Why you aren't really worth that much
Slate has this gem of a piece: Two Is Enough: Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.
I am sure social theorists regularly speak this way, but there just seems something intrinsically wrong with talking about humans in terms of of "trade-offs between child quantity and quality". (And, really, the primary reason why families that decide to have more than 1.7 children do so is because of that fantastic tax credit.)
Beyond all that, the article strikes me as a pathetic way to deal with the problems of the inner-city poor. The primary disadvantage that families that I've known and worked with in the inner city have faced is a chaotic family structure. When one mother has 6-7 children by 4 fathers, each of whom only occasionally stops by, the primary problem is not that she has 6-7 children. The primary problem is that there will be nothing remotely resembling the stable family structure necessary for stable child development. To merely propose decreasing that woman's tax credits strikes me as similar to recommending a band-aid for someone who just stepped on a land mine.
Jonathan Swift's proposal would at least turn a profit.
March 29, 2004 06:21 PMHmph! As the oldest of six children [albeit by the same parents] I always get pissed when "experts" try to tell me that me or my sibs are extraneous people, that we're a drain on society and that my folks must have some character defect to have birthed us in the first place.
And contrary to the author's "research," me and my siblings have fared exceedingly well in school, graduated cum laude from college [even the "poor" middle children], and are quite prepared, thank you, to handle whatever "high-skill" jobs the crappy US economy can throw our way.
I fear this is turning into a blog entry even as I write, so I'll cut it short: Thanks for finding this gem.
Pondered by MB at March 30, 2004 10:31 PM