Kids and Marriage

[vancouver]

I was discussing this with my friends today...

I know of a few couples who are married but have chosen to remain childless.

(They are also very rich. They recently sold their house in San Diego for nearly a $1 million. :) )

In my culture, this is frowned upon as the family is meant to be continued.

I for one dont wish to have children as I dont think I'm maternal enough - this may put me in a sticky situation in a few years from now...

So the question is...

In your opinion, is it mandatory for married couples to have kids?

And wtf do those who choose not to produce get so much grief from those who have. :mad:

Is there a cap on how many kids should be allowed. I was talking to a girl on the train - she was the eldest of 15 :eek:

[JLMannin]

There is nothing wrong with not having children, in my book. Some people are just not cut out to be parents or simply choose not to.

Sometimes, I think people just have children just to show that they are wealthy enough to do so. This must be the case, as I can see no other logical reason to have childrem then hire people to raise them because they are too busy or it is just too inconvient to do so. I'm not talking so much here about day care (just so long as the kids are in the house longer than just to sleep), but rather those who contract the whole parenting gig out to nannies and such. What't the fun in that? If you want to create the image that you have kids, just rent some for special occasions.

As far as how many is too many - that is purely a personal choice. I have three, and I would have had more if I felt we could afford to. That and I think 3 C-sections was more than enough for my wife to bear.

[Wheel-Nut]

And wtf do those who choose not to produce get so much grief from those who have. :mad:

:eek:

Because Misery loves company!! :rofl:

[vancouver]

That and I think 3 C-sections was more than enough for my wife to bear.


3! Ouch! Were the kids in the breach position or something?

[Tifosi24]

I don't have kids yet, but I will be getting started in a few years so I will give my thoughts on this topic. For me, the idea of getting married would involve having children at some point, but I shouldn't say it is mandatory. There are a lot of people out there that feel obligated to have children and really should have no business having them. The only limit to the number of kids you have is whether or not you can afford to take care of all of them as well as possible. If that means you have one, then you have one, and if that means you can have 12 then by all means have a dozen.

[JLMannin]

3! Ouch! Were the kids in the breach position or something?

Nope. The first two were after 20+ hours of labor. The third was indicated as a result of complications after number 2. After the first two, my wife felt like she had rolled down a mountain or something. After number three, she was actually ready to go home when she was discharged. Not having to suffer the long, exhasting labor made a huge difference in recovery time.

Wheel Nut: Because Misery loves company!! :D

[anait]

I don't think it's mandatory at all!! :) Not everyone has the desire/personality/whatever to want to have kids, to be a parent. You have to know yourself. Sometimes it can surprise a person - they don't think they'd be a good parent, or enjoy being a parent, but they do. But I also know people who had kids b/c it was 'what everyone does'...and while most do love their kids, they struggle daily with the realization that parenting probably wasn't what they were cut out for....and they feel disappointed both for their kids and for themselves.

I love my kids. I am happy we have kids. I'm also very aware that our decisions about where we live, work and serve can't be based solely on our own desires. I may want to go back to university right now, but other things take priority. We may want to head off to Central America to build homes, but we have to weigh the pros and cons of taking the kids away from school, friends and family for that long, not to mention the financial implications.

For us, the presence of our kids in our lives far outweighs the sacrifices or postponements. Many people would not feel the same way. :)

[Andrew Longman]

Being childless isn't always a choice and even if it was, its a personal choice and nobody's business.

But the choice is being made on a different basis today. Before social security and modern banking/financial systems people needed children to care for them in their old age. Land was the primary form of savings but much labor needed to be applied to it to keep it valuable.

Now with modern medicine keeping people active and healthy well into old age and retirement needs something an individual can self fund, the choice to have children is actually fiscally irrational. If you really look at the costs, it is easily a net loss.

But if you look at the total socal cost of children they are absolutely vital. Contrary to popular belief, the world is not overpopulating, it is depopulating, especially in key areas such as Europe. Spain, for example will lose 25% of its population in the next few years. every developed nation is not producing children at replacement levels. What that means is there will be fewer workers to fund your retirement and few consumers to buy your wares. In short, Children: Bad for you. Good for us. (FWIW I have three)

Do a Google on a book call Empty Cradle. Its got a ton a attention in the last year.

For example, here is something relating it to the relative wealth of our cities:


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

March 24, 2005 Thursday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1580 words

HEADLINE: Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children

BYLINE: By TIMOTHY EGAN

DATELINE: PORTLAND, Ore.

BODY:


The Pearl District in the heart of this perpetually self-improving city seems to have everything in new urban design and comfort, from the Whole Foods store where fresh-buffed bell peppers are displayed like runway models to the converted lofts that face sidewalk gardens.

Everything except children.

Crime is down. New homes and businesses are sprouting everywhere. But in what may be Portland's trendiest and fastest-growing neighborhood, the number of school-age children grew by only three between the census counts in 1990 and 2000, according to demographers at Portland State University.

''The neighborhood would love to have more kids, that's probably the top of our wish list,'' said Joan Pendergast of the Pearl Neighborhood Association. ''We don't want to be a one-dimensional place.''

It is a problem unlike the urban woes of cities like Detroit and Baltimore, where families have fled decaying neighborhoods, business areas and schools. Portland is one of the nation's top draws for the kind of educated, self-starting urbanites that mid-size cities are competing to attract. But as these cities are remodeled to match the tastes of people living well in neighborhoods that were nearly abandoned a generation ago, they are struggling to hold on to enough children to keep schools running and parks alive with young voices.

San Francisco, where the median house price is now about $700,000, had the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any large city in the nation, 14.5 percent, compared with 25.7 percent nationwide, the 2000 census reported. Seattle, where there are more dogs than children, was a close second. Boston, Honolulu, Portland, Miami, Denver, Minneapolis, Austin and Atlanta, all considered, healthy, vibrant urban areas, were not far behind. The problem is not just that American women are having fewer children, reflected in the lowest birth rate ever recorded in the country.

Officials say that the very things that attract people who revitalize a city -- dense vertical housing, fashionable restaurants and shops and mass transit that makes a car unnecessary -- are driving out children by making the neighborhoods too expensive for young families.

Other cities have tried and failed to curb family flight. In Portland, the new mayor, Tom Potter, says demography does not have to be destiny. He has dedicated his term to trying to keep children in the city.

Every child a city loses, on average, can mean a loss of about $5,000 for the school district, officials say. Children also create a constituency for parks, trails and public safety improvements, Mr. Potter said, and their parents tend to favor upgrading those amenities through higher taxes. He has been bringing children in to speak to the City Council and has pushed for incentives for affordable housing with enough bedrooms to accommodate bigger families.

A former police chief who helped pioneer community patrolling, Mayor Potter has 14 grandchildren and says a city's health should be measured by its youngest citizens. ''We can't let Portland become a retirement city or a city without neighborhood schools,'' he said.

New York and Los Angeles, because of their large immigrant populations, have maintained their base of children, but demographers, pointing to falling birth rates among Latinos and other ethnic groups, say the nation's biggest cities may soon follow the others.

