The Suburbs Are Gettin' Crappy

[randomuser]

You keep on harping on class and respecting the past. Honestly, I don't even see how that's relevant to this discussion. It's as if you're assuming I mean that by creating more mixed uses, I expect a Starbucks to pop up on every corner. I don't. I don't care whether the retail mixes I talk about involve a DiBruno Brothers and a Starbucks, or $5 Le Pho Nail Salons. The point is, everyone should be able to walk to a place to get a gallon of milk or their pants hemmed or to buy dinner.

Living in walkable communities has virtually nothing to do with class. The only point I'm making is that the sooner any of these communities embraces that reality (to become more walkable is a clear way to define the future of your town's trajectory), the sooner they will stand out as viable options for many people...current or otherwise future residents...poor, purple, green, blue, white, rich. The future of Prospect Park or Ridley Park or Folsom or Aldan is not in trying to chase their perceived ideal (which you can find further west in Delco), but to embrace their inherent strengths, which are decidedly more urban than towns west of the Blue Route.

In any case, I think we believe the same thing. It's just that you seem to think any change needs to come from within, or at least be respectful of the people who live there. I don't think anything I'm saying would be disrespectful of anybody. On the other hand, if you're waiting for the change to come from within, it's never going to happen. The vast majority of people who live in these places clearly haven't done a good job of figuring out the recipe for success, and I'd argue in part it's because they're chasing wrong-headed goals.

Harping on? I'm pretty sure I told you before to watch the way you talk to me. Regardless of whether or not you see it as relevant to the discussion, it always is. I'm not assuming anything. You're right that people deserve a place to be able to get a gallon of milk or any of those other basic things. They have that, thanks to "superstores" like K-Mart. That's a big part of what killed downtowns and main-streets. I grew up with the whole main-street thing. There were many small, independent businesses where I grew up. The thing is though that the people running them were old and their kids either didn't want to take over for the rest of their lives or couldn't make it work, so a lot of them closed down. Even more will in the future. You know what's worse than strip malls and other suburban features? Vacant, blighted buildings. The reason these places exist in the first place is because of immigrants. People see white faces and assume "Oh they're just American" but in reality they came over, dirt poor, from somewhere else and made something of themselves and opened up their own place eventually. That's exactly what immigrants are again doing all over Delco. They deserve that chance and they sustain the neighborhoods much more reliably than any trendy place ever would. Not everywhere can be Media.

Living in an actual community has everything to do with class. People with money who move to Lansdowne don't buy rowhomes. They buy the big Victorian homes that the wealthy built. This may sound cold but the reason a lot of these places are struggling is because working class and poor people are not supposed to be able to afford wealthy homes, yet they can in these places. By the same token, just because a working class section of Upper Darby or anywhere else is closer to Philadelphia or more "diverse" or whatever, doesn't mean people with money should live there or that it should become a hipster haven. Places are what they are. That's how things work. This isn't Philadelphia where it's a part of a larger city. These are independent municipalities we're talking about here. Obviously, yes, we are in agreement that these communities do need to embrace what they are, used to be, and should be.. not what suburbanization made them become. Prospect Park and Ridley Park are much different than Folosm or Aldan though. Folsom and Aldan are suburbs (Aldan of Clifton Heights and maybe Collingdale) and Folsom of Chester. Also, Ridley Park has been seeing people moving there for awhile now.

I don't think anything. Change does need to be respectful of the people who live there. It should be based on what an area is and what it should be, not on proximity or anything else. You'd argue incorrectly. It's because they're just trying to live their damn lives. Maybe not in the case of Ridley, but Aldan and other places? They're not chasing anything.

[EFIQL]

All I know about Eastern Delco is that it's full of p*ssies who can't fight.

[randomuser]

All I know about Eastern Delco is that it's full of p*ssies who can't fight.

Try (and fail) harder.

[thoth]

Try (and fail) harder.

Hey you already used that one in the other thread while you were insulting me for recycling insults.

Nobody with an ounce of a brain is impressed by your bullsh*t recycled phrases and juvenile attempts at insults and being clever or "witty" either. Fail harder, kid.

I challenge you to go one day without writing something patently embarrassing or idiotic. Not writing anything counts!

[randomuser]

Hey you already used that one in the other thread while you were insulting me for recycling insults.



I challenge you to go one day without writing something patently embarrassing or idiotic. Not writing anything counts!

I didn't copy it from anybody, therefore I can use it as often as I like. It's also not even remotely the same insult.

Also, try (and fail) harder. I challenge you to go one day without projecting onto others, without using pathetic and recycled terms that you copied, without trying so hard and failing even harder... without being you really. It's almost sad how deluded you are.

[fishcatch]

No one will ever address the root of almost every problem in our society: breeding. The more people you have in existence, the more crime, the more competition for jobs and resources, the more taxes must be raised, the more the welfare state must expand, the more the cost of living goes up, the more traffic increase, the more pollution increases...it goes on and on and on.

But you never hear one single politician have the nerve to stand up and point to this truth. People need to stop replicating, especially ghetto hood rats.

No one will stand up and say, "Let's expand the hell out of contraception, offer low cost or free sterilization, etc. Let's stop giving people incentives to replicate in the form of tax breaks for working parents, and more welfare for jobless parents, and instead offer them incentives NOT to breed. How about tax cuts for people who opt NOT to have children?"


As a non-breeder I resent the fact that breeders get tax cuts or increased welfare. They're the ones contributing to the problem! I'm part of the solution over here, and I don't get a break or a handout for it. People who buy hybrid cars or replacement windows get a tax rebate for helping clean up the air - but I don't get a tax rebate for helping prevent all of the problems that an additional person creates? My taxes, cost of living, time spent in traffic, chances of being a victim of a crime, competition for employment, etc all increase every time someone turns out another little human. Yet for some reason these breeders get the long end of the stick.

And if you want proof of how impossible it is to get people to agree on this truth, just watch how many people are about to flame me and freak out at me for saying we should deny people their precious little children and all of the little perks that go along with having them. Watch them invoke everything from calling me a fascist to pointing out how the Bible commands people to multiply. Watch them label me and make assumptions about me - call me hateful towards children, against God's plan, blah blah...

[mixiboi]

The goverment has bad history with sterilization....Expecailly when it comes to of what you call "ghetto hood rats".


No politician will ever bring that up, because of that history....It'd be like saying putting people in camps is ok....

[MariusPontmercy]

Removing monetary incentives to have children might not be such a bad idea. Actually, taking away monetary incentives to have children, no strings attached, is what needs to be done. Having children in a stable setting isn't such a bad thing, and should probably be incentivized if anything is going to be. In low income communities having children is seen partially as a move towards economic stability, because it means you're getting income from the government, child payments, etc. and these are all terrible reasons to bring a child into the world since the burden falls on society, not the parent, which raises all sorts of problems with responsibility in parenting leading to more problems for the child later.

[lemko]

Removing monetary incentives to have children might not be such a bad idea. Actually, taking away monetary incentives to have children, no strings attached, is what needs to be done. Having children in a stable setting isn't such a bad thing, and should probably be incentivized if anything is going to be. In low income communities having children is seen partially as a move towards economic stability, because it means you're getting income from the government, child payments, etc. and these are all terrible reasons to bring a child into the world since the burden falls on society, not the parent, which raises all sorts of problems with responsibility in parenting leading to more problems for the child later.

I never understood who somebody in a poor economic situation would want a child. If you can't even take care of yourself, why make it even harder for yourself by having another mouth to feed? Heck, I do pretty well, but won't have children because of the crushing financial burden. If I become unemployed or disabled, I at least won't be dragging innocent people down with me. What they should do is incentive low-income folks NOT to have children until they improve their financial, educational, and career situation.

[fishcatch]

I agree that the monetary incentives are about the only way to encourage people not to breed.

I do personally feel that as a non-breeder I deserve at least a small tax rebate. It's like I said - if you're making your house more energy efficient or buying a hybrid car they give you a tax write off, so the same should go for doing the world the favor of not adding to the burden of population.


And yes, it's absolutely right that if you submitted a proposal for sterilization you'd be demonized.


That's the problem with this issue - people see human life and breeding as this sacred sort of thing. Every little child is a blessing in most peoples' minds. I'm in a very small minority with my opinion that every new person is a contribution to a problem rather than a reason for celebration.

Imagine a politician standing on stage with just his wife, and when asked why he doesn't have some "adorable" children to show off, he says, "My wife and I have chosen not to turn out any copies because we feel that making children only puts further strain on the economy, raises crime rates, and pollutes the atmosphere." You'd lose so many votes it wouldn't even be funny,

[Sycamore]

I've been advocating for ZPG/Population control for ages, and it's definitely a touchy subject, even to those who aren't religious.

I disagree that economic benefits have much to do with people's reason for having children. In fact, if people were honest with themselves about their reasons for procreating, I think that it would be an economic disincentive to reproducing.

However, I do agree that tax incentives should NOT be given to those simply because they've had children (or own a home, etc). When I've looked at how much additional welfare is given those for additional children, it becomes clear that that is not enough to make one have a child. That's just more of the welfare queen myth, IMO.

What I do believe is that the greater power, education, choices, opportunities are given to women, the fewer children she will have. In nearly every case, the more educated, empowered, etc a culture's women are, the slower the population growth.

[fishcatch]

I've been advocating for ZPG/Population control for ages, and it's definitely a touchy subject, even to those who aren't religious.

I disagree that economic benefits have much to do with people's reason for having children. In fact, if people were honest with themselves about their reasons for procreating, I think that it would be an economic disincentive to reproducing.

However, I do agree that tax incentives should NOT be given to those simply because they've had children (or own a home, etc). When I've looked at how much additional welfare is given those for additional children, it becomes clear that that is not enough to make one have a child. That's just more of the welfare queen myth, IMO.

What I do believe is that the greater power, education, choices, opportunities are given to women, the fewer children she will have. In nearly every case, the more educated, empowered, etc a culture's women are, the slower the population growth.

True, and yet here they are talking about taking away funding for Planned Parenthood.

The opponents of these lawmakers should stand up and talk about the benefits of birth control and sterilization, but they never will, because it's extremely unpopular to tell people who have or want families that they are contributing to the problems of society by making children. You couldn't run for dog catcher after making a public statement like that. The "family values" crowd will have you drawn and quartered. And the "family values" people make up a good 90% of the population that votes.

People don't want to hear truths if those truths go against their desires and their beliefs, and most people really want kids, as well as thinking that their religious beliefs command them to do it.

That is why everything is in favor of breeders - because they make up 95% of the population.

[MariusPontmercy]

I've been advocating for ZPG/Population control for ages, and it's definitely a touchy subject, even to those who aren't religious.

I disagree that economic benefits have much to do with people's reason for having children. In fact, if people were honest with themselves about their reasons for procreating, I think that it would be an economic disincentive to reproducing.

However, I do agree that tax incentives should NOT be given to those simply because they've had children (or own a home, etc). When I've looked at how much additional welfare is given those for additional children, it becomes clear that that is not enough to make one have a child. That's just more of the welfare queen myth, IMO.

What I do believe is that the greater power, education, choices, opportunities are given to women, the fewer children she will have. In nearly every case, the more educated, empowered, etc a culture's women are, the slower the population growth.

Unfortunately you have to remove government machinery that keeps a large segment of the population ignorant and unmotivated to do anything about it. Since that machinery exists because of that problem, it has a vested interest in maintaining the problem lest it solve itself into nonexistence.

[MarketStEl]

True, and yet here they are talking about taking away funding for Planned Parenthood.

The opponents of these lawmakers should stand up and talk about the benefits of birth control and sterilization, but they never will, because it's extremely unpopular to tell people who have or want families that they are contributing to the problems of society by making children. You couldn't run for dog catcher after making a public statement like that. The "family values" crowd will have you drawn and quartered. And the "family values" people make up a good 90% of the population that votes.

People don't want to hear truths if those truths go against their desires and their beliefs, and most people really want kids, as well as thinking that their religious beliefs command them to do it.

That is why everything is in favor of breeders - because they make up 95% of the population.

For an individual or couple, the decision to have children is more emotional than economic, true, for children are a HUGE expense on the balance sheet: they must be clothed, fed, housed and educated, yet they bring in no income. (And I would not advocate for a reversion to the 19th century, when they did through often hard and dangerous labor.) The upfront deduction for dependents on income tax returns is a recognition of this fact.

For a society and an economy that depends on a steady and steadily increasing supply of people to sustain itself in many ways, the decision NOT to have children can and likely will have serious economic ramifications. Europe is just awakening to this prospect now that the birth rate in just about all of that continent's wealthiest countries has fallen below replacement level (2.1 live births per 100 persons per year, IIRC). Old age pension schemes that rely on there being significantly more workers than retirees are already in trouble here, where our birth rate has not yet crossed that threshold but is about to, from what I understand.

Our economic system and our cultural psyche are not geared to handle stasis or decline. If you're serious about zero (or negative) population growth, that must also be addressed.

Oh, one more thing: While lesbians can conceive and gay men father children, and both make great parents too, our biological wiring makes both far less likely, which means that by and large, we too depend on breeders to ensure our continued reproduction.

[MarketStEl]

And yes, it's absolutely right that if you submitted a proposal for sterilization you'd be demonized.

Given the rather unsavory history of eugenics, most of whose advocates promoted just such policies (and also helped establish Planned Parenthood*), is it any wonder? Had they had their way, I might not be here, for instance, for those of my race were considered "inferior stock" who should be discouraged from reproducing. And yes, advocating sterilization for low-income inner-city women raises that very spectre, and deservedly so.

*I am not saying thereby that we should not support Planned Parenthood as it exists today. The relationship between the modern organization and the beliefs of some of its founders is sort of like that of the New England insurance company that acknowledged profiting off the slave trade back when it was accepted.

[fishcatch]

A lot of people don't know about, or don't want to talk about some of those original Planned Parenthood ideas of eugenics.