patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

New Renter says

What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Heraclitusstudent says

As to "the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs", assuming they exist, an heir is not necessarily a child. It could be a sibling.

So what - that sibling may have children who will benefit from the deceased childless person. If not then the possessions will be passed along until they are used up supporting the economy or they end up in the state coffers which is in essence a 100% tax on childless people.

New Renter says

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Because someone needs to have some kids, and one person is not enough to support a kid. Therefore someone should pay. It's a charge at the community level. That's fairer than all other solutions.

You can always adopt or have your own child if you want and get exemption.

Reality says

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Following that philosophy, a woman should not be allowed to have a child she cannot support. If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

That will prevent childhood poverty and ensure that the tax payers don't have to bear the burden of raising the children of irresponsible parents. However, it also has the consequence of changing reproduction from being a right to being a privilege. Are you willing to accept that trade-off?

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.
And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

I would have the parents, single or not, pay a special tax and give the proceeds to the childless over 30. That is far more socially just.

The childless pay all sorts of taxes, including real estate taxes, that go to services they don't use. To add more insult and injury, the childless pay more not less in income taxes even though they use far fewer resources.

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess. The state wanted only parents with their children to use the park -- a total violation of the 14th Amendment -- and considered any chess-playing single man to be a pedophile -- don't even get me started on that.

Finally, we live in a world where we cannot even support the number of people on the planet already. Every additional person adds ecological, economic, and political strain on the world and may lead to a mass death event. A third of the world's population doesn't even have adequate safe drinking water. Even America cannot support its population at the current level of technology and so we are borrowing from the future both in terms of dollars and in terms of ecological resources.

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single. The single and childless produce more advancements in science and technology by far than the married or parents. These advancements are exactly what we need to support the soon-to-be 10.1 billion people on the planet without destroying the world's ecosystem.

And quite frankly, the childless guy spending massive amounts of time working in a STEM career is way the fuck more important to accomplishing this goal and avoiding a mass death event than you typical parent is. That's the cold hard truth. So I find no social or ethical justification for punishing and exploiting people for being childless.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.

And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

The good news is that most politicians won't pass. The bad news is that the politicians will rig the test and write exceptions into the law just like they do with TSA security. The wealthy and connected don't have to go through rape scanners and get molested because they are on a "privilege list" of "ok people" that you will never be able to get on. They would do the same thing for an IQ requirement for reproduction.

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

A sure sign of the imminent skyrocketing of real estate prices.

A better class of buyers is entering the market, well-heeled and with the resources to outbid those without the cash reserves. Soon they will drive the prices far higher than anyone can afford, and everyone will be priced out forever.

One thing never considered in economics 101 is the case where the supply and demand curves no longer intersect. Demand vanishes, yet price becomes effectively infinite.

Those holding real property will soon own the universe: the money supply will be inadequate to purchase a single home in Stockton, and all real estate transactions will be in kind. Literally everyone will be priced out forever.

Dan8267 says

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single.

Sounds like China

We just went through a phase where people had too much debts. On the other side of this equation, a lot of people actually have tons of cash.

How do we resolve this? People with cash buy the assets of people with debts. This is very healthy.

It doesn't say anything about prices. We can simply build a lot more real-estate. So no one is priced-out provided they are flexible and not bent on one location.

SubOink says

as of today, the bears of last few years have been wrong - period

The bears have been absolutely correct. The market place is manipulated which is fine as long as you buy to sell, but Real Estate is a long term hold with high expenses.

So it would have been better to trade in things easier to trade than Real Estate.

It's a matter of choices which the people who invest in Real Estate don't get. I'm happy to sell off my Real Estate holdings in this market, and wish I would have been able to do more in this past year.

I'm afraid that waiting is a time bomb of lost opportunities.

Dan8267 says

The childless pay all sorts of taxes, including real estate taxes, that go to services they don't use. To add more insult and injury, the childless pay more not less in income taxes even though they use far fewer resources.

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.
And the childless will still want to retire and have younger people pay for their social security and medicare, and take care of things around them when they're old.

