America's birth rate is now a national emergency

[Dr. Who]

I am posting this based on comments in another thread which I don't want to derail. However, the comments posted suggested that America should be importing more Europeans than those from third-world countries. That actually presupposes that Europeans are lining up to immigrate to America. However, the fact is that America is plagued with a very low birth rate.

"The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug."

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency

Europe has a very similar problem:

"Europe is ageing. On average, each woman has 1.58 children in the EU, substantially below the 2.1 children needed to sustain the current population level. Due to low death-rates and high net-migration, the overall population in Europe may be increasing, but the median age is crawling slowly upwards: 42 years in 2014 compared to just 29 a decade earlier."

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05/02/can-europe-reverse-demographic-decline/#.WNxEb28rKM8

So, if you are tasked with population replacement, do you bring in more people who won't reproduce or do you bring in people who will produce future tax payers.

Discuss.

[MisterVeritis]

I am posting this based on comments in another thread which I don't want to derail. However, the comments posted suggested that America should be importing more Europeans than those from third-world countries. That actually presupposes that Europeans are lining up to immigrate to America. However, the fact is that America is plagued with a very low birth rate.

"The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug."

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency

Europe has a very similar problem:

"Europe is ageing. On average, each woman has 1.58 children in the EU, substantially below the 2.1 children needed to sustain the current population level. Due to low death-rates and high net-migration, the overall population in Europe may be increasing, but the median age is crawling slowly upwards: 42 years in 2014 compared to just 29 a decade earlier."

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05/02/can-europe-reverse-demographic-decline/#.WNxEb28rKM8

So, if you are tasked with population replacement, do you bring in more people who won't reproduce or do you bring in people who will produce future tax payers.

Discuss.
Cut all tax rates and collections so two incomes are not required, one to live on and the other to pay the state. Birth rates will rise.

[Dr. Who]

Cut all tax rates and collections so two incomes are not required, one to live on and the other to pay the state. Birth rates will rise.
Then who will pay for the ginormous military budget and service existing national debt?

[MisterVeritis]

Then who will pay for the ginormous military budget and service existing national debt?
Who cares?

[Dr. Who]

Who cares?
Well, you might not, but those who are elected to government may have to.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, you might not, but those who are elected to government may have to.
You implied you wanted a solution for the low birth rate. I gave you the right answer. We have become a slaveholding nation once again. Half of the people work to support themselves and the other half.

It is time to end the welfare programs designed to breed more Democrats. That is the majority of the budget. What does defense cost? 600 billion out of 3.5 Trillion? Everything else is wealth redistribution. Marxism has come to AmeriKa.

It is time to scale it back. Then end it.

[Dr. Who]

You implied you wanted a solution for the low birth rate. I gave you the right answer. We have become a slaveholding nation once again. Half of the people work to support themselves and the other half.

It is time to end the welfare programs designed to breed more Democrats. That is the majority of the budget. What does defense cost? 600 billion out of 3.5 Trillion? Everything else is wealth redistribution. Marxism has come to AmeriKa.

It is time to scale it back. Then end it.
I think that you are expecting that without fiscal constraints that women would readily accept having more than two children or even more than one. Women don't only work for the money, they also work for the intellectual stimulation. The problem group in terms of low birth rate are the educated. People with educations actually want to use them for something. Staying at home and keeping house doesn't do much for someone who would really rather be a lawyer or an engineer.

[Mister D]

The goal of "population replacement" is not to replace natives with foreigners. The goal is to preserve a particular biocultural entity. Dr. Who's confusion stems from one variant of a classically liberal anthropology that proposes a universal conception of mankind. Instead of proposing a man motivated by solely by rational self-interest, as classical liberals are wont to do, progressives like Dr. Who instead reduce human beings to their base animal appetites. We all sleep, eat and shit ergo we're really all the same. It is precisely this (with all due respect) vapid universalism that lies at the root of Dr. Who's abject fear and loathing of religious faith. What makes us truly human inevitably diversifies cultures and men. It leads to different values, different ways of living, different social goals etc.

Dr. Who, you are our resident champion of "diversity" but only on its most superficial level. Honestly, I think you find meaningful diversity very troubling. I think you fear it.

[Dr. Who]

The goal of "population replacement" is not to replace natives with foreigners. The goal is to preserve a particular biocultural entity. Dr. Who's confusion stems from one variant of a classically liberal anthropology that proposes a universal conception of mankind. Instead of proposing a man motivated by solely by rational self-interest, as classical liberals are wont to do, progressives like Dr. Who instead reduce human beings to their base animal appetites. We all sleep, eat and shit ergo we're really all the same. It is precisely this (with all due respect) vapid universalism that lies at the root of Dr. Who's abject fear and loathing of religious faith. What makes us truly human inevitably diversifies cultures and men. It leads to different values, different ways of living, different social goals etc.

Dr. Who, you are our resident champion of "diversity" but only on its most superficial level. Honestly, I think you find meaningful diversity very troubling. I think you fear it.
No I don't, but that's not the topic. As I pointed out people of European extraction are failing to reproduce at even a zero growth rate, but rather at a deficit growth rate. Since any nation needs to provide for the future in terms of population, if for no other reason than to support the aging population and one of the largest cohorts is now retiring in droves, very many of whom will be drawing on SS and using public systems like Medicare at a much greater rate than before. Without bringing in immigrants who are more inclined to have children, who is going to support that growing liability?

[MisterVeritis]

I think that you are expecting that without fiscal constraints that women would readily accept having more than two children or even more than one. Women don't only work for the money, they also work for the intellectual stimulation. The problem group in terms of low birth rate are the educated. People with educations actually want to use them for something. Staying at home and keeping house doesn't do much for someone who would really rather be a lawyer or an engineer.
I know a man, he has a PhD in electrical engineering. He chose to be an at home father. His wife is a medical doctor.

Cut the tax burden on the productive and the productive will produce children. Every nation with confiscatory tax rates has a falling birth rate.

[Dr. Who]

I know a man, he has a PhD in electrical engineering. He chose to be an at home father. His wife is a medical doctor.

Cut the tax burden on the productive and the productive will produce children. Every nation with confiscatory tax rates has a falling birth rate.
Have you ever noticed that even really wealthy Americans don't tend to have more than two kids as a rule? Clearly, money is not an issue.

[MisterVeritis]

Have you ever noticed that even really wealthy Americans don't tend to have more than two kids as a rule? Clearly, money is not an issue.
Were you planning on relying on the 1% to produce all of the children? This makes me smile. As a former 3-4%er I suppose I should have around 20 children that I know of.

[Dr. Who]

Were you planning on relying on the 1% to produce all of the children? This makes me smile. As a former 3-4%er I suppose I should have around 20 children that I know of.

No, but your argument that if taxes were lower that educated women in particular, would necessarily choose to have more children doesn't really fly. Educated women are having fewer children because they don't want to be tied down to child rearing. They want their careers for reasons other than just the financial aspect. They would rather work and pay for someone else to clean the house than give up their careers and live a life of domestic drudgery. Also, given the divorce rate, it really doesn't pay to be a housewife with no working history or a history that is so out of date by the time the divorce happens that they can't get jobs that really pay enough prevent a drastic change in economic circumstances. Alimony is not the rule anymore.

[Scrounger]

No, but your argument that if taxes were lower that educated women in particular, would necessarily choose to have more children doesn't really fly. Educated women are having fewer children because they don't want to be tied down to child rearing. They want their careers for reasons other than just the financial aspect. They would rather work and pay for someone else to clean the house than give up their careers and live a life of domestic drudgery. Also, given the divorce rate, it really doesn't pay to be a housewife with no working history or a history that is so out of date by the time the divorce happens that they can't get jobs that really pay enough prevent a drastic change in economic circumstances. Alimony is not the rule anymore.

While you are right, ONE of the roads to getting people to reproduce is to take the tax burden off. We have to create new opportunities for Americans; reduce the size, scope and power of government; put the brakes on the welfare state; get those who have been disenfranchised back on their feet and able to function.

We have to quit apologizing for our culture and figure out that multiculturalism is the culprit behind the decline of nations. We cannot be everything to everybody. We cannot be the world's police force and feed the entire world nor even babysit them all the time. Fewer government regulations, fewer taxes, a renewed emphasis on the importance of our culture... it's a big package that we will have to put together IF we want to survive.

[MisterVeritis]

No, but your argument that if taxes were lower that educated women in particular, would necessarily choose to have more children doesn't really fly. Educated women are having fewer children because they don't want to be tied down to child rearing. They want their careers for reasons other than just the financial aspect. They would rather work and pay for someone else to clean the house than give up their careers and live a life of domestic drudgery. Also, given the divorce rate, it really doesn't pay to be a housewife with no working history or a history that is so out of date by the time the divorce happens that they can't get jobs that really pay enough prevent a drastic change in economic circumstances. Alimony is not the rule anymore.
You are a leftist liberal. No argument I present would convince you. You have an agenda. You love high taxes and lots of immigrants to supplant real Americans.

I get it.

[Newpublius]

I think that you are expecting that without fiscal constraints that women would readily accept having more than two children or even more than one. Women don't only work for the money, they also work for the intellectual stimulation. The problem group in terms of low birth rate are the educated. People with educations actually want to use them for something. Staying at home and keeping house doesn't do much for someone who would really rather be a lawyer or an engineer.

My wife and I both work. You know what you find out? What I'm holding is what actually matters, the rest is just a bunch of corporate nonsense!

I'm not a barefoot and pregnant kind of guy, but we should celebrate the stay-at-home PARENT (not necessarily mom) and really when its 6am and the buzzer goes off and I'm rushing to get them out the door to the school bus, trust me, I'd rather just sleep in and snuggle up with my bubble guppies!

[Dr. Who]

You are a leftist liberal. No argument I present would convince you. You have an agenda. You love high taxes and lots of immigrants to supplant real Americans.

I get it.
No, most of the educated women I know are career driven regardless of political leanings. They would have a decent income even if they stayed home. That's not why they work. There is a high correlation between education and low birth rate. They generally wait until they are well into their 30's or later to have children because a career can be derailed by maternity and taking time off for kids before it is well established.

[Cthulhu]

I am posting this based on comments in another thread which I don't want to derail. However, the comments posted suggested that America should be importing more Europeans than those from third-world countries. That actually presupposes that Europeans are lining up to immigrate to America. However, the fact is that America is plagued with a very low birth rate.

"The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug."

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency

Europe has a very similar problem:

"Europe is ageing. On average, each woman has 1.58 children in the EU, substantially below the 2.1 children needed to sustain the current population level. Due to low death-rates and high net-migration, the overall population in Europe may be increasing, but the median age is crawling slowly upwards: 42 years in 2014 compared to just 29 a decade earlier."

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05/02/can-europe-reverse-demographic-decline/#.WNxEb28rKM8

So, if you are tasked with population replacement, do you bring in more people who won't reproduce or do you bring in people who will produce future tax payers.

Discuss.
You remove the barriers to having a family. Importing is a foolish solution - even if the people look like you.

People need to be able to have families and not be crippled by government policies and taxation that stifle it.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Cthulhu]

Then who will pay for the ginormous military budget and service existing national debt?
Repudiation of some debt is smart.

And the military could use a haircut.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Dr. Who]

My wife and I both work. You know what you find out? What I'm holding is what actually matters, the rest is just a bunch of corporate nonsense!

I'm not a barefoot and pregnant kind of guy, but we should celebrate the stay-at-home PARENT (not necessarily mom) and really when its 6am and the buzzer goes off and I'm rushing to get them out the door to the school bus, trust me, I'd rather just sleep in and snuggle up with my bubble guppies!

I'm not commenting on those who want to be stay at home parents, but many don't want to be stay at home parents. They want intellectual challenges. Between two parents, hopefully, they can strike a home/work balance that works. My experience is seeing women trying to do everything and running themselves ragged, but that's another topic.

[Cthulhu]

No I don't, but that's not the topic. As I pointed out people of European extraction are failing to reproduce at even a zero growth rate, but rather at a deficit growth rate. Since any nation needs to provide for the future in terms of population, if for no other reason than to support the aging population and one of the largest cohorts is now retiring in droves, very many of whom will be drawing on SS and using public systems like Medicare at a much greater rate than before. Without bringing in immigrants who are more inclined to have children, who is going to support that growing liability?
Than the elderly suffer because they bet on a loser - the government.

I'm feeding my own kids before some old person.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Newpublius]

As a parent I was ready, I didn't run from the poopy diaper. Two things hard: 1. the children are NOT at your level and 2. doing it sick.

Doing it alone all day....difficult. Do it with one other adult and that made all the difference.

[Newpublius]

Than the elderly suffer because they bet on a loser - the government.

I'm feeding my own kids before some old person.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Technically......false......withholding comes before the grocery store!

[Dr. Who]

You remove the barriers to having a family. Importing is a foolish solution - even if the people look like you.

People need to be able to have families and not be crippled by government policies and taxation that stifle it.

Fear profits a man nothing.
It seems to me that the people who want to have six kids still do. However in general, people - really women, don't want to be tied to the house. Certainly providing an education for many children is an issue, but not I think, the primary issue. In Europe, where often the education is almost free, people are still not having enough kids to replace them.

[Dr. Who]

As a parent I was ready, I didn't run from the poopy diaper. Two things hard: 1. the children are NOT at your level and 2. doing it sick.

Doing it alone all day....difficult. Do it with one other adult and that made all the difference.
The doing it alone is still an issue. Not all men are hands-on with the poopy diapers or tending to sick kids in the middle of the night even if both are working. I know one female lawyer who is married, but hubby acts like it's a big deal if he has to watch the kids on a weekend because she has to go out of town. She's married to another lawyer. Normally she does everything on her own. They only have two kids. She's lucky if she gets four hours sleep every night.

[Cthulhu]

Technically......false......withholding comes before the grocery store!
You assume I report all my income.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Cthulhu]

It seems to me that the people who want to have six kids still do. However in general, people - really women, don't want to be tied to the house. Certainly providing an education for many children is an issue, but not I think, the primary issue. In Europe, where often the education is almost free, people are still not having enough kids to replace them.
So women are being selfish and unwilling to have a family despite the obvious ramifications?

Because large families are still quite rare outside of Muslim and Mormon households.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Dr. Who]

Than the elderly suffer because they bet on a loser - the government.

I'm feeding my own kids before some old person.

Fear profits a man nothing.
The government make a bargain when they introduced SS and started taking money from people. They can change it proactively, but not retroactively.

[Cthulhu]

The government make a bargain when they introduced SS and started taking money from people. They can change it proactively, but not retroactively.
Sure they can, but they never will. The senior voting block is the largest.

The elderly deserve no respect of they aren't willing to look after their descendents.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[resister]

You assume I report all my income.

Fear profits a man nothing.
Blarg !! ?

