Foster City Elementary School overcrowding and information for parents
Cupertino School District Overflow information | SF Bay Area Home Price and Mortgage Insanity Blog – Burbed.com
Real Alex Says:
August 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pmCupertino, heh… If you want to see real disaster, stop by Foster City Elementary at Edgewater. This is a trailer park and war zone at the same time. They over enrolled about 200 kids last year! I don’t know exact stats for this year, but from what I’ve heard it’s not much better. School has about 900 students now and enrollment is going up to 1000 this year, though it was originally designed for 600. In the beginning of last year they had one big class of ~100 kids with 2 temp teachers from other schools and volunteers who were… students from the middle school nearby. It reminded me something… temp schools I’ve seen in Somali… But this was actual school with 900 rating in the middle of Silicon Valley.
This year they had to close all main permanent buildings because of poor condition long overdue maintenance. So, now it’s a set of trailers. Proposition to build another elementary school was rejected by the city. Instead city allocated land for new commercial development. Good job, Foster City. Way to stay in the RBA!
I agree. Let’s face it, children are not the future. Let me say it again. Children are not the future.
Prop 13 made that clear in 1978. Children don’t add to communities, they take away from them. All they want is more more more. Does building a school help bring more $200k jobs to Bay Area? Does building a school make it so you can drive 1 block to go to Best Buy/Bed Bath Beyond/Target instead of 5 miles? Of course not. Investing in children is a net loss.
Good job, Foster City! You certainly did pick the right priorities.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Of course, children are not the future. Why do you think Obama is saddling them with massive debt to push his agenda?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I disagree. Children are the future – they’re the only ones who can work off all this debt!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am
I guess children are like mortgages: some see them as assets, some as liabilities.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I guess children are like mortgages: some see them as assets, some as liabilities.
Yes, and after 18 years, you shove ‘em out the door to fend for themselves. Shorter term than a traditional mortgage!
August 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I’ll make some more unwelcome generalities. It just absolutely stupefies me that a school, in the very heart of the richest community in the country is as Alex said- akin to what you might see in a 3rd world country. Oh wait- most 3rd world countries actually have a better education system than we do in the US, so scratch that.
It also really pisses me off to no end that students with rich parents who send them to the most coveted schools get to have a grand education simply because their parents foot a lot of the bills. Screw that. If you want to fix problems, there should be laws passes that schools cannot take outside money. Why? Because then suddenly rich parents would have to face the music and experience the same problems other parents face and thus perhaps do more to fix the overall system versus only ensuring that their little tots get to have such a huge advantage. Education is something all kids deserve to have. Not just the rich.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:16 am
> Oh wait- most 3rd world countries actually have a better education system than we do in the US, so scratch that.
Care to elaborate?
> Education is something all kids deserve to have. Not just the rich.
But my dear, that’s why we have public schools.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
> Oh wait- most 3rd world countries actually have a better education system than we do in the US, so scratch that.
Care to elaborate?
Please do! I’m fascinated by that remark.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
If you look at what countries are growing the fastest and have the largest numbers of engineers graduating per years, its countries like India and China. Why? Those countries put a high emphasis on math and science. They get it that having well-educated students means more money for the future economy versus here in the US where money is effectively taken from the schools in order to pay off debts.
Public education to me means that everyone should have he same opportunity to succeed. As it is now, those who have wealthier parents just happen to have a better chance at doing so because mom and dad have deeper pockets. That’s wrong. Again- ban outside parent contributions and I can guarantee that the problem would suddenly be fixed because all you need to do is piss off people with money to get them to whine enough to the upper ups to do something for real.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol Steve: Portola Valley, a cubical house, models by your pool, and tasty margaritas.
Mongol General: Wrong! Bob! What is best in life?
Bob: To crush the upper ups, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their poorly educated children.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I guess children are like mortgages: some see them as assets, some as liabilities.
An asset? Not unless you are lucky enough to produce a child star like the Harry Potter kid and then ride his success!
Virtually ALL children are liabilities. In the old days, children were an asset since they contributed to the community and helped with things like farming, hunting, etc. Now, they are just a drain on resources even past the magic age of 18. College costs are massive nowadays. I think a recent report indicated that the average cost to raise a child from birth to the age of 18 was $220,000. If you include college, you are looking closer to $300,000.