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation. If these children are educated and push the world in the right direction, it helps more than anything else. This just masks people washing their hands about a future that necessarily includes children.

grywlfbg says

For me I don't think the recovery is sustainable and we will slide back into recession and see the dow ~8,000. The Fed and their cronies have managed to roll the boulder back up the hill for much longer than I thought possible.

Please elaborate if possible. Why do you think they can't do it forever? So are you expecting hyperinflation, depression or stagflation going forward, say, 1 year from now?

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single.

Sounds like China

From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy.html

Village family-planning officers vigilantly chart the menstrual cycle and pelvic-exam results of every woman of childbearing age in their area. If a woman gets pregnant without permission and is unable to pay the often exorbitant fine for violating the policy, she risks being subjected to a forced abortion.

No, economic incentives to limit overpopulation are way the fuck kinder than any other means, man-made or natural, for population control.

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

NY Post

A squad of cops in bulletproof vests swooped into an upper Manhattan park and charged seven men with the "crime" of playing chess in an area off-limits to adults unaccompanied by kids -- even though no youngsters were there.

I'm surprised that no one was shot and killed.

From CopBlock

We’ve long maintained that chess is one of the least aggressive gentleman’s sports, just a wee bit behind Horseshoes on the blood-and-sweat chart. Who could find fault in benign chess players? But no minor infraction is too small for the NYPD: according to DNAinfo, seven chess players are due in court this month after they were arrested in Inwood for the grave offense of playing chess…on chess boards…in a park…illegally!

Nope, I don't make this shit up. Our country really is that fucking crazy. I wish it was just me; I'd prefer to be crazy and this shit all being in my head, but it's not.

SoftShell says

The Real Estate industry is trying to hijack the meaning of the word "inventory",

RE industry bastardized the term and confused everybody.

Nevertheless, "inventory" is a good indicator of price trend. Growing inventory usually mean possible future price weakness and vice versa.

Heraclitusstudent says

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.

In less than one in ten situations where both persons are high income and with no children. In the other 90% of the cases, single and childless people pay way the fuck more.

Heraclitusstudent says

Married couples pay more than 2 singles.

Marriage does not not equal parentage. This is a different argument altogether.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the childless will still want to retire and have younger people pay for their social security and medicare, and take care of things around them when they're old.

Yes just as they did for the generation before. If people payed into a system they are entitled to get back at least what they put into it.

How about immigrants who become citizens. Their parents are not benefiting from their SS/Medicare. Shall we exempt new citizens?

Heraclitusstudent says

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation. If these children are educated and push the world in the right direction, it helps more than anything else. This just mask people washing their hands about a future that necessarily includes children.

Those 1-2 children DO create overpopulation when added to the 3-4 children of a neighbor or even the 14 children of "Octomom". The population number doesn't care if the kid is an only child or has 20+ siblings.

Heraclitusstudent says

The argument about overpopulation is specious, because having 1 or 2 children doesn't create overpopulation.

Unless, of course, everyone has more than two children. To say that overpopulation doesn't cause malnutrition, poverty, and death is ridiculous.

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people, but if technology outpaces food production, water supply, and technological advancement, then the result is mass human suffering in the form

As long as the population of the world stabilizes at 10.1 billion as predicted, technology will have advanced enough to sustain this population by the end of the 21st century. If the population continues to increase like it did during the 20th century, our world ecosystem will collapse as clean technology and renewable resources will not be able to sustain such a population.

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise. Going forth and multiplying was necessary in the Stone Age, not today.

jessica says

Reality says

The guy should not be able to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Women know how to use birth control, it is readily available and it is free. I think we've made a lot of great strides in its accessibility and removing stigma from single mother and certainly from the bastard children days!

Jess, please do not take this as a criticism of you personally. IMHO, you are writing from the perspective of a woman who has never been pregnant. In my experience (admitted as a man engaged in serial monogamy with women, often in their early to mid-20's), the fetus often works like a alien body snatcher, turning a woman previously rational about abortion etc. into a fool-hardy protector of "the baby," risking her entire future well being and even her own life to keep "the baby."

It's about as irrational as a man wanting to have sex, which serves nearly no purpose for the individual himself (at least nothing more than what a 2hr workout plus masturbation can provide at much lower risk and cost), yet men (and women) love having sex.

