We Need More Kids

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

 

[unapologetic]

"2.7 is the real number needed to avoid long-term extinction."

'long-term extinction' due to shrinking birthrates is fear-mongering bullshit.
Birthrates are easily changed, even 'last-minute'. Extinction from other causes are more likely, and more painful.
And there are some advantages that could be exploited to benifit the economy, and people.
Less competition for resorces and 'reserves' of such. The 'reserves' will last longer.
Less competition for jobs and housing/land.
Less strain on the enviroment. Less worry about 'extinction' from eviromental problems.
More time to work on other problems.

 

[Toni]

I know most of you did not watch the movie.

She said to her gay friend who almost certainly, and indeed did, watch (and love) the movie. I'd watch a commercial for oatmeal if I knew Greta Gerwig had directed it.

I said most of you.

I feel the same re: Greta Gerwig.

I myself always had a complicated relationship with Barbie. My older sister had one and I was fascinated by her breasts and feet but mostly by all of her clothes which, in the stone ages, had actual tiny zippers and buttons and snaps. My mother got me a knock off, more realistically proportioned doll called Tammy. Whose clothes were not nearly as nice. She says she thought Barbie was ‘too mature’ for me, by which she meant the boobs were too prominent. Also, I was forever relegated to third best of anything.

I was not a girly child but my daughter was and it was with the same angst I had re: her brother’s obsession with GI Joe that I agreed to allow her Barbie’s which were far less specialized but pretty damn plastic and pink.

I was dragged kicking and screaming ( silently, quietly) to see Barbie and I loved it. Loooved Kate McKinnon and Rhea Perlman and Margo Robbie and America Ferrrera—and Ryan Gosling. It wa not at all what I had imagined before I saw it.

 

[TomC]

'long-term extinction' due to shrinking birthrates is fear-mongering bullshit.

It kinda reminds me of a bunch of idiocy I remember very well. People insisting that marginalizing gays was crucial to human existence, because if everyone turned gay the human race would go extinct.
Tom

 

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

The al-right and manosphere mean we need more tradbros with their tradwives to have more white babies that will grow up MAGA.

Note: These are guys who have no idea how to attract a woman. Also their world view was formed by video games.

 

[TV and credit cards]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I'll break the news to my seven year old granddaughter because right now she's thinking astronaut.

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

 

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I'll break the news to my seven year old granddaughter because right now she's thinking astronaut.

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

Yeah, that’s what I hear from some of my kids. The world is dying and why would u bring kids into this hellscape?

But the reality is that pretty often, career oriented people find each other, instead of someone who just wants to play role of support to the bread winner. More importantly, parenthood is a job with built in obsolescence: if you do your job right, the kids grow up, start their own lives.

It is very very difficult to resurrect your career or start a new one after years of being a stay at home parent, supporting your spouse’s career over your own.

Ask me how I know.

 

[Swammerdami]

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

I think it's been a very common statement among Americans for a few decades by now. If true, it seems sad.

But is it an excuse by people who have more "selfish" reasons not to have kids? They can't afford kids, or they want their freedom, or they don't want to rely on a spouse. And Google comes up with:

Researchers studying American adults could find no type of parent — with or without custody; biological, adoptive, or step; of young or adult children — who reported a greater sense of well-being than non-parents. In the United States, parents report themselves to be 12% less happy than people without children.

 

[Toni]

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

I think it's been a very common statement among Americans for a few decades by now. If true, it seems sad.

But is it an excuse by people who have more "selfish" reasons not to have kids? They can't afford kids, or they want their freedom, or they don't want to rely on a spouse. And Google comes up with:

Researchers studying American adults could find no type of parent — with or without custody; biological, adoptive, or step; of young or adult children — who reported a greater sense of well-being than non-parents. In the United States, parents report themselves to be 12% less happy than people without children.

