US Low Birthrate like many other western nations

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: InTheLight

I definitely agree there are multiple variables that go into wanting children, but can you completely exclude selfishness? What is selfishness at its core? Could it be simply satisfying the desires of personal biology. Could it also be a mental construct? What if there is a constant message out there through media and advertising that coupling up and having children will bring happiness?

It just seems like in times where food and shelter were the biggest concerns, children brought security into the picture. The expense of having those children was almost nil compared with the burden today.

That doesn't event get into the different desires between a males and females biology.

If you inject the physical hormonal/chemical construct then it is natural biology (nature, natural). If you in inject the mental construct of ego, then of course selfishness cannot be excluded, nor can it being a natural desire be excluded either. We are what we are.

Having realistic expectations regarding what is involved in having and raising children to begin with usually brings about an expected and desired result, that being happiness, yes, at least in my life.

a reply to: toms54

Actually I havent even consider that. I read a source earlier about women not wanting kids due to it having an impact on their careers.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

“Workers” being the optimum word there. It looks like you agree with President Trump after all.
I mean, importing workers is kind of the whole point of legal immigration. Something the Trump administration has supported from day one.

As for ‘increasing unproductive loads on the economy’, yeah I wonder where we can get more of that from??

Also, except for the Native Americans, the American population is almost entirely immigrants

So wait. You're telling me the "Native" Americans were always here? From the beginning of time? Thats a new one to me.

I never said anything about the beginning of time. If you want to include the ridiculous, the planet is swinging through space and absolutely everyone is still 'migrating' right now. But, as far as the historical record goes, they were.

And since there is no credible sign that there were previous inhabitants, they were the original human inhabitants.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Cost of raising kids. It cost a lot of money to raise children these days. Unless you are the type to suck on the government teet, most people have smaller families due to the cost.

What does that say for the future gene pool?

Will the majority of people having kids be on social assistant?

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Edumakated

Cost of raising kids. It cost a lot of money to raise children these days. Unless you are the type to suck on the government teet, most people have smaller families due to the cost.

What does that say for the future gene pool?

Will the majority of people having kids be on social assistant?

The gulf between the intelligent and stupid is getting wider....

You basically get a smaller number of extremely smart people but unfortunately, a larger number of idiots being born. I think this was the premise of Idiocracy... LOL.

Although in some wealthy circles, having a lot of kids is a status symbol. The middle and upper classes are generally only having one or two kids nowadays.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: toysforadults

If a nation has a low birth rate and an aging population (who will retire and become an increasing unproductive load on the economy). I can think of no better way to support ongoing productivity than to import workers.

That’s the internal logic of the welfare state. Instead of slashing the needless bureaucracy, replace the people in order to keep it going.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: toysforadults

If a nation has a low birth rate and an aging population (who will retire and become an increasing unproductive load on the economy). I can think of no better way to support ongoing productivity than to import workers.

That’s the internal logic of the welfare state. Instead of slashing the needless bureaucracy, replace the people in order to keep it going.

With improved lifestyle information and medical advances, older people are now living longer, healthier lives and can be contributing members of society in more ways that one for much longer.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: toysforadults

If a nation has a low birth rate and an aging population (who will retire and become an increasing unproductive load on the economy). I can think of no better way to support ongoing productivity than to import workers.

That’s the internal logic of the welfare state. Instead of slashing the needless bureaucracy, replace the people in order to keep it going.

With improved lifestyle information and medical advances, older people are now living longer, healthier lives and can be contributing members of society in more ways that one for much longer.

You’re right. We’ll have to adapt when there are so many upside down family trees.

a reply to: Edumakated

Although in some wealthy circles, having a lot of kids is a status symbol.

I actually a know a family like this. Lucky for us they are actually good people.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: toysforadults

If a nation has a low birth rate and an aging population (who will retire and become an increasing unproductive load on the economy). I can think of no better way to support ongoing productivity than to import workers.

That’s the internal logic of the welfare state. Instead of slashing the needless bureaucracy, replace the people in order to keep it going.

Yes.

But even if you slash needless bureaucracy, will that put enough food, on enough plates? Will it house and clothe enough?

If you decide it is better to remove social and fiscal regulation and go hard captialist, we have seen from history that the rich get fabulously wealthy while the poor simply die of starvation, disease and lack of resource management.

A case in point is the Irish potato famine and early industrial revolution where the British Empire, at the height of its wealth and power, allowed vast populations to perish unnecessarily (and also spurred the creation of Marxist ideas).

With the potato famine, it was the establishment of assistance of welfare from the crown that stopped the deaths and turned the situation around, making the population of Ireland a viable source of wealth for Britain in later years (it is arguable that Britain would not have survived second world war austerity without the resources Ireland contributed).

The requirements for human life are fairly absolute, averaged over time and population. It is in the interest of a capitalist nation to invest in population as a hedge against changing times - that investment is welfare.

A welfare state can also be a capitalist state.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: chr0naut

We don't need to import workers. The only reason to do that is if you want a large group of low wage brown skinned servants to push around.

Our problems will be solved with automation. Of course we should still strive to attract foreign talent but not large groups of poorly educated migrants. Look to Japan for a direction. Soon we will have self driving trucks and cars. How many workers will that free up? The only job openings for these migrants will be drug dealing positions in an ever expanding criminal class.

We have had mechanization since the Industrial Revolution and computerization for decades. Although AI is a relatively new twist, I can't foresee great improvements in productivity or sales for most businesses.

While it is true that in many industries AI is disruptive it doesn't universally affect every industry or service.

Automation concentrates wealth into the hands of the machinery owners. This has the effect of suppressing the purchase of goods and services because it displaces people from the workforce and the overall economy suffers as fewer can afford to pay.

The fact that today we still cannot tax productivity in automated industry properly (machines pay no income tax) means that the public purse also reduces drastically.

In Japan, they have a consistently lower unemployment rate than the US, despite automation. I'm not sure what you imagine the Japanese model is.

Immigrants compete for exactly the same variety of jobs that everyone else does and have a broad skill sets like everyone else. You are suggesting that the only option for anyone in the future is crime, which is nonsense. That you envision immigrants as preferentially being criminal indicates an unfounded prejudice.

If your government dealt with drug issues properly (as medical issues, not criminal) and destroyed the profitability of the illegal drug business (through legal prescription of drugs, medically controlled distribution and reasonable pricing) then the illegal drug economy would collapse.

I don't know if you just want to debate or if you really believe all that. You seem to be reaching conclusions that are the exact opposite of what I think.

I agree with everything you say about automation until the point where you claim we are unable to tax it (machines pay no income tax). If we are to measure productivity in dollars, then we certainly do tax the businesses that own those machines. Or at least we can if we want to. Whether that happens is a question for the politicians. Also, when you question the impact of AI on business we must see it, for the purpose of this discussion, in terms of whether the extra labor freed up by automation is better or worse than the extra labor generated by importing a large horde of fifth grade educated, non English speaking immigrants. Bear in mind that the people freed up by automation are still going to be there so you are multiplying the unemployment factor.

As for Japan, what I see happening there is an ageing workforce combined with low birth rate. Are they importing millions from the third world to work in their industries? No. They are building robots and using automation to solve their problems.

As for, "Immigrants compete for exactly the same variety of jobs that everyone else does and have a broad skill sets like everyone else.", this is not entirely true. Some of them might but many encounter a language barrier, have less education, etc. Many are old or young, child bearing women that can't work. Now the people already here are too but they are already here. We are on the edge of having millions of high school educated truck drivers, uber drivers, delivery drivers thrown out of work because we are on the cusp of automated vehicles. Driving is a major source of employment for the HS Diploma class. Why not reemploy them? Importing immigrants compounds the situation.

Large groups of unemployed have always formed inner city neighborhoods that largely turn to crime especially when they don't speak English. This isn't prejudice, it's just a fact. Maybe it's different where you live. You can't just blame it on the drug laws.

I know what will resolve this issue, a reversal of roles between the sexes.

It is time:

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

“Workers” being the optimum word there. It looks like you agree with President Trump after all.
I mean, importing workers is kind of the whole point of legal immigration. Something the Trump administration has supported from day one.

As for ‘increasing unproductive loads on the economy’, yeah I wonder where we can get more of that from??

Also, except for the Native Americans, the American population is almost entirely immigrants

So wait. You're telling me the "Native" Americans were always here? From the beginning of time? Thats a new one to me.

If you want to include the ridiculous

You mean like this little doozy?

And since there is no credible sign that there were previous inhabitants, they were the original human inhabitants.

originally posted by: ClovenSky

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes. You're correct. Really, I don't know what came over me.

And that is why no one is ready to shine light into the heart of the subject, because you will be scorned from the ones that WANT to remain ignorant for daring to seek the truth.

They want statistics and easily accessible peer reviewed articles that have authors or organization they support.

It is interesting what our true motives were in the past for bringing children into the world. Was it for love or survival? Were children a net positive with a low price tag simply due to the lifestyle. They produced labor and end of life security. But in today's world, not so much. If anything they are becoming a liability, especially with the state involved.

What I don't understand is why a low birth rate is bad? The only situation where that would be bad is if the human race were so few in numbers, we are facing extinction. Or if our economy is a pyramid scam and if new workers are not introduced into the system, it will eventually collapse.

So you agree with his supposition that woman are only factor in lower birthrates ?

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't know if you just want to debate or if you really believe all that.

Both, actually.

You seem to be reaching conclusions that are the exact opposite of what I think.

I agree with everything you say about automation until the point where you claim we are unable to tax it (machines pay no income tax). If we are to measure productivity in dollars, then we certainly do tax the businesses that own those machines.

No, we don't tax them like we tax workers with income. If workers earn income, then it gets taxed. There's no 'wiggle room'. But large corporations who make capital gains from mechanized production can offset those capital gains by losses. Consider this: Profitable Companies, No Taxes: Here’s How They Did It - New York Times

Or at least we can if we want to.

And there's the rub!

Whether that happens is a question for the politicians. Also, when you question the impact of AI on business we must see it, for the purpose of this discussion, in terms of whether the extra labor freed up by automation is better or worse than the extra labor generated by importing a large horde of fifth grade educated, non English speaking immigrants. Bear in mind that the people freed up by automation are still going to be there so you are multiplying the unemployment factor.

Despite being anti-intuative, the majority of places where technology and automation has actually replaced workers has been in the higher educated roles.

Consider this scenario, a large chemical production company once had many scientists and engineers monitoring and controlling processes. Yet modern technology integrates monitoring and control into a single operations panel, which can be controlled by a single engineer, or even be self regulating.

Engineers and scientists are expensive to the company so the company saves more by reducing engineers and scientists, than it does by reducing process workers.

The jobs of the person who mops the floor or drives the forklift are far more assured and safer than the highly educated roles. Highly technological automated systems do not need to be run by technologists - that is the point of automation.

This is reflected in what we see now in industry and there is no reason to think that the situation will change.

As for Japan, what I see happening there is an ageing workforce combined with low birth rate. Are they importing millions from the third world to work in their industries? No. They are building robots and using automation to solve their problems.

Then I'll leave this here: As Its Population Ages, Japan Quietly Turns to Immigration - MPI

As for, "Immigrants compete for exactly the same variety of jobs that everyone else does and have a broad skill sets like everyone else.", this is not entirely true. Some of them might but many encounter a language barrier, have less education, etc. Many are old or young, child bearing women that can't work. Now the people already here are too but they are already here. We are on the edge of having millions of high school educated truck drivers, uber drivers, delivery drivers thrown out of work because we are on the cusp of automated vehicles. Driving is a major source of employment for the HS Diploma class. Why not reemploy them?

What you say is true.

However, only a percentage of driving jobs will disappear because not all driving jobs can be replaced by strong AI (mining and logging vehicles, forklifts, cranes and excavation are all unsuited to driver-less operation) Importing immigrants compounds the situation.

Yet 100% of current drivers will retire from the workforce (or leave for other reason). So some jobs will remain, but none of the current workers will. The jobs will have to go to new workers for the businesses to remain viable.

Large groups of unemployed have always formed inner city neighborhoods that largely turn to crime especially when they don't speak English. This isn't prejudice, it's just a fact. Maybe it's different where you live. You can't just blame it on the drug laws.

The speaking of the English language, or not, is unlikely to be a factor in turning to crime. There are entire countries that speak no English. So I think that factor can be considered debunked and ignored.

Considering nationality in relation to crime, probably the best general indicator of level of crime within a society would be the incarceration rate (a solid countable figure with no ambiguity): List of countries by incarceration rate From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The figures indicate that the US is the most criminal nation in the world (if the figure does not indicate the degree of criminality in the US, then it is the grossest abuser of human rights).

It most definitely appears different where I, and the rest of the world, live.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

that would be ridiculous, I am not a woman and I am consciously choosing not to have kids for financial reasons. the burden is immense

a reply to: chr0naut

The speaking of the English language, or not, is unlikely to be a factor in turning to crime.

this actually wrong. if you don't speak English, read write in english while in an english speaking, reading, writing country that will severely limit your economic opportunities which will then potentially force you to seek other forms of income

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

“Workers” being the optimum word there. It looks like you agree with President Trump after all.
I mean, importing workers is kind of the whole point of legal immigration. Something the Trump administration has supported from day one.

As for ‘increasing unproductive loads on the economy’, yeah I wonder where we can get more of that from??

Also, except for the Native Americans, the American population is almost entirely immigrants

So wait. You're telling me the "Native" Americans were always here? From the beginning of time? Thats a new one to me.

If you want to include the ridiculous

You mean like this little doozy?

And since there is no credible sign that there were previous inhabitants, they were the original human inhabitants.

Doozy?

BBC - Earth - The first people who populated the Americas.

a reply to: toysforadults

Of course that's why I was surprised when the member I replied to agreed with Tom's quite unrealistic stance.

a reply to: chr0naut

as if you have facts from a long past where there are no documents, please provide the documents or beedit