or paid more.

Yeah sure- without personal accountability, poverty will never end

Isn't it essentially both? Aren't there studies showing generally an inverse relationship between children and income ... or am I making that up?

Yeah, if we don't force the poor to admit it's their own fault, poverty will never end. :|

EA - yes, and education level. Once you stop needing 8 children to help with farmwork (and once you stop losing 1/3 of them to The Consumption), it doesn't make much sense to have more than a couple.

Parents who knowingly choose to bring children kntk poverty are disgusting and should be shot.

BB, shot in a capital punishment way, or a murderous way? What happens to their children when they are dead?

I hear cages are good for kids.

VulgarBlogger

That justification is like, 1.5 steps away from eugenics.

That’s a gross statement Bulgarianflogger

Having lived with a tribe for a short time in a third world country... I can tell you those kids were so much nicer and had better manners than most spoiled rotten kids from “good families.”

Bringing children into poverty is child torture. I firmly and completely believe that and I would die defending that statement.

Bringing children into poverty is child torture. I firmly and completely believe that and I would die defending that statement.

Impverished parents who have kids do it for their own selfish reasons. Whether its because it feels good to cum when you're feeling shitty, or its because one their kids as the "future" that would be their saving grace, raising kids in poverty is torturous to the child and parents who do that knowingly should be severely punished.

tduds- is that how you spell it in Spanish?

The solution to this is to seek to end poverty, not to punish biological impulse. You might not mean to, but you're making the same argument used in support of ethnic cleansing.

no I am

no i am

Sorry- on the phone: No I am not! The premise of ethnic cleansing is that people are deemed inferior because of their race or ethnicity. That is not what I am for. However, if supporting responsible procreation is eugenics- absolutely for that. Parents should not torture their kids because of their own selfish impulses.

Should we sterilize the poor? What about the developmentally challenged? Their job prospects are reduced so they're less likely to be able to support their offspring. & if you're going to sterilize them, why not just let them die? Or, why not just eliminate them? 

I never said you were in favor of ethnic cleansing, just that you're making the same case as people who are. So... maybe stop that?

I can't believe I have to say out loud that killing poor people for having children is fucking disgusting.

"Supporting responsible procreation" is not the same as executing people for procreating irresponsibly.

I think you could have stopped at "no i am".

Prove that most people who eneter poverty ebter poverty after they have children. If they are operating on such thin margins- they shouldn't be having children!

Prove that most people who eneter poverty ebter poverty after they have children. If they are operating on such thin margins- they shouldn't be having children!

I think that there ought to be a way that people can prove to the government hat they have thought about the financial ramifications of having chilssren, as a preequisite to receicing welfare. Not just "just bang and go". Why? Because then the middle and upper class get stuck with the bill for paying for their irresponsibility.

Your outrage is based on ignorance and stupidity. The US spends far more on corporate welfare than it does on social welfare. Blame the poor for being poor when Bezos, Gates, and Buffet own as mush as the poorest 50% of citizens and the top 5% has 2/3 of the country’s wealth (1% own half of all stocks). All of that is the direct result of economic policy including government (public) subsidies to corporations and tax policies that reward hoarding wealth while penalizing people who actually work. Beyond that taxes don’t pay for anything at the federal level. Money is continuously created on demand to fund wars, quantitative easing (bank subsidies), corporate subsidies, etc., but not for social programs because “we cant afford it!”. Try not to be such a flaming idiot.

I wonder what type of tortured upbringing BB must have had that resulted in this absolutely disgusting mentality. I think that’s the real tragedy here. I hope you seek out some professional help.

I think we in the West have a warped perception of life. That’s probably the greatest flaw that I see in western civilizations. The US particularly has an obsession with “happiness.” This is a shit metric for weighing the value of life and an even shittier goal. Happiness is an emotional state that we ought to experience in moments, not a permanent unwavering condition that engulfs the entirety of our life. This is perhaps why we have such high divorce and suicide rates. We aren’t entitled to lives of constant happiness. If that’s what we expect, we will be constantly disappointed. This has little to do with wealth or poverty, and all to do with the expectations of our culture.

