Social Engineering
 

Up until the second half of the 20th Century, there were several outward signs of success:

1) Having many children. A successful person could afford to have a large family. This was also good for society as successful people could outbreed deadbeats.

2) Being well-dressed. A successful person could afford the best clothes. Good-paying jobs required suits and ties. Lesser-paying jobs did not.

3) Being fat. If you were wealthy, you were well-fed.

With the advent of Welfare and other social engineering measures (like political correctness), this has been turned on its head. Now a successful person:

1) Has no children. One cannot afford to raise a large family unless the are on the dole. Successful people are more concerned with the latest iPhone than passing their genes on. As a result, we have a society where succesful people do not reproduce, and poor people breed like rabits.

2) Dresses casual. Only a used-car salesman has to wear a suit to work. A decent paying job is "business casual". A high-paying job is just casual.

3) Is thin. The wealthy can afford a low-carbohydrate diet, a membership to a gym, and dietician. The poor get twinkies, corn dogs, and corn pops.

Good observations.

While I agree with these observations, how are they social engineering?

And I blame it all on MTV.

Sort of, but I'd say that is more applicable to the big city lifestyle. Around here, big families are common, even for working professionals. Of course, $200k buys a nice big house.

Wife is an accountant (bachelors degree) turned housewife, I'm one semester short of being an aerospace engineer, and will be getting an MBA next. We have 2 kids, plan for 4-5. I dress up for work, long sleeved collared shirt with nice pants. Finally, I could stand to drop a few (30;)) lbs. I guess I'm just stuck in the 1950s, something I'm sure most liberals would agree with.

We shame people who are successful. As a result, the successful seek to appear less successful to relieve some guilt.

And I think the children thing is a direct result of Welfare, Medicaid, and all sorts of social programs for the poor. It's pretty much free to have kids if you are poor. The tax burden is so high on the middle class (and upper class), they don't want to have kids because it would mean a significant downgrade in lifestyle.

"Idiocracy"

I think that's a bit much. I'm proud of my success, moderate as it may be. I've worked hard for what I have, and feel no guilt as a result.

I would say that the kids thing, on the bottom, is a result of incentive programs that essentially encourage the poor to breed. More kids = more free money, that's all the parasites of society need to hear.

On the higher side of things, our society has changed a lot in the last 50 years. There are far more couples that both work, who don't want/can't afford to make the time and financial changes that kids require. We've become more selfish and materialistic as a whole, far more concern about me than we. There is far less of an emphasis on religion and family values, which tend to encourage having kids. Things are just far different than they were 50 years ago, and not entirely in a good way. My wife and kids are by far the greatest part of my life, drastically overshadowing all material possessions and personal achievements. Those that look down on the family life just don't know what they are missing.

I live in a neighborhood where 3 kids are the norm. We must be po.

1. Look in an 18th and 19th century graveyard. Many women died young, often in childbirth. You could have many kids - if you were rich - because you could afford another wife. And 90% of the population were farmers - another reason to have more.

Now most large familys are due to the dole. You have got immigrants on welfare with 10 kids, two wives here and waiting to sponser another dozen kids from overseas.. When did being open to "huddled masses" start to promote polygamy?

2. This still counts in Manhattan. Even if they don't wear a tie (and think they are getting away with something) - these big shots are in $3,000 suits. This business casual crap should go away as the 'boomers die off..

3. True enough.

Interesting. Blaming is a blast, isn't it? Problem is, Chris points out that successful people tend to not have many kids and then we skip to welfare being to blame for this? No information about changes in the size of poor families. I guess we're pretending they are larger? Returning to the original observation, that very successful people tend to have smaller families, the social movement that seems obviously to be driving this is........the success itself. In America we value money. Commercial success. Accumulation of property and money. We value this above all else. Heck, we consider it a double-coup if someone can become successful and break a few rules in the process. Those rules might be there to encourage fairness, or to prevent cheap shots. But cheap shots are often regarded as shrewd and clever and opportunistic.