In Portland, the trends are not in Mayor Potter's favor. From 1990 to 2003 the city added more than 90,000 people, growing to an estimated 529,121 residents, but Portland is now educating the fewest students in more than 80 years.

The problem is not that children are leaving for private schools, officials said. It is that new people attracted to the city tend to have higher incomes, having already raised a family; are retiring; or are single and unlikely to have children.

After interviewing 300 parents who had left the city, researchers at Portland State found that high housing costs and a desire for space were the top reasons.

Tina Ray lived in Portland for 12 years before moving to Gresham, where her 9-year-old daughter attends school. Her family left for a bigger house and more space, she said. ''It's kid friendly, with a great sense of community, and lots of sports leagues,'' she said.

Many Portland families are relocating to the newest edge suburbs, where housing prices are cheapest, including Clark County across the Columbia River in Washington, Portland State demographers say.

After a drop of 10,000 students in the last decade, Portland officials called in March for the closing of six schools, prompting cries of grief from three generations of adults who say that nothing takes the heart out of a neighborhood like a shuttered school.

The pool of school-age children is shrinking so fast that Portland will have to close the equivalent of three or four elementary schools a year over the next decade, according to school district projections.

''I don't think we're going to become a nearly childless city like San Francisco, but the age structure is really changing,'' said Barry Edmonston, an urban studies professor at Portland State, who does demographic projections for the school district. ''People are not turning over the houses like they used to. They're aging in place, at the same time that prices are really going up, making it hard for young families to move into the city.''

Nationally, the birthrate has been dropping while the overall population is aging as life expectancy increases. The problem is not just in cities. New figures released this month showed North Dakota losing more children than any other state.

Scottsdale, Ariz., a fast-growing Phoenix suburb, lost 571 students last year. San Jose closed three schools last year and expects to close three more soon.

Between 2003 and 2004, only six states had an increase in their elementary school population, the census bureau reported in March.

In that sense, the United States is following Europe and the rest of the industrial world, where birthrates now rarely exceed the rate needed to replace the population.

''If you took immigrants out of the equation, the United States would be like the rest of Europe,'' said Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy research organization in Washington. He is the author of ''The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birth Rates Threaten World Prosperity and What To Do About It.''

Mr. Longman said a decline in children not only takes away ''human capital'' needed to sustain an aging population, but ''having fewer children really diminishes the quality of life in a city.''

Most city leaders seem to agree. Even in San Francisco, where officials are preparing for another round of school closings amid a projected decline of 4,000 students in the next five years, city officials are aggressively marketing the city and its schools to young families.

But what they cannot do, especially after the failure last year of a ballot measure sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce to encourage affordable housing, is bring housing prices down.

''It's a real challenge trying to raise a kid in San Francisco,'' said Jim Armstrong, a father of two who is active in Little League in the city and rents a home. ''It takes a degree of fortitude for a parent to stay with the city.''

Other cities that have tried to reverse the family outflow have had mixed success. As mayor of Seattle for 12 years, until 1990, Charles Royer started an initiative called KidsPlace, which has been widely copied by other cities. It included marketing the city's neighborhoods to young families, building a small mix of affordable housing, and zoning and policing changes to make urban parks more child-friendly.

Mr. Royer said he was ridiculed for signs placed around town proclaiming ''Seattle is a KidsPlace'' and took criticism from social service agencies who thought bringing in more families would only place more demands on the limited money they had. Mr. Royer said he was bucking historic changes, and Seattle now has some of the nation's highest-priced real estate and its lowest percentage of children.

''I said things like, 'We don't want to be like San Francisco,' but in the end, I don't think we were terribly effective at stemming that tide,'' Mr. Royer said. ''It's not so much a social problem as it is a demographic and financial problem.''

Here in Portland, the city is bemoaning the demographic cycle as it unfolds before their eyes. On the day of the announcement to close Kenton Elementary School, which has anchored a north Portland neighborhood for 91 years, some parents and residents reacted as if there had been a death in the family.

''I feel heartbroken,'' said Mary Krogh, who had planned to enroll her 4-year-old son, Chase, in the school. ''It's just a terrible loss.''

The school and a tightknit community were among the things that attracted Ms. Krogh and her husband to the neighborhood seven years ago, she said.

But now the school will be shuttered, and improvements from Portland's beloved light rail line have contributed to rising real estate prices, defeating the broad goals of the mayor's effort to bring and keep young families in the city.

''Portland is a great city that attracts a lot of educated people,'' she said. ''But the real estate is becoming outrageously expensive. And then you get wealthy singles and wealthy retirees. What's missing are kids. And that feels really sterile to me.''



URL: http://www.nytimes.com

GRAPHIC: Photos: Kenton Elementary School in north Portland, Ore., is scheduled to be closed because of declining enrollment. (Photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times)
The Pearl District in Portland appeals to adults but lacks children. (pg. A16)Chart:Cities with populations 300,000 or more ranked by the lowest percentage of children under 18.1. San Francisco -- 14.5%2. Seattle -- 15.63. Honolulu -- 19.24. Boston -- 19.85. Pittsburgh -- 19.96. Washington -- 20.17. Portland, Ore. -- 21.18. Miami -- 21.7(Source by Queens College Department of Sociology)


Copyright 2005 President and Fellows of Harvard College
Harvard Business Review

March, 2005

SECTION: Pg. 21

LENGTH: 553 words

HEADLINE: Vanishing Jobs? Blame the Boomers

SOURCE: HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

BYLINE: Phillip Longman;New America Foundation

ABSTRACT:
Baby busters won't get the jobs the boomers leave behind, warns demographer Phillip Longman.

BODY:
To all the brouhaha over offshoring in America, one rejoinder is that any unemployment is temporary. When the mass of baby boomers starts retiring in the next few years, the argument goes, there will be plenty of work for anyone in the baby bust generation whose job went overseas. That may be a comforting thought for U.S. baby busters, but it's probably wrong. Despite their small numbers, the busters may paradoxically see unemployment get worse, not better.

Without a crystal ball, we can't say definitely what will happen as baby boomers start retiring. But we can find clues in two places. Japan's birthrate fell below replacement levels long before that of any other industrialized nation. As a result, workers have been a shrinking proportion of the country's population since 1989. Yet the jobless rate has actually gone up. Similarly, in the United States, the number of people between the ages of 15 and 24 has been declining in relative terms since 1990. But the smaller supply has not made younger workers more valuable; their unemployment rate has increased relative to that of their older counterparts. The situation is even worse for young men: Their median inflation-adjusted income in the booming economy of the late 1990s was actually below what the legions of young baby boomer men earned when they hit the workforce during the stagflation of the late 1970s. A similar story can be told about young workers in most European economies.

Why doesn't a declining labor supply bring more opportunities for those seeking jobs? First, an aging population often increases the cost of hiring. All those elder baby boomers are already helping to drive up the cost of employer-provided health care, and as they start to retire, payroll taxes will be likely to rise to make up for shortfalls in public health and pension systems. Such a jump in taxes could discourage hiring in the United States, as it has in nations that have already experienced large jumps in their elderly populations, like Germany. Payroll taxes there exceed 40%.

