems have become, saying "poor people simply shouldn't reproduce" is tantamount to insisting that entire races suddenly give up on themselves in a sweeping acts of self-destruction. Which, yeah, right. Maybe go fuck yourself?

There's another, far more decent response to systematically denigrated people who struggle mightily to raise their kids: you help them.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#39

Post by jpau »

teddyh wrote: post #17
narrator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I keep thinking when I read these is if poor one should live with a large number of roommates you trust and share expenses and pitch in to help each other in an emergency. This in how people survive in developing countries. Something has collapsed in America though and everyone HAS to live by themselves and can't seem to trust anybody else.

There's a problem starting such a collective (which is, in effect, what you are proposing): Housing. To have many people live together, you need square footage (or m², for metric people). This necessitates a large apartment or house. Such a thing, (if not bought outright, ha, ha, just kidding), will be expensive. The landlord will need a single legal person to be responsible for the paying of this rent, and own the l…

oops! I hit the wrong reply

6ren is right, but it's not the whole story. In addition to to being able to have multiple people each entirely responsible for a single lease, we (Australia) have a very generous "student allowance" scheme for most students. This guarantees us students a fortnightly income that is almost certainly at least whatever we would be paying in rent + utilities.

My situation is such an example. I live with three other students and one adorable puppy in an expensive city (Brisbane, Queensland - Numbeo.com estimates Brisbane's living costs as ~87% of NYC's). We live just ~5km or ~3 miles from either of the two local universities, and just above 2km or ~1.5 miles from the CBD. Rent is not cheap in our area.

Yet we had no insurmountable problems obtaining a lease. Rental applications are competitive in this area, so we did have to apply for a lot of leases - but credit concerns were never a problem. Despite being employed for maybe just 12 hours a week each, money is not in question - there are four people each entirely responsible for the rent who are guaranteed social benefits that amount to at least enough for their share.

Unemployed Australians also receive similar social benefits provided they keep applying for jobs.

Re: Being poor changes your thinking about everything

#40

Post by alexqgb »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #28
alexqgb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be terribly intelligent to realize that the percentage of people who can be "100% certain" that their finances will not implode at any point in a quarter-century span is vanishingly small. Seriously, think about what you're saying here. Also, be aware that severe poverty is actually the best reason to have children. If some manage to survive, they're your best chance for care in old age. Indeed, tha…

- The GP did not say anything about the richest of the rich only having children, nor did they say that they were libertarian. - Calling the GP an asshole and implying that they aren't "terribly intelligent" can only serve to detract from your argument. EDIT: At least you took out the asshole comment

He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that group is both certainly and obviously limited to the richest of the rich.
Post reply on HN