People aren't reproducing because children are too expensive

it works both ways, albeit I'd wager adversity breeds desperation no pun intended. having kids can save families and relationships by tempering them with the experience. or they fail and turn into the usual suspects

why don't we try to meme an economic collapse to level the various playing fields?

Attached: kot5.jpg (500x375, 39K)

Kids are not expensive the Jews will tell you that

Like in Africa, niggers will make 15-20 kids anyway and let them starve, and whitey will take care of the niglets.

>>only poor people reproduce above replacement

Poor people don't mind living in the ghettos because it's all of their people.

White people, on the other hand, stand a good chance of getting robbed, raped, or shot if they go to those neighborhoods or put their kids in those ghetto ass schools.

we need more poor white people is what i'm pushing at here

Attached: kot.jpg (2302x1534, 151K)

you're having a boring thread on monday. go do something else rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do with your life.

>>people aren't reproducing because children are too expensive
>>only poor people reproduce above replacement
That is not complicated at all. Poor people survive on welfare. If you are above the welfare level you have to pay for children yourself. That is what is difficult. Anyone can afford children if the state pays you to do it. The problem is that right now the wrong people are getting financial incentives. Idiocracy is coming true.

but i just got outta work and i'm eating dinner and need some entertainment and I'm mostly just trying to post my favorite cat pics

Attached: hng.png (622x592, 823K)

The subhumans are too stupid to use contraception, and the overwhelming majority of their pregnancies are accidental.

Because poor people are too dumb to care about spending. To poor people, "muh dick" beats rational cost calculations.

Break down the demographics of the poor reproducing.

Attached: truestory.png (311x502, 281K)

K vs R

/Thread

Do you want your kids to have an actual shot at happiness and a good quality of life? Yes? Then get ready to spend a fuck load of money. Don't care or too stupid to realize? Have fun fishing your kids out of the drainage ditch when they die in their mid 20s of overdoses.

Having a family is the most important thing you can have in life. It's reasonable to make plans so that you can give quality life to your children, but if you can't by any means grant them the best, then the very minimum should sufice.
>People who feel a responsibility to provide a good life for their children breed carefully.
This is true, but the kind of people who see family as a responsability will built a family even with the bare minimum, because they understand that as long as you have food and a roof you can raise children.
It's not the ideal, but they understand having children is more important than having confort.
And yes, anything that isn't food and a roof is confort.
The US has public schools, you are also allowed to homeschool your children.

The reason you don't raise families is either because you're incels, or because you cannot give up your confortable lifestyle even if it means saving your people.

It fucking pisses me off everytime I see a first worlder complaining about being unable to have children. You are fucking retards.
To your ancestors it was common sense that even if you can't provide confort to your children, your children will likely be able to provide more than you did, because you can educate them to do things you coudn't. In 2 or 3 generations your family will not be poor anymore.

Based and huepilled

Do brazilians even have any concept of the value of life, at all? Because liveleak tells me you don't.

What is welfare?

Gibsmedats + shitskin lowered bar to uni etc

Simple:
80% of children in foster care are nigglets or spics.
Whites make up about 18%. Asians 2%.

Welfare also incentivizes poor people to have more than 3 children, but less than 6. You make MORE money and due to economies of scale, it's cheaper to have 5 kids than 2 on welfare. In fact, you MAKE MONEY after 4 if you are borderline negligent.

Imagine being an African farmer, who barely makes ends meet, the obvious solution is to shit out as many kids as you can for free labour.

You really believe liveleak represents the reality of brazilian society in general?
I will not deny my people is inferior in a lot of things, and you can look down on us as much as you want, but we will survive.
My father earned 20k dollars a year more or less and he could provide for me, my two brothers and my mother (who is a housewife).

My mother was always a subservient wife and I will marry a woman with similar character. Earning a bit more than 40k a year, I will be able to provide for at least five children and my wife.
What makes you think you have a better life than me?

niggers breed like rats regardless of where they are
now will they will simply starve to death in their shithole countries socialism will keep them alive in the west
which creates a never ending flow of people depending on the government

Attached: Noggler.png (888x885, 171K)

poor people are stupid

see

R-k selection

Google it nigger

>people aren't reproducing because children are too expensive
wrong

THEN, imagine the demand for that labor to completely evaporate due to automation. And by imagine I mean set your timer for about 8 years.

>Having a family is the most important thing you can have in life.
Why? I'm interested in hearing the answer to this. I feel that this statement is the unsaid argument that is always given to encourage having children. But I've never seen a real, honest-to-god deconstruction of the reasoning behind the statement. It seems like a lot of people throw it around as a given, like an empty platitude that they've been gobbling up because someone said "raising kids is the highest joy in life" to them. According to what metric? Couldn't it be argued that religious devotion is the highest joy? What about Leo Tolstoy's arguments that nobody should be having children when there are orphans to adopt? Is your bloodline more important than the survival of the human race? I feel that the answer to why having a family (ie having children) is the most important thing in life is ridiculously complex and can only be idiosyncratically answered by each individual, with a large number of people saying that it's simply not the most important thing.

Oof. Here's a (You).

Dude, understand this: if you really have no fucking way to afford a family, then your people will die. It is as simple as that.

I don't believe what you guys say. I know americans who are poor for american standards but live a good life, specially in comparison to brazilian standards.
You guys are just making excuses.

