It's rough at the top: 1 percenters under increasing pressure to have more kids

The Globe alerts us that the disposable-income set is now beset by constant worrying about just how many babies they should pop out.

"I get the sense that [people think] we’re choosing to have one child because we don’t love our son as much as people with multiple children, and it drives me nuts,” she says. "One woman came up to me at Trader Joe's and, 'Oh, how could you deprive him? You’ll change your mind.' "

Ed. note: One saving grace about shopping at Shaw's: People rarely confront you about the size of your brood - or much of anything else, for that matter.



    Free tagging: 


      1. Why is it anyone's

      By on

      1. Why is it anyone's business how many children someone has, except for the times when that number is exceptionally large and is government-funded?

      2. Seriously, a Trader Joe's vs Shaws comparison? Last time I checked, Shaws/Stop&Shop were even more expensive with poorer quality of items. Maybe you meant to say MarketBasket?

      Market Basket, what's that?

      By on

      Down here in southwestern Boston, our choices are Shaw's/Star, Stop & Shop, Roche Bros and the Village Market, and if you want to drive a bit and don't mind insane crowds of the sort of people who get quoted in Globe articles about the pressures to have giant families, Wegman's in Newton and Whole Foods in Dedham (note: Yes, JP has a Whole Foods, too, but from down here on the Hyde Park line, it's often easier for us to get to the one in Dedham).

      In any case, I wasn't making a food comparison, but a comparison on the number of people who angrily approach you (or more specifically, your wife, given that the Globe only seemed to quote women) to demand you stop being such a selfish layabout and give your kid more siblings, NOW, dammit.

      They probably don't know about eusocial adaptations.

      There are situations in a species community where some will 'opt out' of increased offspring spooting, usually due to population pressures.

      Given the pressures that one percent hogging imposes on the rest of us from earning stagnation to resurgent neo feudalism, it would be far more useful to encourage them to forgo breeding altogether and switch to copulating with specially shaped money fifi's.

      And here in the Dot...

      By on

      We have Star , which used to be Star, then changed to Shaws , then changed back to Star. Also Stop& Shop. They're ok.

      In Fields Corner there's America's Food Basket, which has a great selection of Caribbean and Central American food, but it's really dirty. The floors haven't been washed since forever. In Codman Square, the other AFB had a big broken window for more than a year before they fixed it.

      As far as rich people feeling bad cuz someone says they do or don't have the right amount of kids, really Boston Globe, who the frig cares? Shouldn't that kind of non news be a thing?

      Oh, yeah, America's Food Basket

      By on

      Here in remotest, southwestest Boston, we have one of those. Also Baby Nat's Fruitland, which has the best typography and name ever.

      People are busy bodies

      By on

      I have a friend who has moved around the area a lot. In Sharon, people would look at her and the 3 kids and ask how she dealt with so many kids. In Marshfield, they asked when she was going to have more.

      Now she has 5.

      " except for the times when

      By on

      " except for the times when that number is exceptionally large and is government-funded?"
      All children are government funded: schools we all pay for regardless of whether we have kids, and there are subsidies (tax credits) for each kid. So unless you home school your brood they are government funded.

      Uh oh.

      By on

      Malthusians everywhere, who had heretofore been cheering the decreasing number of children being born (and not just to the more affluent) now have a vendetta against the Globe.

      Malthus was right

      By on

      Just not about food. Increasing populations are the greatest threat to water supplies and the environment. You'll never hear that from the climate change crowd though. They only like things that are politically popular and the truth usually isn't.

      Another explanation for the "climate change crowd"

      We understand how the scientific method works, and can spot the modern equivalent of Tobacco Institute "scientists" without breaking a sweat. The only people with whom the truth is unpopular in this regard is the extraction industries and citizens who are gullible enough to buy their fake science.

      I respectfully disagree

      By on

      Yes, there are those who look to science, and for the rest I will stick to climate change.

      There are people who are convinced that the earth is warming and will cling to any scientific evidence that proves such and will toss out anything that disagrees with it. There are people who believe that the earth is not warming, or if it is it is part of a natural cycle, and these people will cling to any scientific evidence that proves such and will toss out anything that disagrees with their theory. To give the worst examples of each, you will see the people when we go through a long warm stretch (see a few years ago) and give that as an example of the earth warming, while the opposite side would point to last winter as proof that global warming does not exist. The reality is that the data is much more complex.