[resister]

So women are being selfish and unwilling to have a family despite the obvious ramifications?

Because large families are still quite rare outside of Muslim and Mormon households.

Fear profits a man nothing.
My old lady is catholic, she has 9 siblings!

[Cthulhu]

My old lady is catholic, she has 9 siblings!
Well done.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Dr. Who]

So women are being selfish and unwilling to have a family despite the obvious ramifications?

Because large families are still quite rare outside of Muslim and Mormon households.

Fear profits a man nothing.
Well, in the context, men might also be considered selfish. While women still have to bear the children, there is no rule that women have to be the primary caregiver. There are certainly many cases where the woman is the primary wage earner and yet still the primary caregiver.

[Dr. Who]

My old lady is catholic, she has 9 siblings!
My husband is not a Catholic and he also has 9 siblings, most of whom we took care of for a period of time because his mother became schizophrenic after the birth of the last and eventually his father divorced his mother. New wife wasn't nice to the kids. So we ended up with them for years. Got them through high school and none ever were arrested for anything. We were in our 20's taking of 10 to 15-year-olds.

[Cthulhu]

Well, in the context, men might also be considered selfish. While women still have to bear the children, there is no rule that women have to be the primary caregiver. There are certainly many cases where the woman is the primary wage earner and yet still the primary caregiver.
*eye roll*

Biology dictates women be primary care givers to children - at least of you want more of them to survive.

Sorry, women are dropping the ball on this one.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Crepitus]

Cut all tax rates and collections so two incomes are not required, one to live on and the other to pay the state. Birth rates will rise.

Cutting the tax rates will not accomplish this

[Dr. Who]

*eye roll*

Biology dictates women be primary care givers to children - at least of you want more of them to survive.

Sorry, women are dropping the ball on this one.

Fear profits a man nothing.

So if the woman is really supporting the family and putting food in their mouths, she should still do everything and the man should just do whatever it is that he does, because he's male and biologically incapable of changing diapers or getting up in the middle of the night to take junior to the bathroom or offer a sick bucket. Really?

[Scrounger]

Cutting the tax rates will not accomplish this

Not just that one thing, but I listed the other things in an earlier post. Cutting the taxes would only be a starting point.

[Crepitus]

You assume I report all my income.

Fear profits a man nothing.

Not something you want in writing in this day and age my friend.

[resister]

Well done.

Fear profits a man nothing.
Go mom and dad! I got me a good one out of the deal!

[resister]

My husband is not a Catholic and he also has 9 siblings, most of whom we took care of for a period of time because his mother became schizophrenic after the birth of the last and eventually his father divorced his mother. New wife wasn't nice to the kids. So we ended up with them for years. Got them through high school and none ever were arrested for anything. We were in our 20's taking of 10 to 15-year-olds.
God bless ya, karma will be your friend!

[Cthulhu]

So if the woman is really supporting the family and putting food in their mouths, she should still do everything and the man should just do whatever it is that he does, because he's male and biologically incapable of changing diapers or getting up in the middle of the night to take junior to the bathroom or offer a sick bucket. Really?
No.

A return of traditional gender roles would be required.

But thankfully the left realizes this and is importing those who understands traditional gender roles.

:rolleyes:

You don't have to like it.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[Mister D]

No I don't, but that's not the topic. As I pointed out people of European extraction are failing to reproduce at even a zero growth rate, but rather at a deficit growth rate. Since any nation needs to provide for the future in terms of population, if for no other reason than to support the aging population and one of the largest cohorts is now retiring in droves, very many of whom will be drawing on SS and using public systems like Medicare at a much greater rate than before. Without bringing in immigrants who are more inclined to have children, who is going to support that growing liability?

Yes, you do and it's quite pertinent. It's the only reason this thread exists and it's the only reason you feel compelled to present false dichotomies and delusional scenarios. Legions of low wage, unskilled migrants with a grade school education are not going to save SS or any other social program. In fact, poor immigrants (the majority) are a burden on the existing system in terms of welfare, social services and education. Contemporary insanity benefits no one but the very rich and the very (foreign) poor. It's a non-starter, Dr. Who, and only someone emotionally invested in this crock of shit called "diversity" could possibly believe it.

We're going to have to change our way of living, Dr. Who (you too, BTW) or the system will fail. It's not going to be saved by people picking lettuce for $8 an hour.

[Mister D]

I know a man, he has a PhD in electrical engineering. He chose to be an at home father. His wife is a medical doctor.

Cut the tax burden on the productive and the productive will produce children. Every nation with confiscatory tax rates has a falling birth rate.
It's more than tax rates. It's also a culture. We expect more and more material comforts. It's not sustainable with or without immigrants.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, you do and it's quite pertinent. It's the only reason this thread exists and it's the only reason you feel compelled to present false dichotomies and delusional scenarios. Legions of low wage, unskilled migrants with a grade school education are not going to save SS or any other social program. In fact, poor immigrants (the majority) are a burden on the existing system in terms of welfare, social services and education. Contemporary insanity benefits no one but the very rich and the very (foreign) poor. It's a non-starter, Dr. Who, and only someone emotionally invested in this crock of shit called "diversity" could possibly believe it.

