Quote:
cost of raising a child is a paraphrase of the amount spent per child
not it's not, cost signifies the baseline required to preserve the life of a given child in terms of food clothing shelter etc
amount spent is a different matter, e.g. i can spend £5 putting a supermarket brand T-shirt on my child or £45 putting a GAP t-shirt on him.
many families can't meet the baseline cost of raising more than one or two children, a third or fourth would drive them into outright poverty - hence the prevalence of aortions and children being put for adoption in low income families.
Quote:
I'm sure the parents of an only child would spend a lot more on that kid than the amount spent on each individual kid in a large family. Think about it....why would both parents need to work if they only need to spend a little bit on that one kid.
err, I think you are glossing over differences in income in a MASSIVE way. £200 pound a week spent overall on a child might be 5% of one families income and something like 35% of another.
Quote:
Also, a lot of poor families with lots of kids, only the father works
yeah, not every family can afford to pay their bills every month, much less hire an au pair so mamma and pappa can both go to work.
@ascan -
Quote:
That sentence is not strictly true. Currently in the UK, for example, we have millions of the indigenous population unemployed. Despite that you can go to many facilities and see foreigners employed almost exclusively. Although those foreigners pay tax, the state also provides their kids with schooling, and free health care. Many also send money out of the country to dependents abroad. The foreigners are taking the work of British people, and there is huge resentment growing over the situation; a situation that is completely unnecessary.
unempoyment is a structural feature of capitalism, immigration or no. Sending Johnny Foreigner back home isn't going to change the baseline employment rate one bit.
Quote:
When extra labour is required, there are a number of measures that could be taken that don't involve mass immigration,and those would include reversing the trend of increasing the length of childhood that has pushed the age for compulsory education even higher. It serves no useful purpose educating 18 year olds in , for example, media studies at the tax-payers expense. Also, when migrant labour is required they should be given work permits valid for a specific time period, and when that period is over they should leave or be deported.
Immigrant labour is cheaper - reducing overheads making a business more profitable and competitive. Again, a structural feature of capitalism.
Quote:
As for why many British people don't have kids, there are numerous reasons. For example, if you can't afford private education would you want to have to send your offspring to a state shool full of Muslims?
You ask why I call you a racist. ladies and gentlemen of the jury I present Exhibit A.
Quote:
'ascan wrote:
For example, if you can't afford private education would you want to have to send your offspring to a state shool full of Muslims? '
"And whats wrong with that? Do I sense some bigotry here? "
Just common sense, something I realise is missing in your country where ones freedom to express ones opinions is even more restricted than ours here. Most British people want their kids educated in a secular, or perhaps moderate-Christian environment where the other kids speak English.
and Exhibit B
Quote:
In addition, if you're a male as soon as you father kids you basically hand over control of your life and property to the state and your partner; that's particularly so if you're married. If you value your possessions, freedom and sanity no male in their right mind would have children in Britain today. The exception, of course, are those on state benefits for whom reproduction provides even more in additional state aid.
do you keep a jay cloth handy for when you dribble on the keyboard?
@Codarac -
Quote:
This is strange. Why is asking questions about the demographic and cultural future of white people ok if a Chinese person does it, but "racist" if a white person does it?
my mistake was inferring that the OP was also a white supremacist and a racist from the content o the post - something he/she denies hence my fairly ironic apology. It's racist either way.
Quote:
Why do you get such a self-righteous kick out of using this word "racist"?
If I get a kick at all it's from using the most accurate term available to describe you, that is as a racist.
Quote:
How is it "racist" or "supremacist" to want to preserve one's own people and their culture in the land of one's ancestors?
If you can tell me what that culture is without falling into the abvious clichés (e.g. Shakespeare, for king and country blah blah blah) I'd be impressed. And your definition of who fits the category of 'your own people' is what explicitly marks you out as a racist.
Quote:
You probably don't know. All you know is that chastising your fellow whites for their "racism" is the sign of a good Marxist.
Addressed the first sentence. Second, frequently the sign of a good Marxist is a sound grasp of historical materialism, amongst one or two others.
Quote:
People have been saying the same thing about you Marxists for decades, and it still holds. You look at the inequality and materialism of our society, and instead of just rejecting the political system that spawns it, you reject everything else as well - nature, kinship, your own cultural heritage, the whole lot. Then you end up cheerleading for groups that are culturally alien and hostile to your own just because your Marxist literature tells you they are "oppressed".
so long as you completely ignore the whole thing about, you know, the working class being the oppressed and all then that might be a remotely relevant thing to say. and more or less point by point
'materialism of our society'? Since when have Marxists been spiritual?
'reject nature' - er no
'reject kinship' - again no
'cultural heritage' - no again, Terry Eagleton springs to mind here.
and finally, no. what are you on about? so far as i can tell you are berating me in that last sentence for not being a white supremacist. Excellent. That is in fact a compliment.
@jc6chan -
Quote:
Thank you, that was the point I was trying to make all along. I was wondering why Native Europeans would choose not to have much kids and let their culture and race slowly die out.
you are implying a level of conscious choice on a group scale that simply doesn't exist.
see, i knew all the racists would come puring out of the woodwork for this thread.
14 Dec 2009, 2:14 pm
