Many in the powerful ruling class seem enthusiastic about supporting the idea that women should produce more babies. What I want to know is – why?
To support the aging population? hmm…
- It’ll take at least 18 years for today’s newborns to be eligible for that task.
- In the meantime, the aging generation is spending time and money caring for their grandchildren, even in some cases for their children. I suspect there are more creative ways to help the current – and potential — parent generation, like:
- Parental leave. At least adequate maternal care. Well supported infant and child-care facilities. Support for families whose children require expensive special needs care. Affordable housing for all families. Adjusting social security financing to more adequate coverage for the elderly, with complete coverage by folks at all levels. Even, for example, the top 1% paying at the same average level as the poorest among us. Fair food distribution for the healthy development of all children. A clean environment for all children to reduce such problems as asthma. Excellent schooling for all children encouraging each child’s special ability, including freedom of reading choice, encouragement of interest in all arts.
- Reducing the appeal to violence and drugs by encouraging delight, respect, and rewards for the potential of all children.
Or maybe it’s to provide worker bees for the economy?
- It’ll take at least 18 years for today’s newborns to be eligible for that task.
- In 18 years there’s no doubt our economy will be running with fewer worker bees.
- Even amateurs like me can see that methods that worked with the introduction of the industrial revolution are old fashioned.
- We can’t know now what the work world will be like in 18 years.
- Chances are, though, that special skills will be needed at all levels. Even now I see stories of buildings being constructed by 3D printers. Artificial Intelligence will require human intelligence in ways we can only try to predict.
- Retirement no longer means what it used to mean – (fruit for a future blog?)
Or maybe it’s to provide more fodder for wars to protect whatever it is the world will become.
- From what I read, trench warriors will be needed less and less.
- Computer directed attacks even now are increasing.
- Wouldn’t it be great, though, if we helped some of the people we already have to develop their creative skills in the service of peace.
Well, I guess that’s the end of whatever I have the know-how to talk about. I just know that in my academic days it didn’t make sense for students at the beginning of a college career to make their choices for majors on the basis of what well-paying jobs would still be available when they graduated. They just might not be. By the same token, requiring women to have babies to meet today’s needs is ludicrous.
I know there are at least some 350 people following my blog. It would be great if a few of you, or those on Facebook, would help me to understand what would be so great about having more babies for the simple sake of increasing the size of the population.
I’ll bet most of us remember playing Monopoly – probably late into the night and maybe even into the next day. I personally remember sitting at the card table in our living room playing it with my big brother and sister all evening until 2:00 a.m. the next morning. I remember how comfortable and confident I felt on the occasions when I’d been lucky enough to land on Boardwalk and Park Place early in the game, charging the outrageously high rentals for houses and then hotels on that high class property, And how really great it felt to own Atlantic Avenue and the other two yellow properties so I could add and charge for houses and ultimately hotels. Even better when I acquired Pennsylvania Avenue and the other two green properties on the block. Throw in at least two of the Railroads to prevent anyone else from acquiring a monopoly and I could pretty much sit back and watch my wealth accumulate. I could even afford to sit in jail for three rounds without paying a fine because my houses were still earning me rent. Of course, I felt even more confident as I watched my opponents mortgaging the properties they did own in the desperate attempt to acquire funds to make it past my expensive houses. Of course there was no gain for them if I landed on their mortgaged properties. Only the bank made money. (My mother was often the banker when my children played the game. She kept the bills neatly stacked in proper order.) In every way, playing monopoly demonstrated one of my husband’s sayings: “You’ve got to have money to make money.”
And then there were the times when I wasn’t so lucky. It wasn’t long before I knew the truth. No matter how hard I worked I’d never get out of the hole. Sure, I only had to own a block of two – Mediterranean Avenue and Baltic Avenue – in order to buy houses, but the rental to be collected if one of my opponents landed on either of those blocks was far less than Pennsylvania Avenue, for example, even though the initial cost of the houses was the same. When luck placed me in the position of owning no good blocks of property my first reaction was to try hard to get out of that inferior spot. Eventually, though, I’d just get discouraged and accept my fate.
But if you are remembering along with me, you might recall acts of charity – those times when the winners didn’t want the game to end so they’d lend money at no interest in spite of the rules, or even give it away. Charity would cheer the poorer members, but only temporarily. There was still little chance of getting out of the hole. And so it would go on, representing the opposite of my husband’s saying, i.e., You can’t make money if you don’t have it to invest in the first place.” And here’s my point. Think of how you felt when that happened to you. There was little joy remaining in the game.
To step away from the game for a minute, think about the advice financial planners will give you in preparing for your retirement. “Home ownership is your best investment.” And our laws do everything to support that with deductions for mortgage payments, improvements on the property, etc.
Now – back to Monopoly. Try accumulating enough cash to pay the cost of the properties you land on without owning any valuable property. I’m not a statistician, but I have been a player, and I’m pretty sure you’ll still end up at the burned out end of the candle if you have nothing going for you but cash.
- Now let’s see what would happen if you added two new rules at the beginning of the game. First: redlining. After you’ve chosen your token you draw a card that says you can’t buy anything but Mediterranean Avenue and Baltic Avenue if you should be lucky enough to land on them. Second, inheritance: You draw a card saying you haven’t inherited any property while your opponents gain ownership of Atlantic Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue plus the four railroads. How eager would you be to proceed with the game?
And there you have it. Real life Monopoly.
(The British version has different names, but I hope the point will still be clear.)
monagustafsonaffinito 