We're going to have to change our way of living, Dr. Who (you too, BTW) or the system will fail. It's not going to be saved by people picking lettuce for $8 an hour.
While the largest number of immigrants are of Mexican origin (26.9%), based on 2015 statistics the reason is largely because 44 percent of all immigrants are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, not because of any specific bias in favor of bringing in unskilled newcomers. Another 20 percent of all immigrants entered through a family-sponsored preference, and 14 percent via an employment-based preference as well as 14 percent adjusted from refugee or asylee status. 5 percent were diversity lottery (green card lottery) winners who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Before receiving permission to immigrate to the United States, lottery winners must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent or show two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. They also must pass a medical exam and a background check.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#Mexican

17706

It would seem that the vast majority of Europeans applying for green cards are doing so for specific employment reasons as opposed to being from a desire for better opportunities for their families.
http://bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-where-is-it-coming-from-and-is-brain-drain-real/

So you can kick off about the complexions and skill set of new immigrants, but absent immigration, the US would have significant negative population growth which would adversely affect America's GDP. It would also be reflected in a decline of business, infrastructure, crumbling cities and eventually economic collapse. The fact is that America's traditional population is not reproducing itself. The population could drop by 50% within 30-40 years and practically disappear in 100 years.

[Mister D]

While the largest number of immigrants are of Mexican origin (26.9%), based on 2015 statistics the reason is largely because 44 percent of all immigrants are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, not because of any specific bias in favor of bringing in unskilled newcomers. Another 20 percent of all immigrants entered through a family-sponsored preference, and 14 percent via an employment-based preference as well as 14 percent adjusted from refugee or asylee status. 5 percent were diversity lottery (green card lottery) winners who come from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Before receiving permission to immigrate to the United States, lottery winners must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent or show two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. They also must pass a medical exam and a background check.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#Mexican

17706


That's nice. Was there a point to this? Surely it's not that immigrants from the undeveloped and developing world are bringing education and skill sets we desperately need. BTW, your own source states that 29% of immigrants lack a high school diploma or GED. It also tells that 32% of children living in poverty have immigrant parents. Great. They're just gearing up to save Social Security and Medicare!


It would seem that the vast majority of Europeans applying for green cards are doing so for specific employment reasons as opposed to being from a desire for better opportunities for their families.
http://bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-where-is-it-coming-from-and-is-brain-drain-real/

That's nice too. Was there a point to it?


So you can kick off about the complexions and skill set of new immigrants, but absent immigration, the US would have significant negative population growth which would adversely affect America's GDP. It would also be reflected in a decline of business, infrastructure, crumbling cities and eventually economic collapse. The fact is that America's traditional population is not reproducing itself. The population could drop by 50% within 30-40 years and practically disappear in 100 years.

Yes, being replaced by grade school educated migrants is really a good thing because they will save our country from collapse. I know I'm convinced. I think it was the implied accusation of racism that really made me think. lol

[Dr. Who]

That's nice. Was there a point to this? Surely it's not that immigrants from the undeveloped and developing world are bringing education and skill sets we desperately need. BTW, your own source states that 29% of immigrants lack a high school diploma or GED. It also tells that 32% of children living in poverty have immigrant parents. Great. They're just gearing up to save Social Security and Medicare!



That's nice too. Was there a point to it?


Yes, being replaced by grade school educated migrants is really a good thing because they will save our country from collapse. I know I'm convinced. I think it was the implied accusation of racism that really made me think. lol
There was no implied accusation of anything. The OP was about negative population growth being one of the prime reasons that immigration has been opened up to different demographics than the historical norm, including the fact that the historical source of that previous immigration are experiencing the same deficit growth patterns and are not hammering at America's doors to be let in. Why would they trade a system where their kids are pretty much guaranteed an education and where they get universal health care to move to a country where they may be able to afford neither? Unless they know they are going to be extremely well paid in America, there is no reason to emigrate. Furthermore, 1st generation immigrants may be unskilled, but subsequent generations have greater expectations. One thing is certain, if people do not reproduce, America will lose the tax base to support itself.

[decedent]

Cut all tax rates and collections so two incomes are not required, one to live on and the other to pay the state. Birth rates will rise.



There's already a child tax credit that allegedly encourages people to have kids. Why do ultraconservatives think money is the only incentive?




17706


Seems a bit too ethnicky for some.

[MisterVeritis]

There's already a child tax credit that allegedly encourages people to have kids.


Why do ultraconservatives think money is the only incentive?
That is not the same. Cur real taxes for everybody. Stop paying dumb democrats to breed more dumb democrats. Stop bringing in the poorest, dumbest (and even the sickest) refuse from third world nations.

I don't think I have ever met an ultraconservative. Where would I find such a person? I know conservatives and I know constitutional conservatives.

