Reply to Do you think DINKs are the future?

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Do you think DINKs are the future?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How can DINKs be the future? Once we reach negative population growth, we wind up with massive economic problems. It doesn't work. Our whole society depends on the idea of there always being a replacement workforce (who will pay taxes and take care of the elderly) coming up.

I don't care if any individual person has kids or not, and I myself decided to only have one so my spouse and I didn't even reach replacement level. But the idea that "the future" is people just choosing not to have kids is crazy because that future would be extremely short lived and ultimately really unpleasant.[/quote]

This a Malthusian pre-industrial myth.

Growing population creates poverty because people need to eat, so the elites owners of capital can make them compete for subsistence wages.

Yes, fewer children means fewer young people for old people to rob. That problem fixes itself in one generation, as the number of old people shrinks. [/quote]

This is so cute, because you are overlooking what the DINK lifestyle is and the way it relies heavily on capitalism and population/GDP growth in order to function.

The ideal of the DINK lifestyle is having two decent jobs, a home in a place with plenty to do (good restaurants, nightlife, parks, etc.), and the disposable income to not only enjoy those things but also to outsource the stuff you don't want to do. DINKs like their house cleaners, their meal kits, their dog walkers and sitters so they can travel and go out to dinner, yes? Also consumer goods -- TVs and computers and new furniture and fancy running shoes? Workout classes and food halls? Well all of that requires moderate population growth to support. You cannot have that lifestyle if suddenly everyone stops having kids. It would not "fix itself" in a generation. It would be a massive shift in way of life and not one that many current DINKs would enjoy. What if being a DINK meant having to do literally everything yourself because there's no workforce to outsource it to? What if many of the fields DINKs work in die because they rely on a large workforce of relatively cheap labor (i.e. young people and immigrants) to function? What happens when your dual-income shrinks because there aren't consulting jobs and Big Law jobs and non-profit jobs because those industries can't sustain themselves without either a larger low-level workforce OR a larger consumer base (or both?).

Also, if literally everyone became a DINK, the population would just die out. Do you know what population death would look like? The last 50 years of that would be painful and cruel. You want to live through that? Enjoy.

But okay, please entertain with your crack-pot pseudo-intellectual theories on capitalism (which I don't even like, I would support European style socialism which keeps the worst aspects of capitalism in check, but anyway). It's hilarious.[/quote]

Then perhaps as a country, America should enact policies to help families with children. [b]Maybe if housing, and food, and healthcare, and childcare were actually affordable [/b]and our education system wasn’t a dumpster fire, you would have more people interested in having kids.  If having children is essential to society, why does society put the cost of it almost entirely on parents?[/quote]

It IS affordable.  Especially compared to other western countries.  Americans have one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

For whatever reason, younger generations resent spending their income on housing, food etc.  That’s exactly what you’re supposed to be spending it on. Not luxury vacations, dog walkers, etc. [/quote]

Look…no 1st world country has a birthrate that supports growing the country, so unclear what the “answer” may be.

Norway has free everything…childcare, healthcare, college and a birth rate of 1.48 kids. Now groceries, restaurants, etc are very expensive.

Korea has a great “education” although if going to school for 6 hours and then going to cram school for 6 hours is how you want to define great…well their birth rate is 0.72

The US at 1.64 is actually probably still the highest of the 1st world countries.

It’s really African countries with high birth rates.[/quote]

I mean, what do I know, but it seems like lowering the number of people overall in the world - but allowing more migration/immigration - is probably a pretty good balance. Consume fewer resources overall but allow people to go with they have the most economic opportunity. Then see how things balance out.
[/quote]

This is the dirty little secret that gets lost in politics...more people = growing GDP.  It doesn't matter how you get the people, whether through natural birth or immigration.

Immigration actually fuels GDP growth in the US compared to other 1st world countries.[/quote]

That feels like it should be an explicit policy. Immigration is a net good. It also speaks well of the place people are immigrating to. People don't move to a place where they don't have opportunities and where their kids won't do better than they would if they hadn't moved.

Also, immigrants will take jobs that Americans don't want. It allows our society to keep functioning, in ways that we all enjoy.

What's wrong with saying that out loud?

I'm a centrist D and I do think we need more border control - and we also need more opportunities for legal immigration. Not just doctors, though we need more doctors, too - but people who want to do things that even the poorest Americans will not do, but that need doing as things are today.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics