[nobodyandproud]

I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch.

That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.

[mytailorisrich]

My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question".

Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on.

My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes and the state will pick up the tab.

No-one, no-one replied to my comments on the point. Only intellectually lazy outrage.

[jabberwhookie]

Plenty of social problems are fixed without tackling them head on. The entire concept of the economic advantage of capitalism lifting all boats is an attempt to ignore the details of social problems, accurate justice and all those other annoying details that make it hard to cash in on stealing shared resources. Why fox anything without seeing what the surplus might wash away is not so stupid, but that theory must be lazy?

Your thinking is entirely lazy. You don't want to do something so you need to find a "tough question" and a cheap policy.

Every country needs a next generation and if it isn't getting one it is because it is a miserly society that thinks it can poke and prod parents and still expect them to do all the work that is actually a shared responsibility.

[nobodyandproud]

> the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford

It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question.

It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable.

It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk.

The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than one can afford? What standard is being used to decide when someone has gone past affordability?

The harder or impossible questions, and these are critically important: What factors play into the financial risk of having or extending a family? And can each factor be quantified?

I suspect the answer is no, because few or no private insurer is in business guaranteeing long-term employment terms.

Finally: Even if the probabilities can be accurately quantified, what risk threshold can we establish as responsible vs irresponsible?

And the burden is on the claim maker to establish that it’s possible, because as far as I know life in a market economy is a bit too messy to forecast in this manner.

If this inspires you or someone else to try, I wish you all the best and with my blessing.

[mytailorisrich]

No idea what you're on about but good luck to you...

[nobodyandproud]

Appealing to common sense is insufficient for creating a sound policy or even a sound personal financial policy.

Your quip implies decisions based on financial risk, which is just probabilities of a certain category.

Given that the market doesn’t insure to hedge against your “tough question”, it suggests (though doesn’t prove) it can’t really answer that question.

But if your suggestion and quip wasn’t meant to be thought through and modeled, then carry on.

Edit: tl:dr; I’m trying to understand your question beyond vagaries, which you’ve so far refused to clarify. Therefore, nobody can really answer your question.

[mytailorisrich]

Well, again, good luck to you...