Personally, I have NO idea how some people are able to survive, given their financial status and the number of children they have. Unfortunately, I think the baby boomer generation gave the false impression that raising multiple children is within the average family’s capabilities. That was a different time when we were the dominant industrial power with little to no competition. Nowadays, inflation has eroded our standard of living and we have massive competition from overseas.
Not to dis folks who have kids. They are pretty adorable. In small doses.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am
bob, over the past 40 years there have been two very strong trends in public education designed to increase equality – more state/federal involvement and city/county funding equalization. court decisions in TX, NJ and CA were the impetus for the latter and politics the former. I’m not sure that those are working out so well for the kids.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am
If you look at what countries are growing the fastest and have the largest numbers of engineers graduating per years, its countries like India and China. Why? Those countries put a high emphasis on math and science.
——
Partially incorrect. I don’t know about China, but in India govt DOES NOT put “emphasis” on math and science. That’s a misconception. But they pour enough money to higher education system so that everybody (not exactly everybody, because there are enough poor people there who STILL cannot afford) can afford to go to college. Students don’t need to take student loans (and have huge debt when they get out of college). There is more science/engineering students in India is mainly due to two reasons:
1. Unemployment is very high in India. There is simply not many jobs in India for people graduating in history or philosophy or economics degree. So having science/math education and getting science/engineering degree is a better option. And many students do exactly that. As a result, India gets more graduates in science/engineering.
2. Population in India is 3.5 time more than USA. Students are more too. As higher education is affordable, of course there is more graduates – in history, in language, in economics, AND science/engineering. But sitting in USA you guys don’t see those history/economics graduates wandering around being jobless. You see only engineering students who are either working there in Indian office of Cisco/NetApp/Microsoft/Google/Oracle or working here. You don’t see huge chuck of students/graduates falling through the cracks.
Bottomline, in the end it boils down to human resources. India has more population, more students, more science graduates and it is working for them, in some way.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
But sitting in USA you guys don’t see those history/economics graduates wandering around being jobless
Actually, that occurs in the USA as well.
Many degrees that once carried some weight, like history degrees, economics degrees, philosophy, etc. are virtual no sells nowadays. Most folks that might take degrees in those fields almost always follow it up with post secondary education in things like law. Or they go and get an MBA. But a standalone history or economics degree will get you nothing but student loan debt.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Thanks for the informative post, Pralay! That makes a lot of sense.
Can you imagine the arguments here (in the US) over funding college for whoever wants to attend? Does philosophy get equal funding per student as medicine or engineering? How about art students? The problem with bob’s anti-libertarian view is how much taxes does he want to pay to educate other people’s children, and what if they all want to study underwater basketweaving? Particularly if those taxes could go to better health care or some other use instead?
(DT, let’s not get into the moral tax argument.
)
Another unintended consequence that could be a problem: if college is free, would that remove the dis-incentive to have larger families? Hmm, probably not on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, but maybe for the upper-middle class – the ones who put a big emphasis on education but can’t afford the best.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
most 3rd world countries actually have a better education system than we do in the US
oh, and bob’s hyperbole didn’t escape me. Looks like there are probably about 175 third world countries. We have two examples that have (perhaps) arguably better educational systems…
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
You did spark an interesting discussion.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:37 am
School day has started. I am pretty curious why my kid’s 15 kindergarten classes now become less than 10 (probably 8) 1st grade, while class size did not change. Are people fleeing Cupertino?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I think in America the two sides of public education (good school and bad school) are polarized. The good schools are pretty decent (though still not the best in the world), the bad ones are probably some of the worst in the world.
I have the fortune not to study a bad one, but from what I heard the bad ones are horrible, not only gangs, but gun shots are heard daily, sounds like a war zone. I wonder whether those schools implement “zero tolerance” policy, if they do probably the principle will be dead in days. More likely they implement “no child left behind” policy – all the gangstas are entitled to a high school diploma.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:55 am
If you ever want to see something truly mind blowing about public education, watch:
http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/hardtimes/
August 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
<i.if college is free, would that remove the dis-incentive to have larger families?