      So yes, there is a "climate change crowd." As the previous poster noted, the results of the data in WaPo and people's reaction to it would be the proof.

      Overwhelming evidence

      By on

      Unfortunately, there were no "results of the data" in that WaPo column. There was a meteorologist (a student of weather, not climate) who graphed already analyzed data and announced his conclusion drawn from his particular slice of data. That's not science, it's an editorial. Not only does he treat the data incorrectly, but he then uses logical fallacies to defend against strawmen arguments against his mistreatment of the data.

      His argument, by the way, is akin to watching cars slow down to use the EZPass lane on a highway and saying "well, these cars were going fast, but if this really recent trend continues, they're going to start going in reverse just past that tollbooth ahead!".

      There is far more analysis than what he links to (most of which was more news and editorials and not primary research) and all of it says any slow-downs are not even really pauses but sequestration of the heat and energy in other systems which will only serve to accelerate the warming trend down the road (example, if the oceans heat up instead of the atmosphere, then the polar caps melt faster, the Earth reflects less light back into space, heating speeds up). So, pauses like in his micro-trend are actually really bad news. It's better when we know where all the energy is readily accounted for and easier to hopefully clean up somehow.

      So, your frame of reference is totally confused. If someone is walking around ranting about chemical contrails, then everyone else who says the man needs help aren't the "chemtrail denial crowd" and their reaction to his lunacy isn't "proof" that such a crowd exists. If that Post editorial had any validity then let the guy publish it for others to peer review. He's single-handedly busted all of the world's models on climate change. He should be more famous than just being used to prove the existence of the "climate change crowd" on UHub.

      Science isn't a matter of opinions.

      Prevailing scientific theory is built on an ocean (or more accurately, a slow-moving glacier) of peer-reviewed research. The overwhelming consensus, over 97% (and probably closer to 99%) of current peer-reviewed scientific research into long-term climate trends supports the current prevailing theory that the planet is warming dramatically and that human activity is the cause of it.

      Science doesn't give a shit what your opinion is. If you understand how science works, you are not a climate change denier. If you doubt the reality of anthropogenic climate change, you are by definition science-illiterate.

      Okay, back to the beginning

      By on

      Stevil said that any changes our climate has endured can be traced to Malthus. He noted that the "climate change crowd" doesn't want to put this in the equation.

      The phrase "climate change crowd" was challenged.

      An anon noted the WaPo article (which, I admit, I didn't look at) and the responses to said article. The anon was challenged.

      I noted that there is in fact a difference between those who look to scientific data and those, on both sides, who refute anything out of hand (as opposed to actually using the scientific method to objectively dissect things) that contradict their views.

      You responded "science doesn't give a shit what your (which could either mean me or the collective "you") opinion is." This is true, but it applies across the board to everyone, including you. A thousand years ago more than 97% of European scientists were convinced that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo was called to recant when he claimed that it wasn't true.

      I'm not saying that there is no climate change, or that humanity is not causing climate change. I am just saying that there is such a thing as the "climate change crowd", just as there is a "climate change denier crowd." Both claim to like science, but they both abuse the scientific method. But yes, 97% of scientists, who know a lot more than me and use the scientific method, say that the earth is warming and that humans play a part in it.

      Geocentrism is an absurd example of science, as it uses the work

      of scholars who would not be considered scientists by modern standards. In fact, the notion that the earth is the center of the universe was one of the first beliefs widely held by academics of the day to crumble under the weight of the scientific revolution, which arose in about the 16th century, not coincidentally when Copernicus and others began pioneering the modern scientific method.

      As Ordway might say, "You're making my point."

      And you're right: my opinions don't matter in scientific matters, which is why I don't offer opinions about climate change. That's all climate change deniers have to offer -- opinions -- but unless you are a scientist advancing research that withstands the scrutiny of peer review, your opinions have zero weight in scientific matters.

      What data are you drawing from

      By on

      First, I don't care if it causes global warming/climate change or not - what we are doing to our atmosphere is terrible - so if we can cost effectively reduce emissions - it's a good thing no matter what.

      Science - absolute bunk. This is the "Climate Change" (nee Global Warming) industrial complex at work. This is their science:

      1) Marginal to no empirical evidence that temperatures are increasing. Note - accurate temperature measurements only date back to about 1981 when we could measure global temperatures (surface only) accurately. Temperatures did rise for the first 15-20 years of that period, but even the Climate Change gang will admit that was from a fairly cold base in the 1970s. The temperature increases were extraordinarily marginal - fractions of a degree. Over the past 15 years or so there has been a "pause" in temperature rise. The industry did not stand still. No - it's not actually global warming - it's "climate change". Seriously? What the HELL does that mean? The very scientists declaring that are standing on ground that was formed by retreating glaciers.

      2) The estimate that if CO2 levels increase, there should be a marked increase in global temperatures. Only one problem - their models don't seem to work Current temperatures are far below even the most conservative of estimates. Any scientist worth the title would conclude that there's either something wrong with the science or that something else more complex is impacting the models.

      The scientific conclusion - minimal evidence that temperatures are even rising and ample evidence that there are serious flaws in the current models and even less evidence that we are causing these changes.

      I'm not saying I agree or disagree - I do see some evidence on both sides. I'm saying anyone who says this is proven science never took a science class. If you took a lab in my HS science class and presented this crap as evidence that global warming/climate change is happening AND we are the cause of it - you'd get an immediate F.

      That must make you just plain illiterate

      By on

      Have you read the most recent UN report on climate change. Big scandal when it came out (in draft before they could spin the final). Concluded that a) there has not been a significant upward trend in the world's temperatures for over a decade and b) the models they've been using are off by orders of magnitude and they don't know why. The conclusion was there must be something else going on that they are not factoring in - increased volcanism, solar activity, something unmeasured - who knows. In fact - they changed from global warming to climate change because the evidence for warming was diminishing - but always hard to argue with climate change because the climate is always changing.

      Great example a few months ago when Obama said a drought out west was due to warming. Only one problem - even the climate change scientists agree that warming should INCREASE rainfall - but it hasn't. Another puzzling conundrum for their models.

      I'm perfectly willing to listen to evidence - but this is a big deal and you can't go damming up the Boston Harbor and subsidizing windmills throughout the land to the tune of $1 million a pop on what we have right now.

      In the meantime - if you care about the environment - the number one thing you can do for the future - is not have children (and adoption is a choice for otherwise qualified parents). As others have said - personal choice yadda yadda yadda. But don't pop out a basketball team and then come screaming about humans being the cause of climate change. If humans are truly the cause of climate change and your family is an intramural squad - the root cause is staring back at you in the mirror.

      Is that truth too inconvenient?

      Climate change deniers all do the same thing:

      cherry-pick facts and ignore the staggering, overwhelming consensus of the peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject.

      It's like someone who is punched repeatedly in the face yet still insists, "No, that doesn't hurt." That person is obviously a liar, an idiot, a lunatic, or some combination thereof, and everyone can see it. That's you, Stevil.

      I'm agnostic

      By on

      I'm saying we need more data. 35 years of global averages don't tell you much. especially when half say yes and half say nothing is happening. Again - if you came to my HS science class and said - look - I have 35 data points. Half prove my hypothesis and half don't prove or disprove anything, therefore my hypothesis is correct you'd get an F.

      Pragmatists would agree with me. The lunatic fringe runs around saying things like you are a liar, an idiot or both because calling other people names really loudly automatically makes you right.

      PS - If your idea of "Cherry picking" the data and conclusions of the most recent UN panel on climate change is "cherry picking" - I have to question what "everyone can see". for the record, I believe they still attribute climate change we can see and prove (smaller polar ice caps/glaciers etc.) to human activity. They might be right - I would say I actually lean in that direction if asked to pick a side, but I'm not about to commit the world to trillions of dollars of infrastructure change to fix it. And the easiest solution remains - figure out how to get people to stop having children. You could solve the whole problem in one generation if we just cut the world's population in half instead of doubling it.

      You're like the kid throwing a tantrum at Target

      Someone should go up to your parents and say, "Will you make that kid shut up and behave? You're miserable failures at child-rearing", but most folks recognize that there's no point in doing so; the only sensible thing to do is walk away.

      This is also the only thing to do with people who are so science-challenged that they cannot recognize overwhelming scientific consensus.

      Scientific consensus

      By on

      Among a group of people who make their living consensusing.