I’m not certain of this but one of my adult offspring talks about how it is wrong to bring kids into this world and part of me takes at face value that this is his reason for not having kids. OTOH, I see him with his nibbling and I see something different in his face. What I think is that his partner is the youngest kid in a large family and she never wanted her own kids. But, a variety of medical issues would have likely made it difficult to conceive and carry a pregnancy. She’s very very career oriented and her job means a lot of travel. His job is fairly demanding. It would have been a difficult juggle. I get it. Makes me sad, tho.

 

[southernhybrid]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

That could be solved by allowing a lot more young immigrants into the country if they want to join what was once a called a nation of immigrants. These people pay into SS, but rarely receive it. Plus, very few Americans want to care for older adults. Most of the aides and LPNs in the nursing home where my mother spent her last two years were immigrants. The RNs were mostly American citizens who were born in the US. RNs aren't the ones who help older adults with the ADLs.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a limit on the income paid into SS. People who are extremely wealthy don't need larger SS benefits, but they should pay in more than they currently do. Women who want to have more babies certainly should be able to but there are many ways to solve things like SS besides having more babies. There are currently a huge number of jobs that can't be filled because Americans don't want to do that type of work.

Bring in those who will do the jobs in return for a chance to become citizens. Of course that's not going to happen under the current xenophobic administration but we're fucked if this continues, not just because of SS, but for all the jobs that need to be filled.

 

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

That could be solved by allowing a lot more young immigrants into the country if they want to join what was once a called a nation of immigrants. These people pay into SS, but rarely receive it. Plus, very few Americans want to care for older adults. Most of the aides and LPNs in the nursing home where my mother spent her last two years were immigrants. The RNs were mostly American citizens who were born in the US. RNs aren't the ones who help older adults with the ADLs.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a limit on the income paid into SS. People who are extremely wealthy don't need larger SS benefits, but they should pay in more than they currently do. Women who want to have more babies certainly should be able to but there are many ways to solve things like SS besides having more babies. There are currently a huge number of jobs that can't be filled because Americans don't want to do that type of work.

Bring in those who will do the jobs in return for a chance to become citizens. Of course that's not going to happen under the current xenophobic administration but we're fucked if this continues, not just because of SS, but for all the jobs that need to be filled.

I talked with my husband who has a background in public finance about this issue: raising income that could be taxed for SS while limiting benefits received because I thought exactly what you suggested. What he told me was that removing the cap on taxable income but maintaining the cap on benefits received would go completely against the purpose and design of SS. It was designed so that everyone contributed and everyone received in proportion to what they contributed. This is why there is a cap on income taxed for SS: Rich people don’t need money from SS. It could cause more resentment and a collapse of support for and of this very important benefit if we changed that balance.

I don’t like it either but I see his point. GOP is already trying to destroy SS.

 

[unapologetic]

I'll be honest. one of the major reasons I never had kids/family is I'd be totaly incompentent.
I wouldn't want to fuck-up someone else's life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I think you are mistaken. This isn't about women (is it ever?), it is about the fragility of men and not just how many men feel entitled to being the person in charge of a household... but how they feel entitled to force this on women in general... to fulfill their worldview.

The shit I am hearing on AM radio these days is disturbing.

 

[pood]

The Manosohere — this is all so fucking depressing. Wherein we learn, among many other depressing things, that young men are more likely to hold stereotypical views of gender roles than older men.

Way back when at the dawn of television, predictions were made that everyone would huddle in front of the TV watching opera and lectures on physics and the like. By 1962 TV was labeled “a vast wasteland,” and remains so today.

At the start of the Internet, it was called the Information Superhighway and it was predicted that we would all bask in a new world of unifying facts and information, that it would bring us all together.

Instead we got … the Manosphere. And Social Media. And torrents of trolls, tripe, disinformation, deep fakes, and on and on and on …

 

[Politesse]

The Manosohere — this is all so fucking depressing. Wherein we learn, among many other depressing things, that young men are more likely to hold stereotypical views of gender roles than older men.

Way back when at the dawn of television, predictions were made that everyone would huddle in front of the TV watching opera and lectures on physics and the like. By 1962 TV was labeled “a vast wasteland,” and remains so today.