—–
Not exactly. Statistics shows that well-educated (including college grads) parents have less children than uneducated parents. It’s true for most of the countries, including USA, India. Even in India, poor uneducated families have more children.
In some countries religion is a factor for larger families, especially those religions that advocate having more children or not to use contraception. But again, within those umbrellas of religion, those have-more-children doctrines have more influence on religious uneducated people than religious educated people.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Hm burbed, I have not watch the contents, but the text is interesting. If “no child left behind” closes schools that do not meet standards, then that seems to be forcing children to be left behind.
Anyways, schools are the best place to educate/rescue troubled teens, sadly we are creating more either way (by “let them go to school and keep shooting” liberals and “kick them out of school” conservatives).
August 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Sales soaring? Inventory going from 10 months to 7 months? Well all RE is local, here is Cupertino:
* inventory up 9% vs. June
* inventory up 36% vs. last year
* sale-to-list at 96%
94301:
* inventory down 10% vs. June
* inventory up 86% vs. last year
* sale-to-list at 96%
August 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Statistics shows that well-educated (including college grads) parents have less children than uneducated parents. It’s true for most of the countries, including USA, India. Even in India, poor uneducated families have more children.
Yes I know. What I’m pondering are the reasons behind this – why do better educated people have fewer children? Not a topic for this blog, but interesting to me.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Because they know better…?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
What I’m pondering are the reasons behind this – why do better educated people have fewer children?
—–
Educated people normally have better access to good medicines. They know if they have only two/three children, most likely all of them will be able to survive and become adults.
They also have better access to good educated system. They know that if they have only two/three children, with proper care, all of them have good chances of becoming well-educated.
On the other hand, poor people have more children because many of them die due to lack of good medicine. More children works as safety-net. It was true in our parents time too (40-50 years back when infant death was pretty high compare to today). For education I think “out of 10 children, at least one or two will be able to get education and find jobs” mentality.
There are other reasons too. In rural area (when there is less education) farmers or businessmen need some “extra hand” to help out in farming or business.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
lol. as a “childfree” individual I will refrain from a snarky rejoinder.
But seriously, on some level I think you’re right. They want to provide for them in a way they deem “adequate” and that would presumably include a good education. If you can get the very best education at no cost, then you can afford to raise more children. Where does desire & affordability come in?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
40-50 years back when infant death was pretty high compare to today
must. not. spew. coke out of nose!
Pretty sure I read that infant mortality rates have risen over the last 30 years or so. Pralay, you must be quite young – perhaps your time frame should be more like 100 years ago. Or at least 70.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
That was wrong:
The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
If you can get the very best education at no cost, then you can afford to raise more children. Where does desire & affordability come in?
—-
Well, I am “childfree” too.
I think quality of life is the main factor. In modern society and social structure with fast and busy lifestyle where people have very little time beyond 40-60 hours/week works, people tends to have less children because it works best for them. They would rather spend quality time with two/three children than chaotic life with 10 children. So, having 10 children is not a mandatory thing. It’s a choice. And most of the families don’t bother to opt for that “choice”.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Pretty sure I read that infant mortality rates have risen over the last 30 years or so.
—–
It’s possible to increase in some parts of Africa, especially in war and famine zones.
But overall it dropped. It dropped dramatically in industrialized nations and dropped somewhat in developing countries.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The HBO show actually has very little to do with No Child Left Behind – I think they used that just as link bait.
It’s like 10 minutes of the show or something.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
why do better educated people have fewer children? Not a topic for this blog, but interesting to me
Well, as I am childless as well, I can give some input as to why many educated folks have fewer children. And I think that can be summarized easily: they have fewer (or no) children because they have spent many of their adult years on their education and career.
Consider that is you are someone who decides to go to college. A standard bachelors degree is 4 years. Which means you will be 22 years old when you graduate. Tack on a masters, an MBA, med school, and such and you can see where this is going. Also, once graduated, you are actually underwater from the standpoint of hitting the ground running with debt. You have student loans to pay off. So that is an inopportune time to begin starting a family. Couple that with trying to find a job and establish a career and many of the educated often find themselves in their late 20s or early 30s before they are even in a position to have children. But that is where the ultimate decision comes in: do they really WANT a family? They have spent a good third of their life getting established and the last thing on many of these people’s minds is the desire to add dependents. Many want to start enjoying their life once they have established themselves and actually have some money to enjoy.
