Or, so said a highly professional type some years ago, online, in a casual conversation. (He wasn't an economist - IIRC, anyway.)you don't have kids but you do have and need your car, that clearly means that any future expenses will become all the more debatable.
I don't get it. One might as well argue that owning a CAR isn't expensive, even after it's been paid for, whether or not you really need one. (Of course, a used car, even a decent one, might not turn out to be cost-effective in the long run.) And if
Or that cats and dogs aren't expensive to feed and care for. Tell that to any parent who's had to explain to a tearful child why the family can't have one, since the neighbors do. Or to any adult who's been forced to surrender a beloved pet to ashelter.
How CAN people argue that, unless they make more money than the average American? Lots of American couples will tell you they'd like to have more children than they have, but they "just can't afford to." (And the birth rate is currently at 1.64.)parents are desperate to keep their kids closely monitored, via after-school programs and such, so that when the kids' unsupervised peers get in trouble with the law, the other kids can prove they weren't there. (In the past, suburban kids, at least,
Somehow, I doubt that all such couples firmly believe in keeping up with the Joneses - or that every child in a family of six deserves a separate bedroom.
I suspect one GOOD reason children are more expensive than they used to be is that it's too easy, in this century, for your reputation to be ruined for life if you break the law, even if you were tricked into it as a teen. In other words, modern
Your thoughts?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 379 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 68:30:10 |
Calls: | 8,084 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 13,068 |
Messages: | 5,849,604 |