Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=briansd1]
People believe that having kids makes them happy.
It’s just the way it’s done and the example set by society. So people do it to conform.
[/quote]
Not to sound sappy, but having kids (3) did make me happy. It makes me happy every day just to see them running around happy and healthy and funny and cute. Which is not to say that sometimes I don’t flip out over how messy and self centered they can be. My husband makes me happy, too. Which also sounds sappy, but it’s true.
We had kids when we were in our late 30s, prior to which I had had a pretty stressful career in a very male dominated field, so I don’t really feel like I’m much of a conformist. In fact, most of my same-age friends had kids long before I did or not at all. So – some people have kids because they really want them, and they marry people because they really love them. I think there are a lot of those people, but for whatever reason they don’t get much press.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
if you ask 100 lawyers whether they’d want their kids to be lawyers, I bet 78 would say eff no.[/quote]
Same is true of doctors. But the question is, what would they recommend that their kids do?
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
if you ask 100 lawyers whether they’d want their kids to be lawyers, I bet 78 would say eff no.[/quote]
Same is true of doctors. But the question is, what would they recommend that their kids do?
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
if you ask 100 lawyers whether they’d want their kids to be lawyers, I bet 78 would say eff no.[/quote]
Same is true of doctors. But the question is, what would they recommend that their kids do?
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
if you ask 100 lawyers whether they’d want their kids to be lawyers, I bet 78 would say eff no.[/quote]
Same is true of doctors. But the question is, what would they recommend that their kids do?
Participant[quote=walterwhite]
if you ask 100 lawyers whether they’d want their kids to be lawyers, I bet 78 would say eff no.[/quote]
Same is true of doctors. But the question is, what would they recommend that their kids do?
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am sure critical thinking is a good thing to have. I am questioning if critical thinking is worth 200K of student loans for most people.
[/quote]
OK – I don’t get these figures for student loan debt. Tuition, fees, room and board, insurance and transportation at University of California schools comes up to slightly less than $30,000 a year, according to U of C:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html
So, even if you paid for all of that with student loans, without defraying any of it with a job, you would be about $120,000 in the hole. And I never knew anyone in college who didn’t have a job – I worked in a china store, others worked for food service, etc.. My brother in law went to school full time, worked three jobs, and paid for his education and expenses at a Big 10 school without going into debt at all. Let’s say you could reasonably earn about $5000 a year, you could keep the low balance down to $100,000. Getting a job and living low for a few years after college would allow that amount to be whittled down significantly. I think the high student loan balances result from choosing to go to a private college (absolutely no reason to do that in California, which is one reason we’re moving back) or living extravagantly on loans.
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am sure critical thinking is a good thing to have. I am questioning if critical thinking is worth 200K of student loans for most people.
[/quote]
OK – I don’t get these figures for student loan debt. Tuition, fees, room and board, insurance and transportation at University of California schools comes up to slightly less than $30,000 a year, according to U of C:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html
So, even if you paid for all of that with student loans, without defraying any of it with a job, you would be about $120,000 in the hole. And I never knew anyone in college who didn’t have a job – I worked in a china store, others worked for food service, etc.. My brother in law went to school full time, worked three jobs, and paid for his education and expenses at a Big 10 school without going into debt at all. Let’s say you could reasonably earn about $5000 a year, you could keep the low balance down to $100,000. Getting a job and living low for a few years after college would allow that amount to be whittled down significantly. I think the high student loan balances result from choosing to go to a private college (absolutely no reason to do that in California, which is one reason we’re moving back) or living extravagantly on loans.
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am sure critical thinking is a good thing to have. I am questioning if critical thinking is worth 200K of student loans for most people.
[/quote]
OK – I don’t get these figures for student loan debt. Tuition, fees, room and board, insurance and transportation at University of California schools comes up to slightly less than $30,000 a year, according to U of C:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html
So, even if you paid for all of that with student loans, without defraying any of it with a job, you would be about $120,000 in the hole. And I never knew anyone in college who didn’t have a job – I worked in a china store, others worked for food service, etc.. My brother in law went to school full time, worked three jobs, and paid for his education and expenses at a Big 10 school without going into debt at all. Let’s say you could reasonably earn about $5000 a year, you could keep the low balance down to $100,000. Getting a job and living low for a few years after college would allow that amount to be whittled down significantly. I think the high student loan balances result from choosing to go to a private college (absolutely no reason to do that in California, which is one reason we’re moving back) or living extravagantly on loans.
-
AuthorPosts