On the flipside, those that don’t go to college usually end up marrying early and start pumping out babies. They seldom think far enough ahead to determine if they can actually afford to raise multiple kids. They just put it in ‘God’s hands’.
That’s my theory anyway. And it kind of echoes what happened to me. I’m at the stage in my life where I want to enjoy my life and reap the rewards of my hard work. Being woken up in the middle of the night for feedings and diaper changes does not exactly give me warm fuzzies.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“why do better educated people have fewer children?”
Well, have a child and you will know. I think educated people are simply too lazy in raising kids who must be as good as they are. For uneducated, on the other hand, is simply, once the baby hits the ground their job is done (flame intended).
August 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
My wife and I are childless by choice. As cold and nasty as it sounds, its partially to do with the fact that as mentioned- children an expensive. But on the other hand, children -especially in expensive metros like the BA- are economic benefits to the local economy. Parents these days absolutely feel that their child is the one special snowflake and therefore must have the BEST house to live in which is next to the BEST public school, which in turn means they will then be able to go to the BEST college so that they can get the BEST job. All aspirations that cost a fortune and mean the state coffers can expect a handsome return from property taxes as the result of parents paying out the nose for those choice properties.
Its funny because I never felt that my parents were of the same thinking. We lived in the sticks, lived in an average house, went to a so-so high school, went to community college, and went to state colleges afterwords. Yet it seemed that those kids that went to the best private schools in our areas who also lived in the choicest neighborhoods all wound up having weird social problems and didn’t reliably do well in college.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
That’s kind of my point, BAI. If college (and whatever comes after in terms of school) was free, would that make you think twice about maybe having a kid after all? You’d have no debt coming out of school – or at least not student loans.
rick – bright idea: Don’t want kids? Have one anyway, maybe you’ll like it! Suck it up, lazy.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
nomadic,
Well, there are other reasons why I don’t have a major desire to have kids. This classic condom commercial explains it quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es_uivijpek
August 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I recall a report that came out about a year ago that showed that the more children the avg. couple had, the less likely the couple was to be happy with their marriage. In some ways I find that report to be ridiculous. But on the other hand, I was sitting in front of a couple on a plane a few weeks ago. The 2 kids screamed for the entire 4 hours and all the parents did was try to find ways to make them stop. Yup. Sounds like a real fun time…
August 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The majority of folks I know in their early or late thirties are struggling (or have struggled) to even get just one kid. Whether they live in Africa, Japan, France or the USA, and whether it’s due to our sedentary lifestyle or the air we breath and the food we ingest, I observed that this generation is struggling to even get the number of kids they’d like to have. I don’t see articles or studies about this, yet this is pervasive rather than anecdotal. Haven’t many of your co-workers tried Clomid or in-vitro? I know more folks who have than folks who haven’t, and I find this stupefying.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
… on the other hand I’ve noticed a phenomena in the Bay Area where 50-somethings will have like 3 kids swinging from their arms. Likely due to the miracle of modern birth-inducing hormonal drugs. Its weird to see this. Seeing grandparent aged parents with newborns to me is just as bad as seeing a 16 year old with a baby.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Bob, and what the report says about couples not having kids at all?
nomadic, well, you ask why educated people don’t want to have a lot of kids, I gave you the answer. I am not judging you.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I didn’t necessarily say you’re wrong, either rick. In some cases it may be true, but I doubt it’s a common reason. My opinion.
The time factor is definitely a good point. People who go to school longer, put off starting a family longer. That will naturally decrease the opportunity to have a huge number of kids. Still, someone could start at 35 and have, say four, if they really wanted to. Except for potential fertility issues mentioned by DT. I don’t know as many people with that problem. In fact, I know two couples who really wanted two kids each, and ended up with three. Whoops.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Rick,
I could only assume that couples without kids were found to be more content. On the other hand, I think one common reason couples have children is because their marriages are not working out as well as wished and thus the idea of having children to somehow inject happiness is acted upon which of course tends to compound pre-existing problems.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the report. Its a matter of choice and if people want to breed children, that’s fine with me. I’m also fine with those who don’t want to. Its not a matter of who’s right or who’s wrong.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
bob – are you sure that your views on children aren’t a consequence of your parents’ choices, as described in #33? In any case, funny how biased perspective works. I do think tne common reason couples have children is because their marriage is working out. Your line of reasoning is akin to saying people get married because they’re about to break up, or saying people find mates because they’d commit suicide if they stayed single. Makes for popular movie titles, but rather far from the cold, harsh reality
which is that commitment typically isn’t a consequence of escapism but of its polar opposite.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
whoah – what?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
All,
Please limit your conversation to real estate. This is a real estate blog. Too much road rage is going on here. Especially Pralay. Who cares what is going on in India? If he wants to discuss about India, he should leave Bay Area, pack his bag and go back to India.
To others except choker DreamT, please have sense of humoUr and discuss real estate only.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Pralay #29 – http://vimeo.com/2905893
August 27th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
> Pralay #29 – http://vimeo.com/290
Very good video. I’ll limit the conversation to real estate and say that: BUY REAL ESTATE IN TANZANIA!!! Inflation makes it practically free.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
> Mongol Steve: Portola Valley, a cubical house, models by your pool, and tasty margaritas.
Can I attend the house warming party?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
> As cold and nasty as it sounds, its partially to do with the fact that as mentioned- children an expensive.
Do you mind sharing the other reasons? You mentioned you make 6-figure and so does your wife. Seriously, if you make more than $200K a year you can easily afford one child (and school, and college, etc).
August 27th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
> I observed that this generation is struggling to even get the number of kids they’d like to have.
Do you think the previous generations had access to these?
(link is not safe for work)
August 27th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Forget about Foster City. Here’s your opportunity to get into Los Altos Hills for $150 (you read it right):
http://www.losaltoshillsraffle.com/
Your chance is way better than winning the lottery. I volunteered there before, and it’s a very worthy cause.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Palo Alto schools keep on getting better:
Palo Alto students score above state levels of proficiency in math and English-language arts tests and show general increases over last year’s district-wide results, according to Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test results released Tuesday.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Palo Alto properties buck the down-market tide
Palo Alto’s estimated property values rose nearly 4 percent, to $21.93 billion. Los Altos outstripped Palo Alto, at 4.27 percent, and Mountain View at more than 6 percent.
…
Palo Alto’s growth helped tip Santa Clara County into positive growth overall, the only one of the state’s largest counties to do so.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
As usual, Bob is wrong about everything. First of all, his priorities are wrong. Secondly, he deprives himself of the happiness that family can bring. Third, the joy that children bring is something one will realize only after having them (I’m sure many parents here can attest to that). You can’t throw away your life experience just to save money. The guy is a FOOL in all caps. Makes me wonder if he even had a wedding. After all, weddings are expensive too.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
We’re all still curious about the anniversary follow-up of this post.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Real Estater: Thanks for the tip in #50. I’ll buy a ticket and try my luck.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:44 am
> Here’s your opportunity to get into Los Altos Hills for $150
Thanks for posting it 3 weeks after nomadic. Really appreciated.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
bob – are you sure that your views on children aren’t a consequence of your parents’ choices, as described in #33?
No DreamT and I’m clueless as to how you deduced that the choices my parents made had any bearing on my decision. My parents and I have a great relationship and are extremely close. I would have not had it any other way. I grew up in a wonderful place, made wonderful friends, and would not trade it for the best private school or hoity-toity neighborhood ever. In fact I think of myself as quite lucky to ave had such a good childhood.
But that has nothing to do with my choice. Just because you and RE might like children or believe they bring happiness doesn’t mean that I or others will automatically agree. Sorry- I don’t. We live in a world that’s still very old-fashioned where conventional standards are still strictly and automatically adhered to.
Again- I have zero interest in having children. That’s my choice. if you want to have more, do so. I don’t really care. That’s your choice. I hope that now we can at least agree to disagree and bury this topic.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Herve and his close friend Herve Estater are always welcome.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am
DreamT (#42), you need to watch more Jerry Springer. He has women on all the time who say they got knocked up because their marriage was on the rocks or they wanted to get their boyfriend to marry them.
