Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

Absolutely is - soon machines/robots will have 50-60% of all current jobs. What people fail to understand is this is not a political issue - this is a there is no other way issue.

Nah, then the rich people will live on their own island or maybe even an orbital in space. They can set up a radar screen and shoot down anyone of the .999999%ers who try to fly up.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

The future of what? Where exactly does the money come from?

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what is money?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nah, then the rich people will live on their own island or maybe even an orbital in space. They can set up a radar screen and shoot down anyone of the .999999%ers who try to fly up.

This sounds familiar....

 Xenomancers wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

The future of what? Where exactly does the money come from?

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what is money?

Money is tool to facilitate commerce, it is a unit of measurement for value. If there is no money then there is either no commerce or we've reverted to barter.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I suppose 'feed your children' could be an opinion. After all, if you give them half a slice of bread, you are technically 'feeding' them...

The thing is, why punish children for being born to poor parents?

People are free to have as many children as they want. If they want to have more children then they can support that's a probem of their own creation.

So again, punishing children for being born to poor parents is a good thing?

If your problem is that you want corporations to pay higher wages then the solution isn't for the federal and/or state governments to pay out welfare to increase incomes. That will have no impact on wages and actively works to keep them low. If corporations know that the govt will provide low paid employees with assistance then corporations will pay low wages and direct employees to file for govt assistance. Why would corporations pay more if they know the govt is there to pick up the slack?

Low wages are much more of a supply/demand issue than a corporate greed issue. Sure corporations don't want to pay more than what is necessary to fill the job and get the work done but low paying jobs are easily filled by an abundant pool of applicants willing to take the job so there is no force pushing for higher wages. Government assistance dampens any push for higher wages even more. If a person doesn't have the skills required to do work that is valuable enough to the employer to be worth a high wage that's a worker problem not an employer problem. If an employee isn't contributed more value than there's no reason for an employer to raise the wage. If a person doesn't have valuable skills and therefore can only work low wage jobs then that person needs to either make peace with the fact that he/she has to live within his/her meager means or develop a more valuable skill set. Artificially inflating the cost of low wage labor only reduces jobs and makes it harder for people without skills to get work.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How is giving people money from the govt substantially different from lowering taxes so people keep more of their money in the first place? ...
...

People whose income is too low to pay taxes gain nothing from remission of taxes.

That's already covered by the EITC. People who don't earn enough to pay taxes can still get additional money refunded to them after they file their taxes.

That's not the same thing.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I suppose 'feed your children' could be an opinion. After all, if you give them half a slice of bread, you are technically 'feeding' them...

The thing is, why punish children for being born to poor parents?

People are free to have as many children as they want. If they want to have more children then they can support that's a probem of their own creation.

So again, punishing children for being born to poor parents is a good thing?

This has nothing to do with "punishing children for being born to poor parents" and has everything to do with fricking responsibility.

The job of the state isn't to ensure that every kid is born into wealth.

Why not?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

Absolutely is - soon machines/robots will have 50-60% of all current jobs. What people fail to understand is this is not a political issue - this is a there is no other way issue.

You mean how like automation of farming was going to 40% of the population out of work in the early 20th century.
There will be no big job loss. Jobs will just shift around.

Yes, it could happen.

The old buggy whip industry theory.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

The future of what? Where exactly does the money come from?

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what is money?

Money is tool to facilitate commerce, it is a unit of measurement for value. If there is no money then there is either no commerce or we've reverted to barter.

While nothing you said is wrong it's just not answering the whole question. In a system with a basic monthly income for everyone - there is still commerce and there is still work being done. I like to think of money as being a value of work - if the same amount of work is being done then the same amount of money should be flowing through an economy. It really just becomes a distribution issue. I'm no expert about this stuff but I know that we live in a world right now that can sustain our system but that is soon about to change. We are currently able to give most people a sustainable income for doing work - a very small percentage fall through the cracks and become homeless or criminals or deadbeats. Within the next 20-30 years robotics is going to change the world and our economic systems will not be able to sustain mankind. The only answer is something like a basic monthly baseline income for all citizens. Otherwise you have a significant half or more of the current workforce of the world that can no longer provide for themselves. No - new jobs do not emerge to replace the old ones. Just ask the horses who used to pull carriages in cities. Ask the men who used to work in car factories. Ask the robot who's taking your order at panera. The Switz being smart and well governed see the future and know there is no other way. Rather then wait for it to become a problem they are preparing their economy for the inevitable change now.