My outrage is based on logic and practicality. You seem to be of the conviction that if an employee works for a company, the employee needs to get most of the compensation because he is the one doing the work! This is particularly true in the case of a valet who parks cars at a hotel like the Ritz Carlton. If the valet makes $10 an hour and works 8 hours a day, he makes $80 a day. But say it costs $30 to park your car at the Ritz, and there are 100 cars that get parked there, the hotel makes $3,000 a day- right? You're saying that the valet should get the $3,000, not the Hotel because the Valet is doing all the work. This is ludicrous. Why? Because the Valet is trading job security for a lower wage, whereas the Ritz isn't just taking the risk for the business, but also created the value of the business. So when you talk about corporate welfare- the financial institutions/corporations etc they actually try to create jobs, whereas the people who breed and breed and expect society to take care of their impoverished children only leech and leech.

The myth of the “job creators”. Job creators like Walmart, who pay so low that their employees qualify for Medicaid, housing aid, and food stamps. A direct corporate subsidy with public money: we’ll pay your employees because you’re too cheap to do it. But hey, they’ve got jobs! Meanwhile the Waltons are worth $130 billion and you’re calling for euthanasia of the children of their employees. Vulgar Blogger indeed. Adios, asshole.

Correction- not calling for euthenasia of their children; punishment of their parents. Who in their right mind knows they're in a shitty spot in life and brings kids into the world anyway? They are the assholes; not me.

OK, you punish the parents. Now what? Children go into foster care or state care? Both of these option will cost you the taxpayer just as much if the children stayed with the parents so your economic argument is moot. As for the emotional and socioeconomic impacts on the children now and in the future? I have no idea what the future of these children would look like in foster / state care compared with staying with poor parents. Could be the same?

No- you provide incentives to parents in poverty to NOT have children by making it so difficult on them if they choose to bring kids into their own impoverished lives, that the consequences would make not want to even try. This is how incarceration and punishment works. If people know you'll go to jail for robbing someone, you won't do it. Sure- in the beginning, people will "test" this, but will quickly learn that they're contempt for the law will not go unpunished.

BB so you punish the parents. I still ask what happens to the children? You make it difficult on the parents with jail or fines so what happens to their children?

That's what I'm saying... in the beginning this policy will be tested and children will grow up without parents in foster homes. As more parents become accustomed (i.e. "trained") not spread their seed irresponsibly, there will be less of it.

There can be no progress without suffering. Without incentive to life yourself out of a really bad hole, people aint ever gonna apply themselves. This is why I'm against correlating the minimum wage with the poverty line. You don't want to be in poverty? Work for it!

Nice troll.

wow....just wow

LOL- Almosthip7: did I hurt your snowflake feelings? hahaha

BB ....just thinking your parents need to be punished

Rick B- T. Harv Eker wrote a book called "Secrets of a Millionaire Mind," in which he coined the term "financial blueprint." Changing that blueprint takes a lot of effort, but once people change it, they will have a much better chance at not being poor. When parents who knowingly bring kids into poverty (torture) can't change that blueprint by themselves abd transfer the trophy of poverty to their next generation, it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for their reliance on my tax dollars so that next generation can do the same thing to their kids (with little exception). So the "draconian" approach is draconian only because parents don't have the self-control needed to not extend poverty into their kids life. Beyond that, and as k have already stated: knowingly bringing kids into a life of poverty is equivalent to torturing children.

I agree- its a quid pro quo. However, you have to manage the risk. You start people

I agree! It is a quid pro quo. But employers have to manage the risk. That is why they start people at entey pevel jobs at a lower rate, and they gradually get promoted. Not getting promoted is often a silent indicator for performance.