[Mister D]

There was no implied accusation of anything. The OP was about negative population growth being one of the prime reasons that immigration has been opened up to different demographics than the historical norm, including the fact that the historical source of that previous immigration are experiencing the same deficit growth patterns and are not hammering at America's doors to be let in. Why would they trade a system where their kids are pretty much guaranteed an education and where they get universal health care to move to a country where they may be able to afford neither? Unless they know they are going to be extremely well paid in America, there is no reason to emigrate. Furthermore, 1st generation immigrants may be unskilled, but subsequent generations have greater expectations. One thing is certain, if people do not reproduce, America will lose the tax base to support itself.
No implied accusations of racism? What was this?


So you can kick off about the complexions ...

Then again, maybe you're right. That was fairly explicit and unfortunately typical of you.

If that's the case, the OP is patent nonsense. When immigration policy was changed in the mid 1960s the birthrate was above the replacement rate. No, Dr. Who, the changes to our immigration policy (and your own) had nothing to do with fertility. Yes, importing poverty is a great idea. It's really going to pay off in the end! I know I'm convinced. :rollseyes:

We can file this next to "vegetables prices will skyrocket if we don't have migrants to pick them".

[Mister D]

MR V is correct. Natalist policies are something the US should pursue. Obviously.

[Dr. Who]

No implied accusations of racism? What was this?



Then again, maybe you're right. That was fairly explicit and unfortunately typical of you.

If that's the case, the OP is patent nonsense. When immigration policy was changed in the mid 1960s the birthrate was above the replacement rate. No, Dr. Who, the changes to our immigration policy (and your own) had nothing to do with fertility. Yes, importing poverty is a great idea. It's really going to pay off in the end! I know I'm convinced. :rollseyes:

We can file this next to "vegetables prices will skyrocket if we don't have migrants to pick them".
I don't try to use pseudo-scientific terms to sanitize my comments like: "The goal is to preserve a particular biocultural entity". Do you honestly think that you are fooling anyone with such phrases? It's meaning was patently obvious i.e. the goal is to keep America white - ethnically of European extraction. Good grief. That might be your goal, but there may be other goals that value the perpetuation of a nation for its own sake rather than supporting the insular identity issues of those who are insufficiently invested in preserving that "biocultural entity" that they would voluntarily have more than 1 to 1.5 kids per couple, if any children at all.

[decedent]

Stop paying dumb democrats to breed more dumb democrats.


So... you want more Americans, but not Democrat Americans.


Your coup will fail.

[resister]

So... you want more Americans, but not Democrat Americans.


Your coup will fail.
I had a coup once, the engine was small:tongue:

[Cthulhu]

It's more than tax rates. It's also a culture. We expect more and more material comforts. It's not sustainable with or without immigrants.
This.

Exactly this. We need to change what we are valuing to fix this problem.

There was a time when children were not seen as a burden but something to be baked and cherished. Being a father or mother was something that was respected.

Now children are seen as little more than tax deductions that clearly aren't worth the deduction. Marriages and Parenthood is seen as a buzz kill instead of something to aspire to.

People have forgotten how to sacrifice and go without. Long term planning and desire for future reward has been tossed aside because.... hey check out the new iPhone 7.

Humans with these priorities at the top will go extinct.

Fear profits a man nothing.

[donttread]

I am posting this based on comments in another thread which I don't want to derail. However, the comments posted suggested that America should be importing more Europeans than those from third-world countries. That actually presupposes that Europeans are lining up to immigrate to America. However, the fact is that America is plagued with a very low birth rate.

"The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug."

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency

Europe has a very similar problem:

"Europe is ageing. On average, each woman has 1.58 children in the EU, substantially below the 2.1 children needed to sustain the current population level. Due to low death-rates and high net-migration, the overall population in Europe may be increasing, but the median age is crawling slowly upwards: 42 years in 2014 compared to just 29 a decade earlier."

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05/02/can-europe-reverse-demographic-decline/#.WNxEb28rKM8

So, if you are tasked with population replacement, do you bring in more people who won't reproduce or do you bring in people who will produce future tax payers.

Discuss.

Remeber when zero population growth or even decrease was the goal? A few million less people isn't going to hurt the world a bit

[waltky]

Chinese birth rate not enough to replenish labor market...
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/redface.gif
Demographic time bomb continues to tick away in China
Fri, May 19, 2017 - Even after the Chinese government cleared the way for couples to have a second child, working women are reluctant to expand their family — or have any children at all, according to a new survey by Zhaopin.com, one of the nation’s biggest online recruitment Web sites.


About 40 percent of working women without children do not want to have any and about two-thirds of those with a child do not want a second, the poll found. In big cities, such as Beijing or Shanghai, hefty living costs, long work hours and surging expenses linked to raising children have deterred more women from becoming moms. The phenomenon is not unique to China, given the pressures that working women face around the globe. However, it is particularly acute for the nation given its rapidly aging population.


More than three decades of a one-child policy has left the nation with too few young people to support an expanding elderly population, which is eroding competitiveness and weighing on the social welfare system. After announcing a two-child rule in October 2015, officials estimated an increase of 4 million additional births per year through 2020, but last year births increased by just 1.31 million from a year earlier to 17.86 million. That prompted the government to consider measures such as “birth rewards and subsidies” to help encourage more people to have another child.


Yet China remains far from providing incentive packages as seen in Singapore or Germany and a porous safety network offers little help to families who cannot afford children’s education or healthcare. Child-bearing might also lead to real financial or career losses. The survey found that 33 percent of women had their pay cut after giving birth and 36 percent were demoted. Among the top reasons cited for not having kids by the Zhaopin.com survey are “not enough time and energy” and “too expensive to raise children.”


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2017/05/19/2003670901

[decedent]

Get that birth rate up so America will be as rich as India!


Most rich nations have decreased birth rates. It's a thing.

[AZ Jim]

Than the elderly suffer because they bet on a loser - the government.

I'm feeding my own kids before some old person.

Fear profits a man nothing.Ever figure on being "some old person"?

[Mister D]

Ever figure on being "some old person"?
An old person rolling message boards? Seriously, no. I'll eat a gun before that happens.

[Peter1469]

Get that birth rate up so America will be as rich as India!


Most rich nations have decreased birth rates. It's a thing.

Much of Europe doesn't have a replacement rate level of births. That is a serious problem for welfare states.

[Mister D]

Much of Europe doesn't have a replacement rate level of births. That is a serious problem for welfare states.
decedent probably thinks that's what made them rich.

[decedent]

decedent probably thinks that's what made them rich.

Decedent knows that the nordic model has been proven to work.

[Mister D]

Decedent knows that the nordic model has been proven to work.

You might want to research what's actually happening there but, yes, homogeneity is a very good thing. It makes a welfare state possible.

[Mister D]

Besides, what's the Nordic model? Death spirals? lol

[Captain Obvious]

Emergency? lol, the opposite, thats good news.

The herd needs thinned, we need an epidemic or something. Fault lines that cannot sit still and all that, we have too many morons now and we insist on importing drug runners, prostitutes and goat herders and their flea infested children to thin an already paper thin bloodline now.

We should be exporting our morons if we had any collective sense.

[Cthulhu]

Ever figure on being "some old person"?
I do not plan on being a parasite in my old age.

If that occurs, I think it will be time to take up spear hunting bears.

Worst case scenario is that I die. Best case scenario is that I get a reality TV show about some old guy who hints bears with spears.

But back to the point: I don't care. I'm feeding my kids before some old person.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Peter1469]

At the national level it is suicide to have policies that result in less than replacement rate.

If that society has a robust social welfare system it is not suicide, but rather insanity.

[IMPress Polly]

Dr. Who wrote:
I am posting this based on comments in another thread which I don't want to derail. However, the comments posted suggested that America should be importing more Europeans than those from third-world countries. That actually presupposes that Europeans are lining up to immigrate to America. However, the fact is that America is plagued with a very low birth rate.

"The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug."

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/a...onal-emergency (http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency)

Europe has a very similar problem:

"Europe is ageing. On average, each woman has 1.58 children in the EU, substantially below the 2.1 children needed to sustain the current population level. Due to low death-rates and high net-migration, the overall population in Europe may be increasing, but the median age is crawling slowly upwards: 42 years in 2014 compared to just 29 a decade earlier."

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05.../#.WNxEb28rKM8 (http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/05/02/can-europe-reverse-demographic-decline/#.WNxEb28rKM8)

So, if you are tasked with population replacement, do you bring in more people who won't reproduce or do you bring in people who will produce future tax payers.

Discuss.

I think when you start commanding women to have more babies so that you can afford to close your borders to brown people, you run into problems that are more basic in nature. See the public response to the Italian and Japanese government's infamous recent misogynistic pressure campaigns or to Poland's further crackdown on abortion rights last year.

[MisterVeritis]

I think when you start commanding women to have more babies so that you can afford to close your borders to brown people, you run into problems that are more basic in nature. See the public response to the Italian and Japanese government's infamous recent misogynistic pressure campaigns or to Poland's further crackdown on abortion rights last year.
Skin color is not as important as the desire to be an American. Most come here to take what they can take.

[Mister D]

I think when you start commanding women to have more babies so that you can afford to close your borders to brown people, you run into problems that are more basic in nature. See the public response to the Italian and Japanese government's infamous recent misogynistic pressure campaigns or to Poland's further crackdown on abortion rights last year.
First of all, no one is commanded to have more babies. Secondly, for now your claims of patriarchy etc. are also sheer fantasy. OTOH, brown people will eventually make the latter a reality. Thankfully, only a small segment of Western women are so deluded that they can't grasp the very basic problem that immigration presents to women in our societies. With current migration trends, you can either have more babies or you can surrender your society to patriarchal cultures. The future belongs to those around to claim it.

[Chris]

Birth Rates are at Historic Lows and Here's a Major Reason (https://fee.org/articles/birth-rates-are-at-historic-lows-and-here-s-why/)


What is dazzling to watch is the completely different relationship between kids and adults that existed then. The status of kids in society was unlike today.

They were aspiring adults and given as many responsibilities as they could handle within their range of competence, which was always shifting in the direction of more and more.

There was no Department of Labor and Department of Human Resources to "protect" them from living full lives. Kids in those days were regarded as valuable because they were tangibly productive. They worked, gained skills, and produced for their families or otherwise worked for businesses here and there. They were assets. As they gained skills, discipline, and a work ethic, they could become ever more valuable to their custodians and communities. This is a major reason why people wanted them. And the kids, in turn, were socialized to be grateful to their benefactors whether at home or work.

...And yet. Let’s talk dollars and cents. When considering whether to have kids, people know that they will contribute little to household management, and nothing positive to the bottom line, and then they must consider how much they will have to spend. You can look it up on online cost calculators. For example, if you are married and want two kids in the American South, you are going to spend $732K. That’s a daunting figure, and that’s before you start shelling out for college.

In return for which, they offer...the infinite value of their very existence.

[Mister D]

The truth is that people want more vacations and cars. They want the life that the commercials promise them they can have.

[Chris]

That and when we were agricultural kids worked the farm, beginning of the industrial age they worked factories, now all they do is ask for money and cry about being offended.

[Captain Obvious]

The truth is that people want more vacations and cars. They want the life that the commercials promise them they can have.

I want an erection that lasts 4 hours

[Chris]

I want an erection that lasts 4 hours

According to WebMD, black widow spider bites and scorpion stings can give you that. @ http://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/erectile-dysfunction-priapism#1

[MisterVeritis]

I want an erection that lasts 4 hours
you would have no place(s) to put it.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
First of all, no one is commanded to have more babies. Secondly, for now your claims of patriarchy etc. are also sheer fantasy. OTOH, brown people will eventually make the latter a reality. Thankfully, only a small segment of Western women are so deluded that they can't grasp the very basic problem that immigration presents to women in our societies. With current migration trends, you can either have more babies or you can surrender your society to patriarchal cultures. The future belongs to those around to claim it.

First of all, assuming that you refer to the choice of compulsory motherhood versus Islamic theocracy (which, knowing you, is I'm pretty sure what you mean), that's just a choice between two not-all-that-different forms and degrees of patriarchy in my book. Second, and more importantly, it's a false dichotomy. Have some faith in our brown-skinned Americans. They aren't all Muslims and they aren't all theocrats and terrorists, believe it or not. Not everyone thinks like you do. If it weren't for people like you in this world, it would be a much more peaceful, accepting, and frankly all-around good place to live.

[Peter1469]

If Americans decide not to have more babies, and raise them to be productive citizens, that is fine. A choice they have. But they need to understand our welfare programs will go broke. I am OK with that. But I expect many are not.

Immigration can help, so long as we are smart with who we grant the privilege of citizenship to and who is allowed to enter temporarily for seasonal work.

But the fact remains: taxpayers pay for the welfare programs, along with the rest of government.

[Mister D]

First of all, assuming that you refer to the choice of compulsory motherhood versus Islamic theocracy (which, knowing you, is I'm pretty sure what you mean), that's just a choice between two not-all-that-different forms and degrees of patriarchy in my book. Second, and more importantly, it's a false dichotomy. Have some faith in our brown-skinned Americans. They aren't all Muslims and they aren't all theocrats and terrorists, believe it or not. Not everyone thinks like you do. If it weren't for people like you in this world, it would be a much more peaceful, accepting, and frankly all-around good place to live.

No one is commanded to have babies, Polly. There is no "compulsory motherhood". This is sheer fantasy and unfortunately typical of fringe feminist bloviating. Secondly, if you think there exists any serious parallel between Islamic theocracy and Western society you're delusional. Third, much of human civilization is deeply patriarchal, Polly. Indeed, a large majority of the global population lives within a deeply patriarchal culture. You don't Polly. That's the point. Thankfully, Western women generally get it even if you don't. The self-defeating stupidity of radical feminism, particularly with regard to immigration, isn't a big seller. That bodes well for the rights, dignity and role of women in our civilization.

[Mister D]

I want an erection that lasts 4 hours
Can you imagine? That would be hellish.

[Mister D]

That and when we were agricultural kids worked the farm, beginning of the industrial age they worked factories, now all they do is ask for money and cry about being offended.
If only because their parents are a bunch of self-absorbed brats too. I think this shift owes more to a change in ideas than it does to economics per se. I am convinced that there is something about modern life that cultivates narcissism.

[Dr. Who]

Everything in American society cultivates narcissism, from defining greed and selfishness as a virtue i.e. materialism to promoting a form of nationalism that endorses the destabilisation of weaker societies as something to be proud of as long as it benefits the homeland in the form of cheaper goods. It's called entitlement. Unfortunately for the entitled, technology is going to be a major game changer. As for people of childbearing ages, having more than two children is a source of worry. Will parents be able to afford to educate them? Will parent's have to support them on pensions or heaven forbid SS until the parents die? Do they even dare take the chance if their own futures are insecure?

The generations being born today are generally unlikely to do as well as their parents financially. That is a fact.

[Peter1469]

Without enough taxpayers your grandchildren, when they are old, will not get a social security check.