I digress. Americans are spending more and more of their precious time in commercial pursuits. It is an all-encompassing endeavor, for many. To the detriment of institutions like family and community. This is a survival of the fittest society we have. And Chris' observations are just SOME of the consequences I find distasteful. No, I do not hate success. But I do love family and community. Perhaps we are not as balanced in our values as we might be ideally. Hmmmm.......

Having many children:
Gaijin made a good point. Another couple are:
Infant mortality. Those graveyards of even 80 yeaqrs ago have what we would consider a shocking number of children and infants dead from scarlet fever, diptheria and influenza.
If they lived, they helped out on the farm and became the family's social safety net.

Clothes represented a greater proportion of a family income in days gone by. Those clothes a person had had to be well made if they were to last. Yes, the wealthy could afford 'finery'.

The rich also had a greater incidence of lifestyle desease such as gout. Then as now, inactivity and diet could lead to medical problems.
Yes, processed foods are readily available and relatively cheap. On the other hand, if one does not mind a 'boring diet', you don't have to pay more for good food. Be prepared, however to prepare and cook a lot of it yourself. That in itself is a skill lost in many households.

Les

I don't know if this is expected or surprising coming from a liberal, but I value those simple, basic things more than modern, complex stuff. The woman I am dating does not have a power cable to her house. By the way, she said the Wall Street Journal is easily the best newspaper for starting fires. It is larger and has no color ink. Burns great.

I have been wanting to take my adult daughter to dinner and chat, but having trouble coordinating schedules and finding time. That's wrong. I think we would all be better off if we scaled back a bit on the economic struggle thing, and simplified our personal lives a bit.

Is this one of those tragic liberal agenda things?

"We shame the successful"


Talk about a generality with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Wow.

But, it s to be expected like so many other unprovable statements.

Yes, because when Exxon/Mobil posts a great quarter, they are celebrated. :rolleyes: SmileWavy

I think that's just a little bit different than your neighbor getting a promotion at work. Price gouging vs success.

That's the whole premise for "idiocracy". Watch it ! At least the first 5 minutes.... It's pretty scary (because it's probably true)

Perhaps "social evolution" would have been a more apt title.

+1 on the Idiocracy comment.

I beg to differ on the "rich not having children because they can't afford it" statement.

IMHO some of the rich chose not to have children because they are selfish and shallow... spending money on raising children would drain money away taking expensive vacation and buying outlandish cars, boats, mansions, and other expensive toys. Much the shame because raising children is most likely a more fulfilling and enriching experience.

"Americans spend money they don't have on things they don't need to impress people they don't like."

Hmmm.... I guess this attempt at placing blame on Welfare for rich peoples' greed didn't work out so well. Hard to believe there are problems not caused by gubmit. Just doesn't make sense.

????? Maybe I missed something, but the only comments regarding welfare related to programs that provide more public assistance per child. More kids = more free money. It's not an uncommon phenomenon, this is certainly not the first that I have heard of it. Single lady with 6 kids, 6 different dads, on public assistance.........not all that rare of a thing. Glad my tax dollars go to a good cause.:rolleyes:

Otherwise I agree, most of the reason for the upper class having less kids relates to money and greed. It's a shame, because there's no amount of money that could make up for the joy my kids give me.

I'd like to add an alternate perspective from someone who is married and quite young. I think education might have something do to with it as well, and you can see this in some of the other well educated societies. Now i'm not necessarily generalizing to the point of saying only stupid people breed, but it seems that educated people don't want to be bothered with a family knowing that there's an entire world out there that has yet to be experienced. An example would be my wife and i, i'm 24 and she's 20, and for at least now and for some time we don't want children. Once we are done with college we both want to see the world experience everything that we can (I'd even like to try my hand at skip barber's racing school). They are the kind of things you can't do with a family realistically unless your idea of a vacation is disney world and sea world. Just another perspective............
BTW whipped, i'm really impressed man, being an AE with a family i don't know how you do it. I don't think i could pull off my ME degree in your shoes, that's for sure.

