It’s not selfish of you. Children need attention and time. Society has been so focused on maximizing productivity that it has taken away the time needed to raise children. There are many people that have enough money for a child but not enough time for a child.
That’s my experience too. I read the whole article to find out what countries have actually tried helping with the expenses of raising a child. The most financial help mentioned was a 30,000 LOAN that would be given to newly weds and only forgiven if they had 3 kids… 30k isn’t enough for one kid…
The only other financial help I saw was $7000 per kid in Russia.
And money is only one part of the problem. It takes time to raise kids. If both parents have to work full time there isn’t any time left to raise your kids even if you’re rich while working.
“In a 2018 US poll, about a quarter of respondents said they had or were planning to have fewer kids than they would ideally like to have. Of those, 64 percent cited the cost of child care as a reason. Ballooning costs — of child care, housing, college, and more — are an issue around the world”
When I was a kid my dads house caught on fire. The fire was caused by old wiring so the insurance claim was denied.
They weren’t worried about verifying the condition of the wiring when they were collecting my dad's insurance payments. And they didn’t return the money he paid into it after denying the claim. So we ended up homeless even after my father had spent all that money on insurance to prevent it.
If he had all those insurance payments in a bank account we could’ve at least afforded a hotel or apartment while we figured out what to do.
I realize that there are situations where insurance can be beneficial.
I’m just sharing what I’ve learned from working as a claims adjuster. The company I worked for created incentives for denying claims. Customers were often lied to about what is covered by the person selling the insurance. We often shared technicalities that were found in the contract that allowed us to deny more claims.
This did not only happen at the company I worked for. It is common practice in the insurance industry.
I’ve worked as a claims adjuster. It was my job to find ways to deny claims so that my employer could make more profit. My employer was very clear about that.
Even if the insurance company is profitable, they will always want more.
Publicly traded insurance companies have an obligation to their shareholders to make larger profits year over year. The shareholders never say “we’ve made enough profit on investing, we dont need more profit”.
Considering publicly traded insurance companies need to make larger profit margins than their previous year. Every year. And the government doesn’t. It’s safe to say the insurance company will deny more claims and you will get less and less than what you pay into it over time.
Either way everyone is better off saving that money so they can actually use it if they need it.
The article claims the organization is liberal because they donated to a couple charities. How does that make them liberal? Especially if they also donate to conservative campaigns.
The article is claiming that an organization that is donating to conservatives is liberal.
Why do they claim this organization is liberal?
According to the article:
“Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.”
It’s because this organization donated to a couple charities.
How does that make them liberal?
Answer: it doesn’t
So why is this article making that claim? What motives could they have to do that?
lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
That isn’t happening. Stop trying to play the victim.