I know immigration is a hot topic in the US but we're inching closer & closer to a whole bunch of people retiring & not having the workforce to properly care for everyone (& to replace all of those workers). Nursing home worker to patient ratios are going to skyrocket.
Observational studies show the covid vaccine results in slightly better pregnancy outcomes
I would hesitate to rely on the veracity of those studies. They utilize Gaussian statistical models that ignores the possibility of randomness represented by Fat Tails. There’s too many variables that would obfuscate any potential correlation between Covid vaccines and pregnancy rates. Their models don’t account for hundreds of reasons why a vaccinated woman may show higher fertility compared to an unvaccinated one. It could be a mere coincidence in every subject of the study.
Yep. They investigated themselves and found favorable outcomes. Go figure. Big pharma is great at this game, manipulating the info and the minds. Their best friend is actually paid off advertising that paints themselves in a positive light. The reality is they've paid billions in fines, lawsuits, restitution payments to victims. They won't tell you that.
That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever
No way - we want less people to be around not more. I would scrap child benefits and increase the taxes on people who have children. I would also pump it up to a higher tax bracket for every child a family/mother has. Children use up goverment resources such as schools etc and parents should be expected to pay more for this. I say this as a father myself.
That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever
No way - we want less people to be around not more. I would scrap child benefits and increase the taxes on people who have children. I would also pump it up to a higher tax bracket for every child a family/mother has. Children use up goverment resources such as schools etc and parents should be expected to pay more for this. I say this as a father myself.
????
Might as well just nuke ourselves to save 120 years of misery
even Mexico and a good chunk of Latin America, once stereotyped as a region that popped out babies like hotcakes, is now below the population replacement rate. Chile is abysmal at 1.10 babies per woman. Colombia is below the replacement rate and still falling.
Then we come to Europe. Oh, Europe. Every country in Europe is below the replacement rate, most countries are well below. There are actually quite a few countries below 1.3 (Italy, Poland, the Baltic countries, Austria, Romania, Greece, Spain, Portugal and more).
And finally Asia where the two most developed countries - Japan and Korea - have now less than 1 baby per woman on average.
The decline doesn't seem to have bottomed out yet, except in Korea where they slightly increased births last year. But when you're starting out as the lowest in the world, a slight improvement isn't much.
Long term, whites (Europeans), Asians and Latinos will start to rapidly decline in their total population. Actually, maybe not so long term.
I think both men and women are wising up to the fact that kids are expensive and a huge gamble...
reddit/r/childfree is a great example of this--people are living their best lives kid-free. The way to go is SINK or DINK.
Why? We are entering an age where more people doesn’t mean more productive. Assembling a car might have taken 500 workers in the past, that can be automated down to three people supervising. Growing crops on 1000 acres might have required 100 workers, can now be supervised by one. That fast food burger that takes 5 employees to get to you is now a hands off process.
The idea that the only way forward is to continually be adding more people to the planet is old world thinking. Especially when we are talking about a supposed crisis in 50-100 years from now.
Humanity has been one long string of productivity gains for 8000 years that has led to our current material standard of living.
My argument is that the coming demographic shift is extremely off-trend.
Never before have we been faced with ballooning older generations supported by smaller and smaller working generations.
This is going to require a productivity gain that is similarly off-trend to compensate for. You can’t point backwards and be like “things have gotten more productive” because the current trend will not be enough.
A lot of boomers are continuing to work even past retirement age. I'm 41, my father is 71 and even though he's doing ok he is still working...they simply won't retire.
If you are a professional woman, there is a lack of worthy men to marry.
Married men live 10 years longer than their single counterparts, while married women only live 3 years longer than their single counterparts. Why? Bc marriage benefits men way more than women. (Dave Ramsey stat - mind you, this is a guy who wants everyone to get married and have kids.)
Another thought - if someone has the choice to not have children (via birth control), then they don’t. If you’ve grown up in a large family, you understand how much it sucks - especially if you’re struggling for money.
Many more therapists are telling adults to be estranged from their parents due to bad or imperfect relationships. WSJ story)
In America, kids are not expected to take care of their elderly parents.