There is not a rational basis to explain what a woman (or sometimes a man) does often times.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

NY Post

Yikes! That IS silly!

It sounds like there was some community pushback. Good!

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

New Renter says

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that "sex offenders" including 12-year-old girls taking self-portraits of their own breasts are prohibited at punishment of prison for being within so many yards of any place children congregate, such as the 12-year-old's school.

That's how fucked up our laws are.

Dan8267 says

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people,

It doesn't even take a STEM worker to recommend mosquito netting and water filters made from sand and charcoal.

Dan8267 says

Unless, of course, everyone has more than two children.

Which I'm not saying they should. Limiting the number of children is different discussion. I didn't bring this up.

Dan8267 says

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise.

I'm not saying our species would go extinct. Because of course some people will have kids and shoulder the costs.

I'm saying childless people are counting on that and at the same time evading the costs.

Over-population is a made-up concern. Africa has lower population density than Europe, East Asia or North America. Poverty and hunger in Africa illustrate the point that societies fail usually due to top-down government mismanagement presenting wrong incentives to the individuals:

If property rights are not secure, one can not be sure to be the one harvesting and keeping the crop he/she plants, yet one can get food either by looting or stretching out hands to aid groups . . . well, you are not going to see many workers in the field doing the planting. Our tax-welfare treatment on making the next generation is coming close to that.

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people,

It doesn't even take a STEM worker to recommend mosquito netting and water filters made from sand and charcoal.

True, there are many things individuals can do.

However, I am a firm believer in the power of engineering to solve the really big problems. That said, all resources are finite and the Earth can physically only support so many people at such and such quality of life. We have to learn to live within our means or there will be a mass death event as the result of depleting our natural resources.

Right now, our population is only being supported because we are accruing massive amounts of ecological debt that must be repaid or we risk ecological bankruptcy -- read ecological collapse and mass death. Such debt includes draining fresh water resources, polluting, driving species to extinctions (which causes complex ecological consequences that will inevitably harm us). This is not a subject matter to take lightly.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise.

I'm not saying our species would go extinct. Because of course some people will have kids and shoulder the costs.

True, you haven't. But a lot of people on this site have made that argument.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm saying childless people are counting on that and at the same time evading the costs.

Your children are not my assets. I do not benefit from them. If anything, they are a cost to me in terms of
- taxes (for parks, schools, food programs, etc.)
- crime
- traffic
- noise
- severe restriction of my liberty (see the arrest of chess players and countless other examples)
- job competition in the future

If a person wants to have a child for his or her own personal fulfillment then fine. I don't have any problem with that. But don't give me the crap that I should be grateful that someone else had a child. My life isn't better because other people reproduce. The Octomom isn't paying my rent.

Or to put it this way. Let's accept the premise that children overall produce more than they consume and thus it's imperative that we crank out as many kids as possible. OK, I'll do my part. Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy. If you don't think that's a good deal, you don't buy the premise that other people's kids make your life better and you wealthier.

robertoaribas says

Yeah, I really want to take advice from you

Bob, like I said, guys like you are a dime a dozen. You watch the news, and made purchases based on the 1% drop in interest rates.

We'll see.

These past five years was the time to settle debt, that's what we are doing, Bob.

I'd rather have cash than debt.

Reality says

Over-population is a made-up concern. Africa has lower population density than Europe, East Asia or North America.

Population is not uniformly distributed. Most parts of Africa are empty and the slums are densely populated. More importantly, it is the renewability of natural resources, not the available surface area, that is the limiting factor on population. Please note that I said renewability not availability. A society can have plenty of resources, but still be doomed if that society consumes those resources much faster than replacing them. See the history of Easter Island and its forests for the textbook example.

It is also important to understand the severe effects of overpopulation on the environment in Africa and all other places as quoted below.

“In 1900, Ethiopia had 5 million, in 1950 it had 18.4 million, in 2010 it had 85 million and is projected to reach 173 million by 2050,” said Campbell. “Their rapid population growth figures in the decimation of nearly all of Ethiopia’s forests and consequently climate change.”

Overpopulation can cause the depletion of natural resources to a point where a previously easily sustained population is suddenly not sustainable. This causes a mass death event and history is full of such events both in our species and others.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Following that philosophy, a woman should not be allowed to have a child she cannot support.

