I live in Germany. I have paid maternity leave, public healthcare, severely subsidised childcare, child money every month, free schools and universities, and generally a huge social support network. It makes having kids SO much easier. That said, you obviously need to plan financially for them, as of course not all expenses are covered. Which is normal. But I would say that even the least privileged have a chance to have a family here, and that is how it should be.
hi. I live in Germany, too and while I agree that these systems makes it easier and more accessible than in the US, it's not true to say "even the least priviledged have a chance to have a family". The rates for Hartz4 for example are way too low, they have been proven NOT to be enough for a life in dignity. We have children starving and adults who starve so there is more left over for their children. There are sick, disabled and underpayed people who - having that reality in mind - do not dare have children even though they might want to. We have not really fixed this yet and the injustice is still there.
@@traumgewitter7324 That is sad. Thinking that there are kids going hungry is very sad. I would have hoped that at least with social housing, unemployment benefit and kindergeld at least everybody gets a full belly. I haven’t witnessed this kind of poverty but I only know some area not the whole country. I hope this gets address and the government ensures that nobody goes hungry at the very minimum.
@@JDxZ7 sorry, that's just BS. It's such a myth that people "choose" to live like that. Poverty is not a lifestyle choice and it's not a work ethic problem. Most of the poor are working poor, meaning they simply and systematically are underpaid. Others are not able to work because of things like disabilities which are not their fault. Stop blaming people for not having money.
IF you apply for bafög, which you don't have to. And bafög is for living, not paying university fees. You can choose to work part time and not take on bafög. And even if you do, you only have to pay back half. And of that half only 5 years after ending university. And if you pay back the amount in full, they subtract another around 20 %of the total. So, paying that back is not like a loan at all.
Conservatives:"You should only have children if you can afford children". Millenials: "Okay, we won't have any children then". Conservatives: "No you must have children. Otherwise America will die out." Millenials: ....
Lol. This is why you got immigrants- they work almost for free and have many children. Conservatives:......but but then we need invest in these kids, because parents are broke. We don't want that either. Solution- all millennials should become doctors and have plenty of kids, preferably white and not fat.
My experience: Conservatives: have children! I mean we won't support that at all in reality. So good luck loser. Unlivable wages, unsustainable housing costs and declining public education aren't our fault. The government isn't here to take care of you! Also shine my shoes for min wage. Liberals: it's morally wrong to have kids! The problem is you and not this unsupportive society which is shooting itself in the foot long term. The government is here to make my life easier while I preach at others about how they're causing climate change. I support social programs, but not that your kids are alive. Millennial breeder (me): Here I am, confidently dancing through the meadow, raising 6 awesome humans while living under or slightly above poverty and doing pretty damn well due to some mad financial skills, not giving a single fuck what you guys say! Suck it! I do what I want! All the while knowing my kids are the best chance for any future social support in others' old age, the best hope for changing food waste and sharing resources internationally, the best hope for trading comfort and convenience for the health of our planet. And living a life full of love and joy every day, through every struggle.
I'm not conservative, but I've never heard a conservative try to gatekeep who should have children based on income (unless its an absurd number of children i suppose). The only people I've heard actually discouraging having children based on money are liberals.
I really like the point you keep making about how we spend too much time obsessing over punishing people for using a broken system, instead of trying to fix the broken system or pushing for change. Shaming can only get people so far if the basic structures allow such massive levels of unfairness to happen in the first place.
Right on. And one thing about the condemnation and moralizing about the systemic problems is that you create divisions and hostility that do not help build consensus to FIX the problem. Unprepared parents need preparation and support; landlords need alternatives to landlording that keep people housed. We don't get them, their friends, and their potential future group members on board with fixes when we treat the problems they're involved in as unforgivable moral failures.
We need to plan for children as a society, not individually. People need support in raising kids (financially, socially, educationally) basically better supports.
Conservative: "in my day, families looked out for each other" Hillary Clinton: "It takes a village to raise a child." Conservative: "No, not like that!"
@@cathyl3526 what that reveals about conservatives is they essentially want to pick and choose who gets support. They'd be fine with social programs if they were allowed to discriminate with them. It's why they fetishize Hungary so much. So long as they get to put their money ONLY towards white straight Christians, they're fine with socialism.
Individuals need to plan for children as well. I'm very tired of seeing families barely making ends meet and having multiple children who are all struggling and suffering. I don't mind paying property taxes to fund schools, but after a certain point it does feel like subsidizing other people's poor choices. Calling this viewpoint eugenics like Chelsea did is insane to me. Eugenics is a government-run programs involving sterilization and deciding who can and can't their children. Telling individuals "hey maybe you don't have kids if you can't support them in their basic needs" is not that.
@@saltycrunch no it is actually, especially when aspects like race and disability come into play. Deciding who can and cannot have children is eugenics full stop. Yes people need to be prepared to have kids, no there is not a financial requirement.
As for the AirBnB thing, I’m really a fan of the new short term rental law implemented in Atlanta. All short term rentals must be licensed individually and must be renewed annually. One household may not have more than two short term rentals and one of the two must be the household’s primary residence.
Same/ extreme dislike. 4th generation Floridian, I am getting priced out by Air BnB’s because of people who live in CA, NY or any other HCL area family ”wintered here once in the 70’s- loved it and bought a home” and when they die the price increase is the rent 3x. Im 2011 you could get a decent home for 600.00 per month, now it’s 2,100 for an apartment. 😡
That's a great way to handle it. People can lease out a second home, or part of their primary home, but not become a slum lord holding 10+ flipped houses. I've tried to stay in Air BNBs that were done under the spirit of the original idea, and have stayed some amazing places with great hosts as a result. I hate that I've stayed in apartments that should have been leased out to locals a few times, and going forward I am going to try to do my homework better to ensure it's part of an owner occupied property.
That's a pretty good approach. In Australia they're looking to increase council rates by 50% for anyone who leaves their house empty for extended periods of time, which include holiday homes, airbnbs and also people who choose to invest only for capital gains
I am Italian, and in my country we have different level of taxes on your ""first house" and your "holiday home" or any other property. The first house is taxed way less than your second, third...and so on. And yes we have taxes on home ownership, since houses are using services provided by the state (gas pipes, electric network, water pipe, roads...).
Similar in Minnesota, USA. For your primary residence, there is a "homestead" tax refund (subject to an income cap) but not for additional/other properties. I belive a number of other states in the US have something like this.
The last bit you said about having kids: "just because you have kids for kids doesn't mean you should have one" is so true. My partner is a teacher in a super fancy private school and those kids are messed up. Emotionally neglected and spoiled rotten. Many won't make good citizens and those who do, will need therapy. There is more to parenting than being able to afford it.
Regarding rental properties, we do need them to some extent. I've never lived in one place for more than 4 years in my entire life, I frequently moved due to work in 1-2 year segments. Having to buy a house each time I moved would have been very time consuming and expensive. We do need a better system than we have now, as with most things there needs to be a good balance rather than one extreme or the other and right now the lack of affordable housing is a serious issue.
I've always rented as well. I think what I've come to realize though, is that no one rents a place out to house ppl, it's only for money. This has really come through to me after years of dealing with management companies or listening to people talk about investing in rentals and housing. Only in my current place does it feel a little better, but it's much more expensive.
I realize I’m an outlier rather than a rule but I bought my home while in graduate school and rented out to roommates to pay for my education. In later years, I moved in with my significant other and we have been renting out my property. I have gone back and forth about the ethical question regarding renting vs. selling it however when I see how many corporations are buying property in the area I don’t feel as bad. I’m a good landlord-update things/maintenance, check in frequently, etc. After having rented in my community for years prior to buying, I know I’d rather rent from one individual I can communicate with rather than a giant poorly run management company. I don’t have an issue with individuals owning a second home they rent out but am also happy to pay taxes on the property (as long as it is used to fund something-like maybe affordable housing vouchers for those who can’t afford increasing rent…).
@@achromatic03 I don’t know. When I put my first place on the market, reasonably priced, it made me realize how few, nice and affordable rental options exist in my city. It made me wish I had more rentals because there are so few options.
@@Nikyv786 oh, totally agree we need rentals and it's really a scary thing when there aren't enough. I just wish it was thought of more personally instead of transactionally. Like I've mostly found it's actually a nicer experience when your landlord is a person instead of a management company because it's less transactional.
The thing about fast fashion is that it damages the perception about the value of clothing. If we were being ethical, from sourcing to manufacturing and shipping, there is no way a dress would cost $30. The least we can do when purchasing these clothes is honoring them by taking care of them and making them last.
I live in a really quiet neighborhood with a lot of retired people, our neigbor died and a couple who owns 20 other air bnb properties in our town bought it and it has cause me so many problems, people have tried getting into our house in the middle of the night thinking it was their Airbnb, people have blocked our cars in and our garage, put their trash in our trash cans when the airbnbs trash can is full, had people let themselves in our yard when their dog hopped our fence, and the owners are completely not responsive, never told us it was an Airbnb until we found it on the website
Geeting accidently pregnant: We must talk more openly about abortions. Many women who get pregnant without wanting it just keep the child out of moral pressure. Because we have been told for decades and decades that abortion is wrong. We had sexual education since 5th grade and talked about abortion in 7th grade. Our teacher was pro choice and broke down all the ethic pros and contras. And we learned how it is performed. It can't be that there are UA-cam videos that show a 6 months old baby that is torn apart by scissors and tweezers. That's not how it's done. Why are so many people against proper sexual education in schools? But looking at comment sections on UA-cam, most people look like they never had any kind of sexual education. What is a vasectomy, what is a tubal lugation, how does the pill and an IUD work... And what's also important: contraceptives have to be affordable for everyone. Can't be an IUD costs 300€ in my country. And tubal ligation too is too expensive. And docors have to be forced by law to perform it. Without stupid lines like " you might change your mind". Women are sometimes treated like little children when it comes to their reproductive organs. And the stuid calendar sentences like "it only takes love to give a child a good life" have to be deconstructed as naive lies.
Although everything you say here is right, some people still get accidentally pregnant even with proper sex ed and access to contraception and some people still don't want to get an abortion. All of the things you talk about are necessary, but it still boils down to making the world (or country) more friendly to people wanting to start families or that started a family without planning for it. Paid maternity and paternity leave are necessary, free quality education and healthcare, access to proper nutrition, it's all part of the solution.
I think the financially planning for a child thing is a nuanced conversation. As it currently stands, we (USA) do not have a good social safety net but what we do have is a society that tells everyone rich or poor, that having children is just something you do to make their lives better and have meaning. Most people who have children aren't having them for the right reasons whether they are rich poor or in the middle. Furthermore, many parents think that their children are their retirement plan and don't save for their own retirement because they think Susie and Johnny will take care of them. And then there are parents who take the financial abuse even further by taking out credit cards or loans in a child's name and then don't pay the loans, thus messing up their child's credit. But again, this is because of the mentality as children as assets (Moira Rose from Schitt's creek may be a satirical character but she's not far off from the norm) So I think we need to reframe as a culture what it means to raise children and the answer shouldn't have to do with what that child can add to your life because there is no guarantee that they will do that and they shouldn't be expected to fulfill any expectations you put on them.
I zoned out for a moment before around 19:30 when Chelsea was describing 're-entering the workforce at 40 with a 20 year gap on your resume and no marketable skills' and I guessed she was talking about someone coming out of prison. She was talking about working after being a stay-at-home mum!
So just getting into the video: As someone who is a landlord, and tries to be an ethical one. I honestly would love some takes on what my alternative is. I own (with my parents) 5 single family homes in a neighborhood next to a college. I can definitely sell the houses and invest in S&P trackers, given the market now, that wouldn't even be a bad investment strategy for me. But the people who buy these houses will be property management firms. No one else is even looking in this neighborhood, and other mom and pop shops have been priced out at this point. So my personal perspective is that it's better than I run the place, and try to be a human for my tenants: (eg let them have dogs, work with them on getting the place cleaned up when they leave, let them fuzz a late payment here or there, and really try to keep up with repairs/improvements) instead of any of the local property management firms which just try to shove as many frat boys into these houses as possible and let the place fall apart. So I'm really curious what the viable alternative is. These houses are my and my parents' retirement fund, so "Sell the houses and donate the money to a food bank" isn't going to cut it for us. I should note, I do try to vote for more stringent rental laws (safety standards, utility efficiency standards...), not just because it's the human thing to do, but because it actually helps us compete with the property management firms if they have to maintain the higher standards we try to stick to too. So I'm not asking for "stop voting for anarcho-capitalism", cause I definitely don't. Stringent regulation FTW!
This is indeed it for me. I think landlords are parasites (no shade, I mean in a marxist term) but that is the trajectory that I am on, likely will be renting out one house by the end of next year. And the alternative is to have a predatory landlord renting the place, not even fixing it up properly before they rent it for more than I will. Within this current system, having landlords that keep rent manageable, don't look for increases every year, care for the place and therefore maintain it are all things most renters (which I am still) do not get to experience. There is a place for renting (there should be less of it in my country but still) and it should be done ethically/in a renter-friendly way.
The reality that people are fighting for is one where being a landlord (or a property management firm) is not financially viable and is discouraged by the systems and laws in place. If you imagine every person renting a property is paying for the mortgage and all the bills, and even if you charge them the bare minimum, so little that you only break even, that person could still be paying that into a place that they personally own. The existence of landlording is something that society for a long time has just accepted but in reality it has very little functional purpose. People who defend landlording will typically say something like "well you HAVE to rent until you can afford a down payment!", But the people renting can't afford a down payment because of their rent, which could all be going directly into a property they owned if the system was designed in that way.
@@contentity lol rental has a huge functional purpose. People rent when they are in temporary situations, such as moving to a new city, moving for college,as their relationship situation. If every time we had to move it required selling and buying a new property, it would be a nightmare. We do need the flexibility of renting during certain periods of our lives.
The Airbnb and children questions show the really unfortunate way that people think about politics, they place the burden on the individual instead of looking at how public policy and society puts people in those positions to begin with. If housing were plentiful and affordable, would anyone care if some were being turned into Airbnb's? If everyone had access to affordable healthcare, childcare, maternity/paternity leave, would having children still be financially untenable for most people? Instead of placing the burden and shame on individuals to overcome societal challenges, we should be fighting to change public policy instead.
