NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 5:42 pm**

Kedri wrote:
Indiana Controlled Florida wrote:Biden sucks. Who agrees?

I can't remember the last time we've had a president that didn't suck.

It's a sucky job, tbf.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 5:42 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.

The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 5:44 pm**

North Washington Republic wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:There's a difference between debating the ethics of being childless and debating societal/economic/political problems which negatively influence the ease of having children.

Yeah, I’m not going to justify being childless, it goes double for childless people telling me that I should have children.

And that’s all I’m going to say about my personal life regarding my choice not have children.

No one asked, dude. You brought it up and are now trying to shift the goalposts to it for some reason while simultaneously acting like you don't want to talk about it. Be consistent. No one gives a shit about you being childless or why. Literally no one asked.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 5:45 pm**

Lady Victory wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.

The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.

Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 5:55 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.

Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.

Took the words right out of my mouth, thank you. Lower birth rates in the United States will lead to things such as a reduction of child poverty(obviously), and getting our benefit system under control and more stable. I think the very root of the concern that people are having about lower birthrates is because they see and feel a dismantling of the nuclear family and poorer(non-white, non-Christians) people outnumbering white Christians.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 6:20 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.

Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.

We also need to figure out how to balance the growth of automation with all of these issues.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 6:22 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.

Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.

Inverted population pyramids are associated with some not great stuff (it’s just hard to pay off debt, have economic growth, find workers for stuff, etc.), but it’s not the end of the world, the Japanese manage fine and they have it much much worse than we do (and anyways, since the planet has had just about as much American economic growth as it can be reasonably expected to take, anything that slows that down should probably be welcomed tbh)— it may end up being sort of a problem for Social Security though

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 7:04 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
Lady Victory wrote:
The issue being that lower population growth is a direct result of those (and other) problems in the first place. Cause, meet effect.

Sure, but paradoxically, historically higher population growth helped (but certainly did not fully contribute) to a lot of those issues we're seeing today, especially on the environmental side of things. It's a weird game of cause and effect continually swapping places.

Where we're at now is sustainable growth-wise, our Medicare/Medicaid is in dire financial straits, social security is a ticking time bomb, the real estate market is inaccessible because there aren't enough homes to sell to people, etc etc. We can more easily slow the tide on these things with a lower level of population growth.

The reason low population growth is a problem is that Social Security, among other things, is actually the other way around. You don't get out of Social Security what you put into it. You get out of Social Security what the workforce at the time you retire and start receiving Social Security benefits are putting into it. If the workforce is shrinking because of birthrates below replacement, voodoo economic policies, and anti-immigration policies, but the group receiving Social Security benefits is growing because of the glut of Boomers aging out of the workforce into the recipient pool and longer post-retirement lifespans due to improved late-life medical care, there is A Problem.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 7:41 pm**

NCAA president Mark Emmert says athletes should be able to get paid starting in 2021

NCAA president Mark Emmert told the New York Times this week that he would recommend that the college sports' governing body approve new rules that would allow student athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses "before, or as close to July 1."

Driving the news: New laws that let student athletes in some way profit off their names, images or likenesses are set to take effect in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and New Mexico on July 1. Other states have passed similar laws that are scheduled to take effect next year.

The NCAA is considering a proposal that would allow student athletes to earn money for social media endorsements and to get paid by many private companies who use their names, images and likenesses, per the Times. Some restrictions would apply.

The NCAA postponed a vote on the proposal in January after the Trump administration raised antitrust concerns, the Times reported.
Emmert told the Times that NCAA officials have been in touch with the Justice Department about the concerns. “We need to get a vote on these rules that are in front of the members now,” Emmert said. If approved, the new rules could take effect Aug. 1.

But, but, but: Even if the NCAA approves the new rules, the NIL debate is expected to rage on since the proposed guidelines "differ in some respects from the new state laws, which themselves are far from uniform," the Times noted.

Some NCAA officials "have urged Congress to set a coast-to-coast standard to override a blur of state laws," the Times added.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm**

https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-cuo ... 1620475201

Andrew Cuomo Investigation Expands as State Attorney General Looks at Aide’s Calls
Inquiry into sexual-harassment allegations looks at whether a top adviser linked access to Covid-19 vaccines to support for the governor

Can he just resign already?

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 9:06 pm**

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-c ... 44187.html

Biden reverses last-minute Trump effort to loosen Arctic drilling restrictions

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 11:49 pm**

North Washington Republic wrote:The world is overpopulated and less people having kids is a good thing for the planet’s survival.

That I disagree with. The problem of the world isn't overpopulation, but broken economics and geopolitics. With current technology level we could grant decent living conditions to 12-15 billions humans with no undue strain on the planet. The problem is capitalism, not overpopulation.

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:I don't understand why people are frustrated about a low birth rate in general. I was under the impression that slower growth rates in a country plagued by skyrocketing home prices, overcrowded cities, and an overburdened social security system was a good thing? Kinda helps a lot of our problems to keep our numbers down, so to speak.

Low birth rates create lots of problems on the long term, especially an increasingly high number of elderly to be taken care of by increasingly low number of working age population. But also a global stagnation of society, that becomes past-oriented instead of future-oriented, a lack of creativity and innovation.

A sane society should have a fertility rate somewhere slightly above 2.

But I'm not saying we must use coercive means to achieve that, more fix deeper problems such as job insecurity or too long working hours, insufficient childcare facilities, more sharing of the financial burden of childcare, ...

Posted: **Sat May 08, 2021 11:59 pm**

North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.

I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 12:03 am**

Kilobugya wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.

I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.

That would be nice. It’s tiring to listen to how life would be better if the woman was at home with the kids. Ok. Create an environment where women have the option to choose. Many will want a career and there will be many who wouldn’t mind being at home. The problem? Single incomes and children don’t work for most people.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 12:16 am**

Stellar Colonies wrote:Twitter seems to be freaking out over this:

US birth rate falls 4% to its lowest point ever (BBC)

U.S. birthrate falls to its lowest level in decades in wake of pandemic (Washington Post)

U.S. Birthrate Fell By 4% In 2020, Hitting Another Record Low (NPR)

After trying to throw Lindsay Ellis under the bus Twitter can fuck off.

Oh yeah. Global pandemic? Nazis and racists everywhere? Fascism on the rise everywhere in the world? GREAT TIME TO HAVE CHILDREN! GREAT STRESS REDUCER.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 12:27 am**

Kilobugya wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.

I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.

Would probably also vastly reduce the number of abortions.
Funny how so many of those "pro-life" people are against such measures.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 1:11 am**

Kilobugya wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:Because childless incels like be edgy and tell other people to have children.

I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.

I'm for unconditional guarantee of everyone's survival needs, but some people will still choose to not procreate. If I was offered a million dollars I still wouldn't do it. And I have various reasons for that from my genetics being full of cancer and addiction, to me not liking the direction the world is going and not wanting to bring a kid into it, but most of all for me it's just that the responsibility would break me and it would ruin my life and my kid's life, I have anxiety, depression, and very low stress tolerance.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 1:19 am**

Page wrote:
Kilobugya wrote:
I'm arguing that we should have policies to encourage people having children, especially by removing blockers such as job instability, too high working hours or too expensive childcare, but I'll never tell to one individual person or couple what they should do.

I'm for unconditional guarantee of everyone's survival needs, but some people will still choose to not procreate. If I was offered a million dollars I still wouldn't do it. And I have various reasons for that from my genetics being full of cancer and addiction, to me not liking the direction the world is going and not wanting to bring a kid into it, but most of all for me it's just that the responsibility would break me and it would ruin my life and my kid's life, I have anxiety, depression, and very low stress tolerance.

I think the point is more making having kids a want / don't want rather than a can / can't proposition.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 4:57 am**

North Washington Republic wrote:
Lady Victory wrote:
The U.S. isn't overpopulated, nor does it contribute to overpopulation.

The world is overpopulated and less people having kids is a good thing for the planet’s survival.

The world is not remotely overpopulated, we already grow enough food for twice the population we have now.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 5:02 am**

Ifreann wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:
The world is overpopulated and less people having kids is a good thing for the planet’s survival.

The world is not remotely overpopulated, we already grow enough food for twice the population we have now.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.

It’s good to be pessimistic

.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 5:41 am**

Ifreann wrote:The world is not remotely overpopulated, we already grow enough food for twice the population we have now.

Ahhhh Malthus, still getting his arguments dunked on nearly 200 years after his death.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 5:42 am**

Ifreann wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:
The world is overpopulated and less people having kids is a good thing for the planet’s survival.

The world is not remotely overpopulated, we already grow enough food for twice the population we have now.

Yeah but you gotta get the food to people and we don't seem to be good at doing that.

Also people require other things besides food.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 5:55 am**

San Lumen wrote:https://apnews.com/article/bo-dog-dies-barack-obama-michelle-sasha-malia-ba1efd4aab088e01f448252c1da394e4

Former President Barack Obama’s dog Bo died Saturday after a battle with cancer.

Oh no! Dogs should not get cancer. Poor good boi.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2021 6:03 am**

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
San Lumen wrote:https://apnews.com/article/bo-dog-dies-barack-obama-michelle-sasha-malia-ba1efd4aab088e01f448252c1da394e4

Former President Barack Obama’s dog Bo died Saturday after a battle with cancer.

Oh no! Dogs should not get cancer. Poor good boi.

He was such a beautiful dog.

NationStates

American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...