People are having less sex overall (many sources)
Society (esp US) as it should be has declined.
Men need to go back to college to level up to womens' standards--they have all the good jobs and the high educational degrees now. Do better, men!
The strong goverments everywhere. The collectivists (nearly all parties) have made kids a burden.
Regulated what kids and parents can or cant do at every step
Including working, education etc. Parents cant decide anymore but have to follows 10000 rules.
If you dont goverment will Take your kid away even.
Have to pay for services for kids that are mandated by the goverment.
Dont need kids for retirement. Just get a goverment pension that hast to be paid by the idiots that got kids.
Odd that not a single young person I know of, who is choosing to not have babies, mentions any of those as causes for their decision.
Could it be that you just have a stick up your butt about the dreaded "Big Government" and you ignorantly ascribe anything you see and think of as a problem to "Big Government"?
I come from a small European country where the men are becoming quite notorious for not wanting to settle down. They want 3 rotating part-time girlfriends and an easy, low paying job that supports that lifestyle. Many of my female friends have given up on the idea of a relationship and just live their life, work and do their hobbies. So many of these men about - most of them barely hold down a job and they increasingly don't work in sectors which produce material goods, but instead are in the service sector as baristas, or personal trainers, or influencers. Men from the US do sound a bit better, in that they seem not to have given up on the idea of having well paid jobs, getting married and supporting their families.
I wonder how many women are waking up to the facts of what a risk having children is. Not only to your own body - grade 3 and 4 tears can cause lifelong pain, incontinence and disability - but the risk of being left a single mother with little or no support from an absent father is quite high. Thats a difficult sort of life to live. I have a couple of female friends - one a doctor and one a lawyer - who had to pay their boyfriends to leave their homes, because it was cheaper than going through a legal dispute. They were not married and did not have children. Even if those guys were not going to win that legal dispute, they knew it would cost money and time to defend it. Increasingly, men seem only to want to get married to women with more money than them. I'm generalising hugely. But actually not that much in my social circle.
A lot of these men are evolutionary dead ends. Their idea of "dating" is to send nudes of their private parts to women they have exchange a few online messages with, or to invite strangers to their homes to sleep with them. Then they complain that women only want to date 20% of men, or similar. We actually have a big problem with men being caught with illegal images of children on their phones - I will not go into more detail - but a lot of these men are into little boys, not adult women.
I'm married, but personally I think a lot of men live in the past, where they were the only ones who could earn money so they could get away with cheating, beating up their wives and the women had little choice but to stay with them and have their kids. You see all these men with these women from poor countries, like The Filippines, Malaysia, Thailand, parts of India - and even the women who get with the white men are the most desperate and poor from those countries - because those poor women have no choice. And they want a visa out of poverty, so they become quite good at convincing that they love these guys long time. They are only after the money and lifestyle of course but the guy gets a free maid for a few years minimum out of it.
So theres 3 choices as far as I see it:
1 - population decline - maybe no bad thing but who is going to look after all those single people in their old age?
2 - men start being nicer to women, women who have children have more security, there are consequences for men who walk out on their kids and real jail time for not paying their share of the costs of raising them, but overall treating women with more respect for the fact that they can have children
3 - society somehow forces women to have children they don't want in large numbers - cf the Handmaid's Tale, etc. In a way, some US states are already doing this, with banning abortion, even for under-age children and rap*e victims. Forced childbirth is abhorant.
Some of the younger male hosts joke on 97.1 The Fan down in Columbus that they want women to be their sugar mommas. I wouldn't even joke about that, it makes guys sound like dependents.
I don’t think legislation is the answer. Why pass a law that interferes with the contractors and realtors’ rights to maximize profits? That sounds like a socialist housing policy some of which drove housing values down in the first place. It’s not their fault when someone can’t afford to buy a house at their listing price.
In your last paragraph you built a straw man. You illustrated a comic book caricature of this guy and his wife. You have no idea how shallow they are or aren’t and your version of apartment living is so negatively stereotyped that it’s laughable.
It’s not socialism. There are legislative price caps on several industries; energy, automotive, transportation, airline tickets, etc. Housing is one that is needed.