Airbnb's make residential areas business area and makes it so you no longer have neighbors but a bunch of transients if you are in a location that is very attractive. Our whole state is basically a tourist magnet so investors are buying up homes in residential areas pushing natives and locals. median prices every month for this is now over 1.2 million from 600,000 2 years ago. Majority of people own these illegal airbnb's don't live in our state. if they are illegal than they are avoiding local taxes which the hotels do pay. also most out hotel workers are union so they have good pay and some benefits and all of them fall under federal and state labor laws/protections. the airbnb's tend to attract bargin tourists who don't contribute much to local economy but use a lot of local resources and when they do spend money it tends to go to owners/investors in other states.
@@TomMoore-ny5qn I'm curious if you live in the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, New England, or perhaps not in the Estados Unidos? What kind of spending do bargain tourists do and what tabs aren't they covering?
@@TomMoore-ny5qn I cannot understand : 1) how are these airbnbs illegal? 2) how aren't tourists contributing to the local economy? Don't they eat and visit local activities and attractions? 3) why does no one talk about gentrification, that's way more damaging to local communities that some sporadic airbnb?
@@MRCKify Hawaii where land is a premium and main reason people want to visit is the environment and native culture. It is a very culturally sensitive place where the natives had their land stolen at gunpoint and at pushed in to lowest socio-economic group. On our island, we are already double the capacity of tourists of what our planning commission planned as our ability to support via environment and infastructure. It was not great before but okay because the resort areas are separated from the residential areas. So people didn't have to be ON all the time. They could go home to neighborhoods, that is one of the reasons people don't like the illegal one in residentials areas because constant strangers. Alot of local kids here still walk home from school and roam around neighborhood pretty freely. Because tourism here also relies heavily on what many locals and natives feel is the commodification of their culture. Outsiders took their natural culture of hospitality and commercialized it to point where it loses meaning. (nothing will piss off a local or native hawaiian more than a tourist stating where is the Aloha?) But they are doing it to a cultural that is fighting hard to remain alive. As majority of the airbnnb's in our are bought by outsiders or recent arrivals who again sell hawaii like it is any other place - it reducing the inventory of houses for actual local or pricing them out of range. So there is a lot resentment. Also the shut-down showcase to locals how much damage that industry does to environment - like people think waters in hawaii a pretty clear but it was nothing compared to mid-2020 when we barely had any flights coming to state. Never seen clearer air and water in over 30 years. Bargin tourists will never pay our current average hotel room rates of daily visitor spending amount. Hotels tourists tend to visitor who love to spend freely while airbnb ones are always to get free or low priced stuff.
@@ThelPic No because they are one gentrify local neighborhoods and pushing out locals and natives. Almost 14,000 individual units on an island with 150,000 people is actual not a small amount. People complain about homelessness but many units sit vacant for long period of time as owned by people not in state.
I finally feel validated that I do not put my budget on paper lol. What works for myself and my spouse is to simply spend less than we make and save the rest. I've experimented with budgeting tools and they all end up frustrating me. We have been able to pay off student loans, save for a house and replenish an emergency fund this way so I think after all this time, what we are doing works for us! I'll stop stressing about spreadsheets and whatnot.
5:04- 7:02 was a whole sermon. Well said Chelsea! I would only add that its also important to think critically about the violence, genocide, resource theft, and environmental damage it takes for the US to even be one of the "wealthiest country in the world" and the impact that "privilege" has on people and the rest of the world.
Chelsea's point of "not everyone would be a good parent" is crucial, too. I opted out of the gene pool because I know I'm not selfless enough to give up my life for another (and I've got a bunch of familial health problems that make me a less than ideal gene donor.) Thankfully the other half was on board with this, and we're happy to have nieces and a nephew that we can assist instead.
I’m pregnant with a surprise baby right now; I was already on birth control and my husband was already scheduled for a vasectomy. People thinking we shouldn’t have children because we are fairly low income is… unsettling to say the least. I’m a nurse and my husband is a nurse aide so we make above minimum wage but enough where all federal safety nets are gone and my job has unaffordable healthcare options… We try out best but I can’t afford preschool and I am drowning in medical debt so I can’t get a house… That’s in part because The US doesn’t take care of it’s working class. It feels so dystopian after having to work so hard during the pandemic for my patients and dealing with a worsening nurse shortage. Those politicians who called us “heroes” should be ashamed.
1) I somewhat agree with the child thing. I think that IN THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN NOW you should try to have the money for a kid before you actually try for a kid. I'm not saying accidents can't happen, but the 20 something that loves kids, works minimum wage, has no credit, and just met their partner 2 months ago should not be actively trying for a kid because it is setting the child up for failure. The child might turn out fine, but statistically it probably won't. I also think that people need to factor intangible things into their decision to have a kid. Things like if they are emotionally, physically, and mentally ready especially if the kid decides they are against something you believe in down the line. It would be great if we had enough safety nets for people to have a child if they want, but currently it's not possible. Especially with the sigma around single mothers. 2) I technically loaned about $3,000 over the course of a year to my little sister because I had the money saved, my husband agreed we could use it for her, and she was in a rough financial spot. I keep a running tab of how much she owes, and she will make little payments here and there or will exchange goods and services (like a rice cooker she found and was going to sell for $5 or mowing the lawn) to reduce the debt. It hasn't effected our relationship because I knew going into it that I probably wouldn't get most of it back and she can always say she's short on money and would prefer cash instead of debt reduction. She's slowly getting better with money. She just needed a little kick in the butt to realize that.
I'll disagree with the disagree here. I don't think the hot take was "poor people shouldn't have children". More like EVERYONE should have a plan for a child. And the more support society can offer the easier that gets. I think far too often having a child is treated as the default option when that should really be a hard opt-in, not opt-out choice. I watched a co-worker, in a middle class, office style job learn only after she came back from maternity leave that day care was going to cost more than she made. That is a PAINFUL struggle to watch someone realize.
But still, what happens if you try to plan for a child but still can't afford it? Should you then refrain from having kids? In your example, what would've happened if she knew from the start that daycare would be so expensive? Would she then have had to refrain from having children? It's still the same idea but phrased differently. The solution to the problem is not people who don't make enough money shouldn't have children (or as you put it, figure out if you make enough money before having children), but how do we equip society to help parents raise children.
@@mybittersweetme you're actually making the same point I was aiming at! Yes, there absolutely needs to be more resources for parents, especially low income ones. But how does one even know what resources are available to them or what they want to utilize if there isn't a plan to begin with? Taking the avoidance strategy because you might be screwed either way doesn't make it go away. Same as not looking at a bank account because you're afraid of what it will say. I think people do need to face ahead of time what the reality of adding a child is going to look like (emotionaly, financially, and beyond) . And do it BEFORE the baby arrives. I think there is way, WAY too much "we'll just figure it out" for a decision that is going to create and nurture a whole human being. There are plenty of people who might go to plan, realize it is beyond their means, and for their own personal reasons chose to have a child anyways. Even then best to go in with eyes wide open.
@@mybittersweetme "Would she then have had to refrain from having children?" children aren't an entitlment that every person deserves so yeah, she should
@@aelurine I sort of agree because I see where you're coming from, but I also disagree because i think it's too radical of a POV to have. What I'm saying is that it's basically a very complex and nuanced topic to just be no, children aren't entitlements or yes everyone under every circumstance has the right to have a child because ultimately it involves deciding over other people's lives (whether they are the potential parent's or the unborn kid's lives).
This is really tricky because the desire to have a kid is in most cases something different than an economic choice, whether to invest in some expensive appliances or buy a house. Having children (although not too many per couple) is also considered important socially in the country and there should be well-designed system of affordable support around it. Having a child is not a whim, it is a deeply ingrained, personal, but also culturally established norm you would say, it is really hard to boil it down to whether one can afford it. It is not fair to make it about money. But unfortunately one do need to plan for a child financially. It is just tough for people to have to say “I won't have a kid because I don't have X on my account”.
As someone who grew up in a lower income home I understand the push to want people to be financially prepared before having children, but that brings up a whole list of how much is enough. Also, I have thought that it’s borderline child abuse to have more children than you can physically and emotionally handle - like don’t put that mess off on innocent children.
Yup. As someone who came from the same circumstances outside of the first world, I absolutely hate it how every damn time this is brought up, it gets waved off as eugenics. I think, someone really has to suffer it on their own skin to understand at this point and not immediately get their panties in a twist over the perceived unfairness.
Re, credit card points or the such: It's often a small business who is paying for it. I was a small business owner (didn't survive the p*ndemic). We were able to tell our eftpos machine provider that we didn't want to take Amex or Diners, but we couldn't refuse any kind of Visa or Mastercard if we wanted to use the service. On some V/M, we were charged three times the amount that we were on a regular version of the card. These were the 'platinum' etc versions of the card. I now make a definite choice to not use a credit card when I'm shopping with a small business if I can. Note: I'm in Australia. I'm not certain if this pertains to the same kinds of transactions in other places.
So the hot take at 4:20 is tricky because I don’t think it’s fair to say only certain people get to have children (based on capitalism) BUT, extreme poverty is super f-ed up and literal violence. Children should not be born houseless, without adequate food, clothes, etc.. It just isn’t a fair living condition for any human, much-less a brand new human. As one of the richest countries in the world, we SHOULD have basic resources available for everyone but unfortunately we don’t. So I’m stuck between ‘what should be’ vs ‘what is’ & personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable bringing a baby into a scenario where basic needs aren’t met. I do hope many others are considering the quality of life they’re creating for their children
It's not about who deserves to have children, they are not a commodity fs its about children DESERVING a life not in poverty. Childrent are expensive, and they are the ones who suffer living in poverty.
Exactly, I don't care for how that part was overlooked in this. However, in a capitalist society there will always be a relatively poorer group of people. I think it comes down to why would you want to deliberately have a child who is going to suffer in poverty especially since social mobility is limited.
I get what you're saying but it's fucked up the other way around too, it's like saying only rich people can be good parents. People should not have to be top 1% in order to not be judged for having a family, the problem is that it's ridiculously expensive to even survive. It shouldn't be like that.
@@morphinpink It's really not like saying that only rich people can be good parents. It's acknowledging that even providing the bare minimum for a child costs money - deliberately bringing a child into a situation where they will suffer is questionable. I agree that family life shouldn't be that expensive but it is. Deliberately, having kids when you don't have stable accommodation, income or food supply and waiting for the government to fix inequity is only going to guarantee suffering for the child.
Here's a hot take: a person who's stayed at home to raise children and is trying to enter the workforce at 40 with a 20-year gap on their resume with "no marketable skills" is an ideal candidate for most management roles. I'm not joking at all, either. The skills the stay-at-home parent has picked up in those 20 years are exactly the things the most effective managers do.
I don't know if I agree with that. I know a few stay at home moms and I wouldn't trust them at all to supervise anybody. Half of them can't even control their own kids. I don't think being a parent makes you any better at mgmt than anybody else. I'm a parent but I have 0 patients with adults so a good Mgr I would not be.
Hard disagree. Kind of reminds me of overbearing antivaxx moms saying they're a nurse, lifeguard, etc all in one because they have to look after their toddlers 24/7, questioning every professional's knowledge when it comes to their kids.
The card bonus thing (just like every “free” or “low rate” deal that credit card companies offer) is predicated on humans being bad at managing debt. Yes, if you pay your card off in full every month, then you DO get those points for “free.” But most people, even those with good credit, don’t do that. Or, if they are, then it’s probably because they learned the “hard way.” It’s like those “0% balance transfer if paid within 12 months” offers. At first glance they are a great way to pay down credit card debt over time, but you need to keep track of it. If you don’t pay it off at the end of those 12 months, it very much becomes NOT worth it. Those are things that you can’t just set up to auto-pay the minimum amount for, because if you forget that you have it, you’re stuck with high interest debt again at an unexpected point in the future.
My take is that everyone who buys an airline ticket is in some way financing the “free” loyalty flights. Any large company does absolutely nothing for free. Everyone is paying a dollar or two more on each flight to pay the giveaways. It’s like shop-lifting (new term “shrinkage”) in retail stores. The amount of loss is in the cost of all the goods in the store. The companies don’t lose anything. The shoppers do.
Also, perhaps due to being a teacher? I never qualified for those new cards, even though I was never late on my payments. Really fed into a sense of rejection and a lack of control. Thanks to therapy I know now that I *CAN* handle my money and be triumphant over debt, but it sure sucked to read in every debt paydown book in my twenties "Just get a 0% payment transfer!" Not to mention I now know many of my issues came from undiagnosed ADHD, soooo even if I had qualified, I would have been one of those people who forgot to pay. TL, DR: It was good I didn't qualify for those zero-percent balance transfers, AND, as you said, they are not as great as they seem.
The last one! I had to learn that so many times...I tried to "save" my sister and one of my friends so many times before realized I cannot force them to change. The only rule I have is I cannot hear about their money complaints unless they have a plan they wanna discuss with me.
What's been a challenge in America is that almost anyone can become a parent, but many are ill suited to be a parent. I do think people need to be thoughtful about bringing a child into the world and what kind of world that child will find itself in. Today, many parents limit the size of their families in order to provide and care for their children in a better manner. Further, many people cannot fully comprehend the struggles they will face bringing a child into this world and being a parent until they experience them firsthand.
I'm in the UK but I agree completely! I am childfree and all the time I get told I'm selfish and should have children because it's SO rewarding. The reason I'm childfree is because I'd be a terrible parent. Becoming a parent would not change that and magically make me into mother of the year. I struggle with my mental health and whilst I can manage my high stress long hours job, it takes every ounce of energy I have outside of work to keep myself going day to day (sleep 8 hours, work out 5 times a week, read books etc). Having a child would break me and I have no issue in admitting that, I wish parents who have judged me would realise I'm actually complimenting them because they are doing it and I've admitted I cannot!
@@hannahb6471 I wish you all the best in the struggles you are contending with. Your response was very introspective and you have obviously given it significant thought. I certainly commend you on that. Lastly, don't fret over how others might judge you as you are living your own life. Stay well.
Chelsea, I appreciate that as a childfree person, you are still extremely well informed and understanding of issues concerning child-rearing and parenting.
I really relate to your take on these topics. It's difficult to find a fundamental ethical ideology that everyone can agree on, and I think you bring a very nuanced and balanced opinion to the conversation.
the fact that the second one is considered a “hot take” shows how distorted our values as a society are. no one “deserves” children. no one is entitled to a child. everyone should plan and study and self reflect to know if they’re capable of being good parents, the type of parents kids deserve to have. poor people who are financially aware and/or literate can plan to make sure their child will at least have their bare minimum necessities met. emotionally wounded people can start working towards healing to make sure their child’s necessities will be met, so on and so forth. it’s not eugenics, it’s not a conservative viewpoint and it’s not thinking rich people “deserve” children or the money they have or whatever else... this is about treating children like the actual human beings they are instead of things everyone is entitled to have. it’s definitely not about legislating on who can and can’t have kids, this is a discussion about self awareness and altruism that will, hopefully, help cease overtly selfish and harmful parenthood that’s obviously not to say we, as a society, shouldn’t make sure that the people who want to have kids are equipped to do so in the best way possible, we should but that’s not the reality. we can work towards that goal while recognizing that that’s not our current reality and, given the fact that it isn’t, people now should exercise altruistic discernment to avoid harming the very real children they want to have but are incapable of providing for (emotionally, financially or in any other way)
I aagree with both your point and the person below you, I think children should stop being seen as this "thing" that parents can own and that everyone deserves to have. parenthood is inherently selfish and the fact that kids are seen as somehting that eveyrone gets to have, instead of being seen as young humans who deserve to be born to a comfortable world since theyre literlly not consenting to be here, doesnt actually help anyone in this situation. sure some children deliberately concienved in pvoerty grow up fine but a LOT dont. I personally would rather have not been born at all than to be born with literally zero upward mobility and childhood trauma from being poor.
I was looking for a comment like yours. I've noticed that many of the people who viciously attack and politicize statements like "you should be financially prepared for children before you have them" are also people who never grew up poor, ironically. As someone who grew up without inherited wealth and whose parents who were not emotionally prepared for children, I strongly believe not everyone "deserves" to be a parent. It is a tall order to raise another human being, and the first thing responsible parents do is to consider if they are fit to be parents.
I think cities and towns are right to restrict Airbnb-type rentals, but I wouldn't want to see a national curb. As far as I can see, the damage done by private rentals has to do with taking up affordable housing in commuter areas. Meanwhile, (from what I've seen) countryside houses tend to be repurposed mcMansions, which may otherwise go unsold.
If you have student loans in the US and you move abroad AND you no longer have income from the USA, you can set an income based repayment plan (payment will be $0) on auto and the balance will be forgiven after the payment period is up.
My wife takes home 4X what I make in a year, and it's fucking awesome! She's the shit. Yet, we don't combine our finances except for one "bills" account, and we split things evenly. My wife is also very generous, though, so this works out in my favor time and again... that said, I never take advantage of her making more money than me, and I take on more of the housework (I work from home, but she doesn't). I don't understand how you can be so alpha male that this threatens you. Grow up, lol. This kind of dynamic really isn't hard to make work if you just exhibit a base level of intelligence and actually try with your communication.
Chelsea, I always appreciate when you do a video like this. Love to hear your take on things because you are so thoughtful and balanced in your responses. I would like to see more of these kinds of videos.
Some great advice I heard recently re. giving friends advice or help when they always ask for it yet ignore it: ask them what THEIR plan is. I have a friend who always seems to be going through something yet waves off or makes excuses against any advice I give her. Pivoting the conversation to ask well, what are you thinking of doing next? Even if it's not totally productive will at least end a conversation that isn't going anywhere lol
I feel like I never leave comments about the content but only Chelsea stan type things, BUT I feel compelled to call everybody's attention to how much the asymmetry in the glasses pattern is actually super flattering, I always notice it, but in this video there are a lot of close-ups and I am appreciating it more (I'm tipsy)
"People shouldn't have kids unless they've financially planned for them"... We did. And then we ended up with a catastrophe that completely changed our financial situation. We had reserves, but it was super tight for several years...and I know someone who became permanently disabled, whose situation was even more dire than ours. Stop shaming.
Ofc tragedies happen and I'm sorry that happened to your family but is your situation really the same as deliberately bringing children into poverty in a country that has limited support for poor families and limited social mobility. What about a poor family that goes through further tragedy or becomes disabled? The lives of child carers to poor parents are extremely difficult.
@@dlc2479 "Deliberately"? As Chelsea said, sometimes people have surprise pregnancies (yes, even w/ birth control). And the way America is, it isn't always easy to get an abortion. It's a felony to abort in some states right now, but even before Roe was struck down, there were hoops to jump through that made it difficult in many areas. Instead of blaming poor people, how about blaming society? Why not fix our culture/government instead of trying to shame people who often don't have as much control over their circumstances as they wish they did?
@@dlc2479 First, it's ignorant to say that poor people can't possibly give a good life to children. I grew up in a poor community full of loving households that did their best to give their kids the best life possible. Way better childhoods than some of the spoiled, neglected, ignorant children I've met from more wealthy families. Like OP said, kids happen! Life happens! Of course not everyone should be a parent. I've seen plenty of teen moms, drug-addicted dads in and out of prison, etc. and I agree that they should absolutely not bring a child into the world if they cannot care for that child. But for the most part, being poor does not automatically mean you'll be a bad parent. The reality is, an "easy" life is inaccessible by millions people. The only productive thing we can do is provide education and social services to alleviate poverty, not shame poor people for living their life.
@@Double0pi You've answered the question you wanted me to ask instead of the one I actually asked. I know there are surprises pregnancies etc, what I asked was should we really be encouraging people to DELIBERATELY (I.e. exclusive of any surprises scenario etc) bring children into a life poverty when we know that the child will suffer. I asked that specific question because by arguing against financial planning for children, you are encouraging the scenario I just described. I completely agree with you about society but guess what, we are not there yet. Why have children under the premise that the government will act right and help out when zero efforts have been made towards that reality. It makes zero sense. We might as well tell ppl, don't plan for your retirement because you might lose it all on health care bills or die tomorrow and the government should be helping out anyway knowing full well there's no help for that demographic.
Where I live (on the West Coast), you must have a permit from the local government to rent out a residence as an Airbnb and in order to obtain and maintain that permit, the host must live in the property 74% of the calendar year. They are also required to pay several types of local taxes.
I love how your videos start a discussion. I may not agree 100% with your answers or hot takes, but at least it gets me thinking about these issues, when I otherwise wouldn't have. Thanks to everyone in the comments too for adding to this dialogue. It's really fascinating to hear your stories and perspectives.
That last one though, spot on! I have a (work?) friend who earns about the same as me and hes struggling really badly with money and overdrafting his account on a monthly basis. He once approached me for financial tips asking how i manage my money and if i could help him but he's not even willing to do the basic steps to get somewhere we could work on a budget yet he gets angry at me for not magically making his problems dissappear? And by basic steps i mean looking at where he spends his money to see where the overspending happens and then taking steps to lower his expenses. I stopped giving out tips and such because it only furthers the issues between us. As you said, some things don't need to be talked about...
I want to say one thing on the women having to do most of the household chores, especially if you are a two income couple. Get a housekeeper or whatever kind of household help will make your life/lives easier. I had no idea this was an option til one day it dawned on me. At the time I was single with a child. It was either get a different job or get help. I hired college students to help me. It was awesome! I swear I felt like a man. Think about it. Sitcoms with men single fathers have live in help. Get some hired help! Don't think you can afford it? Do without something else. Live in a cheaper place in order to have a cleaning person. Also, split the cost with the partner. But if you have to just pay it.
I've been anti-bnb and anti-uber from the beginning. BNB drives up rents, less security for women traveling alone, adds density into residential neighborhoods, not to mention flying in the face of zoning laws, lowers rental and purchase housing stock, inferior customer service, less regulated (yes, that's a bad thing). Uber is a crappy business model all around.
I think people like to say “oh the tax code used to be so much more fair when rates were higher in the 50s”. There were far more holes in the tax code then, very few people paid the high rates
I feel like your comment about stigmatizing individuals on the Airbnb question pretty much sums up the TFD team’s work with your channel. Politically, we would prefer a society where there is no need for individuals to build wealth. In the meantime, taking charge of their financial situation and future is individuals’ best bet.
5:15 I see what that person is saying though... a child isn't a "thing" that people "get to" have or are owed, ever. no adult is entitled tohaving a child. a child is a person who needs financial and social support. if their parents cant provide that in a really meaningful way (the bare minimum does not cut it, we've seen so many traumatized adults by now that we know the bare minimum doesn't cut it) then yeah, people shouldn't have kids unless they can afford it. you could say it sounds like eugenics because it means poor people can't have kids and I get that, but if it saves people from having childhoods where their needs aren't met finacially (because there isnt enough moneyfor them) or socially (because their parents are always out working to be able to provide) than so be it. In the US there's no one willing to address the lack of support that poor families have in a significant way, so the people ened to have the personal responcibility to not bring a person in to the world if they can't provide.
The hypocrisy of this take is that if children aren't things that people should get to have, why are only rich people allowed to have them? Equating them with money is inherently objectifying them. Its also a disingenuous criticism of what people mean when they day that poor people deserve to have children, they're not talking about kids as if they were objects, we're talking about the desire to have a family which is absolutely normal and everyone should be entitled to have if they're emotionally and psychologically prepared for it. Governments should provide the financial assistance for it, that's their whole point. We live in a capitalist dystopia, that's it really.
The last question hits home for me, I had a friend who I met at a job who I really got along with and we remained friends after we stopped working there. She is basically what you refer to as a financial fuck-up. I didn't let it stop me from being friends with her, until it started affecting me. Eventually she would only contact me when she needed a favour - a ride to get groceries, to the bottle depot because she's really short on cash. I'm trying to wean myself off of her because it seems like she's not taking any steps to improve her situation. I feel like a bad friend. But I feel like we weren't truly friends to begin with if she's only reaching out to me when she needs help.
About the right to bring new humans to this planet... It is a quite difficult issue here in Colombia and I believe in other parts of the world as well. For example, in the neighborhood I live we see a girl (around 11 years old) who lives in poverty. She is the 5th child of 7 and she is not going to the school. You may think "Oh! But that's illegal!" Well, yes. But her mother decided that she is better at helping her raising up her 2 younger brothers and working at the tire shop full of strangers coming and going. She is illiterate. She doesn't have any projections and I can stay here giving more details explaining why her family is very dysfunctional. You may think "But why you didn't call the government with a claim" This is the huge problem: it is actually worse. Because it's well known, here in Colombia, that kids who end up in orphanages have to face horrible treatment, even abuse, by those who should protect them. Is the corrupted system the problem? Yes. Can we change it at once? No. Then what should we do in the meantime? The best we can. And the best sometimes is to give a good advice on time. There's nothing wrong in asking "Do you think you can afford having more kids?" And this is not violent. It is facing the reality and what we can do now, not tomorrow with the problems happening.
Such good discussions in here! Chelsea, you knocked this out of the park & this really spotlights how well versed you are in all the angles of these issues. Absolutely loved this, and learned something!
I would love to move towards a system where (personal) income tax isn't a/the main tax source. We literally exchange our precious and limited time for our hard-earned money while so much wealth is passed on from generation to generation with very little tax. Let's tax inheritance more. It's free money (for context I am from Denmark - we have a very high income tax)
Ugh I agree. I'm only 25 and I'm paying close to 25% of my income in taxes. I know age isn't a factor, but it's shocking to be so young and paying so much in taxes before my adult life has even really begun
The idea is that if you live an extreme spartan lifestyle when you're young in the hopes that you won't have to when you're old, there's no guarantee that that money will even be there and not have been pilfered by the time you actually get there, and with healthcare in the United States and lowered life expectancy, a lot of people in the U.S. die without ever experiencing a life that's NOT an extreme spartan lifestyle. The U.S. is a complete mess in this regard.
Yup. I live in Asia with housing paid for and never plan to live in the US again. I've worked and studied in several countries abroad, and it's hilarious every time we get to the health insurance presentation. We always get luxe local insurance and great insurance abroad EVERYWHERE BUT THE US 😂...I got appendicitis in July 2020 and would have paid $5-10K in the US. Here it was $1400 and insurance paid all but $4. I miss the US but just can't see ever moving back. I also don't regret living it up in my 20's and getting some debt. I LIVED, and now at 37, just had to slow down for a couple of years to pay off what I've accrued. And that's as a "lowly" teacher!
I live in a committed platonic relationship. We talk about getting married sometimes for things like tax benefits and legal next of kin reasons. It wouldn't be a 'marriage' but also, there's no requirement to be sexually active with your spouse. It's silly that there are so many benefits for married people, but partners who don't get married have no benefits.
@@NiaDeBose if a marriage is aslo just friendship? We are a marriage in all ways - we have joint bank accounts, have raised children together, own a home together. Literally everything a married couple might do, except we are not a romantic couple. To be honest, your question proves my point of why it is important to recognize "other" family types.
I mean, when it comes to voting, my parents are actively voting for the people whose policies negatively affect me so it'd be nice if they changed, but they aren't gonna.
For the platonic marriage for mortgage reasons thing, I just want to point out that aromantic and asexual people exist and may want to take advantage of the system we live under. As someone in a queer platonic relationship who plans to get married for tax reasons, I can confidently say that my partner, who is also aromantic, won't fall in love with and marry someone else. There's also the whole polyamory thing, but that might be beyond the scope of the this comment lol. But it is correct that alloromantics and allosexuals do indeed be getting married for the worst reasons and maybe shouldn't do that just for a house lol....unless it's a queer commune.
I've noticed that spending is very much an individualized thing. I have a friend who spent $5000 on a mountain bike, which was the same cost of my car. I don't even have a bike LOL.
Every time Chelsea talks about ‘saving for retirement’ I remember that retirement accounts are not mandated in other places. Is Australia’s super scheme perfect, nope but thank god I never have to worry about saving for retirement.
Does your system guarantee an income in retirement? In the UK we have an auto enrolment scheme at 22 where people can opt out or can voluntarily join their company's pension scheme earlier. The problem I've seen (aside from 22 year olds opting out) is that the minimum auto enrolment is 1% employee and 1% employer matched with some employers only offering 5% employee and 3% employer matched which is the legal minimum. I know people thinking paying in 8% is going to mean they can retire in their 60s with a large monthly income but the reality is that's not going to be the case. I've been paying 15% into my pension for most of my 20s and know I need to increase that when my student loan is paid off but I've got many friends who think I'm putting too much in!
@@hannahb6471 to be perfectly honest, I am not sure of the finer details but my understanding is all permanent employees in Australia (whether full or part time) must have super paid into an account, regardless of company or employment sector. It’s a government requirement, we don’t opt in or out, it just happens. I’d have to look at the minimum but mine is 12% I believe and forms part of my overall salary package. It used to be that the employer picked the fund and so people had lots of super funds but now you pick the fund and it goes with you from job to job. You can also switch providers if you want but your employer must always pay super. Essentially, I’m Australia, if you’re a permanent employee, you have some kind of retirement savings. Like I said, it’s certainly not perfect, particularly around the gender pay gap and things like that, as women tend to retire with less super than men, but it’s better that it’s something every business has to do for all permanent employees. I know there are government jobs in Queensland which offer super contribution as high at 18%, probably to entice people to it. We also have schemes where you can make voluntary payments into your super for the expressed purpose of saving a house deposit (or did, not sure since the government change). I believe your super becomes available at 67, but there are ways to get it before then.