Money fundamentally is a commodity that makes it easy to make transactions. That is its purpose.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

Absolutely is - soon machines/robots will have 50-60% of all current jobs. What people fail to understand is this is not a political issue - this is a there is no other way issue.

You mean how like automation of farming was going to 40% of the population out of work in the early 20th century.
There will be no big job loss. Jobs will just shift around.

I really don't follow - It used to take hundreds of men to work a field and collect the harvest. Now it takes a few men in giant tractors (soon will require 0 men as a robot is driving the giant tractor). Agricultural employment took a huge hit. There were other jobs available for those people to find in time though. What we are talking about here is a situation where a machine does literally everything better than a human can - for less cost - and more reliably. We are actually already at this point - the technology just hasn't entered the workforce yet. Once it does we will all eventually have a system like this.

Yes....Cracked, brilliant source.

It's already cheaper, right now, to buy a robot than to hire a human to work at McDonalds, they just haven't permeated the market yet.

Agriculatural jobs largely shifted to manufacturing.
We're not just talking about manufacturing jobs being replaced here though; service, transport are all going to be eroded.

Where do you envision those jobs going?
There's going to be a huge societal shift in the not so far future that very few governments are even remotely prepared for.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I suppose 'feed your children' could be an opinion. After all, if you give them half a slice of bread, you are technically 'feeding' them...

The thing is, why punish children for being born to poor parents?

People are free to have as many children as they want. If they want to have more children then they can support that's a probem of their own creation.

So again, punishing children for being born to poor parents is a good thing?

If your problem is that you want corporations to pay higher wages then the solution isn't for the federal and/or state governments to pay out welfare to increase incomes. That will have no impact on wages and actively works to keep them low. If corporations know that the govt will provide low paid employees with assistance then corporations will pay low wages and direct employees to file for govt assistance. Why would corporations pay more if they know the govt is there to pick up the slack?

Low wages are much more of a supply/demand issue than a corporate greed issue. Sure corporations don't want to pay more than what is necessary to fill the job and get the work done but low paying jobs are easily filled by an abundant pool of applicants willing to take the job so there is no force pushing for higher wages. Government assistance dampens any push for higher wages even more. If a person doesn't have the skills required to do work that is valuable enough to the employer to be worth a high wage that's a worker problem not an employer problem. If an employee isn't contributed more value than there's no reason for an employer to raise the wage. If a person doesn't have valuable skills and therefore can only work low wage jobs then that person needs to either make peace with the fact that he/she has to live within his/her meager means or develop a more valuable skill set. Artificially inflating the cost of low wage labor only reduces jobs and makes it harder for people without skills to get work.

The problem is that increased productivity does not lead to an increase in wages. Plus there is the very important human element...That there are humans involved and they deserve compassion. Really, I'm in support of a mandated multiplier of wages between lowest and highest paid in the company...Say 50 times. The CEO can't earn more than 50 times what the janitor earns (including stock options, health care, etc).

I'm also in support of a guaranteed income and public heath care along with getting rid of government assistance, minimum wage, etc. People deserve to have enough money to survive just by being people and this country has the resources to do that. The problem is that the poor are shoehorned as lazy and not deserving when really the only way to make sure that you really prosper is to be lucky. There is the myth that working hard will get you ahead and let you prosper. Really, working hard has a hygiene effect on success...That is it's harder for it to happen if you don't do it, but it doesn't make it happen.

Then there is the myth that people can magically develop better and new skills. Problem is that that ability depends on luck...Genetics and Nutrition while growing up determine intelligence/ability to learn. Combine with having time and a job that allows you time to take classes/learn other things and having the constitution to do that after working backbreaking labor for minimum wage...Plus not having a weird name that instantly gets your resume round filed.

Your arguments about children fall flat with the idea that the children already exist. So society needs to step in and make sure we are punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

As for your night school idea...the reason that I said they couldn't is that a lot of the minimum wage service jobs have you not working a fixed schedule so you can't commit to classes. If you do, you lose out on hours and pay. So you can't feed your children.

Plus you didn't address my point that the ability to learn extra skills is dependant on being lucky and having a higher ability to learn.

And news flash...minimum wage jobs like fast food are rough on you. Having to work that then come home and take care of children leaves no time nor energy for classes unless you are lucky enough to have a better than average constitution.

 skyth wrote:
Your arguments about children fall flat with the idea that the children already exist. So society needs to step in and make sure we are punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

As for your night school idea...the reason that I said they couldn't is that a lot of the minimum wage service jobs have you not working a fixed schedule so you can't commit to classes. If you do, you lose out on hours and pay. So you can't feed your children.

Plus you didn't address my point that the ability to learn extra skills is dependant on being lucky and having a higher ability to learn.

And news flash...minimum wage jobs like fast food are rough on you. Having to work that then come home and take care of children leaves no time nor energy for classes unless you are lucky enough to have a better than average constitution.

I've worked minimum wage jobs and I've worked fast food and retail jobs. They are not fun but they are also a great motivator for spending the time your not at work lookin for better jobs and learnin new skills. If somebody is working in the fast food industry and does t like it but can't bring himself/herself to actually do anything about then he/she simply don't care enough. It takes a lot of conscious decisions to go through life and amass zero worthwhile skills and to then take a low paying job with no future and decide to have a bunch of kids while you're at it.

If growing up poor is such a devastating hardship for kids and if the govt has a moral imperative to ameliorate the situation then the logical solution would be for the govt to either sterilize poor people or take their children away and raise them in govt facilities. Seriously simply giving poor families more money doesn't guarantee that their kids live better lives. No outcome can be guaranteed and the most effective corrective measures the govt could take are too draconian and totalitarian to be allowed in a free society.

Again...you were lucky that you were born with a high enough learning capacity and ability to do that.

I worked fast food as an employee and a manager. I know how hard the people there have to work to do a good job. Most physically and mentally demanding job that I have ever held. Did you work and go to school while trying to support a family on a minimum wage job?

Also considering the number of people with college degrees that work minimum wage jobs the idea that if only they had more skills or applied themselves they would do better is, quite frankly, a myth. Being able to advance and do well for yourself is more a matter of luck than anything else.

Personally I agree that the world would be a better place if having children was something that you had to earn the right to. However, that is not the world we live in and taking draconian measures against the parents just boils down to punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

 skyth wrote:
Your arguments about children fall flat with the idea that the children already exist. So society needs to step in and make sure we are punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

As for your night school idea...the reason that I said they couldn't is that a lot of the minimum wage service jobs have you not working a fixed schedule so you can't commit to classes. If you do, you lose out on hours and pay. So you can't feed your children.

Plus you didn't address my point that the ability to learn extra skills is dependant on being lucky and having a higher ability to learn.

And news flash...minimum wage jobs like fast food are rough on you. Having to work that then come home and take care of children leaves no time nor energy for classes unless you are lucky enough to have a better than average constitution.

I work a minimum wage job and will again coming this summer while looking for something more, reasonable. I know they suck, and I know that after each day I want to go home and cry.
That for me was a motivator for going to college and working hard. And im graduating 6 days from now with a degree from a nice university because I knew what was needed for a successful life.
Yes, it can be difficult, and success isnt overnight. But there are alot of things in life that require work. And a good life is one of those.
Also, Iron Working. Here in CA, the join the union you need just a high school diploma. work your way up, you can end up making 150,000$ a year.

Prestor Jon wrote:

People are free to have as many children as they want. If they want to have more children then they can support that's a probem of their own creation.

It is of critical importance to the state that birth rates are upheld and that its citizenship does not grow up essentially outside of society. If most people can't afford to have more than one or even just one child then you're not going to have much fun in a century or so. And strictly affording isn't the only issue, either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This is the future.

Absolutely is - soon machines/robots will have 50-60% of all current jobs. What people fail to understand is this is not a political issue - this is a there is no other way issue.

You mean how like automation of farming was going to 40% of the population out of work in the early 20th century.
There will be no big job loss. Jobs will just shift around.

I really don't follow - It used to take hundreds of men to work a field and collect the harvest. Now it takes a few men in giant tractors (soon will require 0 men as a robot is driving the giant tractor). Agricultural employment took a huge hit. There were other jobs available for those people to find in time though. What we are talking about here is a situation where a machine does literally everything better than a human can - for less cost - and more reliably. We are actually already at this point - the technology just hasn't entered the workforce yet. Once it does we will all eventually have a system like this.

Who made those giant tractors? Who made the parts to make them? Who designed them? How did they get to the field in the first place? There is a massive industry supporting those few remaining farmers who now drive those tractors. The displaced farmers got other jobs. As you said.
Automation moves the work around. If we manage to automate every job people do now, there will still be work for people to make it all happen. Automation will never replace people entirely.

 Skinnereal wrote:
There is a massive industry supporting those few remaining farmers who now drive those tractors. The displaced farmers got other jobs. As you said.
Automation moves the work around. If we manage to automate every job people do now, there will still be work for people to make it all happen. Automation will never replace people entirely.

Well, but at some point we can fully automate building tractors.

In the time before agriculture pretty much everyone's job was getting food and there was no surplus of human effort for anything else, on account we'd all starve to death. Along comes agriculture and everyone can be fed off a smaller portion of people's labor and so human effort can be spent on other things like having dedicated potters, masons, and metalworkers and so forth. Today the averaged output of a single person's farming labor in an industrialized country can feed a staggering number of people and relatively few of us are now involved in food production.

Similarly we've looked for ways to make the production of things that fill our other needs or desires more efficient and require less human effort. As the production of these things becomes more efficient (through automation or other methods), the number of people that can have a given need or desire fulfilled by the labor of one person increases. Viewed on a long time scale and assuming we don't meet with some kind of hard barrier to increasing efficiency further, this can be done for all humans needs and desires. This means that the proportion of the population needed to produce everything we need or want will shrink. Perhaps not vanish entirely but it's not hard to envision a future where the majority of people don't have to be or can't employed. If we've got 32 billion people, and all their needs & desires can be fulfilled by 10 billion that's 22 billion people with no job prospects.

Some things have already reached this level of efficiency. For example we only need one Beyonce to have a sufficient number of Beyonces for the entire worlds Beyonce recording & listening needs.

 skyth wrote:
Again...you were lucky that you were born with a high enough learning capacity and ability to do that.

I worked fast food as an employee and a manager. I know how hard the people there have to work to do a good job. Most physically and mentally demanding job that I have ever held. Did you work and go to school while trying to support a family on a minimum wage job?

Also considering the number of people with college degrees that work minimum wage jobs the idea that if only they had more skills or applied themselves they would do better is, quite frankly, a myth. Being able to advance and do well for yourself is more a matter of luck than anything else.

Personally I agree that the world would be a better place if having children was something that you had to earn the right to. However, that is not the world we live in and taking draconian measures against the parents just boils down to punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

I worked minimum wage jobs during high school and college and after college. I didn't have kids until after I got a better job and got married. Having kids you can't provide for while stuck in a dead end job and having not developed useful skills is a poor decision. Nobody is forced to have kids and avoiding having kids isn't terribly difficult. No amount of govt assistance will prevent people from making poor decisions.

Going to college doesn't guarantee anything. That's why I didn't say you need a college degree I said you need useful skills. There are a whole host of college majors that don't get you prepared for finding good paying jobs. I wold have chosen a different course of study or postponed going to college for another year or two if I could go back and do it over again. The eduation that you get, the schools that you go to, the amount of family support you get for going to school and working hard at learning, what you learn, if you graduate that all helps you learn useful skills that can get you entry level jobs that have the possibility of leading to better paying jobs or a decent career path. Luck is just the occurrence of preparation intersecting with opportunity. Nobody is out there handing out great high paying jobs to random people who pass by.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Again...you were lucky that you were born with a high enough learning capacity and ability to do that.

I worked fast food as an employee and a manager. I know how hard the people there have to work to do a good job. Most physically and mentally demanding job that I have ever held. Did you work and go to school while trying to support a family on a minimum wage job?

Also considering the number of people with college degrees that work minimum wage jobs the idea that if only they had more skills or applied themselves they would do better is, quite frankly, a myth. Being able to advance and do well for yourself is more a matter of luck than anything else.

