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.
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 a hilariously silly solution!
How about we have better healthcare and childcare and education to support women and children? So they can more easily combine parenthood with work - the way men have done for millennia.
But sure, rather than invest in our own workforce, let's get some "cheap women" to be breeders for us?
the gov't will deal with funding ss in the 11th hour ... it is to big of a deal to this country not to fill it up ..don't you worry we find trillions at the drop of a hat when we need it .
in fact they can fix it today ... if they increase the employee share 1.25% and the employer share 1.25% and remove the cap it is funded fully .
We certainly could for COVID ...and for every military effort..so I have no doubt. What hurts is that the solution becomes ever more expensive the longer the politicians play "hot potato" hoping it won't be THEY who have to do it, but their successors. Why don't they fear voting for war as much as they fear helping keep promises made decades before?
What we need is to move away from the model of relying on economic growth, and focus more on sustaining a certain level of economic activity. Unchecked economic growth cannot last forever; the Earth has limited resources and a limited carrying capacity for humanity. Sooner or later, economic growth will have to end. If we destroy the environment (that sustains us) in the pursuit of growth, the crash will be much more severe when it finally happens; if we gradually move away from our reliance on economic growth, it will be much less painful in the long run.
Stop having children, it’s the most egotistical thing someone can do. World doesn’t need more people. You can talk economy all day till your blue in the face but you can’t eat and breath money.
I would vote for a law to be passed on at least limiting the number of births women can have, with the world being over populated being able to freely just have children should no longer be a right but regulated.
I wish we could. Unfortunately, it seems almost impossible to keep orphanages safe from predators and people who will deprive the kids at the expense of profit. Look what happened in Eastern Europe. I suppose that in theory the amount we spend per child in WIC, SNAP, Section 8 and other assistance programs would add up to a decent amount to support a child in an orphanage but I'm skeptical that it could be done well. I'd certainly be in favor of a system that doesn't automatically reward people on public assistance with more money if they have another baby.
Lots of boyfriends, step fathers, etc become predators to single women with kids who are on welfare. At least with an orphanage setting there could be some control on who has access to the kids. But noting is 100% as long as there are bad people out there.
There was mentioned that more liberal economic support by some European governments did not significantly increase the number of women giving birth. I wonder what was the educational and SES breakdown of those who didn’t versus those who did have children after the policies were implemented.
My anecdotal Gen X data point: Of all my husband’s and my acquaintances in graduate school, most with PhD or PhD + another degree, the majority did not have any children.
If I were to guess, some were just not ‘wired’ for kids, and no longer felt pressured to have any by society/religion. Some married late due to their education and careers, found themselves unable to conceive, and chose not to adopt. Some never married.
In about 500 million to 1 billion years the sun as part of it's natural lifecycle will be heated up to the point where there will be no water or atmosphere left on the earth. We are all doomed. So it does not matter if we have any children or not.l
In about 500 million to 1 billion years the sun as part of it's natural lifecycle will be heated up to the point where there will be no water or atmosphere left on the earth. We are all doomed. So it does not matter if we have any children or not.l
My anecdotal Gen X data point: Of all my husband’s and my acquaintances in graduate school, most with PhD or PhD + another degree, the majority did not have any children.
And mine: Of five children, the two with no significant college had successful careers but no children. The other three married, had at least one Ph.D. in the couple, and had twelve children, including one Ph.D., one LL.D., four lower degrees, one formal trade education, and four still pursuing secondary education (including one who interrupted his for a stint on Broadway).
Simple stats often obscure reality as much as they present it.
Simple stats often obscure reality as much as they present it.
And then there are the anecdotes used as a substitute for statistics.
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.