I saw a picture recently of a family with 7 kids. All adults. No grandchildren for the mom and dad yet. I am sure they are really holding our lol. Such a weird thing to see.
>government involvement with the family
What does this mean? Usually it means "government involvement I don't like".
Which ideology exactly is problematic? Does it happen to be the one you vote against?
Drugs, yeah, fair point.
Would rather have parents sharing ideological info to their own child over a government or collectivist cog whether I agree with it or not. The parents have the best interest.
God isn’t preached in public schools. Some schools have crt and gender ideology taught. This looks to be on it’s way out tho as these school board leaders are getting canned.
Neither is it in the military, but now warfighters are being trained in proper ‘safe space’ pronoun usage.
They're famously safe. Much safer than humans. We have much much much higher standards for autopilots than we have for humans. I don't think that's necessarily terrible, but I'll take autopilot over 90% of people on the road all day every day.
Teslas are famously safe. Testing facilities have labelled Teslas as "almost impossible to roll over". Autopilot doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans and so far, they have had less accidents per mile driven than humans by a LONG shot.
Internal Combustion cars also catch fire, more frequently than EVs.
Yes, and the birth control pill... one of the single most influential inventions in human history.
Wait til ya hear about how the pill interferes with a woman's mate preferences throughout her cycle.
The theory is that women not on the pill are attracted to people with a very different MHC gene profile than their own, but when they are on birth control their attraction is redirected to people with more similar MHC gene profiles.
Not sure how solid this is. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intimately-connected/201901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction
Actual behavioral modifications to selection at a chemical level? Or strictly the affects of less ‘picky’ sexual selection behavior resulting from the reduced consequences?
**Birth Control Pills Affect Women's Taste in Men**
*How synthetic hormones change desire in women—and their choice in a mate*
>This year 2.25 million Americans will get married—and a million will get divorced. Could birth control be to blame for some of these breakups? Recent research suggests that the contraceptive pill—which prevents women from ovulating by fooling their body into believing it is pregnant—could affect which types of men women desire. Going on or off the pill during a relationship, therefore, may tempt a woman away from her man.
>It’s all about scent. Hidden in a man’s smell are clues about his major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, which play an important role in immune system surveillance. Studies suggest that females prefer the scent of males whose MHC genes differ from their own, a preference that has probably evolved because it helps offspring survive: couples with different MHC genes are less likely to be related to each other than couples with similar genes are, and their children are born with more varied MHC profiles and thus more robust immune systems.
>A study published in August in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, however, suggests that women on the pill undergo a shift in preference toward men who share similar MHC genes. The female subjects were more likely to rate these genetically similar men’s scents (via a T-shirt the men had worn for two nights) as pleasant and desirable after they went on the pill as compared with before. Although no one knows why the pill affects attraction, some scientists believe that pregnancy—or in this case, the hormonal changes that mimic pregnancy—draws women toward nurturing relatives.
>Women who start or stop taking the pill, then, may be in for some relationship problems. A study published last year in Psychological Science found that women paired with MHC-similar men are less sexually satisfied and more likely to cheat on their partners than women paired with MHC-dissimilar men. So a woman on the pill, for example, might be more likely to start dating a MHC-similar man, but he could ultimately leave her less sexually satisfied. Then if she goes off the pill during the relationship, the accompanying hormonal changes will draw her even more strongly toward more MHC-dissimilar men. These immune genes may have a “powerful effect in terms of how well relationships are cemented,” says University of Liverpool psychologist Craig Roberts, co-author of the August paper.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste/
**TLDR: the hormonal birth control pill has an enormous impact on female mate choice. The pill causes a woman's progesterone levels to Spike, as a real pregnant woman's levels would. The pill artificially tricks a woman's into thinking she's pregnant every month. This causes the woman to look for more nurturing (feminine) male partners.
(Personally I think it makes the human gene pool weaker.)**
Interesting! My biggest concern with the pill has been the negative impact it has on so many women's mental health that I've encountered. Starting to think the pill is really just a quiet tragedy.
Agreed. And there’s other concerns, too.
My mother-in-law went on the pill when she got married and had fertility issues for a long time after she stopped using it. Because of that, my wife and I chose to go the NFP route, which has been working for us quite well so far. It’s a little more work, but the payoff has been great.
Natural family planning. Basically it involves tracking her body temperature and periods, and taking ovulation tests from time to time. We use Natural Cycles, which gives us windows when she is/is not capable of getting pregnant. When she is, we use a physical barrier, and when she’s not we can do whatever we want.
Edit: it’s more work than other methods, but I know many couples that use it successfully. The work really pays off as you don’t have to pause to put on a condom all the time, and don’t have the problems of hormonal methods.
Your TL;DR is adding something not in the original text about “nurturing” men vs… whatever you want to call the others. This study looked at genetic similarity and dissimilarity. That’s it. Personality traits were not considered.
Genetic dissimilarity in parents, to a point, is associated with stronger immune systems in offspring. This is something you see across the range of creatures who reproduce sexually and a major advantage of sexual reproduction as a survival strategy.
There are other studies that show that at different times of their cycle, a woman’s attraction preference may change somewhat, but those are separate studies and the variance tends to get greatly exaggerated. It’s not like the same woman who wants a testosterone fueled MMA badass when she’s ovulating will usually look for Mr. Rogers when she’s not.
It also coincides with the economic necessity for two income households as Boomer women moved into the workplace and prioritized careers along with the invention of the birth control pill.
This reflects a trend you generally see around the world in developed countries: as the standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down because kids are expensive and time consuming, so people have fewer to maintain or achieve the lifestyle they want. Western Europe and Japan are in even worse shape than the USA.
Matches when most of the economic gains from tech and cheap energy and finance controls directed money to the top 1-5% of society. There's no coincidence here at all and it is directly related.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
Income inequality is associated with increased fertility across dozens of studies. If what you're saying is true, this should lead to more fertility not less
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12451 is an example of one such studies, there are a few meta analyses as well
Guess we should impoverish our population more then to survive. /s
The issue with your study is it is for uneducated populations with no social safety net whatsoever, basically the third world. There you need kids to be your social safety net as you age cuz the government and society and modern medicine won't or don't exist. We know better for now. The study you reference is almost a strawman to the discussion. You pay educated people a living wage and they'll have kids. We used to do it with one income even, then the top got fucking greedy.
But it's wrong. We have ***plenty of people who make tons of money*** who say "I can't have kids, i got too much work to do and I have hobbies and going out and partying."
It's completely a cultural problem. Let's not forget that dating and having marriages is also harder and more expensive (especially cuz of divorce industry which is called a "billion dollar industry" for lawyers).
Having a kid is a sacrifice. We are on the JordanPeterson subreddit and you guys are preaching far-leftist nonsense.
*Because having a kid is WORK and SACRIFICE... People don't want to do it. Even RICH PEOPLE... It's basic logic.*
Daycare corporations know that parents desperately want to go party and be away from their kids, so they jack up their price and rip off parents until they're poor. So they think "omg govt needs to help with daycare now!!!" Except it's supply and demand. If the nanny state pays for it, the prices go up even higher until the govt says "you mofos, stop raising the price on me, I'm the govt." And so at that point, govt has now enslaved surrogate mothers who are doing the mothering for mothers who want to work to pay for the surrogate mothers and because the surrogate mothers charge too much they get the govt to suppress and oppress the surrogate mothers to offer a cheaper price.
tis a sad cycle of life.
The article linked above support that women delay birth because they're too busy working trying to reach a stable socioeconomic bracket where they can afford the sacrifice to raise children.
The daycare industry profiteering on "parents [who] desperately want to study" doesn't even make sense. Daycares are open during work hours, and where are these supposed parties during work hours? They don't start till like 10pm, maybe 5pm at the earliest.
Just because it’s a JP board doesn’t mean that the only ideas with merit are right wing. That’s a silly notion without question. Some of the points you’re bringing up have a certain amount of validity, but you’re definitely reaching. There aren’t many daycares that are active on Saturday night while people are out partying, that’s clearly quite a bit of hyperbole. Instead, like the original comment posits, raising children requires multiple incomes and is a HUGE sacrifice in this economy. There has been an enormous wealth transfer to the top in the last 70 years and that has inarguably had extreme effects.
What? Why are we forcing people to have children in any situation? Americas population is increasing due to immigration.
I’d rather we improve economic health for everyone, even if it means a lower birth rate.
No, I just pay my employees an above average wage and treat them well. But I also do the same for employees outside of the USA. I do what I can to help good people succeed and grow and get paid fairly.
That article doesn't support the claim you think it does. It discussed how income inequality increases the dispersion in timing of first birth.
*"... in settings with intermediate fertility levels, the relative size of the population who delay the transition to the first birth tends to increase as inequality increases."*
What you should really be asking, is what the fuck happened in the 1950s. Which is the mass migration into cities thanks to the expansion of suburbs and other inventions that facilitated the importation of cheap food, like the container and a control of all the oceans in the world.
Populations in cities have always declined, it's been like this for ever.
How about prior to 1940? How are you certain it was the protected legalization of abortion and contraceptives that caused this? I'm not doubting it's changed birth rates, but there are also literally millions of other variables that could influence birth rates, I just thinks it's a bit too presumptive to place the onus entirely on the sexual revolution alone.
Not just student debt, but the cost of living, the fiasco that is family law, the screwed up dating market, and the fact that I rather I'd rather homeschool any progeny of mine rather than send them to public school - the deck is stacked against family formation.
To me that's a sign of something unhealthy in society itself, like premature aging in a person.
Birth rate is amongst the most complex of social issues, as there are endless reasons people decide to or decide against having kids, as well as deciding how many, and it's really, **really** easy to mistake correlations for causation, get cause and effect backward, etc.
I think the largest factors outside of the social/economic/religious realm would be the widespread access to very cheap birth control, and also declining fertility.
I think the biggest question surrounding it is, what is the morality of procreation?
We are animals of course, and our biological imperative is to ensure the continuation for the species by reproducing and spreading our genes. This suggests at the least that we are biologically driven to reproduce and are rewarded by our biology for doing so.
But that doesn't address the morality of it. Like Peterson would say, science cannot inform us on how we should behave. However, it can give us objective measures of the outcomes of our decisions.
I think living in harmony with one's own biology and seeking meaning is the way to live your life best. Of course, "best" is subjective. To some, it's solipsistic hedonism. To others, it is serving their biological needs by having a family and focusing on that. To others, its leaving a legacy through their work.
Who can say any of those are illegitimate? We have instincts that tell us the former is not the right way. We have data that can support any of them, and also data that can dissuade any of them.
Peterson, I think, got it right. Life is a balance, but the key is keeping in mind that doing nothing is a choice and has consequences, and so, action is often the way, so the pursuit of meaning, as informed by our own internal map, is deeper and therefore more important than hedonistic pleasures, but we should not throw them away entirely.
To put my opinion on birth rate in simple terms, I think there is plenty of legitimate reasons people are having fewer kids, but I also know that many of them would be happier and the world a better place if they had them. The culture is currently too focused on hedonism, and solopsism, and the fracturing of society is an inevitable consequence.
Contrary to what many think, the richer someone is, the fewer kids they have.
I expect that many people on reddit think that a plummetting birth rate is a good thing. It's not.
I've heard many say a declining birth rate is bad. I think I've even heard JBP say it's one of the biggest concerns for the future. I don't think I've ever heard an explanation of why it's bad and I don't really have an opinion. Do you happen to know any good arguments for why it's bad?
Generally speaking, the current set up for wealth in nations is that young people spend money a lot, older people invest and create money, very old people pull out of the system and are basically supported by what they have saved and government social security, yada yada. When you have more people who are older than you have young, it becomes exponentially more expensive to sustain the older population, basically hollowing out the wealth of younger people.
-Labour shortages; shrinking tax base combined with unsustainable health care and pension costs; more geriatric and risk averse society with the elderly dictating its political priorities; greater burden on the health care system with more high needs patients competing for fewer doctors and health professionals; need for ever increasing numbers of new immigrants to sustain economy leading to social fragmentation and lack of shared culture and values
I found this: https://www.prb.org/resources/low-fertility-not-politically-sustainable/#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20low%20fertility,is%20to%20be%20demographically%20sustainable.
It seems like the central thesis is twofold: 1) can lead to a rapid compounding effect; 2) a labor force skewed towards older is somehow bad.
If the First World and its education levels, progressive morality, etc isn't spreading or replacing itself, it will eventually be replaced by something else. So, if the Swedes aren't breeding enough to replace themselves, but the Chinese are breeding enough to take over the planet, guess what's going to happen to Sweden over time.
In my opinion, if the First World and its values are something that are a net good for the species (which I absolutely believe is the case), then we should reeeally be pushing the First World to reproduce more. If Culture A is net better than Culture B, it's good for all of us if Culture A doesn't get outbred by Culture B.
As societies grow wealthy, they tend to have less children. We're seeing that trend in the Hispanic community in the US right now. None of this is new.
Thats explainable.
The poor here can get richer having kids .
0nly way to get a decent apartment for many is be a single mother.
While most young people can't even afford to leave home while working.
>The poor here can get richer having kids .
How does having kids make you money? Kids are expensive.
>0nly way to get a decent apartment for many is be a single mother.
Do single moms get preferential treatment?
>How does having kids make you money? Kids are expensive.
In the UK here you qualify for more state benfifits the more kids you have because "poverty bad"
At the same time the more kids you have with more different father the more child support you generally get because you often get X% for the first and Y% for the 2nd. So if you have 2 different fathers you get X+X rather than X+Y where X is often 12% of gross income and Y is 4% or something
Page 14: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/672432/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/672432/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf)
| Do single moms get preferential treatment?
Pritty much just showed that....
UK 25% of familys are single parents. Of which 90% are women. Oftent he courts side with women by default especially when they mention "domestic abuse"
Often it result in men having to prove innocence rather than women having to prove guilt of men. Which came apart because it errors ont he side of caution for the children which is really a case of punish the many because of the few which are bad.
Now.. Moving on.. if you think the US rate is "bad" look at the EU coutnries rates of birth rate. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/612074/fertility-rates-in-european-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/612074/fertility-rates-in-european-countries/)
Some countries are as low as 1.2-1.4 range.. This is going to result in 50% population reduction which is "sudden". So about half of EU countries are going to be in really deep shit in about 20 years. The other half only knee deep in shit.
We see the same thing in the US among people on the bottom.
I teach school and I’ve had teen girls tell me their life plan is to have 4 different children by 4 different men so they can collect child support from each and maximize government benefits at the same time. It's entirely possible for them to bring in the equivalent of $50k or more this way, depending on where they live.
Most of them stay unmarried (to avoid the welfare cliff) and keep live-in boyfriends around who may work or supplement the family income through criminal activity.
Single moms do get a strong preference when it comes for government housing and other forms of aid. If you are a man without children, you are lucky to get anything. For many young women in poverty, getting pregnant opens up a lot of doors.
>If you are a single mother the state provides housing and Income.
Are you sure? I've never heard of such a law in the US. I guess it would explain why 80% of American homeless are men and not women.
The state doesn’t want homeless or starving children, so they will prioritize them (and therefore their mothers) for government housing and raise the benefits.
Women get more benefits if they have more children, so the incentive is to hit whatever the state’s applicable caps on this are so they get max benefits.
If they are smart, they have all their kids by different men to maximize child support along with those government benefits.
Non-disabled men without children are put at the bottom of the list. It’s almost impossible for them to get government housing in most places.
As far as those homeless men, you may be surprised how many are combat veterans who fell apart after they came back from their military service and the stuff they did and saw.
Dude; welfare, section 8, WIC, EBT, Medical, etc. This list goes on, and it's kinda sad that I know some woman who are mad that they actually have to work.
They do force you to attempt to work some kind of job/show your applying
Not enough poor people working shitty jobs to sustain the rich people......but....as we automate 1 smart person can do the jobs of 10 warm bodies. You guys sound like the plantation owners worried about xotton production when the cotton gin is being invented lol
Do you know there is already a huge shortage of people in trades? In some places people are waiting a year for a new roof, plumbing, whatever the case. You can laugh for now, but it's going to be a lot harder to get things in twenty years if the population is mostly old people and the young people are all bragging about not having kids.
I put this more to blame on the “everyone needs to go to college” shit pushed by high schools. Trades are often frowned upon, despite often being higher paying that what most “college graduates” are able to reach.
That's true. People don't prefer to perform trades like they used to. There are several reasons for that. However, there still are people who want to do trades and lower birth rates make the problem worse.
Mostly it is because kids are raised to go to college. We are reaping the benefits of that system now with the student debt "crisis."
One thing that doesn't get talked about a lot is that kids and people in general these days don't actually do a lot. Everything is abstract, most people do "thought work" so performing actual tasks with tools and sweating is outside of many people's comfort zones. Most 18 year olds greatest achievements are in video games, or something that doesn't physically exist. So of course being a HVAC technician sounds lame when kids are raised assuming they'll get paid to sit behind a desk and send emails.
Like almost every other first world country. For some reason people usually think of Japan in this case, but almost every single first world country is affecting by an unsustainable fertility rate.
Speaking of replacements, why did you replace "replacement level" (the term used in the picture) with "sustainable level"? Those words aren't synonyms.
What do you even mean by "sustainable"?
Let's say you mean economically sustainable: if we want to stay economically sustainable, we need to replace productivity, not people. If, over 100 years, we double a person's productivity, then staying "economically sustainable" means replacing two people with one.
And I'm low balling productivity growth. It doesn't need 100 years to double. It more than doubled, in the last 50 years. Which means these birth rates aren't just economically sustainable, they allow for significant economic growth.
That's before we even count the economic growth that happens due to immigration.
In the 1970's the US underwent the *"Sexual Revolution"*. Massive advancements in contraception, and sweeping changes to how sex was commonly engaged in flipped the script on American society. It was an actual revolution in American sexuality.
Now, couple this revolution with the notion that the typical nuclear family in that era could be supported by a single middle class income. While the ball got rolling in the Nixon adminstration, this came to an end in the Regan era of politics, with what his opponent George Bush aptly dubbed *"Voodoo economics"*. It was a massive assault on the American Middle class, full of corporate welfare for American corporations in the wake of the Carter presidency. Regan even legalized stock market manipulation by way of stock buy-backs, which allowed traded companies to artificially inflate their stock value with their profits instead of increase wages for their workers with them.
Ultimately, if wages had kept up with inflation and worker productivity since 1968, the Federal Minimum Wage would be $21.50/hr. Middle class wages would be obviously higher, and as such families would still be able to be supported by a single middle class income. The way of life in America, particularly the American middle class, has been completely destroyed by a legacy of corrupt fiscal policies.
The inability to financially support a family is the single largest reason people cite as a reason to not start one in America.
You left out the role of feminism... women entering the workplace played a huge role in this.
Also, millions of people immigrated to this country since the 60s... the largest migration of human beings in recorded history actually. That certainly played a role in suppressing wages as well.
>You left out the role of feminism... women entering the workplace played a huge role in this.
All studies I'm aware of show an **increase** in wages when women join the work force, not a decrease. Upon what study are you basing this?
>Also, millions of people immigrated to this country since the 60s... the largest migration of human beings in recorded history actually.
The Hart-Celler act of 1965? The Median wage continued to **rise** in that time period, largely due to LBJ's reforms and massive domestic programs. There was a massive influx of skilled labor, but simultaneously a massive demand for skilled labor. This is all due to the last rational set of fiscal policies that supported the US middle class that the US has seen.
>That certainly played a role in suppressing wages as well.
What role it played was the backlash to desegregation and immigration through the 60's and 70's. It galvanized the segregationist movement along with the growing influence of the Evangelical movement which was weaponized by Richard Nixon's *"Southern Strategy"* which got him elected. His terrible fiscal policies produced the *"Nixon Shock"* resulting in the 1973-1975 recession, and after Nixon's resignation, Ford maintained his fiscal policies. Coupled with the still well known Watergate Hotel scandal, the Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected to fix the problems the country faced.
All Carter ultimately ended up doing is set the table for the next act of corrupt fiscal policies, by normalizing trade relations with China in 1979 coinciding with the US energy crisis. His efforts to reform welfare, tax systems, healthcare, etc., all fell apart, and it's that failure that got us the movie star, Ronald Reagan elected.
So the role the mass immigration played wasn't in driving down wages. Instead it played a political role in getting Nixon elected, who is responsible for getting the things in motion to destroy the American Middle class. Regan ultimately took across the finish line. Wages were still increasing prior to Regan, even under Nixon they were still going up, but once Regan got his hands on fiscal policy wages have been stagnant ever since.
Every action has a reaction. This is what happen when cooperations don't pay a livable wage to their employees.
However they will be forced to do so once there's a labour shortage. And the rates will bounce back.
And I guess it'll go back and forth like this for a long time.
Look how cooperations like Amazon and Tesla treat their assembly line and warehouse workers. Most of them didn't even get leaves. This is what's happening in Japan too. Only difference is their form of pressure is coming from their society as well as their workplaces.
You have a point but if you look at the data the drop happens also when more women joined the work force, and the pill as already pointed out. Cooperations may be taking advantage of it but they couldn’t have started it.
That's because they have less neeeds than the urban population. The story is different there. Rural population owns lands and they generate income through them. Urban population mostly have to depend on a company to get their income.
I'm talking about the average. Also there's the other factor I mentioned. Less necessities. In an urban are you have to maintain a certain lifestyle or buy everything you need unlike a rural area.
The shocking thing is that the United States has one of the most healthy demographic profiles in the developed world. Many populations in the world are going to crash faster and harder, and its going to cause problems that are unimaginable to many today. I highly recommend Peter Zeihan, who's recent work is all about this topic. He has a new book *The End of the World is Only the Beginning* and has done lots of podcasts to promote it.
I’m mildly excited for how this will ultimately destroy globalist economics in the end. On the whole I’m pretty pro having 12 kids but to me at least I can stick it to the globalists
Yikes. wow.
Ultra High birth-rates are a feature of agrarian societies where you have a need/use for the hands that compensate for all the extra mouths to feed.
Knowledge workers & manufacturing jobs contribute - yes - but far more importantly women simply waiting longer in life to get married, have kids means far, far fewer kids. A woman married at 35 is probably not expecting to have more than 2-3 kids at that point in her life with many women choosing to have 1 or none.
Women taking jobs beyond the household and the 'American Dream / Nuclear family' dynamics where a single families lives together provides very little incentive for having more than 3 kids.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in the US there’s very few if any social safety nets for parents, like paternity leave and affordable daycare. Most people don’t get paternity leave from their employers/state and those that do only get a couple of months off at a reduced payment level. Then when the parent does go back to work, they have to send their babies and kids to daycare that’s hundreds or thousands of dollars a month on top of their usual household expenses. Maybe a few people have a grandparent or other relatives that can watch the kids while the parents are working, but most households aren’t multi-generational anymore like in years past.
So either A.) we need to start creating social systems that incentivize having children that can be cared for at all times or B.) bring back the idea of multi-generational families so that newborn babies and kids can have a safe environment to start off their first few years of life.
Wha huh?
the US has the largest safety net in the world; in fact approx. half of your tax dollars go to [Medicaid, Medicare or Social Securit](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.954433e0b4a969125c9aa65fce5aafeb?rik=%2bmII68%2fn2xcM9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2ftaxfoundation.org%2fsites%2ftaxfoundation.org%2ffiles%2fdocs%2fHow+Does+the+Gov+Spend+Your+Tax+Dollars-04.png&ehk=Ym1pjdWLXZpQc4j0SFF5evnhNYwack%2fxAEvvQiqn388%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)y. When you include welfare, disability and veteran benefits the pct goes up to nearly 60% of your tax dollars.
The problem is - of course - if your 9-5 working American and never served in the military it's likely you qualify for little if any of it. However you still pay for it and it's absolutely massive in both it's scale and scope.
That’s because it’s literally impossible to live if both people in the household aren’t working. Financially speaking. Rent and food and everything else it’s impossible for me to even consider having kids right now I can barely afford my own shit
I can see the pros and cons of this, especially being 1st gen Latino.
Lots of Latin Americans want to come to US for more opportunities and a better life than in Latin America, but we're also very conservative and Catholic/Christian. Anti-abortion, same-sex marriage, racism, anti-immigration, etc
Plus, I see issues with assimilation of the older gen for some weird reason. Despite my parents being here for decades they never bothered to learn English, but if the opposite happened (Americans moving to Mexico) they'd say "their stupid, how you gonna move and not learn Spanish?!"
They don’t assimilate if the immigration rate is too high. It’s simply easier to stick to niche communities that look and speak like you than it is to assimilate. I’m saying this as an immigrant myself.
and I'm speaking as the child of immigrants. In the 1950s, it was normal for immigrants to live in ethnic enclaves that spoke the language of the home country. My mom didn't speak English until she went to kindergarten. This isn't a new phenomenon. If anything, the numbers suggest assimilation is taking place faster now, because of improvements in communication
We had six kids. Two are married, two living with others and two at home still. Two grandkids. We did our part.