And I didn’t build a straw man. I took the information the dude provided and utilized it as a hypothetical meta example that would apply to several people in his position. You are the one building a straw man. Also, you’re telling me there is not more crime in apartment neighboorhoods than in wealthy suburban ones? We’re this politically correct now?
you are correct, I'm seeing more and more DINKs forgo having kids (age range: 25-40) that I am friends with. They are focusing on getting more degrees/promotions. That is the way to go, despite Vance and other Rs wanting women to have kids, etc.
That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever
No way - we want less people to be around not more. I would scrap child benefits and increase the taxes on people who have children. I would also pump it up to a higher tax bracket for every child a family/mother has. Children use up goverment resources such as schools etc and parents should be expected to pay more for this. I say this as a father myself.
That’s fine, so long as you are okay with raising the retirement age to 75 or 80. Social Security and Medicare (already under strain) would pay a fraction of what they do now to remain viable.
Keep in mind that there are 1 million abortions per year in the USA... 20-25% of all pregnancies. Then consider the various forms of female birth control. And for males, vasectomies.
And then women are being taught that they need to choose higher education and good jobs over family life. Next thing they know, they are approaching 40 and unmarried with zero kids.
And men often give up on finding a good wife. By the time a women is 25, her "number" is in the dozens. Men don't want that. So instead, they focus on money and power.
Almost every major religion teaches us that the problems I just described are tragic at best. We tend to look for our answers in the present and the future. And we tend to look outward. Instead of looking forward and outward, maybe it is time to reconsider the wisdom of the ancients and look inside ourselves at our own souls.
Maybe "the ancients" were just people, same as today. And maybe they did not have any more timeless wisdom than your average ignorant rube of today.
I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.
Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.
Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.
1000
350
122
43
Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.
Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.
This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.
The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.
I don't think shrinking populations per se are a problem. I think rapidly shrinking populations are a problem.
If birth rates were in the vicinity of 1.5 - 1.8 births per woman then populations would decline over time but without (IMHO) enormous social strains. But when you get down to 0.7 live births per woman those social strains would likely be enormous.
Regarding going down to 500 million - that is still a whole lot of people and not in itself very alarming. But getting to 500 million in 90 years is very, very different than getting to 500 million in 300 years.
I think it would be perfectly fine for humanity to go gently into the good night. As a woman, I'm disgusted by all the handwringing over women not popping out enough kids. Go shove a watermelon up your you-know-what and then expel it, good sirs. Then I'll hear you out.
Observational studies show the covid vaccine results in slightly better pregnancy outcomes
I would hesitate to rely on the veracity of those studies. They utilize Gaussian statistical models that ignores the possibility of randomness represented by Fat Tails. There’s too many variables that would obfuscate any potential correlation between Covid vaccines and pregnancy rates. Their models don’t account for hundreds of reasons why a vaccinated woman may show higher fertility compared to an unvaccinated one. It could be a mere coincidence in every subject of the study.
Exactly!
It is obviously much more sensible to simply claim that covid vaccines have sterilization effects with no evidence whatsoever.
I think it would be perfectly fine for humanity to go gently into the good night. As a woman, I'm disgusted by all the handwringing over women not popping out enough kids. Go shove a watermelon up your you-know-what and then expel it, good sirs. Then I'll hear you out.
Cute. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the fate of humanity and potential societal disruption on a scale that is literally unimaginable are topics that can be of interest to anyone - not just women.
Observational studies show the covid vaccine results in slightly better pregnancy outcomes
I would hesitate to rely on the veracity of those studies. They utilize Gaussian statistical models that ignores the possibility of randomness represented by Fat Tails. There’s too many variables that would obfuscate any potential correlation between Covid vaccines and pregnancy rates. Their models don’t account for hundreds of reasons why a vaccinated woman may show higher fertility compared to an unvaccinated one. It could be a mere coincidence in every subject of the study.
The point is that there’s zero evidence the vaccine is bad for Fertility, not that the vaccines are actually a clear positive (although they probably are, severe respiratory infection can cause pregnancy issues). In this case, antivaxxers can’t even do their standard “point to totally uncorrected correlations and claim causation”