My GF’s sister and her husband recently filed for bankruptcy... and just decided to have their fourth kid. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Because raising a family is the most wholesome experience a person can have.
>According to what metric?
People do not say ""raising kids is the highest joy in life" in vain, or just to encourage other people to reproduce. They say it because it is true. There's something called "common wisdom", the wisdom of the simple man, which is inherited from his parents, and their parents before them.
There are very simple truths in life:
Family is good.
God is good.
Nation is good.
To pursue these things is, therefore, good, and none of them need any complex explanation.
They are self evident.
Family is the success of your existence.
God is what gives life meaning.
Nation is what provides you bonding with your neighbor and protection from foreing forces.
This is just common sense.
Do not understmate common sense, because it is the result of centuries of accumulated common wisdom.

>What about Leo Tolstoy's arguments that nobody should be having children when there are orphans to adopt?
They do not carry your dna. From an evolutionary perspective, if you fail to reproduce you fail as a being.
>Is your bloodline more important than the survival of the human race?
That's a stupid question. Having children isn't detrimental to the survival of the human race. It's actually the contrary.

Ultimately, one could argue the logical end of a being is to evolve. A being cannot evolve without reproduction. Thus, reproduction is necessary.

But for all that sufices is that God commands us to reproduce. It is stated in the Bible that those who have big families are happy, and common wisdom around the world agrees.

popping out one more white soldier is the biggest move you can make to fight against the jewish plague

Poor people don't give a shut and most rich people are brainwashed

No its because of xenoestrogens.
bitchute.com/video/TgxhyNHNobx5/

Why are human babies so dependent and retarded? Practically every other species on earth can do their survival instincts shit right out of the womb, or very shortly after. But human babies will die if you leave them be for the first 20 years of their life.

white* people aren't reproducing because "minority" people get gibs and since the wages are dropping for everyone across certain age ranges it's become economically unfeasible for white people to have kids.

All the things you claim to be self-evident have been argued against for just as long as they've been argued for. From a Christian perspective, I wouldn't argue against you on most of those (save for the "Nation is good" being self-evident based on a Christian perspective).

But from a non-Christian perspective, few or none of those things are self-evident. Consider a non-Christian saying that God isn't good, if He even exists. Saying that your notion of family is nothing more than a shared bloodline, and that "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Or stating that nations are nothing more than tyrannical states that unlawfully force collective will on individuals. What are you to say to those? That those statements are wrong because it's "self-evident" that they are? You don't win an argument like that. Furthermore, how are we to reconcile the constant demands of celibacy in Christianity with family (ie. reproduction) being good? God is certainly above family in any truly devout's heart, and therefore isn't a life devoted to God -- one of celibacy, and thus no reproduction -- far more good than one of procreation?

Interestingly, as an aside, Tolstoy's perspective of people not having more children was wrought from his "conversion" of faith. He ended up rejecting the church and the state because of the injustices he perceived them to espouse. He grew up with a fairytale notion of family that was eventually shattered during his marriage (he had 13 children with his wife). He even went on to promote a celibate lifestyle.

Poor people don't want kids, they are almost always an accident.
They fuck because it feels good and don't have the foresight to use condoms.

Sometimes this is true, and sometimes even more sinister: they have children for the welfare payout. Everyone, and I mean EVERYone always does the "think of the children" screeching.

And yet here we are, the dominant species on the planet, all eight billion of us. So you tell me if human babies REALLY are at a disadvantage from being that way, or if you just didn't think about what you were saying carefully enough.

Quality over quantity

poor people are stupid

Poor life skills and no sense of Future responsibilities

decadence, enlightenment ideas, college propaganda

Rich are greed

Niggers & single moms are nothing more than parasites, & are a massive burden on our society.

This is why we keep saying: END THE FREE GIBS. It would solve so many of our problems.

Children are very expensive. Whites aren't producing because all their hard-earned money is going to feed people lazy niggers & whores instead of responsible people who have earned their place.

The only people who should be getting Free Gibs are the elderly, the crippled, & the disabled. Anyone else is just a parasite

Attached: 1552543250820.jpg (866x1311, 109K)

if you arent a "minority" you dont get anything from the state. fuck off nigger.

Riddle me this, why do the jews breed like rats?

because everyone is brainwashed into thinking that every kid needs own room, dance lessons, karate lessons, pay to play baseball teams, a car when 16, paid college. You start to add that up you cant afford 10 kids. The whole scheme produces millennials - give me everything for free socialism, because they haven't earned a damn thing for themselves.

imagine killing yourself, it's easy if you try

The little diner I eat at in the morning, my waitress is usually this girl, about 30. Had a kid at 18. Another at maybe 25. Another last year.

Three different dads, all nogs. None of them provide shit. The poor girl works all the time, lives with her mom, doesn't have shit, and will never have shit.

She's very sweet, and always looks sad and droopy with fatigue. A hundred years ago, societal shame would have kept any of this from happening. And probably some guy would have wifed her up. Now, no chance.

If she's already exhausted at 30, where's she going to be at 40? I'll tell you where: on EBT, Sec 8, etc etc. I'm very fond of her, but I'm not crazy about paying for her and her niglets, and their niglets, and their niglets...forever.

Women, most of them, still have the instinct to reproduce. Society tells them they don't need no man to do it, and the government compels us to support them.

>What about Leo Tolstoy's arguments that nobody should be having children when there are orphans to adopt?

Tolstoy was a strange and unnatural man, possibly gay, who played at being a peasant although he was an aristocrat, who seems to have been disengaged from his own kids, who gave away his estate when he was near death, with no thought for his wife or children.

I like his books, but I don't care for his advice.