With declining birth replacement rates around the world …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

There should be more lefties like you! This is fantastic!

Yes, because real Asians and liberals famously describe themselves as “lefty” and “brown” 🙄🙄🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

LOL yes let's keep pushing the "pro life" agenda and not supporting mothers and children after the birth....talk about having no idea what a side is doing please explain MAGA and Republicans views on caring for humans.....oh right they don't it's just about control and "religion"

PP is apparently unaware that those babies not only fund social programs, they participate in them. When it comes to overpopulating the planet, that math ain’t mathing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can import labor into the US. The fastest growing countries are third world countries. But, certain people don't want immigrants (or non white people).

Look at Japan. They need immigrants to replenish their aging population but they are too xenophobic to allow mass immigration. They'd rather let their population die out. Cut off your nose to spite your face. The US is headed in that direction under the Trump administration.

That is not a sustainable long-term strategy to maintain a stable population. Birth rates are declining pretty much everywhere and fertility rates are already below replacement level in 63% of countries. In 2050, more than 75% will be below replacement level. In 2100, 97% of counties will have below replacement level fertility rates. Immigration is not a viable solution to prevent population decline anymore. Only increasing birth rates or medical advances that boost lifespan/slow aging will save us from a demographic crisis.

You forgot the one thing that’s actually available to us instantly and which does not rely on the fantasy of future medical advances: change our economic system to one that doesn’t rely on perpetual growth. That’s it. It’s all a mind game in the end. We just have to choose to cooperate rather than compete until we all die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

+10000

[Anonymous]

But I’m not a lefty but yes to everything else - immigrant, be responsible, no backstopping chronic bad behaviors, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

LOL yes let's keep pushing the "pro life" agenda and not supporting mothers and children after the birth....talk about having no idea what a side is doing please explain MAGA and Republicans views on caring for humans.....oh right they don't it's just about control and "religion"

DP - obviously, it is a both problem. You need enough future workers to operate the programs without overburdening them balanced with people to care for the children aka future workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

There should be more lefties like you! This is fantastic!

wont' happen in the good ol' US of A, where individualism is highly regarded. The American way of life is not to live with your parents until they die. That's how immigrants do things, not real Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People aren't going to have families if housing is unaffordable. And right now, the cost of housing - whether renting or owning - is prohibitive for most younger people who would like to start families. Neither Democrats nor Republicans show any inclination to build more housing. Therefore, the only way to lower housing costs is to reduce demand - which realistically, can only be done by severely restricting immigration for a number of years. When young people can afford homes in decent school districts, they'll have children.

Will Need to go back to multigenerational houses, where young couples start families living with parents. Some of the NoVA houses could definitely accommodate that. It may mean kids have to share bedrooms though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

There should be more lefties like you! This is fantastic!

wont' happen in the good ol' US of A, where individualism is highly regarded. The American way of life is not to live with your parents until they die. That's how immigrants do things, not real Americans.

Not immigrants, but many friends and family we know take care of their elderly parents (and even aunts and uncles).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

There should be more lefties like you! This is fantastic!

wont' happen in the good ol' US of A, where individualism is highly regarded. The American way of life is not to live with your parents until they die. That's how immigrants do things, not real Americans.

Not immigrants, but many friends and family we know take care of their elderly parents (and even aunts and uncles).

Taking care of them is not the same as living with them, which is what the brown Asian ^PP was talking about - "move into more communal living situations".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:… is it morally/ethically right to push more social programs? Are babies born just to generate taxes for social programs that they may never live to qualify for?

As a society, we need to support each other / work together but is there a different model that can work so that babies are not just Oompa Loompas for the government?

Do politicians look at policies in terms of how many workers we have and how many workers we need to support every social policy?

Declining birth rates are the result of higher standards of living and higher human capital investment requirements.

Declining birthrates are not a problem is the increases in productivity outpace the decline in population.

If the next generation can do twice as much with half as many people, then we we would get twice as much with half as many people.

Think of how much better our kids are at math than we were. How much better at programming, engineering, etc. Sure there are the ebureats driversbut for the most part our kids will be far more productive than we are and that will support us into our retirement.

The problem is that has to work twice as much to support fewer people. If it takes working 40h/week to support one person today, it will take 80h to 120h per week to support one person in the future. (I’m using made up numbers to explain my point.)

Industrialization was supposed to make us work less, computers were supposed to make us work less. But working less never happens. We just have to work more more more. Well, some of us have to work moee and more.

If you think we work more than people in ore industrial times you are incorrect. People worked ceaselessly from sun up to sun down (and sometimes by candlelight after that to darn socks and clothes). They starved for significant portions of the year, which kept birth rates down, went without shoes l, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The one party that has all of the power right now is very interested in pushing people to have babies.

Only the white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Robots and mechanization/AI will make more people less important.

Capitalism needs consumers, can't sell shat to robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fund social programs without babies. That's like 75% of the issue. No babies = collapse of the social welfare system. I have no idea why the left keeps pushing for this when it literally spells doom for their concept of governance.

I'm a lefty and also brown so I don't support this kind of social welfare, people should save for their own retirement and stay healthy. mandatory health insurance should focus on preventative care and people should have to invest in their own social system to support them in their old age and they should stay as healthy as possible- move into more communal living situations that are cheaper than the current aging in place nonsense. I mean I'm asian and my parents aged in place but we owed them his. I don't owe 10% of my paycheck so any becky and uncle Jim who were dinks and traveled the world instead of raising kids can do the same.

There should be more lefties like you! This is fantastic!

wont' happen in the good ol' US of A, where individualism is highly regarded. The American way of life is not to live with your parents until they die. That's how immigrants do things, not real Americans.

Only in the last few decades. I grew up with my grandmother and a childless elderly relative living in our house. They grew up with their elderly grandparent and unmarried elderly relative living in their house. Look at census records from the first half of the 20th century and the 19th century and this was very common in America. The massive individualism didn’t really develop until after WW2 and was enabled by Social security, cheap housing, defined benefit pensions earned by the silent and greatest generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The left wants to seize international control, and they are using birth rates as an argument for open border policies (although their ultimate goal is always: control).

What? Who is the "left"? Is it some code word for non-MAGA? No, we want smaller population and less harm on the planet. Natural decline is good. We don't need a Stalin or Mao to birth/kill/control population.