What you're suggesting is obviously the pragmatic choice - obviously, if she's poor as shit and can't afford regular diapers, using reusable cloth ones is a great solution. But that's not the fucking point of the article - its $CURRENT_YEAR in the richest country in the world, this absolutely shouldn't be a thing that happens in the first place.

I'm not even a communist or anything, but its absolutely insane to me that Americans don't realize how "third world" their country is in some ways. Do you think that back in the 50s and 60s when your parents or grandparents were buying the first mass produced disposable diapers, they would have expected 60 years later people would be forced to go back to washable cloth diapers because they couldn't afford regular diapers? What a stupidly low standard to have for the wealthiest country in the world.

Capitalism is an awesome thing, but it seems conservative pundits and the rich have convinced a lot of people that you can't have both a strong, capitalist free market economy along with a government that actually gives a shit about its citizens and not just the top 10,000 guys with the biggest wallets or whatever.

Not everything is better because it happened in the past. God forbid you have to be a little bit more mindful of wanton consumption than people were in $CURRENT_YEAR - 50.

Calling a country third world because you can't throw away tons of disposable diapers... now that's a low standard, or just ridiculously privileged.

And maybe it could be price adjusted for income, so everyone should do the same effort for the environment.

That would generally reward people so much for the good things you mentioned that they still could afgord the one bad thing...

So yeah, it's incredibly relevant.

Cloth being better is something else entirely, nor was I suggesting that disposable diapers be discounted with taxpayer money. The point was "Why does the poor in the richest country in the world have to worry about something as inane as affording diapers in 2018?"

I agree that people should use cloth - but the response to "Hey, this poor person can't even really afford to buy diapers!" shouldn't be "wow that damn government making her dependent on welfare bux, shes so dumb she doesn't even know about cloth too!". It just reeks of being completely out of touch with the poor experience in America. Maternity leave isn't really a thing for someone like her - should she maybe be working an extra job or two to afford better diapers? Even if she doesn't, how do you know she has the time to deal with changing and washing cloth diapers? Being a stay at home mom doesn't exactly work as well as it did in the 50s or 60s, and she doesn't have a husband working for a tech company or whatever who can support a family on a single salary.

I don't disagree with a discussion on how we externalize costs in cell phones, take out food containers, packaging for toilet paper, or whatever else. But however reasonable that discussion is, it was besides the point of this discussion.

    > Do you think that back in the 50s and 60s
    > when your parents or grandparents were
    > buying the first mass produced disposable
    > diapers, they would have expected 60 years
    > later people would be forced to go back to
    > washable cloth diapers because they couldn't
    > afford regular diapers?

Here's a document that quotes prices from the 50s in the US[1]:

    [...]Prices typically ran above—sometimes well
    above—ten cents per diaper, while cloth
    diapers sold for 1-2 cents each and diaper
    services typically charged 3-5 cents per
    diaper.

So I think you can tell your grandparents in the 50s that accounting for the price of soap etc. their grandchildren are going to live in a country where disposable diapers are as cheap as cloth diapers. That doesn't sound so bad.

1. https://www.edana.org/docs/default-source/default-document-l...

I'm going to regret sticking my head over the parapet on this one but ...

You're making the argument that it's great that diapers are a quarter of the price that they were, and isn't that great. But we're speaking in the context of how the poor can't even afford them at that price.

I've no stake in this argument. The dynamic of poverty and privilege is a topic that demands robust discussion. But I couldn't let such an obvious contradiction slip by ...

I'm specifically responding to a part of the GPs comment that seems to be claiming that things have been getting worse since the 50s.

Which is not to say that anyone being unable to afford diapers can't be considered unacceptable, or that you could argue that social policies should be changed to amend that problem.

But it doesn't help anyone if the discussion isn't factually based. As far as I can tell poverty has been going down since the 50s[1] (with some bumps), and more generally, if you would present anyone in the 50s struggling to raise kids at their income level to swap with someone in 2018 at proportionally the same income level they'd take that swap in a heartbeat.

All of which is not to say that thing can't get even better, but there's no way to set sensible social policy for the future if we don't look at the data showing where we've already been, and what current trends are.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

What I do know is that the average industrial wage relative to the cost of living has been steadily declining with a marked plunge from the 80s onwards.

I will concede that the 50s is a poor comparison, as much of the western world was in the midst of a post-war economic boom at that time.

I don't know about the average "industrial wage", but that sounds like a bad metric to focus on. Manufacturing in the US has dropped from around 25% during this time down into the single digits, so it's not as common a job as it used to be. If anything I'd expect the wage to have gone up, since those jobs are now more specialized.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? The truth of the matter is most manufacturing companies are facing the same problem tech is right now: a "talent" shortage. The pay hasn't kept up with living costs in most areas. The days of buying a house and raising a family on an "industrial wage" are long gone. The pay is hardly enough to keep one person alive these days. As a result, nobody wants the jobs. The companies can't keep their assembly lines fully staffed, but they don't want to pay more either.

Any parent here who has ever used cloth diapers can tell you: they save money. They should be teaching cloth diapering like they teach breastfeeding to mothers of newborns.

But yes, I'm willing to believe that cloth diapers were cheaper, and still are cheaper. But that's a digression from the main topic at hand, which is the question of whether or not disposable diapers are cheaper than in the 50s when adjusted for inflation.

You say the OP's comment reeks of privilege/ignorance, but you go ahead and expect government privilege in $CURRENY_YEAR.

The OP was commenting that certain people leech and do not want to find a job and help themselves, but rather want more help from the government.

I grew up with cloth diapers not because my family was poor, but just simply because it was a better choice for us at the time. My Family grew up in the 50-60s with cloth diapers, because other types of diapers weren't available. I don't see that cloth diapers are a poor-people's choice. Why is that so "third world"? Is it bellow some "level" you think should exist - that my friend is the privilege/ignorance you were smelling in other comments.

>...certain people leech, do not want to find a job...

This is privilege and propaganda at work right here. Being so far removed from what its like to be poor that you unironically believe some bullshit like "poor people just want government bux for free".

>I grew up with cloth... Not because my family was poor, but because other types weren't available... I don't see that cloth diapers are a poor-peoples choice.. Is it below some "level” you think should exist?

Absolutely - I expect that the poor in the richest country in the world aren't forced to regress to the standards of 50-60 years ago for their children. There's nothing wrong with cloth diapers or the fact that you were brought up with them. The issue is that people like you don't think its a problem that somebody in the USA in 2018 has to get cloth diapers not because they want to, or their baby's skin handles it better or whatever, but because they literally cannot afford not to.

What the fuck is with this race to the bottom? Yes, I absolutely expect there to be certain standards of living in different countries that are upheld by society and government. How am I the crazy one here? I don't want to live in a fucking country where I'm making 6 figures, comfortable in my air conditioned home while down the street somebody has to shit on the street because public toilets were abolished because muh taxation is theft or something.

There's nothing shameful about being poor or different countries having different standards of living - there is something shameful about a society which looks at somebody struggling and instead of lending a hand tells them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

OT: To my eyes - there is a big difference in a sign "WILL WORK FOR FOOD/MONEY/ETC" and "PLEASE GIVE ME 100$ I NEED IT". Should the USA be like Mother Theresa, lend their helping hand to everyone in need?

I can tell you for a fact that there are tons of people who live on social aid, that are eligible to work, maybe even have degrees and just simply don't want to work. The whole point is, the more you help the more will the people get used to it and will start leeching - it's in the human nature.

I think enjoying bodily pleasures is great - but having a baby is something you need to ensure you can handle. If you can't raise a child right, don't raise it. I have seen people have 5 children - only so that the mother can live off of welfare.

You can give your wealth away - that's what I'm doing, but I'm not expecting my government to provide diapers, I buy them for the people in need. I expect my government to provide health care and jobs, the people will take care of the rest.

I don't mind USA helping people in a real need, but people who are just reckless should not be helped, because they knew what a child brings.

This is privilege and propaganda at work right here. Being so far removed from what its like to be poor that you unironically believe some bullshit like "poor people just want government bux for free".

Privilege is that I'm saying that people get used to government help and dont want to work? That's not privilege, that's called common sense. No point in discussing this further.

You don't even understand what privilege means, my dude. I expect my government to serve myself and the people, and not a handful of old dudes at the top of the food chain. If you think a government serving its people is a privilege, I think you have a very poor idea of what democracy is (or should be).

Oh - but government creating jobs and providing health care is serving old dudes? If what you're saying continues, you will end up with a world full of people that have no ability to resonate, work or be challenged.

There might be a difference between those two signs, but I'm not sure it's as profound as you make it. People change and learn as they grow. Someone holding a "Need $$ for beer" sign today may be holding a "Will work for food" sign tommorow, and who knows, perhaps "Now hiring" the next. Should we make sure the man starves to death in the first or second phase before he has a chance to mature and contribute to society? What percentage of humans are irredeemably intolerable? Can we not afford to help them out anyway just to make sure we don't miss the others?

I agree that people ought not have babies they cannot afford, but given that the entry bar is low and, ya'know, it does happen, is it fair for society to leave the child adrift in the wind to... punish its parents? Does society work better when it's comprised of adults who were such children?

Just to clear it up - my issue is with people feeling entitled to get help, while they can work.

Yes, no tiny creature should be punished, but there has to be a thought put into it at first I believe.

You mean the adults who were left to starve? No, it works better when children are loved and brought up in a normal environment. I see your point :)

For me it was straightforward enough to just quickly swallow it again as it emerged. No need for any additional ceremony.

The word privilege is a common term in thr English language and I'm sure the person you're responding to knows what it means.

I do not see how you got that from OP. Your sentence is very loaded. You are reading this with your own filters, it seems.

What I got from OP is the government is not helping people become self reliant. Instead it is helping them financially, but also hurting them long term by impeding their ability to learn ways to lift up.

unless, of course, you have a system that encourages dependence on public assistance and actually ends up hurting a woman's self-sufficiency and puts her little boy at a high risk of being helpless and dependent, too.

By having the government helping them more, they fail to become self-reliant, thus get used to leeching and are expecting from the government to help them. You have people purposely living on food stamps and government help, even though they're capable of finding work. If you're not aware of this you might want to check your filters as well.

It is disgusting that we create these perverse incentives and demonize people for dancing to our tune.

The common concept of first world is so misconstrued by people who live in it that those from second and third world countries would ridicule you for your comment.

Perspective, don't forget it.

The cost of disposable nappies is not the issue here. Neither is happiness or contentness. It's being the richest country in the world while 13.5% of its population is living below the poverty line, while people are literally dying on the streets due to being neglected by both the government, their neighbours, and a lack of acceptable health care. With the poor staying poor due to no social mobility, access to education, or normal jobs that don't involve having to scrounge the bottom of the barrel looking for e.g. passengers to drive around.

I don’t want to get into the political or moral issues, but I just want to point out that this is almost a non sequitur. The USA’s dominance is relative to other countries, but the poverty line is intra-USA. The single poorest person in the USA could be richer than everyone outside it and there could still very well be a poverty line - and people below it - in the USA.

"a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services"

I don't know, if the statistic for the USA is as high as the 13.5% cited by GP, but based on what I read about, and some small amount of personal experience, it is unusually high for such a wealthy, proud nation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

That's how bizarre this things looks.

I live in Argentina, not first world by any means, and we have a lots welfare programs.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Please, spare me the privilege argument. I've been so poor as a kid that I walked to my grandmother's house to ask for food. I've been so poor that I shared all-you-can-drink small size sodas at Taco Bell to make it to pay day. When you're poor and motivated, you do what you have to do.

People who are born into wealth have it way easier, but they can still lose it all and go broke. Then they'll adapt and try to overcome it, and the ones that can adapt survive. Just like nature's always been.

Disposable nappies are horrible for the environment.