I'm 29. Of the 7 couples my wife and I hang out with, 2 have vowed never to have kids. They also seem to be the people that have the most toys. Yes, welfare encourages the poor to breed, but the educated/successful have created a world where they don't want to...

If I had kids, I wouldn't have as many toys as I have.

I love my toys, but love my kids more. I don't know who's more excited about a saturday composed of driving the Porsche to Dunkin' Doo-nuts and then to "racetrack to watch Porsche cars"... my son or me.

yeah, at 29 you've been around the block too many times and experienced pretty much everything life has to offer...I now understand the sweeping pronouncements a little better.

We should all take the black pill...

Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...

[REFRAIN]:

that suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

[REFRAIN]

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.

[REFRAIN]

The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
and to another give my seat
for that's the only painless feat.

[REFRAIN]

The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...

[REFRAIN]

A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
is it to be or not to be
and I replied 'oh why ask me?'

[REFRAIN]

'Cause suicide is painless
it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you please.

Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

My wife and I are 27, with two kids. Sure, we missed out on things we could have done, but they certainly make up for it. For other young couples we know, I'd say it's pretty evenly split between kids now and waiting. Eventually, they all plan to have them. All are college educated (not that college makes you smart;)).

I knew lots of folks who vowed the same thing when they were younger. Now they all have kids and are quite happy with them. When they give you all the reasons why - just nod and say "yeah, right...".:)

No doubt there is a certain number of "welfare moms" out there milking the system... however having dated the daughter of one such type person I would comment from personal experience that there is probably a equal number of single moms living off welfare that are not mentally capable of having a healthy relationship and or struggling with substance abuse so are in that position for no other reason.

I don't see anything wrong with delaying having children so you can see the world etc. lots of people are doing that.

Also a lot of wealthy people are having children, just look around this board at some of the very successful P-car owners with families.

Most of my friends that are middle age couples have opted not to have children to enable their lifestyle, some of them live hand to mouth and simply can't afford it... nothing wrong with that. However the few friends who do have children seem happier.

YMMV

The opening post blamed this on Welfare specifically. Yes, I noticed the additional posts that assumed this difference is caused by welfare families having more kids. But we don't even have data to back that up. Just innuendo. Specifically, it is imagined that the extra Welfare income from having additional kids is motivating poor women to have larger families. I'm sure this is a motivation for some women. How many? I dunno.

And then there is the observation that poor folks have more leisure time. And fewer bucks for outside entertainment. And perhaps alcohol is in the mix, impacting the pregnancy rate and the poor economic habits.

This is where I've got a concern. I hear all about how removing Welfare will solve these problems. I think, like Livi, that this is disguised greed. Either that or failure to understand social mechanisms by taking a closer look.

You see, when an alcoholic woman shows poor employment behavior and has several kids and no husband, the existence of Welfare might be part of the enabling resources but it's just a part of the whole picture. A minor part, frankly. Withdraw of Welfare would provide some motivation. But that alone is not likely to solve the problem. In fact, overall, to make this woman productive and free and happy will likely take MORE resources than Welfare. And if we were to withdraw Welfare and not provide those other resources, then I think we will pay in other ways and this option would be the most expensive of the three.

And the presence of kids changes things substantially. We might have loads of disdain for this lazy woman but if she has kids, then there are several gnarly questions that few people have the chutzpah to deny. Responsibility to the innocent kids with the good-for-nothing Mom. Interest in how much it's going to cost to house those kids in jail when they grow up, if better behavior is not modeled for them.

And so, I think it is not a simple problem with a simple fix. or an inexpensive one. But it is an opportunity to both take care of our neighbors in a moral sense, and also to take control of a part of society that is costing too much. You see, I believe that the proper expenditires now will cause substantial increases in these peoples' contributions to society and save a TON of money in the future. And the really frustrating thing is that Welfare is not that expensive and in the greater scheme of a federal budget, addressing the problem properly would not cost all that much money.

It's like throwing a blue tarp over your roof when it leaks. Sure, its cheap. But it's not a solution. You guys would research and find some good roofing material and make sure the installers did a proper job. Because you know the value of an investment. You know how to solve problems properly. Why wouldn't you apply that wisdom to social problems too? Greed, I think. Short sightedness.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Supe, there is help out there. Free help, for nearly any problem. It's getting people to reach out for it that causes the issue.

So what's your suggestion? In it's current form, welfare enables a lazy, unproductive, stagnant life. It provides no motivation for advancement in society. Being hungry, not being able to pay your bills, now that's motivation. What I want to know is, why will these people change?

At most, welfare should exist to help people get back on their feet. It should never become a lifetime income program.

As occasionally happens, you have assembled a post that is reasonable and mature. (winking smiley goes here)

I am a fan of management. And motivation. I think people are every organization's most important resource. And I think management and motivation are HUGE in terms of organizational behavior. I notice what psychologists have noticed. That punishment is a poor motivator. Sure, withdrawl of Welfare will motivate. But not only does not come short of being enough motivation, it is the wrong kind. These people live in a world of punishment. I once knew a young child that was abused. I don't know the details, but it was obvious. In playing with other kids, it looked as if this kid did not feel pain. The play he chose involved the other kids hurting him. And his facial expression never ever changed in the slightest. No pain. None. I don't think withdrawl of Welfare is going to do more than amuse most of those people. They live in the dark, cold, uncomfortable shadows of society. The depressed part. Negative.

The thing they need is hope. They need to think there is an alternative. This idea that everyone has the same shot is BS. In order for these people to be able to reach the Brass Ring, they need to be on an outside horse. Ever been on a real carousel? You're not going to get a ring, brass or otherwise, from the saddle of an inside horse. so, these people need to see a vision that nobody has shown them. the kids we scrape out of the ditch and make into journeyman construction workers.......don't know about the importance of hygiene in employment. The link. You guys think I'm crazy and you may be right, but these people DON'T KNOW some of the stuff you guys find basic.

So.....education. Job training. Lifestyle training. They need a guide. I can research job opportunities. And so....I can teach someone to do that. Before I teach them, they might not know.

A reward system needs to be in place, at least up to the point where they can see the connection between their efforts and progress.......and the natural results they will get from the World.

Oops. It was you, Matt. I thought you were Legion. Sorry. Now I see you were just teeing the ball up for me.

Not to belabor the point or repeat myself, or be a meanie - but we have enough poor people in this country. Structurally poor for generations. How we lift them out of this and how we deal with this problem is one of the most difficult issues we face as a society.

If you are an "unsuccesful" immigrant - you should not get welfare, or free housing, or earned income tax credits on 7 kids or get to sponsor more realitives, or have a blind eye turned to a second and third wife on welfare or kids out of wedlock on the dole. You should go home.

Having kids in a relationship requires commitment from both (potential) parents. Looking at the divorce rates, children in care or being looked afer by other family members, it doesn't seem to be the most vital part of a relationship today. More like the "I want what I want" (today) attitude.

It is a LOT less effort to actually WORK AT A JOB than to have kids just for the welfare check. Anyone with kids (and any sense) knows this.

Supe, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't believe that we should provide an incentive for people to utilize public programs and better themselves. Their success should be their incentive, you cannot force/bribe people to succeed. Especially when they have the option to fall back on free money programs.

Further, these programs are largely in place. Even in a medium sized city such as Wichita, there are public and private/charitable programs to help feed, clothe, employ, and empower the poor and homeless. However, they could be better promoted, especially to those that can benefit from them.