Second, as their populations age, societies become more risk averse and resistant to change. One reason Japan is still struggling to fix its sclerotic banking system and France can barely raise its absurdly low retirement age is that older voters have nothing to gain, and much to lose, from fundamental changes that pay off only in the long term. The U.S. population may not be as old as those of other rich countries, but just look at how hard it is for Americans to face up to obvious threats to their country's long-term prosperity, such as the unsustainable cost of entitlement programs, looming future deficits, and overdependence on foreign energy sources. Studies worldwide also show that older populations are less likely to be entrepreneurial and so may create fewer new jobs.

Finally, businesses have other, potentially less costly, options besides replacing retirees with the next generation. They can move even more work offshore, and for those jobs that can't be sent overseas, they can lobby the government to allow more immigration. Or, as some hard-nosed firms are already doing, they can reduce their operations, either directly or by cutting plans for future investment. A shrinking workforce could give us merely a shrinking economy./SGMLSGML

[Warlock!]

I don't think it's mandatory at all!! :) Not everyone has the desire/personality/whatever to want to have kids, to be a parent. You have to know yourself. Sometimes it can surprise a person - they don't think they'd be a good parent, or enjoy being a parent, but they do. Bingo.

All I would add is that if you don't want kids, don't have 'em. Although the fantastic emotions kids can bring to a couple will only be felt if they actually have kids, I think a person can go thru life perfectly content being completely ignorant to those feelings. In other words... if you don't have kids, you don't know what you're missin'... which is cool. :D I know I woulda been happy as a clam not having kids, but I wouldn't go back to being kidless knowing what I know now.

[RaceGrrl]

Richard and I are childless by choice and do not regret it at all. I believe that every child should be a wanted child, and if is not your heart's desire to be a parent, you shouldn't be a parent. I had no interest in being a mother. I know that there are things that we may miss out on by not having kids, but there are also negative things that we definitely avoid by not having them. We still enjoy our nieces and nephews and I really enjoy watching Richard play with them, but we don't have the lifetime responsibility. Works for us! :)

Having kids is no guarantee that they'll be there for you in your old age. It's no guarantee that all your effort in raising them to be good people is going to be successful. Have them because you really want them, not to meet someone else's expectation.

Bottom line: it's a personal choice. Both of our families respected that and we do not regret our decision.

[G.]

I just need someone to change my diapers and clean up my vomit when I get older. Payback's a b**** for the g's. :laugh:

[Spicoli]

Bingo.

All I would add is that if you don't want kids, don't have 'em. Although the fantastic emotions kids can bring to a couple will only be felt if they actually have kids, I think a person can go thru life perfectly content being completely ignorant to those feelings. In other words... if you don't have kids, you don't know what you're missin'... which is cool. :D I know I woulda been happy as a clam not having kids, but I wouldn't go back to being kidless knowing what I know now.

bingo.

I'll also add: If you are not gonna have kids, wtf would you even bother gettin married? No sense in it, imho.

(Don;t give me the L-O-V-E bull either. ;) )

[CARTNUT]

Don't do it! It isn't worth it! Talk about grief?! ;)

If you want, I'll ship our 15 yo daughter and 13 yo son over for a trial run. Just til they're out of college. (on your euro, of course.) :p

'NUT :gomer:

[Sean O'Gorman]

Richard and I are childless by choice and do not regret it at all. I believe that every child should be a wanted child, and if is not your heart's desire to be a parent, you shouldn't be a parent. I had no interest in being a mother. I know that there are things that we may miss out on by not having kids, but there are also negative things that we definitely avoid by not having them. We still enjoy our nieces and nephews and really enjoy watching Richard play with them, but we don't have the lifetime responsibility. Works for us! :)

Having kids is no guarantee that they'll be there for you in your old age. It's no guarantee that all your effort in raising them to be good people is going to be successful. Have them because you really want them, not to meet someone else's expectation.

Bottom line: it's a personal choice. Both of our families respected that and we do not regret our decision.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

I wish there were more people with your kind of thinking, but I think intentionally childless couples make up between 2-4% of marriages. I get hell all the time from my friends and from girls that I've gone out with because I absolutely refuse to have kids, but I don't see what the big deal is.

Who wants to deal with a pregnant wife for 9 months, maybe longer if she has another kid? Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a whiny child? Who wants to have to give up their evenings to take a kid to soccer practice, or in the case of my parents, pick me up from detention? Who wants to have to save up for college when the kid could just get drunk and drop out in a semester? Who wants to throw away 22 years of hard work to save your disposable income for something fun like living your dream of racing cars because a kid costs too much and you'd feel guilty if you were injured or killed doing something you didn't have to?

Don't get me wrong, there might be a point in my late 30s where I lose interest in having fun and may change my mind, but I'd think adoption is the better option. Isn't it a bit selfish to bring a child into this world when there are already so many kids without parents?

[Spicoli]

:thumbup: :thumbup:

I wish there were more people with your kind of thinking, but I think intentionally childless couples make up between 2-4% of marriages. I get hell all the time from my friends and from girls that I've gone out with because I absolutely refuse to have kids, but I don't see what the big deal is.

Who wants to deal with a pregnant wife for 9 months, maybe longer if she has another kid? Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a whiny child? Who wants to have to give up their evenings to take a kid to soccer practice, or in the case of my parents, pick me up from detention? Who wants to have to save up for college when the kid could just get drunk and drop out in a semester? Who wants to throw away 22 years of hard work to save your disposable income for something fun like living your dream of racing cars because a kid costs too much and you'd feel guilty if you were injured or killed doing something you didn't have to?

Don't get me wrong, there might be a point in my late 30s where I lose interest in having fun and may change my mind, but I'd think adoption is the better option. Isn't it a bit selfish to bring a child into this world when there are already so many kids without parents?

wow. nice outlook on life SOG. :shakehead

Talk about SELFISH.


(or was it shellfish? :gomer: )

[Sean O'Gorman]

No argument here on that, but at least I'm upfront about it. ;)

[vancouver]

:thumbup: :thumbup:

I wish there were more people with your kind of thinking, but I think intentionally childless couples make up between 2-4% of marriages. I get hell all the time from my friends and from girls that I've gone out with because I absolutely refuse to have kids, but I don't see what the big deal is.

Who wants to deal with a pregnant wife for 9 months, maybe longer if she has another kid? Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a whiny child? Who wants to have to give up their evenings to take a kid to soccer practice, or in the case of my parents, pick me up from detention? Who wants to have to save up for college when the kid could just get drunk and drop out in a semester? Who wants to throw away 22 years of hard work to save your disposable income for something fun like living your dream of racing cars because a kid costs too much and you'd feel guilty if you were injured or killed doing something you didn't have to?

Don't get me wrong, there might be a point in my late 30s where I lose interest in having fun and may change my mind, but I'd think adoption is the better option. Isn't it a bit selfish to bring a child into this world when there are already so many kids without parents?

