Comments on: Falling birthrates: the threat and the dilemma Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymous Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:36:56 +0000 Yes, leslie 12 and others

By: leslie20 Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:02:27 +0000 I think that the falling birthrate will prove to be beneficial both environmentally and economically, as it takes effect in more and more societies worldwide. If women can regulate their pregnancies to have fewer but healthier children, and preserve their own health to care for their children and families, surely that’s a good thing. It may be a rocky road in the short-to-mid term as our societies process the current bulge of aging people, but in the long run it will work out.

By: youniquelikeme Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:06:41 +0000 A predicament for those who want more consumers to fuel the economy, pay taxes, work… surely.. but not for families who think it is the best option given the circumstances.

It is poor economic times and the USA had a huge drought and devastating weather. It is a wise family that decides it isn’t a good time to have babies or to opt out.

For the lady who was showing the racial divide over who was opting to have children, it is nothing new… Also the Hispanic family culture shares wealth and support the family and the community. I am not Mexican but would have opted to have more children were I from such a supportive culture…

What a great discussion, other than the political one and the guy selling a book…

By: AvraamJDectis Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:57:03 +0000 .

There is an easy solution.

The problem has two facets.

First is the problem of a depressed economy preventing people from forming families. This is the fault of those running the economy because they have failed at their jobs. It is preventing people from forming families and is a grave imposition.

Second is the problem of a diminishing pool of taxpayers paying for a growing pool of retirees drawing social benefits. This leads to pressure to reduce benefits and generational friction.

The policy solution is a Socially Positive Stimulus ( SPS ). In this case, the SPS would mean that a small amount of money would be given to each person who bore a child. That small amount would gradually grow until a healthy birthrate presented itself.

The benefit would also increase if the person giving birth was married and stayed that way – to encourage healthy families.

This has three very positive effects. First, it is a very strong short term stimulus as the money entered the economy and was spent raising the child. Second it is a very strong long term stimulus as that tax payer generates economic activity for the next 60 years. Third it increases the taxpayer pool and thus funds benefits for the retired.

Those who say we already have too many people are wrong. The technology is coming that will allow us to handle many billions more. The pollution issues are also technological failings that can and will be fixed.

This is the answer and it can be rationalized by both parties. It supports families and is pro life so the Republicans should be happy with it. The Democrats want a stimulus and this is a great one.

The first party with the guts to propose it will receive a huge amount of credit.

Thank you.

Avraam J. Dectis

By: paintcan Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:46:00 +0000 On no mederate1234- those who reproduce, unless they are well cushioned with very large incomes, are now being seen as a threat to the methusalah set, as is always evident in the comments of one of those above.

The fecund are being seen as a perfect testing ground for new and improved weapons of not quite mass destruction. Mass destruction makes the job vanish too quickly. It is assumed the countries with a high birth rate will only make more.

This is not a world that believes in self sacrifice. Rather it believes others should make it and “we the better and more deserving” can watch and cluck over their limited means. And if the watchers are clever – they can sell the means to self immolation to the congested and under-developed while the economic cognoscenti can bet on the outcomes. How else can they produce their very precious, and very limited edition, bundles of joy?

Intelligence is the ability to obtain information and should not be confused with “smarts” or even cleverness. The intelligent can forget how dependent their brains are on their own better equipped environment and that is always very vulnerable and subject to decay and collapse.

By: triumph900 Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:23:12 +0000 People who work contribute to the money government depends on. So our governments work at cross-purposes when they promote birth control/abortion on demand and plan on greater numbers of people in the work force from which to derive taxes to fund their plans for the country. In this scenario, fewer people working produces less revenue requiring higher taxes on the balance of society. Eventually there will be nothing left for the workers remaining and people will demand government provide for them permanently. And that will be the end of America as we know it.

By: brotherkenny4 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:18:44 +0000 Yes, falling birth rates, but we still have population growth (the rate is positive, not negative). You see, rate is the number of births per hundred people, which is still higher than the number of deaths per hundred people. However, to make up for the failures of our leaders and business community, we need faster growth, which eventually will lead to the destruction of the planet. But we’ll have a big party for a while. Whoo Hoo, play some Jimmy Buffett. “Wastin’ away in Margaritaville, searchin’ for my lost shaker of salt, some people claim there’s a women to blame, But I know, it’s my own damn fault”. That goes out to all you drunken frat boys in charge of our economic system. Way to go dudes, you totally scored big screwing the little people. Paaarteeee!!!!!!!! Burp!

By: moderate1234 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:17:16 +0000 The future of humanity belongs to those that reproduce. Remember that.

By: M.C.McBride Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:54:54 +0000 “Before long, we will collectively begin to appreciate that the future of our societies, and indeed of humanity itself, depends on finding a better, collective solution to this predicament.”

I am just a lowly man. But, isn’t this a success and not a predicament? Wouldn’t actively interfering with this worldwide phenomena of lower birthrates actually undo historic progress of women’s rights?

By: paintcan Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:47:27 +0000 After a house with big mortgage – the next big road to indebtedness seems to be having children. And the biggest of the potential causes of massive debt is the college education. The very status conscious are even paying more for private forms of education before the college years. It’s becoming a “poodle eats dog” world, even in China, to a lesser extent.

The standard American home – the most marketable – was the three-bedroom house: one bedroom for the parents and one each for two children. And all the sitcoms in the 50’s and even the 60’s were two or three child families. There was a stint of big family sitcoms in the 70s and maybe the 80s? Although I don’t watch them much anymore, I think they have returned to small family or no children situations.

Many Americans were really consciously, or not no consciously, breeding themselves at replacement rates. The birth rate may be dropping – not so much to preserve a sense of fun – as to be able to afford to live at all in ways most have grown accustomed to. And we live much longer too and that has an effect on the need to have replacements. In many ways there is no real need to have children because society don’t know what to do with them. They have almost become a luxury good and status symbol.

Two wage earner families have made it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone but the exceptional or well fixed,(sometimes in the same sense we “fix” dogs and cats) to breed or even provide a roof over their heads. Real estate prices have been milked for all they are worth – including the idea that all maintenance costs, including real estate taxes, can somehow be recouped when the house is sold.

American society is going the way of European society with older ages for marriage and approval for the well fixed to have children while at the same time despising the low income or unmarried “welfare mom” if they have too many children. But the housing stock does not encourage cross-generational living. Americans also seem to have invented the fashion that, somehow, each generation must be educated to “correct” the defects of the previous generation. The desire to attain a better standard of living with each generation also translated into a desire for each generation to make the previous one obsolete.

We have, in a way, made marriage not at all desirable. Human beings aren’t really better than our simian roots, but they don’t marry at all.

BTW – the well fixed depend on the masses of not so well fixed too, or their enormous incomes will vanish like the high priced real estate, derivatives and stock values their fortunes may be built on. This is a consumer economy that depends on masses of consumers. If the products and services could shop for themselves – the economy would be happy.