Marlow suggested that women are waiting until their mid-forties and six-figure incomes before having children, and this contributes to the nation reproducing below the replacement rate. He said that anything that helps families to have children sooner is a good thing.
Marlow did acknowledge that it would make government bigger, hence the conservative conflict, but he felt this was legitimate and necessary to protect the nation's identity as opposed to Italy, for example, which is only at a 1.1% replacement rate.
-PJ
Demographics is much more important than many people realize. Just over 2 kids per woman is essential to not fade into oblivion.
And I do NOT mean illegal and/or mohammedan women, this is the killer.
It’s a nationalist position, not a conservative one in my view. That’s fine with me as I don’t really want to identify as “conservative” so long as people like jonah goldberg, el blah blah, and lyin’ ted are the standard against which conservatism is judged.
Big picture, I would prefer that people pay for their own schooling, daycare, food, rent, etc. I’m not going to see that paradise short of heaven so it becomes a game of “what would I rather be robbed to pay for?’ Paying for women to have kids at a younger age via daycare is a heck of a lot better in my view than paying for obamaphones. So I’m OK with it.