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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:07 PM
 
Location: In the outlet by the lightswitch
2,095 posts, read 1,218,150 times
Reputation: 3912

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
My bad. Nothing like moving the goalposts around.

The real ratio that matters here is across the child-rearing ages (including social acceptance) of perhaps 18-45. I can't find a convenient summary and I'll be arsed if I'll sit here and do a bunch of calculations, but yes, males have a predominance across that range.

I'll sit back down now.

That's true. I couldn't find that information either and that would be more telling. That's why I said in my post that it was just my speculation that maybe those baby boys (who were being born in higher numbers than baby girls) were just living into adulthood longer due to good medicine and a lack of wars.



Again, just speculation on my part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,384 posts, read 4,326,658 times
Reputation: 11078
There was a book on this written 6 years ago: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...wjs070ydpibiet

The author found that decline in religiosity is the major cultural reason. That economics is a secondary inhibitor. He found there's not much we can do on a governmental policy level to reverse the cultural shift. If people only want to have one kid vs. five, we can't change that. But we can use policy to see to it that people have the kids they want to have. Economics does hurt people who want more kids but can't afford them.

We are in an interesting time right now in that the situation is forcing us to face the costs and benefits of our economy. The pandemic has proven without a doubt that our economic activity is responsible for climate change. When everyone sat in their houses, it was amazing how fast the Earth started becoming cleaner. Fewer humans would resolve climate change without needing any green new deal stuff. The earth can carry 50% fewer humans producing all those emissions, or we have to produce fewer emissions. The most humane way to reduce population is through attrition.

It appears that Thanos was right.

Last edited by redguard57; 05-20-2020 at 02:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
1,175 posts, read 725,962 times
Reputation: 2953
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
This is a very troubling economic trend:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-bir...ow-11589947260




The economic consequence 21 years from now in 2041 will be severe. Every credible econometric model of the US economy shows population growth as a principle driver of future economic growth.

In many senses, this decline is associated with the incredibly strong economy we've enjoyed over the past several years - economic opportunity for women has resulted in their personal decisions to work and defer/decline to procreated.

More and more, it is clear the USA needs a policy of encouraging immigration of fertile women who are of childbearing age.

What good does it do to have a good economy when you are destroying the planet? You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. One issue that I agree with the global elites is that there are way too many people. I disagree with their evil ideas to fix it, but their overall premise is correct. United States birthrates falling is a good thing!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:19 PM
 
2,878 posts, read 2,630,689 times
Reputation: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post

More and more, it is clear the USA needs a policy of encouraging immigration of fertile women who are of childbearing age.

That's not "clear" at all. That's one way to possibly tackle the problem. I can think of others, including some that not only don't import fertile immigrant women, but deport all illegal immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:20 PM
 
1,988 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3196
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
TThe author found that decline in religiosity is the major cultural reason.
Eh. I call selective bias.

I think the reason is simple and attributable to the one (1) factor that has actually changed in modern times. Wars come and go, prosperity comes and goes, religious influence comes and goes, welfare fathers come and go... wait, never mind that last.

Birth control. The advent of what is essentially cheap, universally available and effective birth control completely changed the population equation. It's taken fifty or so years for the full effect to start being seen, after the selective/tentative/church-opposed early days and the unbridled sexuality of the late 1960s into the mid-80s, but we are finally at a mature state in which no woman has to have a child unless she chooses to (very simplistically speaking, put away the soapbox) and it's generally accepted that women will have all the sex they want without childbearing being any part of it.

It seems old-hat and obvious, maybe moreso to anyone of an age to have no recollection of when birth control wasn't available from PP or another easy/free source in their teens. But fifty years is the blink of a cultural eye, and I can't think of any other factor that isn't pretty much as old as civilization.

And to bring this around, the lack of sex==kids is what eroded the need to follow religious strictures. So the author has it backwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:23 PM
 
Location: southern california
58,764 posts, read 77,664,847 times
Reputation: 52407
Home home on the range -where the dems and the animals roam -where seldom is heard -an encouraging word - and the sky is all cloudy all day
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:26 PM
 
1,988 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3196
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein View Post
That's not "clear" at all. That's one way to possibly tackle the problem.
I agree, and could get on a hobbyhorse here about dragging in a highly politicized issue. But I won't.

But there's no question, none at all, that the US has always welcomed and benefited from a steady inflow of immigrants and their children. Frantic, xenophobic, politicized policies based on nonsense about jobs "lost" to immigrants are the fever-dreams of old white men with tattered union cards.

And, as someone who's waist-deep in writing about industry and labor around the turn of the 1900s, it's the same old story, the same old song and dance. Nobody wanted them damn useless Irish for anything but scut labor, y'know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
26,458 posts, read 17,072,963 times
Reputation: 40285
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Why immigration? Why not just have policies that encourage more children in US families?
I think we need immigration for several reasons. We already have illegal immigrants working in restaurants, meat packers, landscaping, food harvesters. I think we need to understand that we need them here. The fact that they tend to find employment, and often have families should deem them a stabilizing factor.

But, yeah, we need them here to produce children. There is some governmental support for children, through tax relief and food support for low income parents. I think more could be done, but I don’t have any good ideas. I do know that costs of childcare and schooling are higher than they used to be. Even in the public schools, it is costly for parents to provide supplies, lunch costs, and extracurricular enrichment programs. As it is, kids do receive reduced cost lunches if their families’ incomes are low enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,384 posts, read 4,326,658 times
Reputation: 11078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Eh. I call selective bias.

I think the reason is simple and attributable to the one (1) factor that has actually changed in modern times. Wars come and go, prosperity comes and goes, religious influence comes and goes, welfare fathers come and go... wait, never mind that last.

Birth control. The advent of what is essentially cheap, universally available and effective birth control completely changed the population equation. It's taken fifty or so years for the full effect to start being seen, after the selective/tentative/church-opposed early days and the unbridled sexuality of the late 1960s into the mid-80s, but we are finally at a mature state in which no woman has to have a child unless she chooses to (very simplistically speaking, put away the soapbox) and it's generally accepted that women will have all the sex they want without childbearing being any part of it.

It seems old-hat and obvious, maybe moreso to anyone of an age to have no recollection of when birth control wasn't available from PP or another easy/free source in their teens. But fifty years is the blink of a cultural eye, and I can't think of any other factor that isn't pretty much as old as civilization.

And to bring this around, the lack of sex==kids is what eroded the need to follow religious strictures. So the author has it backwards.
The author is a National Review writer and a professed consersative Christian. In that community they have been wringing their hands about the decline of babies for a few decades now. Obviously churches need babies. Much of their reason for existence revolves around the traditional family. The pressure they put on couples to have them is a reason I stopped going.

Still, I think the pill, women in the workplace, etc, etc, does correlate with declining church attendance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2020, 02:36 PM
 
1,988 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3196
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Still, I think the pill, women in the workplace, etc, etc, does correlate with declining church attendance.
Only in that the first leads to both of the others. Women going to work, per se, and all other freedom from maternal anchors, is a consequence, not an effect.
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

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