Amen Sean. You think like I do.

[Dr. Corkski]

wow. nice outlook on life SOG. :shakehead

Talk about SELFISH.


(or was it shellfish? :gomer: )He is being anything but selfish. Do you really want more O'Gormans running around? :gomer:

[RichK]

:thumbup: :thumbup:

I wish there were more people with your kind of thinking, but I think intentionally childless couples make up between 2-4% of marriages. I get hell all the time from my friends and from girls that I've gone out with because I absolutely refuse to have kids, but I don't see what the big deal is.

Who wants to deal with a pregnant wife for 9 months, maybe longer if she has another kid? Who wants to wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a whiny child? Who wants to have to give up their evenings to take a kid to soccer practice, or in the case of my parents, pick me up from detention? Who wants to have to save up for college when the kid could just get drunk and drop out in a semester? Who wants to throw away 22 years of hard work to save your disposable income for something fun like living your dream of racing cars because a kid costs too much and you'd feel guilty if you were injured or killed doing something you didn't have to?

Don't get me wrong, there might be a point in my late 30s where I lose interest in having fun and may change my mind, but I'd think adoption is the better option. Isn't it a bit selfish to bring a child into this world when there are already so many kids without parents?

That sounds like me when I was in my 20s. I changed my mind about kids when I was ~35 or so. It IS possible to have both kids and a racing life or an adventurous life in general. If you find a spouse that wants the same life you do, you are good to go.

[TKGAngel]

Who wants to deal with a pregnant wife for 9 months, maybe longer if she has another kid?

Sean, I understand what you are saying, but I just find it really funny that the phrasing here makes it sound like the wife just went off and decided to again get pregnant one day with no input from you. ;)

I agree with whomever said that parents should parent the kids, not shuffle off the entire responsiblity off onto a nanny or other domestic help. I remember watching an episode of Wife Swap, and one of the families involved was a quite wealthy NYC family, with three nannies. The father rarely made it home from the office before 8pm, which was after the kids were in bed. The mother utilized the nannies since the kids interferred with her ability to have "me time" and go shopping, hair done, etc. I was :mad: watching the episode, that these parents were so consumed in themselves but went out and had three kids.

OT: TLC is having a show on Saturday about the family in Arkansas who has 16 children and is moving into a brand new house. The kids are completely home-schooled by Ma and Pa. The earlier shows they did around this family were fascinating.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

March 24, 2005 Thursday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1580 words

HEADLINE: Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children

BYLINE: By TIMOTHY EGAN

DATELINE: PORTLAND, Ore.

BODY:

Interesting article, Andrew. I actually read it back in the fall when I was still job hunting, as I was trying to find a way out of the Midwest and Portland seemed like the most appealing city for me. I put off moving for now because the company I'm working for is unbelievable, but I still want to head out there by my late 20s.

Without overgeneralizing, IMO it just seems to me that at times that too many people have children because of a void in their lives, which IMO doesn't seem fair to the kids involved. I get the feeling that most parents choose to have kids to use them as a hobby, not for the genuine interest of raising a kid. Again, I bring up the fact that any couple I know that talks about having kids says that they wont consider adoption because the child in question wasn't created by them. I hear things like "damaged goods", "not my genetics", "I can't be proud of his/her accomplishments because I didn't create him/her", etc. Maybe I'm mistaken, but if you and your significant other had 100% responsibility in raising this kid and providing the kid with education, values, positive learning environment, wouldn't it be just as true that you "created" the kid?


That sounds like me when I was in my 20s. I changed my mind about kids when I was ~35 or so. It IS possible to have both kids and a racing life or an adventurous life in general. If you find a spouse that wants the same life you do, you are good to go.

I guess I could see my mind changing around that age, it would all depend on where I stand professionally. If I was lucky enough to be at the point where I could race World Challenge or Grand-Am, there is no way in hell I'd consider. But I guess if I was stuck autocrossing or toiling midpack in Spec Miata even with the best of equipment, it'd probably be a good sign that I should find something else to do with my time. ;) Still, I wouldn't think it is fair to a kid to try and balance your time between parenting and racing because both seem to take up alot of resources.

If it seems that I've taken a serious step away from my usual joking tone, it is because this is a subject that bugs me since 95%+ of the women out there are automatically disqualified from being considered marriage material because of this. Throw out the fat, ugly, annoying, and diseased women in that remaining 5%, that probably leaves 17 women in North America, probably 14 of which think I'm ugly or an a-hole. :laugh:

EDIT: Also, all of this gets thrown out the window I met a sugar momma who presented me with the opportunity to be a stay-at-home dad during the week while I get to blow her six figure income wadding up race cars across the U.S. :)

[G.]

The coolest thing about having kids, for me, anyhow, is I get to relive some of MY childhood through their eyes. I get to create the magical Christmas mornings, the favorite meal, teach the important lessons, etc.

It brings back memories of a happier time, ergo, makes NOW a happier time.

I spent yesterday taking care of a sick kid. He was actually scared he was so sick. I got to lay down with him and comfort him. Sounds awful, right? Exactly the opposite. It was great. He needed ME.

I tried to teach the oldest g. to snowboard last night. He's afraid to learn new stuff - afraid of failure. I try to show him how, that he needs to stand up all the way down the (small) hill. Of course, while demonstrating my awesome technique, I fall and sprain my wrist. Had to lay at the bottom, biting back the pain, so g. wouldn't get spooked. :laugh:

[/blog]

You don't want kids? Don't have them! To do otherwise is a diservice to the human race.

[Andrew Longman]

The best thing I do all year is watch my oldest son and his buddies play little league baseball. Better than any Yankee game. But that's just me and as someone said you don't know what you'd be missing until you experience it.

But one thing I think everyone should be able to appreciate is everyone has/had parents. Hilter, Mother Theresa, bin Laden, Jim Clark, and Michael Andretti

It is a huge responsibility with huge outcomes. Whether through birth or adoption or even as a teacher, mentor or coach, adults can have tremendous influence on how kids turn out.

Now I'm sure I am not nearly the perfect example for my kids and I should be saving more for their therapy than college, but I take pride that they are more likely to do good in the world than become John Wayne Gacy

Sadly that isn't always the case. Some don't even get a chance. This story tore my heart out this morning. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1141627229111890.xml&coll=1

Poor five-year old's Mom is killed in a murder/suicide and his Dad can't take care of him properly. Dies home alone in a fire.

[Andrew Longman]

Interesting article, Andrew. I actually read it back in the fall when I was still job hunting, as I was trying to find a way out of the Midwest and Portland seemed like the most appealing city for me. I put off moving for now because the company I'm working for is unbelievable, but I still want to head out there by my late 20s.

Thanks. In case you didn't notice, the Phillip Longman quoted in the first article and author of the HBR article (and Empty Cradle) is my older brother.

Shameless self serving self promotion. :D

You'd like it out there. The scenery is awesome. But Phil once did a study and found there were more pet dogs in Seattle than kids. Then again, maybe you'd like that. Certainly must be more woman not looking to have kids than in Ohio. ;)

[nrc]

wow. nice outlook on life SOG. :shakehead

Talk about SELFISH.


(or was it shellfish? :gomer: )

I think it's more selfish to have children if that's not really something that you want. It's selfish to have children and not spend the time, money, and effort that they require, or to do so out of commitment rather than real desire.

It's not enough to want to have a child - you have to want to raise a child.

[rabbit]

I love my five-year-old daughter more than I ever thought it possible to love something or someone. I would give my life for her in a heartbeat. I cherish every single day that she is a part of my life. I can't imagine it without her.

[Spicoli]

I think it's more selfish to have children if that's not really something that you want. It's selfish to have children and not spend the time, money, and effort that they require, or to do so out of commitment rather than real desire.

It's not enough to want to have a child - you have to want to raise a child.

You are absolutely correct Richard.

It takes a license to fish, drive a car, cut hair, own a boat....but you can have a kid with no check of your abilities and qualifications whatsoever. :shakehead


__________________________________________________ ________

Note to O'Gorman: You must first find a willing partner. Preferaably not one who is driunk with bad vision. :gomer:

[Sean O'Gorman]

Note to O'Gorman: You must first find a willing partner. Preferaably not one who is driunk with bad vision. :gomer:

But that is the only way I can ever get anywhere! :cry:



You'd like it out there. The scenery is awesome. But Phil once did a study and found there were more pet dogs in Seattle than kids. Then again, maybe you'd like that. Certainly must be more woman not looking to have kids than in Ohio. ;)

Would it surprise you that I hate pets too?

[vancouver]

Although, I'm no great kid lover, I do feel for those who can't naturally concieve. Even where IVF has failed. Must be devastating. :(

[Wabbit]

Although, I'm no great kid lover, I do feel for those who can't naturally concieve. Even where IVF has failed. Must be devastating. :(

Try losing one right at birth due to defects. The second lost at mid-term due to same.

I love my daughter more than anything. Especially after everything we went through to have her. Glad she came out healthy. Now I have someone to share my knowledge, love, and experiences with.

[Hard Driver]

What is the point of life is the question.

1) Personal Happiness

2) Procreation of your genes

Many biologists would say #2.

I do think it is life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. But my kids bring me great joy. Not in the same manner as blasting down a mountain on a bike or on skis, type of thrill. But more in the cuddling in bed with a child who loves you more than anything and taking great pride when they learn to read type of joy. And that type of joy is a bit more deep.

But there is definitely lots of personal sacrafice involved. But there is joy in the giving.

[Stu]

man this thread had some much potential to rip on Ogorman (while staying on topic - a rarity i know!) but you guys had to make it all serious and nice sounding about how much you love your kids.

:)

kids are cool, but hopefully they wont be cool for me until im 30.

[Sean O'Gorman]

man this thread had some much potential to rip on Ogorman (while staying on topic - a rarity i know!) but you guys had to make it all serious and nice sounding about how much you love your kids.

:)

kids are cool, but hopefully they wont be cool for me until im 30.

$10 says you have 4 more years left until a kid pops out. Maybe by then I'll have gotten past a second date with a girl. :laugh:

Personally I just thought its interesting that while I'm on the minority side as usual, I'm actually on the same side of an argument as the mods!!

[Spicoli]

$10 says you haven't gotten past a second base with a girl. :laugh:

SOG Starring in......

http://emol.org/film/archives/40yearoldvirgin/82338984,EB44F815E73C4E7674E.jpg

http://www.reelingreviews.com/the40yearoldvirginpic.jpg

:cry:

[Ankf00]

He's not being selfish, he's being selfless. He's doing us all a huge favor by not procreating :)

[dirtyboy]

I’m married without kids. Andrea Yates is also one of my heroes.

[Racing Truth]

Well, as someone with a rather severe disability, my marriage, should I ever find someone, would be just as meaningful to me w/o children, IMHO. Since my disorder is genetic, plus my plethora of medical needs, makes having children impossible.

That said, HD sums up the larger debate nicely.

[Stu]

Posted on Page 1:

He is being anything but selfish. Do you really want more O'Gormans running around? :gomer:
Posted on Page 2:

He's not being selfish, he's being selfless. He's doing us all a huge favor by not procreating :)
Original. :thumdown:

[Ankf00]

*shrug*

say hi to Stu Jr. for me in 3 years :)

[Spicoli]

Andrea Yates is also one of my heroes.

Wow. Your ass needs to be kicked. That's BEYOND poor taste.

:shakehead

[Stu]

*shrug*

say hi to Stu Jr. for me in 3 years :)


buuuurrrrnnnn :rolleyes:

[fourrunner]

Wow. Your ass needs to be kicked. That's BEYOND poor taste.

:shakehead

beat me too it !! :eek:

Rule # 1 .... Read & Re-Read ... then re-read again a post before you hit Enter !!

[dirtyboy]

You guys will be really offended by my Susan Smith tattoo. Don’t lose your head like Adam Walsh for peets sake.

Oh no I got to get back to eBay and bid on the boat anchor autographed by Scott Peterson. I just named my boat ‘lil Conner.

[Ankf00]

Rusty Yates is one REALLY weird dude. He's always kinda sorta spaced out and just puts off weird vibes... ALL THE TIME! Not all too shocking that his ex-wife is a psycho...

[fourrunner]

You guys will be really offended by my Susan Smith tattoo. Don’t lose your head like Adam Walsh for peets sake.

Oh no I got to get back to eBay and bid on the boat anchor autographed by Scott Peterson. I just named my boat ‘lil Conner.

BaDumpBump !!

[Andrew Longman]

You guys will be really offended by my Susan Smith tattoo. Don’t lose your head like Adam Walsh for peets sake.

Oh no I got to get back to eBay and bid on the boat anchor autographed by Scott Peterson. I just named my boat ‘lil Conner.

Got me. The name didn't click until I googled it.

What is it about Texas, Christians, motherhood and kids that has trouble mixing? :p

[Ankf00]

The cement racket isn't as big down here, so we have no place to hide the bodies :gomer:

[nrc]

You guys will be really offended by my Susan Smith tattoo. Don’t lose your head like Adam Walsh for peets sake.

Oh no I got to get back to eBay and bid on the boat anchor autographed by Scott Peterson. I just named my boat ‘lil Conner.

Ok, we let the first one pass because there's no rule against trying to be funny and just coming off as tasteless. Now you're just baiting people. Stop it.

[G.]

Played Go Fish with g. tonight. Was pretty cool. Lots of Cub Scout stuff too. Was cool.

If you choose not to have kids, that's ok.

But are you avaliable for babysitting? Please?













Oh God, help. :laugh:

[vancouver]

Me not wanting kids, is not a definite decision.

Maybe its just my post-teenage hormones jumping all over the place. I definitley dont want them before I'm 32.

