Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbarre | Hacker News Reader

The semi-unspoken part of this is that given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, so even if they help existing employees get better jobs and leave Starbucks, all they are doing creating new entry-level job openings, while raising brand awareness, and also ensuring that their departing employees are going to jobs that will help them afford 5$ coffees. ;-)

View on HN

> given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants,

Marx called this the "reserve army of labor."

Yeah, because people keep having children, that they can't or can barely afford to raise and/or college-educate. It's unfortunate, as it's a wonderful thing that everyone should have a chance at doing. But I'd never do that if I was unable to provide for and give a good education to my spawn. Sadly, many people do so with no thought for the future other than thinking the state will fix it, burdening all the rest of us because we're kind.

#Edit, yeah for some odd reason this opinion isn't flying so well with someone on HN. I am disappointed, I figured people are reasonable and can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of. Perhaps people would rather they bring a child into this world, innocent and naive, and then throw it to the wolves while crying to the state to fix a problem they created and inflicted on an innocent? Shame on you.

While i admit your argument seems reasonable in certain countries, I don't think it applies well to the US. The average number of children per family in the US is below 1 in most states[1]. And even if you take the conditional average (that is only consider families who HAVE children) then that is still hardly 2 [1].

Now does that really seem like an unreasonable number of children for a couple to have? I mean if 1 or 2 children are too much for the average family, do you suggest that only the extremely wealthy should reproduce?

So i suppose people are downvoting you because they feel that your comment isn't a reasonable debate, but is more of an irrelevant rant.

[1] https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-20...

"Now does that really seem like an unreasonable number of children for a couple to have? I mean if 1 or 2 children are too much for the average family, do you suggest that only the extremely wealthy should reproduce?" I think you're over exaggerating here. I'm not saying the wealthy should only be allowed to have kids. Nor am I prescribing the "amount" of children anyone should have. I'm simply stating/complaining about people that have kids that they can't afford to take care of. I think that's horrible.

And let's be honest, most poor people do not have the resources, or healthy social support structures from family to raise a healthy adult through childhood. I'm all for communities taking care of those in need, and those who end up having kids they can't take care of. But we all need to understand that it is reckless behavior on the part of those that create those children knowing full well that they can not take care of them like they deserve.

So you are stating that only the wealthy can morally have children? And this does not make you wonder if the country/economy is no longer moral?

It's immoral to bring children into this world that you can not take care of. Period. What part of that don't you understand? What part of that simple statement do you want to twist and mangle to suit your worldview?

Are you suggesting that only people who have already saved the couple of hundred thousands of dollars it takes to raise a child should be allowed to have a child?

Or are you prepared to accept that some people with seemingly stable jobs have children and make plans and start saving but that stuff happens and those people end up in difficult situations?

I'm not going to bother responding. I get down modded anyways for perfectly reasonable comments on uncomfortable topics. You can figure out what I have to say from my previous comments.

Pretty harsh standard, especially as "can not take care of" is left undefined and presumed pretty high in this rather affluent culture. There's a vast difference between "incapable of caring for children" vs "earns above the US poverty line, which itself is above some 87% of everyone on the planet" (or even "above my own arbitrary standard which is well into the 90th percentile of world population").

Sure, if you can't care for kids don't make 'em. But if you're going to demonize what sounds like a broad swath of the population, you'd best define the crux of your proposition, to wit "care for".

By take care of, I mean "feed, clothe, educate to higschool level, pay for standard/basic medical care, and provide a relatively safe environment to grow up in". Is that really all that bad of a "requirement"?

If the parents need to ask for assistance from the state for basic things such as the items above, then I'd argue that they're not able to take care of children. Most of the items are given to them by the state anyways, and they still don't "manage".

>Most of the items are given to them by the state anyways, and they still don't "manage".

Oh really?

I have a question - have you ever sat down and actually talked to more than one poor person?

Obviously that's a rhetorical question. You don't actually want to know, you're just fishing. Because no answer will be sufficient for you, you'll just claim "that doesn't encompass" all poor people.

So, let's skip all that, and you tell me what your actual point/argument is?

Why is "going to college" a requirement for being a healthy adult? It's economically advantageous to many in the US, but it's by no means a life requirement! What if you want to be a guitarist/car mechanic/HVAC specialist/off the grid survivalist/cosmetologist (not cosmologist)/etc?

There are plenty of poor people with resources and healthy social support structures. There are entire countries full of them. Being poor and being part of a fractured social structure are different, while overlapping. US law and society nudge them ever closer but that's our problem -- it's not part of the human condition.

What happens when someone with money, resources, and social support actually ends up poor in several years?

IF you think it can't ever happen to you, you are wrong.

>and/or college-educate.

>give a good education to my spawn

>can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of

So you are useless if you don't have a college education? Doomed to poverty and failure? And that not being able to afford college (of all things) constitutes "can't take care of?" That's the implication.

Personally I think too many people have a college education.

I didn't downvote you, and I can see where you're coming from, but really, "a problem they created?" People could take care of their children alright if they could have a trade that took them, say, 5 hours a day and bought them all the necessities of modern life: food, shelter, health, leisure, internet and education. Is that really so much to ask? We have such high levels of production. I hear some socially developed countries manage it just fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com