This is neither here nor there in light of the entire article. It's more just a question I have about this 20k figure. Honestly, who are these people requiring this amount of money to raise a kid? *I get that if a mother works full time and focuses on career, that is an insane amount of money - and it'd add up. But on the whole, that is not where the figure comes from is it? One has kids and one gets on with it. The problem isn't that people can't afford kids. It's that they THINK they can't and they're TOLD they can't. We should spend time focusing on that.
Clothes... I'm thinking if one has relatives and hand-me-downs and a few new things, etc. honestly - it's like maybe $600 a year (and that gives one new shoes, new things every season, a new swimsuit, etc. - backpacks, soccer shoes even). Housing would be different without the kids, sure, but not a ton different. Still need to live somewhere with your partner in crime - so maybe add another $500 a month. *And if you double up on kids, it's more like $250 more a month each. Lessons - soccer, guitar, whatever - add another $600 a year (unless your kid is in comp whatever, then add another $2500). Birthdays, bikes, etc. - add another $500. Food... kk depending on age of kid anywhere from $20-$300 more a month (and, again, if you have more than one kid - it's less than this). Gas here and there, maybe another $100 a month - but, again, carpooling and more kids - it's maybe less. Project, funds for school, etc. - another $300 a year. Misc = $1000 more a year. Insurance - dentist, etc. supplements, etc. - k another $500 a year.
TOTAL: $12,000 ish - and one gets a few tax breaks. And that's for an expensive child imo. It's likely more like $6000 - $10,000 a year - and NOT per kid. I come from a huge family. I have over 60 first cousins. I'd say at least a third of the family raised their kids on lower minimum wage and blue collar wages. My own parents did that for about 20 years until my father finally was able to be a financial success. There's no way they spent even $1k a year on each of their brood (in 80s and 90s $). This is dumb. One has kids and one gets on with it. The problem isn't that people can't afford kids. It's that they THINK they can't and they're TOLD they can't.
We both know most of these modern costs happen because of families trying to status signal to other families, and we both know WHO in the family is demanding that level of spending. Implementing classical eugenics WITHOUT rolling back the positivist doctrine on the white female population means the state has to subsidize white families somehow, and that's why it's doomed to fail.
100% - White women have been targeted by propaganda/conditioning probably more than any other demographic group for well over 100 years. The Jewish-led Capitalist funded Marxist and Universalist dogma is, ironically, behind much of the higher spending as women of all types ("Left"/"Right") identify less with blood and more with branding and consumption.
I am raising three kids right now, and they do not even cost me $20k collectively, at least in direct costs. “$20K per year” comes almost exclusively from daycare/private school costs. There are other overhead costs that kids can incur - healthcare, housing, auto - but these are hard to estimate and very variable based on family. In terms of direct costs - food, clothing, toys - kids are pretty cheap.
Why do you calculate the amount of couples based on whole population size? There are 66 Million women of child bearing age between 15-44. So 10%=6.6 million couples
This is neither here nor there in light of the entire article. It's more just a question I have about this 20k figure. Honestly, who are these people requiring this amount of money to raise a kid? *I get that if a mother works full time and focuses on career, that is an insane amount of money - and it'd add up. But on the whole, that is not where the figure comes from is it? One has kids and one gets on with it. The problem isn't that people can't afford kids. It's that they THINK they can't and they're TOLD they can't. We should spend time focusing on that.
Clothes... I'm thinking if one has relatives and hand-me-downs and a few new things, etc. honestly - it's like maybe $600 a year (and that gives one new shoes, new things every season, a new swimsuit, etc. - backpacks, soccer shoes even). Housing would be different without the kids, sure, but not a ton different. Still need to live somewhere with your partner in crime - so maybe add another $500 a month. *And if you double up on kids, it's more like $250 more a month each. Lessons - soccer, guitar, whatever - add another $600 a year (unless your kid is in comp whatever, then add another $2500). Birthdays, bikes, etc. - add another $500. Food... kk depending on age of kid anywhere from $20-$300 more a month (and, again, if you have more than one kid - it's less than this). Gas here and there, maybe another $100 a month - but, again, carpooling and more kids - it's maybe less. Project, funds for school, etc. - another $300 a year. Misc = $1000 more a year. Insurance - dentist, etc. supplements, etc. - k another $500 a year.
TOTAL: $12,000 ish - and one gets a few tax breaks. And that's for an expensive child imo. It's likely more like $6000 - $10,000 a year - and NOT per kid. I come from a huge family. I have over 60 first cousins. I'd say at least a third of the family raised their kids on lower minimum wage and blue collar wages. My own parents did that for about 20 years until my father finally was able to be a financial success. There's no way they spent even $1k a year on each of their brood (in 80s and 90s $). This is dumb. One has kids and one gets on with it. The problem isn't that people can't afford kids. It's that they THINK they can't and they're TOLD they can't.
We both know most of these modern costs happen because of families trying to status signal to other families, and we both know WHO in the family is demanding that level of spending. Implementing classical eugenics WITHOUT rolling back the positivist doctrine on the white female population means the state has to subsidize white families somehow, and that's why it's doomed to fail.
100% - White women have been targeted by propaganda/conditioning probably more than any other demographic group for well over 100 years. The Jewish-led Capitalist funded Marxist and Universalist dogma is, ironically, behind much of the higher spending as women of all types ("Left"/"Right") identify less with blood and more with branding and consumption.
I am raising three kids right now, and they do not even cost me $20k collectively, at least in direct costs. “$20K per year” comes almost exclusively from daycare/private school costs. There are other overhead costs that kids can incur - healthcare, housing, auto - but these are hard to estimate and very variable based on family. In terms of direct costs - food, clothing, toys - kids are pretty cheap.
It makes no sense to talk about eugenics in the current Jew-run regime because it could only happen under a very different racial and political order.
What would eligible couples look like
Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to genocide the lesser breeds? I mean, that is what you are after here, right?
Nigger the main thing is getting useless fat cats downwardly mobile.
Why do you calculate the amount of couples based on whole population size? There are 66 Million women of child bearing age between 15-44. So 10%=6.6 million couples
good point
There's a reason why all the eugenics systems in practice have been cheap interventions getting the worst people to not have kids