iammisc

Not at all. More educated people tend to be more anxious and more depressed.

https://www.originsrecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/H...

The fact that we trust those more prone to depression to solve depression should not be discounted.

When it comes to 'dysthymia'. The only reason we find it to be a disease is that we expect people to be happy all the time. We've labeled anything other than that as diseased. As I stated elsewhere, I do not believe in happiness. Most of my day is spent neither sad nor happy. Were I to be sad all the time, I don't think that's particularly interesting either. Our society is not set up with space for people to not be happy. Society is ill, not the people.

However, welfare and taxation is not charity and you do not grow in virtue through taxation. Welfare is meant to keep a good society. As catholics we have responsibility to vote (if we live in a democracy) for policies that form a just society (this is the original meaning of social justice before it was co-oped by the woke). There is no fundamental conflict between providing for non-christians here, as they too may fall on hard times.

Sorry... were you trying to get at something here?

And yes, because it's money from my pocket (as I explained), if someone asked me directly, I would have opinions on how it ought to be spent.

That was kind of the point of my comment. I think my snark went over your head.

All of them would, because with extra money, there would be more demand for these goods and services, but the supply of the good itself hasn't increased. Thus, companies will charge more. In sum, the total increase in charge will be $10.

Thank you. Exactly this.

I am very fiscally conservative, but I have no problem with welfare in general. However, this country cannot afford it. Many other countries can, and I think that's great. We cannot. There is really no question here.

EDIT: s/income/sales

Has it occurred to you that this is because low wage employees might actually commit more thefts and such?

I mean... I've been on a grand jury, and i've seen the lengths some companies go to prevent theft from what I presume are low wage employees. These systems costs lots of money. If low wage employees were actually not stealing, then why would they expend all this money on these systems? It would seem any actuary would be able to tell you you're throwing money away. And yet, they continue to have the systems.

I don't think low wage employees are 'bad'. I'm just pointing out that if the employer behavior is so irrational, then certainly some company would start that wouldn't do that. That every single one does I think indicates that this is a common enough problem.

For example, i am a conservative Catholic. You can tax me sure, and spend it on welfare for atheists who love abortion (or whatever other group... just making up a culture I have little in common with), but then I, and others like myself, will want to have opinions on how my money is spent. If you didn't take my money, I wouldn't care.

A lot of strife over welfare in this country is due to the fact that we hold several cultures that are at odds with each other. For example, the amish don't like war, yet they pay taxes. If you asked the amish, they'd vote against war, but conveniently, they are outnumbered, so their money is co-opted. If the amish believed in protesting, and making a big fuss, this would be a major issue. Luckily for the powers that be, they don't. Ultimately, the more government programs / spending one has in a pluralistic society, the more civic strife there will be. This is unavoidable

My mother was an english teacher in a predominantly hispanic area. The women (it was mostly women given time of day) openly admitted to having more kids for the checks. I have no problem with that personally. They hardly paid anything extra for their kids. They had grandmas, sisters, friends, churches, etc to take care of the kids. And my mom watched them too during class. Didn't cost them very much. Education in this country is free.

The 'studies' that find having kids costs more money, assumes everyone lives like rich white people.

Why am I being downvoted? Can someone link a study or systematic review that shows there are significant #s of vacant properties.

My wife took birth control for a day or two in her twenties before we married, had the symptom, and threw the pills away.

It's very sad. Women's sex drives are as strong as men's, and much stronger when ovulating.

Can we please stop just repeating cliches that are not even obviously true? While certain countries certainly had these notions, this is not a universal.

And even in cultures with strong 'female ownership', the picture you're painting is incredibly wrong. While women may be considered 'basically' property, they would constantly be socializing with one another. They would be out of their house often with other women and their children. The appearance of 'ownership' would only be from the vantage point of men.

For example, looking at Middle Eastern society, it's completely false to say women don't get out of the house. Women have entire portions of the house to themselves, where they and their female friends can get together, talk, interact, and gossip without any interference from men, including their own husband.

Today we are way more atomized. Many people work, watch TV, and sleep. That's sad. We used to spend most of our day with friends and family. Even the slaves would.

I don't believe in 'feeling happy', yet every magazine promises me i'll be happy if I just do X. Instagram says if I just follow <blah>, my life will become infinitely better. It's all a joke. I never feel happy, but I am not depressed. And more importantly, I have no interest in constant happiness... how boring. Most days I just feel meh. Sometimes I feel hungry.

There may also be selection effects as men in their late 30s may not have 'paired up' so to speak due to depression. But still, I'm curious if anyone has stats on how many people are on these drugs.

^ has information on why 'normal' isn't a good range for everyone.

I respectfully disagree. Men are better at socializing children. Children without fathers have lower levels of empathy, more likely to engage in anti-social behavior, and more likely to be narcissists.

Mothers indulge children, and care for them, which is great, but leads to self-centeredness. Fathers set boundaries, enforce rules, and stop playing with children when they get mean. Many traditional cultures see the father's role as introducing children to the outside world and teaching them their place in it, and I believe this is backed by empirical data.

[1] https://www.fox26houston.com/houstons-morning-show/fathers-i...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal

Mothers are certainly better at providing for the immediate physical and emotional needs for children.

Absolutely agree. My toddler is much more difficult than my newborn, and much more likely to behave with me than my wife.

These are all misguided.

Indeed, I levy the exact same claim on all those comments.

To claim that men not seeing the point of taking six months off don't want a healthy family life is a symptom of an American / Western family life gone horribly wrong. Mom should have lots of family, friends, etc, who are able to help her with the female aspects of being a new mom, such as breastfeeding, post-birth care, etc. Try as I may, as a husband, I cannot fully give my wife what her mom, my mom, and her female friends can give her. I'm useless at practical breastfeeding advice (and frankly, most lactation consultants are too), don't know how to advise her on vaginal healing, etc. I can read all day long about these things, but I would never think of the stuff her practiced friends and family would tell her.

Because we have a strong family and community, mom doesn't need to rely on dad for child care help. Dad can instead do other things, which are also useful for the family (like making sure mom has enough food to eat). That many women are relying on their husbands for this sort of support just shows the problems with the isolation of the American family.

When I took paternity leave with my youngest daughter (four weeks, and will probably do less next time), I was still working with my eldest daughter. She would help me with various tasks around the house, various projects that I needed help with, etc. In fact, I think I was out of the house more during paternity leave than when I'm working (since we're all WFH during COVID anyway).

Instead of overly long paternity leave (and again, I am not against paternity leave in general, just the months long ones), we need flexible hours for new fathers (way more useful than full day leave) and a culture that embraces actual community (not the forced government community either, but actual human connection).

I fundamentally disagree and I think this is where a lot of Westerners get hung up on dealing with other countries. There are non-religious cultural practices for sure, but these are not practiced independent of religion.