Economy Study: Middle Class Is Over

franklinstower said:
That is not the point at all. That sounds like a talking point in favor of the fact that worker productivity keeps going up and up but workers wages keep going down. That is just stupid man.
Click to expand...
That is life, we all go through good times, bad times and everything in between.
 
Ripskater said:
That is life, we all go through good times, bad times and everything in between.
Click to expand...


Not like this. The tend is 30 years long and artificially created. There is no need for it. The main damage done is degradation of the family and children.
 
Social welfare is theft? No, it's decency.

In a civilized society, anyway.
 
I'm buying some of that data, but I'd like to know the number of kids per household in relation to reporting financial hardships. Guess what? Kids are really fucking expensive. If you have a household income of less than 150K, maybe it's not smart to have 4 kids. My office does these charity drives twice a year where they pick a couple of low income families each time, and it always appears to be the same story: single mother (or two parents but one can't work), 6 kids, live in a 2 bedroom apartment, car is on its last legs, etc. It's heartbreaking, but I always think "Why in the fuck do you have 6 kids??" Everyone at my office is at least middle class, if not upper, management are 1%ers. Guess how many have more than 3 kids? Fucking zero, because it's piss-poor planning. And the fucking wage gap shit again the article references...yea, because men make it to upper management positions by rolling in at 9 and leaving as soon as the clock strikes 5. Fuck that. Every single person - man or woman - who's even mid management works minimum 50 hours/week. That's going to be extremely challenging with 3 kids, and basically impossible with more than that.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that wages haven't gone up in proportion to the price of housing, services and consumer goods. Something should be done there. But the reality is that too many kids will hold you back, and it's not fair to the kids either. You don't need to have 4, 5 or 6 kids. 2 is plenty to sap all your energy and attention, and if you're really feeling up to it, go for 3. Anything above that, like I said, poor planning.

EDIT: then there's also the fact that there are too many of us already. We don't need more, we need less. If everyone could just understand that, our governments would be forced to take a good hard look at their systems that stop functioning properly once the population levels off - or god forbid - starts to decline.
 
franklinstower said:
Not like this. The tend is 30 years long and artificially created. There is no need for it. The main damage done is degradation of the family and children.
Click to expand...
That's the root of pretty much every societal problem.
 
WaylonMercy5150 said:
Define make
Click to expand...
8fa03df9e22879b653b7e69c18fb33bf
 
@Madmick you want to get in here and tell me how I’m fucking up at reading this?

Grenz said:
I'm buying some of that data, but I'd like to know the number of kids per household in relation to reporting financial hardships. Guess what? Kids are really fucking expensive. If you have a household income of less than 150K, maybe it's not smart to have 4 kids. My office does these charity drives twice a year where they pick a couple of low income families each time, and it always appears to be the same story: single mother (or two parents but one can't work), 6 kids, live in a 2 bedroom apartment, car is on its last legs, etc. It's heartbreaking, but I always think "Why in the fuck do you have 6 kids??" Everyone at my office is at least middle class, if not upper, management are 1%ers. Guess how many have more than 3 kids? Fucking zero, because it's piss-poor planning. And the fucking wage gap shit again the article references...yea, because men make it to upper management positions by rolling in at 9 and leaving as soon as the clock strikes 5. Fuck that. Every single person - man or woman - who's even mid management works minimum 50 hours/week. That's going to be extremely challenging with 3 kids, and basically impossible with more than that.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that wages haven't gone up in proportion to the price of housing, services and consumer goods. Something should be done there. But the reality is that too many kids will hold you back, and it's not fair to the kids either. You don't need to have 4, 5 or 6 kids. 2 is plenty to sap all your energy and attention, and if you're really feeling up to it, go for 3. Anything above that, like I said, poor planning.

EDIT: then there's also the fact that there are too many of us already. We don't need more, we need less. If everyone could just understand that, our governments would be forced to take a good hard look at their systems that stop functioning properly once the population levels off - or god forbid - starts to decline.
Click to expand...
Dude, you typed a lot of anecdotes there.

Yeah, people with a shit ton on kids are probably not great planners, but it doesn’t mean that if they didn’t have kids they’d have no financial trouble.

Kids are expensive... for people who spend a lot of money on them (well off people). The reason most upper management folks at your gig don’t have a bunch of kids probably has more to do with career planning and expected standards of living than actually not being able to afford more children.

But in any case, this is conjecture. We all know that the average number on children per household is down, correct?
 
Last edited:
thefirstemporer said:
As a member of the middle class, nah we still here. As a citizen of Commiefornia, taxes and proposals for funding for more bullshit projects and socialists ideas, we may become a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
Sadly true. Especially if Newsom has his way.
 
The middle class need to get some buckets to catch all dat cash that will be trickling down any day now.
 
Grenz said:
I'm buying some of that data, but I'd like to know the number of kids per household in relation to reporting financial hardships. Guess what? Kids are really fucking expensive. If you have a household income of less than 150K, maybe it's not smart to have 4 kids. My office does these charity drives twice a year where they pick a couple of low income families each time, and it always appears to be the same story: single mother (or two parents but one can't work), 6 kids, live in a 2 bedroom apartment, car is on its last legs, etc. It's heartbreaking, but I always think "Why in the fuck do you have 6 kids??" Everyone at my office is at least middle class, if not upper, management are 1%ers. Guess how many have more than 3 kids? Fucking zero, because it's piss-poor planning. And the fucking wage gap shit again the article references...yea, because men make it to upper management positions by rolling in at 9 and leaving as soon as the clock strikes 5. Fuck that. Every single person - man or woman - who's even mid management works minimum 50 hours/week. That's going to be extremely challenging with 3 kids, and basically impossible with more than that.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that wages haven't gone up in proportion to the price of housing, services and consumer goods. Something should be done there. But the reality is that too many kids will hold you back, and it's not fair to the kids either. You don't need to have 4, 5 or 6 kids. 2 is plenty to sap all your energy and attention, and if you're really feeling up to it, go for 3. Anything above that, like I said, poor planning.

EDIT: then there's also the fact that there are too many of us already. We don't need more, we need less. If everyone could just understand that, our governments would be forced to take a good hard look at their systems that stop functioning properly once the population levels off - or god forbid - starts to decline.
Click to expand...


Well said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,626
Messages
58,306,733
Members
176,000
Latest member
Furigo94

Share this page

Back
Top