You can't expect that after 40 years of making bad decisions, that because you now matured-up, that because you are older, have more life-experience, and have more expenses to pay, that an employer (say walmart) needs to accomodate a salary that was originally meant for high-schoolers wanting to make a few bucks. It doesn't work that way. That is why I said- you want a hire wage, work for it! And I don't mean it necessarily literally! It starts from developing an appreciation for education, something that cannot necessarily happen without a solid family. But this goes back to the point of money: working three jobs to make ends meet, though may work to just scrape by, does that afford the parent enougn time to reslly parent? And if thet is the case, how is that respondible decidion-making?

"When you are having a family of 3-5..... it's kind of shitty to be living on just $30K to $40K. You kind of need to be keeping a household income of $50K to $60K or more depending on where you live."

Why are you having kids if you're in that situation??!!!

You just proved my point. You wouldn't have kids in that situation because you jnow you can't afford it. SO: if others knew they can't afford kids, but have them anyway, they must be pretty arrogant to think someone else (i.e. taxpayers) will flip their bill. To not rely on taxpayers would mean that they would have to deprive children of a lot (raise them in poverty). I not only believe this is akin to child torture, but I also believe it should not be anyone else's respinsibility to finance the lives of other people's kids.

And btw- when i say "you can't afford it", meant "you" figuratively. I have no idea wht your financial situation is.

Sorry- your first sentence is already questionable. Where did you get that most people are having kids when they are on their way up their career? Your entire argument is based on this crucial piece of information- prove it. You are essentially saying that because people don't know when they'll become poor, that they have kids when times are good. What I am saying is that poor people who start out in poverty have kids anyway and continue that cycle.

The idea of getting educated and trained to practice a profession or do a job is that presumably the more experience you get, the more money you get- right? The hope is that you get promoted over the years so you assume more responsibility and get paid more for that responsibility? If you

If you are 35 and are still making $30-40k, you

(sorry-

Sorry- ugh- typing on phone... if you're 35 and still making $30-40k you shouldn't expect that by 50, you're going to be making enough to support a family, because you're probably working a job that isn't meant for that kind of long-term commitment. So what I am arguing is that while it is uncertain when or if someone will get laid off, in most cases, people who do start off on a good footing and eventually get laid off and lose their income, often do not significantly contribute to the volume of the population that is in poverty. The existing population that is in poverty is much greater, and it is the procreation that is occuring withing that impoverished population that expands the universe of poverty.

If you take all

if you take all of the rich people's money away and give it to the poor, eventually, the rich will be rich again, and the poor will be poor again...

"As long as the rich are taking in more the profit and income then they deserve because they don't work as much or hard as those they employ."

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

At a certain point, you make your money work for you (or should make your money work for you). Classic example: you buy a home and rent it out. However, to get the capital to buy it in the first place- THAT is a lot of work. Being savy at making your moenh work for you is smart, not lazy. And there's nothing wrong with that. And that is whh I said- want to be rich- work for it! And again- its not just working for it in the literal sense: it starts from a young age, when you have to study hard and get educated. Libraries are free- the public has all the access to the information. The internet is at your fingertips. And if parents aren't around to

..afford their kids the attention they deserve, they shouldn't be parents!

Bill Gates put in his time and now is reaping the benefits. But unlike Steve Jibs, his tax rate is justified by vietue of how much he actually gives to Charityz

Also, I disagree with the fact that you have to be super wealthy to be financially free. The point I was making is that if you put in effort when you are young, you reap the benefits later. And the entire argument that I have consistently making to you is that 90% of the people don't make that effort, and they find themselves in a situation later in life wanting to have kids, etc, and not being able to afford it. And because society sets up certain milestones (going to school, getting a job, buying a house, starting a family, retiring) they are hit with a very sad reality check- that they certainly havn't accomplished what they should have and are now foring those milestones on themselves without being "ready."

Just because the majortybof people are x, y, and z, doesn't mean that their decision making is right. There are lots of uneducated people out there- all propagated by ignorance and perpetual poverty, which is contined by no other than themselves.

