children, under the proper conditions
Posted on 06/23/2014 9:38:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“We have a long way to go before the population gets down to a few million people, or even before the youth population goes below one billion.”
Here in the US we pay the welfare class (which is swollen by illegals) to breed, while the most productive don’t. It is the only reason the Kenyan Pirate was elected twice; those choices have consequences.
“To have babies, raise families in middle class America people need good, long term secure jobs, affordable medical benefits, (Ya know how much it cost to have one baby without good insurance?) They need homes to raise them in, etc, etc...Young folks in Middle America has none of that”
There is a direct correlation between the lack of new middle-class families and the housing stagnation; who is going to commit to 30 years of mortgage payments for a house in which they can raise dogs?
I wonder why anyone aware of the massive, detrimental social and governmental changes in this country would want to bring children into this society. I certainly wouldn’t.
“Unfortunately, increasing the birth rate is hard. You really have to incentivize it.”
The government doesn’t seem to care about having more American babies. It incentivizes foreign born babies.
So far this hasn't worked for us IMO.
Meanwhile if you are not government supported and want more kids you find it maybe to costly to afford more kids in this current big government world.
All the stats from the 20th century into the 21st show that falling birth/fertility rates are accompanied by rising income, falling poverty, better health, longer life spans, and better education, including women.
So if you look at the CIA Factbook table on national fertility rates, which is arranged in descending order, the nations at the top with the high fertility rates are the most destitute. And nations like Bangladesh who have experienced a rapid decline in fertility rates over the recent decades have made remarkable advances in quality of life.
Currently there are 7 billion on the earth with 1 billion in the Americas, 1 billion in Europe and Russia, 1 billion in Africa, and 4 billion in Asia.
Projections show that by 2050 Asia will add a 5th billion and Africa a 2nd billion for a 9 billion total.
By 2100, Africa will add a 3rd and 4th billion for 11 billion total, after which it levels off.
Thank you!
Increase worker productivity, usually by capital investment. Or, increase population which increases both producers and consumers.
In recent years the US population growth rate has fallen slightly because of the recession but in recent decades it has been about 0.9% per year.
We achieve this with the birth rate plus immigration rate minus the death rate. Without immigration, we would have a negative population growth rate.
Canada has had a similar population growth rate but they have had a lower birth rate and higher immigration rate than the US.
Why can't we just have a stable economy where over time better products and services replace lesser quality products and services? Why do we have to have more?
The concern for the future shouldn't be about the absolute number of consumers and producers, but the mix.
Certainly if over time the vast majority of humans are over 70 then that could present some interesting problems.
But if the world were to top out at 8 billion people and stay there for a thousand years, and if the free market is indeed the best form of economy, then it should be able to adjust.
The leftist critique of capitalism and free markets is that they necessarily need to grow or die, i.e. they are Ponzi schemes. The odd thing to me is that most supporters of the free market use the same language as their critics, but they just turn logic on its head. They claim that free markets lead to growth in markets and isn't that always and everywhere a good thing?
The simple answer is 'No'. Economic growth is not always a good thing. Yes, if we knew that we would be able to put significant people on the Moon, Mars, Titan, etc. Or if we knew we could manage 100 billion people on Earth alone, which seems a bit preposterous.
But what if at some point in the future every culture decides that two kids or fewer per family is enough? And what if it turns out it's too damned expensive to send more than a few people to live on the Moon or Mars? Then we're stuck at somewhere between 8 and 12 billion consumers/producers for centuries to come.
If free markets can't handle that situation, then something better needs to be developed. Personally I think free markets can handle a static population. I believe that many of the people who think they are making good arguments in favor of free markets that depend on growth are actually making weaker arguments than they can.
Growth is a relatively new.
Thru all the centuries and millennia, going back to the dawn of civilization, there wasn't much growth, or growth was very small.
It was the industrial revolution that put mankind on the exponential growth curve. The steam engine and the internal combustion engine and the fossil fuel to power them. The first oil wells were in 1860 to produce kerosene for home lighting. The IC engine was invented and put in horseless carriages and about a 100 years ago autos were mass produced.
As I pointed out in #27 population is supposed to peak at 11 billion in 2100, but who knows for sure.
And courts that don't play the role of women's "hired muscle."
like someone said...the cars....they don't make those long station wagons where the 3 youngest could curl up in the back flat area with blankets and pillows...
and airlines, and restaurants, and hotels, and lots of freepers just don't want kids around....
and yet having children would be a big boost for this country...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.