Responsible people don’t procreate when they can’t afford children. Incentivizing such people to procreate is how you propagate quality citizens. This is probably the only way to counteract cratering birth rates without resorting to mass immigration, which doesn’t save the nation so much as replace it.
Again, your inability to grasp these simple concepts is a big part of the reason why people are so eager to have you as an opponent. It’s like beating up a small retarded child, except everyone understands why you’re doing it.
Except data shows the opposite of that. The number of children people have is inversely proportional to their wealth. I'm sure there's some people who would like to have an additional kid but are in financial straits, but most people either don't want to have kids regardless or are going to have kids regardless.
The problem is cultural, not financial. And giving more government money to women to have kids just increases their dependence on government.
That's true as a refutation of the post you're replying to. But people who understand their finances well enough to build up capital understand it well enough to know that children are a loss of discretionary and luxury spending power. I'm sure some of them that are on the fence on the pros and cons will be convinced if that loss of living standards con is mitigated.
You are right but I doubt this will incentivize the 'right' people - and besides that, having gone nearly 200 years without darwinian selection there's a much deeper sickness in the state of our populations. Policies like this are a bandaid on a gaping IED wound and at best only marginally slow down the decline when the only thing that can rectify us is a total collapse of civilization and the darwinian conditions that follow.
I don't think it's as much not being able to afford it, but a child being a burden rather than an asset. There is a reason peasants have a lot of children, while urban folks have far fewer - to the point that even in the middle ages, cities did not reproduce themselves (though this was also due to the unhealthy environment).
Because only one of those groups contributes to civilization in a meaningful way. Make line go up, ala obsession with GDP, is not a viable long term strategy, let alone a civilizational imperative.
That's a whole different problem and a very different demographic. Short term time preferences are the root problem in both cases. In one case only caring about affordability instead of biological viability, and in the other case they're barely more than animals who can't think an hour into the future.
Ban the pill and almost every elective abortion, and marriage and baby numbers will go up. Decadence without responsibility is the destruction of society. A population collapse is inevitable, and those who reproduce are the future. There is a reason liberal women love shit like The Handmaid's Tale. They want to feel useful without having to do anything, and this only happens after a extreme loss of life.
Nations who don't ensure sufficient childbirth for at least replacement level if not some small growth, will have huge problems in the future.
The government should engage in full on eugenics and incentivize couples who are statistically likely to have highly productive children to have as many children as possible.
Responsible people don’t procreate when they can’t afford children. Incentivizing such people to procreate is how you propagate quality citizens. This is probably the only way to counteract cratering birth rates without resorting to mass immigration, which doesn’t save the nation so much as replace it.
Again, your inability to grasp these simple concepts is a big part of the reason why people are so eager to have you as an opponent. It’s like beating up a small retarded child, except everyone understands why you’re doing it.
Except data shows the opposite of that. The number of children people have is inversely proportional to their wealth. I'm sure there's some people who would like to have an additional kid but are in financial straits, but most people either don't want to have kids regardless or are going to have kids regardless.
The problem is cultural, not financial. And giving more government money to women to have kids just increases their dependence on government.
That's true as a refutation of the post you're replying to. But people who understand their finances well enough to build up capital understand it well enough to know that children are a loss of discretionary and luxury spending power. I'm sure some of them that are on the fence on the pros and cons will be convinced if that loss of living standards con is mitigated.
You are right but I doubt this will incentivize the 'right' people - and besides that, having gone nearly 200 years without darwinian selection there's a much deeper sickness in the state of our populations. Policies like this are a bandaid on a gaping IED wound and at best only marginally slow down the decline when the only thing that can rectify us is a total collapse of civilization and the darwinian conditions that follow.
I don't think it's as much not being able to afford it, but a child being a burden rather than an asset. There is a reason peasants have a lot of children, while urban folks have far fewer - to the point that even in the middle ages, cities did not reproduce themselves (though this was also due to the unhealthy environment).
If you want patriarchal values to return, you should want women to have a lot of children.
We absolutely can go back. Females do not and will never have a monopoly of violence, it's just a matter of when the last straw hits.
More women worked in the 20s than in the 50s. Any idea why?
I swear to God, you would be the most popular stand-up comedian.
No, the reason is the baby boom.
Because only one of those groups contributes to civilization in a meaningful way. Make line go up, ala obsession with GDP, is not a viable long term strategy, let alone a civilizational imperative.
That's a whole different problem and a very different demographic. Short term time preferences are the root problem in both cases. In one case only caring about affordability instead of biological viability, and in the other case they're barely more than animals who can't think an hour into the future.
Make line go up only ever leads to mass immigration and demographic replacement by barbarians.
Degeneracy is not a viable path.
If you actually think that, go ahead and sign on with the left already, they're the depopulationists.
And besides, I'm not arguing for women to have a choice in the matter.
Ban the pill and almost every elective abortion, and marriage and baby numbers will go up. Decadence without responsibility is the destruction of society. A population collapse is inevitable, and those who reproduce are the future. There is a reason liberal women love shit like The Handmaid's Tale. They want to feel useful without having to do anything, and this only happens after a extreme loss of life.
Nations who don't ensure sufficient childbirth for at least replacement level if not some small growth, will have huge problems in the future.
The government should engage in full on eugenics and incentivize couples who are statistically likely to have highly productive children to have as many children as possible.
Holy shit, some common sense???