Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hugh3 5331 days ago
The trouble with these articles is that they actually affect some folks' lives. No doubt, for years to come, there will be couples sitting there and planning out how they want to space their families based on a half-remembered article that they read in the New York Times one day about how they'll ruin their kids' lives if they're spaced less than three years apart. Some of these couples will no doubt go on to delay their second child until they wind up infertile. Others will probably delay their second child until they're so old that the second child winds up with Down's syndrome (that being vastly more common for older than younger mothers). And basically, it's just another one of those random factors that really don't matter much for middle-class parents to agonize over (while lower-class parents keep pumping out a dozen crack babies to get more welfare).
3 comments

Since crack babies don't exist, but black people have been have been the majority of people incarcerated for crack related offenses (though they are not the majority of crack users), I'm assuming that you're just awkwardly trying to specify black people?

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/07_30/2_f...

Don't know whether to upvote for the informative link or downvote for the unwarranted accusation of racism.
That's a fascinating article. Thank you for sharing.
What says fits for any ethnic group you can mention, with the possible exception that white trash is more likely hooked on meth.
I just about upvoted you until you threw in that last parenthetical comment.
Aw geez folks, are we getting so offended nowadays over a flippant piece of exaggeration?

No, not all poor people are pumping out a dozen crack babies. But they do seem to find it possible to have children in rather inauspicious circumstances while those of us further up the social food chain bite our nails and prevaricate about breeding under any circumstances other than perfect. And that's not a good thing on either end.

are we getting so offended nowadays over a flippant piece of exaggeration?

When the flippant piece of exaggeration comes across as demeaning/classist/racist, then yes, that's going to get us offended.

There is a meaningful phenomenon of lower-income familes tending to be larger than upper-income families. There's even a non-insulting way to talk about it.

The reason his remarks were classist is that poor people are lower class by definition. But the only way they can be constructed as racist is if you assume that poor = black.

The gp didn't.

I think you redeemed yourself here haha. Honestly, I didn't think you were really being serious but that was kind of a borderline comment. Borderline in the sense that if we assumed correctly that you were kidding around, do we tolerate that kind of thing around here and let it go or do we assume you're being ignorant and ferociously downvote you to hell? I get where you're coming from, hugh3, and I can have a sense of humor about it but other people's racism/prejudice radar just go off the charts when you say that kind of stuff.

But hey, I really like how you put your thoughts with that last sentence. "it's not that good on either end" - very true. It is ridiculous to take this article into any kind of consideration when thinking of having a child. While the study shows data to support the premise, it's far from enough to consider the findings accurate or relevant to having kids. Correlation does not equal causation and all that. It really is just an entertainment piece when you really dig in.

Dude, you had me until you started on that third sentence then you lost me.

I agree with Hugh that there will be people who take these findings a little too seriously. There are so many more factors that can possibly play a role. The possibilities are too many to even go into. This sort of thing makes for good reading but it's far from something to be taken as definitive.

Oh, Hugh, you almost made a great point.