My eyes glazed over and I only got like 10% of all of this bullshit but I still completed an Alt-Right Catch Phrase Bingo card for Bulgar.

If demanding responsible procreation that is free from taxpayer obligation, then count me in!

Ooh, please share. I'm always down for a game of bingo. The semester where we covertly distributed final review archispeak bingo cards among a dozen or so friends was probably the most awake I had ever been during final reviews.

BulgarBlogger's Modest Proposal

From BB: 1. "No progress w/o suffering" 2. "Poverty equals torture" 3. "Not my responsibility" 4. "Parents don't have self-control." 5. "Perpetual poverty, which is continued by no one other than themselves."

Quite a sad view on life. Also, indicative of severe narcissism (ie - "It's not my problem, it's Others' problem." Would absolutely love to analyze how much he 'benefits' from the government vs "Them poors". My bet is that is the recipient of a whoooooole lot of public subsidies (perhaps not in the way he thinks...)

EA: "...based on logic and practicality." "..snowflake.." "..prove it." etc.

This thread is too far gone to bother countering, and I don't have time to tackle even 10% of the spurious claims here. Just want to say I lost count of how many times Bulgar challenged someone to "prove" something while tossing out wildly anecdotal counterpoints. 

Whenever someone applies unequal scrutiny to different sides in a debate, just give up on the debate. They're letting their conclusions drive their evidence, not the other way around.

what is sad about wanting responsible procreation? What gives other people the right to reach into my pocket as a taxpayer to pay for their kids if they can't afford them?

Nothing is wrong with wanting responsible procreation. What you're advocating for is not promoting responsible procreation. As for reaching into your taxpaying pocket ... welcome to any society that collects taxes. Have you thought about moving to Liberland?

threeohdoor, not only severe narcissism, but severe lack of empathy. I'm pretty sure those are two hallmarks in the profile of any serial killer on those prime time TV crime dramas.

Empathy?? I mean seriously... that's like saying I should have empathy for impulsive serial killers because they just couldn't help themselves but stab someone to death. I have empathy for poor people- just not their decisions as they pertain to feeling entitled to my tax money.

I think you mean you have sympathy for poor people and even that might be a stretch based on what you've written here. Nothing you've written here has shown me that you can empathize with them. Your comment just now being an excellent example on both counts. For the record, the only people I've met that feel entitled to tax money are the people who think they pay too much and feel entitled to get some of it back.

Of course I sympathize with them. I empathize with all the poor children who were products of their parents' selfish acts of wanting to procreate without being able to afford them. And what's wrong with feeling entitled to my own hard-earned money? I don't have a problem paying taxes, as long as my tax money goes to things that are mutually beneficial. Leeches with bad decision-making skills that make more leeches with bad-decision making skills are neither my problem nor my obligation.

"what is sad about wanting responsible procreation?" 

That's not the disagreement here. The disagreement is that others are advocating incentives while you're advocating punishment. Upon scrutiny, the punishment makes no sense and doesn't do anything to solve the problem you claim exists.

 "What gives other people the right to reach into my pocket as a taxpayer to pay for their kids if they can't afford them?" 

Democratic mandate, mostly. That's the thing about society - you don't get to decide who's "entitled" to participate in it.

"I don't have a problem paying taxes, as long as my tax money goes to things that are mutually beneficial."

It sounds like you mean "as long as my tax money goes to things that I want." Which is 100% entitled Boomer mentality & a large part of the reason shit is so broken right now.

But let me guess- you support politicians who do get to decide how much they reach into my pocket to support people who make bad decisions- right? So even though you personally aren't doing it, you're voting for (and electing) others to do it on your behalf.

There are so many other ways to decrease birth rates while also lifting people out of poverty & the fact that you're so stuck on this specific idea of punishing people for procreating is self-defeating - in addition to my original point that what you're arguing for is a common justification for eugenics and genocide.

"you support politicians who do get to decide how much they reach into my pocket to support people who make bad decisions- right?"