Hello, also Australian. ANY paid worker gets superannuation paid by their employer at a minimum rate of now 10% of their income. So does not matter if only a casual worker. For e.g if I worked a casual job as a waiter and made $500 that fortnight, my employer would legally have to put $50 into my retirement fund. This is for any person of any age working any job. We can also choose to put extra money into our own funds but most people rely on the mandated contributions :) Some jobs offer higher rates of contributions but the legal minimum is 10 per cent.
@@crle1944 thank you! I haven’t had to actively think about super for years, besides my own fund so the finer points are lost to the annals of my history!
I totally agree...never expect a loan back... even from your s.o. Because the reality of it is you're likely not going to be repaid. It's sad but true.
To counter the "all landlords are evil" argument: yes 1) many landlords hoard housing (esp. corps) 2) many landlords overcharge and under-deliver. But, there is utility for non-owned housing. The transaction cost of establishing a title (mortgage fees, realtor fees, insurance) are impactful and generally unless the resident is staying for at least 5 years, renting is cheaper. Liability for any damage is also held by the landlord which some may prefer. It was said on a previous TFD "rent is a ceiling on housing costs, and a mortgage is a floor." There's a lot of room to regulate landlords better (esp. in the US), but I don't see reducing rental units to near-0 as productive for those without emergency-savings and those who move often. The US also needs to move toward smarter city design where single-family units aren't the only development option, allowing more in-fill housing and therefore more units. (Plus we'll need fewer cars)
I feel like a system where...say 60% of homes are not allowed to be rented out and then 40% of homes are allowed to be rented out would do a lot of good because the prices of those 60% would be less likely to be artificially inflated due to the need to make a profit via renting, and meanwhile, renting is still available for people who are not ready to buy a home. But also, big corporate landlords would legally not be able to control a majority of the market. And as long as the percentage of properties that are rentable stays at like 40 or 30 percent, then the artifically inflated rates due to making a profit via renting would never encompass the majority of the market.
Thank you for your comments on children and people only having them if they can "pay" for them. Children are the group in America who are MOST likely to live in poverty. Let that sink in if you're reading this and childless, or resent kids. 50% of children in American schools today are low income. As Anya Kamenetz, an NPR writer recently put it, "we are a rich country full of poor children." It's horrible, and part of the reason for this is attitudes from a viewer like you described. Something like 50% of pregnancies are unplanned - it's clearly not the child's fault, nor should they be punished. The other point you made that people miss is that today's children are tomorrow's society and workforce - kids aren't pets or accessories, they will grow up and be the doctors, home health aides, snow plow drivers, or other essential workers of the future who will take care of all the adults who exist currently, and they'll be the ones paying into Medicare and Social Security when we're old. There's a reason other countries not only support parents and incentivize having children - it's extremely important for the future health of their society, so they don't engage in the same shortsighted, individualistic thinking that even American liberals will espouse.
they understand. they just don’t care. You can tell they understand because all their campaign promises talk about it. You can tell they don’t care because despite decades of talking about it, nothing has happened.
About the planning for kids matter, I agree that it sounds very nasty if you put it as "people with low income don't deserve to have children", but that's not the impression I got from the comment tbh. I most definitely agree that we need to think about children as a community and make sure that even the people in the lowest levels of poverty get to have their children healthy and safe. But it may be the cynical in me that thinks that's a bit too whistful thinking in our society as it is right now. We should strive towars it, absolutely! But to think as eugenics a thought that basically boils down to be responsible in your family planning it's too much of a stretch imo. It's just common sense, budget for a child if you are planning on having one, and don't have six+ kids if you know you won't have the means to provide for them.
My mom bought a house that was an airbnb. The owner thought it would be easy income and it wasn't, especially when she lived half way across the country.
There is a guy in our area who owns 259 properties that he turned into AirBnBs. That's not ok. Everyone in this country is trying to move to North Texas and there are no homes available.
If it is never ok to build wealth on rent, how do you keep supply of properties to rent without financial incentives? Where should people live until they can buy? Are you supposed to be able to buy a property each time before you move to a city for a new job? Are you supposed to stay in the town you are from until you can save enough to buy a place in a city you would like like to try moving to? If you can’t live with family for years to accomplish that, where are you supposed to live if rental market should not exist?
Chelsea you have such a level headed, balanced view on all these thorny, nuanced issues. I agree with you on pretty much everything....it's just frustrating to think that you're what, 30....and I didn't have even close to this level of wisdom and insight until I was in my 50's!
I did not know the property purchase tax is the same for multiple properties in the US. This is insane! I live in Israel and I'm not that well versed in the terms and taxes of purchasing a property as I'm not there yet financially, but I did work in a real estate office these past two summers and what I've learned is that there is a huge leap between the tax paid on the first property purchase and the next one (and I believe it has also been increased further lately). There is also a discount on the tax for the purchase of your absolute first property and the "second property" tax doesn't apply in the case of you moving houses (buying another property and selling the one you have within a certain period of time). There are also property tax steps, so if you are buying a property below a certain price you are totally free from the property tax, versus paying a higher percentage tax the higher the property price gets. And while there are a lot of things I don't agree on with our government.... this one aspect seems to be a very good thing.
What's hard about the last one is that a lot of your loved ones decisions do affect you that you might not initially think... like if you know someone in an abusive relationship, you can't just ignore that part of their life because of the side effects of them being in that relationship and it's hard cuz you want to help or at least make sure they have a lifeline... or if they make really bad financial decisions (like they make money but then blow it), it's hard to be like, I'll just pay for stuff or we'll always do free stuff, or I guess we'll just never see you at home for holidays? I don't know, it's hard when it feels like a choice they made.
5:16 I had never thought of it from that perspective, I was only ever considering how I had felt growing up with no food, and how irresponsible my parents were for choosing to have multiple children anyway. But I now completely agree its a wayyyy better option to just actually make having children easier for everyone, by giving them the financial support they need. Its irritating how america focuses so much on how its everyone for themselves, that people like me completely forget getting help from others is actually an option.
It's really cool and refreshing to see someone hear a new perspective on an issue, evaluate it logically, and change their take on the matter as a result. I come from a similar background, parents had more children than they could afford (which would have been ANY), and it was a hard way to start out in life. I resented it, and them, and vowed to do life differently. At a childless/childfree (depending on what day it is) 41 years of age, my take has shifted as well. I wouldn't be alive if my parents had only had children they could afford. Certainly neither would my siblings, whom I love dearly. This bootstrapping mentality is no good, particularly in the matter of having/raising children. The birth (replacement) rate is a matter of vital importance to all of us as a society, and our terribly unequal wealth distribution means that there would be very few children indeed if only people who could truly afford them were able to procreate. If anything, I'd think the wealthy would be concerned with having a large enough population to buy the products and services that make the money to keep them in yachts and Birkin bags.
Thank you for saying “do you, live your life” I think people get so caught up in the “right” way of doing things that they lose the forest through the trees
I do vanlife and it was a great financial choice! I converted a box truck into a studio apartment for less than $40k all in and now live in LA rent-free, which will have paid itself off in 1-2 years for a similarly sized apartment to myself. Doesn't have to be a $100k sprinter van like most of the insta ppl buy! I have about 100sq ft and heating/AC, super comfy and I pay less than $300/month for fuel, insurance, and upkeep!
I didn't hear "poor people shouldn't reproduce" in that comment at all, and it bothered me that you assumed that saying "be stable and plan your kids for the best outcome" equates to eugenics. Come on, really? I've been center-left for longer than you've been alive, and I really resent being told that advising people to plan their families wisely equates to being Ben freaking Shapiro. Yes, society should help and I truly wish it did. But in the meantime, what? Just do what you want? Using your reproductive system irresponsibly and saying you shouldn't have to care about it in a just and perfect world is like driving without a seat belt because the other people on the road should be better drivers. Well, they aren't always. So you take steps to take care of yourself. You make cars and roads safer AND you drive defensively. "Plan your kids financially" and "we need and should create much better parental support in this country" are not opposing opinions, believe it or not. You can advocate both.
Hey Chelsea! You should research platonic life partners and aromanticism if you want to know more about the wealth inequalities single people of different identities can face. Also, perhaps to gain more perspective on why someone would marry someone else they aren’t in love with. Tara Mooney has a great video on aromanticism that’s a good introduction to the topic. I also really appreciate that the language on tfd has been more gender inclusive/trans friendly lately and I hope it’ll keep moving towards that :)
@@Atmviola Yeah, Im aromantic as well, and while Im not interested in partnership It’s easy to understand once you give any thought to it why aromantic people, or even allo people who just have different values/preferences/life circumstances, would platonically partner with someone. I think if Chelsea researched it, based off of her other values such as being child free and an understanding of gender inequality in relationships, and even the basic understanding of how single people are financially at a disadvantage that she mentioned in todays video. Her point about how families often live intergenerationally in other places and how that can make raising children or doing chores easier is a great base for understanding platonic partnership as a means to accomplishing goals such as parenthood, she often talks about not being able to have it all as a woman and that’s similar in many ways to how you simply can’t have it all as a single person. I think a lot of her thought processes would lend themselves to being a great ally, I just think it’s something most allo people haven’t thought about because they really just probably haven’t heard of it and society can be so single minded towards romantic partnership as the only option to base your life around, especially I think now that people consider more if and when they want to have kids, your romantic relationship becomes even more center stage if you aren’t taking on being a parent or if part of your relationship with that person isn’t coparenting, simply because your time commitment to that person is then so much greater (usually) and it’s hard to imagine someone else wanting or having a life that is so structurally different or based on different values as it pertains to relationships when that’s such a large part of your life, all your friends lives, coworkers, parents, exc.
@@Atmviola totally agree though 😅 i just feel like if i don’t aggressively assume the best of people and believe in their ability to grow and learn then i can never expect anything to get materially better. it’s nicer to think most people are good and just don’t know, and lots of the time that’s the case. So I just focus on my excitement about educating and gaining prospective ally’s :)
Huh, what? Property tax for schools stays in that community? Here in 🇨🇦 education is provincially funded and administered. Municipalities collect the school portion of property tax on behalf of the province, who then return it to school boards, partially on a per student formula, also on needs assessment of the different communities. There are still inequities of course, but seems like a better system.
Yes. I became a teacher with Teach for America in 2008 due to this inequity. Taught in North Las Vegas with 30-40 kids in a class in a trailer (ahem, portable) in the back of a school, with kids who wouldn't have Internet, heat or food, and would then drive 30 minutes west to a gated community by an immaculate high school funded by said gated communities...taught at the NLV school and in that district for six years until my heart couldn't take it anymore.
Chelsea’s “it’s none of my business and I’m not taking that on because I want to “get along” with family” is a major reason why my white liberal friends with conservative families don’t do anything to inspire change or discussion
Sometimes the effort just isn’t worth it when you already know and have confirmation they aren’t open to discussion, much less change. If the choice is between not having the discussion and maintaining a relationship and having the discussion knowing it will ruin the relationship, I get why people stay silent. Personally, that’s not my way of going about it but confrontation even without conflict isn’t something people are particularly good at or comfortable with doing.
For the Children question. Not once did you talk if it is fair for the child. Is it fair to be born as a trophy to two people who only wanted to selfishly bring you into this world, when they are fully incapable of giving you even the basic necessities.
Housing is not only zero-sum game, but it is negative sum game, because it reduces social mobility. It also enourages zoning laws and other types of NIMBYsm. Taxing away 100% undeveloped land value is the way to get rid of rent seeking in housing altogether. No flipping, no agents bs, no empty houses would be possible. Nobody would buy negative cash flow land and house except it is really productive thing to do. Nobody should have passive vehicle of wealth redustribution from society.
I agree with a lot of your reactions, Chelsea, but you should be aware that platonic life partners are a great option for a lot of people. Not everyone centers around a nuclear family - some of us do polyamory, and don't place a lot of importance on legal agreements like marriage affecting romantic endeavors. There are also a lot of asexual aromantic people who can benefit from partnership! Sex is often the thing that complicates relationships. Adult negotiation of a legal partnership may be easier without romantic entanglement, actually.
I live in Germany. I have paid maternity leave, public healthcare, severely subsidised childcare, child money every month, free schools and universities, and generally a huge social support network. It makes having kids SO much easier. That said, you obviously need to plan financially for them, as of course not all expenses are covered. Which is normal. But I would say that even the least privileged have a chance to have a family here, and that is how it should be.
hi. I live in Germany, too and while I agree that these systems makes it easier and more accessible than in the US, it's not true to say "even the least priviledged have a chance to have a family". The rates for Hartz4 for example are way too low, they have been proven NOT to be enough for a life in dignity. We have children starving and adults who starve so there is more left over for their children. There are sick, disabled and underpayed people who - having that reality in mind - do not dare have children even though they might want to. We have not really fixed this yet and the injustice is still there.
@@traumgewitter7324 That is sad. Thinking that there are kids going hungry is very sad. I would have hoped that at least with social housing, unemployment benefit and kindergeld at least everybody gets a full belly. I haven’t witnessed this kind of poverty but I only know some area not the whole country. I hope this gets address and the government ensures that nobody goes hungry at the very minimum.
@@JDxZ7 sorry, that's just BS. It's such a myth that people "choose" to live like that. Poverty is not a lifestyle choice and it's not a work ethic problem. Most of the poor are working poor, meaning they simply and systematically are underpaid. Others are not able to work because of things like disabilities which are not their fault. Stop blaming people for not having money.
but you have to pay Barfoeg back if you study....if not you are in debt
IF you apply for bafög, which you don't have to.
And bafög is for living, not paying university fees.
You can choose to work part time and not take on bafög.
And even if you do, you only have to pay back half.
And of that half only 5 years after ending university.
And if you pay back the amount in full, they subtract another around 20 %of the total.
So, paying that back is not like a loan at all.
"Letting everyone fend for themselves, hurts everyone"
Agreed
it's called neoliberalism, it is a race to the bottom
Conservatives:"You should only have children if you can afford children".
Millenials: "Okay, we won't have any children then".
Conservatives: "No you must have children. Otherwise America will die out."
Millenials: ....
Exactly. So well said.
Lol. This is why you got immigrants- they work almost for free and have many children.
Conservatives:......but but then we need invest in these kids, because parents are broke. We don't want that either.
