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, 08:45 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,473,831 times
Reputation: 12507

Advertisements

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.
Unfortunately, those who have the most kids will become an increasingly larger and larger percentage of the population as many in the middle class and upward are having fewer and fewer. Also, the impact of social conservatives and very religious people having very large numbers of children should not be underestimated. I know someone at work that indicated that they knew people in the UP of Michigan that live on farms that have very large numbers of children and don't believe in birth control at all.
Demography is fascinating, but I think the US is becoming increasingly polarized and divided in terms of regional demographic trends. This will become much more exaggerated in the coming decades so this also has political, societal, environmental, and economic implications.

Last edited by GraniteStater; 11-17-2013 at 09:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2013, 09:39 PM
 
2,797 posts, read 2,511,845 times
Reputation: 6165
1) This question should be joined by a few other economics questions such as "workers share of output" as it gets to the middle class issues of costs of having / raising children in todays society and
2) the counter discussion of those being highly subsidized or in some ways encouraged to have children as 'whelping for benefits' mindset of the irresponsible (of any socio-economic class).
3) Education of all peoples
4) The integrity of maintaining a cultural mindset akin to that which enabled flourishing across many realms. This is not too say things were better at some past time, per se, but that rapid change in demography and its accompanying political power changes can lead to widespread social unrest if key issues are not discussed nor understood within a common framework.
5) I think some sort of broad parameter of qualifying peoples 'fitness' as parental models would be beneficial. I don't care how many children people have, IF they are responsible and accountable but I would like to see a more concerted effort to it being: couples (much research to show this situation has overall higher rates of achievement and success) and that the parents have displayed some basic understanding of the nature of basic childhood psychological development and costs expectations / sacrifices. The realization they are raising what should be a responsible adult - not another possession, like a pet or some consumer product to keep up with the Jones'.

Last edited by ciceropolo; 11-17-2013 at 10:07 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,437 posts, read 15,036,253 times
Reputation: 11924
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
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.
Or you could just reform the social programs. That'd be more effective in my opinion than relying on an ever increasing population which is how they're currently set up to function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 06:51 AM
 
413 posts, read 552,029 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Unfortunately, those who have the most kids will become an increasingly larger and larger percentage of the population as many in the middle class and upward are having fewer and fewer. Also, the impact of social conservatives and very religious people having very large numbers of children should not be underestimated. I know someone at work that indicated that they knew people in the UP of Michigan that live on farms that have very large numbers of children and don't believe in birth control at all.
Demography is fascinating, but I think the US is becoming increasingly polarized and divided in terms of regional demographic trends. This will become much more exaggerated in the coming decades so this also has political, societal, environmental, and economic implications.
The question is whether or not the US devolves into a country so polarized that we go to war with each other and our government. The religious vs the non religious running of our country. That plus dwindling resources, global climate change and the Kardashians 15 minutes of fame not ending anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 07:14 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29220
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Unfortunately, those who have the most kids...
...the impact of social conservatives and very religious people
Not that what they do among themselves isn't a factor but the far more significant impact
of social conservatives and very religious people is their influence on reproductive public policy.

Actively making it difficult for those who have no business becoming parents at all or certainly
so early in their lives from having meaningful access to contraception, abortion services when
needed or even just accurate sex education on the biology.

The end result being that the least qualified and capable of providing for their children, let alone preparing
them for a successful life... they create ever more of those with the least chance of doing well.
It simply doesn't have to be.

Over the last 40 years, since ZPG first came into popular parlance and as the number of low/no skilled jobs
and industry shrunk, there have been an average of 1Million thoroughly lamented abortions each year.
But the abortions weren't the problem. The conceptions were the problem. They still are.

For every one of those 40 Million... there is at least another misguided, ill considered,
woefully unprepared for conception. Don't keep adding to their number.

Last edited by MrRational; 11-18-2013 at 07:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Outer Space
1,525 posts, read 3,354,453 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
...and the Kardashians 15 minutes of fame not ending anytime soon.
But I thought we needed moar rich people breeding?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 08:26 AM
 
3,059 posts, read 2,555,099 times
Reputation: 1692
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 it won't. Equipment used in wars require a lot of water, and we are supposedly fighting for access to water?! Wars are not about resources, wars are mostly due to cultural conflicts. If you lack water, just make a salt treatment plant or limit water usage. Much cheaper than going to war and easier to get public support. People are afraid of wars and rather avoid it.

Population decline is not the biggest problem. The lack of planning is the problem. If the population starts declining, and the government compensate by increasing taxes and reducing benefits then it will be okay. If they do like Japan and starts to borrow massively, then it leads to trouble.

Apart from a few countries like Australia, immigration will not be a solution to population decline, because there is a limited amount of qualified immigrants. Unqualified immigration do not benefit any welfare state, and the reason some countries in Europe and the US takes in a lot of unqualified immigrants is because of compassionate reasons, and not due to economic reasons. In reality taking in lots of unqualified immigrants will just make the country less prepared for the eldery boom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 12:44 PM
 
413 posts, read 552,029 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
No it won't. Equipment used in wars require a lot of water, and we are supposedly fighting for access to water?! Wars are not about resources, wars are mostly due to cultural conflicts. If you lack water, just make a salt treatment plant or limit water usage. Much cheaper than going to war and easier to get public support. People are afraid of wars and rather avoid it.
Potable water is actually dwindling in supply due to our overpopulation tendencies. It's not just the access to water that will (is already in some places) be a problem.
It costs money to build desalination plants.
And we don't tend to avoid war - case in point - Iraq.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 04:35 PM
 
6,359 posts, read 7,321,320 times
Reputation: 10807
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
How did you get the idea that Trump and his ilk relies on welfare?
How did you get the idea that my post included any such notion? I said nothing of the sort. (Although it's true that corporate America gets a disproportionate amount of tax breaks, which can be construed as welfare.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
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.
I think it's a bit extreme to call the U.S. a "welfare state", although that is certainly debateable. Still, it seems much better to reduce the "welfare" aspects of U.S. policy--and not to encourage a "Ponzi"-type justification for population growth. It is impossible for the human population to continue to grow forever. We might as well stop the growth now so we can better deal with the adjustments which might be needed. Any adjustments needed will likely be far easier to deal with than burgeoning population growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Additionally:
Someone with 10 kids will get the same refund a person with 3 kids will get.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with U.S. tax policy. (Or, maybe you like to make stuff up?) Per your example, for 2013, the person with more kids would be exempt from paying taxes on an additional $27,300 of income. How could you consider that to be the same?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 05:22 PM
 
Location: IN
20,168 posts, read 34,473,831 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Not that what they do among themselves isn't a factor but the far more significant impact
of social conservatives and very religious people is their influence on reproductive public policy.

Actively making it difficult for those who have no business becoming parents at all or certainly
so early in their lives from having meaningful access to contraception, abortion services when
needed or even just accurate sex education on the biology.

The end result being that the least qualified and capable of providing for their children, let alone preparing
them for a successful life... they create ever more of those with the least chance of doing well.
It simply doesn't have to be.
Watch the Great Plains states and a few others on these issues. With low populations and larger numbers of social conservatives and a general "apathy" amongst a larger percentage of the populace that resides there, this represents a prime breeding ground for fringe social conservative people like Brownback from Kansas to take control. I have thankfully watched Kansas decline from a distance much further away as I am originally from the Kansas City region.
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