The Morality of Having Children

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:35 PM, NeuroTypical said:

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

Correction accepted.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:42 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

We bought our home in 2009 at 225k. It appraised about a year back at 620k. We did finish the basement in that time, so that explains some small part of it. But we don't have a big fancy house by any means.

This made me think of the interviews I've seen recently with Michael Malice and his anarchism philosophies. He has some interesting ideas. I like a lot of his thoughts. But no government? Really? That's gonna work out.

We bought our 4 bedroom home for $145,000 in 2011; it is now worth $450,000. I am not selling though, I like my neighborhood.

[tomasgreenro]

On 12/31/2023 at 10:10 PM, Carborendum said:

Yes, you're probably right.  But it does explain a lot of it.

A 3x factor is probably a local phenomenon.  The national average has been just under 2.0

• Overall inflation alone (which is 100% the government's fault) will explain about a 1.5 to 1.6 factor over the course of 15 years.
• Building code requirements effect the land prices. A recent subdivision I designed ended up creating a cost of about $50k per lot above and beyond the price of the land originally due to development costs as mandated by the County.  There was, of course a bit more cost due to the profit to the developer.  But I'm not privy to that amount.
• Houses are required to have more construction requirements every three years.  Most people aren't aware of the differences.  But they incrementally cause more and more cost each year.
  • When new homes cost more, existing homes will see their appraisals rise as well.
• Property taxes won't explain home prices.  But it impacts the monthly payment (which usually escrows the property tax).  The original point was about affordability, and the escrow amount is included in that.
• Insurance rates (also escrowed into the overall monthly payment) have gone up mainly due to government influences.  And this gets a lot more convoluted when you consider broad based insurance companies (i.e. companies that do more than one type of insurance).

Not everything, I understand.  But the market forces are something that the average person is well aware of.  And that may be the difference between the 2.0 average and the 3.0 that you cited.  Some places like CA are seeing their home prices plummet, while places like Texas and Florida are seeing things skyrocket.  I, myself, saw the price go up over 40% in two years.  Multiply that with the 2.0 average, and yes, it has tripled.  But most of that was in the past 5 years. 

We're at a peak right now.  The next year or two will see home prices plummet. It is also very important to pay attention to payment methods when buying a house and in general payments on the Internet. I use Amazon pay casino quite often as I gamble and this is a great resource to find proven and reliable games. They also give a promo code there, with the help of which I won a fairly significant amount of money.

It's interesting that you mentioned the continual increase in construction requirements for homes. Do you think there should be more awareness about these changes among homeowners or potential buyers? Thanks for the reply right away!

Edited April 1 by tomasgreenro

[Carborendum]

On 4/1/2024 at 3:19 AM, tomasgreenro said:

It's interesting that you mentioned the continual increase in construction requirements for homes. Do you think there should be more awareness about these changes among homeowners or potential buyers? Thanks for the reply right away!

Not sure what you mean.  Can you elaborate?

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/29/2023 at 9:32 AM, Carborendum said:

Unfortunately, it is not about availability.  It is about government intervention.

• Lumber can be grown at a very fast rate.  With more supply, lower costs.  But government is preventing private forests through environmental and tax intervention.
• Property taxes are just plain too high.
• Cities and counties have overly restrictive building codes.  And the enforcement by untrained bureaucrats causes compliance costs to go through the roof.
• Minimum wage causes all the little expenses to go up.  And they add up pretty fast.

Put it all together, and there is no way to build a cheap home.

That depends on where you live.  I think you live in Texas...isn't that correct.

Texas lacks income taxes...and the money to fund the government has to come from somewhere.  I believe Texas (California is even worse, and Florida is beginning to inch towards uncomfortable from what I'm hearing) has higher property taxes than many other places in the US. 

My property taxes are relatively light, and not that costly.    That goes towards funding schools and other things in our local area, so considering that amount it's very little to pay for what we get in return for us. (I believe I COULD apply for an exemption in regards to veteran status and age, but I do not see a need to.  If I were in Texas I might desire to do so though from what I hear about Property taxes there). 

Edited April 4 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:42 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

We bought our home in 2009 at 225k. It appraised about a year back at 620k. We did finish the basement in that time, so that explains some small part of it. But we don't have a big fancy house by any means.

This made me think of the interviews I've seen recently with Michael Malice and his anarchism philosophies. He has some interesting ideas. I like a lot of his thoughts. But no government? Really? That's gonna work out.

I have a similar thing happen to us. 

I am technically now a millionaire...but I definitely don't feel like a millionaire and it isn't in a way I can actually spend it.  It is simply because my HOUSE is now worth a LOT more (I think 2.5X to 3X of a value increase over the past 4 years probably is about accurate, we had it appraised for property taxes around 2019 and the current appraisal was around 3X what the last one was just recently).  I think it's rubbish.  

The amount of money I can spend hasn't gone up, I don't have more money really, but simply because they say my house is worth more I'm supposedly richer...

It just doesn't feel right. 

[askandanswer]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:25 AM, Carborendum said:

This New Yorker article published just last month asks whether it is morally acceptable to have children in a burning drowning world.

Not a new thing, I know.  But I see this as becoming a more mainstream ideal that will be a "cancellable" offense in the coming years, unless things turn around.

I just wanted to highlight one of the introductory phrases of the article which, I believe, encapsulates the feelings, intent, and mentality of the green-to-human-extinction mindset:

I want to point out that the word "crystalline" may mean one of two things in this context:

• structured
• clear

I gotta ask: Is it clearly structured or is it uncertain?  Certainly clearly structured uncertainty is an oxymoron.  And isn't it a bit redundant to say a "structured uncertainty to the structure"?

Yeah, not really.  This kind of self-contradicting reasoning is what is driving the ideology.  Do they even listen to themselves?

Apparently, it is now considered irrational to have children.  This has always been the center of the whole green movement.  Yes, it also includes many other aspects that will (if left unchecked) destroy the world as we know it.  And the new world order will not be pleasant.

I'd say that if they really believe that having children will actually destroy the world, then let them go on without having children.  We'll have children and raise them with good sense, work ethic, time-tested morals, and faith in God. That's the way to win.

I’m in the process of marking 148, 1,500 word first year “reflective essays” in which students were asked to watch, reflect, and respond to this video 

by Dr Wray. In this video Dr Wray raises the question about the morality of having children during a time of climate change. I didn’t keep exact track of the figures but my feel is that probably a little over 2/3rds rejected the idea that climate change should be a significant consideration to take into account when deciding whether or not to have children. Again, I haven’t looked at the results too carefully, but my impression is that by far the largest percentage of this 2/3rds would have been from non-western, third world, mostly Asian countries. Most of those who seemed persuaded by the idea that this was not a good time to have children were white western females.