Personally I agree that the world would be a better place if having children was something that you had to earn the right to. However, that is not the world we live in and taking draconian measures against the parents just boils down to punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

I worked minimum wage jobs during high school and college and after college. I didn't have kids until after I got a better job and got married. Having kids you can't provide for while stuck in a dead end job and having not developed useful skills is a poor decision. Nobody is forced to have kids and avoiding having kids isn't terribly difficult. No amount of govt assistance will prevent people from making poor decisions.

However, it will make it so that the children won't be as likely to suffer because of other people's decisions. And again, you are punishing children for not being born to the correct parents. Regardless, people deserve to eat. Without nutrition and shelter and medical care they will not be able to be productive members of society.

. Luck is just the occurrence of preparation intersecting with opportunity.

No, luck is being born with a higher capability of learning. Luck is having good nutrition growing up so your development wasn't hurt. Luck is having a good constitution so you have the endurance to keep trying. Luck is being in an area that has good schools. Luck is being attractive (Quite frankly, if you're ugly, you will have a lot harder time getting a good paying job). Luck is being born here rather being born a woman in Sudan. Luck is not having a weird sounding name that immediately gets an application round-filed. Luck is not having to compete with someone luckier in these regards. Luck is not being forced to move around a lot growing up so you don't have the chance to develop contacts that can help you. Luck is not growing up poor so that the contacts that you have at an early age are more likely to be able to help you land a good job. Saying you make your own luck and your own success is complete BS.

Hard work and preparation has a hygiene effect on opportunity. As in it is harder to get opportunity without it. However, it does not make opportunity happen. Hard work and preparation in no ways guarantee success. The only guarantees are things that are outside of your control.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Again...you were lucky that you were born with a high enough learning capacity and ability to do that.

I worked fast food as an employee and a manager. I know how hard the people there have to work to do a good job. Most physically and mentally demanding job that I have ever held. Did you work and go to school while trying to support a family on a minimum wage job?

Also considering the number of people with college degrees that work minimum wage jobs the idea that if only they had more skills or applied themselves they would do better is, quite frankly, a myth. Being able to advance and do well for yourself is more a matter of luck than anything else.

Personally I agree that the world would be a better place if having children was something that you had to earn the right to. However, that is not the world we live in and taking draconian measures against the parents just boils down to punishing children for being born to the wrong parents.

I worked minimum wage jobs during high school and college and after college. I didn't have kids until after I got a better job and got married. Having kids you can't provide for while stuck in a dead end job and having not developed useful skills is a poor decision. Nobody is forced to have kids and avoiding having kids isn't terribly difficult. No amount of govt assistance will prevent people from making poor decisions.

However, it will make it so that the children won't be as likely to suffer because of other people's decisions. And again, you are punishing children for not being born to the correct parents. Regardless, people deserve to eat. Without nutrition and shelter and medical care they will not be able to be productive members of society.

. Luck is just the occurrence of preparation intersecting with opportunity.

No, luck is being born with a higher capability of learning. Luck is having good nutrition growing up so your development wasn't hurt. Luck is having a good constitution so you have the endurance to keep trying. Luck is being in an area that has good schools. Luck is being attractive (Quite frankly, if you're ugly, you will have a lot harder time getting a good paying job). Luck is being born here rather being born a woman in Sudan. Luck is not having a weird sounding name that immediately gets an application round-filed. Luck is not having to compete with someone luckier in these regards. Luck is not being forced to move around a lot growing up so you don't have the chance to develop contacts that can help you. Luck is not growing up poor so that the contacts that you have at an early age are more likely to be able to help you land a good job. Saying you make your own luck and your own success is complete BS.

Hard work and preparation has a hygiene effect on opportunity. As in it is harder to get opportunity without it. However, it does not make opportunity happen. Hard work and preparation in no ways guarantee success. The only guarantees are things that are outside of your control.

The argument that you're making, at least the one that I'm gleaning from your posts, is that if the govt simply gave poor parents more money that they would become better parents and their children wouldn't suffer. I think that's more than a bit naive because children can suffer under bad parents regardless of what the income is for the parents and there are many factors/decisions to put people in bad situations beyond simply not having an abundance of money.