Solution- all millennials should become doctors and have plenty of kids, preferably white and not fat.
The only person who ever told me not to have kids was a liberal. (Well, I got to have two kids only, "replacement rate" for the environment.)
My experience:
Conservatives: have children! I mean we won't support that at all in reality. So good luck loser. Unlivable wages, unsustainable housing costs and declining public education aren't our fault. The government isn't here to take care of you! Also shine my shoes for min wage.
Liberals: it's morally wrong to have kids! The problem is you and not this unsupportive society which is shooting itself in the foot long term. The government is here to make my life easier while I preach at others about how they're causing climate change. I support social programs, but not that your kids are alive.
Millennial breeder (me): Here I am, confidently dancing through the meadow, raising 6 awesome humans while living under or slightly above poverty and doing pretty damn well due to some mad financial skills, not giving a single fuck what you guys say! Suck it! I do what I want! All the while knowing my kids are the best chance for any future social support in others' old age, the best hope for changing food waste and sharing resources internationally, the best hope for trading comfort and convenience for the health of our planet. And living a life full of love and joy every day, through every struggle.
I'm not conservative, but I've never heard a conservative try to gatekeep who should have children based on income (unless its an absurd number of children i suppose). The only people I've heard actually discouraging having children based on money are liberals.
I really like the point you keep making about how we spend too much time obsessing over punishing people for using a broken system, instead of trying to fix the broken system or pushing for change. Shaming can only get people so far if the basic structures allow such massive levels of unfairness to happen in the first place.
Right on. And one thing about the condemnation and moralizing about the systemic problems is that you create divisions and hostility that do not help build consensus to FIX the problem. Unprepared parents need preparation and support; landlords need alternatives to landlording that keep people housed. We don't get them, their friends, and their potential future group members on board with fixes when we treat the problems they're involved in as unforgivable moral failures.
We need to plan for children as a society, not individually. People need support in raising kids (financially, socially, educationally) basically better supports.
Conservative: "in my day, families looked out for each other" Hillary Clinton: "It takes a village to raise a child." Conservative: "No, not like that!"
@@cathyl3526 what that reveals about conservatives is they essentially want to pick and choose who gets support. They'd be fine with social programs if they were allowed to discriminate with them. It's why they fetishize Hungary so much. So long as they get to put their money ONLY towards white straight Christians, they're fine with socialism.
Individuals need to plan for children as well. I'm very tired of seeing families barely making ends meet and having multiple children who are all struggling and suffering. I don't mind paying property taxes to fund schools, but after a certain point it does feel like subsidizing other people's poor choices. Calling this viewpoint eugenics like Chelsea did is insane to me. Eugenics is a government-run programs involving sterilization and deciding who can and can't their children. Telling individuals "hey maybe you don't have kids if you can't support them in their basic needs" is not that.
@@saltycrunch no it is actually, especially when aspects like race and disability come into play. Deciding who can and cannot have children is eugenics full stop. Yes people need to be prepared to have kids, no there is not a financial requirement.
Definitely agree and also for the aging population! My parents are starting to need more intensive care and services and they don't come cheap!
As for the AirBnB thing, I’m really a fan of the new short term rental law implemented in Atlanta. All short term rentals must be licensed individually and must be renewed annually. One household may not have more than two short term rentals and one of the two must be the household’s primary residence.
Same/ extreme dislike. 4th generation Floridian, I am getting priced out by Air BnB’s because of people who live in CA, NY or any other HCL area family ”wintered here once in the 70’s- loved it and bought a home” and when they die the price increase is the rent 3x. Im 2011 you could get a decent home for 600.00 per month, now it’s 2,100 for an apartment. 😡
That's a great way to handle it. People can lease out a second home, or part of their primary home, but not become a slum lord holding 10+ flipped houses. I've tried to stay in Air BNBs that were done under the spirit of the original idea, and have stayed some amazing places with great hosts as a result. I hate that I've stayed in apartments that should have been leased out to locals a few times, and going forward I am going to try to do my homework better to ensure it's part of an owner occupied property.
All of Texas needs to adopt this fast. Go ATL!
I hadn't heard of this, that's a great idea!
That's a pretty good approach. In Australia they're looking to increase council rates by 50% for anyone who leaves their house empty for extended periods of time, which include holiday homes, airbnbs and also people who choose to invest only for capital gains
I am Italian, and in my country we have different level of taxes on your ""first house" and your "holiday home" or any other property. The first house is taxed way less than your second, third...and so on. And yes we have taxes on home ownership, since houses are using services provided by the state (gas pipes, electric network, water pipe, roads...).
We have the same here in Canada. Unless something has changed there are no capital gains taxes on your primary residence, but there are on all others.
Similar in Minnesota, USA. For your primary residence, there is a "homestead" tax refund (subject to an income cap) but not for additional/other properties. I belive a number of other states in the US have something like this.
The last bit you said about having kids: "just because you have kids for kids doesn't mean you should have one" is so true. My partner is a teacher in a super fancy private school and those kids are messed up. Emotionally neglected and spoiled rotten. Many won't make good citizens and those who do, will need therapy. There is more to parenting than being able to afford it.
I went to one of those types of schools growing up. Man was that a mind f--. Still in therapy to this day because of it.
Regarding rental properties, we do need them to some extent. I've never lived in one place for more than 4 years in my entire life, I frequently moved due to work in 1-2 year segments. Having to buy a house each time I moved would have been very time consuming and expensive. We do need a better system than we have now, as with most things there needs to be a good balance rather than one extreme or the other and right now the lack of affordable housing is a serious issue.
I've always rented as well. I think what I've come to realize though, is that no one rents a place out to house ppl, it's only for money. This has really come through to me after years of dealing with management companies or listening to people talk about investing in rentals and housing. Only in my current place does it feel a little better, but it's much more expensive.
I realize I’m an outlier rather than a rule but I bought my home while in graduate school and rented out to roommates to pay for my education. In later years, I moved in with my significant other and we have been renting out my property. I have gone back and forth about the ethical question regarding renting vs. selling it however when I see how many corporations are buying property in the area I don’t feel as bad. I’m a good landlord-update things/maintenance, check in frequently, etc. After having rented in my community for years prior to buying, I know I’d rather rent from one individual I can communicate with rather than a giant poorly run management company.
I don’t have an issue with individuals owning a second home they rent out but am also happy to pay taxes on the property (as long as it is used to fund something-like maybe affordable housing vouchers for those who can’t afford increasing rent…).
@@achromatic03 I don’t know. When I put my first place on the market, reasonably priced, it made me realize how few, nice and affordable rental options exist in my city. It made me wish I had more rentals because there are so few options.
@@achromatic03 but yes, the numbers still have to make sense.
@@Nikyv786 oh, totally agree we need rentals and it's really a scary thing when there aren't enough. I just wish it was thought of more personally instead of transactionally. Like I've mostly found it's actually a nicer experience when your landlord is a person instead of a management company because it's less transactional.
The thing about fast fashion is that it damages the perception about the value of clothing. If we were being ethical, from sourcing to manufacturing and shipping, there is no way a dress would cost $30. The least we can do when purchasing these clothes is honoring them by taking care of them and making them last.
I live in a really quiet neighborhood with a lot of retired people, our neigbor died and a couple who owns 20 other air bnb properties in our town bought it and it has cause me so many problems, people have tried getting into our house in the middle of the night thinking it was their Airbnb, people have blocked our cars in and our garage, put their trash in our trash cans when the airbnbs trash can is full, had people let themselves in our yard when their dog hopped our fence, and the owners are completely not responsive, never told us it was an Airbnb until we found it on the website
Geeting accidently pregnant:
We must talk more openly about abortions.
Many women who get pregnant without wanting it just keep the child out of moral pressure. Because we have been told for decades and decades that abortion is wrong.
We had sexual education since 5th grade and talked about abortion in 7th grade. Our teacher was pro choice and broke down all the ethic pros and contras. And we learned how it is performed.
It can't be that there are UA-cam videos that show a 6 months old baby that is torn apart by scissors and tweezers. That's not how it's done.
Why are so many people against proper sexual education in schools?
But looking at comment sections on UA-cam, most people look like they never had any kind of sexual education. What is a vasectomy, what is a tubal lugation, how does the pill and an IUD work...
And what's also important: contraceptives have to be affordable for everyone. Can't be an IUD costs 300€ in my country.
And tubal ligation too is too expensive. And docors have to be forced by law to perform it. Without stupid lines like " you might change your mind".
Women are sometimes treated like little children when it comes to their reproductive organs.
And the stuid calendar sentences like "it only takes love to give a child a good life" have to be deconstructed as naive lies.
Although everything you say here is right, some people still get accidentally pregnant even with proper sex ed and access to contraception and some people still don't want to get an abortion. All of the things you talk about are necessary, but it still boils down to making the world (or country) more friendly to people wanting to start families or that started a family without planning for it. Paid maternity and paternity leave are necessary, free quality education and healthcare, access to proper nutrition, it's all part of the solution.
I think the financially planning for a child thing is a nuanced conversation. As it currently stands, we (USA) do not have a good social safety net but what we do have is a society that tells everyone rich or poor, that having children is just something you do to make their lives better and have meaning. Most people who have children aren't having them for the right reasons whether they are rich poor or in the middle.
Furthermore, many parents think that their children are their retirement plan and don't save for their own retirement because they think Susie and Johnny will take care of them.
And then there are parents who take the financial abuse even further by taking out credit cards or loans in a child's name and then don't pay the loans, thus messing up their child's credit. But again, this is because of the mentality as children as assets (Moira Rose from Schitt's creek may be a satirical character but she's not far off from the norm)
So I think we need to reframe as a culture what it means to raise children and the answer shouldn't have to do with what that child can add to your life because there is no guarantee that they will do that and they shouldn't be expected to fulfill any expectations you put on them.
I zoned out for a moment before around 19:30 when Chelsea was describing 're-entering the workforce at 40 with a 20 year gap on your resume and no marketable skills' and I guessed she was talking about someone coming out of prison. She was talking about working after being a stay-at-home mum!
So just getting into the video: As someone who is a landlord, and tries to be an ethical one. I honestly would love some takes on what my alternative is. I own (with my parents) 5 single family homes in a neighborhood next to a college. I can definitely sell the houses and invest in S&P trackers, given the market now, that wouldn't even be a bad investment strategy for me. But the people who buy these houses will be property management firms. No one else is even looking in this neighborhood, and other mom and pop shops have been priced out at this point. So my personal perspective is that it's better than I run the place, and try to be a human for my tenants: (eg let them have dogs, work with them on getting the place cleaned up when they leave, let them fuzz a late payment here or there, and really try to keep up with repairs/improvements) instead of any of the local property management firms which just try to shove as many frat boys into these houses as possible and let the place fall apart. So I'm really curious what the viable alternative is. These houses are my and my parents' retirement fund, so "Sell the houses and donate the money to a food bank" isn't going to cut it for us.
I should note, I do try to vote for more stringent rental laws (safety standards, utility efficiency standards...), not just because it's the human thing to do, but because it actually helps us compete with the property management firms if they have to maintain the higher standards we try to stick to too. So I'm not asking for "stop voting for anarcho-capitalism", cause I definitely don't. Stringent regulation FTW!
This is indeed it for me. I think landlords are parasites (no shade, I mean in a marxist term) but that is the trajectory that I am on, likely will be renting out one house by the end of next year. And the alternative is to have a predatory landlord renting the place, not even fixing it up properly before they rent it for more than I will. Within this current system, having landlords that keep rent manageable, don't look for increases every year, care for the place and therefore maintain it are all things most renters (which I am still) do not get to experience. There is a place for renting (there should be less of it in my country but still) and it should be done ethically/in a renter-friendly way.
The reality that people are fighting for is one where being a landlord (or a property management firm) is not financially viable and is discouraged by the systems and laws in place.
If you imagine every person renting a property is paying for the mortgage and all the bills, and even if you charge them the bare minimum, so little that you only break even, that person could still be paying that into a place that they personally own. The existence of landlording is something that society for a long time has just accepted but in reality it has very little functional purpose. People who defend landlording will typically say something like "well you HAVE to rent until you can afford a down payment!", But the people renting can't afford a down payment because of their rent, which could all be going directly into a property they owned if the system was designed in that way.
@@contentity lol rental has a huge functional purpose. People rent when they are in temporary situations, such as moving to a new city, moving for college,as their relationship situation. If every time we had to move it required selling and buying a new property, it would be a nightmare. We do need the flexibility of renting during certain periods of our lives.
@@rallyrally very little ≠ zero
Most people are not constantly in a state of temporary housing, or at least are trying not to be
You should sell these properties to a developer who can build a 25-40 unit apartment building. We need more housing units.
The Airbnb and children questions show the really unfortunate way that people think about politics, they place the burden on the individual instead of looking at how public policy and society puts people in those positions to begin with. If housing were plentiful and affordable, would anyone care if some were being turned into Airbnb's? If everyone had access to affordable healthcare, childcare, maternity/paternity leave, would having children still be financially untenable for most people? Instead of placing the burden and shame on individuals to overcome societal challenges, we should be fighting to change public policy instead.
Airbnb's make residential areas business area and makes it so you no longer have neighbors but a bunch of transients if you are in a location that is very attractive. Our whole state is basically a tourist magnet so investors are buying up homes in residential areas pushing natives and locals. median prices every month for this is now over 1.2 million from 600,000 2 years ago. Majority of people own these illegal airbnb's don't live in our state. if they are illegal than they are avoiding local taxes which the hotels do pay. also most out hotel workers are union so they have good pay and some benefits and all of them fall under federal and state labor laws/protections. the airbnb's tend to attract bargin tourists who don't contribute much to local economy but use a lot of local resources and when they do spend money it tends to go to owners/investors in other states.
@@TomMoore-ny5qn I'm curious if you live in the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, New England, or perhaps not in the Estados Unidos?
What kind of spending do bargain tourists do and what tabs aren't they covering?
@@TomMoore-ny5qn I cannot understand : 1) how are these airbnbs illegal? 2) how aren't tourists contributing to the local economy? Don't they eat and visit local activities and attractions? 3) why does no one talk about gentrification, that's way more damaging to local communities that some sporadic airbnb?
@@MRCKify Hawaii where land is a premium and main reason people want to visit is the environment and native culture. It is a very culturally sensitive place where the natives had their land stolen at gunpoint and at pushed in to lowest socio-economic group. On our island, we are already double the capacity of tourists of what our planning commission planned as our ability to support via environment and infastructure. It was not great before but okay because the resort areas are separated from the residential areas. So people didn't have to be ON all the time. They could go home to neighborhoods, that is one of the reasons people don't like the illegal one in residentials areas because constant strangers. Alot of local kids here still walk home from school and roam around neighborhood pretty freely.
