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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining birthrates in some parts of the world are only an issue if you care deeply about your race/ethnicity reducing in numbers or you desire regressive policies. If you realize that the human race has been intermixing for thousands of years and don’t freak out that your future descendants may not have blond hair and blue eyes you are fine. If you are savvy enough to realize that economic prosperity depends on global trade, innovation, and leading on the most profitable industries while dumping less profitable one you are fine.

There were one million more senior high school kids applying to college this year than when their parents applied. Housing is unaffordable because there is a shortage of houses. A lower population isn’t a bad thing.

There is not a shortage of houses. There are too many businesses owning residential properties (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.) plus second and third homes.

We grant about 1 million green cards a year, and about 3.6 million people are born here each year. 3.3 million die each year meaning a net growth of at least 1.3 million a year.

that translates to maybe 500 k houses- you are saying vrbo/airbnb and private equity own less than 500k homes?? 500k houses account generously for houses with only one occupant at the current rates of occupancy (in nyc) in single/double/family housing. yes its Airbnb and vrbo and 2nd 3rd houses that are causing the housing shortage luv.

That's a lot of houses needed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:And they are extremely uninterested in social programs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It still takes a similar amount of effort to look after someone with dementia or to look after a baby as it did before. Not too many productivity gains there, and the needs of older people are increasing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining birthrates in some parts of the world are only an issue if you care deeply about your race/ethnicity reducing in numbers or you desire regressive policies. If you realize that the human race has been intermixing for thousands of years and don’t freak out that your future descendants may not have blond hair and blue eyes you are fine. If you are savvy enough to realize that economic prosperity depends on global trade, innovation, and leading on the most profitable industries while dumping less profitable one you are fine.

There were one million more senior high school kids applying to college this year than when their parents applied. Housing is unaffordable because there is a shortage of houses. A lower population isn’t a bad thing.

There is not a shortage of houses. There are too many businesses owning residential properties (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.) plus second and third homes.

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.

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.

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.