Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-14-2012, 01:42 PM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,839,967 times
Reputation: 11790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
That will be the very problem. We live on a limited planet, every country is limited, we can't keep growing forever. The US already has a real unemployment rate of about 20%.
The more population growth you have now, the bigger the future mountain of elderly people will become, people who the economy usually doesn't want and need anymore.

While China has a problem because of the sex imbalance due to outdated cultural attitudes, they would have even greater problems if they had not tried to stop their growth.
Your alarmism is unfounded. Most people these days will have 1 child, so me having 6 kids is not going to balance out anything, the birth rate will still be far below replacement rate. Besides, guess where most of your population growth is coming from? Immigration. You cry about the earth and Europe being overpopulated, but you welcome more immigrants, especially from "diverse" backgrounds. You want a welfare state, but you don't want the country to have the children necessary to maintain it. You contradict yourself a lot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2012, 01:43 PM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,839,967 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
Stay at home moms work a lot less than working moms - they have a whole day to do all the things a working mom does in the morning, evenings, and weekends. I'd venture to guess families with a stay at home parent get a lot more sleep than families with a single working parent or two working parents. So I can believe that a mother that is the financial position to stay at home (which many mothers with more than 3 children are - that's the point that it just becomes cheaper to stay at home than deal with daycare/babysitters) lives a more stress-free life, which is healthy.
Not to mention the kids won't grow up to be the spoiled brats they are these days because mommy and daddy are out working all the time, so the parents try to make up for it by indulging their kids with the newest gadgets and toys. They grow up expecting these things, and begin to have an entitlement attitude. Like a previous poster mentioned as well, stay-at-home moms were pillars of the community decades ago before depopulation and feminism (before I offend any soft-skinned liberals on here, feminism as in a woman being the man the man is supposed to be) became fads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,904 posts, read 6,899,941 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
That will be the very problem. We live on a limited planet, every country is limited, we can't keep growing forever. The US already has a real unemployment rate of about 20%.
The more population growth you have now, the bigger the future mountain of elderly people will become, people who the economy usually doesn't want and need anymore.

While China has a problem because of the sex imbalance due to outdated cultural attitudes, they would have even greater problems if they had not tried to stop their growth.
The Chinese demographic problem I'm talking about is separate from the sex imbalance problem. It's that there will be too many retirees per working adult in 20-30 years from now, and no one knows what the effects of this will be since we've never seen it happen with a nation that still has a "developing" economy.

We do live on a limited planet. But guess what? Simple economics of supply and demand will drive down the population naturally. As resources someday become prohibitively expensive, this will drive the per-child cost up, making a natural correction.

There is no need for fascist family planning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,904 posts, read 6,899,941 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Your alarmism is unfounded. Most people these days will have 1 child, so me having 6 kids is not going to balance out anything, the birth rate will still be far below replacement rate. Besides, guess where most of your population growth is coming from? Immigration. You cry about the earth and Europe being overpopulated, but you welcome more immigrants, especially from "diverse" backgrounds. You want a welfare state, but you don't want the country to have the children necessary to maintain it. You contradict yourself a lot
Neuling may not want more children, but his government is desperate for them!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 01:50 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,903 posts, read 24,618,920 times
Reputation: 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Your alarmism is unfounded. Most people these days will have 1 child, so me having 6 kids is not going to balance out anything, the birth rate will still be far below replacement rate. Besides, guess where most of your population growth is coming from? Immigration. You cry about the earth and Europe being overpopulated, but you welcome more immigrants, especially from "diverse" backgrounds. You want a welfare state, but you don't want the country to have the children necessary to maintain it. You contradict yourself a lot
As I said, it's ok to have 2 or maybe even 3 kids. In terms of genetics, it would make much more sense to convince more women to have 2 kids than to have so many women without any kids and some with half a dozen or more. Unfortunately the most intelligent women tend to have few or no children at all.

I don't cry about Europe being overpopulated, I just said it is already densely populated.
Since people get very old today, population growth has much greater effects in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 01:59 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,903 posts, read 24,618,920 times
Reputation: 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by destinedtodave View Post
The Chinese demographic problem I'm talking about is separate from the sex imbalance problem. It's that there will be too many retirees per working adult in 20-30 years from now, and no one knows what the effects of this will be since we've never seen it happen with a nation that still has a "developing" economy.

We do live on a limited planet. But guess what? Simple economics of supply and demand will drive down the population naturally. As resources someday become prohibitively expensive, this will drive the per-child cost up, making a natural correction.

There is no need for fascist family planning.
Exactly, I live in Portugal, which has similar problems, i.e. a very old society, at the same time high unemployment, and about one child per woman as most people are responsible and don't have kids if they can't afford them.

It's a snowball effect. Our modern life expectancy is unnatural and will always cause a mess in society. There is no point in breeding against that, it will only increase our problems in the long run.

What does speaking out against octomoms have to do with fascist family planning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 02:02 PM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,839,967 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Exactly, I live in Portugal, which has similar problems, i.e. a very old society, at the same time high unemployment, and about one child per woman as most people are responsible and don't have kids if they can't afford them.

It's a snowball effect. Our modern life expectancy is unnatural and will always cause a mess in society. There is no point in breeding against that, it will only increase our problems in the long run.

What does speaking out against octomoms have to do with fascist family planning?
Population levels off as people have a higher life expectancy. It's a balancing act. The ONLY reason why the population is growing in Europe is immigration. If you stopped immigration from the 3rd world, Europe's population will plummet in 2 generations. The only place that is experiencing explosive population growth is Africa, and most of those people don't live past 45 anyway
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 02:02 PM
 
770 posts, read 1,174,499 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
In other words, a no child policy would make for happier people than a one child policy
That could be, but who's talking about policies? I never said stopping people from having children would make them happier. I said more children dosen't necessarily equal more happiness.

Last edited by luckynumber4; 04-14-2012 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,904 posts, read 6,899,941 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
What does speaking out against octomoms have to do with fascist family planning?
The key (for me, at least) is that people who can afford to have large families should be, and are, free to do so. The octomom is irresponsible because she can't afford children, so the state ends up funding her family. If you're just talking about the dregs of society like her, then we're in agreement...


On the other hand, to force families not to have children is fascism at its very worst. Even the octomom shouldn't be forced to do this (what would our options be, sterilization?). Instead, she should have to provide for her own, or rely on the kindness of extended family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 02:11 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,254 posts, read 5,588,634 times
Reputation: 1552
Quote:
Originally Posted by destinedtodave View Post
The key (for me, at least) is that people who can afford to have large families should be, and are, free to do so. The octomom is irresponsible because she can't afford children, so the state ends up funding her family. If you're just talking about the dregs of society like her, then we're in agreement...
"The Octomom"'s primary fault was deliberately having children without a father.

I'm not overly worried about large intact families receiving public assistance when needed. Large families are a positive social good: it makes sense for the state to have programs supporting and encouraging them. The children are future workers, producers, entrepreneurs, scientists, clergyman, etc. - and taxpayers.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top