Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Social security was also set up to kick in around the average age of death, so maybe you could eek out a couple of years.

Now it is common to get paid out for several decades. Which is why the age of getting it needs to go up by 5-6 years.

I think something like 3-4% of the population receives social security for disability reasons. Maybe we can start by kicking that 3-4% off since they likely don't contribute anything to society. Then we could have an optional buy-out date for people. IE give them $50k one time and a large needle full or morphine to end their miserable leeching life. I'd imagine most 80 year olds would take this. This may also fix the housing crisis.

We need thanos so we can make some tough decisions.

How bout cutting off all illegal alien healthcare / housing / food spending and Ukraine death funding and student loan forgiveness and deadbeat able bodied welfare, and green energy boondoggles and military sex change surgeries and npr funding and moving the funding to social security whose tax contributions have been plundered for libtar d nonsense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Social security was also set up to kick in around the average age of death, so maybe you could eek out a couple of years.

Now it is common to get paid out for several decades. Which is why the age of getting it needs to go up by 5-6 years.

I think something like 3-4% of the population receives social security for disability reasons. Maybe we can start by kicking that 3-4% off since they likely don't contribute anything to society. Then we could have an optional buy-out date for people. IE give them $50k one time and a large needle full or morphine to end their miserable leeching life. I'd imagine most 80 year olds would take this. This may also fix the housing crisis.

We need thanos so we can make some tough decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Social security was also set up to kick in around the average age of death, so maybe you could eek out a couple of years.

Now it is common to get paid out for several decades. Which is why the age of getting it needs to go up by 5-6 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, please. Any parent who tells you that they did not make sacrifices to have children are just lying or are not very good parents.
And, how do you know that one of the children that I gave birth to and sacrificed for is not the next Einstein or Mother Theresa?

Or the next Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy.

Or Trump, Epstein, Maxwell, Weinstein, most of the SCJ, W Bush, 2A freaks, mass shooters, pedophiles, rapists, career criminals, Pulpit pricks, and the garden variety MTGs

You forget that this woman is out there producing Mother Theresa and Einstein. We're supposed to be on our knees thanking her for the sacrifice, and also recognize that she's having the best amazing life ever. It's called poor-thing/be-jealous syndrome.

Actually most of the unwanted children will more likely grow up to be criminals and / or dealing with some sort of trauma their whole life. Maybe once in a while, one will be a genius and successful.

I have relatives forced birthed before Roe v Wade, mainly because abortion was illegal, and things didn't turn out too well for them even though they had both parents and a stable home. It was pretty obvious the parents were overwhelmed and could barely take care of them.

Now no one in that whole branch of forced births has been able to get a college education, or even get a marriage to last. It looks like the third generation after them is now getting it together and getting married before having kids and at least going to trade school. That's how long it took. Good luck red states.

This is proven fact. Crime dropped after Roe v. Wade let women skip having forced births.

I was one of those forced births and I hate with a murderous passion the prolife fools who put my birth mother through hell.

Anonymous wrote:What societal contracts? What are all these contracts I never sign.

I go through the interviews, I'm hired and know the benefits. That's what I expect, no more, no less.

No one is "tricking me". I'm not a victim.

But I will be a victim of social security which takes a bunch of FICA confiscations and is mathematically unsustainable (and always would be). We had 159 workers for each retiree in 1940 and it took 2% of the workers earnings. Now we're down to 3 workers for every retiree and the bite on their pay check is much higher. That's what ponzi schemes do.

No "American business culture" forced that on us. Politicians in Washington DC did that. Time you started putting blame where it belongs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster.
I am surprised about birth rates going down. I live in an area with many immigrants and they have 3+ kids, seems like most of them.

Generally, immigrants have more kids, and that's why immigrants are necessary to keep our working population at a certain level. If we only rely on "real" Americans, the working population would decline, which is bad for the economy.

This is partly why forced-birthers want to ban abortion.

How are immigrants able to afford 3+ kids while “real” Americans aren’t?

It’s not about money. It’s about trade offs. More and more adults aren’t willing to sacrifice for kids.

It could be that more and more adults aren't willing to bring children in the world knowing that there is a 99% chance of Donald Trump or Joe Biden being the most powerful person in the world until 2029. There will be a great deal of uncertainty and turmoil in the world over the next 4 to 5 years and possibly longer if we fail to elect a someone with POTUS caliber leadership skills once again in 2028.

If this is what people are basing the decision to have or not to have children, they are just plain stupid. Unable to think about the long term.

That PP is 100% a both sides Republican looking to stir the pot.

There is polling that reveals why people don’t want kids.

Hopefully people can stop making up nonsense about the reasons for fertility decline in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/03/millennials-only-children/

That story wanders all over the place.

Basically it is because of Republican policies that shred any social support.

The resulting cost and the accessibility of great birth control.... especially IUDs... mean women just aren't that interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason this is a problem is that younger people are funding social security and Medicare.

If people choose not to have kids, they shouldn’t receive social security when they’re older. Their contributions are paying for their barents’ social security. If they don’t want to have kids to pay for their social security when they get old, they shouldn’t receive it. They’ve broken the social contract between generations. If they haven’t spent the money on raising kids, they should have plenty of money to fund their retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are more left leaning men with high estrogen levels these days. Dribbling blanks.

No.
Young men are skewing conservative
Women are skewing liberal.
Women are opting out.

This is the reason birth rates are plummeting. Women aren’t having children because they don’t want them.

that's not quite true

stated fertility goals are much higher than actual fertility

If women really desire to have kids, they will arrange their lives to make it happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are more left leaning men with high estrogen levels these days. Dribbling blanks.

No.
Young men are skewing conservative
Women are skewing liberal.
Women are opting out.

This is the reason birth rates are plummeting. Women aren’t having children because they don’t want them.

that's not quite true

stated fertility goals are much higher than actual fertility

Anonymous wrote:I think another factor is the number of “failure to launch” men who are not really marriage material. I have a number of friends and a SIL (all mid 40s+ now) who wanted to marry and have kids but it just never happened. Not enough good guys to go around. All of them possibly could have “settled” or become single moms but didn’t feel strongly enough to go to such lengths. All are happy with their lives - lots of friends, career, hobbies etc. and don’t seem to have any real regrets.

I think in times past, they would’ve felt more pressure to settle and marry. Many did, I think. I don’t remember knowing many “single never married” middle aged+ women when I was a kid. None in our extended families or our social circle/neighborhood that I recall offhand. Now I know many!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are more left leaning men with high estrogen levels these days. Dribbling blanks.

No.
Young men are skewing conservative
Women are skewing liberal.
Women are opting out.

This is the reason birth rates are plummeting. Women aren’t having children because they don’t want them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are more left leaning men with high estrogen levels these days. Dribbling blanks.

No.
Young men are skewing conservative
Women are skewing liberal.
Women are opting out.

This is the reason birth rates are plummeting. Women aren’t having children because they don’t want them.

Because when women are educated and given a choice, they make a better one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason this is a problem is that younger people are funding social security and Medicare.

If people choose not to have kids, they shouldn’t receive social security when they’re older. Their contributions are paying for their barents’ social security. If they don’t want to have kids to pay for their social security when they get old, they shouldn’t receive it. They’ve broken the social contract between generations. If they haven’t spent the money on raising kids, they should have plenty of money to fund their retirement.

Do parent-less people get refunds?

Wtf is wrong with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This graph shows that the poor and the wealthy are having more than 2.0 kids. The middle is too busy working to pay taxes and subsidize everyone else having kids.

That’s racist.