2024 Presidential Race

[CNS]

we should incentivize children and families more than we do IMO.  or at least try to ease the financial blow.

100% agree, but what would actually work is making insurance far less expensive, making child care far less expensive, and making the wages of the working class and middle class go up substantially in a way that it resembles the 50's and 60's as far as relation to cost of living.

we have a ton of evidence that all of that is backwards.  what works is driving down wages, not educating people and not providing many govt services.  that and being very religious.

I get where you are coming from and it’s obvious that this is the route the powers that be are choosing: take away birth control, drive religion up, and keep people from as much info as possible makes a lot of babies. My note is based on the assumption that “we the dumbass people” don’t actually want to go backwards.  I also get that there is tons of data that shows that a lot of ppl do want to go backwards.

[star seed 7]

we should incentivize children and families more than we do IMO.  or at least try to ease the financial blow.

100% agree, but what would actually work is making insurance far less expensive, making child care far less expensive, and making the wages of the working class and middle class go up substantially in a way that it resembles the 50's and 60's as far as relation to cost of living.

we have a ton of evidence that all of that is backwards.  what works is driving down wages, not educating people and not providing many govt services.  that and being very religious.

This is the republican party platform so at least they are consistent

[cfbandyman]

we should incentivize children and families more than we do IMO.  or at least try to ease the financial blow.

100% agree, but what would actually work is making insurance far less expensive, making child care far less expensive, and making the wages of the working class and middle class go up substantially in a way that it resembles the 50's and 60's as far as relation to cost of living.

we have a ton of evidence that all of that is backwards.  what works is driving down wages, not educating people and not providing many govt services.  that and being very religious.

I get where you are coming from and it’s obvious that this is the route the powers that be are choosing: take away birth control, drive religion up, and keep people from as much info as possible makes a lot of babies. My note is based on the assumption that “we the dumbass people” don’t actually want to go backwards.  I also get that there is tons of data that shows that a lot of ppl do want to go backwards.

Yeah, most people in all highly developed countries aren't not having babies, it's probably for the better on a resource strained world. There should always be people, but this idea of infinite growth isn't sustainable, even if you don't believe in sustainability.

[CNS]

we should incentivize children and families more than we do IMO.  or at least try to ease the financial blow.

100% agree, but what would actually work is making insurance far less expensive, making child care far less expensive, and making the wages of the working class and middle class go up substantially in a way that it resembles the 50's and 60's as far as relation to cost of living.

we have a ton of evidence that all of that is backwards.  what works is driving down wages, not educating people and not providing many govt services.  that and being very religious.

I get where you are coming from and it’s obvious that this is the route the powers that be are choosing: take away birth control, drive religion up, and keep people from as much info as possible makes a lot of babies. My note is based on the assumption that “we the dumbass people” don’t actually want to go backwards.  I also get that there is tons of data that shows that a lot of ppl do want to go backwards.

Yeah, most people in all highly developed countries aren't not having babies, it's probably for the better on a resource strained world. There should always be people, but this idea of infinite growth isn't sustainable, even if you don't believe in sustainability.

The choice of the poor, religious, and otherwise ignorant masses having packs of half feral kids in order to grow the population or letting them become educated with access to the trappings of our current society and then having a massive population drop due to them choosing to not have kids is a false choice.  If you implemented the stuff I mentioned, many folks who are choosing to not have kids would probably have kids.  Not 6 kids, but a couple.  Isn't that what we want?  Sustained population?

[star seed 7]

Does birthrate really matter when the entire world wants to immigrate to your country?

[CNS]

That probably depends greatly on who you are asking. 

[sys]

I get where you are coming from and it’s obvious that this is the route the powers that be are choosing: take away birth control, drive religion up, and keep people from as much info as possible makes a lot of babies. My note is based on the assumption that “we the dumbass people” don’t actually want to go backwards.  I also get that there is tons of data that shows that a lot of ppl do want to go backwards.

i don't think the powers that be, whatever the eff that means, are optimizing policy for increased birthrates.

i actually do think that subsidizing parents would result in increased birthrates, but the subsidies would need to far larger than anything that is politically feasible.  hundreds of thousands of dollars.


it's also worth noting that the recent downturn in births (at least in the u.s.) is mostly attributable to a decline in young unmarried women having children, and i don't think there is any societal demand to reverse that trend.

[michigancat]

it's also worth noting that the recent downturn in births (at least in the u.s.) is mostly attributable to a decline in young unmarried women having children, and i don't think there is any societal demand to reverse that trend.

There's definitely a lot of push from Republicans to make abortion illegal. But I'd expect teenagers are just having sex less frequently so the abortion bans probably wouldn't have much effect

[Pete]

Higher use of birth control?

[CNS]

There is obviously a difference between policy that makes it through to law and what politicians say, but it is undeniable that politicians are calling for more births, less birth control(abortion at very least), and are pursuing less sex ed than the past few decades.

As for the downturn in young unmarried women having children, that is definitely true and most people attribute that to an increase in education for women and the availability of birth control and sex ed.  Which leads me back to my comment about the powers that be and what policy they prefer, or at least are saying they prefer.  The SC ruling on abortion, the red state abortion laws, and several red states limiting or eliminating sex ed in schools all show that as a goal of politicians, not to mention many politicians clearly and simply stating that we need increased birthrates on camera.  If they aren't optimizing specifically for birthrates, they are doing so for religion, which is adjacent, at worst, to optimizing for birthrates. 

[CNS]

it's also worth noting that the recent downturn in births (at least in the u.s.) is mostly attributable to a decline in young unmarried women having children, and i don't think there is any societal demand to reverse that trend.

There's definitely a lot of push from Republicans to make abortion illegal. But I'd expect teenagers are just having sex less frequently so the abortion bans probably wouldn't have much effect

For the Gen Z'ers and Gen Alpha kids this is probably right.  However, It looks like the majority of the drop in birthrates took place between 1961 and 1971'is.  https://www.prb.org/resources/the-decline-in-u-s-fertility/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20total%20fertility%20rate%20%28TFR%29%20stood%20at,Italy%2C%20Spain%2C%20Sweden%2C%20and%20several%20other%20European%20countries.

[Dugout DickStone]

What is the logic behind using “childless” as a derogatory adjective for women?

Why the eff would someone who wants to be a  leader of a nation founded on the principle of freedom do that? What goes through your mind when you say that?

Designed to make women settle for a guy early and have sex with incels or run the risk of earning this label.  The more you can pressure women into giving into incel advances the better chance incels may get some semblance of a sex life.

[sys]

There is obviously a difference between policy that makes it through to law and what politicians say, but it is undeniable that politicians are calling for more births, less birth control(abortion at very least), and are pursuing less sex ed than the past few decades.

As for the downturn in young unmarried women having children, that is definitely true and most people attribute that to an increase in education for women and the availability of birth control and sex ed.  Which leads me back to my comment about the powers that be and what policy they prefer, or at least are saying they prefer.  The SC ruling on abortion, the red state abortion laws, and several red states limiting or eliminating sex ed in schools all show that as a goal of politicians, not to mention many politicians clearly and simply stating that we need increased birthrates on camera.  If they aren't optimizing specifically for birthrates, they are doing so for religion, which is adjacent, at worst, to optimizing for birthrates.

1.  i'm not aware of any american politicians that have called for higher birthrates.  there probably are a couple, but it's not a salient feature of any party or subparty's politics.

2.  i think you're imputing an interest in birthrate when an interest in morality is both more straightforward and more concordant with what the people involved themselves say.

3.  when you say the "powers that be" but then list policies that are supported by a minority of people and politicians nationwide, that doesn't make much sense to me.  at the very least, if your framework were correct, you'd expect to see birthrates fluctuate back and forth when dems or republicans controlled national policy and to vary geographically based on the party in power.  we do not see that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

All weapons, including water guns, canned food, and tennis balls are banned in the area around where the RNC is being held. Except real guns. You can bring a real gun there.

https://www.fox6now.com/news/rnc-milwaukee-rough-security-restrictions

[DQ12]

I just think it’s sad that people are bypassing a fundamental element of what it means to be human because childcare is so damn expensive.

If you don’t want kids, that’s fine, but if you would have kids but for the extra mortgage payment that is childcare (for instance) I think that’s pretty sad and is a problem I think is worth fixing.  Plus I think it’s good for the country if those on-the-fencers have kids.

[Pete]

I just think it’s sad that people are bypassing a fundamental element of what it means to be human because childcare is so damn expensive.

If you don’t want kids, that’s fine, but if you would have kids but for the extra mortgage payment that is childcare (for instance) I think that’s pretty sad and is a problem I think is worth fixing.  Plus I think it’s good for the country if those on-the-fencers have kids.

Agree. Definitely something for the reasonable people agree with each other thread.

[Pete]

My wife stayed home with the kids and it was wonderful for her and the kids, and I was lucky to have been able to barely afford it. However, our retirement fund is easily about half of what it would have been….15+ years we could have been maxing out a second 401K. 

Defined benefit retirement plans need to come back. Let’s incentivize that.

[Pete]

My folks have passed on, but they didn’t have much retirement saved and it was stressful watching them agonize over it.  So much so that I nearly didn’t have kids because I didn’t want to go through that and put my kids in the situation of worrying about their parents.

[wetwillie]

The dinkwads reign supreme

[nicname]

Fun fact: more than 3.5 billion of the world’s 8.2 billion people live in China, India or SE Asian country not listed.

[catastrophe]

Does birthrate really matter when the entire world wants to immigrate to your country?

Exactly. Republicans talk about these as two huge problems when you could just use one to solve the other.

[CHONGS]

14 little words are a very powerful force in modern American conservatism.

[nicname]

Sorry is this doesn’t embed. Using phone and never figured it out.

“Why the World Population Will Stabalize at ~11 Billion

https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI?si=9R-oHjBIhr8ne4an


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

I enjoyed that

[steve dave]

I just think it’s sad that people are bypassing a fundamental element of what it means to be human because childcare is so damn expensive.

If you don’t want kids, that’s fine, but if you would have kids but for the extra mortgage payment that is childcare (for instance) I think that’s pretty sad and is a problem I think is worth fixing.  Plus I think it’s good for the country if those on-the-fencers have kids.

Americans have plenty of fuckin’ kids bruh. I’ve got shitloads of them as an example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk