We Need More Kids

[DBT]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

Population growth is related to economic growth. We currently have a low birth rate, but high immigration for that reason.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

Population growth is related to economic growth. We currently have a low birth rate, but high immigration for that reason.

I'd need to seem some links supporting this. Seems to me that high birth rate areas (Africa, mid-east) are very poor with poor economic growth; lower population growth areas are doing well (Japan, South Korea, Europe) and etc.

 

[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.

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.

It ain't my plan. I'm telling you what I'm hearing from the alt-right-wing... soon to be right-wing. These people know little about what a functioning society requires to... well... function.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

Yes, Rome fell.

What does this have to do with the long-con of getting women out of the workforce and baby'ing them up because... shut up women... we know what's best.

 

[pood]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

Population growth is related to economic growth. We currently have a low birth rate, but high immigration for that reason.

I'd need to seem some links supporting this. Seems to me that high birth rate areas (Africa, mid-east) are very poor with poor economic growth; lower population growth areas are doing well (Japan, South Korea, Europe) and etc.

They are doing well because of immigration. Take away immigration and they are not doing well. Japan, which discourages immigration, is not doing well. Their population is forecast to crash and then they will not be doing well at all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

economic growth ==> more sex robots?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

Population growth is related to economic growth. We currently have a low birth rate, but high immigration for that reason.

I'd need to seem some links supporting this. Seems to me that high birth rate areas (Africa, mid-east) are very poor with poor economic growth; lower population growth areas are doing well (Japan, South Korea, Europe) and etc.

They are doing well because of immigration. Take away immigration and they are not doing well. Japan, which discourages immigration, is not doing well. Their population is forecast to crash and then they will not be doing well at all.

Yes, Japan has struggled. But they are projecting growth this year. Even with immigration, Europe is growing less fast than many parts of Africa and yet has more growth.

 

[DBT]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible else follows.

What does this have to do with less kids??

Population growth is related to economic growth. We currently have a low birth rate, but high immigration for that reason.

I'd need to seem some links supporting this. Seems to me that high birth rate areas (Africa, mid-east) are very poor with poor economic growth; lower population growth areas are doing well (Japan, South Korea, Europe) and etc.

That's true to a point, a high birth rate may outstrip the ability of some nations to provide opportunities for workers. But that's not necessarily the case in developed nations with falling birth rates and the drive to keep the economy growing. Two different sets of conditions.

 

[Patooka]

There is a white elephant in the room, which is to say, the wrong people are having kids. This is not too far away from a bunch of wannabe tough guys parading with Tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us".

Following the movie "Idiocracy" , it was not the wrong race having kids but the stupid unsuccessful people having kids. Demonstrated without any racial component involved, professional couples with advanced degrees preferring fewer children then uneducated couples having less job pressures.

than

"Me and Jenny, living on thicko corner"

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.

Live in a country that allows that, but during COVID forces you to reset your requirements, then have a father who doesn't admit to havin to 3 heart attacks, whilst having a mother with some shattered vertebrae but everything works out.

Also called health care.

 

[Toni]

There is a white elephant in the room, which is to say, the wrong people are having kids. This is not too far away from a bunch of wannabe tough guys parading with Tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us".

Following the movie "Idiocracy" , it was not the wrong race having kids but the stupid unsuccessful people having kids. Demonstrated without any racial component involved, professional couples with advanced degrees preferring fewer children then uneducated couples having less job pressures.

than

"Me and Jenny, living on thicko corner"

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.

Live in a country that allows that, but during COVID forces you to reset your requirements, then have a father who doesn't admit to havin to 3 heart attacks, whilst having a mother with some shattered vertebrae but everything works out.

Also called health care.

Yikes.

 

[Thomas II]

Kids are expensive. Maybe if Republicans would stop taking benefits away from working class people so they can give tax breaks to the rich the working class might have more kids.

 

[bilby]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible,

Is it? How many dollars is the maximum GDP possible?

all else follows.

Nothing useful follows from an obviously false premise.

Perpetual population growth is impossible (but it's not something we are attempting, so who cares?)

Perpetual growth in consumption of any specific resource is impossible without recycling (but again, that's not something we are attempting, so who cares?)

Population is currently expected to plateau at about 10-12 billion, some time in the next few decades.

Resource extraction is going to continue for as long as it is cheaper than recycling, but that balance is already tipping; for example, making new steel from iron ore now costs almost as much as making new steel from scrap steel. At some point, it will no longer be economically viable to mine iron ore, and at that point there will still be a lot of iron ore in the ground. The same is true of all durable resources.

So, perpetual economic growth doesn't require perpetual population growth, nor perpetual resource extraction growth, and neither of those things are anticipated to be attempted anyway.

Perpetual economic growth DOES require a perpetual increase in the number of dollars of GDP; But dollars are unlimited, other than by the availability of numbers to put after the $ sign.

 

[Tigers!]

In fact, I don’t even think it is helpful to talk about stupid or smart people. We should be talking about educating everyone, and freeing them of stupid conditioning imposed on them by their families and culture.

Provided the said education does not itself provide stupid conditioning.

 

[Tigers!]

and freeing them of stupid conditioning imposed on them by their families and culture.

Spcificaly religious culture conditioning them to be stupid, to reject intelegence.

Was mispelling intelligence deliberate or ironic?

 

[Tigers!]

"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.

Less useless posts on IIDB? Present company naturally excluded.
(I can think of a few posters who eventual extinction would lessen the post count)

 

[DBT]

Perpetual economic growth is impossible,

Is it? How many dollars is the maximum GDP possible?

Our 'economy' represents our activity in life, our need for housing, food, transport, mining, logging, fishing, farming, making money, etc, etc. And as the planet and its resources, arable land, etc, is finite, perpetual growth is not possible. At some point we hit the wall of demand exceeding supply because there is simply too many of us placing demand on our finite space - the planet - and its resources.

all else follows.

Nothing useful follows from an obviously false premise.

Perpetual population growth is impossible (but it's not something we are attempting, so who cares?)

Perpetual growth in consumption of any specific resource is impossible without recycling (but again, that's not something we are attempting, so who cares?)

Population is currently expected to plateau at about 10-12 billion, some time in the next few decades.

Resource extraction is going to continue for as long as it is cheaper than recycling, but that balance is already tipping; for example, making new steel from iron ore now costs almost as much as making new steel from scrap steel. At some point, it will no longer be economically viable to mine iron ore, and at that point there will still be a lot of iron ore in the ground. The same is true of all durable resources.

So, perpetual economic growth doesn't require perpetual population growth, nor perpetual resource extraction growth, and neither of those things are anticipated to be attempted anyway.

Perpetual economic growth DOES require a perpetual increase in the number of dollars of GDP; But dollars are unlimited, other than by the availability of numbers to put after the $ sign.

Dollars are related to how we live and what we do, our economy, building houses, growing food, providing services. A growing demand for housing, goods and services and so on is what stimulated growth in the economy, more is needed and more is produced, our economy is growing.

Stop building houses, for instance, and see what happens to the incomes and profits of suppliers of material, transport, builders, sellers, buyers, agents....

Our economy is tied to the natural and its resources, and as they are finite, perpetual growth is an illusion.

 

[bigfield]

Stop building houses

That would be stupid.

We'd end up with no houses.

 

[scombrid]

Geez, the women you all are ridiculing sound a lot like my mom! A devout Christian woman, got her Mrs degree at San Jose State, had 4 kids, was a lifelong housewife (with occasional part time home teaching and substitute teaching jobs), was in the PTA, a cub scout Den Mother and totally dependent on my dad. Loved to be in the kitchen (not barefoot though!) cooking for her family and taking care of babies, children, cats and the house. Or working in the garden. She enjoyed her lifestyle. One of the kindest people you'd ever meet. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

How do you feel about Charlie Kirk et al.'s denigration of women that choose to have a career and family or just a career? Seems that position is more the point of criticism or ridicule in this thread than women who choose family over material pursuits.

 

[pood]

Or our idiot vice president condemning “childless cat ladies”?

 

[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.

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.

I already knew all of that, but that doesn't mean the billionaires should receive huge amounts of SS just because they pay in more. I know this won't happen, at least not in my lifetime, but there is no reason why the ultra wealthy need so much money.

Another option is to permit those who don't need SS to donate it back. I think Warren Buffet used to talk about how insane it was that he paid a lower percentage of taxes compared to his secretary. There are some decent wealthy people who would probably agree to something like that. Plus, the better members of the ultra wealthy could try to shame those who aren't willing to donate their SS. There are solutions to make the system more fair. Lower income people get pittance when it comes to SS. Why is that fair if they've worked all of their lives, paid into SS at the same percentage of everyone else, but were never able to make a decent salary?