Uh, it works by its own definition. If there are less poor people, then there is less poverty.
Take the white trash capital of the world, Gastonia. Say there are 1,000 kids in each elementary school class. With the voluntary sterilization program in place, say that number drops to 600. That means less strain on the school system, less strain on the police, less strain on entitlement programs, etc. It also means that the 600 kids are more likely to have actually been wanted by their parents and therefore not just ignored growing up. So you've got better family structures and better education for those kids, which leads to them being more productive members of society. So not only does it simply lower the number of people in poverty by preventing additional unwanted births, but those kids who are still nonetheless born into poverty are in better position to work themselves out of poverty as they grow up.
Instead of sterilizing poor folks why don't we just eat their extra babies? Everybody wins.
So how would you break the cycle? Leave the grandma, daughter, and 2 kids out in the cold?
Maybe we should offer everyone over 65 a lump sum to kill themselves?
No more poor people or shitty drivers, perfect.
Where's Kevorkian when you need him?
Where's Kevorkian when you need him?
Heckuva set of assumptions there - but whatever works for ya. :noidea:
So, to summarize - unwanted babies are the problem and need to be eliminated.
Maybe we should offer everyone over 65 a lump sum to kill themselves?
No more poor people or shitty drivers, perfect.
What assumption(s) do you disagree with?
And, yes, unwanted (meaning unintended) babies are a huge part of the problem.
Instead of sterilizing poor folks why don't we just eat their extra babies? Everybody wins.
Since you believe this to be the case, can you explain something that doesn't quite make sense to me. I have yet to have anyone that believes the middle class is shrinking give an explanation.Exactly. Exploding wealth stratification and the gradual stagnation and pricing out of the shrinking middle class has created a permanent underclass.
The babies may not be "unwanted" but what gives someone the right to have children they cannot afford?
Mmmmmhm, shortribs!
So you are going to offer this option to Asian people as well?
well for starters:
You assume the level of pregnancies that are "unwanted."
You assume the level of participation in such a program.
You assume that its a zero sum game, that by eliminating one generation of "unwanted babies" the problem ends - that the void wouldn't be filled with new poor over time - because as has been pointed out, it is the wealth gap and dearth of upward mobility that perpetuates this class of people.
1. Okay, I had assumed 40% of Gastonia pregnancies are unwanted for purposes of the example. Though I personally think it is probably around 80%, let's drop it to 10%. That is still a 10% reduction of classroom size, social programs, etc. Even if it is as low as 1%, how is that a bad thing?
2. Again, even if it is 1%, that is still 1% better than we are now, with no downside. Nobody has to do it if they don't want to, it is a choice purely of free will to each person. And even if you are paying $25,000, that is a drop in the bucket compared to what would be spent on that kid by the government programs.
3. I'm not saying it is only a one-time program. Implement it and keep it out there as a constant offer.