|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 10:08:23 GMT
Why aren't crashing birth rates a good thing? The world has been taught central banking and socialized medicine and retirement. I don’t even want those things, but that’s how our systems work. Those all collapse with shrinking populations. It’s a recipe for unrest and revolution and violence. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 22, 2024 10:12:01 GMT
Why aren't crashing birth rates a good thing? The world has been taught central banking and socialized medicine and retirement. I don’t even want those things, but that’s how our systems work. Those all collapse with shrinking populations. It’s a recipe for unrest and revolution and violence. You're aware that the population can't grow indefinitely, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 11:14:05 GMT
The world has been taught central banking and socialized medicine and retirement. I don’t even want those things, but that’s how our systems work. Those all collapse with shrinking populations. It’s a recipe for unrest and revolution and violence. You're aware that the population can't grow indefinitely, aren't you? Irrelevant. Stable would be better than shrinking. And that’s the direction we’re going without understanding why, or knowing how to fix it. Japan and Korea are taking active government measures to try to fix it, and they are failing badly. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 12:21:38 GMT
Its economic primarily. It collapses aggregate demand, which collapses investment and real wages. I'd welcome less stress on the planet. Yeah, there would be some upsides. Traffic would also diminish & housing costs would come down. But the negatives are pretty big, too. Public debt becomes impossible or very difficult to manage with a shrinking tax base. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 12:29:44 GMT
Why aren't crashing birth rates a good thing? The world has been taught central banking and socialized medicine and retirement. I don’t even want those things, but that’s how our systems work. Those all collapse with shrinking populations. It’s a recipe for unrest and revolution and violence. Avoiding unrest, revolution and violence.. aren't these good reasons to support immigration? To be fair, I don't know if there is any form of banking that would get around the problems or economic consequences of a shrinking population. But if there is any that is suited for this, it would be one where policy makers can create money and credit relatively easily, to boost aggregate demand. If the context is a gold standard, a 100% reserve standard, or any system where money is relatively "scarce," that kind of policy response becomes more difficult and the economy thereby becomes more fragile to shocks, crises, etc. We still don't have socialized medicine so we can check off that concern. Definitely agree that entitlements and retirement programs become more fragile or downright impossible with a shrinking population. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,019
|
Post by petep on Oct 22, 2024 12:34:08 GMT
The world has been taught central banking and socialized medicine and retirement. I don’t even want those things, but that’s how our systems work. Those all collapse with shrinking populations. It’s a recipe for unrest and revolution and violence. Avoiding unrest, revolution and violence.. aren't these good reasons to support immigration? To be fair, I don't know if there is any form of banking that would get around the problems or economic consequences of a shrinking population. But if there is any that is suited for this, it would be one where policy makers can create money and credit relatively easily, to boost aggregate demand. If the context is a gold standard, a 100% reserve standard, or any system where money is relatively "scarce," that kind of policy response becomes more difficult and the economy thereby becomes more fragile to shocks, crises, etc. We still don't have socialized medicine so we can check off that concern. Definitely agree that entitlements and retirement programs become more fragile or downright impossible with a shrinking population. What are public hospitals? |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 12:39:16 GMT
Avoiding unrest, revolution and violence.. aren't these good reasons to support immigration? To be fair, I don't know if there is any form of banking that would get around the problems or economic consequences of a shrinking population. But if there is any that is suited for this, it would be one where policy makers can create money and credit relatively easily, to boost aggregate demand. If the context is a gold standard, a 100% reserve standard, or any system where money is relatively "scarce," that kind of policy response becomes more difficult and the economy thereby becomes more fragile to shocks, crises, etc. We still don't have socialized medicine so we can check off that concern. Definitely agree that entitlements and retirement programs become more fragile or downright impossible with a shrinking population. What are public hospitals? They aren't socialized medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 12:56:12 GMT
I agree about Korea and Japan but the US has much better demographics. It wouldn't take much to get us to replacement levels. For now. What if the problem accelerates or simply continues on this trend? I have an idea its far easier today than 100 or 200 years ago, economically, which plays into why people are having fewer kids. There's two effects to consider. The fact we are wealthier explains why we have fewer kids today- we don't need them as sources of labor or income for the family. But then the other story is also a factor- the cost of living is high and people are squeezed and can't afford to start a family as easily as say someone in 70s could. Housing is a big part of that story. Is that getting better or worse right now? And if worse, won't it eventually (or has it already?) also impact immigrants? Where it all ends, I don't pretend to know but I do believe immigration is part of the solution, or mitigation effort. Then perhaps we need to think more broadly than immigration. Why does it seem so difficult? Not necessarily you, but for plenty of others. Discussing anything about birth rates is seen as "right-wing" now, when it's addressing the same problem that you see at least partially solved through immigration. It's racism! or sexism! or something to bring it up. I do think there's something cultural that has emerged that seems relatively anti-family. Or anti-natalist at least. We've seen talking heads lamenting a republican for speaking about wanting Americans to have more babies. Deriding it as "fascist". Or Fiddler or citizen talking about how women want to actually "participate in the world" now. As if raising children isn't participating. As if that's akin to slavery or irrelevant and simple toil. Or environmentalists convincing people that having children will destroy the planet, which is a real thing as well. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 13:23:30 GMT
I agree about Korea and Japan but the US has much better demographics. It wouldn't take much to get us to replacement levels. For now. What if the problem accelerates or simply continues on this trend? I have an idea its far easier today than 100 or 200 years ago, economically, which plays into why people are having fewer kids. There's two effects to consider. The fact we are wealthier explains why we have fewer kids today- we don't need them as sources of labor or income for the family. But then the other story is also a factor- the cost of living is high and people are squeezed and can't afford to start a family as easily as say someone in 70s could. Housing is a big part of that story. Is that getting better or worse right now? And if worse, won't it eventually (or has it already?) also impact immigrants? Where it all ends, I don't pretend to know but I do believe immigration is part of the solution, or mitigation effort. Then perhaps we need to think more broadly than immigration. Why does it seem so difficult? Not necessarily you, but for plenty of others. Discussing anything about birth rates is seen as "right-wing" now, when it's addressing the same problem that you see at least partially solved through immigration. It's racism! or sexism! or something to bring it up. I do think there's something cultural that has emerged that seems relatively anti-family. Or anti-natalist at least. We've seen talking heads lamenting a republican for speaking about wanting Americans to have more babies. Deriding it as "fascist". Or Fiddler or citizen talking about how women want to actually "participate in the world" now. As if raising children isn't participating. As if that's akin to slavery or irrelevant and simple toil. Or environmentalists convincing people that having children will destroy the planet, which is a real thing as well. I would be open to exploring ideas beyond immigration that would focus on making it easier for people to afford the basics, like housing and medical care. I agree that there have been cultural changes but I don't frame them as anti-family, I frame them as pro-woman. I think the frame you see on the right about these issues (anti-family, anti-natalist, anti-feminist messaging) often comes across as un-serious, a lot like some of the more extreme anti-immigration narratives. And the left reacts as you would imagine they would. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 13:40:14 GMT
Avoiding unrest, revolution and violence.. aren't these good reasons to support immigration? Not all immigration is equal. I think immigration at times has sparked unrest as well. To be fair, I don't know if there is any form of banking that would get around the problems or economic consequences of a shrinking population. But if there is any that is suited for this, it would be one where policy makers can create money and credit relatively easily, to boost aggregate demand. If the context is a gold standard, a 100% reserve standard, or any system where money is relatively "scarce," that kind of policy response becomes more difficult and the economy thereby becomes more fragile to shocks, crises, etc. Once again, I don't know that this is true in the long term. Could be that it simply forestalls corrections until the individual corrections aggregate into a much larger and more severe correction. We're at levels of debt that would have been seen as fantastical a hundred years ago. I'm unconvinced that this is sustainable. I am convinced that this sort of system benefits the elites far more than the average individual. We still don't have socialized medicine so we can check off that concern. Definitely agree that entitlements and retirement programs become more fragile or downright impossible with a shrinking population. Perhaps not to European standards, but Medicare and Medicaid do exist. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 13:48:25 GMT
For now. What if the problem accelerates or simply continues on this trend? Is that getting better or worse right now? And if worse, won't it eventually (or has it already?) also impact immigrants? Then perhaps we need to think more broadly than immigration. Why does it seem so difficult? Not necessarily you, but for plenty of others. Discussing anything about birth rates is seen as "right-wing" now, when it's addressing the same problem that you see at least partially solved through immigration. It's racism! or sexism! or something to bring it up. I do think there's something cultural that has emerged that seems relatively anti-family. Or anti-natalist at least. We've seen talking heads lamenting a republican for speaking about wanting Americans to have more babies. Deriding it as "fascist". Or Fiddler or citizen talking about how women want to actually "participate in the world" now. As if raising children isn't participating. As if that's akin to slavery or irrelevant and simple toil. Or environmentalists convincing people that having children will destroy the planet, which is a real thing as well. I would be open to exploring ideas beyond immigration that would focus on making it easier for people to afford the basics, like housing and medical care. I agree that there have been cultural changes but I don't frame them as anti-family, I frame them as pro-woman. I think the frame you see on the right about these issues (anti-family, anti-natalist messaging harming woman) often comes across as un-serious, a lot like some of the more extreme anti-immigration narratives. And the left reacts as you would imagine they would. Yeah. I see this whole framing of women who are in cubicles as "pro woman" and women who are raising children as (by implication) anti-woman as devastating. Immigration doesn't solve this. Immigrant women will also be expected to "participate in the world". And nothing is solved. This is an extremely serious issue. Who is to raise the next humans? If that's not a priority, then I don't know why we're discussing any of these other issues. If the only way to be pro-woman is to get them out in the workforce, then humanity is doomed. That's just basic. That's hundreds of thousands of years of our species. Talk about sacred norms. We've made an idol out of what is, for most people, mundane work. Men do this work, not because they love the work, but because it satisfies a deep purpose to provide for a family. If a man and a woman are both dedicated to this purpose, then what is the actual purpose? Tax revenue? GDP increase? An idol out of wage work for its own sake, and we've turned motherhood and raising children into slavery and fruitless toil. Who is raising the children? Some other woman who is raising a bunch of them in a daycare? Is that what research is proving is the best for children? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 13:49:29 GMT
That’s just a programmed response. That’s not a long term solution. Birth rates are collapsing pretty much everywhere. Why is there no curiosity as to why? And what can be done to reverse course? Our culture is changing and there is nothing you can do about it. Women don’t want to spend their entire lives raising children. Then who is going to raise the children? Why are we doing any of this? What's the point? |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,019
|
Post by petep on Oct 22, 2024 16:52:32 GMT
Our culture is changing and there is nothing you can do about it. Women don’t want to spend their entire lives raising children. Then who is going to raise the children? Why are we doing any of this? What's the point? Wads is treating this just like socialism. We’ve run out of money. Well just tax those working more. People have stopped having as many children Wads. Just open the borders to other countries with declining populations. The part never thinks in terms of solving the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Oct 22, 2024 19:24:11 GMT
Our culture is changing and there is nothing you can do about it. Women don’t want to spend their entire lives raising children. Then who is going to raise the children? Why are we doing any of this? What's the point? Well, that is why they are not having children |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,480
|
Post by thor on Oct 22, 2024 20:45:23 GMT
I would be open to exploring ideas beyond immigration that would focus on making it easier for people to afford the basics, like housing and medical care. I agree that there have been cultural changes but I don't frame them as anti-family, I frame them as pro-woman. I think the frame you see on the right about these issues (anti-family, anti-natalist messaging harming woman) often comes across as un-serious, a lot like some of the more extreme anti-immigration narratives. And the left reacts as you would imagine they would. Yeah. I see this whole framing of women who are in cubicles as "pro woman" and women who are raising children as (by implication) anti-woman as devastating. Immigration doesn't solve this. Immigrant women will also be expected to "participate in the world". And nothing is solved. This is an extremely serious issue. Who is to raise the next humans? If that's not a priority, then I don't know why we're discussing any of these other issues. If the only way to be pro-woman is to get them out in the workforce, then humanity is doomed.That's just basic. That's hundreds of thousands of years of our species. Talk about sacred norms. We've made an idol out of what is, for most people, mundane work. Men do this work, not because they love the work, but because it satisfies a deep purpose to provide for a family. If a man and a woman are both dedicated to this purpose, then what is the actual purpose? Tax revenue? GDP increase? An idol out of wage work for its own sake, and we've turned motherhood and raising children into slavery and fruitless toil. Who is raising the children? Some other woman who is raising a bunch of them in a daycare? Is that what research is proving is the best for children? Said no one, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 21:12:07 GMT
Avoiding unrest, revolution and violence.. aren't these good reasons to support immigration? Not all immigration is equal. I think immigration at times has sparked unrest as well. To be fair, I don't know if there is any form of banking that would get around the problems or economic consequences of a shrinking population. But if there is any that is suited for this, it would be one where policy makers can create money and credit relatively easily, to boost aggregate demand. If the context is a gold standard, a 100% reserve standard, or any system where money is relatively "scarce," that kind of policy response becomes more difficult and the economy thereby becomes more fragile to shocks, crises, etc. Once again, I don't know that this is true in the long term. Could be that it simply forestalls corrections until the individual corrections aggregate into a much larger and more severe correction. We're at levels of debt that would have been seen as fantastical a hundred years ago. I'm unconvinced that this is sustainable. I am convinced that this sort of system benefits the elites far more than the average individual. We still don't have socialized medicine so we can check off that concern. Definitely agree that entitlements and retirement programs become more fragile or downright impossible with a shrinking population. Perhaps not to European standards, but Medicare and Medicaid do exist. In terms of debt to gdp ratios, we are similar debt levels as 80 years ago and we have already come off the 2020 high of 129%. It is arguable that this system benefits the elites more than the common person because of the way we prioritize spending. If we wanted to reduce the cost of living we would need to shift our spending to things that actually help people instead of giving the elite more tax breaks. Yes, we do have some elements of socialized medicine but it is far from what people understand by that term. I think we would agree on that. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 22, 2024 21:28:06 GMT
Not all immigration is equal. I think immigration at times has sparked unrest as well. Once again, I don't know that this is true in the long term. Could be that it simply forestalls corrections until the individual corrections aggregate into a much larger and more severe correction. We're at levels of debt that would have been seen as fantastical a hundred years ago. I'm unconvinced that this is sustainable. I am convinced that this sort of system benefits the elites far more than the average individual. Perhaps not to European standards, but Medicare and Medicaid do exist. In terms of debt to gdp ratios, we are similar debt levels as 80 years ago and we have already come off the 2020 high of 129%. It is arguable that this system benefits the elites more than the common person because of the way we prioritize spending. If we wanted to reduce the cost of living we would need to shift our spending to things that actually help people instead of giving the elite more tax breaks. Yes, we do have some elements of socialized medicine but it is far from what people understand by that term. I think we would agree on that. Spending? With Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, Income Security Programs and Interest payments taking up the vast majority of the budget, I'm unsure if it's a spending thing. The wealthy and upper middle class pay an exorbitant share of taxes which fund programs for the poor, for the old, the sick, and for the Military Industrial Complex and the servicemembers that serve under it. Alongside paying for the lack of frugality of past and present politicians. Inflationary practices leave middle and lower class people behind, as they benefit least from artificially low interest rates and loose credit. Those with assets (real estate, stocks, etc.) see an accelerating increase in value, while those without assets aren't even participating. When added in a restricted housing market, even homes are becoming a luxury for the lower classes. That's not getting better by government spending more on income security or Medicare. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 21:29:35 GMT
I would be open to exploring ideas beyond immigration that would focus on making it easier for people to afford the basics, like housing and medical care. I agree that there have been cultural changes but I don't frame them as anti-family, I frame them as pro-woman. I think the frame you see on the right about these issues (anti-family, anti-natalist messaging harming woman) often comes across as un-serious, a lot like some of the more extreme anti-immigration narratives. And the left reacts as you would imagine they would. Yeah. I see this whole framing of women who are in cubicles as "pro woman" and women who are raising children as (by implication) anti-woman as devastating. Immigration doesn't solve this. Immigrant women will also be expected to "participate in the world". And nothing is solved. This is an extremely serious issue. Who is to raise the next humans? If that's not a priority, then I don't know why we're discussing any of these other issues. If the only way to be pro-woman is to get them out in the workforce, then humanity is doomed. That's just basic. That's hundreds of thousands of years of our species. Talk about sacred norms. We've made an idol out of what is, for most people, mundane work. Men do this work, not because they love the work, but because it satisfies a deep purpose to provide for a family. If a man and a woman are both dedicated to this purpose, then what is the actual purpose? Tax revenue? GDP increase? An idol out of wage work for its own sake, and we've turned motherhood and raising children into slavery and fruitless toil. Who is raising the children? Some other woman who is raising a bunch of them in a daycare? Is that what research is proving is the best for children? It's pro-woman in the sense of "women should do what they want." Some of this can be understood as a function of the increasing cost of living problem facing all of us, women included. Women want independence, sure, but they also work just to help their families survive, or perhaps to enjoy a lifestyle they couldn't have without two incomes. We tend to spend more on homes and cars and luxury items now compared to generations past and financing all of it requires a lot of money. People are forgoing having kids early or having them at all to chase materialistic goals or to simply have fun. It's selfish, certainly compared to earlier periods in our history. Other than try to reduce the cost of living, perhaps get some maternity leave legislation passed, or some tax credits, etc I don't know what else we do. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 22, 2024 21:33:22 GMT
In terms of debt to gdp ratios, we are similar debt levels as 80 years ago and we have already come off the 2020 high of 129%. It is arguable that this system benefits the elites more than the common person because of the way we prioritize spending. If we wanted to reduce the cost of living we would need to shift our spending to things that actually help people instead of giving the elite more tax breaks. Yes, we do have some elements of socialized medicine but it is far from what people understand by that term. I think we would agree on that. Spending? With Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, Income Security Programs and Interest payments taking up the vast majority of the budget, I'm unsure if it's a spending thing. The wealthy and upper middle class pay an exorbitant share of taxes which fund programs for the poor, for the old, the sick, and for the Military Industrial Complex and the servicemembers that serve under it. Alongside paying for the lack of frugality of past and present politicians. Inflationary practices leave middle and lower class people behind, as they benefit least from artificially low interest rates and loose credit. Those with assets (real estate, stocks, etc.) see an accelerating increase in value, while those without assets aren't even participating. When added in a restricted housing market, even homes are becoming a luxury for the lower classes. That's not getting better by government spending more on income security or Medicare. I largely agree with what you are saying about the effect on assets I just think this is the lesser evil when compared to situations where there is a shortage of money. How we go about distributing the new credit also plays a role into how it impacts the economy and the various classes. Our system tends to be dominated by the banking and financial interests so a more egalitarian approach to injecting the money isn't the order of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 23, 2024 12:36:53 GMT
It's pro-woman in the sense of "women should do what they want." Fair enough. I understand the sentiment. But as our culture (and the global culture) become increasingly hedonistic and materialistic, you see how this ends without some sort of revival or cultural revolution? Immigration doesn't solve this. And I'm not putting it all on women, by the way. Men are equally culpable. People doing "what they want" is desired in a free society. But it can be corrupted to the detriment of humanity as a whole. When it is culturally encouraged to act on immediate gratification at the age of 18 or 24, without understanding long term consequences, the end result for society broadly can be logically predicted. Taken to the extreme, if people want to spend their time in some future (and functioning) version of the metaverse, how will that impact quality of life and long-term happiness of humanity? This all will be quite an arduous journey for future generations to travel. Debt loads and shrinking population and fewer children paying for entitlements, etc. The math doesn't work. Some of this can be understood as a function of the increasing cost of living problem facing all of us, women included. Women want independence, sure, but they also work just to help their families survive, or perhaps to enjoy a lifestyle they couldn't have without two incomes. Do you see this trend reversing at all? Towards a lower cost of living, or people wanting an increasingly easier lifestyle? We tend to spend more on homes and cars and luxury items now compared to generations past and financing all of it requires a lot of money. People are forgoing having kids early or having them at all to chase materialistic goals or to simply have fun. It's selfish, certainly compared to earlier periods in our history. Other than try to reduce the cost of living, perhaps get some maternity leave legislation past, or some tax credits, etc I don't know what else we do. Neither do I. But I will fight back against those (not necessarily you) who don't see any problem at all with it. Recognition of the problem seems a reasonable step one. |
|