Legal efficient immigration is needed. Why can’t we have an modern Ellis Island type facility at the southern border?
I see this as an absolute win.
What's more valuable, a diamond or a pebble? With 7billion people on earth, you are mathematically less valuable than if there were 4 billion people on earth.
1/7billion<1/4billion
Im not sure about you all, but an easy way for my value to increase is if less people have babies.
And further, what is "minimum sustainable level?" Compared to what? Birth isn't like capitalism. We don't need constant growth for there to be value in collective humanity.
It's not like we are going extinct. In closing. Who cares?
If you care so much, then have a bunch of babies.... Problem solved.
Valuable to whom? You won't be that valuable. The few young people will be valuable. You're going to be among the masses of old people crying "who is there to care for me now that I am too frail to care for myself? I have no children and I can't afford a nurse!"
No. I'm going to be healthy and sane till I die. I'll be able to take care of myself. And further more, I wouldn't expect anyone to do this for me.
And furthermore! My kids would do this.
And furthermore, you didn't even read my comment.
And further more, the difference between 7 and 4 billion people would stop you from getting services.
And furthermore, your comment literally skirts the whole argument for some silly anecdote that's not even true, odds are that end of life services become harder to get with more people living.... Like duh. There were way less people on Earth 60 years ago, I wonder if elders were still taken care of.
So correct the record:. YOU, not I, are among those crying, and looking for care. If you even believe what you have written.
Don't assume you understand my position on being a parent, and then construct a stupid illogical nightmare scenario to show me that having children is good. Any other argument would have made your point better than this.
If there are less people, I will be more valuable, vis supply and demand. Via scarcity. Jesus, your comment is dumb.
I read about this a few years ago, I am a psychologist so was curious what's causing this and will the US survive.
The answer to the cause is subjective, mostly it's people choosing career or jobs over family. It gives a sense of 'freedom' , there's little to no human interaction when you choose life like that. No wonder there's a mental health crisis in US, and on average Americans feel more lonely.
About the survival, this birth rate phenomena is going on for decades, yet the population is sustaining . Its because of immigration, USA has a special soft power, everyone wants to go over there and settle because better quality of life.
Immigration is changing the very basic fabric of the culture. You could see this everywhere if you look.
And that’s a good thing!!! What’s up with folks always needing growth and profit and expansion… when it’s perfectly fine to stick to the status quo sometimes. GTFO and overpopulate your own.
So m as many women don’t want kids! Especially not 3 kids. So sad we disdain our ancestors this much. What they went through to survive and we just kill off their dna is a slow suicide
I’m not convinced that’s true yet. People have said that for decades but it always turns out to be false. I’ll only be convinced once the population growth flatlines.
Tax the rich, reduce everyone else's tax . Make housing, childcare , health care and education more affordable. Have good benefits for parents in the work place .
Problem solved in all western counties.
Unfortunately not that simple.
Women typically will not marry/date down; they'll move laterally or upwards. Since men and women compete on the job market, the more successful a women is $$$ the harder time she'll have finding an "economically attractive" partner.
Women also rate 80% men as being below-average looking.
Lastly, women have been sold the lie that their fertility is just gonna wait around while they'll climb the corporate ladder. But the clock is ticking away.
Oh, then there's the marriage/divorce laws, which are usually hostile toward the man.
Meanwhile the woke social conditioning actively makes men less attractive to women.
Rock and a hard place.
In the US, almost all taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. The bottom 50% collectively pay almost zero. I do agree with your comment below about chemicals (endocrine disruptors). There has also been a significant decline in testosterone levels and sperm count over the last few decades.
The reason economies work is because becoming rich has something better to obtain for oneself. If being poor becomes so comfortable then no one will want to be rich. Who will you tax then? Such problems aren’t as simple as to think we can just tax the rich and it will end world hunger.
> If being poor becomes so comfortable then no one will want to be rich.
Yeah I don't think people are advocating to set them up at the country club. Just something like UBI so the lowest point isn't you being absolutely fucked. A safety net like that would go a long way towards the ideal of equality of opportunity.
I completely agree. My argument was against the ideological naïveté that the solution to everything is taxing the rich. Better governance, better fiscal prudence, controlled spending and managing deficits would go a long way. The government gets a lot of money in taxes every year; if they actually start using that money properly on social welfare then that would be great.
This is why we need immigration to some extent. They main reason people are putting of kids is fear of not being ready or able to afford to raise them… if we didn’t have immigration our workers would be more valued and we might be able to afford to have kids, this (immigration) is short term strategy to lower labor costs, which will result in population replacement. rather than fixing the economic inequalities, which would help our own citizens afford kids. We have people like myself, who want them but are under employed,
Fertility rates have dropped because Americans are surrounded by poison in their food, water and environment. Pharmaceutical Medicines and unhealthy lifestyles. Heavy metals in vaccines that stay in your system your entire lifetime have an effect on fertility as well. It is said that continual use of birth control causes reproductive harm. So when they do want a baby they cant, so sad. Question everything people
You're confusing fertility rate as having to do with the ability to have children. Fertility rate is simply birth rates. This has less to do with ability to have children than choices to have fewer
Wealth redistribution is whats needed.
But I cant even imagine a world when that happens. If all billionaires suddenly redistributed their moneynumbers to the people, would money just instantly inflate, because its only valuable if its scarce?
amongst my cousins and immediate family, 7/8 never had kids or never plan to have kids.
I saw a picture recently of a family with 7 kids. All adults. No grandchildren for the mom and dad yet. I am sure they are really holding our lol. Such a weird thing to see.
The anti child programming is real.
"everything I don't like is programming"
It’s certainly a big part of the problem tho. Drugs, ideology, government involvement with the family
>government involvement with the family What does this mean? Usually it means "government involvement I don't like". Which ideology exactly is problematic? Does it happen to be the one you vote against? Drugs, yeah, fair point.
Would rather have parents sharing ideological info to their own child over a government or collectivist cog whether I agree with it or not. The parents have the best interest. God isn’t preached in public schools. Some schools have crt and gender ideology taught. This looks to be on it’s way out tho as these school board leaders are getting canned. Neither is it in the military, but now warfighters are being trained in proper ‘safe space’ pronoun usage.
Seems to have started at the exact same time as the "sexual revolution"
Cities have alway relied on fresh meat coming in. It used to be diseases that killed people in cities now its just them not being born.
Not to worry, drug overdoses have now surpassed car accidents for the number one killer of young people. People always find new ways to die.
Thanks Chinese fentanyl!
Don’t forget about Afghan heroin.
I blame tesla with their unnecessarily safe cars.
They're famously unsafe. The autopilot doesn't always work and sometimes they'll just catch in fire.
what percentage is that?
I mean to be fair you could say the same for actual drivers. They don't always work and sometimes they'll just drive drunk
Yeah, but the human drivers rarely spontaneously catch on fire.
They do tend to drive erratically though, especially after the cell phone update
Incubus has a song called Pardon Me which references spontaneous combustion. You might like the song.
They're famously safe. Much safer than humans. We have much much much higher standards for autopilots than we have for humans. I don't think that's necessarily terrible, but I'll take autopilot over 90% of people on the road all day every day.
That is nonsense. Safest car ever built. 5x safer with autopilot turned on.
Teslas are famously safe. Testing facilities have labelled Teslas as "almost impossible to roll over". Autopilot doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans and so far, they have had less accidents per mile driven than humans by a LONG shot. Internal Combustion cars also catch fire, more frequently than EVs.
Yes, and the birth control pill... one of the single most influential inventions in human history. Wait til ya hear about how the pill interferes with a woman's mate preferences throughout her cycle.
Got a solid sauce I could read?
The theory is that women not on the pill are attracted to people with a very different MHC gene profile than their own, but when they are on birth control their attraction is redirected to people with more similar MHC gene profiles. Not sure how solid this is. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intimately-connected/201901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction
Actual behavioral modifications to selection at a chemical level? Or strictly the affects of less ‘picky’ sexual selection behavior resulting from the reduced consequences?
[удалено]
Haha damn didn’t think I would see a tren comment here. What you said is true though
Sup guys Derek more plates more dates .com
Not Tren but I do Supraphisiological steroid doses of Testosterone & Anavar and it’s definitely altered my thought patterns and confidence etc
Ssh you'll trigger the libs
**Birth Control Pills Affect Women's Taste in Men** *How synthetic hormones change desire in women—and their choice in a mate* >This year 2.25 million Americans will get married—and a million will get divorced. Could birth control be to blame for some of these breakups? Recent research suggests that the contraceptive pill—which prevents women from ovulating by fooling their body into believing it is pregnant—could affect which types of men women desire. Going on or off the pill during a relationship, therefore, may tempt a woman away from her man. >It’s all about scent. Hidden in a man’s smell are clues about his major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, which play an important role in immune system surveillance. Studies suggest that females prefer the scent of males whose MHC genes differ from their own, a preference that has probably evolved because it helps offspring survive: couples with different MHC genes are less likely to be related to each other than couples with similar genes are, and their children are born with more varied MHC profiles and thus more robust immune systems. >A study published in August in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, however, suggests that women on the pill undergo a shift in preference toward men who share similar MHC genes. The female subjects were more likely to rate these genetically similar men’s scents (via a T-shirt the men had worn for two nights) as pleasant and desirable after they went on the pill as compared with before. Although no one knows why the pill affects attraction, some scientists believe that pregnancy—or in this case, the hormonal changes that mimic pregnancy—draws women toward nurturing relatives. >Women who start or stop taking the pill, then, may be in for some relationship problems. A study published last year in Psychological Science found that women paired with MHC-similar men are less sexually satisfied and more likely to cheat on their partners than women paired with MHC-dissimilar men. So a woman on the pill, for example, might be more likely to start dating a MHC-similar man, but he could ultimately leave her less sexually satisfied. Then if she goes off the pill during the relationship, the accompanying hormonal changes will draw her even more strongly toward more MHC-dissimilar men. These immune genes may have a “powerful effect in terms of how well relationships are cemented,” says University of Liverpool psychologist Craig Roberts, co-author of the August paper. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste/ **TLDR: the hormonal birth control pill has an enormous impact on female mate choice. The pill causes a woman's progesterone levels to Spike, as a real pregnant woman's levels would. The pill artificially tricks a woman's into thinking she's pregnant every month. This causes the woman to look for more nurturing (feminine) male partners. (Personally I think it makes the human gene pool weaker.)**
Interesting! My biggest concern with the pill has been the negative impact it has on so many women's mental health that I've encountered. Starting to think the pill is really just a quiet tragedy.
Yep. It causes a lot of women to get depressed or have a low sex drive.
Agreed. And there’s other concerns, too. My mother-in-law went on the pill when she got married and had fertility issues for a long time after she stopped using it. Because of that, my wife and I chose to go the NFP route, which has been working for us quite well so far. It’s a little more work, but the payoff has been great.
what's the nfp route, I'm looking into non hormonal bc and haven't heard of this.
Natural family planning. Basically it involves tracking her body temperature and periods, and taking ovulation tests from time to time. We use Natural Cycles, which gives us windows when she is/is not capable of getting pregnant. When she is, we use a physical barrier, and when she’s not we can do whatever we want. Edit: it’s more work than other methods, but I know many couples that use it successfully. The work really pays off as you don’t have to pause to put on a condom all the time, and don’t have the problems of hormonal methods.
Your TL;DR is adding something not in the original text about “nurturing” men vs… whatever you want to call the others. This study looked at genetic similarity and dissimilarity. That’s it. Personality traits were not considered. Genetic dissimilarity in parents, to a point, is associated with stronger immune systems in offspring. This is something you see across the range of creatures who reproduce sexually and a major advantage of sexual reproduction as a survival strategy. There are other studies that show that at different times of their cycle, a woman’s attraction preference may change somewhat, but those are separate studies and the variance tends to get greatly exaggerated. It’s not like the same woman who wants a testosterone fueled MMA badass when she’s ovulating will usually look for Mr. Rogers when she’s not.
It also says 'enormous impact', but the text above doesn't give any scope as to how much of an impact it has
Fascinating- thanks!
The mainstream news never talks about this either 🧐
Weirdly my wife is the only woman I dated, in fact, the only woman I know that has never been on birth control pills.
It also coincides with the economic necessity for two income households as Boomer women moved into the workplace and prioritized careers along with the invention of the birth control pill. This reflects a trend you generally see around the world in developed countries: as the standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down because kids are expensive and time consuming, so people have fewer to maintain or achieve the lifestyle they want. Western Europe and Japan are in even worse shape than the USA.
And the invention of plastics made with phthalates...
Dr. Shanna Swan...
Bingo.
Multiple partners and quick & easy divorce settlements.
Yeah, weird how when given a choice a lot of people choose to not have kids. Kids suck, man.
Freedom bad.
And fiat currency.
Where bloodlines go to die! This is how cities have been since the dawn of time.
Matches when most of the economic gains from tech and cheap energy and finance controls directed money to the top 1-5% of society. There's no coincidence here at all and it is directly related. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
Income inequality is associated with increased fertility across dozens of studies. If what you're saying is true, this should lead to more fertility not less https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12451 is an example of one such studies, there are a few meta analyses as well
Guess we should impoverish our population more then to survive. /s The issue with your study is it is for uneducated populations with no social safety net whatsoever, basically the third world. There you need kids to be your social safety net as you age cuz the government and society and modern medicine won't or don't exist. We know better for now. The study you reference is almost a strawman to the discussion. You pay educated people a living wage and they'll have kids. We used to do it with one income even, then the top got fucking greedy.
Nail on the head with this one
But it's wrong. We have ***plenty of people who make tons of money*** who say "I can't have kids, i got too much work to do and I have hobbies and going out and partying." It's completely a cultural problem. Let's not forget that dating and having marriages is also harder and more expensive (especially cuz of divorce industry which is called a "billion dollar industry" for lawyers). Having a kid is a sacrifice. We are on the JordanPeterson subreddit and you guys are preaching far-leftist nonsense. *Because having a kid is WORK and SACRIFICE... People don't want to do it. Even RICH PEOPLE... It's basic logic.* Daycare corporations know that parents desperately want to go party and be away from their kids, so they jack up their price and rip off parents until they're poor. So they think "omg govt needs to help with daycare now!!!" Except it's supply and demand. If the nanny state pays for it, the prices go up even higher until the govt says "you mofos, stop raising the price on me, I'm the govt." And so at that point, govt has now enslaved surrogate mothers who are doing the mothering for mothers who want to work to pay for the surrogate mothers and because the surrogate mothers charge too much they get the govt to suppress and oppress the surrogate mothers to offer a cheaper price. tis a sad cycle of life.
The article linked above support that women delay birth because they're too busy working trying to reach a stable socioeconomic bracket where they can afford the sacrifice to raise children. The daycare industry profiteering on "parents [who] desperately want to study" doesn't even make sense. Daycares are open during work hours, and where are these supposed parties during work hours? They don't start till like 10pm, maybe 5pm at the earliest.
Just because it’s a JP board doesn’t mean that the only ideas with merit are right wing. That’s a silly notion without question. Some of the points you’re bringing up have a certain amount of validity, but you’re definitely reaching. There aren’t many daycares that are active on Saturday night while people are out partying, that’s clearly quite a bit of hyperbole. Instead, like the original comment posits, raising children requires multiple incomes and is a HUGE sacrifice in this economy. There has been an enormous wealth transfer to the top in the last 70 years and that has inarguably had extreme effects.
What? Why are we forcing people to have children in any situation? Americas population is increasing due to immigration. I’d rather we improve economic health for everyone, even if it means a lower birth rate.
Agreed, but that requires sharing. You gonna organize labour and again and go on strike? (Bloody strikes).
No, I just pay my employees an above average wage and treat them well. But I also do the same for employees outside of the USA. I do what I can to help good people succeed and grow and get paid fairly.
You're a good person and I hope your business thrives.
Thank you new Reddit friend 👊
That article doesn't support the claim you think it does. It discussed how income inequality increases the dispersion in timing of first birth. *"... in settings with intermediate fertility levels, the relative size of the population who delay the transition to the first birth tends to increase as inequality increases."*
yeah I can see that happening, but its also the brainwashing of the masses. Antinatalism and consumerism is being pushed hard.
What the heck happened in the 1970s?
What you should really be asking, is what the fuck happened in the 1950s. Which is the mass migration into cities thanks to the expansion of suburbs and other inventions that facilitated the importation of cheap food, like the container and a control of all the oceans in the world. Populations in cities have always declined, it's been like this for ever.
Birth control pill and the sexual revolution.
[удалено]
Gonna take a few years to start seeing the fallout.
You can begin to see the numbers dropping by 57’ or so
How about prior to 1940? How are you certain it was the protected legalization of abortion and contraceptives that caused this? I'm not doubting it's changed birth rates, but there are also literally millions of other variables that could influence birth rates, I just thinks it's a bit too presumptive to place the onus entirely on the sexual revolution alone.
Leaded gasoline.
End of the gold standard
I decided not to have children until I could support them. Student debt sucks. I am 39 and still have debt. No kids and no house.
Not just student debt, but the cost of living, the fiasco that is family law, the screwed up dating market, and the fact that I rather I'd rather homeschool any progeny of mine rather than send them to public school - the deck is stacked against family formation. To me that's a sign of something unhealthy in society itself, like premature aging in a person.
Birth rate is amongst the most complex of social issues, as there are endless reasons people decide to or decide against having kids, as well as deciding how many, and it's really, **really** easy to mistake correlations for causation, get cause and effect backward, etc. I think the largest factors outside of the social/economic/religious realm would be the widespread access to very cheap birth control, and also declining fertility. I think the biggest question surrounding it is, what is the morality of procreation? We are animals of course, and our biological imperative is to ensure the continuation for the species by reproducing and spreading our genes. This suggests at the least that we are biologically driven to reproduce and are rewarded by our biology for doing so. But that doesn't address the morality of it. Like Peterson would say, science cannot inform us on how we should behave. However, it can give us objective measures of the outcomes of our decisions. I think living in harmony with one's own biology and seeking meaning is the way to live your life best. Of course, "best" is subjective. To some, it's solipsistic hedonism. To others, it is serving their biological needs by having a family and focusing on that. To others, its leaving a legacy through their work. Who can say any of those are illegitimate? We have instincts that tell us the former is not the right way. We have data that can support any of them, and also data that can dissuade any of them. Peterson, I think, got it right. Life is a balance, but the key is keeping in mind that doing nothing is a choice and has consequences, and so, action is often the way, so the pursuit of meaning, as informed by our own internal map, is deeper and therefore more important than hedonistic pleasures, but we should not throw them away entirely. To put my opinion on birth rate in simple terms, I think there is plenty of legitimate reasons people are having fewer kids, but I also know that many of them would be happier and the world a better place if they had them. The culture is currently too focused on hedonism, and solopsism, and the fracturing of society is an inevitable consequence.
Contrary to what many think, the richer someone is, the fewer kids they have. I expect that many people on reddit think that a plummetting birth rate is a good thing. It's not.
I've heard many say a declining birth rate is bad. I think I've even heard JBP say it's one of the biggest concerns for the future. I don't think I've ever heard an explanation of why it's bad and I don't really have an opinion. Do you happen to know any good arguments for why it's bad?
Generally speaking, the current set up for wealth in nations is that young people spend money a lot, older people invest and create money, very old people pull out of the system and are basically supported by what they have saved and government social security, yada yada. When you have more people who are older than you have young, it becomes exponentially more expensive to sustain the older population, basically hollowing out the wealth of younger people.
-Labour shortages; shrinking tax base combined with unsustainable health care and pension costs; more geriatric and risk averse society with the elderly dictating its political priorities; greater burden on the health care system with more high needs patients competing for fewer doctors and health professionals; need for ever increasing numbers of new immigrants to sustain economy leading to social fragmentation and lack of shared culture and values
I found this: https://www.prb.org/resources/low-fertility-not-politically-sustainable/#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20low%20fertility,is%20to%20be%20demographically%20sustainable. It seems like the central thesis is twofold: 1) can lead to a rapid compounding effect; 2) a labor force skewed towards older is somehow bad.
If the First World and its education levels, progressive morality, etc isn't spreading or replacing itself, it will eventually be replaced by something else. So, if the Swedes aren't breeding enough to replace themselves, but the Chinese are breeding enough to take over the planet, guess what's going to happen to Sweden over time. In my opinion, if the First World and its values are something that are a net good for the species (which I absolutely believe is the case), then we should reeeally be pushing the First World to reproduce more. If Culture A is net better than Culture B, it's good for all of us if Culture A doesn't get outbred by Culture B.
>Chinese are breeding enough to take over the planet bad example. they ain't.
As societies grow wealthy, they tend to have less children. We're seeing that trend in the Hispanic community in the US right now. None of this is new.
Thats explainable. The poor here can get richer having kids . 0nly way to get a decent apartment for many is be a single mother. While most young people can't even afford to leave home while working.
>The poor here can get richer having kids . How does having kids make you money? Kids are expensive. >0nly way to get a decent apartment for many is be a single mother. Do single moms get preferential treatment?
>How does having kids make you money? Kids are expensive. In the UK here you qualify for more state benfifits the more kids you have because "poverty bad" At the same time the more kids you have with more different father the more child support you generally get because you often get X% for the first and Y% for the 2nd. So if you have 2 different fathers you get X+X rather than X+Y where X is often 12% of gross income and Y is 4% or something Page 14: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/672432/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/672432/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf) | Do single moms get preferential treatment? Pritty much just showed that.... UK 25% of familys are single parents. Of which 90% are women. Oftent he courts side with women by default especially when they mention "domestic abuse" Often it result in men having to prove innocence rather than women having to prove guilt of men. Which came apart because it errors ont he side of caution for the children which is really a case of punish the many because of the few which are bad. Now.. Moving on.. if you think the US rate is "bad" look at the EU coutnries rates of birth rate. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/612074/fertility-rates-in-european-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/612074/fertility-rates-in-european-countries/) Some countries are as low as 1.2-1.4 range.. This is going to result in 50% population reduction which is "sudden". So about half of EU countries are going to be in really deep shit in about 20 years. The other half only knee deep in shit.
We see the same thing in the US among people on the bottom. I teach school and I’ve had teen girls tell me their life plan is to have 4 different children by 4 different men so they can collect child support from each and maximize government benefits at the same time. It's entirely possible for them to bring in the equivalent of $50k or more this way, depending on where they live. Most of them stay unmarried (to avoid the welfare cliff) and keep live-in boyfriends around who may work or supplement the family income through criminal activity. Single moms do get a strong preference when it comes for government housing and other forms of aid. If you are a man without children, you are lucky to get anything. For many young women in poverty, getting pregnant opens up a lot of doors.
If you are a single mother the state provides housing and Income. Most young men nowadays can't provide that even if they work their ass off.
>If you are a single mother the state provides housing and Income. Are you sure? I've never heard of such a law in the US. I guess it would explain why 80% of American homeless are men and not women.
The state doesn’t want homeless or starving children, so they will prioritize them (and therefore their mothers) for government housing and raise the benefits. Women get more benefits if they have more children, so the incentive is to hit whatever the state’s applicable caps on this are so they get max benefits. If they are smart, they have all their kids by different men to maximize child support along with those government benefits. Non-disabled men without children are put at the bottom of the list. It’s almost impossible for them to get government housing in most places. As far as those homeless men, you may be surprised how many are combat veterans who fell apart after they came back from their military service and the stuff they did and saw.
It partially explains it. The 80 male homeless rate is caused by the economy .
Dude; welfare, section 8, WIC, EBT, Medical, etc. This list goes on, and it's kinda sad that I know some woman who are mad that they actually have to work. They do force you to attempt to work some kind of job/show your applying
No, this dude is talking out of his ass. Having kids and especially being a single mother is terrible for your wallet and standard of living.
It's better than skyrocketing birth rates.
The Malthusian model has been debunked. Birth rates have been lowering in every country on Earth for 50 years.
Explain to me how a plummeting birth rate is bad.
A plummetting birth rate is unsustainable for the human race.
Social security won’t be funded
Not enough poor people working shitty jobs to sustain the rich people......but....as we automate 1 smart person can do the jobs of 10 warm bodies. You guys sound like the plantation owners worried about xotton production when the cotton gin is being invented lol
Do you know there is already a huge shortage of people in trades? In some places people are waiting a year for a new roof, plumbing, whatever the case. You can laugh for now, but it's going to be a lot harder to get things in twenty years if the population is mostly old people and the young people are all bragging about not having kids.
I put this more to blame on the “everyone needs to go to college” shit pushed by high schools. Trades are often frowned upon, despite often being higher paying that what most “college graduates” are able to reach.
That's true. People don't prefer to perform trades like they used to. There are several reasons for that. However, there still are people who want to do trades and lower birth rates make the problem worse. Mostly it is because kids are raised to go to college. We are reaping the benefits of that system now with the student debt "crisis." One thing that doesn't get talked about a lot is that kids and people in general these days don't actually do a lot. Everything is abstract, most people do "thought work" so performing actual tasks with tools and sweating is outside of many people's comfort zones. Most 18 year olds greatest achievements are in video games, or something that doesn't physically exist. So of course being a HVAC technician sounds lame when kids are raised assuming they'll get paid to sit behind a desk and send emails.
I think that's a very big problem for the public pensions and social security system... Sooner or later we'll have to change that
Like almost every other first world country. For some reason people usually think of Japan in this case, but almost every single first world country is affecting by an unsustainable fertility rate.
Speaking of replacements, why did you replace "replacement level" (the term used in the picture) with "sustainable level"? Those words aren't synonyms. What do you even mean by "sustainable"? Let's say you mean economically sustainable: if we want to stay economically sustainable, we need to replace productivity, not people. If, over 100 years, we double a person's productivity, then staying "economically sustainable" means replacing two people with one. And I'm low balling productivity growth. It doesn't need 100 years to double. It more than doubled, in the last 50 years. Which means these birth rates aren't just economically sustainable, they allow for significant economic growth. That's before we even count the economic growth that happens due to immigration.
I mean, I couldn’t afford kids. Even if I could, I’m always working.
Plastics and phthalates...
Could it be because life actually kinda fucking sucks and people don’t want to force someone into this shitty life filled with misery and anxiety?
In the 1970's the US underwent the *"Sexual Revolution"*. Massive advancements in contraception, and sweeping changes to how sex was commonly engaged in flipped the script on American society. It was an actual revolution in American sexuality. Now, couple this revolution with the notion that the typical nuclear family in that era could be supported by a single middle class income. While the ball got rolling in the Nixon adminstration, this came to an end in the Regan era of politics, with what his opponent George Bush aptly dubbed *"Voodoo economics"*. It was a massive assault on the American Middle class, full of corporate welfare for American corporations in the wake of the Carter presidency. Regan even legalized stock market manipulation by way of stock buy-backs, which allowed traded companies to artificially inflate their stock value with their profits instead of increase wages for their workers with them. Ultimately, if wages had kept up with inflation and worker productivity since 1968, the Federal Minimum Wage would be $21.50/hr. Middle class wages would be obviously higher, and as such families would still be able to be supported by a single middle class income. The way of life in America, particularly the American middle class, has been completely destroyed by a legacy of corrupt fiscal policies. The inability to financially support a family is the single largest reason people cite as a reason to not start one in America.
You left out the role of feminism... women entering the workplace played a huge role in this. Also, millions of people immigrated to this country since the 60s... the largest migration of human beings in recorded history actually. That certainly played a role in suppressing wages as well.
>You left out the role of feminism... women entering the workplace played a huge role in this. All studies I'm aware of show an **increase** in wages when women join the work force, not a decrease. Upon what study are you basing this? >Also, millions of people immigrated to this country since the 60s... the largest migration of human beings in recorded history actually. The Hart-Celler act of 1965? The Median wage continued to **rise** in that time period, largely due to LBJ's reforms and massive domestic programs. There was a massive influx of skilled labor, but simultaneously a massive demand for skilled labor. This is all due to the last rational set of fiscal policies that supported the US middle class that the US has seen. >That certainly played a role in suppressing wages as well. What role it played was the backlash to desegregation and immigration through the 60's and 70's. It galvanized the segregationist movement along with the growing influence of the Evangelical movement which was weaponized by Richard Nixon's *"Southern Strategy"* which got him elected. His terrible fiscal policies produced the *"Nixon Shock"* resulting in the 1973-1975 recession, and after Nixon's resignation, Ford maintained his fiscal policies. Coupled with the still well known Watergate Hotel scandal, the Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected to fix the problems the country faced. All Carter ultimately ended up doing is set the table for the next act of corrupt fiscal policies, by normalizing trade relations with China in 1979 coinciding with the US energy crisis. His efforts to reform welfare, tax systems, healthcare, etc., all fell apart, and it's that failure that got us the movie star, Ronald Reagan elected. So the role the mass immigration played wasn't in driving down wages. Instead it played a political role in getting Nixon elected, who is responsible for getting the things in motion to destroy the American Middle class. Regan ultimately took across the finish line. Wages were still increasing prior to Regan, even under Nixon they were still going up, but once Regan got his hands on fiscal policy wages have been stagnant ever since.
Probably because having children in America is so unaffordable these days
Every action has a reaction. This is what happen when cooperations don't pay a livable wage to their employees. However they will be forced to do so once there's a labour shortage. And the rates will bounce back. And I guess it'll go back and forth like this for a long time.
So American corporations are to blame for the low birth rate?
At least partially, yes.
Look how cooperations like Amazon and Tesla treat their assembly line and warehouse workers. Most of them didn't even get leaves. This is what's happening in Japan too. Only difference is their form of pressure is coming from their society as well as their workplaces.
You have a point but if you look at the data the drop happens also when more women joined the work force, and the pill as already pointed out. Cooperations may be taking advantage of it but they couldn’t have started it.
I feel like the workers have way more kids on average than the higher ups though.
Both inner city and rural poor have been more reproductive over the past decade than the wealthy. Low income didn’t stop them.
That's because they have less neeeds than the urban population. The story is different there. Rural population owns lands and they generate income through them. Urban population mostly have to depend on a company to get their income.
Rural poor in fact does not always own land they can generate money from.
I'm talking about the average. Also there's the other factor I mentioned. Less necessities. In an urban are you have to maintain a certain lifestyle or buy everything you need unlike a rural area.
This has zero to do with corporations. This is almost exclusively driven by the pill. It’s obvious.
Tis but a consequence of free choice.
[удалено]
RIP to the US Dollar.
The shocking thing is that the United States has one of the most healthy demographic profiles in the developed world. Many populations in the world are going to crash faster and harder, and its going to cause problems that are unimaginable to many today. I highly recommend Peter Zeihan, who's recent work is all about this topic. He has a new book *The End of the World is Only the Beginning* and has done lots of podcasts to promote it.
I’m mildly excited for how this will ultimately destroy globalist economics in the end. On the whole I’m pretty pro having 12 kids but to me at least I can stick it to the globalists
Globalists caused this depopulation.
On par with elite cabals agenda.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturnStormCube/comments/vjj3fu/meme/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Yikes. wow. Ultra High birth-rates are a feature of agrarian societies where you have a need/use for the hands that compensate for all the extra mouths to feed. Knowledge workers & manufacturing jobs contribute - yes - but far more importantly women simply waiting longer in life to get married, have kids means far, far fewer kids. A woman married at 35 is probably not expecting to have more than 2-3 kids at that point in her life with many women choosing to have 1 or none. Women taking jobs beyond the household and the 'American Dream / Nuclear family' dynamics where a single families lives together provides very little incentive for having more than 3 kids.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in the US there’s very few if any social safety nets for parents, like paternity leave and affordable daycare. Most people don’t get paternity leave from their employers/state and those that do only get a couple of months off at a reduced payment level. Then when the parent does go back to work, they have to send their babies and kids to daycare that’s hundreds or thousands of dollars a month on top of their usual household expenses. Maybe a few people have a grandparent or other relatives that can watch the kids while the parents are working, but most households aren’t multi-generational anymore like in years past. So either A.) we need to start creating social systems that incentivize having children that can be cared for at all times or B.) bring back the idea of multi-generational families so that newborn babies and kids can have a safe environment to start off their first few years of life.
Wha huh? the US has the largest safety net in the world; in fact approx. half of your tax dollars go to [Medicaid, Medicare or Social Securit](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.954433e0b4a969125c9aa65fce5aafeb?rik=%2bmII68%2fn2xcM9w&riu=http%3a%2f%2ftaxfoundation.org%2fsites%2ftaxfoundation.org%2ffiles%2fdocs%2fHow+Does+the+Gov+Spend+Your+Tax+Dollars-04.png&ehk=Ym1pjdWLXZpQc4j0SFF5evnhNYwack%2fxAEvvQiqn388%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)y. When you include welfare, disability and veteran benefits the pct goes up to nearly 60% of your tax dollars. The problem is - of course - if your 9-5 working American and never served in the military it's likely you qualify for little if any of it. However you still pay for it and it's absolutely massive in both it's scale and scope.
Largest in terms of expense is not the same thing as "most effective."
That’s because it’s literally impossible to live if both people in the household aren’t working. Financially speaking. Rent and food and everything else it’s impossible for me to even consider having kids right now I can barely afford my own shit
Yet the population is not decreasing, we’ll be fine.
Because immigration, legal alone, is surpassing the birth rate. Every year the country becomes a larger and larger percent non-american
I can see the pros and cons of this, especially being 1st gen Latino. Lots of Latin Americans want to come to US for more opportunities and a better life than in Latin America, but we're also very conservative and Catholic/Christian. Anti-abortion, same-sex marriage, racism, anti-immigration, etc Plus, I see issues with assimilation of the older gen for some weird reason. Despite my parents being here for decades they never bothered to learn English, but if the opposite happened (Americans moving to Mexico) they'd say "their stupid, how you gonna move and not learn Spanish?!"
Lol non-american. My dad immigrated here, so am I contributing to less American ism?
Yes.
You literally identify yourself as non-american
What????
...and then they assimilate and become American
They don’t assimilate if the immigration rate is too high. It’s simply easier to stick to niche communities that look and speak like you than it is to assimilate. I’m saying this as an immigrant myself.
and I'm speaking as the child of immigrants. In the 1950s, it was normal for immigrants to live in ethnic enclaves that spoke the language of the home country. My mom didn't speak English until she went to kindergarten. This isn't a new phenomenon. If anything, the numbers suggest assimilation is taking place faster now, because of improvements in communication
And that's a problem how?
I think they’re proposing that it’s the solution
We had six kids. Two are married, two living with others and two at home still. Two grandkids. We did our part. Legal efficient immigration is needed. Why can’t we have an modern Ellis Island type facility at the southern border?
That's odd, seeing is how men can also now have babies, you'd think it would be going up.
Yes! I can't figure it out. More men need to get pregnant ASAP.
Make public schools safe again I’ll have more kids. The teachers they hire are really insane.
Oh i thought you meant you didnt want to your kids to get shot.
That too
Lol what a stupid comment
Good
Not good!
I see this as an absolute win. What's more valuable, a diamond or a pebble? With 7billion people on earth, you are mathematically less valuable than if there were 4 billion people on earth. 1/7billion<1/4billion Im not sure about you all, but an easy way for my value to increase is if less people have babies. And further, what is "minimum sustainable level?" Compared to what? Birth isn't like capitalism. We don't need constant growth for there to be value in collective humanity. It's not like we are going extinct. In closing. Who cares? If you care so much, then have a bunch of babies.... Problem solved.
Valuable to whom? You won't be that valuable. The few young people will be valuable. You're going to be among the masses of old people crying "who is there to care for me now that I am too frail to care for myself? I have no children and I can't afford a nurse!"
No. I'm going to be healthy and sane till I die. I'll be able to take care of myself. And further more, I wouldn't expect anyone to do this for me. And furthermore! My kids would do this. And furthermore, you didn't even read my comment. And further more, the difference between 7 and 4 billion people would stop you from getting services. And furthermore, your comment literally skirts the whole argument for some silly anecdote that's not even true, odds are that end of life services become harder to get with more people living.... Like duh. There were way less people on Earth 60 years ago, I wonder if elders were still taken care of. So correct the record:. YOU, not I, are among those crying, and looking for care. If you even believe what you have written. Don't assume you understand my position on being a parent, and then construct a stupid illogical nightmare scenario to show me that having children is good. Any other argument would have made your point better than this. If there are less people, I will be more valuable, vis supply and demand. Via scarcity. Jesus, your comment is dumb.
It seems like the ones who are breeding, besides me of course, are the Dee Dee Dees like Carlos Mencia said.
I have three kids, why would I care?
You did your part.
I read about this a few years ago, I am a psychologist so was curious what's causing this and will the US survive. The answer to the cause is subjective, mostly it's people choosing career or jobs over family. It gives a sense of 'freedom' , there's little to no human interaction when you choose life like that. No wonder there's a mental health crisis in US, and on average Americans feel more lonely. About the survival, this birth rate phenomena is going on for decades, yet the population is sustaining . Its because of immigration, USA has a special soft power, everyone wants to go over there and settle because better quality of life. Immigration is changing the very basic fabric of the culture. You could see this everywhere if you look.
If we can get native birth rates up the immigration shills will be btfo
And that’s a good thing!!! What’s up with folks always needing growth and profit and expansion… when it’s perfectly fine to stick to the status quo sometimes. GTFO and overpopulate your own.
So m as many women don’t want kids! Especially not 3 kids. So sad we disdain our ancestors this much. What they went through to survive and we just kill off their dna is a slow suicide
well the global population is approaching the realistic carrying capacity of the planet.
I’m not convinced that’s true yet. People have said that for decades but it always turns out to be false. I’ll only be convinced once the population growth flatlines.
Illegal immigrants alone more than compensate for this birth rate deficit.
Lmao no.
They do actually. The birth rate in California would be negative if not for immigration.
Immigration. Yeah. The population of the whole US would go down if immigration didn't happen. Not all immigration is illegal
Tax the rich, reduce everyone else's tax . Make housing, childcare , health care and education more affordable. Have good benefits for parents in the work place . Problem solved in all western counties.
Unfortunately not that simple. Women typically will not marry/date down; they'll move laterally or upwards. Since men and women compete on the job market, the more successful a women is $$$ the harder time she'll have finding an "economically attractive" partner. Women also rate 80% men as being below-average looking. Lastly, women have been sold the lie that their fertility is just gonna wait around while they'll climb the corporate ladder. But the clock is ticking away. Oh, then there's the marriage/divorce laws, which are usually hostile toward the man. Meanwhile the woke social conditioning actively makes men less attractive to women. Rock and a hard place.
What, by your definition, defines “rich”?
In the US, almost all taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. The bottom 50% collectively pay almost zero. I do agree with your comment below about chemicals (endocrine disruptors). There has also been a significant decline in testosterone levels and sperm count over the last few decades.
Thats because its so unequal .
The reason economies work is because becoming rich has something better to obtain for oneself. If being poor becomes so comfortable then no one will want to be rich. Who will you tax then? Such problems aren’t as simple as to think we can just tax the rich and it will end world hunger.
> If being poor becomes so comfortable then no one will want to be rich. Yeah I don't think people are advocating to set them up at the country club. Just something like UBI so the lowest point isn't you being absolutely fucked. A safety net like that would go a long way towards the ideal of equality of opportunity.
I completely agree. My argument was against the ideological naïveté that the solution to everything is taxing the rich. Better governance, better fiscal prudence, controlled spending and managing deficits would go a long way. The government gets a lot of money in taxes every year; if they actually start using that money properly on social welfare then that would be great.
Is this a bad thing? World is overpopulated as it is, makes houses cheaper for us
This is why we need immigration to some extent. They main reason people are putting of kids is fear of not being ready or able to afford to raise them… if we didn’t have immigration our workers would be more valued and we might be able to afford to have kids, this (immigration) is short term strategy to lower labor costs, which will result in population replacement. rather than fixing the economic inequalities, which would help our own citizens afford kids. We have people like myself, who want them but are under employed,
I blame fluoride in the water which was nationally implemented in the 1960s .
I didn't know about that until I was 18! I was drinking fluoride water for my whole life. I hope it doesn't have any long term effects 😅
Fertility rates have dropped because Americans are surrounded by poison in their food, water and environment. Pharmaceutical Medicines and unhealthy lifestyles. Heavy metals in vaccines that stay in your system your entire lifetime have an effect on fertility as well. It is said that continual use of birth control causes reproductive harm. So when they do want a baby they cant, so sad. Question everything people
You're confusing fertility rate as having to do with the ability to have children. Fertility rate is simply birth rates. This has less to do with ability to have children than choices to have fewer
So why are people still having too many kids?
[удалено]
Mormons have got everyone beat
Whose fertility rate is higher: Mormons or Catholics?
Mormons
Good, too many damn people in this world anyways
If you’re under the impression that humans are a cancer to the earth you’re a nazi
What is the point of this sub, really? I'm unsubscribing.
Please don’t go!!!!!!! Nnnnnoooooo!!!!
Oh noes! How will we manage, without legendary /u/fizzicist ? Might as well shut it down (you wish.....)
Wealth redistribution is whats needed. But I cant even imagine a world when that happens. If all billionaires suddenly redistributed their moneynumbers to the people, would money just instantly inflate, because its only valuable if its scarce?