Why Abortion may have destroyed the US Economy

[Roski]

We all know the story. We killed Hitler, then everyone went home and had (lots of) babies.

The Baby Boomer Period, or, to better explain
The term "baby boom" most often refers to the post–World War II baby boom (1946–1964) when the number of annual births exceeded 2 per 100 women (or approximately 2% of the total population size). There are an estimated 78.3 million Americans who were born during this demographic boom in births.

So what does that have to do with the economy?

Well, we all believe that the President rules the economy with an iron fist. I have seen many people think that on the forums. That, is horseshit.

Those 78.3 million Americans are now retiring (or dead already, but they really don't effect the economy anymore), and no longer in the workforce. For better or for worse, Social Security now pays them. So why does that matter?

Well, 78.3 million workers is a lot, almost the entire population of Germany. But still, abortion doesn't seem to play in.

Well, the Abortion movement started in 1973 (Hey Roski, stfu, you don't know what you are talking about, some random ass movement nine years after your damn point), meaning that instead of making babies, they were terminating pregnancies more.
This also means that there would be no baby boom after Vietnam as well. So now, you don't have enough people to replace the workforce of 78 MILLION people. That is why the economy is collapsing.

Or not. I don't know. It might be fucking aliens. What do you guys think?
Am I right?
Or not?

[Shilya]

I don't see abortions causing this.

If you want an explanation, look at birth control instead. Around that time, the pill as reliable birth control for women was introduced.

[Lalaki]

No. For one (minor point), the US (or any other allied power) did not have to do with Hitler's death. Pushing that aside, the US is still above replacement rate. There will be plenty of workers to maintain the economy. A worrying case would be Japan, and we are not even close to that level of low fertility yet.

[Roski]

I don't see abortions causing this.

If you want an explanation, look at birth control instead. Around that time, the pill as reliable birth control for women was introduced.

Still reasonably the same thing.

[Shilya]

I don't see abortions causing this.

If you want an explanation, look at birth control instead. Around that time, the pill as reliable birth control for women was introduced.

Still reasonably the same thing.

You should know how much of a red flag abortion is for some. Don't bring it up as the cause for something bad happening without good reason.

That said, you propose that we lack their workforce. That means, you think we don't have enough people to do the work people are willing to pay for.

My counterpoint is unemployment.

[Lalaki]

Still reasonably the same thing.

You should know how much of a red flag abortion is for some. Don't bring it up as the cause for something bad happening without good reason.

That said, you propose that we lack their workforce. That means, you think we don't have enough people to do the work people are willing to pay for.

My counterpoint is unemployment.

This is beside the point, but there are many jobs open in the US. We just have lack of training.

Obviously that doesn't count 100 percent for our unemployment rate, but it is one thing.

[Roski]

No. For one (minor point), the US (or any other allied power) did not have to do with Hitler's death. Pushing that aside, the US is still above replacement rate. There will be plenty of workers to maintain the economy. A worrying case would be Japan, and we are not even close to that level of low fertility yet.

No, I disagree, because for the next 18 year period (1965-1983) the amount of births was 65,869,007; which is a few million less.

[The Black Forrest]

So the desire for less children is due to abortion?

You are stretching things a bit. Birth rates tend to be cyclical and guided by external forces.

Less children is not due to abortion. Well; a minute piece maybe......

[Roski]

Still reasonably the same thing.

You should know how much of a red flag abortion is for some. Don't bring it up as the cause for something bad happening without good reason.

That said, you propose that we lack their workforce. That means, you think we don't have enough people to do the work people are willing to pay for.

My counterpoint is unemployment.

I'm sorry, but its a reasonable discussion. If you did not like the idea, why'd you click on the damn link.

And those two mean the same thing.

[Lalaki]

No. For one (minor point), the US (or any other allied power) did not have to do with Hitler's death. Pushing that aside, the US is still above replacement rate. There will be plenty of workers to maintain the economy. A worrying case would be Japan, and we are not even close to that level of low fertility yet.

No, I disagree, because for the next 18 year period (1965-1983) the amount of births was 65,869,007; which is a few million less.

The point is, our population is growing and above replacement rate. Your points would only be valid if we were below replacement rate and our population declining.

[Arkiasis]

The baby boomers are barely noticeable.

[Shilya]

You should know how much of a red flag abortion is for some. Don't bring it up as the cause for something bad happening without good reason.

That said, you propose that we lack their workforce. That means, you think we don't have enough people to do the work people are willing to pay for.

My counterpoint is unemployment.

I'm sorry, but its a reasonable discussion. If you did not like the idea, why'd you click on the damn link.

Because for a discussion you need a side that disagrees. You jumped on abortion without good cause, and abortion gets people riled up easily. I suggest you don't do things that rile people up for no good reason, when there are better explanations available. I don't see any data that supports the idea of a massive amount of abortions around that time.

And those two mean the same thing.

What? They're polar opposites. Unemployment means having MORE people than you have work for those people to do.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm sorry, but its a reasonable discussion. If you did not like the idea, why'd you click on the damn link.

Because for a discussion you need a side that disagrees. You jumped on abortion without good cause, and abortion gets people riled up easily. I suggest you don't do things that rile people up for no good reason, when there are better explanations available. I don't see any data that supports the idea of a massive amount of abortions around that time.

And those two mean the same thing.

What? They're polar opposites. Unemployment means having MORE people than you have work for those people to do.

The argument is also a gross oversimplification as it suggests abortions prevented viable functioning tax paying adults.

[Caninope]

(Image)

The baby boomers are barely noticeable.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that the baby boomers are everything from ages 50-65.

[Gauthier]

Because for a discussion you need a side that disagrees. You jumped on abortion without good cause, and abortion gets people riled up easily. I suggest you don't do things that rile people up for no good reason, when there are better explanations available. I don't see any data that supports the idea of a massive amount of abortions around that time.


What? They're polar opposites. Unemployment means having MORE people than you have work for those people to do.

The argument is also a gross oversimplification as it suggests abortions prevented viable functioning tax paying adults.

All the more hilarious since the most abortions aren't from the middle to upper class.

[Norstal]

No. For one (minor point), the US (or any other allied power) did not have to do with Hitler's death. Pushing that aside, the US is still above replacement rate. There will be plenty of workers to maintain the economy. A worrying case would be Japan, and we are not even close to that level of low fertility yet.

No, I disagree, because for the next 18 year period (1965-1983) the amount of births was 65,869,007; which is a few million less.

So are we just gonna ignore things like immigration?

I mean, we can argue about how much immigrants could've come here if we don't have such a strict immigration law.

[Libertarian California]

We need more abortion. While the issue of funding pensions for a growing class of a retirees is a temporary obstacle, it pales in comparison to the long-term consequences of unsustainable population growth.

Seriously, I'm talking eugenics and population reduction.

[Arkiasis]

(Image)

The baby boomers are barely noticeable.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that the baby boomers are everything from ages 50-65.

And there's more than enough young people under 50 to replace them and pay their social security. Also considering automation is going to make tons of current jobs obsolete, there is no need to have an ever expanding population. Besides, the US has birth rates much higher than other developed countries. Saying that the third most populated country needs more people is downright ridiculous, the world is already overpopulated. We need less people, not more.

[Caninope]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that the baby boomers are everything from ages 50-65.

And there's more than enough young people under 50 to replace them and pay their social security. Also considering automation is going to make tons of current jobs obsolete, there is no need to have an ever expanding population. Besides, the US has birth rates much higher than other developed countries. Saying that the third most populated country needs more people is downright ridiculous, the world is already overpopulated. We need less people, not more.

There's actually not true; in fact, the SSA expects the Trust Fund to run out sometime between 2039 and 2041.

EDIT: It actually could, but that would require certain changes to Social Security, first.

[Shilya]

And there's more than enough young people under 50 to replace them and pay their social security. Also considering automation is going to make tons of current jobs obsolete, there is no need to have an ever expanding population. Besides, the US has birth rates much higher than other developed countries. Saying that the third most populated country needs more people is downright ridiculous, the world is already overpopulated. We need less people, not more.

There's actually not true; in fact, the SSA expects the Trust Fund to run out sometime between 2039 and 2041.

Let me rephrase that prediction.

"Gib monies plox."

No seriously, you really think they know what things will look like 25 years from now? Remember, 25 years ago, the soviet union was still a thing.

[Bombadil]

I have seen something on this before.. not really related to abortion but more the low birth rate in the 70's among middle to upper class consumers.

EDIT: Here's a long article on the subject.. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3387770718

[Starkmoor]

There's actually not true; in fact, the SSA expects the Trust Fund to run out sometime between 2039 and 2041.

Let me rephrase that prediction.

"Gib monies plox."

No seriously, you really think they know what things will look like 25 years from now? Remember, 25 years ago, the soviet union was still a thing.

They thought it would pretty much last forever too. I was still pretty young when it fell apart.

---

I really don't see any connection between the economy and abortion. Besides, the country isn't depopulating or even leveling off in its population growth. Some of that is from immigration, but a lot of it is coming from the millenial generation being bigger than the boomers. Quite bigger.

[Dakini]

The argument is also a gross oversimplification as it suggests abortions prevented viable functioning tax paying adults.

All the more hilarious since the most abortions aren't from the middle to upper class.

Don't you get it? Abortion and birth control are the same thing, man.

[Libertarian California]

The argument is also a gross oversimplification as it suggests abortions prevented viable functioning tax paying adults.

All the more hilarious since the most abortions aren't from the middle to upper class.

I don't see the problem.

[Libertarian California]

Because for a discussion you need a side that disagrees. You jumped on abortion without good cause, and abortion gets people riled up easily. I suggest you don't do things that rile people up for no good reason, when there are better explanations available. I don't see any data that supports the idea of a massive amount of abortions around that time.


What? They're polar opposites. Unemployment means having MORE people than you have work for those people to do.

The argument is also a gross oversimplification as it suggests abortions prevented viable functioning tax paying adults.

Usually, the people are aborted are children of the poor, the criminally-prone, the unfit parents. And thank god for this, too. If every pregnancy that ever occurred in every ghetto led to a birth, then we'd be a dealing with a serious crime problem and feel the strain on our resources.