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.
No less than 40 MILLION fewer than we currently have.
In time... I'd lke to see us reduce to the 200Million total level.
You want us to reduce our own economy by ~35%?
I hope you don't have investments!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf39us
Point is that we do NOT need replacement... we need decline.
Stupid idea. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Decline via fertility or decline through immigration decline? Or does it matter...
Doesn't matter. Population decline is economic decline. If we want to reduce our population for arbitrary reasons, you can kiss the economy goodbye. An economy will not sustain growth without a replacement level population. (See Japan & Europe)
Doesn't matter. Population decline is economic decline. If we want to reduce our population for arbitrary reasons, you can kiss the economy goodbye. An economy will not sustain growth without a replacement level population. (See Japan & Europe)
It's relative really.
With fewer people comes fewer needs. With more people comes more needs and greater strain on soceity. An overall birth decline will mean less need for more resources and more production.
Nope. But I'll be happy to reduce the ILLUSION of an economy.
The key of course being WHICH portion of the population is represented in the reduction.
Done right... the NET should be an increase in actual value.
Doesn't matter. Population decline is economic decline. If we want to reduce our population for arbitrary reasons, you can kiss the economy goodbye. An economy will not sustain growth without a replacement level population. (See Japan & Europe)
That's an argument for consumerist capitalism. I think we need to reduce spending reduce population growth and encourage small family size.
We live in a country where if you create more burden and cost to society, you get more help. And those who don't have children are considered financial suckers. Sorry but you choose to have no children but hey you should pay more.
Who should pay more? It's those who have children. Its especially those who have more than two. They are asking the society to subsidize them so they harvest personal gains.
We should tax the second child and on. This will also help make people think before they shoot so to speak.
China started doing that in the early 70s. Today they face one of the biggest demographic catastrophes in human history. Right now, at this very moment, China has the highest working age population that it ever will, and that number is about to fall off a cliff. Twenty years from now the ratio of workers to elderly will make our social security problems seem like a short-term cash flow problem.
Nope. The continuance of society means having enough children to replace the present generation. Sorry that you think it unfair, but that's just the way it is.
China started doing that in the early 70s. Today they face one of the biggest demographic catastrophes in human history. Right now, at this very moment, China has the highest working age population that it ever will, and that number is about to fall off a cliff. Twenty years from now the ratio of workers to elderly will make our social security problems seem like a short-term cash flow problem.
Nope. The continuance of society means having enough children to replace the present generation. Sorry that you think it unfair, but that's just the way it is.
So internal justice and fairness suddenly don't matter anymore. And it's people who benefit from it don't care. How surprising. Who would know right. It's like a white person saying to a black person bet his is just the way it is. And it's been said ever since.
China doesn't have a catastrophe and it's not the biggest in human history. You over exaggerate the situation. They have loosened up and not even that much yet.
With the electorate like ours, we certainly won't see any real change. In fact our population growth is mostly in the lower working class who have little to no social mobility. The way it is going to be is that the US will become much more like central and South America. You want to talk about te way te going to be? That's how it is going to be. And make no mistake, these people want more children right. They are going to fall out of the middle class and their kids will have no opportunity. There.
The continuance of society means having enough children to replace the present generation.
Only if they have enough meaningful work to do that will produce enough income
for most of them (in excess of 90%) to be able to pay their own way in life.
This used to be the case ... mostly.
But the raw number was closer to 200Million the last time it was true.
Quote:
Sorry that you think it unfair, but that's just the way it is.
What is unfair? A society that actually functions?
Or do you you really consider having enough warm bodies
to wipe the back ends of the elderly to be an actually justifiable standard?
With fewer people comes fewer needs. With more people comes more needs and greater strain on soceity. An overall birth decline will mean less need for more resources and more production.
Not to mention resources.
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.
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.