Because tourism here also relies heavily on what many locals and natives feel is the commodification of their culture. Outsiders took their natural culture of hospitality and commercialized it to point where it loses meaning. (nothing will piss off a local or native hawaiian more than a tourist stating where is the Aloha?) But they are doing it to a cultural that is fighting hard to remain alive.
As majority of the airbnnb's in our are bought by outsiders or recent arrivals who again sell hawaii like it is any other place - it reducing the inventory of houses for actual local or pricing them out of range. So there is a lot resentment. Also the shut-down showcase to locals how much damage that industry does to environment - like people think waters in hawaii a pretty clear but it was nothing compared to mid-2020 when we barely had any flights coming to state. Never seen clearer air and water in over 30 years.
Bargin tourists will never pay our current average hotel room rates of daily visitor spending amount. Hotels tourists tend to visitor who love to spend freely while airbnb ones are always to get free or low priced stuff.
@@ThelPic No because they are one gentrify local neighborhoods and pushing out locals and natives. Almost 14,000 individual units on an island with 150,000 people is actual not a small amount. People complain about homelessness but many units sit vacant for long period of time as owned by people not in state.
I finally feel validated that I do not put my budget on paper lol. What works for myself and my spouse is to simply spend less than we make and save the rest. I've experimented with budgeting tools and they all end up frustrating me. We have been able to pay off student loans, save for a house and replenish an emergency fund this way so I think after all this time, what we are doing works for us! I'll stop stressing about spreadsheets and whatnot.
Don't feel bad! My budget sheet was more of a wishlist because I never knew how many hours I would be able to work. That's with both jobs.
Same! Hate budgeting but we are quite frugal and never have problems (although we were low income for a long time).
5:04- 7:02 was a whole sermon. Well said Chelsea! I would only add that its also important to think critically about the violence, genocide, resource theft, and environmental damage it takes for the US to even be one of the "wealthiest country in the world" and the impact that "privilege" has on people and the rest of the world.
Chelsea's point of "not everyone would be a good parent" is crucial, too. I opted out of the gene pool because I know I'm not selfless enough to give up my life for another (and I've got a bunch of familial health problems that make me a less than ideal gene donor.) Thankfully the other half was on board with this, and we're happy to have nieces and a nephew that we can assist instead.
Some opinions are unpopular for good reason
It was good, but how do we ween ourselves off needing people to support society (people)? Seems like a pyramid scheme at a certain point.
@@big_fishhh Wow that's a very insightful response. Thanks!
I’m pregnant with a surprise baby right now; I was already on birth control and my husband was already scheduled for a vasectomy. People thinking we shouldn’t have children because we are fairly low income is… unsettling to say the least. I’m a nurse and my husband is a nurse aide so we make above minimum wage but enough where all federal safety nets are gone and my job has unaffordable healthcare options… We try out best but I can’t afford preschool and I am drowning in medical debt so I can’t get a house… That’s in part because The US doesn’t take care of it’s working class. It feels so dystopian after having to work so hard during the pandemic for my patients and dealing with a worsening nurse shortage. Those politicians who called us “heroes” should be ashamed.
1) I somewhat agree with the child thing. I think that IN THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN NOW you should try to have the money for a kid before you actually try for a kid. I'm not saying accidents can't happen, but the 20 something that loves kids, works minimum wage, has no credit, and just met their partner 2 months ago should not be actively trying for a kid because it is setting the child up for failure. The child might turn out fine, but statistically it probably won't. I also think that people need to factor intangible things into their decision to have a kid. Things like if they are emotionally, physically, and mentally ready especially if the kid decides they are against something you believe in down the line.
It would be great if we had enough safety nets for people to have a child if they want, but currently it's not possible. Especially with the sigma around single mothers.
2) I technically loaned about $3,000 over the course of a year to my little sister because I had the money saved, my husband agreed we could use it for her, and she was in a rough financial spot. I keep a running tab of how much she owes, and she will make little payments here and there or will exchange goods and services (like a rice cooker she found and was going to sell for $5 or mowing the lawn) to reduce the debt. It hasn't effected our relationship because I knew going into it that I probably wouldn't get most of it back and she can always say she's short on money and would prefer cash instead of debt reduction. She's slowly getting better with money. She just needed a little kick in the butt to realize that.
I'll disagree with the disagree here. I don't think the hot take was "poor people shouldn't have children". More like EVERYONE should have a plan for a child. And the more support society can offer the easier that gets. I think far too often having a child is treated as the default option when that should really be a hard opt-in, not opt-out choice. I watched a co-worker, in a middle class, office style job learn only after she came back from maternity leave that day care was going to cost more than she made. That is a PAINFUL struggle to watch someone realize.
But still, what happens if you try to plan for a child but still can't afford it? Should you then refrain from having kids? In your example, what would've happened if she knew from the start that daycare would be so expensive? Would she then have had to refrain from having children? It's still the same idea but phrased differently.
The solution to the problem is not people who don't make enough money shouldn't have children (or as you put it, figure out if you make enough money before having children), but how do we equip society to help parents raise children.
@@mybittersweetme you're actually making the same point I was aiming at! Yes, there absolutely needs to be more resources for parents, especially low income ones. But how does one even know what resources are available to them or what they want to utilize if there isn't a plan to begin with?
Taking the avoidance strategy because you might be screwed either way doesn't make it go away. Same as not looking at a bank account because you're afraid of what it will say. I think people do need to face ahead of time what the reality of adding a child is going to look like (emotionaly, financially, and beyond) . And do it BEFORE the baby arrives. I think there is way, WAY too much "we'll just figure it out" for a decision that is going to create and nurture a whole human being.
There are plenty of people who might go to plan, realize it is beyond their means, and for their own personal reasons chose to have a child anyways. Even then best to go in with eyes wide open.
@@mybittersweetme "Would she then have had to refrain from having children?" children aren't an entitlment that every person deserves so yeah, she should
@@aelurine I sort of agree because I see where you're coming from, but I also disagree because i think it's too radical of a POV to have. What I'm saying is that it's basically a very complex and nuanced topic to just be no, children aren't entitlements or yes everyone under every circumstance has the right to have a child because ultimately it involves deciding over other people's lives (whether they are the potential parent's or the unborn kid's lives).
This is really tricky because the desire to have a kid is in most cases something different than an economic choice, whether to invest in some expensive appliances or buy a house. Having children (although not too many per couple) is also considered important socially in the country and there should be well-designed system of affordable support around it. Having a child is not a whim, it is a deeply ingrained, personal, but also culturally established norm you would say, it is really hard to boil it down to whether one can afford it. It is not fair to make it about money. But unfortunately one do need to plan for a child financially. It is just tough for people to have to say “I won't have a kid because I don't have X on my account”.
As someone who grew up in a lower income home I understand the push to want people to be financially prepared before having children, but that brings up a whole list of how much is enough. Also, I have thought that it’s borderline child abuse to have more children than you can physically and emotionally handle - like don’t put that mess off on innocent children.
Yup. As someone who came from the same circumstances outside of the first world, I absolutely hate it how every damn time this is brought up, it gets waved off as eugenics. I think, someone really has to suffer it on their own skin to understand at this point and not immediately get their panties in a twist over the perceived unfairness.
"You have to visualize your older self as a person worth taking care of." - I love, love, love this
Re, credit card points or the such: It's often a small business who is paying for it. I was a small business owner (didn't survive the p*ndemic). We were able to tell our eftpos machine provider that we didn't want to take Amex or Diners, but we couldn't refuse any kind of Visa or Mastercard if we wanted to use the service. On some V/M, we were charged three times the amount that we were on a regular version of the card. These were the 'platinum' etc versions of the card. I now make a definite choice to not use a credit card when I'm shopping with a small business if I can.
Note: I'm in Australia. I'm not certain if this pertains to the same kinds of transactions in other places.
So the hot take at 4:20 is tricky because I don’t think it’s fair to say only certain people get to have children (based on capitalism) BUT, extreme poverty is super f-ed up and literal violence. Children should not be born houseless, without adequate food, clothes, etc.. It just isn’t a fair living condition for any human, much-less a brand new human. As one of the richest countries in the world, we SHOULD have basic resources available for everyone but unfortunately we don’t. So I’m stuck between ‘what should be’ vs ‘what is’ & personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable bringing a baby into a scenario where basic needs aren’t met. I do hope many others are considering the quality of life they’re creating for their children
It's not about who deserves to have children, they are not a commodity fs its about children DESERVING a life not in poverty. Childrent are expensive, and they are the ones who suffer living in poverty.
Exactly, I don't care for how that part was overlooked in this. However, in a capitalist society there will always be a relatively poorer group of people. I think it comes down to why would you want to deliberately have a child who is going to suffer in poverty especially since social mobility is limited.
I get what you're saying but it's fucked up the other way around too, it's like saying only rich people can be good parents. People should not have to be top 1% in order to not be judged for having a family, the problem is that it's ridiculously expensive to even survive. It shouldn't be like that.
@@morphinpink It's really not like saying that only rich people can be good parents. It's acknowledging that even providing the bare minimum for a child costs money - deliberately bringing a child into a situation where they will suffer is questionable.
I agree that family life shouldn't be that expensive but it is. Deliberately, having kids when you don't have stable accommodation, income or food supply and waiting for the government to fix inequity is only going to guarantee suffering for the child.
Here's a hot take: a person who's stayed at home to raise children and is trying to enter the workforce at 40 with a 20-year gap on their resume with "no marketable skills" is an ideal candidate for most management roles.
I'm not joking at all, either. The skills the stay-at-home parent has picked up in those 20 years are exactly the things the most effective managers do.
I don't know if I agree with that. I know a few stay at home moms and I wouldn't trust them at all to supervise anybody. Half of them can't even control their own kids. I don't think being a parent makes you any better at mgmt than anybody else. I'm a parent but I have 0 patients with adults so a good Mgr I would not be.
Hard disagree. Kind of reminds me of overbearing antivaxx moms saying they're a nurse, lifeguard, etc all in one because they have to look after their toddlers 24/7, questioning every professional's knowledge when it comes to their kids.
The card bonus thing (just like every “free” or “low rate” deal that credit card companies offer) is predicated on humans being bad at managing debt. Yes, if you pay your card off in full every month, then you DO get those points for “free.” But most people, even those with good credit, don’t do that. Or, if they are, then it’s probably because they learned the “hard way.”
It’s like those “0% balance transfer if paid within 12 months” offers. At first glance they are a great way to pay down credit card debt over time, but you need to keep track of it. If you don’t pay it off at the end of those 12 months, it very much becomes NOT worth it. Those are things that you can’t just set up to auto-pay the minimum amount for, because if you forget that you have it, you’re stuck with high interest debt again at an unexpected point in the future.
My take is that everyone who buys an airline ticket is in some way financing the “free” loyalty flights. Any large company does absolutely nothing for free. Everyone is paying a dollar or two more on each flight to pay the giveaways. It’s like shop-lifting (new term “shrinkage”) in retail stores. The amount of loss is in the cost of all the goods in the store. The companies don’t lose anything. The shoppers do.
Not entirely true. Visa charges vendors a fee on every transaction. Rewards programs are a cut of that fee.
Also, perhaps due to being a teacher? I never qualified for those new cards, even though I was never late on my payments. Really fed into a sense of rejection and a lack of control. Thanks to therapy I know now that I *CAN* handle my money and be triumphant over debt, but it sure sucked to read in every debt paydown book in my twenties "Just get a 0% payment transfer!" Not to mention I now know many of my issues came from undiagnosed ADHD, soooo even if I had qualified, I would have been one of those people who forgot to pay.
TL, DR: It was good I didn't qualify for those zero-percent balance transfers, AND, as you said, they are not as great as they seem.
The last one! I had to learn that so many times...I tried to "save" my sister and one of my friends so many times before realized I cannot force them to change. The only rule I have is I cannot hear about their money complaints unless they have a plan they wanna discuss with me.
So great to hear you talk about how we're always trying to figure out who deserves things instead of who needs things.
I absolutely love the way Chelsea addressed “affording kids” question 👏👏👏👏 just every single word 👏👏👏👏
Agreed! So refreshing
I really loved that part too
What's been a challenge in America is that almost anyone can become a parent, but many are ill suited to be a parent. I do think people need to be thoughtful about bringing a child into the world and what kind of world that child will find itself in. Today, many parents limit the size of their families in order to provide and care for their children in a better manner. Further, many people cannot fully comprehend the struggles they will face bringing a child into this world and being a parent until they experience them firsthand.
And if you think the expense goes away when they hit 18 you are smoking some serious crack🤣
I'm in the UK but I agree completely! I am childfree and all the time I get told I'm selfish and should have children because it's SO rewarding. The reason I'm childfree is because I'd be a terrible parent. Becoming a parent would not change that and magically make me into mother of the year.
I struggle with my mental health and whilst I can manage my high stress long hours job, it takes every ounce of energy I have outside of work to keep myself going day to day (sleep 8 hours, work out 5 times a week, read books etc). Having a child would break me and I have no issue in admitting that, I wish parents who have judged me would realise I'm actually complimenting them because they are doing it and I've admitted I cannot!
@@hannahb6471 I wish you all the best in the struggles you are contending with. Your response was very introspective and you have obviously given it significant thought. I certainly commend you on that. Lastly, don't fret over how others might judge you as you are living your own life. Stay well.
Chelsea comes across as so kind and thoughtful here. Tactfully handles so many difficult subjects with panache.
These conversations are so interesting to me. It brings up so many nuances and ideas that I’ve never thought of.
I live in Australia, we have no tax on first home, and subsequent property tax based on how many investment properties a person owns
Chelsea, I appreciate that as a childfree person, you are still extremely well informed and understanding of issues concerning child-rearing and parenting.
Me too, especially as she is an employer of women and parents!
