Don't have kids you can't AFFORD.

[RagJohn]

It takes 1/2 mill $ US to properly raise each kid. That is, without sponging off of the public for the kid's schooling. Until you and your spouse can put 1/2 mill $ in escrow, do not have a kid. It's that simple. Then,(MAYBE) if things fall apart, in general or just your marriage, your kid won't be another one of those kicked out of the nest before he can fly. If that money isnt there, not only will he not be properly educated/trained, you won't be able to retire with dignity, soon enough to appreciate life, and be able to help others as you should. What's the RUSH, anyway? A woman need not have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 40. So she can have 10 yrs worth of savings and investment, he can have 20 year's worth. If 30 years of such prudence hasn't totaled half a million $, they are among the MANY who should not BE parents, because they are most unlikely to do a proper job of it, in today's US, that is. Because of our horrific taxation rate (15% of SS for the self employed, on top of 5% state income tax and 35% federal) it's quite difficult to actually clear more than 10% per year on your investments, unless you get your money overseas, avoiding taxes, which is illegal while you remain a US citizen.

If you make 25% per year on investments, which is not easy, and lose say, 40% to taxes,ss, etc, then you clear 15% per year. However, since 1970, we have averaged 5% per year of inflation. That means that your 25% rate of return was REALLY only 10% per year. This makes it very hard to get ahead, unless you clear over 50k a year, and know how (and have the discipline) to live on 20k a year. This is all for the single person, no kids. If you can invest 30k per year, and make a real 10%, then you can have over 400k in 9 years. Put 300k at a REAL 10% per year, and make 30k per year off of it. If you have emigrated to Chile, this will suffice to retire upon, and you won't be taxed as badly, either. That will let you raise one kid properly (there) Keep 25K at hand for expenses, and have 75k in gold coins, against a disaster. Then you are as "well-covered" as anyone ever gets in this life. If you have a worthwhile spouse, or can clear a lot more than 50k a year, it need not take as long.

This is all if, and that's a big if, no economic disaster strikes the US. I believe it will, and soon, too. The reason gold doubled in price in 4 years is that other countries KNOW how we "paid for" the bailout, the infrastucture building, and how we will attempt to pay for Obamacare. Simply by printing more US dollars. So they have "bid" the price of gold up (in US dollars). It will never be bought for less than $1000 per oz again. It will probably be $2000 per oz within a year or two.

Edited December 23, 2010 by RagJohn

[kiaer.ts]

It takes 1/2 mill $ US to properly raise each kid. That is, without sponging off of the public for the kid's schooling. Until you and your spouse can put 1/2 mill $ in escrow, do not have a kid. It's that simple. Then,(MAYBE) if things fall apart, in general or just your marriage, your kid won't be another one of those kicked out of the nest before he can fly. If that money isnt there, not only will he not be properly educated/trained, you won't be able to retire with dignity, soon enough to appreciate life, and be able to help others as you should. What's the RUSH, anyway? A woman need not have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 40. So she can have 10 yrs worth of savings and investment, he can have 20 year's worth. If 30 years of such prudence hasn't totaled half a million $, they are among the MANY who should not BE parents, because they are most unlikely to do a proper job of it, in today's US, that is. Because of our horrific taxation rate (15% of SS for the self employed, on top of 5% state income tax and 35% federal) it's quite difficult to actually clear more than 10% per year on your investments, unless you get your money overseas, avoiding taxes, which is illegal while you remain a US citizen. If you make 25% per year on investments, which is not easy, and lose say, 40% to taxes,ss, etc, then you clear 15% per year. However, since 1970, we have averaged 5% per year of inflation. That means that your 25% rate of return was REALLY only 10% per year. This makes it very hard to get ahead, unless you clear over 50k a year, and know how (and have the discipline) to live on 20k a year. This is all for the single person, no kids. If you can invest 30k per year, and make a real 10%, then you can have over 400k in 9 years. Put 300k at a REAL 10% per year, and make 30k per year off of it. If you have emigrated to Chile, this will suffice to retire upon, and you won't be taxed as badly, either. Keep 25K at hand for expenses, and have 75k in gold coins, against a disaster. Then you are as "well-covered" as anyone ever gets in this life.

Exactly. Smart people and Objectivists should not have children. Just leave it to the stupid people and the isl@mists.

