He's always been pro-extinction by making it near impossible for children to exist. After all, any single benefit women get, and also marriage, are just tradcuck traps to his worldview.
I don’t know much about Hungary. Do they get money regardless of whether or not they are married? Incentivizing single motherhood seems like a pretty bad idea.
Yes, an expense for the person who wants one, not for everyone else. A Ferrari would make me happy, but I don't ask the government to buy me one. Or for a less mocking example, a Roomba would make my life easier, but the state won't buy one for me.
I disagree. Those with families are more likely to have to take time off to deal with their issues.
If your population doesn't have a fertility rate of 2.1, you end up with the economic dead weight of more retirees than workers.
Any person without two children is a future economic burden that will necessitate the import of foreigners to take care of them. A low fertility rate is the death knell of civilization.
We need a minimum 90% reduction in population, then births at a sustainable level from then on. The growth-at-every-cost cancer model is getting expensive, and the collapse will be more spectacular the longer it takes.
You'd prefer they not have kids?
Yes. He would.
I'd prefer if they didn't steal money from the productive to give to the reproductive.
I'm kind of proud of that line.
Newsflash 1: Child-bearing women who maintain the home are an economic expense and always will be.
Newsflash 2: A productive man without a family is not as productive as a productive man with a family.
You are proud of blindness.
He's always been pro-extinction by making it near impossible for children to exist. After all, any single benefit women get, and also marriage, are just tradcuck traps to his worldview.
I don’t know much about Hungary. Do they get money regardless of whether or not they are married? Incentivizing single motherhood seems like a pretty bad idea.
It's certainly not great, but it's not as bad when the children aren't black.
Yes, an expense for the person who wants one, not for everyone else. A Ferrari would make me happy, but I don't ask the government to buy me one. Or for a less mocking example, a Roomba would make my life easier, but the state won't buy one for me.
I disagree. Those with families are more likely to have to take time off to deal with their issues.
God, you're a fool.
If your population doesn't have a fertility rate of 2.1, you end up with the economic dead weight of more retirees than workers.
Any person without two children is a future economic burden that will necessitate the import of foreigners to take care of them. A low fertility rate is the death knell of civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse#Demographic_dynamics
Read it and weep.
We need a minimum 90% reduction in population, then births at a sustainable level from then on. The growth-at-every-cost cancer model is getting expensive, and the collapse will be more spectacular the longer it takes.
Fuck off, murderous swine. If you want to see the population decline START WITH YOURSELF. Keep my kids out of this, asshole.
Did you make room for them, or are you just adding to the problem?
I see what you did there.