This is the job of politicians. There aren't any - and have never been any - politicians who do not do this. I support politicians whose decisions in this matter align with my opinions. As do you.

God, you're so bad at this and you refuse to stop. 

Really tired of explaining the concept of civilization to entitled old fuckers who think they're smart enough to survive without the safety network they don't realize they have.

No- I'm not for genocide lol. But I am for punishing people who choose to procreate irresponsibly. The children don't need to be punished, but the parents do.

Wow, you're right. I've never seen such empathy so eloquently written. You've really captured the essence of where those leaches are coming from. 

Getting people out of poverty and not living out of a car is not mutually beneficial? I mean even in a selfish narcissistic way this could be spun as benefiting you by getting rid of the people begging for a literal handout on the side of the freeway off-ramp. Just think of how much nicer your commute will be every day when you don't have to look at them through the tinted windows of your fancy car. Surely that's worth a few bucks of your hard-earned cash the greedy tax man pries out of your income.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat "I never said you were for genocide but what you're arguing for is a common justification for eugenics and genocide" before it occurs to you that this is why you've upset people. But I guess I'll keep repeating it.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life. Punish a man for not having fish and something something utopia.

Also a big LOL at Bulgar convincing himself he's well off enough to suffer the burden of a more progressive tax system. Stop defending billionaires, you'll never be one.

Lol- you are the king of the adhominem. Your arguments do not discredit mine.

I'm not making arguments I'm trashing you for your dumb eugenics ideas keep up.

It's not an ad hominem because I'm not saying that your argument is wrong because you're an asshole. I'm saying you're an asshole because of the argument you're making. It's a conclusion, not a counterpoint

lol, tduds, your "give a man a fish ... something something utopia" comment made me recall Supply Side Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8xU-gKK17A

Thank you- I accept I'm an "asshole" to you. 7+ billion people in the world. Can't please everyone.

Just wondering how those tax dollars are working to fight homelessness in CA?

The more taxes we pay the more we line pockets of bureaucrats and their private sector pals...

haha "Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility" 

Thanks for this EA.

It’s a Wikipedia page pal. I didn’t provide an opinion, just linked to page because the numbers surprised me.

Thank you, this is interesting.

Punishing homelessness or poverty or as some Bulgarian bloggers suggest procreation is the ultimate tyranny. Publishing failure is even more tyrannical than punishing success.

*punishing not publishing lol.

This reminds me of every second or third graduate thesis from 10+ years ago. Lipstick solution then, lipstick solution it remains today.

Better idea?

Two things: 

"Homelessness isn’t about lack of housing ... it’s about mental health and addiction." It's all of the above + more. There is no silver bullet and any solution needs to be a set of initiatives separately but concurrently tackling a bunch of overlapping causes. 

"homelessness is a feature of all societies (unfortunately) and design public space to accommodate that reality." I kind of agree with this but think it's just shy of a humane solution, which is to design public space to include 'homes' rather than space for homelessness. Subtle philosophical difference but I think a more charitable one. A home not need be a house, but it needs to be a space for comfort and security. I don't have a more specific idea than that - one could easily fill years thesis studios with this pitch.

Not really other than not try to solve social issues with street furniture.

tduds, I get what you are saying, but some people won’t want to live in homes. A significant portion of the homeless are incapable or unwilling to get off the street. For them, being humane means accepting their presence, providing access to essentials like food and safety, and respecting the space they carve out in the public realm. Homelessness is a disaster in most cities because they are occupying spaces not designed to be occupied like sidewalks. Plazas, parks, and underpasses are made to be hostile rather than accommodating, so they go to sidewalks where it’s relatively safe and open. That’s partly a design problem, and partly a legal problem. Just like ada accommodates physical disability, I would argue that homelessness is a disability of sorts, and accommodations should be encoded into public space
.

Spiked benches and non loitering laws followed by police harassment is a form of punishing poverty...a feature of fascism imo. The fascists punish poverty and misfortune...the commies punish success and good fortune...how about not punishing anyone unless they commit an actual violent crime.