Please keep this vitriol and personal attacks off of HN. OP was polite and posted a well-reasoned response. You making personal attacks out of ignorance that may not even hold true in the OP’s case is just petty.

Of course "X" still happens. "X" is lower on our priorities list than other more pressing issues. Are diapers really the cross we're going to die on now?

We spend ~$3tn helping people every year (federal, state, and local). I think its safe to assume the "richest country on Earth" is trying.

If you feel guilty about earning money easily, feel free to give it away. Personally, after already high taxes (40%+ not counting sales tax) I feel that I would like to give what's left to my own family rather than involuntarily donating it to random people.

Are YOU going to send my kids to college? Buy them cars? A house?

It's easy for some who may feel they have enough, or "got theirs" to say that people who "earn a lot" (aka still climbing the ladder) need to give more.

Nobody is preventing you from donating your money to a nonprofit.

The research is pretty clear - the difference in happiness and stress levels between making 300k and 400k as a family is pretty much nothing on average. The difference in happiness and stress levels between a family making 20k-40k is enormous.

I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth.

Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would advocate taking from those with high net worth either...

The unfortunate fact of our world is that, statistically, very few people escape their demographic and psychographic destiny. You can predict a 6 year old kids earnings as an adult fairly well from a mix of their birth geography, parents income, an iq test, and the marshmallow test. Some level of redistribution, that still rewards capitalist endeavors, makes sense in a society as unfair as ours.

Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss some kind of social contract, but I get nervous about people saying "well he makes a lot of money, let's take it from him". That's too simplistic.

How many of us would have to chip in another $10-$20 in taxes to cover those without, so a parent and his/her children can take a shit and dispose of it in a way that meats their commitments as appropriate?

Further, where does it end?

"I want a good brand of disposable diapers, not the cheap ones" (Note: a lot of working families are buying those cheap diapers!)

"I want a $1000 stroller with an easy-collapse handle and nice tires so my kids don't get jostled as I take them over bumps in the park"

"I need a subsidy for a minivan because a small car is very inconvenient with kids"

"I need a subsidy for ORGANIC food, not just any food for my babies."

etc.

The standard could easily become more than the average US household income, without even trying hard to grow the list.

Remember, it's not about ability to have any diapers at all, they're arguing that they deserve a higher standard of convenience.

Meanwhile, I need to commute to work an obscene distance because NIMBYs won't allow more housing to be built, keeping me away from my children for many more hours than I would otherwise need to. But please, prioritize taxing me even more to pay for conveniences for people who are home with their kids while I work to feed mine.

Time spent cleaning cloth diapers is time not spent working and earning money.

Being poor is expensive. Being poor means you are on an hourly wage in shift work not a salary. That means half an hour late for work means half an hour less money.

I wouldn't mind a subsidy on cloth diapers to be honest. The landfill waste from disposables is insane.

Not saying everything is fixed with tossing more money at it, simply setting priorities and building value for more people without always looking at the short term profits. And in some countries perhaps closing questionable cash flows towards those who clearly are benefiting unnecessarily.

Then pay more taxes if you will, or donate to some charity, just don't force other people to do so.

The question is not what someone pays you but what worth do you really bring to the society that also feeds and supports you.

So while doing your wellpaid job, you probably pay only 5 or 10 an hour to the persons cleaning your toilet so you can do your „human business“ in a conveniently clean place. Don’t you think this person is responsible for a big and relevant part of your life quality?

I make a pretty fair amount of money, but unlike you, I am not a lazy person; I worked my ass off to get where I am and I made sacrifices along the way. I strongly object to paying more taxes just so you can assuage your personal guilt. Contact the reporter for the story, explain you are a guilt-ridden rich person who wants to help that woman out. Then send the woman $290 per hour of your money. Do it for a month. Until you do that, then I’ll invite you not to suggest that we should pay more taxes to support someone because you feel guilty. Taxes aren’t for solving your guilt — charity is. Forcing people to help someone because YOU feel that you don’t work hard enough? That’s ridiculous. Charities were invented for exactly that purpose — people can voluntarily give to their heart’s content.

