The Number of Children in L.A. Is Shrinking — Which Could Be a Disaster

Seems a few demographic shifts are already underway. But to be fair, Los Angeles is an expensive place to raise a family. A large number of people couldn’t make it without various public assistance and such.

laweekly.com/news/the-number-of-children-in-la-is-shrinking-which-could-be-a-disaster-7986526

[quote=La Weekly]Between 1980 and 2000, LAUSD’s population exploded from about 500,000 to more than 700,000, causing classrooms to become seriously overcrowded.

[Snip]

A little more than a decade ago, something unexpected happened. The district’s enrollment, which peaked in 2004 at just under 750,000, began to drop. Some of the loss was to independent charters, a growing trend that would soon amount to a veritable exodus of students. But the total number of kids being served by both the district and charters also was dropping. The reason was simple: People are having fewer children. They’re also having them later in life —** and they’re often leaving L.A. once they do**.
[/quote]

Los Angeles is already a disaster, along with most of the rest of California!:shrug:
If the cost of weed goes up, it’ll get even worse. Seriously, though, that would be a blessing in disguise for the besotted ones who partake of it. Better for “the environment”, too.:smiley:

There might be a need for federal handouts to keep the state afloat, so does this mean California won’t be seceding after all?:eek:

I dunno, the idea of there being less Californians in this country kind of appeals to me.

They all move out to surrounding bedroom communities. Believe it or not, housing is still affordable in California if you know where to look.

:smiley:

Another example of how “pro-life” (anti-abortion) legislation and policies don’t extend to families once the baby’s born. Yes, it certainly can be disastrous when prenatal care and delivery costs have gotten so prohibitively expensive that so many families choose preventing pregnancies (thereby avoiding killing babies). Where are all the March For Life marchers helping these families in LA? :shrug:

While I don’t disagree necessarily with your first sentence, what makes you think that expense is the only, or even the predominant reason a couple might delay having children in this day and age?

The Californian dream had long since become unmanageable. A decline in the Angelenian head-count, if in fact it occurs, might not be all bad.

ICXC NIKA

Prioritizing a budget would be good, with a way to support struggling families. It does get difficult to avoid the mentality to use the system, of course.

And I know of at least one silly, funded program (out of many, no doubt) that could be eliminated. My aunt works at S.U. and for yrs was funded to study “obesity”! Really? Millions of dollars to study obesity!

Ive never understood why SoCal is so expensive, the potential for natural disasters of all kinds is very high here, not many jobs available, etc. Is the perfect weather really the only thing that justifies such a high cost of living? LOL

Someone living the slums of Los Angeles could move here to KY and pick and choose from the swankiest high end subdivisions, plenty of jobs around here, almost zero potential for natural disasters…the only sticking point though, it does get cold in winter and humidity is horrible in summer.

Do you have any evidence for this garbage you keep spewing in the attempt to weaken the pro-life movement?

I’m notcompletely sure myself. Probably the “regulations”, but given our ongoing issues near refineries and past industries leaving toxic stuff in neighborhoods it isn’t all baseless.

the potential for natural disasters of all kinds is very high here,

What I the heck are you talking about? We have small to medium wildfires every year, massive ones every decade or so, and flooding every few years.
Did you mean earthquakes? Major ones are once a decade and really inconvenient for most with low death tolls. I’ll take earthquakes over mosquitos, tornados, hurricanes, or blizzards.

I’m sure you don’t mean to lump all California residents in with LA, San, Jose, SF, right? There are many in rural California who disagree with the ideologies that prevail in these areas, and wouldn’t be joining them even if they could secede (which they obviously can’t).
We have the water, the agricultural land and the forests, too…

I hear that all the time from Californians; but you have warnings of hurricanes, not so earthquakes.

Really, if you are afraid of natural disaster the place to be is S. TX. No quakes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, freezing weather only biennially, hard freeze only decadally. Our penance is heat above 90*F a third of the year. :):):slight_smile:

ICXC NIKA

Having been through 2 big ones and dozens of medium ones, earthquakes are not that bad. The sudden nature of them is actually a positive. Besides, evacuation or sheltering for the duration of a quake watch doesn’t make sense.

Really, if you are afraid of natural disaster the place to be is S. TX. No quakes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, freezing weather only biennially, hard freeze only decadally. Our penance is heat above 90*F a third of the year. :):):slight_smile:

ICXC NIKA

When i retire 30-40 years from now I’m moving to somewhere with seasons and winter snow.

It’s not “garbage” intended to weaken “pro-life” by pointing out that prenatal care and delivery costs have gotten out of control. Do I have evidence for those increasing costs? Yes, I do. And this news article corroborates some of that evidence.

The garbage is you equating pro-life to anti-abortion and thats it. It is not true and rising prenatal costs are not evidence of this. Yes, its garbage to say that the only thing pro-life people support is eliminating abortion. And yes, you spew this lie frequently!

:rotfl:

So the solution to the issue is more abortions?

Well that was a charitable comment :rolleyes:

You do realize California gives more money to the Federal Government then it receives in as you term them “handouts”. If California didn’t have to subsidize the net takers of Federal funds to the tune of $450 billion every year, it would be much better off.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.