U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
 
Old 05-22-2020, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,826 posts, read 4,513,195 times
Reputation: 11727

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
It's my contention that the problem has been made much worse by population increase, the overwhelming pervasiveness of consumerism and a decline in relevant education.

Sure, there have always been spendthrifts and losers who couldn't stack up two nickels to save their life. And people who made mistakes on unprotected investments, or failure to have fire insurance, or whatever.

But at the risk of sounding totally TFH — and I could write in long detail about my reasoning and evidence if it were the topic — I believe today's consumer economy is a giant shakedown machine built on fostered ignorance, fostered misinformaton and fostered desire. Now generationally so.

Back to point, it will have to go if we're to survive. It's the other half of the survival equation that starts with a global reduction in population.
Oh I agree on those latter 2 points.

On the former, we used to educate so many fewer people as a proportion of the population that there's probably a golden age fallacy there too. Yes, my dad's generation got instruction in personal finance, home economics, and civics. they used to have classes on farm finance, etc... I've seen his high school transcript.

But in his day, the school system failed out about 50% before 10th grade, then maybe another 25% of those remaining before 12th grade. Mostly the poorer and/or non-white kids. Maybe 10-15% of the graduating class went to a college. So the mostly white middle & upper middle classes like my dad got that instruction, but the bulk of the population did not.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2020, 06:17 PM
 
12,095 posts, read 5,266,607 times
Reputation: 13639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
How would we do that? PSA propaganda announcements that the government wants you to have more kids? I don't think we need to brainwash people like a reverse of China's one child policy.

Adults who chose not to have children have already made their decision. People already get big tax breaks from having kids. Should we give more handouts for more kids? Then when the economy goes south like now or 2008, more people on the welfare rolls.
In a strange way, you make my case.

Right now, even if it is not PC to say it, white Americans subsidies blacks to have multiple kids (which they clearly cannot afford to raise). Yet most white Americans hold off or limit the number of kids they have because of fiscal responsibility.
Think about that for a moment!

The converse is applicable to your comment about tax breaks for married couples producing kids. Sure some Americans of any race get tax incentives to get married and have more kids, because that is in the culture/governments best interest.
Which of course is the theme of this thread.
The difference between the aforementioned example is that poor people are not typically producers, rather takers, thus they are not generating income to get such a tax break, and instead are being paid to produce generations of entitlement.

Regardless, when the previous poster implied we must have more immigrants to maintain a viable workforce, to replace the aging American population, they ignore how that view will dilute or even destroy or American culture.
Whether it be Muslim immigration, and/or 3rd world non-English speaking immigrants, it ignores the fact that American citizens must produce 2.3 children just to maintain our present culture, must less expand upon it.
For lack of a better way to put it, we are being out-bred, either by social welfare (at least those kids are Americans), or allowing other cultures to produce more children than we can afford.

It is economically unsustainable, unless we are willing to abandon our American culture by incentivising others to out-breed us.



`
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 08:06 PM
 
2,750 posts, read 768,948 times
Reputation: 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
Right now, even if it is not PC to say it, white Americans subsidies blacks to have multiple kids (which they clearly cannot afford to raise).
Well, PC or not, it's almost completely wrong. You clearly believe some version of the Cadillac Welfare Queen myth or something.

In 2015 (a convenient year; numbers are quite consistent over the decade), the birth rate for US whites was about 1.3%, with a total of some 3 million births.

For US blacks, it was 1.6%, for a total of 640,000 births.

We ain't subsidizing much of anything on that basis.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,826 posts, read 4,513,195 times
Reputation: 11727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
That takes it a little bit different direction, but it's certainly true that many cities — like the small towns we've been discussing lately — put all their eggs in one giant industry basket, and took it in the 'nads when the industry moved on.

But... those industries moved on in two ways. One was foreign sourcing/offshoring; if Japan could make better steel, cheaper, there's no good argument for keeping Youngstown and Allentown and Bethlehem in business.

The other is more to point here, I think: an awful lot of those jobs didn't go anywhere, exactly; they were just rendered surplus by first mechanization, then efficiency practices, then automation. Mills and mines can now be run by a relative handful of people, not thousands and thousands of laborers. Those jobs are not coming back because they never went anywhere. Screaming at China and promising to build new plants and so forth is the most empty possible rhetoric, shouted by those who don't really understand what happened and how it is not really reversible.

Which is why I maintain that the next tier of this process, into white collar areas and accelerated by the virus, is something that is going to rip the lid off of our staggering, outdated notion of how our economy works. We've steadily lost "good" jobs since the steel, auto and coal industries imploded in the 1970s. Only auto has sorta-kinda come back... but count the workforce.
Oh yes, I hear that in rural Oregon a lot regarding tbe wood products industry. The popular thing to blame is the spotted owl's addition to the endangered species list in 1990. So much so that the communities still resent it. The thing is, if they paid attention to the owner class's behavior toward the end they would have realized that they sold out in the mid-80s for a reason. The industry was in clear decline for a variety of reasons.

We still produce a lot of wood product. It's just that the companies can do with 50 guys what used to take 300, and some of those 50 need a variety of industry certifications and/or college degrees to do the work, and not any idiot can just drop in. Advanced skills in GIS, etc.. The grunt jobs pay less proportionally than they did in the glory days and far fewer are needed.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2020, 09:50 PM
 
740 posts, read 260,108 times
Reputation: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarbroo View Post
Agreed, we also, we need to crackdown on Private corporations owning big swaths of what are considered "Essential rights"

We need to start with schooling, how many school districts in Ohio alone? 611. How many corrupt ones? countless dozens I bet.

We do not need that many school districts in one state, let alone every state in the US. The key to good education is a good education system, followed by good regulations, so corruption in the school system isn't as easy.

If we can bring that number down to 10-11 per state, we can start focusing and helping much more on education than our corrupt system is, and rooting out the corrupt school systems, since there are too many in the US to count.

Especially in the inner cities, they need a dire change, nothing in the school curriculum is currently helping people living in those areas, we need to start implementing real life situations into the everyday classroom.

Things like credit score, how much a house will cost, financial planning, family planning, how to create a resume, why having a record at a young age is sure-way to not being able to live a stable life, things that will help these kids understand the gravity of the real world is like.

I sure wish my teachers taught me credit score before I recklessly used my credit card, and ended up paying much more in interest then I ever would had I paid it off.
i was lucky that i had a teacher who taught me about how to properly use credit, how credit cards and compound interest worked, 401ks etc

I avoided a lot of mistakes because of him. Of course this wasn't what he was supposed to be teaching us according to the school.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 05:25 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
1,094 posts, read 648,785 times
Reputation: 2471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
In a strange way, you make my case.

Right now, even if it is not PC to say it, white Americans subsidies blacks to have multiple kids (which they clearly cannot afford to raise). Yet most white Americans hold off or limit the number of kids they have because of fiscal responsibility.`
Your statement is not accurate, although you may perceive it to be true. While black Americans have a higher poverty rate than white Americans, it is not true that all black Americans are poor, nor are most poor people black. Substitute "poor" for "black" and "middle class" for "white," and your statement is then correct.

Poor people of all colors will have more children because they do not have access to family planning methods, do not understand the importance of family planning, or do not care to limit the number of children. You notice the black poor more because we tend to segregate them in obvious areas.

We subsidize all of the poor, not just the black poor (Think of Appalachia). The goal of society should be to help the poor to overcome the terrible crippling effect of poverty through education and assistance, but not handouts. I know what I am talking about because I was poor, and since my mother was raised on a reservation-I saw what dependency can do to a person. Only outside intervention helped me to escape poverty. And yes, I have no children because I rightly equated children with poverty. Moreover, one sister and her husband have no children, and her husband's brother also has none. My husband's family (four siblings) are all without children.

I have another sister who had a child out of wedlock, but she worked all of her adult life to support her child, who is now grown but has no children. This sister might have fallen into poverty also because she was somewhat dependent, but went to junior college (after working 10 years as a waitress) and became an XRay tech. I am not sure that our family would have the same opportunities today because everything is more expensive.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 07:19 AM
 
10,499 posts, read 2,809,676 times
Reputation: 6938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
In a strange way, you make my case.

Right now, even if it is not PC to say it, white Americans subsidies blacks to have multiple kids (which they clearly cannot afford to raise). Yet most white Americans hold off or limit the number of kids they have because of fiscal responsibility.
Think about that for a moment!
These sorts of decisions are based on income and education not race. Poor people tend to make bad choices. Educated successful people make better choices. The race is not a relevant factor.

Since the advent of the welfare state in the 1960's we have incentivized poverty and monetized having kids. I know people personally that have gone two generations on public assistance. You only need kids to make it happen. I don't blame those people. If you have kids and no marketable skills your options are very limited. Much easier to get section 8, an EBT card and free healthcare. And if you grow up in a poor area that is what everyone around you is doing.

But I do blame the politicians who created this mess. I would rather see that money go to a free college or vocational program as long as they don't have kids and stay in school. And after they have an education then start a family.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 08:21 AM
 
6,854 posts, read 2,050,371 times
Reputation: 11762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
I completely agree that reducing Earth's population to a more sustainable figure (5B?) is a worthwhile and necessary goal, but few who advocate it — especially as some primary goal, over all others — neither grasp the cost of doing so nor are willing to pay their share of that cost. That is, it's up to others (who are not financially stable and secure) to make sacrifices, rarely the proponent who somehow gets to keep all that is his. We're nearly always back to a "worth" issue, as runs through this very thread.
I agree.

It's a bit like the old adage, "Don't tax me; don't tax thee' tax that fellow behind the tree."
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 08:41 AM
 
6,854 posts, read 2,050,371 times
Reputation: 11762
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484 View Post
Poor people of all colors will have more children because they do not have access to family planning methods
Disagree. You can buy condoms pretty much anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484 View Post
... do not understand the importance of family planning, or do not care to limit the number of children.
Disagree again.

At the margin, the opportunity cost of a poor woman having a baby is much lower than a high income woman.

Let's say the both women desire a year off work with their newborn baby.

In both cases, the opportunity cost is their foregone income. For the low income woman, a year of foregone income is by definition low - say, $30K. For the high income woman, a year of foregone income might be $250K.

Thus, it costs the low income woman far less in opportunity cost to have a child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmm0484 View Post
I know what I am talking about because I was poor...

Me too; although in my case we transitioned from lower-middle-class to poor when I was 12 and my dad died suddenly and unexpectedly.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 08:44 AM
 
208 posts, read 53,866 times
Reputation: 287
Americans are racked with debt. Of course they can't afford kids unless the fed will pay for that too.
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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