The Ideal Age to have Children depends if you do What is Best for You or Your Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

If someone sees a pregnant woman smoking or drinking coffee they will give her a stern lecture.  Explaining what she is doing to her baby.  And telling her she must be more responsible now.  For it’s just not about her wants and desires now. She is bringing a new life into the world.  And she must do what’s best for her child.  Yet these same people will say being a single mom is perfectly fine.  Or waiting until she is 40 until she has her first child.  Or if she wants to have a late-term abortion that’s a decision that should only involve a woman and her doctor.  All of a sudden it’s no longer what’s best for the child but what’s best for the woman (see Survey Reveals the “Ideal Age” for Women to Have Children — and It’s Total Nonsense by Monica Bielanko,, posted 11/13/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).

As Slate notes, according to a new Gallup poll, most Americans think that women should start having children by age 25…

Do you know what I was doing at 25?

Dancing on bars after 4 too many shots of Jagermeister. Dating as many men as possible to figure out that guys who kick in your car door probably aren’t the marrying kind. Working my way to the top of the journalism food chain, first at FOX in Salt Lake City and later ABC in New York City, both of which involved 10-hour workdays. I was traveling. New York City, Mexico, London, Italy … you get the idea. I was grabbing myself a big ol’ handful of life whilst trying very hard not to create it, because that wouldn’t have been ideal. For me…

These kinds of surveys are so annoying, yet they seem to immediately go viral and do such a disservice to women out their living their lives and making choices based on what’s right for them – decisions that likely already go against the grain of what society/our parents/religion/TV/movies tell us. Decisions like our careers, delaying motherhood, choosing to be a single mom … but that’s exactly what’s wrong with any survey related to the ideal kind of parenting: there are no absolutes. You should do what is best for your circumstances; breastfeed/don’t breastfeed, let your kid cry it out/pick him up every time he sniffles, feed him gluten/don’t fee him gluten … WHATEVER.

Ideal for me was waiting until I was in my 30s. For you, it might mean getting married out of high school and starting a family. For someone else it might mean never having kids. The ideal age to have a child is the age you finally decide you’re emotionally and financially ready to have a child.

Again, it’s all about what is best for the woman.  Not her child.

When I was in the 7th grade the school counselor came to my class and asked a boy in that class to come with her.  Why?  She was there to tell him that his mother had died.  The next few years I sweated bullets whenever someone came to my classroom looking for someone to talk to. 

A few years later my sister told me about a coworker who took his family on vacation.  That vacation included a visit to a National Military Park.  His two young sons (5 and 7 or there abouts) were excited.  For they were going to see men in period uniforms firing real muskets.  As they ran up a hill with their father their father suffered a massive heart attack and died.  Right in front of them.  My father had just started medication for high blood pressure.  Soon thereafter I went on a family vacation.  And sweated bullets every time there was a steep hill or multiple flights of stairs to climb.

Losing a parent is devastating to a child.  And it’s not what is best for a child.  What is best are healthy parents.  Fathers that can throw the football around with kids.  And run up hills with them without dying.  The greatest sight for most children?  Coming home from school and seeing their mother waiting for them at the door (not seeing her rush in to pick up her pain-in-the-ass at daycare that made her leave work before she wanted to).   This is what’s best for children.  Loving, healthy parents.  And the longer you wait to have your children the greater the odds a child may lose a parent during childhood.  Because as we age the odds of a parent dying from cancer, heart disease, lupus, etc., grow.

Also, the longer we wait to start our families the older our own parents get.  So instead of having grandparents around to help young parents older parents may be raising young children while caring for their parents, too.  The next best thing to having healthy parents is having a healthy Mee-Maw and Pop-Pop to spoil a child.  Not for a child to watch their Mee-Maw or pop-pop die slowly.

So what’s the ideal age to have children?  It depends.  If you do what’s best for your child probably when parents are under 30.  If you do what’s best for you probably later in life.  So your little pains-in-the-ass don’t cramp your style.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Birthrates and Welfare States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 22nd, 2013

History 101

Birth Control and Abortion hurt the Welfare State because Babies become Taxpayers

People typically have fewer children during bad economic times.  Because you have to feed and clothe kids.  Which is very hard to do during bad economic times.  Especially if you lost your job during a period of high unemployment.  Such as the Great Depression.  Or if you’re going through a period of high inflation.  Like during the Seventies.  We can see this if we look at the birthrate over the years.

Number of Children per Woman R1

(source: Population Reference Bureau)

Bad economic times (Great Depression) fewer births.  High inflation (the Seventies) fewer births.  Of course, there was something else happening during the Seventies.  Which followed the Sexual Revolution.  Women were having more sex outside of marriage.  But they were using birth control and recently legalized abortion to avoid having children.  Women were liberated.  The feminists were moving into careers once reserved for men.  And because they were having careers they were not being stay-at-home mothers raising a family.