At the start of the Internet, it was called the Information Superhighway and it was predicted that we would all bask in a new world of unifying facts and information, that it would bring us all together.

Instead we got … the Manosphere. And Social Media. And torrents of trolls, tripe, disinformation, deep fakes, and on and on and on …

This despite all of them supposedly being "indoctrinated" into "gender ideology" by their elementary school teachers. If there's an international plot to turn the youths of today info bran-munching feminists, it sure as fuck isn't working.

 

[DBT]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

 

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I think you are mistaken. This isn't about women (is it ever?), it is about the fragility of men and not just how many men feel entitled to being the person in charge of a household... but how they feel entitled to force this on women in general... to fulfill their worldview.

The shit I am hearing on AM radio these days is disturbing.

Who do you think is going to be changing the bedpans? It ain't men. And it likely ain't white people or people born in the USA.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Manosohere — this is all so fucking depressing. Wherein we learn, among many other depressing things, that young men are more likely to hold stereotypical views of gender roles than older men.

Way back when at the dawn of television, predictions were made that everyone would huddle in front of the TV watching opera and lectures on physics and the like. By 1962 TV was labeled “a vast wasteland,” and remains so today.

At the start of the Internet, it was called the Information Superhighway and it was predicted that we would all bask in a new world of unifying facts and information, that it would bring us all together.

Instead we got … the Manosphere. And Social Media. And torrents of trolls, tripe, disinformation, deep fakes, and on and on and on …

(Chuckle); I don't know about that! Look, IMO, there is nothing better on earth than my kids. I try to spend all my free time with my kids. They are amazing. However, it is quite a sacrifice. I make pretty good money, and we drive 2 13 year old cars. No vacations this year. College is a real killer. If the parents make a certain amount of income, the kids don't qualify for subsidized loans. And unsubsidized loans are awful. 6% loan fees! All of our kids are straight A students. One is out of state tuition (killer cubed). But we're paying out about $100K a year for three kids in college now. Having said that, I wish that we had 3 more.

However, I don't blame younger people in the least if they don't want this life. It's incredible highs, but some very difficult lows. Younger people who want to travel, drive nice cars, ski anytime, want me time, want freedom and etc. should not have kids! It's not for everyone. I don't think that there is anything insidious about less children today. It's more that people now have a choice...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

 

[laughing dog]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

That could be solved by allowing a lot more young immigrants into the country if they want to join what was once a called a nation of immigrants. These people pay into SS, but rarely receive it. Plus, very few Americans want to care for older adults. Most of the aides and LPNs in the nursing home where my mother spent her last two years were immigrants. The RNs were mostly American citizens who were born in the US. RNs aren't the ones who help older adults with the ADLs.

How many members of Congress would run on such a platform? How many of those would get elected?

Of course that makes perfect sense.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a limit on the income paid into SS. People who are extremely wealthy don't need larger SS benefits, but they should pay in more than they currently do. Women who want to have more babies certainly should be able to but there are many ways to solve things like SS besides having more babies. There are currently a huge number of jobs that can't be filled because Americans don't want to do that type of work.

Lifting the wage limit of SS to infinity would not really help that much, unless the level of that tax rate was close to 100% confiscatory.

SS was set up to as welfare scheme - immediate payouts to the elderly (who were mostly poor). The cap was instituted to limit payouts. The point was to make SS look very much like a retirement plan so that there were be little motivation for cuts to it.

Congress has been negligent in adjusting SS to deal with the declining worker to retiree ratio, and with dealing with the effects of inflation. SS is indexed to the growth in the CPI, but wages do not grow at the same rate (slightly less than the CPI), so even if the worker to retiree ratio had not declined, expenditures would grown faster than revenue. Add in that people are leaving much longer, and the declining birth rate, and the problem with SS finance has been known for decades.

I expect that once the SS is close to a financial meltdown, Congress will be forced to do something, and they will come up with an unnecessarily drastic solution.