Agree. I expressed the same earlier.

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

Or simply not having government pay people to have children (which is a form of adverse self-selection: the least competent are most incentivized by such programs), thereby forcing the would-be incompetent parent make the rational decision, either aborting or giving up the child for adoption.

That will prevent childhood poverty and ensure that the tax payers don't have to bear the burden of raising the children of irresponsible parents. However, it also has the consequence of changing reproduction from being a right to being a privilege. Are you willing to accept that trade-off?

No such trade-off necessary. Don't try to work enforcement against "pre-crime." Post-facto incentives can work effectively. Some non-mandatory guideline (such as "it's a good idea to have at least $30k (1/5 the cost of raising a child) saved up before giving birth) combined with benign neglect from the government would quickly eliminate the wrong incentives that are leading to a huge proportion of kids being born into wrong environment like we have now.

New Renter says

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

You ARE kidding right?

Ha. My brother says his taxes are going to support single welfare moms and he would appreciate a Father's Day card once in a while.

Urban slums in the 3rd world are due to their government handouts (to the local poor and the rich alike, the latter trickles down in the form of jobs) near the capital. The farther away rural farmers have to pay for those handouts via taxes (which is little different from looting in those countries, and in other countries).

Easter Island was not an over-population story. The islanders did not cut down all the trees in order to make farm land. They cut down all the trees in order to erect giant stone statues. They thought they needed the statues to protect them from natural disasters; they blamed all natural disasters on themselves for not building even bigger statues! It was a classic case of government/politics/blind-faith destroying a closed theocratic society.

Dan8267 says

Your children are not my assets. I do not benefit from them. If anything, they are a cost to me in terms of

- taxes (for parks, schools, food programs, etc.)

- crime

- traffic

- noise

- severe restriction of my liberty (see the arrest of chess players and countless other examples)

- job competition in the future

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.
And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.
When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

I agree with you on all these points under normal circumstances, where kids are raised by self-reliant parents. Children born into generational poverty enabled by government subsidies, to parents with brain rotted by years of substances abuse (including during pregnancy and nursing) are far more likely to be burdens to society (disability and criminality) instead of becoming productive members of society like you and I normally would assume for children born into healthy environment.

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

tatupu70 says

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

I'd rather have some of both :)

Dan8267 says

Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy. If you don't think that's a good deal, you don't buy the premise that other people's kids make your life better and you wealthier.

Dan! Don't forget the child support waiver! If you do even that six figure income won't be near enough!

David Losh says

robertoaribas says

Yeah, I really want to take advice from you

Bob, like I said, guys like you are a dime a dozen. You watch the news, and made purchases based on the 1% drop in interest rates.

We'll see.

These past five years was the time to settle debt, that's what we are doing, Bob.

I'd rather have cash than debt.

And I suspect others would rather have the debt Roberto incurred to purchase his very well priced properties and be making the kind of money he is getting a month.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

All 100% sustainable with immigration, not domestic propagation.

When you think of it immigration is far superior! Immigration policy can be tuned to only legally admit independent and well educated adults. They can even be admitted on a temporary basis, exploited to their full potential and deported as soon as their used up. Heck the policy can even require immigrants to be temporarily sterilized unless 1) they emigrate from the country or 2) they are granted full citizenship. That should eliminate the anchor babies.

And don't worry, there's plenty more immigrants willing to submit to such draconain measures thanks to people in their home countries who use more emotion than logic in family planning.

Reality says

Easter Island was not an over-population story. The islanders did not cut down all the trees in order to make farm land. They cut down all the trees in order to erect giant stone statues.

Yes, but you missed the point of
A society can have plenty of resources, but still be doomed if that society consumes those resources much faster than replacing them. See the history of Easter Island and its forests for the textbook example.

The fundamental problem that Easter Island experienced was that it cut down its forest faster than it replenished them. When they were out of trees, they could not even make boats to leave the island and were stuck on an island whose ecosystem had been destroyed.

The moral of the story is that natural resources must be wisely managed and a society must avoid depleting resources faster than it can renew them whether through overpopulation or unrestrained consumerism.