(On second thought, is Jerry Springer still doing a TV show?)
August 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Palo Alto’s estimated property values rose nearly 4 percent, to $21.93 billion.
——-
OMG! Who thought that such a day would arrive when RealEstater has to dig SCC Assessor’s report to claim property value raising!!!!! OMG!
Juliana Lee is crying, as her stats are being reported here anymore.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
OMG! Who thought that such a day would arrive when RealEstater has to dig SCC Assessor’s report to claim property value raising!!!!!
Easy, whenever the useless data is of use to him.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Correction on #60:
Juliana Lee is crying, as her stats are NOT being reported here anymore.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Bob,
Let’s say you’ve never had curry chicken. How do you know you won’t like it? Let’s hope you don’t discover when you’re old and alone that you wish you had some curry chicken.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
RE,
you don’t really have an argument. We all know that there’s no way in hell you’d ever step your little toe outside the narrow confines of the RBA nor would ever live anywhere else. So if you’re telling me that I’m totally wrong for not having children and that I will be sorry, perhaps I too could be telling you the same thing, that you’re squandering your life living in an overpriced area when you could be basically retired in any other nice part of the country. But of course that likely sounds crazy to you. So then why should you think that you’re going to change my mind on something that I also feel strongly about? Its my choice and I seriously doubt you’d really care if later in life I somehow wound up being all sad because I didn’t have kids. If so, then that’s my fault, but I don’t see that happening because its my choice and my decision on how to lead life, not yours.
We’re all free to do whatever we want. Again and for the last time, if children bring you and others happiness, then great. I’m happy for you. That being the case, I expect an equal amount of respect for my decision also even if you don’t agree.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Bob,
You keep saying this is your decision. Is it your wife’s decision also?
I can think of at least a couple of people who held similar views — when they were young and stupid. One of them regretted when it was too late. The other had a kid and realized how mistaken he was before.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
bob – don’t you agree with the selfish gene theory? It says that our overarching purpose on this planet is to have children, dictated by our genes’ instinct for survival, and that everything else is accessory.
On the other hand, that theory says nothing about which part of the country you should retire.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
RealEstater – What makes you think bob is young?
August 28th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I can think of at least a couple of people who held similar views — when they were young and stupid. One of them regretted when it was too late. The other had a kid and realized how mistaken he was before
And I can think of numerous people that have had children and lived to regret it.
Just like real estate, you paint a perfect rosy picture when it comes to having family. However, the white picket fence fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Children are not for everyone and diving head long into having children without thinking it through has led to numerous cases of divorce and bankruptcy.
A study was performed recently and it indicated that the HAPPIEST people where married couples with no children. That is fact based on the data collected.
But like everything, you take a narrow minded view of the situation and make broad based conclusions with nothing factual to back them up except your own personal conjecture.
I am seeing a pattern here.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
bob – don’t you agree with the selfish gene theory?
You didn’t ask me, but I don’t.
.
bob, BAI, please dnftt.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
> Let’s say you’ve never had curry chicken. How do you know you won’t like it?
Now let’s say a gay man hits on you. Would you get convinced to try “something new”? After all how do you know you won’t like it?
August 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Herve is so refined! Let’s hear anon’s version of that post now.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Let’s say you’ve never had curry chicken. How do you know you won’t like it? Let’s hope you don’t discover when you’re old and alone that you wish you had some curry chicken.
——-
There is no such thing as curry chicken. There are Rhode Island chicken, dorking chicken, cornish chicken, hybrid chicken, organic chicken, free-range chicken, chicken-free chicken etc etc etc. But there is NO curry chicken.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
You left out chicken fried steak!
August 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
now is that steak or chicken…?
August 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
> Let’s say you’ve never had curry chicken. How do you know you won’t like it?
Now let’s say a gay man hits on you. Would you get convinced to try “something new”? After all how do you know you won’t like it?
LMAO!
Good one.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:05 am
tht article is kinda mean….ur talking trash about our school and ur like saying that u don’t want children in this world anymore….tht’s just plain mean and insulting to us!!
March 12th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Did u go 2 Foster City schoolz? Looks lik it.
BTW, check this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm