With declining birth replacement rates around the world …

[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.

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.

Social security came into existence long before WWII. And there is no way in h3ll people will support getting rid of social security. And if you get rid of welfare like this, people are even less likely to have children. They'd be more concerned with saving for retirement than having kids, which I would not blame them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with the bolded. We should focus on sustainability and adapt to worker to overall population ratio. Sustainable looks different when the ratio changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Social security came into existence long before WWII. And there is no way in h3ll people will support getting rid of social security. And if you get rid of welfare like this, people are even less likely to have children. They'd be more concerned with saving for retirement than having kids, which I would not blame them.

PP said social security enabled massive individualism post WWII. Didn’t say it was created during / after WWII.

We will need to decide where to cut. If we don’t cut Social Security we have to cut somewhere else. Maybe defense, ‘maybe infrastructure. If we need cuts, we can’t add new spending. If you have to cut your grocery bill, you can’t increase your entertainment spending.