reply to post by Maxmars
I assure you the respect is mutual, and I always enjoy your opposing point of view! Forgive me for omitting quotations, the post would be too large
Correct me if I'm wrong, but good parents only make the decision to have children when they can care for them financially. Im not positing an
ever-lasting correllation between wealth and success as a parent... instead Im saying that there is a threshold for familial wealth which corresponds
to the ability to raise a child. It is only responsible parents that will wait to have children once they cross this threshold, while the
irresponsible ones will have their child too early.
I think our definition of rich differs here. By the "wealthy" I mean anyone who is capable of providing for themselves without being reliant upon
wider society. I think you are thinking of the dynastic richness of the Du Ponts or the Rockefellers... which are an entire aberration and cannot be
explained by this theory because as you say, they too produce dysfunctional rich kids.
I hope you didn't take my analysis too personally (though of course its hard not to). Clearly the correllation is never perfect. There will always be
intelligent, successful children born into families that could not care for them. If I may say so, you seem to be one of them. Why did your path lead
to menial labour?
May I ask where do you think you were failed by the "system"? Was it a lack of adequate parenting? Was it a lack of education access? In other
words, what kept you from being a wealth generator rather than a "wage slave"?
I do not wish poor people to stop reproducing. Rather I want them to consider how they may support the large families that they generate without
thought of how to care for them. People can have howmany ever children they want, I have absolutely no right to stop them... but when they put the
burden of care for their children upon me (ie medical care costs, education costs etc), then can I not object to them being irresponsible?
Clearly I was overly forceful with my argument, I hope you do not consider it to be propaganda. The notion that wealth inequality is the direct result
of debt bondage and wage slavery does seem to be abound in much of the media today, wouldn't you agree? People even in the highest offices seem to be
worries about rising inequality... whereas they neglect other attributes to the dilution of wealth. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between?
I have always maintained that equality should be equality of access to success. Equality is not some state where everyone's bank balance is the same.
Equality is not some state where everyone's salary has the same number of zeros behind it. Equality to me is the ability for every man to make of
himself what he can.
Clearly you feel that there are people in your country that do not get what they deserve. Why is this? Where is the intrinsic bottleneck in the system
that prevents them from rising up in life? If I may be so bold, what held you back?
In my estimation, there is equality of access such as we have never seen before. Each man can achieve his potential in today's society and under the
capitalistic system. This does mean that some will be in dire poverty, but when they have been given all the tools to succeed yet they do not, I am
inclined to question why. I've often thought of the journey that some of my relatives made from the third world villages to their current position in
life. Despite not having access to the tools that they needed, they managed to accrue wealth that has never been seen before in their families. Most
were the first generation of their family to go to university, most were the first millionaires in their families (whose net worth before that was
I guess what Im really trying to identify is where does it all go wrong for people who are in poverty? My answer is that they were brought up by
sub-par parents; and statistically speaking the parents were fiscally incapable of supporting them.
Some interesting sources:
book and film
I couldnt find any sources about the correlation between family income and number of children... perhaps someone could point me in the right
direction? Surely theres no doubt about lower income families having more children...