[ketsu]

White people (and Japanese people) damned well need to give up the flatscreens and the bass boats and start having children again. It’s that simple.

NB: I am a white person and a father; we hope to have more.

Humans are economic actors. Japanese and higher status whites know that the best way to preserve and enhance their social status is to have fewer children and devote more resources to the success of those children.

Until you make education and raising children cheaper, easier and better western civilization will continue to decline. Otherwise the only people that will breed are the ones who don't care about the success of their children.

[hellbender]

Japanese and higher status whites know that the best way to preserve and enhance their social status is to have fewer children and devote more resources to the success of those children.

Your "social status" will last only your lifetime. Only children perpetuate your culture and characteristics. The West is living as if there is no tomorrow. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we become extinct.

[spetznaz]

That is very true. In Western (and Westernized) societies, the main bane when it comes to having offspring has been the income factor. This is the reason that as societies develop the number of kids borne experiences significant downward pressure. This is the case in all segments and strata of society that are either affluent, or tending towards affluence. This is not just the case in the richer strata of society in the West, but also in developing nations. For instance take the African nation of Kenya ....the poor have many kids on average, while the middle-class oscillates between 2 to 3. The wealthy settle for 2.

This is what has led to the rise of the SINKs and DINKs (single income no kids, and dual income no kids), whereby discretionary income soars. Having a nice income (or two)without kids adds a lot of discretionary spending depth, and as mercenary as that may seem many people opt for it (most do not go for the pure SINK or DINK approach, but they definitely cut down on the number of kids to one or two).

In places like Japan there are additional constraints beyond the discretionary spending approach to be found in places like New York ....namely that it is bl@@dy expensive to have kids.

Anyways, what you said is very correct. Structural dynamics basically lead to the rich and those who aspire to be rich to cut down on the numbers of kids (most just cut down to 1 or 2, a few cut down to zero). This generally leaves most people having a lot of kids to be in certain income groups (not a perfect truth, since some rich people have many kids, while some poor people have few kids .....but it is generally true that the richer the person the fewer the kids), which leaves the following: In Europe most kids are being born by immigrants, namely Islamic immigrants. In the US the same is the case, but from a Hispanic perspective. In Africa and Asia it is more indigenous, with rich Africans/Asians having few kids, and the poorer lot many.

simple test: Go to an affluent region of America, and count how many kids each family has. Then go to a poorer section of the nation (not necessarily a ghetto ....even a more downscale area of sub-urbia will do), and check the number of kids. There is a major economic aspect to this.

[tbw2]

There’s a cost / benefit analysis. But a lot of people who could support two children have only one. Many who wait for things to be “just right” end up having none. If more people replaced themselves, it would go a long way toward ending the birth dearth.