      I am writing a book challenging the almost unanimous "consensus" of people in my industry (personal finance). I open each chapter with a quote. Opening of chapter one is:

      It's impossible for a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair

      Who's having a temper tantrum at Target? I'm just making a few points and even say I lean in the direction you are espousing - I just maintain healthy skepticism and don't froth at the mouth about "settled science" because it's anything but.

      Where would half of these scientists be if evidence came out tomorrow that climate change is due to sunspots and there is little we can do about it?

      Again, you demonstrate your feeble understanding of

      the scientific method. There is no such thing as "settled science", only prevailing theory that never stops being subject to new theorizing, experimentation, observation.

      It is entirely possible that some scientist could advance a sunspot theory to explain global warming, and if enough peer-reviewed research emerged to support it, it would eventually become the new prevailing theory. But the advance of scientific theory is like a battleship. It doesn't turn on a single report, but it can be turned: it just takes a ton of evidence. If enough research were conducted to undercut the current Everest-sized mountain of research that supports the prevailing theory of anthropogenic climate change, that would become the new prevailing theory.

      The problem for deniers is that research simply isn't forthcoming; 1% continues to be crushed by 99%. It's not really that hard to understand, unless you're stubbornly determined not to understand.

      The President and the UN are political creatures, not scientists

      Obama is incorrect in his usage of "settled science". The point he is making with that language, however, is very clear, and only denied by science ignoramuses and the deliberately obtuse: the overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific research supports the prevailing theory of anthropogenic climate change.

      Read that a few times until it sinks in. At some point, you will have to grow up and come to terms with that 97-99% figure. Or not. You can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make it think.

      Beyond the none-of-your-beeswax, much of the article is true

      By on

      My comment about Malthusians aside, much of the article rings true. In my experience, people in their 30s and 40s (notice I did not even say 20s, I know no one who lives around here who had a child who was younger than 29) are definitely limiting their child-bearing because of fear of education costs, housing costs and retirement (ha, ha, ha!) costs (and the stories told by many in the article little - to no maternity leave, not doing business so not getting paid, and daycare costs of $25K/yr are spot on).

      This should come as a surprise to no one, except perhaps some baby boomers, many of whom, in my experience, still do not seem to realize that they ended up in the generational sweet spot (lowest tax burden throughout their working years of any modern generation, two of the largest economic booms in American history during their prime working years, being able to get good jobs when they were young without the expense of a university degree, housing costs that did not take nearly as great a percentage of income, etc., etc.). I bear such people no ill will (that's the luck of the draw, although some would argue that they set the policies that we are now stuck with to achieve those ends), however, I do get pissed when I am asked by some why I, in my mid-late 30s, am "still living in a condo with a child".

      It's okay, we are an utterly awful generation

      ..born on third while being convinced it was a home run.

      We excel at never shutting up about ourselves and it has made the following generation a neurotic reactive thing.

      We are Newt Gingrich while they are stuck being Paul Ryan.

      I couldn't be more thrilled to have made it to the threshold of senility while keeping my DNA in my sneaker where it belongs.

      20 something Bostonians exist

      By on

      Right here, guy!

      My daughter is 8 now but I was only 24 when she was born. Numerous high school classmates of mine had kids in their 20s and stuck around Boston too. Several of my daughters classmates' parents are around the same age. We are all BPS parents and alumni, though, so draw your conclusions if you must.

      It wasn't easy raising a daughter while struggling with young adulthood, but many of us do it just as fine as these Wellesleyites with their trilingual nannies. Guess what, we're trilingual too, including our lil girl, no nannies needed, both parents working full time.

      Also, my wife gets badgered with questions about when will we give our daughter a sibling, so this topic is not reserved for affluent white folk only.

      Yeah, whatever, Audi drivers

      By on

      I'd rather be penniless and live in a refrigerator box of peace and quiet than have a compound on Nantucket full of screeching heirs.

      Audi -> Nantucket Compound?

      By on

      That's a pretty big jump up. I'd say there is a pretty wide gap on the income scale between having an income that allows you to buy an Audi and having an income that allows you to have a compound on Nantucket.


      By on

      You're right. I was trying to summarize the latest manifestation of entitled douchebag and painted with too broad a brush. Mea culpa.

      Nothing is more heartbreaking

      By on

      Nothing is more heartbreaking for a couple going through fertility treatments only to be set upon by "well meaning" people who feel the need to ask them why they don't have children.
      Many of these "well meaning" people have no idea what it's like to want children so badly yet never get the chance, or the hurt they cause by butting into personal affairs.

      A snappy comeback for these people is needed to put them in their place, politely.

      Anyone can have children

      By on

      Adopt. (Ok - it may be beyond the means for some - but if it's beyond your means to adopt, you probably can't afford to have kids in the first place).

      A Star Spangled 4th of July salute to all parents who have adopted. Thanks for making a better place in the world for your children.

      Money now is worth more than

      Money now is worth more than money later and the upfront costs for adoption can be huge and the process can take a very long time. Just because one can't immediately afford to adopt doesn'[t mean they can't afford to raise a child. Of course this is beyond the personal preference of not wanting to adopt. "Just do this" can also be pretty insulting to a couple trying to conceive.

      Didn't say "Just do this"

      By on

      It's an option - not an instruction. For many a second - even third or fourth option - but it's an option. The only one that's guaranteed among all the others though.

      Adoption isn't that easy

      By on

      Please don't just consider adoption the easy answer. Adoption is very expensive. It's not uncommon for the birth parents to change their mind at the last minute and keep the baby. It isn't an option for many people who are otherwise fantastic candidates due to mental health diagnoses - adoption groups are very picky, and for good reason. I know because I've looked into it. I suffer from infertility (yaay it's covered by my health insurance!) and have been asked this question repeatedly. It hurts.

      Please don't spread misinformation

      By on

      No, adoption isn't for everyone, and as an adoptive parent, I discourage people from adopting if:

      1) They are coming from a place of infertility and haven't resolved their issues around that. Adoption resolves childlessness, but it doesn't resolve infertility.

      2) They plan to treat an adopted child exactly like a biological child. Yes, of course I expect any parent to treat their child as their child and recognize that this is a lifelong relationship no matter what, but it doesn't go well when a parent decides they'll adopt and adoption will be exactly like having a biological child. Nope, you'll have a child who has another family and history before you (even if it's a newborn adoption), and you need to be open about and honor that history and those relationships. You also need to be prepared for the questions and the experiences that adopted kids have that nonadopted kids don't and be ready to talk about those, ready to teach your kid how to deal with obnoxious questions and assumptions, and ready to advocate with schools and healthcare professionals around being adoption-competent.

      That being said, if you are someone who is prepared to be a competent adoptive parent, adoption is not expensive nor logistically difficult. About half of adoptions in the US are waiting child adoptions, which are usually free.
      Most adopted kids receive a subsidy after adoption until they turn 18. The subsidies in Massachusetts are quite generous. The average age at adoption is 4 in the US. Waiting children are all races and ethnicities and are with and without disabilities. There are some older kids who have been in a number of foster homes and have difficult histories they struggle with. These kids deserve families who can parent them, and I certainly encourage families to consider adoption of older and harder-to-place children, but for families who decide this isn't for them right now, it's also quite possible to adopt a toddler with no major special needs. Families who are willing to take on legal risk (fostering of a child who has not been freed for adoption and may or may not go home) can take home an infant from the hospital. A child wouldn't be legally freed until they were about a year old generally.

      Massachusetts is a state with policies that very much favor adoptive parents (this has its pros and cons; it's also a state that does a poor job helping families to keep their children and successfully parent, and tends to remove particularly babies unnecessarily, despite the news reports about those rare cases where a child should have been removed and wasn't), which means that the average age of adoption is lower and the process is faster. In 2013, 34% of children adopted through DCF were adopted by their foster parents. This means the other 66% were adopted by families who only sought to adopt a waiting child. In some states, most children adopted are adopted by their foster parents, which means it's harder for families who don't foster to adopt.

      The public face of adoption in the US is very much dominated by adoptive parents, usually white and affluent ones, and often people who've adopted internationally or adopted kids with severe special needs. These are all beautiful ways to build a family, but the impression that the media gives is misleading. International adoptions are a small percentage of US adoptions. As a whole, the population who adopts is about the same demographics as the general population in terms of race, income, and so forth. There is no minimum income requirement to adopt from the public system; families just need to show that they manage on what they have. Families are not required to own their home or have a large home; they just need to provide a safe home and just need enough bedrooms that each child has 50 square feet of bedroom space and adults and children do not share bedrooms.

      Check out The Home for Little Wanderers adoption program if interested in finding out more. It's one of the best:

      Stevil, thank you

      By on

      Stevil, thanks for staying away from the Globe. The comments there are getting better as one by one the goof heads are migrating.

      No thanks

      By on

      I'm an adoptive parent (by the way, DCF adoption is free) and I understand your intent here, but I don't need to be thanked. I'm no different from any parent. We adopted because we wanted to be parents, not because we have any delusions about saving anyone. It's pretty condescending to adopted children to suggest that adoptive parents do something above and beyond what all parents do; we don't. We aren't a better home than the homes in which kids start out. We're just ones that happened to be in a more stable place at the right time. Ideally, our society would do a better job providing housing and healthcare and other supports so that families can stay together in the first place. We are honored to be parents and can't imagine our lives any other way, but if children were truly "lucky," they wouldn't have needed to be removed in the first place.

      I do, however, appreciate the sentiment that having biological children isn't the best or only way to form a family. I certainly feel for people who've struggled with infertility and I get that it's got to be heartbreaking to spend years assuming you'll have biological children and then realize you can't. But I wish society would place less emphasis on biological children, heterosexual marriage, etc., so that people would grow up less set on one particular fantasy. We don't do anyone any favors by creating a world where it's assumed that everyone is fertile (or is straight, or is nondisabled) and then it's a huge loss when it's discovered that our assumptions aren't true.

      Women don't 'pop out' babies,

      By on

      Women don't 'pop out' babies, Adam. That's just rude. I expect this from Herald, Fox and women-hating conservatives but not universalhub.

      My apologies

      By on

      It seemed like part of the article's point, even if unspoken, was that well off women are being reduced to "think of the children!" breeder status and I was reacting to that (further buttressing the point: Only women were interviewed; I seem to recall being involved in the decision on whether or not to try to have a child).

      That was an illusion

      I seem to recall being involved in the decision on whether or not to try to have a child).

      You had absolutely no choice in the matter. ;-)


      By on

      I don't know but I've seen a live birth (sister's) and it does remind me of trying to 'pop out' a small watermelon out of your nostril.

      (ouch! It hurts to even think about that)

      Right you are

      By on

      It's more of a splugh or a ffllooghth than a pop.

      I don't hate women, tend to

      By on

      I don't hate women, tend to vote conservative and am myself a woman.
      Enough with stupid generalities please, it's not only comes off sounding ignorant, but couldn't be further from the truth.

      Really a New Issue?

      By on

      The thing about people approaching parents of single kids and asking how they could only have one is nothing new. I grew up as an only child in the 70s-80s and recall this happening routinely enough every where from the beach to super markets. Back then, it was largely old Irish ladies who would not only cluck as how sad and lonely I must undoubtedly have been at that very moment, but also deliver clear tones about how deeply ashamed my mother must have been for disregarding (Catholic) god's clear edict to procreate. There are just crazy people out there like this. There always have been. I also think the perceived "trend" for the ultra-wealthy to have large families is overblown. My kids go to a nice private school and although there are one or two families per grade who have 3-4 kids, most people have 1-2. Having two kids is alot of work, even for families well off enough (and with the desire) to have a stay at home mom. Everyone I know isn't deterred from having more than 2 by money, but rather by fatigue.

      The issue of people deciding between 1-2 for financial reasons, however, is dead on. It costs an enormous amount of money to live in Boston and there are practical realities to how many children you can afford to have given the cost of education and living space. This is compounded by the endless media coverage of how much it costs to go to college and the practically voyeristic coverage of young people who are saddled with seemingly impossible amounts of debt. I think alot of young parents feel as though having 2 kids is like a time bomb because while you may be able to swing it through high school, you are going to enter some Hobsian dystopia the minute you have to think about college. If we ever figure out how to either bring down housing costs, or make BPS competitive with private school so middle/upper income folks don't feel the need to go private, there is going to be a baby boom in this city like none other.

      It was only a matter of time

      By on

      It was only a matter of time.

      As we found out a year and a half ago, followers of Fauxcahontas are supposed to hector people at the cheese shop to make sure that they're 'Of the Body'.

      Yeah, a mention of people

      By on

      Yeah, a mention of people going up to people in stores for unsolicited "advice" is totally off-topic in a thread about people going up to people in stores for unsolicited "advice" when you're a moonbat.

      This is what choice is about

      Making your own family decisions for your own reasons.

      I have a high school friend with 13 kids. I know people with large adopted families. I have two kids, others have none.

      We have all deliberately chosen to build our families in these ways. Previous generations had no such choices. The ability to make these choices should be celebrated, because it means that most of the children who are born are wanted and loved and provided for.

      ^^ Like

      By on

      Thank You Swirly. Agreed.

      Family Planning is a personal decision, not a public one. People have lots of kids for lots of reasons, but its a decision to have one.

      And whole hardheartedly agree that "The ability to make these choices should be celebrated, because it means that most of the children who are born are wanted and loved and provided for."

      oops I reached my limit and

      By on

      oops I reached my limit and they won't let me read the article. couldn't they just make money off ad revenue like every other website? lol


      By on

      use chrome or firefox and startup "incognito" mode. BDC/BG can't place cookies in that mode so it assumes you are a new user without any limits yet. ;)


      By on

      Can't they just buy elections?

      America ... smh

      By on

      I'm fast approaching 40, and during my entire life, it's been drummed into people that we must control our population rate, have only one, maybe two kids, and so-on. Now we're being told our population rate is too damn low, stunting economic growth, not enough chumps in the pipeline to prop up our entitlements. This is also one of top reasons given by those who promote huge, uncontrolled immigration, especially from societies and cultures where people have big families, at young ages. We need them to consume, pay taxes, go into debt, and so-on. Same in Europe. It's all rather confusing.

      Not to mention the fact as more and more couples put off having children, into their 30s, even 40s, the probability of physical and mental problems for these kids greatly increases, especially things like autism.

      Of course these are personsl matters. It's incredibly rude to go up to a stranger and say such things. I know I would be bullshit and respond accordingly.

      Rehash of old article.

      By on

      Globe is lazy.

      May 28, 2006 By Neil Swidey
      Three is the new two. And in some towns -- espeially affluent ones -- four or more is the new three. Educated moms who once managed budgets and schedules at work are now doing the same in their homes teeming with kids.

      For reasons of finance or ecology or lifestyle or just plain fatigue, smaller families represent a more prudent path for most people. That path would logically be favored by the many parents today who begin obsessing about their children's college prospects while videotaping their first halting steps across their hardwood floor. After all, researchers have found that children from larger families generally don't go as far academically as those from smaller ones.

      July 02, 2014 By Kara Baskin
      With affluent parents, ‘four is the new three’

      For parents who have one child, feelings of gratitude mingle with the occasional twinge of defensiveness

      Last month, I was talking to a friend who resides in an affluent suburb among families with large broods. “You didn’t know?” she asked. “If you’re wealthy enough, four is the new three, and three is the new two.”

      Less examined are the families with neither the economic resources nor the reproductive capacity to have more than one — a reality enforced by the recession, expensive day-care tuition and housing costs in Massachusetts, and the increase in women trying to get pregnant later in life.

      Single and childless.... and LOVING IT

      I cannot have children due to medical issues. Yet, I still get the comments of "Oh, I'm sorry you don't have children. You could adopt..."

      My response is "I adopted two cats".

      BAM Now leave me along and get off my lawn.

      Most of my friends are

      By on

      Most of my friends are childless due to choice and are not bothered by questioning busy bodies and often can fire right back with a good snark.
      I look at my childless friends going on vacation, owning multiple homes and counting the years for retirement so they can do all those things they've been dreaming of. Disposable income isn't so disposable when you've got family expenses, so in that case my friends are ahead of me in reaching those goals.
      Retirement? I can only hope as I deal with college student loans.

      I guess life is what you make of it so it's best to make the most our of what we're handed.

      There's an upside to most everything..

      Is that like "handi-capable"...

      By on

      ...instead of "handicapped"? And before you blow a gasket, I don't have kids either. I just needed to get a quick shot in at yet another individual getting all offended and upset over nothing.

      Not offended or upset

      By on

      Just pointing out that it is a very separate demographic - one that has been identified and categorized. It's also one of the largest and fastest growing demographics in the country. It's the "other alternative lifestyle" - that may become the mainstream in much of the developed world.

      First off...

      By on

      ...people should be having fewer kids, not more kids. Second, rich people are ridiculous. All the money in the world and a they have to do with their time is worry about how many kids they should have. Shut the fuck up already!