Korean Job Discussion Forums

[pangaea]

Pot, Kettle.

[smee18]

I stand one hundred percent behind my comment:

LMMAO, senior, you just won't stop ...

"It's more expensive for a rich person to have kids than a poor person."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

If you can't see why that comment makes you look like the DUMBEST mf around, you have some serious problems. The fact that you keep posting it like it vindicates you makes me laugh heartily, thusly:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

[Senior]

[mmstyle]

Hmmmm, a whole thread about another thread. I know the original thread, so this is somewhat amusing. I can't believe it has gone on for 5 pages though.

For the record, what I have read some of NYC's posts, she's a reasonable poster (granted, I may have missed something), and is clearly willing to own up to mistakes-something I have had to do upon occasion, and I respect people who do that and keep it polite. I have bowed out of threads when they have become attacks.

Obviously, t it is pretty much impossible to have a reasonable debate on Dave's.

[Senior]

[mmstyle]

Senior, why does a rich person have to give up income? This may mean that they choose to change their lifestyle, but it doesn't make it more expensive to raise said child. As in, their expenses are only higher if they purchase more expensive items or options.


Plenty of wealthy women have kids and give up nothing (might have to pay a nanny). Plenty of poor women have children, and as a consequence, give up (or if they are lucky, delay) the option for further education that could lead to a better paying job.

I will admit that maybe I just don't understand what you are referring to, and you could explain. But rich people don't have to give up income if they don't want to, and can raise their children with the same options as those with less money. What am I missing?

[smee18]

Well, as expense is relative to income it is evidently more expensive for poor people to raise children. Sorry for being unbecoming, but you really are an idiot. Everything you post is mindless drivel. I take it personally because, in my opinion, you are a moral and intellectual coward, and the world is a worse place for having people like you in it. I look forward to your cut and pastes from wikipedia in response.

[Senior]

[Senior]

[Senior]

[mmstyle]

Actually, I think a lot of threads really get bad. I can't site this at all, but I remember reading that you know a thread (on any site), gone on long enough, will eventually reference Hitler and Nazis. I think it was 2 days before I saw just such a thread here. It happens here a lot. I think the other thread could have been interesting, had it not degenerated. There are posters here that I respect a lot who I do not see engaging in this (thank you, Seoul in Corea and I am pretty sure, Peppermint).

I would like to know why you think it's more expensive for the rich to have kids, though.

Edited because you posted: I don't know what opportunity cost is, can you please explain?

[Senior]

[mmstyle]

Senior, I can see that that would hold true for dual income families, especially in America, where there is no support or guarantee for your job, but it's certainly not universally true. (I can give at least one very specific example, but I am pretty sure you would not like it).


There are plenty of wealthy families wherein one adult does not work. Thus, having a child would cause no lose of income.

It would not hold true for families that are wealthy and do no choose to work, or do not need to work (ie, inherited wealth). There are a number of reasons that I can think of in which having a child if you are wealthy does not mean it is more expensive than if you are not.

Also, I think that relative cost (ie, if you are poor, a higher percentage of your income must be devoted to your child than if you are rich, just for the necessities) is, quite frankly, and more legitimate concern/consideration. I say this because of the way that you phrased your original statement.

A family with an income of $30,000 is going to have to "give up" more (have a lower standard of living) if they have a child than a wealthy family (what constitutes wealthy hasn't even been discussed). That is to say, I can't agree that "loss of income" means that something is more expensive/costs more. I think this is why a number of people disagreed with your statement.

Anyway.....is this rant of a thread even the right place for this discussion?

[balzor]

[Seoulio]