[9thdoctor]

It takes 1/2 mill $ US to properly raise each kid. That is, without sponging off of the public for the kid's schooling. Until you and your spouse can put 1/2 mill $ in escrow, do not have a kid. It's that simple.

How about when the present value of your expected future income includes that extra half mil? Still too much uncertainty? The people that understand these concepts aren’t the ones having more children than they can handle, so I don’t see why you’re sharing this here. Nevertheless, this called to mind one of Leonard Peikoff’s better moments:

[sjw]

Wow. The human race wouldn't exist if this were actually followed. Environmentalists are cheering.

Shayne

[Selene]

John:

Do you have any children?

If so, have you raised them through to their leaving the home to be self sustaining productive citizens?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If evolution means reproductive success, any group of humans that willfully decides not to reproduce--or cut it to a minimum--will eventually die out of the human gene pool.

Conversely, groups of humans that practice having large families will inherit mankind's future.

That's pretty simple biology.

Is mankind's future important to individualists?

That's not a rhetorical question. It's one that cuts to the heart of all the world-saving stuff in Objectivism and libertarianism. What's the point of saving the world if your kind is going to die off and the people you look down on will grow into taking the world over and unsaving it?

Michael

[sjw]

If evolution means reproductive success, any group of humans that willfully decides not to reproduce--or cut it to a minimum--will eventually die out of the human gene pool.

Conversely, groups of humans that practice having large families will inherit mankind's future.

That's pretty simple biology.

Is mankind's future important to individualists?

That's not a rhetorical question. It's one that cuts to the heart of all the world-saving stuff in Objectivism and libertarianism. What's the point of saving the world if your kind is going to die off and the people you look down on will grow into taking the world over and unsaving it?

Michael

So in the long run, we'll all be Mormons?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Or Muslims, or Hispanics, or whatever...

But this only applies to those who think reproducing is an unpleasant inconvenience of being human.

Michael

[RagJohn]

I don't see the point, actually. Intellectually or emotionally, I don't care, don't see why anyone else would, either, actually. I know that they do care,I just don't see why they should/do. It's lizard brain mentality, in my book. Ahem,did I say not to have kids at all? Did I say to only have one? Or did I say to act responsibly enough to do the job PROPERLY? Unless you inherit a lot of money, or get rich really early in life, doing a proper job of parenting requires waiting, saving, investing and LEARNING a lot more than the great majority of people are capable of knowing/doing while still in their early 20's. Consequently, they do a typically poor job of preparing their kids to have proper human lives. I note quite a bit of dishonest, lizard-brain emotionality in people when I say this, but that doesn't make what I said any less valid.

No, I've never wanted kids. I never wanted the hassle, and I never wanted to inflict this world on an innocent, either. I decided this at about age 16, in fact. I couldn't teach them to value what I value, that's for sure, because individuality, freedom, hunting, shooting, etc, are fast being extinguished by the lizard brain mentality of having lots of kids that the parents can't raise properly. So my kid would just be extremely unhappy, later in life, if I instilled those values in him/her. Those lacking my experiences have no idea how high a percentage of humanity aint worth the excrement it would take to cover them up. I carry a gun for good reason, along with being a black belt. For instance, each and every smoker has the inherent assumption that the ground EXISTS for him/her to throw cigarette butts upon. He or she has the time and money to waste on something as stupid as smoking, but they can't POSSIBLY "field strip" that cigarette, shaking out the remaining tobacco and putting the butt and paper in pocket/purse, for proper disposal later.

No woman would be unarmed, and not a black belt, if she spent five (unnoticed) minutes listening to what a lot of men talk about they'd really LIKE to do to women. I've seen the "mob" and "gang" mentality manifest itself in very short order, amongst supposedly "decent" men. I see it on the Net, all the time, in fact. I could have you "follow" me to some forums, and demonstrate it for you. All it takes (to bring out what I call the "wannabe Hitler" syndrome in men, at least), is to show them up at subjects that they consider themselves as being "knowledgable". A very few such posts, demonstrating a quite superior level of understanding, say, shooting, will antagonize many men to a point that they consider intolerable. They seem to be congenitally unable to just ask questions and learn. They are "set" on insisting that their way is superior, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Why should I, or anyone else, CARE if the Latinos or Islammics, wind up in control of the world? Very few people are in control of their own lives (or happy with that life) the way things are now. Very, very few are going to be able to improve that condition, either.

Edited December 24, 2010 by RagJohn

[kiaer.ts]

No, I've never wanted kids. I never wanted the hassle, and I never wanted to inflict this world on an innocent, either.

As if this weren't obvious. Funny that like Rand you make categorical imperatives of your own personal dislikes. Your children are incredibly fortunate not to have you as a parent.

Why should I, or anyone else, CARE if the Latinos or Islammics, wind up in control of the world?

That denial would be a little bit more credible if you also didn't presume to lecture readers here on having children.

Why should you care about poor people with children if you don't actually care about a world under the Taliban? The truth is, you and the Taliban share the same vice.

With your sincere concern for the moral propriety of the actions of others you remind me of one of the all time classic cautionary fictional characters:

As for me, my two favorite words in the world to hear are "Uncle Ted."

Merry Christmas.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

John:

I am not surprised that you have no children. Your information that you began this thread with is frankly absurdly inaccurate.

Your statement about not properly training children in the use of firearms, the art of hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. because it would make them unhappy in the future reflects some large blind spots as to how individuals can be taught and how important self esteem is to happiness.

My children are trained in those skills and they are quite happy.

I fail to see your point, but I sure do see your pessimism.

Tom Brown's The Tracker is an excellent book on teaching wilderness survival to your children.

Adam

[RagJohn]

I've read Brown. Do you understand demographics? Have you ever looked at an Almanac? If we don't have a MAJOR pandemic or war, we will have 12 billion people on the Earth within 25 years, then 24 billion in another 20 yrs, or something like that. Do you really believe that your children will have any freedom at all with that sort of overcrowding? My post was not for the kids. As I stated, I have no concern for the kids. I did, at one point, when I was a kid myself. I posted that issue for those of you who do care about them, and for what freedom that those who are already living still have left, in the interest of not reducing that freedom further. If my postings are so far "off base", how about you enlighten me with the details? Assuming, of course, that you really can do so. I've read several of Brown's books. He's quite inspiring. Just how much room for all that sort of thing do you believe we'll have, once there's 24 billion people in the world, hmmm?

No, my information is not inaccurate, either. You PRESUME to take MY tax money, and use it to help educate your kids, that's all. After you check out what it costs to have full time nannies so that the parents have enough free time to stay sane, and not impose on the grandparents, neighbors and friends,and treat the kids properly, as well as adequately prepare for retirement, and after you check out what PRIVATE schooling costs, you'll see that my numbers are actually very conservative. You also assume that people WANT to work for 45 years,never have anything, do anything, go anywhere, just raise kids and grandkids, so that Big Brother can have more taxpayers. Well,most of them do not really want to do so, they are just unaware that other options exist, or they are unable to resist the lizard-brain type peer pressure that you are trying to impose right here and right now.

Edited December 24, 2010 by RagJohn

[BaalChatzaf]

I've read Brown. Do you understand demographics? Have you ever looked at an Almanac? If we don't have a MAJOR pandemic or war, we will have 12 billion people on the Earth within 25 years, then 24 billion in another 20 yrs, or something like that. Do you really believe that your children will have any freedom at all with that sort of overcrowding? My post was not for the kids. As I stated, I have no concern for the kids. I did, at one point, when I was a kid myself. I posted that issue for those of you who do care about them, and for what freedom that those who are already living still have left, in the interest of not reducing that freedom further. If my postings are so far "off base", how about you enlighten me with the details? Assuming, of course, that you really can do so. I've read several of Brown's books. He's quite inspiring. Just how much room for all that sort of thing do you believe we'll have, once there's 24 billion people in the world, hmmm?

You assume that the birth rate will remain high. In the United States, the birth rate among native born U.S. citizens has declined without a pandemic or famine. Furthermore the number of dead from wars in the 20 th century in the U.S. was relatively small so the effect on total population was small. Birth rates declined for primarily economic reasons. Having kids is expensive. If the birth rate in the U.S. can decline without famine, plague and war then it can so decline elsewhere. Your assumption that the birth rate will hold steady is not fully demonstrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Kat]

Until you and your spouse can put 1/2 mill $ in escrow, do not have a kid. It's that simple.

Nice fantasy, but I doubt that most people will comply. Yes, it is good to be prepared financially for kids by having money socked away, a college education, an established career, stable marriage and a house with the white picket fence. Those things are nice to have and I wish I had all that when I started having kids, however, I would be childless today if that were the case. My kids are my joy and I'd rather have them than a half million in the bank.

There are some complex social issues involved as to why people who can least afford children have the most kids... (and they also vote democrat). Many people who can afford kids wait to start families and are having fewer kids. Just do the best you can with the resources you have, and if you want kids, have kids. You don't have to be rich to be a good parent.

btw - Objectivists are a dying race and need to get busy.

Kat

[RagJohn]

what you WANT, and what's good for you, the kids, and society in general are quite often at odds. So your point is no point at all, actually. you can want to sit around and do nothing but eat ice cream, and it can be "your joy", too. But the end result is your destruction. People CLAIM that they "enjoy" smoking, too. They claim that they "can't stop". Well, bs, because millions have proven that it's readily done, if you REALLY want to,or HAVE to. For instance, if I held a gun to your head, 24-7, forever, telling you that I'd blow your brains out if you smoked, I bet that SOMEHOW you'd manage to overcome that "unresistable" addiction! :-)

[Selene]

what you WANT, and what's good for you, the kids, and society in general are quite often at odds. So your point is no point at all, actually. you can want to sit around and do nothing but eat ice cream, and it can be "your joy", too. But the end result is your destruction. People CLAIM that they "enjoy" smoking, too. They claim that they "can't stop". Well, bs, because millions have proven that it's readily done, if you REALLY want to,or HAVE to. For instance, if I held a gun to your head, 24-7, forever, telling you that I'd blow your brains out if you smoked, I bet that SOMEHOW you'd manage to overcome that "unresistable" addiction! :-)

John:

And which particular philosopher king did you have in mind to make the decisions as to "...what's good for you, the kids and society in general..." and hold the gun to our heads?

Adam

[RagJohn]

the same one everyone uses, of course. "me". :-) No, in all actuality, I don't give a snort. I've set up my life that way, most assuredly on purpose, so that I don't have to care(or worry about) what other people are thinking, doing, or saying. I wouldn't have it any other way. When the foremost proponent of logic and reason is proven to have such feet of clay as Rand, one had better beware of the weaknesses of nearly everyone else. In spite of their not being active power seekers, most will, in the end, act against you, or at least, not aid you when you ask, even tho they know very well that you are worth helping and will repay them with interest, or in fact, they already (sort of) "owe" you for your help to them in the past.

[Selene]

the same one everyone uses, of course. "me". :-) No, in all actuality, I don't give a snort. I've set up my life that way, most assuredly on purpose, so that I don't have to care(or worry about) what other people are thinking, doing, or saying. I wouldn't have it any other way. When the foremost proponent of logic and reason is proven to have such feet of clay as Rand, one had better beware of the weaknesses of nearly everyone else. In spite of their not being active power seekers, most will, in the end, act against you, or at least, not aid you when you ask, even tho they know very well that you are worth helping and will repay them with interest, or in fact, they already (sort of) "owe" you for your help to them in the past.

what you WANT, and what's good for you, the kids, and society in general are quite often at odds. So your point is no point at all, actually. you can want to sit around and do nothing but eat ice cream, and it can be "your joy", too. But the end result is your destruction. People CLAIM that they "enjoy" smoking, too. They claim that they "can't stop". Well, bs, because millions have proven that it's readily done, if you REALLY want to,or HAVE to. For instance, if I held a gun to your head, 24-7, forever, telling you that I'd blow your brains out if you smoked, I bet that SOMEHOW you'd manage to overcome that "unresistable" addiction! :-)

John:

So your point in posting the "what you WANT, and what's good for you, the kids, and society in general..." post was to practice your typing?

Adam

Edited December 25, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... in all actuality, I don't give a snort.

RagJohn,

You keep saying things like this.

I have a question.

Why do you think anyone "gives a snort" about you not giving a snort?

Since you keep repeating this sentiment, it seems like you give quite a snort. You just say the opposite.

Michael

[RagJohn]

No,Mike, it's actually quite true. I'm just stuck here for a while, entertaining myself about the only way possible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RagJohn,

Do I understand you--that you are killing time by telling people on OL how little you give a damn about this and that?

If I understood that correctly, that's a helluva thing...

I want to say more, but I want to understand correctly first.

Michael