Also during the Seventies there was the zero population growth movement.  Among many other movements.  As the hippies turned antiestablishment.  And anti-capitalist.  Preferring a communal life.  Where there was no greed or profits.  Where everyone was equal and had an equal share.  Like the communists enjoyed.  Or, rather, suffered.  The zero population growth movement protested against having babies.  And the threat they posed to the limited resources of the earth.  So they were quite happy to see the birthrate fall below the replacement birthrate (about 2.1 children per woman in the United States).  Because below this rate future generations will be smaller than previous generations.  Which will burden the limited resources of the earth less.  But it created a big problem for those who wanted a large socialist state to provide cradle to the grave welfare.  For babies become taxpayers.

Because of the War on Poverty it takes Two Incomes to raise a Family Today

We just emerged from a government shutdown that ended with an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.  Why?  Because they can’t raise tax rates high enough to pay for all of the government’s spending.  At least not without putting most everyone below the poverty line after taxes.  Which makes that declining birthrate a big problem.  For the fall in the birthrate coincided with the expansion of the welfare state in the Sixties.  As can be seen in the explosion in welfare spending following LBJ’s launching of his War on Poverty.

Total Welfare Spending 1950 - 2010 R2

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

So just as women were having fewer babies so following generations would be smaller LBJ’s Great Society gave us a new expanding welfare state.  That is, once our tax base began to grow smaller with each subsequent generation federal expenditures were growing larger with each subsequent generation.  Resulting in higher tax rates on the smaller tax base to pay for it.  And massive new borrowings to pay what our taxes won’t.  As the government took more of our earnings away median household income stagnated.

Federal Spending and Median Income

(source: The Heritage Foundation)

If you’ve ever wondered why we can’t raise a family on one income these days this is why.  It’s the growth of federal spending.  Paid for with a growth in tax revenue.  Leaving us less money to raise our families.  Requiring that second income.  This is what the Great Society gave us.  And it’s what birth control and abortion gave us.  But it gets worse.

This Year Adult Incontinence Pants outsold Baby Diapers in Japan for the First Time

The Sexual Revolution gave us a baby bust generation.  Following a baby boom generation.  Giving us an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce than are entering it.  So more people are consuming taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) than are paying taxes.  Causing a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old.  So an aging population makes it even harder to raise a family.  Especially for the young just starting their families.  Because of the higher tax rates on a shrinking workforce required to pay for that aging population.  Which can lead to worse things than a collapse of the welfare state (see Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex? by Abigail Haworth posted 10/19/2013 on The Guardian)

Japan’s under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren’t even dating, and increasing numbers can’t be bothered with sex. For their government, “celibacy syndrome” is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world’s lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060…

Fewer babies were born here in 2012 than any year on record. (This was also the year, as the number of elderly people shoots up, that adult incontinence pants outsold baby nappies in Japan for the first time.) Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan “might eventually perish into extinction”.

This is the zero population growth movement on steroids.  The Republicans in the United States shut down the government in an attempt to curtail federal spending.  As the public debt is approaching 100% of GDP.  Very dangerous territory to be in.  But if you think that’s bad it’s far worse in Japan.  As their public debt is approximately 214% of GDP.  To support a massive welfare state.  In a country where the taxpayer is fast becoming an endangered species.

This is the ultimate end of any democracy that learned it could vote itself the treasury.  As taxes rise people cut back on their spending.  And a big cost item is children.  So we have declining birthrates in developed countries with expansive welfare states.  And immigration problems.  Immigrants who come for those generous state benefits.  And governments that want to grant them citizenship.  To make them taxpayers.  To make up for that declining birthrate.  And prevent their own extinction.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Taxation of the Welfare State leads to Substandard Daycare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

Governments everywhere on the left want state-funded daycare.  As they want state-funded everything.  But state-funded daycare is especially insidious.  Many parents can’t raise their families on a single income.  Because of high taxation in an advanced economy with a nanny state.  Which has to keep raising tax rates and adding new taxes to pay for the expanding welfare state.  Which is why both parents have to work.  And the left’s solution to this is even more taxation to pay for state-funded daycare.  When if they just shrunk the size of the welfare state parents could raise their children on a single income.  And fewer things like this would happen (see Listeria found in Toronto daycare where child died posted 9/2/2013 on CBC News).

Food in the kitchen of a private daycare north of Toronto where a two-year-old girl died in July tested positive for the potentially deadly food bacteria listeria, according to an inspector’s report.

The York Region Public Health inspection also found expired food in the refrigerator and freezer and other sanitation problems at the daycare located at 343 Yellowood Circle where two year old Eva Ravikovich died on July 8.

A day after Ravikovich’s death, inspectors arrived to find inadequate dishwashing capacity, unsanitized toys and improperly stored food…

Education Minister Liz Sandals said in July that officials received three complaints in late 2012 about the number of children being monitored at the Vaughan facility.