[Wingnut]

There's nothing wrong with a couple choosing to remain childless. DH and I probably would have, but for a fateful evening of too much wine and see-through underwear. :eek: 9 months or so later, I was holding a SCREAMING baby girl as DH helplessly told me he had no idea what to do and that, "...you're the one with the maternal instincts!" :flame: To his credit, he only said that once. :laugh: It took me a good 3 months to fall in love with the chickie, but once I did...wow. Just...wow. They totally change your way of life. When Screamer was 25 months old, we had our son. I fell in love with him immediately and haven't looked back. Sure, it's HELLA hard dealing with two kids, working full-time, and trying to keep the house clean, but we're managing and having some fun in the meantime. There are many times I envy the childless (like when the school calls for the 3rd time in 2 weeks to pick up a sick kid and I have to miss MORE time at work), but I get over it pretty quickly.

P.s. Kids like Champ Cars, too.

[racer2c]

Link (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml)


Check out this Daily Show piece. It's at the bottom entitled 'Jones - American Resolutions: Great Dad'. It made laugh out loud!

then check out the one entitled 'Martin - Trendspotting: Social Networking'. Funny, funny stuff.

[Dr. Corkski]

Posted on Page 1:

Posted on Page 2:

Original. :thumdown:Don't worry, he will be hearing from my patent lawyer. :gomer:

[Ankf00]

Don't worry, he will be hearing from my patent lawyer. :gomer:

so you know two Patels, huh?

[KLang]

No kids. I didn't plan it that way but that is the way life worked out.

[TravelGal]

It's not enough to want to have a child - you have to want to raise a child.

I'm reading this thread with interest as someone who missed out on having children due to various life circumstances. Fortunately I never got any of the "when are you going to....." crap but then, I have always had enlightened friends. :cool: Present company included.

Before I get to pages 2 and 3, I have to say that I think the sentence above nails the whole subject. Too many people want to have a child to fulfill what they wanted to do or think they should have done or prove that they (the parent) are brilliant. Or they simply want a baby and not the child it grows into.

Brilliant observation, boss.

[oddlycalm]

Contrary to popular belief, the world is not overpopulating, it is depopulating, especially in key areas such as Europe. Exactly. As more than half of the worlds population now lives in an urban area, the question becomes something along the lines of; "Would I like to have a child or would I rather have a million dollars and the time to spend it?" While the exact monetary cost varies from nation to nation, the mechanics work the same.

After paying for college and, cough, grad school I can provide a detailed financial analysis that proves this point. ;) That's still way better than "the kid that never leaves" syndrome... :eek: Remember, for every 36yr old internet forum savant that still lives in his parents basement, someone is still paying the tab. Cough, trackforum, cough, cough....

oc

[oddlycalm]

It's not enough to want to have a child - you have to want to raise a child. One of the resulting ironies in industrialized societies is that many of those that don't want children are infinitely more capable of providing and doing a good job than many that do.

oc

[Sean O'Gorman]

One of the resulting ironies in industrialized societies is that many of those that don't want children are infinitely more capable of providing and doing a good job than many that do.

oc

Good point. I learned in some class at some college at some point in my educational career that lower class people have more children because they use them as tools to care for them when they get older. Obviously that doesn't seem to work out too well.

[Spicoli]

Good point. I learned in some class at some college at some point in my educational career that lower class people have more children because they use them as tools to care for them when they get older. Obviously that doesn't seem to work out too well.

shut up while you are ahead O'Gorman.

:laugh:

[Stu]

of course there are always the teenagers that have kids just so they can get money from the government.

pop out a couple babies and they are taking home more than their teachers.

[vancouver]

Over here, they get a free house, all bills paid and allowances to buy diapers and buggies and stuff.

On the bus one day, I overheard a girl saying how she was gonna get herself pregnant so that she can obtain all of the above :shakehead

[Spicoli]

of course there are always the teenagers that have kids just so they can get money from the government.

pop out a couple babies and they are taking home more than their teachers.

please show proof of that. seriously. :shakehead

[Stu]

please show proof of that. seriously. :shakehead


its called the welfare system. ever heard of it?

[Spicoli]

its called the welfare system. ever heard of it?

Yep. I'd like you to show me where a mother of 2 kids on Welfare makes more money than a school teacher.

[G.]

Yep. I'd like you to show me where a mother of 2 kids on Welfare makes more money than a school teacher.It was overheard at a Cup race. It must be true! :laugh:

[Sean O'Gorman]

Yep. I'd like you to show me where a mother of 2 kids on Welfare makes more money than a school teacher.

Stu's accusations appear to have little merit.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

[TKGAngel]

Stu's accusations appear to have little merit.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

It proves your point, but that's 14 year-old data. I wonder how much the numbers have changed since then.

[rabbit]

When I was in Washington D.C. last summer, I was talking to a pastor of an inner city church. He said welfare had destroyed African-American men because black women ran the men out of their homes when they discovered they could collect more welfare money if they were a single parent. Today, more than 80 percent of African-American children are born to single-parent homes. :(

[Andrew Longman]

One of the resulting ironies in industrialized societies is that many of those that don't want children are infinitely more capable of providing and doing a good job than many that do.

oc

Just to get this back on topic from a pending spiral over welfare... (but before we leave it keep in mind the welfare reform implemented under Clinton resulted in the end of endless open-ended welfare payments in the US which in turn has reversed many of the still harmful societal effects on the poor and urban blacks especially).

OC tips to an important point about having kids. Those who are capable and motivated to raise great kids help out every kid. The well adjusted and academically motivated kid acts as a role model and leader to his peers. Adding even just a few can have a tremendous effect on the performance of an entire class. And the less than advantaged kid that gets to play with the better off kid learns things and sees examples their own parents may never provide, just as the priviledged kid can learn something from those less fortunate. And parents mixing with other parents helps make everyone a little better.

Or at least that's my argument for not shipping rich kids off to boarding schools or insulating families in exclusive gated communities and Ivy League colleges. (I grew up in an Ivy League town so I have an informed if tainted opinion on this :) ).

[Tifosi24]

Preach on Andrew! I go to a wealthy private college for my graduate work and you can tell that many of these kids have missed out on the opportunity to grow from the experiences of what I would call "normal" people. Getting it on topic, as Andrew was aluding to, those people who raise good children not only have directly effect their own offspring, but have the indirect effect of "spilling over" their parenting on other kids.

[Spicoli]

Can anyone prove me wrong. I assert that a Public School Teacher makes more money on average than a US welfare dependant mother of 2.


{crickets}

[racer2c]

Can anyone prove me wrong. I assert that a Public School Teacher makes more money on average than a US welfare dependant mother of 2.


{crickets}

First year or tenured? :)

My sister-in-law is a 10th grade English teacher. After 17 years she makes $37K, summers off, and home everyday by 3:30pm. A first year teacher in our district starts at $23K. I assume it's lower in a small town in Arkansas or Tenn.

You couldn't pay me three times that to deal with high schoolers. :saywhat:

[Tifosi24]

I can substaintate your assertion Spicoli as I have plenty of down time proctoring this test.

[Andrew Longman]

Can anyone prove me wrong. I assert that a Public School Teacher makes more money on average than a US welfare dependant mother of 2.


