“Latter Day Saint” is a better umbrella term than “Mormon”, especially in the context of sacred sites. It goes back to 1833 (“Saints” to 1829), earlier than “Mormon” was accepted by Saints as an identifier. And few groups reject it, while many reject “Mormon”.
The church’s official account just ratio’d a sportsbro?? This and flying cars in the same week
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe both books can help you draw closer to Jesus Christ and learn more about His gospel.
churchofjesuschrist.org/come…
Yeah, but the programming is only needed because it’s extremely unnatural for women to think that way, to the point it doesn’t even really work. Ultimately women still feel like crap when guys use them for sex and don’t care about them.
Where I think women are often failing to read men is intentions. Somehow they think/hope high-status man from the dating app might actually want a relationship this time, when he’s just going through the motions of courtship to string her along until she has sex with him.
I dunno, I think women are excellent at telling which men are high status (maybe not the same as high value). Unfortunately they are right that high-status guys wouldn’t bring flowers these days, or anything else that looks too eager.
It’s useless for people who do shift work. And it will never actually be universal because paying providers enough to keep enough of them in the system to meet demand is simply not feasible. It’s a regressive transfer to well-off families.
Programs like this overwhelmingly benefit well-off people. They are useless for people who do shift work, and the scarcity of spots inevitably leads to people with connections and resources getting them.
Agreed, a heavily-subsidized childcare program like this should be means-tested. The thing is it will never be universal because paying for a care worker for every six children in the province just isn’t feasible. And if it’s not universal, you have to means-test it.
The function of $10 a day childcare, relative to universal child allowances, is to transfer wealth from families with stay-at-home parents to well-off two-income families. It’s just taxpayers footing the bill for a minority like Eby to enjoy having a cheap servant class again.
Spots in heavily subsidized systems are always scarce because paying providers enough to keep enough of them in the system to meet demand would cost way too much.
The system only serves people with 9-5 schedules and favors those with the wherewithal to navigate it.
Just now, David Eby confirms that he has his kids in $10/day taxpayer-subsidized daycare.
Approx. only 10% of BC daycare spots offer $10/day daycare. Most families who want in can't get a spot.
As Premier, Eby earns $227k/year. Eby's wife is a doctor. Their household income is likely well over half a million dollars per year.
We don't resent British Columbians who are successful (we want more people to succeed).
But where there are wait lists, surely a wealthy family like Eby's shouldn't be taking advantage of $10/day daycare. Think about a working single mother? David Eby deserves the spot more than her?
Hold on, isn’t the idea that the monogamy-dangling is the predatory part? A man goes through the motions of courtship (until they have sex) so the woman thinks he may be interested in a relationship, when he is not?
And back to the ACS data, it seems the decline has all been since 2016, similarly to TFR, when the average family size for married-couple families in the county was 4.06 (now 3.76). A drop of 0.3 in 8 years is pretty steep.
Here is TFR to 2023. You can see Utah has converged in absolute terms with the rest of the country (and has gone from highest TFR to about 8th). Since Utah County is falling at same rate as the state (above), it's probably not driven by composition/falling LDS share in Utah.
I'm seeing a decline from 3.99 to 3.76 for family size among married couples between 2010 and 2024 for Utah County. The numbers I had for TFR are dated but there was a steep decline in Utah County between 2015 and 2020. Partly a tempo effect (births shifting to later ages).
Not obvious to me whether we will or won’t. We certainly seem to follow the culture on a 30-year delay. On the other hand, maybe we will figure out how to resist the dating apps or whatever is causing the crisis in the secular culture.
On this note, appears to me Latter-day Saints are going through the decline in children per couple and rise in marriage age that the secular culture went through a few decades earlier. But we have not (yet) seen the collapse in pairing off and big rise in never-married people.
I hate how often wards find out about a baptism a week or two before, sometimes less. Often the rush seems driven not so much by numbers as by missionaries wanting it to happen before the next transfer so they can be there for it.