Ministry officials only followed up on one of the complaints with a site inspection, Sandals said, calling the lack of action “unacceptable.”

Calver said the province’s failure to act decisively on previous complaints puts children at risk…

Don Giesbrecht, chief executive of Canadian Child Care Federation, said that while many unlicensed private daycares fill a need for working parents, there is little government oversight into how they operate.

Giesbrecht also said the demand for daycare spaces in Canada far outstrips supply. He added there are 900,000 licensed daycare spaces in Canada but three million children with parents in the workforce.

What’s also insidious about state-funded daycare is the true reason why the state wants to provide this.  To help mothers return to work as quickly after child birth as possible. Why?  Because a stay-at-home mother is not earning income that they can tax.  Which is why they want these women to return to the workforce as quickly as possible.  The children will be better off with a stay-at-home parent.  But the state isn’t interested in children.  They’re interested in taxpayers.

Now there are some women who want to return to work to continue their career.  As the left has told them that a career is what defines a woman.  Not providing the best possible home for a child to grow up in.  One with a stay-at-home parent that loves his or her child.  And doesn’t look at him or her as yet another annoying task to do like taking out the garbage.  Or doing the laundry.  If you’re relieved to drop your kid off at daycare so you can do what you love best then why did you ever become a parent?

Of course if we based our decisions on what was best for our children instead of what was best for us there would be no daycare.  We would wait until we were married and one spouse was established in a career before even having children.  But even that is not possible for everyone due to the high taxation of the welfare state.  Which is the real problem here.  This is why there is substandard daycare.  Because the government creates such a high demand for daycare with their high taxation to support the welfare state.  For one parent just can’t earn enough these days to raise a family.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats make it Easier for Women to Drink, Smoke Pot and Catch Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2013

Week in Review

According to Democrats, Republicans are at war with women.  Because they hate women.  For they want to restrict abortion.  And they want women to pay for their birth control.  Republicans also want women to marry and raise a family instead of just pursuing a career.  The kind of thinking they had in the Middle Ages.  And the Republicans are always talking about God and religion.  Trying to shame women from enjoying their sexual side.  Preferring their women barefoot and pregnant.  Not out having a good time.  Drinking and smoking pot as they please.  And going home with anyone they please to enjoy sexually.  This is what being a modern woman is all about.  The freedom to do whatever the hell they want without any moral judgment.  Just like a man can.  Women have made progress.  But they have a long way to go (see Why female potheads still feel ashamed by Hayley Krischer posted 9/14/2013 on Salon).

Here’s the thing about women and weed: Women generally don’t want to discuss their habit out of fear of being judged or compared to a cartoon. Think Milla Jovovich’s stoner character in “Dazed and Confused” — she had no lines whatsoever and merely stared off into space, and, okay, she painted a Gene Simmons face on that statue. Worse, if you’re a mother, you keep your weed habit secret because you don’t want to be seen as a negligent parent…

Though movies have portrayed men getting high in groups for decades (just this summer Seth Rogen and co. smoked their way through the apocalypse in “This Is The End”), there’s a complete lack of women who smoke weed in pop culture, as Ann Friedman points out in New York magazine: “There are a few depictions of women smoking at home as a way to blow off some steam and bond with each other…

This is exactly why a 43-year-old friend of mine, and a mom of two young boys, won’t discuss her weed smoking with other women. “I don’t want to be judged,” she says. “I think in general women are supposed to be more responsible and something about it is irresponsible…”

Perhaps, eventually, the broader acceptance of smoking weed will spread to women. Two recent examples: Lady Gaga and Rihanna both dressed up as bedazzled cannabis queens last year for Halloween. (Rihanna dressed as a weed bride with a bouquet of bud. Lady Gaga covered her nipples with sativa leaf nipple pasties.) And there’s an opportunity for women to create their own statement about marijuana in the future without feeling so, ahem, paranoid. I saw some hope after a conversation with my 21-year-old cousin, a senior at Oberlin, who says most of her girlfriends freely smoke weed. “People think it’s cool if girls smoke weed.” And then as an afterthought she added, “It might also be because of my environment.”

For the most part smoking weed is illegal.  So it is irresponsible.  Especially if you have children.  As parents don’t want their children to see them breaking the law.  For if breaking the law is okay then it must be okay not to listen to your parents, too.  “Do your homework, clean your room, don’t drink until you’re of legal age,” says a kid’s parent.  “But you smoke pot and that’s illegal,” says the kid.  “Damn,” says the parent.  “Then I guess it’s okay if you break the law and drink.”

