Still does that balance out? Isn''t it, like in 100 thousands per kid
Advertisement
by Internationalist Bastard » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:44 pm
by Kowani » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:04 pm
by DACOROMANIA » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:23 pm
by Yusseria » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:31 pm
You are, of course, making the assumption that these kids will not contribute anything to society as they become older. That's flawed on many levels.
It's not flawed when you consider that half of those kids won't contribute anything to society and it takes almost 35 years for the other half to make net contributions back. And don't sit there and tell me raising kids and doing housework is contributing to society because it's the easiest job that can be done.
How is mass immigration any different?
Ah, whataboutism.Again, how is mass immigration any different? I'm literally just repeating what you've said back to you. You're incapable of realizing how hypocritical you are. You lack self-awareness.
More whataboutism.
How so? Because it makes you look bad?
It's a non-argument. Actually demonstrate what positive impacts this will have and how it is different to immigrants sponging off the system.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:32 pm
Novus America wrote:And betting the entire existence of our society on your claim?
With zero back up plan if you are wrong?
Hell no.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:41 pm
Yusseria wrote:It's far more justifiable if you're actually a citizen, yes.
I'd rather having that over poorer, already-adult immigrants never making those contributions back.
Also, raising kids is easy? You serious?
It's not whataboutism. It's you being a hypocrite.
Learn how debate works.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm
by Novus America » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:59 pm
Costa Fierro wrote:Novus America wrote:And betting the entire existence of our society on your claim?
With zero back up plan if you are wrong?
Hell no.
Considering we're betting the future of society on raising kids that cost resources we simply don't have because the future might result in a smaller tax pool? That's incredibly short sighted.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:40 pm
Novus America wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:
Considering we're betting the future of society on raising kids that cost resources we simply don't have because the future might result in a smaller tax pool? That's incredibly short sighted.
The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.
Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.
by Darussalam » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:09 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.
I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.
by Byzconia » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:35 pm
Darussalam wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.
I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.
No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".
This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.
by Kowani » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:39 pm
Costa Fierro wrote:Novus America wrote:
The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.
Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.
We don't have the resources. Currently we're using 125% of the Earth's capacity. Adding more people is not a good idea.
by Dumb Ideologies » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:30 pm
Darussalam wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.
I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.
No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".
This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:45 pm
Byzconia wrote:So, eugenics, basically?
by Costa Fierro » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:51 pm
Kowani wrote:You forget/underestimate the power of technology to reduce the amount of resources used.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:That aside, the idea of continuing to discourage the domestic working-class from having children while paying the middle class to have them is fairly incoherent as a "natalist" policy because you're trying to financially incentivise only those who already have enough money to have more children than they're currently having but have chosen not to.
by Darussalam » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:54 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Darussalam wrote:No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".
This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.
Weirdly specific and small-scale diversion, but I don't have a Roma-specific policy because in the country I live in they've largely been supplanted by the Irish travellers. I would support pro-integration polices to try to make all wandering groups part of mainstream society and an end to giving them liberties to stretch and outright break the law that they currently enjoy under pro-multicultural and pro-diversity policy.
That aside, the idea of continuing to discourage the domestic working-class from having children while paying the middle class to have them is fairly incoherent as a "natalist" policy because you're trying to financially incentivise only those who already have enough money to have more children than they're currently having but have chosen not to. If the working-class majority have fewer children and the middle class minority have marginally more (which is all that could realistically be achieved), the birthrate goes down and you'll eventually require large-scale immigration.
My point is that there's no "Goldilocks Zone" where you can balance these contradictory impulses, the numbers don't add up. It's fantasy politics.
by Byzconia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:13 am
by Tasuirin » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:24 am
by Darussalam » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:25 am
Byzconia wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:
No, eugenics would be actually sterilizing people of a certain race or ethnicity. This is social engineering.
That's not what the word "eugenics" means. This wouldn't really qualify as "social engineering" either--that usually refers to attempts to forcibly mold all of society in a specific way (see: New Soviet man for an example). They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but the way you're using them is inaccurate.
5. [the 5th aim] Persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through: (I) It must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as a fact. (2) It must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. (3) It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. We are ignorant of the ultimate destinies of humanity, but feel perfectly sure that it is as noble a work to raise its level, in the sense already explained, as it would be disgraceful to abase it. I see no impossibility in eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind, but its details must first be worked out sedulously in the study. Overzeal leading to hasty action would do harm, by holding out expectations of a near golden age, which will certainly be falsified and cause the science to be discredited. The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. Then let its principles work into the heart of the nation, which will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly foresee.
by The Huskar Social Union » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:03 am
Saiwania wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:So what exactly is the point of having children if their well being and welfare is not secured?
In my mind, it is akin to a natural resource to be farmed or micromanaged as appropriate. It is the future human capital of the state, which should aspire to: one people, one nation, one leader.
by Novus America » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:00 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Novus America wrote:
The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.
Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.
We don't have the resources. Currently we're using 125% of the Earth's capacity. Adding more people is not a good idea.
by Costa Fierro » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:24 am
Novus America wrote:Besides underpopulation, not over population is the threat the West is phasing.
Besides these policies still will not bring our birth rates above replacement, simply slow the rate of decline a little.
by Novus America » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:30 am
Costa Fierro wrote:Novus America wrote:Besides underpopulation, not over population is the threat the West is phasing.
A population reduction would be beneficial for a multitude of reasons.Besides these policies still will not bring our birth rates above replacement, simply slow the rate of decline a little.
The problem is that these policies take years for any effects to be felt, and those effects will be minimal. Meanwhile all these credits and loans have to be financed.
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:52 am
by Novus America » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:03 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:I suspect that this is something cooked up by someone or someone’s in the Hungarian government who are deathly afraid of a potential demographic change.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ashotu Kun, Google [Bot], Infected Mushroom, Inner Albania, Port Carverton, The Southern Dependencies, Unogonduria
Advertisement