Just imagine if every liberal person freely donated some amount that would be taken by the government in plans they can't get passed? We have the power as a people to organize, fund, etc. Maybe conservatives would see the good that these donations do and be impressed to contribute in kind.

I just think we could all do better as a people collectively in every aspect.

- If you'd really prefer modern style cloth diapers (prefold, pocket etc) instead of the cheap old-school flat diapers, often you can buy second-hand ones that are hardly used (or not used at all!).

- If you have any more children, your cost for buying diapers is now $0 because you already have them.

Looks like Wikipedia actually has a decent section on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaper#Debate

These are prefolds, with outers: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002LR8VC4

Prefolds are similar to the old flat nappies but they're thicker so you don't have to fold them so much. They work well but they're not as simple as the other options:

These are pocket: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SWIA5LQ

They have a pocket in them where the absorbent insert goes. Easier to use but usually not quite as absorbent as prefold.

Then there are other variations, e.g. Ones where the absorbent inner clips onto the outer ("snap-in"), or even simpler ones that are one outer and inner combined ("all-in-one").

Pricey new, we bought 30 of them used for $50 bucks on craigslist and soak/cleaned/sun dried them for a few cycles.

I loved the all-in-ones.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/free-shipping-100-cotton-wat...

The top result I got was a Walmart ad. The "Gerber It's a Snap All-in-One" is $9.98 for 3, so about $3.33 each.

I've seen them in physical stores as well.

But also, it is not all hygienic enough to wash them in bucket with soap. Back when my mother had kids, they had to went through boiling water and were ironed. You basically spent whole day dealing with diapers. Literally whole day, it is ridiculous amount of work.

Also, cloth diapers cause more rashes and that costs money too.

What I definitely don't like is sanctimonious knee jerking about how parents should do everything the hardest possible way, or else omg end of world happen and everybody will become super lazy. And if they don't do everything the most effective way from day one or dare to talk about their opinions, then the civilization will fall.

Our son was just like GP's one, screaming all the damn time and hardly sleeping for the first 6 months. Undiagnosed digestion problem, which 10 years after was finally pinned on a milk protein intolerance (not lactose).

In other words, you want to help the person in a way that doesn't require you to pay anything or spend any of your time.

What do you want to do to help them?

Am I the only one who thinks I could manage to clean some cloth diapers in a bucket or tub fairly easily?

If you'll be putting them right back on the same kid, then no. Remember, you don't boil the kid's ass to be hygienic. You'll be putting that diaper on an unboiled ass. The diaper doesn't need to be boiled.

Although this is kind of you and your position is likely rooted in empathy and compassion, I think this is also wrong.

At which point do we make the cut and let a person take responsibility for their lives? It's a chicken and egg problem, sure. But, who cares? I'm not saying that life isn't hard or that there aren't people who, by pure misfortune, had to endure situations which leave long-lasting scars. What I'm saying, however, is that each human being is the master of his or her destiny.

>I don't blame this woman.

Don't you, by not blaming her, contribute to reinforcing her perceived helplessness?

Where do we make a cut? At which point can we "blame" a human being for her perceived helplessness? I don't want to blame any body, of course, I just want everyone to be aware that they, alone, can do better.

Would my life be better if I was born in huge loving, rich family and I wouldn't have to worry about "surviving"? Well, perhaps. Do I care about the circumstances that were less than optimal in my life and for which some degree of fortitude and healing was needed? Hell no! It is what it is.

>I don't blame this woman.

If I ever put myself in a position of helplessness, please go ahead and blame me. Perhaps then I'd be able to realize that there are other ways.

>I'm pissed, however, at the politicians who have created this dependency web to trap people like this woman and ensure that there will always be a need for do-gooder politicians.

Nevertheless, I agree with this as much as I disagree with your other statement. Politicians who profit from certain tendencies in the most vulnerable members of our society not in order to help but to enslave are the dirty, dirty people.

You have likely never been put into a situation like this, because if you had you would know that this is not true in reality. It's significantly more complicated than you make it out to be.