No doubt a lot of mothers want to hide their weed habit from their kids to avoid exchanges like this.  Which will be easier to do if they hide it from everyone.  If she smokes with another mother this other mother could talk to her husband about her getting stoned with her friend which can be overheard by this other mother’s kid.  That kid tells his friends who then tell their friends and the next thing you know they kick this stoner mother off the PTA.  So it’s still an uphill battle for women to get high.  But at least they are making progress elsewhere.  Closing the gap between men and women.  Something that should make Democrats happy (see Number of female DUIs soaring across the country, statistics show by Emily Alpert posted 9/12/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

Women make up a bigger share of arrests for driving under the influence than they did decades ago, but little attention has been paid to how to halt or handle the trend, according to a report released Thursday.

Federal statistics showed that women constituted nearly a quarter of DUI arrests across the United States in recent years. In 1980,  the number was just 9.3%, but the percentage has risen almost every year for three decades, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Yet most research on drunk driving focuses on men…

The Canadian group found some common threads among the female offenders: Almost all said they faced a stressful event such as a breakup or death in the family before their arrest. More than three-quarters said they used at least one prescription medication for anxiety, depression and other disorders. And more than half were single, separated or divorced.

The report also found that the women fit into three categories: young women who drink to “fit in” at house parties or bars; recently married women who drink to cope with loneliness after their children are born; and divorced older women or empty-nesters who begin to drink later in life.

When women married and raised families they were drinking and driving less.  Because they were happier.  For over half of the women with a DUI were single, separated or divorced.  That is, they were not married and raising a family.  They were not happy.  And because they were not happy they drank more.

So who, then, is fighting this war on women?  Those who are doing everything to make it easier to drink, get high and have sex?  That leads to more unhappiness and more drinking?  As well as an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases?  Or those who champion marriage and family?  That leads to more happiness and less drinking?  And fewer sexually transmitted diseases?

You probably should ask mothers what they want for their daughters.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only 5% of Black Students Graduate High School Ready for College based on ACT Scores

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2013

Week in Review

The left keeps saying we need to have a discussion on race in this country.  By that they mean they don’t want to have a discussion on race.  They just want to keep saying this as they turn any incident into a racial incident.  Thus keeping the races apart, not together.  Why?  Because if there is racism in this country then there is a need for them to end racism in this country.  Which they do with a bloated and growing government bureaucracy at every level (city, county, state and federal).  And how has that worked for black Americans?  Not well (see Latest ACT test results reveal huge race gap as only 1 in 20 African Americans students ‘fully ready’ for college by ASSOCIATED PRESS posted 8/21/2013 on the New York Post).

Just a quarter of this year’s high school graduates who took the ACT tests have the reading, math, English and science skills they need to succeed in college or a career, according to data the testing company released Wednesday.

The numbers are even worse for black high school graduates: Only 5 percent are fully ready for life after high school…

When the testing agency broke down the results by race, fault lines emerged. Just 5 percent of black students are ready for college work in all four areas. Among American Indians, 10 percent are ready in all subjects, while 14 percent of Hispanics are ready. Pacific Islanders post a 19 percent readiness rate for all four subjects. White students have a 33 percent rate, and 43 percent of Asian-American students are ready for studies in all four subjects.

No surprise, really.  For the government helps no group of people more than impoverished black Americans.  And after over 40 years of trying life has gotten worse for them.  Not better.  And the data bear this out.

The key to wealth and prosperity is a college education.  Doctors and engineers can become wealthy and prosperous.  But to get to college you have to do well in high school.  If you look at data from the past few years (see High School Graduation Rates, Out-of-Wedlock Births and Median Family Income posted 7/25/2013 on Pithocrates) you see a similar trend in high school graduation rates as you see in ACT test results.  Asians graduated high school 93% of the time.  Whites graduated 83% of the time.  While blacks only graduated 66.1% of the time.  Is it because Asians are genetically smarter than whites and blacks?  No.  It’s because of the Asian family.

Asians have the lowest out-of-wedlock births at 11.3%.  While whites come in at 29.2%.  And blacks come in at 67.8%.  Children that have a mother and a father do better in school.  Because they have more parental supervision at home.  Twice as much as a single-parent household.  Two-parent households are pushing their children to do their homework.  To do well in school.  So they can score high on the ACTs (and SATs).  So they can go on to college.

A lot of single mothers are heroes.  Sacrificing so much in their life for their children.  But it’s hard. Much harder than a two-parent household.  Where you can have a full-time income earner.  And a full-time stay-at-home parent.  Where two are sacrificing for their children.  Instead of one.  While providing a powerful male role model.  Which is why more Asians are graduating and going on to college than whites and blacks.  Especially blacks.  Which is probably the discussion we should be having.  What destroyed the black family?  Who took the father out of the black household?  Something facilitated that.  And it wasn’t racism.  Was it the coarsening of society?  A bloated welfare state?  A nonjudgmental attitude?  Finding racism even where it doesn’t exist?  All of the above?  Perhaps.  For it was something.  It just didn’t happen.

When there was horrible segregation blacks fought and suffered to go to college.  Today 95% of black high school kids just don’t care.  So what’s different between then and now?  The disintegration of the black family.  And LBJ’s Great Society.  Which tried to do good.  But only ended up destroying the black family.  By replacing black fathers with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  And placing single-mothers into housing projects.  Where groups of fatherless children joined together in gangs.  Got into trouble.  And took that trouble into their schools.  This is how it started.  With government.  And now the Democrats exasperate it.  Why?  Because it gives them the opportunity to be the party trying to end racism.  Giving them the black vote.  Which is all they want.  And they just don’t care about the lives they destroy in the process.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT183: “Conservatives believe chivalry is not dead while liberals want to destroy the dreams of little girls.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 16th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Liberals help Women delay Living Happily Ever After as Long as Possible

Conservatives believe in customs.  And traditions.  Those things that are tried and true.  Like the institution of marriage.  The foundation of the family.  Where a man and a woman pledge their love to each other.  To have and to hold.  From the day of their wedding forward.  For better.  For worse.  For richer.  For poorer.  In sickness and health.  To love and to cherish.  Till death do they part.  All the while living happily ever after.  As husband and wife.

Conservatives do not believe chivalry is dead.  Conservative men still place women on pedestals.  They stand up when a lady enters the room.  Holds her chair for her.  If it’s raining or cold outside a conservative will give his coat to her.  And open and close the door for her.  A conservative will shield her from danger.  And protect her honor.  Always treating her like a lady.

A liberal feminist woman, on the other hand, will say, “Don’t you dare open that door for me.”  For she is fiercely independent.  And wants nothing to do with chivalry.  She wants to be treated like a man.  Liberals, in fact, want women to have a career first then maybe consider getting married.  Or having children.  And not have the fairytale wedding all girls dream about.  Looking forward to the day when her Prince Charming will come along.  And sweep her off her feet.  No.  Liberals want to kill that dream.  And kill all romance.  Giving women birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill so she can avoid living happily ever after as long as possible.

Liberals believe being a Part-Time Mother is Good Enough

Conservatives don’t like high taxes.  Because a generation ago taxes were low enough that most everyone could raise a family on a single income.  But with the rise of the welfare state taxes have steadily risen.  Taking more and more of our paychecks.  Making it difficult for a woman to stay at home and be a full-time mother.  Which is why, today, many women are forced to be part-time mothers.  So they can earn a second income.  So they have enough left over in their paychecks after paying for the welfare state.

The family is the center of the conservative’s world.  Which is why they work hard to establish a career.  And vote to keep the tax bite as small as possible.  So they can afford to buy a house.  And begin raising their family.  With the mother staying home to be a full-time mother.  To give her children the best possible of all childhoods.  Having all of their material needs met.  A nurturing environment.  Created by a loving father and mother.  Who teach their children the customs and traditions that their parents taught them.  And help them with their school work so they get the best possible education.  So they, too, will one day be able to earn enough to raise their own family.

Liberals, though, believe in childcare.  In fact, they want state-funded childcare so women can return to work as soon as possible after having their children.  Leaving part of the raising and nurturing of their children to strangers.  As if children are a burden.  Like cutting the grass.  Something that they can farm out to other people.  As a working mother has better and more important things to do.  Like earning a paycheck.  Which is why liberals want state-funded childcare.  Because they believe being a part-time mother is good enough.  A working mother’s children may disagree with that.  But liberals are old-fashioned in this one respect.  They believe children should be seen and not heard.

Liberals encourage Women to stay Strong, Independent and Alone

Conservative policies tend to favor families.  They promote families.  While liberal policies make the family obsolete.  By trying to make husbands and fathers obsolete.  Liberal policies allow a woman to build a career instead of a family.  Birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill allow her to engage in consequence-free sex.  Liberal policies enable so many women to give it away for free that men see no reason to marry them.  Women earn their own money.  And with no children there’s no need for a woman to get married.  So she can stay strong and independent.  And alone.

Of course, today, there are a lot of women starting their families in their forties.  As they’ve discovered they want more than just to be strong, independent and alone.  They want a family.  They want children.  Their own children.  Before it’s too late for them to have children.  As waiting too long physically complicates things both for the mother and the child.  And there can be some emotional issues.  For a young child entering school with a 50-year old mother will be different from other children who have parents in their twenties.  And when they graduate high school their parents will be ‘grandparent’ age.  Perhaps not being there for their children when they start raising their own families.

Conservative policies foster the bonds between parents and children.   And grandchildren.  While liberal polices weaken these bonds.  By encouraging a woman to exchange a career and casual sex for marriage and a family.  Who may later in life discover that she wants to be married and raise a family.  But because she was a devoted follower of devout liberal feminist dogma those things are harder now.  And most likely she will have to do them alone.  As the men these women rejected to pursue their career likely found other women who wanted to get married and raise a family.  And even if those marriages didn’t last happily ever after they probably have grown children from it.  And may not be interested in doing it all over again.  As their children may still be consuming a large percentage of their paycheck.  Especially if they’re going to college.

And yet with every election cycle it is the conservatives that hate women and children.  Not the people that are destroying women’s lives by telling them to forget their silly childhood dreams of meeting prince charming, having the beautiful wedding and raising children.  Instead they should stay strong, independent and alone.  Forcing many women to miss or delay the greatest experience of their lives.  Raising their family.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT180: “If diversity is best for our children than having a mother and a father must be best for our children.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 26th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

While the French embrace their Culture the Liberals in America attack their own Culture

What is multiculturalism?  It’s a philosophy of diversity.  Basically saying it’s our differences that make us great.  Something you won’t hear a whole lot of in France.  Where they have a single culture they promote.  The French culture.  And rightly so.  Because it is the French culture that makes France great.  Just as it is the British culture that makes Britain great.  As the Spanish culture makes Spain great.  As the German culture makes Germany great.  As the Japanese culture makes Japan great.  As the Mexican culture makes Mexico great.  Etc.

In the United States of America, though, it’s not American culture that makes America great.  It’s all of the other cultures in America.  Which is why they teach multiculturalism.  Where we must admire and respect every other culture.  And they don’t teach assimilation.  Where people in America assimilate into a single culture.  The American culture.  The one culture that is not worthy of admiration or veneration.  Apparently.

Where did this start?  It started with our educators at colleges and universities.  As well as at our public schools.  And the liberals controlling them.  Who decided to do something about their hatred of America.  In addition to the other things that they were already doing.  Instead of teaching about American greatness they taught about American imperialism.  They taught how the Founding Fathers stole America from the Native Americans.  They taught how the Founding Fathers were nothing more than rich white slave owners.  Who made a country to benefit rich white slave owners.  So while the French embrace their culture the liberals in America attack their own culture.  Basically saying America isn’t great.  But everyone else is.  That is multiculturalism.

Liberals are Smarter than Everyone Else and should be Running the Nation, not a Government of the People

Liberals hate America.  They hate it so much that they have worked incessantly to change it.  Like a cancer.  Working from within.  Invading our culture and institutions and slowly spreading.  Just as socialism consumed Europe.  The liberals wanted that in America, too.  But liberals were, and still are, a small minority in the nation.  Few think like they do.  So they’ve always found great resistance to their enlightened ideals.

Their Ivy League schools created and nurtured liberalism.  Rich people who inherited their money sent their kids to the Ivy League.  And when they leave these schools many go into politics.  Or policy think-tanks that influence politics.  So these few, this privileged few, can change America.  To reflect what they believe it should be.  And run by like-minded people like them.  An aristocracy.  Something America shouldn’t have.  But does because of people like them.  Who are better and smarter than everyone else.  And should be running the nation.  Not a government of the people.

Liberals hate the principles of the Founding Fathers.  They hate limited government.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Free markets.  A business-friendly regulatory environment.  Low taxes.  And the profit incentive.  The things that made America the number one economy in the world.  And the destination of choice for immigrants looking for a better life.  One free from government oppression.  Abject poverty.  Chronic hunger.  And corruption.  People who were tired of living in a society where everyone was equal.  Where some were more equal than others.  So they came here.  To get away from people like liberals.  Who think they are more equal than everyone else.

Liberals enshrine Single Mothers and Same-Sex Couples raising Children to help destroy the Traditional Family

Because liberals are a small minority of the population they face great opposition.  Which is why they have infiltrated our educational system.  To set the educational curriculum.  So they can take our children.  And make them think differently from their parents.  Who most likely think like the majority.  And not like the liberal, privileged elite.  The aristocracy.  This is the greatest enemy of liberalism.  Parents.  And the family.

Parents have some 5 years to teach their kids to think incorrectly.  That’s a 5-year head-start these parents have.  Which the liberals have to undo.  So they can start programming them to become good liberals.  So they attack the family.  To break the bond between the parents and their children.  So they can start building a bond between these children and the liberal state.  Which is a prime motivation behind global warming.  For it was these children’s greedy, thoughtless parents that caused global warming.  Because they were so greedy and thoughtless—or just too stupid—to care about the planet.

So liberals enshrine single mothers.  And same-sex couples raising children.  To help destroy the traditional family.  And build a loyalty of single mothers and same-sex couples to the state.  By providing financial assistance.  Or new legislation to protect and help them.  Ensuring that these people will make these children think correctly from the get-go.  Which is why multiculturalism and diversity go out the window in the family.  A mother and a father are different.  They are a woman and a man.  Who can provide a much broader cultural education than a single mother.  Or a same-sex couple.  Who can only provide half of the cultural experience that a woman AND a man can provide.  So parenting is the one place in America that we don’t make better with diversity.  For when it comes to children in the household there is nothing wrong with having a single cultural experience.  No.  Multiculturalism only applies after these kids leave the household.  When they may start thinking incorrectly.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jane Lynch enjoys Traditional Marriage, files for Divorce and fights to prevent Losing Half of Everything she Owns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

The hardest thing about divorce is the children.  Who gets custody?  Who pays child support.  And who pays alimony?  A woman may give up a career to be a stay-at-home mom.  To raise a family.  Which is more difficult than going to a job 5 days a week.  Because you’re on-call 24/7.  And you’re responsible for more than just numbers on a ledger.  You’re now responsible for human life.  As well as numbers on a ledger.

In a divorce two things don’t change.  Someone still has to raise the children.  And someone still has to pay the bills.  Which is where child support and alimony come in.  So the children don’t suffer more than they have to by seeing their parents split up.  They can still have a full-time parent.  Typically the mother who gave up her career to run a household.  While the father visits occasionally.  And pays the bills.  This is the marriage contract.  And the divorce contract that often replaces the marriage contract.

This is what traditional marriage is.  The legal institution that facilitates the family.  And doesn’t leave the children or their mother out in the cold should the marriage fail.  It protects them.  And provides for them.  So they won’t be disadvantaged in their life because their parents divorced.  Getting the same opportunity to succeed in life as everyone else.  Things that are not issues in same-sex unions.  Because same-sex couples cannot bring new life into the world.  Which eliminates most if not all of the need of a marriage contract.  Yet they want it.  And they are getting married (see Jane Lynch Files For Divorce From Wife Lara Embry by Joyce Chen posted 7/12/2013 on US Weekly).

Just one month after announcing that she and her wife of three years, Dr. Lara Embry, are going their separate ways, Jane Lynch has officially filed for divorce in an L.A. County Court, TMZ reports…

According to the legal documents, the couple did not have a prenup, and will therefore split their marital assets 50/50. The pair have no children together (Embry has two daughters Haden and Chase).

Lynch is also filing to terminate the court’s jurisdiction to award Embry with spousal support, TMZ reports.

And they’re getting divorced.

There is nothing they could not have accomplished with legal contracts other than the marriage contract.  If they had lived happily ever after and wanted to leave their estates to each other they could have stipulated that in their wills.  But no.  They were married.  Now they’re getting divorced.  And Lynch now gets to enjoy a privilege once reserved for traditional marriage.  Spousal support.  Even with couples that brought no new children into the world.  Where both worked and had careers.  But the one with the less-paid career got a taste of a lifestyle the better-paid career afforded.  And now is entitled to continue that lifestyle after the divorce.  Because of the marriage contract.

Unless you’re bringing new children into the world there really is no reason to get married.  And our record high divorce rates would seem to indicate that a lot these people getting married (some more than once) probably shouldn’t have gotten married.  But they did.  And went through great transfers of wealth because of it.  As any rich person who is not quite so rich anymore following a divorce will attest to.  Especially when there are children involved.

Lynch wanted everything traditional marriage offered.  Well, everything but one.  She is fighting not to give half of everything she owns to her ex.  And you can bet the next time she gets married, if there is a next time, there will be a prenup.  Which are no longer the prerogative of foolish rich men marrying women young enough to be their granddaughters.  Today they’re just good business.  Especially when there are great disparities in wealth.  Interestingly, had she not been able to get married she would have had everything she wanted after their breakup.  To happily go their separate ways.  Without losing half of all of her stuff.  Something no doubt weighing heavily on her mind these days.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT178: “Birth control and abortion are the greatest threats to liberalism. ” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 12th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Liberals seem more Mainstream than they are because they hold Key Positions of Power

Liberals have one very unpleasant fact to deal with.  Theirs is a minority viewpoint.  According to Gallup (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup), the American people identify themselves in 2010 as follows: conservative (40%), moderate (35%) and liberal (21%).  And the above referenced Gallup poll shows that the American people haven’t trended far from these numbers since 1992.

So the liberal cause is an uphill battle to begin with.  As 79% of the American people do not identify themselves with their views.  Which are basically a bigger, activist government.  More rules and regulations in our personal lives.  More fun and less restraint.  More casual sex and less traditional marriage.  Keynesian economic policies where the government plays with interest rates, creating large asset bubbles (such as housing bubbles) which give us very long and painful recessions to undo the damage an activist Keynesian government makes.  Like the subprime mortgage crisis.  Anti-energy policies that increase the cost of energy so they can subsidize more costly green energy.  Free birth control and access to abortion on demand.  And Obamacare.  To name a few.

Some may feel that liberalism is more mainstream than the poll numbers suggest.  But that’s only because though their numbers are small they hold key positions of power.  They control the public schools.  And our colleges and universities.  They control the mainstream media.  And the entertainment industry.  Giving liberals a very powerful bully pulpit.  When late-night television ridicules conservatives millions of impressionable people see it.  And see how cool it is to ridicule conservatives.   Reinforcing everything they’ve learned in our public schools, colleges, universities, mainstream media and, of course, the entertainment industry.  Yet despite all of this the best they can do is to get 21% of the people to think like them.  To want what they want.  And to do as they want them to do.

A Liberal Woman uses Birth Control and Abortion to keep her Fertility Rate Lower than a Conservative Woman’s

Why is this?  Because of parents.  Perhaps the greatest obstacle liberals have in transforming the country into the European social democracy they want.  With them sitting atop the power structure.  Much like the aristocracy of the Old World where they were free to tell people to do as they say, not as they do.  For while forcing their highly regulated world upon us they will exempt themselves from the less pleasant things.  Putting themselves above the laws they don’t like but feel are in our best interests.  Which we would understand if only we were as smart as them.

And every time they turn around there is some parent trying to undo all of their work.  For they only have our children for less than a third of a day, 5 days a week.  Worse, they don’t even get our kids into their education camps, I mean, schools, until they’ve lived exclusively with their parents for 5 or 6 years.  If you ever wondered why the Democrats are always pushing for state-funded childcare this is the reason.  To get to our kids sooner.  Before their parents can warp their minds with non-liberal viewpoints.  Like not to fear the coming apocalypse of global warming.  In fact some of these parents are such poor parents that they’ll load their kids into a gas-guzzling, carbon-polluting SUV and take them on a vacation.  Letting a child enjoy being in a big, comfortable and safe vehicle out on the open road.  Before liberals can teach them later that all of those things are bad.  And wrong.  But the real problem liberals have with parents like these is that there are just so many of them.  Ironically, because of liberal policies that have altered fertility rates.  Thanks to birth control and abortion.  And their attacks on the traditional family.

Fertility Liberals vs Conservatives R1

Earlier we discussed replacement birthrates (see Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate posted 7/8/2013 on Pithocrates).  The current U.S. population is about 314 million.  Using the Gallup numbers we calculated the number of liberals and conservatives in that 314 million and entered them into the beginning populations above.  We assumed a generation lasting 20 years where couples will each bring in 1.5 babies if they’re liberals.  Below the replacement birthrate.  And 2.5 babies if they’re conservatives.  Above the replacement birthrate.  A conservative couple will have on average one more baby than a liberal couple.  Because a conservative woman will live a closer life to the traditional family.  While the liberal woman may pursue a career and not be interested in having children.  Using birth control and abortion to keep her fertility rate lower than the conservative woman.

The Liberals’ Rise to Power was Slow and Steady via Incremental Change all but Unnoticeable to Each Generation

If we add the number of liberals and conservatives together (we’ll call it the L/C Universe) they total approximately 191 million people.  Where liberals make up 34% of the L/C Universe.  While conservatives make up 66% of the L/C Universe.  As we move through 4 generations we see how the population increases.  The liberal population grows 838%.  While the conservative population grows 2,463%.  Because of that extra baby per couple on average the conservative population grows over 5 times more than the liberal population.  Dropping the liberals down to only 16% of the L/C Universe.  While increasing the conservatives to 84% of the L/C Universe.

If you ever wondered why the Democrats are pushing so hard for immigration reform this is why.  The liberal elite know their policies to encourage women to do anything BUT have babies threatens their long-term hold on power.  That’s why they pander to blacks, women, the young, etc.  They shower them with benefits and/or policies that make their lives a lot more fun.  Such as free birth control.  And accessible abortion.  Things that really appeal to the young voter.  Because that’s what they have on the mind most of the time.  Casual and consequence-free sex.  By treating pregnancy as a disease.  To be prevented (birth control).  Or cured (abortion).  But in the wake of these policies is a dearth of new liberal voters.  Which they hope to replace with immigration reform.  Hoping that those they bring into the population vote Democrat.  Grateful for their path to citizenship.  To make up for all the babies that never were.  Thanks to liberal attacks on the traditional family.

Unless the liberals can take our children away from us sooner and keep them longer (to countermand any conservative education their parents give them) their lower fertility rates will push liberalism to extinction.  How ironic indeed that the very policies that liberals and conservatives bitterly fight over the most may lead to their fall from power.  Birth control.  And abortion.  The greatest threats to liberalism.  Their rise to power was slow and steady through incremental change.  Almost unnoticeable to each generation.  As will be their fall.  Unless, of course, they use extralegal tactics to get around the will of the people.  Such as ruling by executive order.  And using the courts to make law the Congress won’t.  But what are the odds of that ever happening?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2013

Economics 101

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1’s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1’s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »