"The decline could have far-reaching implications for U.S. economic and social policy."
Is this an emergency? Like global warming, it's simultaneously slow and fast. It's so slow, you may think it's not real — alarmism — or not a problem — we'll adjust. But it's fast too, because if we're going to attempt to control the trend, we need to get cracking.
If it is an emergency, what could be done? Is there a role for government? What if government wanted to get involved, really deeply involved? Suggestions? Don't violate any rights. This is a government of laws, in which women have reproductive freedom. But there is the taxing power and the spending power and so forth.
In the style of the environmentalists — who would have us radically reorder life to stave off the perceived calamity — devise some policy. I encourage comic/dystopian brainstorming here, but please keep the foundation of reproductive freedom and other basic American liberties. I'm not asking for "The Handmaid's Tale." That's been done.
December 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215As a social conservative, it is my belief that abortion only happens because the callous, deadbeat man abandoned the mother once he found out about her pregnancy, and thus the poor girl had no choice but to abort the child.
That is the primary reason abortion happens in America.
Hence, the solution is to make the laws regarding child support and custody far more rigid and strict than they are now.
This is the fate of women and children we are talking about here! We have to punish the men who cause these problems.
KMG:
whoa.
Want an eye opener?
Google "paternal discrepancy child support"
oops
discordance not discrepancy
2littlemuch2late,
Yeah, one of things you're late on is getting your sarcasm detector recalibrated.
Lower percentage of children, higher national debt. What could possible go wrong?
To everyone proposing a tax on the childless to pay for their SS:
1. Fine, don't give me any (and don't tax me for any after my parents are dead). I'll take care of myself.
2. Tax women, not men. I wanted children very much. I see no reason to be taxed for failing the only objective measure of who is a suitable father: getting a woman to allow me to impregnate them (see OP about reproductive freedom for women...given they have it, charging me for not reproducing is wrong).
To be honest, given the men who did get to father children the neighborhood where I lived for the last half of the aughts, even with their children I'm a much more productive member of society (and already paying positive taxes, unlike them).
@kmg: As a social conservative, it is my belief that abortion only happens because the callous, deadbeat man abandoned the mother once he found out about her pregnancy, and thus the poor girl had no choice but to abort the child.
Of course that's the issue, which is why it is an unconstitutional burden to require a women to inform her husband (not obtain consent, inform) she is seeking an abortion. Suggesting they inform non-marital fathers is right out.
Hence, the solution is to make the laws regarding child support and custody far more rigid and strict than they are now.
Glad to see you still support notification (or at least billing) if the woman doesn't abort (sorry, forced to abort by fleeing deadbeat dad).
You can already be imprisoned for child support debt, what do you want? The death penalty.
Thank you for telling me every man who wanted a child only to find out later his wife or girlfriend aborted one actually caused it by not wanting a child.
Obviously the biggest negative factor to the drop in birth rates is homosexuality. Punish such by instant [non-due process]death. Hey, maybe converting the world to Islam is the answer.
<blockquote>
Given America's looming fiscal failure (and I don't mean the fiscal cliff) and collapse, I've advised my nearing adult children not to have children
--Tim
</blockquote>
Actually, I'm going the other way and advising my children to have as many children that they can (and that they can afford more than they might imagine). After the collapse Tim envisions, no more Social Security. Ones children will be ones surest security in old age.
That seques into my pro-natalist advice: Abolish Social Security along with most other government social welfare schemes. This will sharply encourage (admittedly, after some delay as the public wises up to the reality that government dole programs obscure) reliance on family. And that requires one to make a family.
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE
I'm mostly kidding here, but tell me if this doesn't actually cut to the heart of the problem:
Make your Social Security benefits partly based on the number of children you have had who have themselves earned 40 Social Security credits.
This incentive requires not only having children, but raising them well enough that they become productive and hold jobs.
Obviously some people are infertile, children die before entering the workforce, etc. But isn't the childless couple a free rider on the system?
Sometimes it comes down to fear of the future, as I fear for my kids burdened with so many issues, that I can feel for those who make an intentful decision not to have kids.
However I'm optimistic as I can be, hopefully they are the solution.
Just as it is in the EU. Birthrates are dropping because those that would normally have children can no longer afford to. The responsible in society are paying for the irresponsible to have all the children they want, and with the welfare state to support it all...
Fun times are all that can ensue...
It's all about incentives. As we become more and more socialist, there's less and less reason to have those inconvenient, expensive kids.
Here's how to fix it.
1. Eliminate the nanny tax.
2. Mandate a state college education cost no more than $10,000, subsidies included. No more rock climbing walls, schools are for educating and that requires a student, a teacher, and a desk.
3. Gigantic tax breaks for kids. I was surprised to find out that in our tax situation (two working parents) we get essentially no tax break at all. Everyone who pays taxes should get a $5,000 tax credit per future taxpayer (yes, this favors the rich, as it should because they produce better taxpayers -- we don't need more lifelong welfare cases).
History does show a trend toward population shrinkage in urban areas and most of the areas with low birth rates are densely populated and urbanized , Germany included.
It could be that people don't like raising families in such environments especially at the wages they are getting and so they have smaller families.
Also unemployment and underemployment rates are very high, take Spain which has a birth rate on par with that of Germany.
It also has a 50% youth unemployment rate and probably an even higher underemployment rate.
There is no way these people can pay for kids. The fact that Spaniards have as many as they do suggest that they love children, they simply can't afford them.
if the West fixes the wage and housing issues birth rates will likely go up a bit.
A caveat though, a great many political systems today were developed in a pre birth control world . The pill and its successors are going nowhere
Those days of "free automatic babies" are at an end. Heck they started ending with universal literacy and increased with television.
People at least ones able to sustain modernity won't give you boredom babies, accidental babies or any other kind than the ones they want.
This means counting on replacement much less endless growth is folly. Good jobs will raise rates but we may simply have reached a maximum. deal with that.
"I don't understand the bias against education I see so often here. American employers are in need of more skilled workers, not less."
Confuses "education" with "obtaining skills."
Post a Comment