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).
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?