Here, if you rent (because who can afford to buy a house anymore) you are also subject to fire safety regulations that discriminate against families with more than two children. For "fire safety" reasons that do not take into account the size of the rental unit, or the age of the residents, landlords can cap occupancy at two people per *bedroom*. Which admittedly seems reasonable. Who wants to pack three or more kids into the same room, right? Right up until you realize that landlords hate kids. Kids are destructive. If you have a 4-bedroom house to let, and you could choose between renting it to a family with six young children, or a couple of childless fiftysomethings, you'd pick the fiftysomethings every time. That's not legal, of course. But you know what IS legal? Removing closets.
If you remove two closets from that house, it is no longer a four-bedroom house. It's a two bedroom house with a home office and a craft room, and you can limit occupancy to four. Neat, huh?
So back to the family contemplating a third child: Not only are you going to need a bigger car, if you're a renter, you're also going to have to rent a bigger house. And the jump in rent from a 2br to a 3br in a comparable neighborhood is large *and* it's much harder to find one. This is a much bigger problem than the carseat thing.
Like, of *course* no decent parent is going to make that decision based on the price of a minivan.
But some of them are going to make that decision based on the part where they will have to move all their kids into a much sketchier neighborhood and probably a worse school district, to afford the rent on a three-bedroom house.
Car seats are really just a symptom of the actual problem of transportation in the US: cars. Our whole car-centric urban and sub-urban development means cars are your only option—and a dangerous option at that, hence the car seats. You can't walk, biking is not safe, you can't take a bus, and we got rid of the most of our passenger trains decades ago. Having a large family would be much easier if there were other viable means of transportation in the US.
If we built walkable cities it would be much easier to have a large family. Not only would you not be reliant on cost-prohibitive vehicles, but your children could have much more independence without needing to be driven around by adults.
This essay seems to walk on the surface of a frozen lake of error so deep that one's heart freezes.
Talk of multiple "moralities" is a concession to destruction so foundational that one is almost wasting his time to sit through the details of the disintegration that follows from it. "Moral relativism" is immoral. Immoral people do not have a different "morality" they are immoral.
To "agree to disagree" is an act of cowardice and amounts to the renunciation of "the use and authority of reason" which surrenders to those "whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt." (See Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.)
The 'quaint civic friendship of the boomers' was a lie. And no free society can survive lying.
This is why Christ must be King and His rule the iron rule of morality.
I'm afraid the problem of occupying two different realities is greater than this post implies. After all, we live in a world where a sizable Democrat contingent loves Hamas.
Car seats affect decision of people who choose to become parents. An interesting statistic is that the rates of parents with, 1,2,3 or 4 children is more or less constant since the mid seventies. What has significantly increased is the percentage of childless people. So, even if we decide to make car seats or other such safety regulations optional, it would not make a difference demographically speaking. Here is my source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/03/millennials-only-children/
There's also this thing called a child travel harness, suitable for children over the age of 2 (which usually one kid will be if you have a third on the way; sorry twins) and at least 30 lbs (sorry, skinny toddlers.) Ride Safer is a brand that is compliant with federal regulations and has been crash tested. The harnesses aren't as cheap as many carseats but a heckuva lot cheaper than a car payment.
The easy remedy is to restore the safety rules of a couple of decades ago, which seem to have served decently enough for a century of automobile existence.
Yes, keep the children safe. Like how we were supposed to lock them inside and cover their faces for two years.
Or those live shooter drills for a statistically insignificant phenomenon that scare my kids.
I just hate these people.
If only it were just the car seats.
Here, if you rent (because who can afford to buy a house anymore) you are also subject to fire safety regulations that discriminate against families with more than two children. For "fire safety" reasons that do not take into account the size of the rental unit, or the age of the residents, landlords can cap occupancy at two people per *bedroom*. Which admittedly seems reasonable. Who wants to pack three or more kids into the same room, right? Right up until you realize that landlords hate kids. Kids are destructive. If you have a 4-bedroom house to let, and you could choose between renting it to a family with six young children, or a couple of childless fiftysomethings, you'd pick the fiftysomethings every time. That's not legal, of course. But you know what IS legal? Removing closets.
If you remove two closets from that house, it is no longer a four-bedroom house. It's a two bedroom house with a home office and a craft room, and you can limit occupancy to four. Neat, huh?
So back to the family contemplating a third child: Not only are you going to need a bigger car, if you're a renter, you're also going to have to rent a bigger house. And the jump in rent from a 2br to a 3br in a comparable neighborhood is large *and* it's much harder to find one. This is a much bigger problem than the carseat thing.
Like, of *course* no decent parent is going to make that decision based on the price of a minivan.
But some of them are going to make that decision based on the part where they will have to move all their kids into a much sketchier neighborhood and probably a worse school district, to afford the rent on a three-bedroom house.
Car seats are really just a symptom of the actual problem of transportation in the US: cars. Our whole car-centric urban and sub-urban development means cars are your only option—and a dangerous option at that, hence the car seats. You can't walk, biking is not safe, you can't take a bus, and we got rid of the most of our passenger trains decades ago. Having a large family would be much easier if there were other viable means of transportation in the US.
If we built walkable cities it would be much easier to have a large family. Not only would you not be reliant on cost-prohibitive vehicles, but your children could have much more independence without needing to be driven around by adults.
This essay seems to walk on the surface of a frozen lake of error so deep that one's heart freezes.
Talk of multiple "moralities" is a concession to destruction so foundational that one is almost wasting his time to sit through the details of the disintegration that follows from it. "Moral relativism" is immoral. Immoral people do not have a different "morality" they are immoral.
To "agree to disagree" is an act of cowardice and amounts to the renunciation of "the use and authority of reason" which surrenders to those "whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt." (See Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.)
The 'quaint civic friendship of the boomers' was a lie. And no free society can survive lying.
This is why Christ must be King and His rule the iron rule of morality.
Recognition of a dynamic does not constitute endorsement.
I'm afraid the problem of occupying two different realities is greater than this post implies. After all, we live in a world where a sizable Democrat contingent loves Hamas.
Here's another example. Note the level of engagement: https://oneangryblackchick.substack.com/p/tim-walz-shellacked-vance
How do people who live in the real world coexist with people who think like that crowd? Has it always been this way?
Car seats affect decision of people who choose to become parents. An interesting statistic is that the rates of parents with, 1,2,3 or 4 children is more or less constant since the mid seventies. What has significantly increased is the percentage of childless people. So, even if we decide to make car seats or other such safety regulations optional, it would not make a difference demographically speaking. Here is my source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/03/millennials-only-children/
It sure seems like Diversity isn't our Strength. Even diversities like "having kids or not".
https://freevoices.substack.com/p/diversity-is-our-weakness
Genuine question: what is the remedy? What needs to happen to be able to transport three kids in a sedan?
There's also this thing called a child travel harness, suitable for children over the age of 2 (which usually one kid will be if you have a third on the way; sorry twins) and at least 30 lbs (sorry, skinny toddlers.) Ride Safer is a brand that is compliant with federal regulations and has been crash tested. The harnesses aren't as cheap as many carseats but a heckuva lot cheaper than a car payment.
https://ridesafertravelvest.com/
Thanks for the info!
The easy remedy is to restore the safety rules of a couple of decades ago, which seem to have served decently enough for a century of automobile existence.