One of the reasons why I was able to better my career options was because I met my wife, who is a pediatric nurse. She worked hard in high school, paid for college with loans and paid off her loans by getting a good nursng job right out of college. Her inome enabled us to get better. Working as a pediatric nurse she sees some pretty awful heartbreaking things in regards to kids stuck in families with bad parents. Some parents have money, some don't, some get a lot of govt assistance, some don't get any, some already are involved with law enforcement and social services, some aren't. The common thread with all of them is that they're not good parents, they don't seem to have the capacity or desire to properly care for their kids and no amount of money can change that personality and behavior. That's anecdotal, I know, but I think it exemplifies a basic truth that people's character and personality will dictate behavior more so than income.

I don't have much confidence that the govt taking money out of my paycheck and giving it to poor parents will suddenly make those parents make better decisions than they previously made that led them to be in bad situation in the first place and prevent their kids from suffering. The govt does not have the ability or the resources to ensure that every child grows up in a good environment with a caring family that provides for their needs. There are people out there that can't be saved, not under the current rules our society lives by and when the govt tries to force the system to work in such a way as to try to make that possible anyway it does more harm than good.

Nobody is born lucky. You can be born into a good family that nurtures and provides for you and gives you a good education and still become a destitute drug addict or a lazy do nothing or criminal or any other kind of bad outcome. The vast majority of people don't just have things handed to them for nothing. There is always a certain amount of work and preparation involved. No type of connection or network is going to let you keep a job that you do poorly or aren't remotely qualified to do or can't do at all. Lots of people move around a lot growing up and still end up with decent jobs. People grow up all over the world on military bases or with parents that change job locations etc. Moving around can just as easily build a bigger network than prevent one from forming. If you don't work hard and apply yourself no amount of opportunity will put you in a good situation. You can't control what you're born into but you can control the decisions you make and what you do to help yourself.

There's an assumption being made that poor parents automatically = bad parents, because they weren't "sensible enough" to get a well-paid job.

This isn't true at all.

I grew up in an absolutely poor family, and had excellent loving parents.

My partner had a wealthy upbringing, but terrible parents (one of which left when she was 4).

Earning money and the stress that comes with it often gets in the way of good parenting, so I'd say that wealthier households can also be at risk of bad parenting because both parents are overworked and overstressed and unable to give heir children much attention as a result of having to work so hard to earn the money they "need" to be "good parents".

Of course, our society views success as wealth, so it will never occur to most people that it's even possible for poor parents to be good parents or wealthy parents to be bad parents, it's an assumed stereotype that anyone poor has failed at life and does not deserve to reproduce.

 scarletsquig wrote:
There's an assumption being made that poor parents automatically = bad parents, because they weren't "sensible enough" to get a well-paid job.

This isn't true at all.

I grew up in an absolutely poor family, and had excellent loving parents.

My partner had a wealthy upbringing, but terrible parents (one of which left when she was 4).

Earning money and the stress that comes with it often gets in the way of good parenting, so I'd say that wealthier households can also be at risk of bad parenting because both parents are overworked and overstressed and unable to give heir children much attention as a result of having to work so hard to earn the money they "need" to be "good parents".

Of course, our society views success as wealth, so it will never occur to most people that it's even possible for poor parents to be good parents or wealthy parents to be bad parents, it's an assumed stereotype that anyone poor has failed at life and does not deserve to reproduce.

I agree. People can be wonderful parents or horrible parents regardless of income or wealth. Sometimes the state can help children who are stuck with bad parents, too often it can't. It's heart breaking to see kids suffer through no fault of their own but it's also a very dangerous slippery slope when we start empowering the state to get involved with who can have children, what constitutes good parenting and when children should be removed from families. There aren't a lot of societal ills that can be easily cured by having the govt cut some checks and through money at them.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You can't control what you're born into but you can control the decisions you make and what you do to help yourself.

You can't control which options are available to you nor can you make sure that they are meaningful choices. Your successes and failures in life are as arbitrary as they are a product of your efforts.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You can't control what you're born into but you can control the decisions you make and what you do to help yourself.

You can't control which options are available to you nor can you make sure that they are meaningful choices. Your successes and failures in life are as arbitrary as they are a product of your efforts.

You can't control your options but you control which options you pick and what decisions you make and action you take goes a long way in determining what new options become available. You can't have one without the other and all the great options in the world won't matter if you aren't willing to take advantage of them and work hard to succeed with them.