{crickets}

http://www.aft.org/salary/2003/download/2003Table1.pdf

I'm on my school board and I have teachers on staff making 80K after lots of years of service. A chief administrator will make 100-225K depending on the size and political affiliation of the district (NJ corruption :rolleyes: )

Of course a starter home here is about 325K and taxes run through the roof to pay for those sallaries and corruption.

Much different if you are in SD though. I could probably do quite well there on 32K compared to Jersey. :gomer:

[Andrew Longman]

Preach on Andrew! I go to a wealthy private college for my graduate work and you can tell that many of these kids have missed out on the opportunity to grow from the experiences of what I would call "normal" people. Getting it on topic, as Andrew was aluding to, those people who raise good children not only have directly effect their own offspring, but have the indirect effect of "spilling over" their parenting on other kids.

Thank you T.

I moved to an Ivy town in middle school and met mostly snotty kids with too much money and too full of themselves. But I was in the public school. The real power and money in town sent their kids to one of five private schools. In Jersey, school budgets must be approved by the voters. So guess what? We went through a 12 year period in the 70s, which about 10% annual inflation, with NO budget increases. Why would they do pass a higher budget when their kids are in private schools?

After HS most of my friends went off to elite private schools and I wanted to get as far away as possible. In my mind that was up the road from you at Northern Michigan University. Up there I learned more from Iron miners and autoworkers and a number of dedicated professors than any of my buds did at Amherst and Dartmouth.

And so for my own kids I choose to live in a very mixed community, rather than the typical NJ McMansion suburb and participate on our school board. My kids go to school with the children of professionals, laborers, artists, bureaucrats, addicts, librarians, ferriers, and the cronically unemployeed. And guess what? Their school has ranked in the top 6 statewide among 1291 elementary schools in the state for the last 5 years.

Oh and BTW I read an interview with the outgoing President of Harvard in last week's USN&WR. He said studies show that basic skills among many students at the most of the nations elite schools actuall GET WORSE during their four years there. Engineering students for example may learn alot more about engineering but forget how to write. Basic delivery of education to undergraduates is not a priority at these schools. But that thinking got him fired.

Whoa, way off topic. Sorry. Point is whether you choose to have kids or not everyone, including kids has a role to play to make sure the future turns out right.

[Tifosi24]

Ok, I did some digging and here is what I can tell you about this question.

Not working and claiming pure welfare benefits is not going to make you better off than the average teacher. Because of the structure of TANF and PWORA (you can google the acrynms if you want to know what they are) for people to claim any meaningful welfare for their children they will need to work. If you don't work you are not going to benefit from these programs for more than a year. The other thing that makes the position of the average teacher strong in the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is illustrated with a quick and easy natural experiment.

(Both women in this example have two children)
Let's take the average school teacher and say she makes $27,000 a year, which is low balling it. The EITC gives benefits up to around 33,000 so this teacher will be eligible for aid bringing her yearly wage to somewhere around 37k with the child tax credits. If the same person chooses not to work and claim solely welfare, and all that goes with it, my best guess from quickly looking at the data is that she will "earn" somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10k because she cannot claim the EITC.

Long story short, it pays to have a job.

[Sean O'Gorman]

He said studies show that basic skills among many students at the most of the nations elite schools actuall GET WORSE during their four years there. Engineering students for example may learn alot more about engineering but forget how to write.


Engineering students getting inept at a top school, who would've thought? :laugh:

Despite the many objections to CSU (just look at Ank's posts to get an idea of what most people feel about it), I felt I benefitted immensely from going there because it exposed me to the urban side of Cleveland that I missed by going to a high-dollar private high school. Sure beats being stuck in the suburbs your whole life.

[TKGAngel]

Despite the many objections to CSU (just look at Ank's posts to get an idea of what most people feel about it), I felt I benefitted immensely from going there because it exposed me to the urban side of Cleveland that I missed by going to a high-dollar private high school. Sure beats being stuck in the suburbs your whole life.

Not all private colleges are in the suburbs. I went to a very fine private institution located in the heart of Buffalo. The Jesuits made sure that we got involved in the community in some way, whether tutoring at PS74, volunteering for Habitat, etc. Their philosophy of men and women for others was put into action by their student body. So I'll be in debt for the next 15 years, but it was worth it.[/end jesuit soapbox]

[Spicoli]

Ok, I did some digging and here is what I can tell you about this question.

Not working and claiming pure welfare benefits is not going to make you better off than the average teacher. Because of the structure of TANF and PWORA (you can google the acrynms if you want to know what they are) for people to claim any meaningful welfare for their children they will need to work. If you don't work you are not going to benefit from these programs for more than a year. The other thing that makes the position of the average teacher strong in the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is illustrated with a quick and easy natural experiment.

(Both women in this example have two children)
Let's take the average school teacher and say she makes $27,000 a year, which is low balling it. The EITC gives benefits up to around 33,000 so this teacher will be eligible for aid bringing her yearly wage to somewhere around 37k with the child tax credits. If the same person chooses not to work and claim solely welfare, and all that goes with it, my best guess from quickly looking at the data is that she will "earn" somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10k because she cannot claim the EITC.

Long story short, it pays to have a job.


:D

thanky.

[Dr. Corkski]

Engineering students getting inept at a top school, who would've thought? :laugh:

Despite the many objections to CSU (just look at Ank's posts to get an idea of what most people feel about it), I felt I benefitted immensely from going there because it exposed me to the urban side of Cleveland that I missed by going to a high-dollar private high school. Sure beats being stuck in the suburbs your whole life.you should have gone to USC.[/coolhand]

[Sean O'Gorman]

Not all private colleges are in the suburbs. I went to a very fine private institution located in the heart of Buffalo. The Jesuits made sure that we got involved in the community in some way, whether tutoring at PS74, volunteering for Habitat, etc. Their philosophy of men and women for others was put into action by their student body. So I'll be in debt for the next 15 years, but it was worth it.[/end jesuit soapbox]

I know, I know, I just find it funny that so many people I went to high school with that looked down on me for going to CSU ended up having to go to grad school because they couldn't find jobs. Nothing against grad school, but I'd think work experience would be a pretty good prerequisite. Also, a girl I went out with a couple weeks ago that works at one of my company's other offices went to a highly respected liberal arts school for theatre, is paying something like $200 a month in student loans for the next 10 years, and is working in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with her major, is in the same position as me ,and makes about the same amount of money. And I only have $50/month in student loans for the next 5 years. :D

[Ankf00]

Can anyone prove me wrong. I assert that a Public School Teacher makes more money on average than a US welfare dependant mother of 2.


{crickets}

my buddy's gf back when we were 19 would rant on and on about welfare people buying plasma tv's and stuff with their checks (we'll just gloss over the fact that Texas Assistance for Needy Families is streched far beyond thin).

