U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2013, 01:08 PM
 
8,302 posts, read 3,471,321 times
Reputation: 1589

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderkat59 View Post
I checked it out, but will take a minute to find state-state compares, lots of information!



I feel that we should offer a cash payment to people who voluntarily sterilize themselves. A cash payout of lets say, 5k or so would be very appealing and help curtail high birth amongst a section of the population that traditionally has been been a huge drain on social services, the "system", etc . . . A lot of undesirable peripheral issues like child abuse for example, would start to improve also.
...Oh the slippery slope...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2013, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,471 posts, read 15,084,793 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
...Oh the slippery slope...
Any less slippery than the slope where they pay them to reproduce more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 02:38 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,224,549 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Any less slippery than the slope where they pay them to reproduce more?
I think the more pertinent question is not how you get the lower economic classes to breed less, but rather how do you get the higher income classes to breed more. We do need a certain birth rate in order to pay for our social programs, but we don't need more fast food workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 03:14 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,914 posts, read 58,045,364 times
Reputation: 29368
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
how do you get the higher income classes to breed more.
Not needed; really not wanted either.

At zero growth 100% replacement level we're more than fine.
We already have too many attorneys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 03:33 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,224,549 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Not needed; really not wanted either.

At zero growth 100% replacement level we're more than fine.
We already have too many attorneys.
How so? Ideally, people like Donald Trump and other wealthy individuals should have more kids than the people working in min wage jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 03:43 PM
 
6,361 posts, read 7,351,780 times
Reputation: 10822
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Ideally, people like Donald Trump and other wealthy individuals should have more kids than the people working in min wage jobs.
That's absurd. We need fewer people across the board. Start by encouraging family planning and bolstering educational opportunities (and mandate it--we shouldn't let kids just drop out of school while they're still minors). Do away with welfare payments simply based upon someone having more children (require work, too)...and also do away with excessive tax deductions based upon the number of kids one has. Why should someone who has 10 kids pay no income taxes when they require the most in services? Greater tax deductions for having a greater number of children is the ultimate welfare mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 04:43 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,224,549 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan View Post
That's absurd. We need fewer people across the board. Start by encouraging family planning and bolstering educational opportunities (and mandate it--we shouldn't let kids just drop out of school while they're still minors). Do away with welfare payments simply based upon someone having more children (require work, too)...and also do away with excessive tax deductions based upon the number of kids one has. Why should someone who has 10 kids pay no income taxes when they require the most in services? Greater tax deductions for having a greater number of children is the ultimate welfare mentality.
How did you get the idea that Trump and his ilk relies on welfare? Also, as I previously stated, welfare states require a certain birth rate, otherwise they will face declining tax revenues, declining labor participation rate, & slower economic growth. The Congo would be better served by lowering birth rates, but they aren't a welfare state.

Additionally:
Someone with 10 kids will get the same refund a person with 3 kids will get.
With the exception of seniors and the disabled, we already require people to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 08:53 PM
 
413 posts, read 553,459 times
Reputation: 669
I agree with those who say we need fewer people occupying this planet. We have a finite amount of resources and not very many good ways to replenish when we get low or run out. The next big wars will be about those resources, particularly water.
No kids for us and while I don't necessarily advocate for that, I do not understand why people feel the need to have a large number of them. And that's rich people, poor people and the in between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 09:24 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,224,549 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
I agree with those who say we need fewer people occupying this planet. We have a finite amount of resources and not very many good ways to replenish when we get low or run out. The next big wars will be about those resources, particularly water.
No kids for us and while I don't necessarily advocate for that, I do not understand why people feel the need to have a large number of them. And that's rich people, poor people and the in between.
Netflix has a pretty good documentary titled "water wars" addressing that same issue. However, water is not rare, but it is expensive to build and maintain a desalination plant. Oil on the other hand is rare and needed to make everything from cosmetics to plastics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 09:35 PM
 
9,092 posts, read 9,260,341 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
The more I think about it though, I don't see a problem with a shrinking population. Anyone want to set me straight.
Hungary was the first country in the modern age to begin a declining population without massive famine or war. Hungary's population peaked in 1981 and after over 3 decades of decline is now back to the population of the mid 1950's.

Japan is a world power, and it's population decline is more widely discussed. The population peaked about 2008 and is currently back to the 2001-2002 level.

But Hungary's median age is 40, and Japan's median age is 45 (one of the highest in the world). In demography that is a huge difference. Japan may have started their population decline earlier if they had the death rate of Hungary.

Hungary has 9.4 births per 1000, and 12.7 deaths per 1000
Japan has 8.2 births per 1000, and 9.3 deaths per 1000

So while Hungary had a 25 year head start their demographics still have a higher birth rate, and a higher death rate and shorter lives.

The moral is not all countries facing population decline are equal. While Hungary is not nearly as rich as Japan, their life is still not changing as radically as you might think. Japan will have a massive geriatric population much quicker than Hungary.

But longevity has always been prized. A society that mandated that people kiss their loved ones goodbye and take a pill at the age of 72 would be considered inhumane. But such a fictional society would take much longer to react to low fertility rate.

On the other hand you can't build social institutions that will last for multiple centuries based on the Ponzi scheme of ever increasing population.

I also think that populations need to strive to get towards Zero Population Growth. Over the long haul, I think the fears of being displaced are justified. History has repeatedly told us that the strong tend to take the land of the weak. Morocco has 10-12 times the natural growth rate of Spain. I don't think that will continue for decades without some consequences.

Interestingly enough fertility rates in Mexico are almost the same as USA. Mexico will probably peak at 150 million while the USA is not showing any indication of ever peaking (mostly because of immigration). Some scenarios have USA growing larger than China in the 22nd century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top