I really relate to your take on these topics. It's difficult to find a fundamental ethical ideology that everyone can agree on, and I think you bring a very nuanced and balanced opinion to the conversation.
the fact that the second one is considered a “hot take” shows how distorted our values as a society are.
no one “deserves” children. no one is entitled to a child. everyone should plan and study and self reflect to know if they’re capable of being good parents, the type of parents kids deserve to have.
poor people who are financially aware and/or literate can plan to make sure their child will at least have their bare minimum necessities met. emotionally wounded people can start working towards healing to make sure their child’s necessities will be met, so on and so forth. it’s not eugenics, it’s not a conservative viewpoint and it’s not thinking rich people “deserve” children or the money they have or whatever else... this is about treating children like the actual human beings they are instead of things everyone is entitled to have.
it’s definitely not about legislating on who can and can’t have kids, this is a discussion about self awareness and altruism that will, hopefully, help cease overtly selfish and harmful parenthood
that’s obviously not to say we, as a society, shouldn’t make sure that the people who want to have kids are equipped to do so in the best way possible, we should but that’s not the reality. we can work towards that goal while recognizing that that’s not our current reality and, given the fact that it isn’t, people now should exercise altruistic discernment to avoid harming the very real children they want to have but are incapable of providing for (emotionally, financially or in any other way)
I aagree with both your point and the person below you, I think children should stop being seen as this "thing" that parents can own and that everyone deserves to have. parenthood is inherently selfish and the fact that kids are seen as somehting that eveyrone gets to have, instead of being seen as young humans who deserve to be born to a comfortable world since theyre literlly not consenting to be here, doesnt actually help anyone in this situation. sure some children deliberately concienved in pvoerty grow up fine but a LOT dont. I personally would rather have not been born at all than to be born with literally zero upward mobility and childhood trauma from being poor.
I was looking for a comment like yours. I've noticed that many of the people who viciously attack and politicize statements like "you should be financially prepared for children before you have them" are also people who never grew up poor, ironically. As someone who grew up without inherited wealth and whose parents who were not emotionally prepared for children, I strongly believe not everyone "deserves" to be a parent. It is a tall order to raise another human being, and the first thing responsible parents do is to consider if they are fit to be parents.
Amen 😘😘😘
AMEN, all of you here!
These are my favorite FD videos. Budgeting and investing are all well and good, but I'm really here for Chelsea rants about stuff.
🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝
Thanks for your feedback.
Send a msg to my financial advisor.
Tell him i recommended you.
I think cities and towns are right to restrict Airbnb-type rentals, but I wouldn't want to see a national curb.
As far as I can see, the damage done by private rentals has to do with taking up affordable housing in commuter areas. Meanwhile, (from what I've seen) countryside houses tend to be repurposed mcMansions, which may otherwise go unsold.
If you have student loans in the US and you move abroad AND you no longer have income from the USA, you can set an income based repayment plan (payment will be $0) on auto and the balance will be forgiven after the payment period is up.
Regarding the defaulting on student loans bit, I feel that "knowing the risks" takes on a different meaning when there is a co-signer involved.
My wife takes home 4X what I make in a year, and it's fucking awesome! She's the shit.
Yet, we don't combine our finances except for one "bills" account, and we split things evenly.
My wife is also very generous, though, so this works out in my favor time and again... that said, I never take advantage of her making more money than me, and I take on more of the housework (I work from home, but she doesn't).
I don't understand how you can be so alpha male that this threatens you. Grow up, lol. This kind of dynamic really isn't hard to make work if you just exhibit a base level of intelligence and actually try with your communication.
King philosophy. Happy life to you and your wife :)
Chelsea, I always appreciate when you do a video like this. Love to hear your take on things because you are so thoughtful and balanced in your responses. I would like to see more of these kinds of videos.
Some great advice I heard recently re. giving friends advice or help when they always ask for it yet ignore it: ask them what THEIR plan is. I have a friend who always seems to be going through something yet waves off or makes excuses against any advice I give her. Pivoting the conversation to ask well, what are you thinking of doing next? Even if it's not totally productive will at least end a conversation that isn't going anywhere lol
I feel like I never leave comments about the content but only Chelsea stan type things, BUT I feel compelled to call everybody's attention to how much the asymmetry in the glasses pattern is actually super flattering, I always notice it, but in this video there are a lot of close-ups and I am appreciating it more (I'm tipsy)
"People shouldn't have kids unless they've financially planned for them"...
We did. And then we ended up with a catastrophe that completely changed our financial situation. We had reserves, but it was super tight for several years...and I know someone who became permanently disabled, whose situation was even more dire than ours.
Stop shaming.
This is such an important perspective.
Ofc tragedies happen and I'm sorry that happened to your family but is your situation really the same as deliberately bringing children into poverty in a country that has limited support for poor families and limited social mobility.
What about a poor family that goes through further tragedy or becomes disabled? The lives of child carers to poor parents are extremely difficult.
@@dlc2479 "Deliberately"? As Chelsea said, sometimes people have surprise pregnancies (yes, even w/ birth control). And the way America is, it isn't always easy to get an abortion. It's a felony to abort in some states right now, but even before Roe was struck down, there were hoops to jump through that made it difficult in many areas.
Instead of blaming poor people, how about blaming society? Why not fix our culture/government instead of trying to shame people who often don't have as much control over their circumstances as they wish they did?
@@dlc2479 First, it's ignorant to say that poor people can't possibly give a good life to children. I grew up in a poor community full of loving households that did their best to give their kids the best life possible. Way better childhoods than some of the spoiled, neglected, ignorant children I've met from more wealthy families.
Like OP said, kids happen! Life happens! Of course not everyone should be a parent. I've seen plenty of teen moms, drug-addicted dads in and out of prison, etc. and I agree that they should absolutely not bring a child into the world if they cannot care for that child. But for the most part, being poor does not automatically mean you'll be a bad parent. The reality is, an "easy" life is inaccessible by millions people. The only productive thing we can do is provide education and social services to alleviate poverty, not shame poor people for living their life.
@@Double0pi You've answered the question you wanted me to ask instead of the one I actually asked. I know there are surprises pregnancies etc, what I asked was should we really be encouraging people to DELIBERATELY (I.e. exclusive of any surprises scenario etc) bring children into a life poverty when we know that the child will suffer. I asked that specific question because by arguing against financial planning for children, you are encouraging the scenario I just described.
I completely agree with you about society but guess what, we are not there yet. Why have children under the premise that the government will act right and help out when zero efforts have been made towards that reality. It makes zero sense. We might as well tell ppl, don't plan for your retirement because you might lose it all on health care bills or die tomorrow and the government should be helping out anyway knowing full well there's no help for that demographic.
Where I live (on the West Coast), you must have a permit from the local government to rent out a residence as an Airbnb and in order to obtain and maintain that permit, the host must live in the property 74% of the calendar year. They are also required to pay several types of local taxes.
I love how your videos start a discussion. I may not agree 100% with your answers or hot takes, but at least it gets me thinking about these issues, when I otherwise wouldn't have. Thanks to everyone in the comments too for adding to this dialogue. It's really fascinating to hear your stories and perspectives.
That last one though, spot on!
I have a (work?) friend who earns about the same as me and hes struggling really badly with money and overdrafting his account on a monthly basis. He once approached me for financial tips asking how i manage my money and if i could help him but he's not even willing to do the basic steps to get somewhere we could work on a budget yet he gets angry at me for not magically making his problems dissappear? And by basic steps i mean looking at where he spends his money to see where the overspending happens and then taking steps to lower his expenses. I stopped giving out tips and such because it only furthers the issues between us. As you said, some things don't need to be talked about...
I want to say one thing on the women having to do most of the household chores, especially if you are a two income couple. Get a housekeeper or whatever kind of household help will make your life/lives easier. I had no idea this was an option til one day it dawned on me. At the time I was single with a child. It was either get a different job or get help. I hired college students to help me. It was awesome! I swear I felt like a man. Think about it. Sitcoms with men single fathers have live in help. Get some hired help! Don't think you can afford it? Do without something else. Live in a cheaper place in order to have a cleaning person. Also, split the cost with the partner. But if you have to just pay it.
I've been anti-bnb and anti-uber from the beginning. BNB drives up rents, less security for women traveling alone, adds density into residential neighborhoods, not to mention flying in the face of zoning laws, lowers rental and purchase housing stock, inferior customer service, less regulated (yes, that's a bad thing). Uber is a crappy business model all around.
I think people like to say “oh the tax code used to be so much more fair when rates were higher in the 50s”. There were far more holes in the tax code then, very few people paid the high rates
I feel like your comment about stigmatizing individuals on the Airbnb question pretty much sums up the TFD team’s work with your channel. Politically, we would prefer a society where there is no need for individuals to build wealth. In the meantime, taking charge of their financial situation and future is individuals’ best bet.
5:15 I see what that person is saying though... a child isn't a "thing" that people "get to" have or are owed, ever. no adult is entitled tohaving a child. a child is a person who needs financial and social support. if their parents cant provide that in a really meaningful way (the bare minimum does not cut it, we've seen so many traumatized adults by now that we know the bare minimum doesn't cut it) then yeah, people shouldn't have kids unless they can afford it.
you could say it sounds like eugenics because it means poor people can't have kids and I get that, but if it saves people from having childhoods where their needs aren't met finacially (because there isnt enough moneyfor them) or socially (because their parents are always out working to be able to provide) than so be it. In the US there's no one willing to address the lack of support that poor families have in a significant way, so the people ened to have the personal responcibility to not bring a person in to the world if they can't provide.
The hypocrisy of this take is that if children aren't things that people should get to have, why are only rich people allowed to have them? Equating them with money is inherently objectifying them. Its also a disingenuous criticism of what people mean when they day that poor people deserve to have children, they're not talking about kids as if they were objects, we're talking about the desire to have a family which is absolutely normal and everyone should be entitled to have if they're emotionally and psychologically prepared for it. Governments should provide the financial assistance for it, that's their whole point. We live in a capitalist dystopia, that's it really.
The last question hits home for me, I had a friend who I met at a job who I really got along with and we remained friends after we stopped working there. She is basically what you refer to as a financial fuck-up. I didn't let it stop me from being friends with her, until it started affecting me. Eventually she would only contact me when she needed a favour - a ride to get groceries, to the bottle depot because she's really short on cash. I'm trying to wean myself off of her because it seems like she's not taking any steps to improve her situation. I feel like a bad friend. But I feel like we weren't truly friends to begin with if she's only reaching out to me when she needs help.
About the right to bring new humans to this planet... It is a quite difficult issue here in Colombia and I believe in other parts of the world as well.
For example, in the neighborhood I live we see a girl (around 11 years old) who lives in poverty. She is the 5th child of 7 and she is not going to the school. You may think "Oh! But that's illegal!" Well, yes. But her mother decided that she is better at helping her raising up her 2 younger brothers and working at the tire shop full of strangers coming and going. She is illiterate. She doesn't have any projections and I can stay here giving more details explaining why her family is very dysfunctional.
You may think "But why you didn't call the government with a claim" This is the huge problem: it is actually worse. Because it's well known, here in Colombia, that kids who end up in orphanages have to face horrible treatment, even abuse, by those who should protect them.
Is the corrupted system the problem? Yes. Can we change it at once? No. Then what should we do in the meantime? The best we can. And the best sometimes is to give a good advice on time. There's nothing wrong in asking "Do you think you can afford having more kids?" And this is not violent. It is facing the reality and what we can do now, not tomorrow with the problems happening.
First time watching TFD content. Loved it! Subscribed!
Such good discussions in here! Chelsea, you knocked this out of the park & this really spotlights how well versed you are in all the angles of these issues. Absolutely loved this, and learned something!
I would love to move towards a system where (personal) income tax isn't a/the main tax source. We literally exchange our precious and limited time for our hard-earned money while so much wealth is passed on from generation to generation with very little tax. Let's tax inheritance more. It's free money (for context I am from Denmark - we have a very high income tax)
Ugh I agree. I'm only 25 and I'm paying close to 25% of my income in taxes. I know age isn't a factor, but it's shocking to be so young and paying so much in taxes before my adult life has even really begun
Gah, you are so phenomenally wise, Chelsea! God bless you, ma'am! Sending this to my family.
As someone born into poverty, I agree with the second unpopular opinion. Not as an enforceable rule but as a general concept.
The idea is that if you live an extreme spartan lifestyle when you're young in the hopes that you won't have to when you're old, there's no guarantee that that money will even be there and not have been pilfered by the time you actually get there, and with healthcare in the United States and lowered life expectancy, a lot of people in the U.S. die without ever experiencing a life that's NOT an extreme spartan lifestyle. The U.S. is a complete mess in this regard.
No. We’re comfortable.
@@katemiller7874 No. YOU're comfortable.
Yup. I live in Asia with housing paid for and never plan to live in the US again. I've worked and studied in several countries abroad, and it's hilarious every time we get to the health insurance presentation. We always get luxe local insurance and great insurance abroad EVERYWHERE BUT THE US 😂...I got appendicitis in July 2020 and would have paid $5-10K in the US. Here it was $1400 and insurance paid all but $4.
I miss the US but just can't see ever moving back.
I also don't regret living it up in my 20's and getting some debt. I LIVED, and now at 37, just had to slow down for a couple of years to pay off what I've accrued. And that's as a "lowly" teacher!
I live in a committed platonic relationship. We talk about getting married sometimes for things like tax benefits and legal next of kin reasons. It wouldn't be a 'marriage' but also, there's no requirement to be sexually active with your spouse. It's silly that there are so many benefits for married people, but partners who don't get married have no benefits.
Isn’t a committed platonic relationship just friendship?
@@NiaDeBose if a marriage is aslo just friendship? We are a marriage in all ways - we have joint bank accounts, have raised children together, own a home together. Literally everything a married couple might do, except we are not a romantic couple. To be honest, your question proves my point of why it is important to recognize "other" family types.
I mean, when it comes to voting, my parents are actively voting for the people whose policies negatively affect me so it'd be nice if they changed, but they aren't gonna.
Well, then mybe you should tell them to stop voting for Democrats!
For the platonic marriage for mortgage reasons thing, I just want to point out that aromantic and asexual people exist and may want to take advantage of the system we live under. As someone in a queer platonic relationship who plans to get married for tax reasons, I can confidently say that my partner, who is also aromantic, won't fall in love with and marry someone else. There's also the whole polyamory thing, but that might be beyond the scope of the this comment lol. But it is correct that alloromantics and allosexuals do indeed be getting married for the worst reasons and maybe shouldn't do that just for a house lol....unless it's a queer commune.
Thank you for acknowledging that the pandemics are far from over. Hearing people say "post pandemic" is a literal trauma trigger.
Completely agree with you!
I've noticed that spending is very much an individualized thing. I have a friend who spent $5000 on a mountain bike, which was the same cost of my car. I don't even have a bike LOL.
Wow, I love this SO MUCH. Chelsea takes on Unpopular Opinions? A must.
Every time Chelsea talks about ‘saving for retirement’ I remember that retirement accounts are not mandated in other places. Is Australia’s super scheme perfect, nope but thank god I never have to worry about saving for retirement.
Does your system guarantee an income in retirement? In the UK we have an auto enrolment scheme at 22 where people can opt out or can voluntarily join their company's pension scheme earlier. The problem I've seen (aside from 22 year olds opting out) is that the minimum auto enrolment is 1% employee and 1% employer matched with some employers only offering 5% employee and 3% employer matched which is the legal minimum. I know people thinking paying in 8% is going to mean they can retire in their 60s with a large monthly income but the reality is that's not going to be the case.
I've been paying 15% into my pension for most of my 20s and know I need to increase that when my student loan is paid off but I've got many friends who think I'm putting too much in!
@@hannahb6471 to be perfectly honest, I am not sure of the finer details but my understanding is all permanent employees in Australia (whether full or part time) must have super paid into an account, regardless of company or employment sector. It’s a government requirement, we don’t opt in or out, it just happens. I’d have to look at the minimum but mine is 12% I believe and forms part of my overall salary package. It used to be that the employer picked the fund and so people had lots of super funds but now you pick the fund and it goes with you from job to job. You can also switch providers if you want but your employer must always pay super. Essentially, I’m Australia, if you’re a permanent employee, you have some kind of retirement savings. Like I said, it’s certainly not perfect, particularly around the gender pay gap and things like that, as women tend to retire with less super than men, but it’s better that it’s something every business has to do for all permanent employees. I know there are government jobs in Queensland which offer super contribution as high at 18%, probably to entice people to it. We also have schemes where you can make voluntary payments into your super for the expressed purpose of saving a house deposit (or did, not sure since the government change). I believe your super becomes available at 67, but there are ways to get it before then.
Hello, also Australian. ANY paid worker gets superannuation paid by their employer at a minimum rate of now 10% of their income. So does not matter if only a casual worker. For e.g if I worked a casual job as a waiter and made $500 that fortnight, my employer would legally have to put $50 into my retirement fund. This is for any person of any age working any job. We can also choose to put extra money into our own funds but most people rely on the mandated contributions :) Some jobs offer higher rates of contributions but the legal minimum is 10 per cent.
@@crle1944 thank you! I haven’t had to actively think about super for years, besides my own fund so the finer points are lost to the annals of my history!
I totally agree...never expect a loan back... even from your s.o. Because the reality of it is you're likely not going to be repaid. It's sad but true.
🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝
Thanks for your feedback.
Send a msg to my financial advisor.
Tell him i recommended you.
To counter the "all landlords are evil" argument: yes 1) many landlords hoard housing (esp. corps) 2) many landlords overcharge and under-deliver. But, there is utility for non-owned housing. The transaction cost of establishing a title (mortgage fees, realtor fees, insurance) are impactful and generally unless the resident is staying for at least 5 years, renting is cheaper. Liability for any damage is also held by the landlord which some may prefer. It was said on a previous TFD "rent is a ceiling on housing costs, and a mortgage is a floor."
There's a lot of room to regulate landlords better (esp. in the US), but I don't see reducing rental units to near-0 as productive for those without emergency-savings and those who move often. The US also needs to move toward smarter city design where single-family units aren't the only development option, allowing more in-fill housing and therefore more units. (Plus we'll need fewer cars)
I feel like a system where...say 60% of homes are not allowed to be rented out and then 40% of homes are allowed to be rented out would do a lot of good because the prices of those 60% would be less likely to be artificially inflated due to the need to make a profit via renting, and meanwhile, renting is still available for people who are not ready to buy a home. But also, big corporate landlords would legally not be able to control a majority of the market. And as long as the percentage of properties that are rentable stays at like 40 or 30 percent, then the artifically inflated rates due to making a profit via renting would never encompass the majority of the market.
Chelsea, thanks for using your power to bringing visibility to these ideas - especially about housing
21:14- thank you. Having a more fair tax code obviously did not mean no wealthy people!
Thank you for your comments on children and people only having them if they can "pay" for them. Children are the group in America who are MOST likely to live in poverty. Let that sink in if you're reading this and childless, or resent kids. 50% of children in American schools today are low income. As Anya Kamenetz, an NPR writer recently put it, "we are a rich country full of poor children." It's horrible, and part of the reason for this is attitudes from a viewer like you described. Something like 50% of pregnancies are unplanned - it's clearly not the child's fault, nor should they be punished.
The other point you made that people miss is that today's children are tomorrow's society and workforce - kids aren't pets or accessories, they will grow up and be the doctors, home health aides, snow plow drivers, or other essential workers of the future who will take care of all the adults who exist currently, and they'll be the ones paying into Medicare and Social Security when we're old. There's a reason other countries not only support parents and incentivize having children - it's extremely important for the future health of their society, so they don't engage in the same shortsighted, individualistic thinking that even American liberals will espouse.
This is the salient point
"I can't sit on here and advise you to commit crimes... You do you. I can't tell you what to do. Live your life." 🤣
I agree we can afford to live in a better society..I wish the government could understand that.
they understand. they just don’t care. You can tell they understand because all their campaign promises talk about it. You can tell they don’t care because despite decades of talking about it, nothing has happened.
About the planning for kids matter, I agree that it sounds very nasty if you put it as "people with low income don't deserve to have children", but that's not the impression I got from the comment tbh.
I most definitely agree that we need to think about children as a community and make sure that even the people in the lowest levels of poverty get to have their children healthy and safe. But it may be the cynical in me that thinks that's a bit too whistful thinking in our society as it is right now. We should strive towars it, absolutely! But to think as eugenics a thought that basically boils down to be responsible in your family planning it's too much of a stretch imo.
It's just common sense, budget for a child if you are planning on having one, and don't have six+ kids if you know you won't have the means to provide for them.
You are SO right about fast fashion…
Say it again for the folks in the back!
My mom bought a house that was an airbnb. The owner thought it would be easy income and it wasn't, especially when she lived half way across the country.
There is a guy in our area who owns 259 properties that he turned into AirBnBs. That's not ok. Everyone in this country is trying to move to North Texas and there are no homes available.
That is shockingly bad :(
If it is never ok to build wealth on rent, how do you keep supply of properties to rent without financial incentives? Where should people live until they can buy? Are you supposed to be able to buy a property each time before you move to a city for a new job? Are you supposed to stay in the town you are from until you can save enough to buy a place in a city you would like like to try moving to? If you can’t live with family for years to accomplish that, where are you supposed to live if rental market should not exist?
Chelsea you have such a level headed, balanced view on all these thorny, nuanced issues. I agree with you on pretty much everything....it's just frustrating to think that you're what, 30....and I didn't have even close to this level of wisdom and insight until I was in my 50's!
I did not know the property purchase tax is the same for multiple properties in the US. This is insane! I live in Israel and I'm not that well versed in the terms and taxes of purchasing a property as I'm not there yet financially, but I did work in a real estate office these past two summers and what I've learned is that there is a huge leap between the tax paid on the first property purchase and the next one (and I believe it has also been increased further lately). There is also a discount on the tax for the purchase of your absolute first property and the "second property" tax doesn't apply in the case of you moving houses (buying another property and selling the one you have within a certain period of time). There are also property tax steps, so if you are buying a property below a certain price you are totally free from the property tax, versus paying a higher percentage tax the higher the property price gets. And while there are a lot of things I don't agree on with our government.... this one aspect seems to be a very good thing.
What's hard about the last one is that a lot of your loved ones decisions do affect you that you might not initially think... like if you know someone in an abusive relationship, you can't just ignore that part of their life because of the side effects of them being in that relationship and it's hard cuz you want to help or at least make sure they have a lifeline... or if they make really bad financial decisions (like they make money but then blow it), it's hard to be like, I'll just pay for stuff or we'll always do free stuff, or I guess we'll just never see you at home for holidays? I don't know, it's hard when it feels like a choice they made.
The fact that I got a AirBnB ad recruiting me to sleaze is hilarious
5:16 I had never thought of it from that perspective, I was only ever considering how I had felt growing up with no food, and how irresponsible my parents were for choosing to have multiple children anyway. But I now completely agree its a wayyyy better option to just actually make having children easier for everyone, by giving them the financial support they need. Its irritating how america focuses so much on how its everyone for themselves, that people like me completely forget getting help from others is actually an option.
It's really cool and refreshing to see someone hear a new perspective on an issue, evaluate it logically, and change their take on the matter as a result. I come from a similar background, parents had more children than they could afford (which would have been ANY), and it was a hard way to start out in life. I resented it, and them, and vowed to do life differently. At a childless/childfree (depending on what day it is) 41 years of age, my take has shifted as well. I wouldn't be alive if my parents had only had children they could afford. Certainly neither would my siblings, whom I love dearly. This bootstrapping mentality is no good, particularly in the matter of having/raising children. The birth (replacement) rate is a matter of vital importance to all of us as a society, and our terribly unequal wealth distribution means that there would be very few children indeed if only people who could truly afford them were able to procreate. If anything, I'd think the wealthy would be concerned with having a large enough population to buy the products and services that make the money to keep them in yachts and Birkin bags.
Thank you for saying “do you, live your life” I think people get so caught up in the “right” way of doing things that they lose the forest through the trees
I do vanlife and it was a great financial choice! I converted a box truck into a studio apartment for less than $40k all in and now live in LA rent-free, which will have paid itself off in 1-2 years for a similarly sized apartment to myself. Doesn't have to be a $100k sprinter van like most of the insta ppl buy! I have about 100sq ft and heating/AC, super comfy and I pay less than $300/month for fuel, insurance, and upkeep!
Currently in an unethical Airbnb, the business needs a serious overhaul 😤
I didn't hear "poor people shouldn't reproduce" in that comment at all, and it bothered me that you assumed that saying "be stable and plan your kids for the best outcome" equates to eugenics. Come on, really? I've been center-left for longer than you've been alive, and I really resent being told that advising people to plan their families wisely equates to being Ben freaking Shapiro.
Yes, society should help and I truly wish it did. But in the meantime, what? Just do what you want? Using your reproductive system irresponsibly and saying you shouldn't have to care about it in a just and perfect world is like driving without a seat belt because the other people on the road should be better drivers. Well, they aren't always. So you take steps to take care of yourself. You make cars and roads safer AND you drive defensively.
"Plan your kids financially" and "we need and should create much better parental support in this country" are not opposing opinions, believe it or not. You can advocate both.
Hey Chelsea! You should research platonic life partners and aromanticism if you want to know more about the wealth inequalities single people of different identities can face. Also, perhaps to gain more perspective on why someone would marry someone else they aren’t in love with. Tara Mooney has a great video on aromanticism that’s a good introduction to the topic. I also really appreciate that the language on tfd has been more gender inclusive/trans friendly lately and I hope it’ll keep moving towards that :)
Thank you for saying this, as an asexual/aromantic person, Chelsea's comment about platonic marriages was a bit off-putting for me.
@@Atmviola Yeah, Im aromantic as well, and while Im not interested in partnership It’s easy to understand once you give any thought to it why aromantic people, or even allo people who just have different values/preferences/life circumstances, would platonically partner with someone. I think if Chelsea researched it, based off of her other values such as being child free and an understanding of gender inequality in relationships, and even the basic understanding of how single people are financially at a disadvantage that she mentioned in todays video. Her point about how families often live intergenerationally in other places and how that can make raising children or doing chores easier is a great base for understanding platonic partnership as a means to accomplishing goals such as parenthood, she often talks about not being able to have it all as a woman and that’s similar in many ways to how you simply can’t have it all as a single person. I think a lot of her thought processes would lend themselves to being a great ally, I just think it’s something most allo people haven’t thought about because they really just probably haven’t heard of it and society can be so single minded towards romantic partnership as the only option to base your life around, especially I think now that people consider more if and when they want to have kids, your romantic relationship becomes even more center stage if you aren’t taking on being a parent or if part of your relationship with that person isn’t coparenting, simply because your time commitment to that person is then so much greater (usually) and it’s hard to imagine someone else wanting or having a life that is so structurally different or based on different values as it pertains to relationships when that’s such a large part of your life, all your friends lives, coworkers, parents, exc.
@@Atmviola totally agree though 😅 i just feel like if i don’t aggressively assume the best of people and believe in their ability to grow and learn then i can never expect anything to get materially better. it’s nicer to think most people are good and just don’t know, and lots of the time that’s the case. So I just focus on my excitement about educating and gaining prospective ally’s :)
Huh, what? Property tax for schools stays in that community? Here in 🇨🇦 education is provincially funded and administered. Municipalities collect the school portion of property tax on behalf of the province, who then return it to school boards, partially on a per student formula, also on needs assessment of the different communities. There are still inequities of course, but seems like a better system.
Yes. I became a teacher with Teach for America in 2008 due to this inequity. Taught in North Las Vegas with 30-40 kids in a class in a trailer (ahem, portable) in the back of a school, with kids who wouldn't have Internet, heat or food, and would then drive 30 minutes west to a gated community by an immaculate high school funded by said gated communities...taught at the NLV school and in that district for six years until my heart couldn't take it anymore.
Chelsea’s “it’s none of my business and I’m not taking that on because I want to “get along” with family” is a major reason why my white liberal friends with conservative families don’t do anything to inspire change or discussion
Sometimes the effort just isn’t worth it when you already know and have confirmation they aren’t open to discussion, much less change. If the choice is between not having the discussion and maintaining a relationship and having the discussion knowing it will ruin the relationship, I get why people stay silent. Personally, that’s not my way of going about it but confrontation even without conflict isn’t something people are particularly good at or comfortable with doing.
“What’s the dew point?” 😂😂😂
For the Children question. Not once did you talk if it is fair for the child. Is it fair to be born as a trophy to two people who only wanted to selfishly bring you into this world, when they are fully incapable of giving you even the basic necessities.
Chelsea's entire answer to the "poor people shouldn't have kids" comment is perfection. I listened to it twice.
Housing is not only zero-sum game, but it is negative sum game, because it reduces social mobility. It also enourages zoning laws and other types of NIMBYsm.
Taxing away 100% undeveloped land value is the way to get rid of rent seeking in housing altogether. No flipping, no agents bs, no empty houses would be possible.
Nobody would buy negative cash flow land and house except it is really productive thing to do.
Nobody should have passive vehicle of wealth redustribution from society.
I agree with a lot of your reactions, Chelsea, but you should be aware that platonic life partners are a great option for a lot of people. Not everyone centers around a nuclear family - some of us do polyamory, and don't place a lot of importance on legal agreements like marriage affecting romantic endeavors. There are also a lot of asexual aromantic people who can benefit from partnership! Sex is often the thing that complicates relationships. Adult negotiation of a legal partnership may be easier without romantic entanglement, actually.