"I saw it on TV!!!" <---proof. ;)

[Ankf00]

I know, I know, I just find it funny that so many people I went to high school with that looked down on me for going to CSU ended up having to go to grad school because they couldn't find jobs. Nothing against grad school, but I'd think work experience would be a pretty good prerequisite. Also, a girl I went out with a couple weeks ago that works at one of my company's other offices went to a highly respected liberal arts school for theatre, is paying something like $200 a month in student loans for the next 10 years, and is working in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with her major, is in the same position as me ,and makes about the same amount of money. And I only have $50/month in student loans for the next 5 years. :D

yea, but she most likely didn't live with mom & dad ;)

[Dr. Corkski]

yea, but she most likely didn't live with mom & dad ;)But she didn't get the training to become a dungeon master like O'Gorman got in his parents' basement. :gomer:

[Sean O'Gorman]

yea, but she most likely didn't live with mom & dad ;)

I'm just here until August because its easier than driving 90 miles a day from where I want to move to while I'm in training right now.

And besides, after awhile it becomes them living with me. :p

[Wheel-Nut]

^^ I wish I could still live with mom and dad!

[Andrew Longman]

Not all private colleges are in the suburbs. I went to a very fine private institution located in the heart of Buffalo. The Jesuits made sure that we got involved in the community in some way, whether tutoring at PS74, volunteering for Habitat, etc. Their philosophy of men and women for others was put into action by their student body. So I'll be in debt for the next 15 years, but it was worth it.[/end jesuit soapbox]

Great point and I don't want to offend anyone with a private education. They can be great. Public ones can be bad.

Private schools, like your Jesuit school, can have a wonderful social mission and recruit student and faculty and set curicullum to make that happen. I've known more than a few that do not and are more interest in the grants their graduate programs can generate and generally how current and future alumni can help build the endowment.

Public school can suck too, but in my experience it is usually because there is not talent in the "public" willing or able to provide the right leadership. To often the best in the community haven't the slightest sense of obligation to contribute to the long view and greater good.

[Andrew Longman]

I know, I know, I just find it funny that so many people I went to high school with that looked down on me for going to CSU ended up having to go to grad school because they couldn't find jobs. Nothing against grad school, but I'd think work experience would be a pretty good prerequisite. Also, a girl I went out with a couple weeks ago that works at one of my company's other offices went to a highly respected liberal arts school for theatre, is paying something like $200 a month in student loans for the next 10 years, and is working in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with her major, is in the same position as me ,and makes about the same amount of money. And I only have $50/month in student loans for the next 5 years. :D

I hear you. My education in philosophy, psychology, auto making, iron mining, ice fishing and beer cost me only 13K and I graduated with no debt (it was a while ago). I was accepted to grad school but turned it down figuring why put off working. I might as well start now since University teaching jobs looked to be pretty hard to find and you can't control where you wind up.

Your friend's education probably prepared her very well for her future in ways that may not be obvious or obvious yet. There are life skills you don't learn in engineering school. But there is no reason to overpay for them.

[Spicoli]

The Jebbies:

First here:

http://www.jba1.com/images/RegisSurvey.jpg

Then here:

http://www.jcu.edu/images/homlogo.gif

:thumbup:

Student loans? pffft. And I never lived with my parents, although I would often go to their house and raid the likker cabinets.

[Sean O'Gorman]

You went to John Carroll?

[Ankf00]

You went to John Carroll?

no, he just posted it to look cool :rolleyes:

[Sean O'Gorman]

Sorry, I couldn't go to UT, so I just bought a hat instead. I just figured for as many times as I've talked to Spicoli that he would've mentioned it.

[Spicoli]

You went to John Carroll?


Yep. :thumbup:

[Michaelhatesfans]

"Children bring so much into your life. And it's a good ****ing thing, because the suck the rest out."
-Michaelhatesfans

:cool:

Ok, in fairness, we have no regrets and we can't imagine our lives without the kids. But I don't think they're for everyone.

[racer2c]

Kids are like boats. They're better when they're some elses and I have a kid and a boat :)

It's funny, my wife an I both agree, even though we are the parents of a wonderful 15 (almost 16) year old daughter, we can't stand little kids anymore for more than about an hour. We have a gaggle of neices and nephews between 5 and 11 and it's always a pleasure when it's time to go home.

Selfish? *&^% yes. :)

[G.]

Kids are like boats. They're better when they're some elses and I have a kid and a boat :)

It's funny, my wife an I both agree, even though we are the parents of a wonderful 15 (almost 16) year old daughter, we can't stand little kids anymore for more than about an hour. We have a gaggle of neices and nephews between 5 and 11 and it's always a pleasure when it's time to go home.

Selfish? *&^% yes. :)Back on topic: And that's ok. No need, IMO, to feel that it's selfish. It's just ok.

I still like the little itty-bitty screamers though. Shhh, don't tell Mrs. G.

I'm going camping with g. in 2 weeks or so, in a cave.

I've always wanted to camp in a cave, now, due to g,. I can!

[Spicoli]

Kids are like boats. They're better when they're some elses and I have a kid and a boat :)

It's funny, my wife an I both agree, even though we are the parents of a wonderful 15 (almost 16) year old daughter, we can't stand little kids anymore for more than about an hour. We have a gaggle of neices and nephews between 5 and 11 and it's always a pleasure when it's time to go home.

Selfish? *&^% yes. :)

Beat this for kids, neices and nephews :D :

Real name/Nascar name (you get this when you are 10, 'cept for Jimmy Bag 0 Donuts, cause he's way too cool to not be ten for being 4).

Jimmy/LeeRoy - 16
Eddie/Hank - 14
Eammon/Big Money - 14
Patrick/Skeeter - 13
Liam/Pop-Tart - 10
Danny/Captain Bonehead - 10
Emery - 8
Elizabeth - 7 (yes twins) I have pre-selected their NASCAR names as "Trixie and Dixie")
Mary Kate - 7 (yes twins)
Megan - 6
Leo - 6
Jake - 5
Jimmy Bag 0 Donuts - 4
Christopher - 4
Matty - 3
Screamin Drewbie - 2
Gus - 2
Finn - 1
TBA (yes its a boy) - due in early June.

We like to breed. :p

[Michaelhatesfans]

No "Fat Back?"

[Sean O'Gorman]

Beat this for kids, neices and nephews :D :

Real name/Nascar name (you get this when you are 10, 'cept for Jimmy Bag 0 Donuts, cause he's way too cool to not be ten for being 4).

Jimmy/LeeRoy - 16
Eddie/Hank - 14
Eammon/Big Money - 14
Patrick/Skeeter - 13
Liam/Pop-Tart - 10
Danny/Captain Bonehead - 10
Emery - 8
Elizabeth - 7 (yes twins) I have pre-selected their NASCAR names as "Trixie and Dixie")
Mary Kate - 7 (yes twins)
Megan - 6
Leo - 6
Jake - 5
Jimmy Bag 0 Donuts - 4
Christopher - 4
Matty - 3
Screamin Drewbie - 2
Gus - 2
Finn - 1
TBA (yes its a boy) - due in early June.

We like to breed. :p

Let me guess, you're Catholic? :laugh: