I believe maybe I had a more "world" view of this problem, than just a national standpoint. But as a nation right now, you suggest we have kids to keep the economy going. Kids = money. Yes and money is always the best reason to do something.kthulhu wrote:Technically, in the First World, we don't. Native birthrates have gone down to "unsustainable" (in an economic and social sense) levels. Immigration picks up the slack, although without proper oversight and policy, that can introduce new problems.klinky wrote:Frankley WHY does someone need a kid? There is no purpose to children these days. We have enough children already.
Here in the US, it's service work, usually done by Mexicans. In Europe, North African and Middle Eastern immigrants fill that role. Sweden, for instance, is so concerned about their birthrate that, in the hopes of increasing it, they've proposed to put porn on late night TV to make people horny. Japan is becoming concerned about their aging population and low birthrate - fewer young people means fewer medical workers, especially if it's unpleasant work.
So, no, we don't necessarily have enough children.
Currently there are alot of people unemployed. Currently companies are already going overseas as I mentioned before. What sector is growing? The service sector. I guess your idea of freedom and chose is to serve others. We need to have more kids to fill the service sector. To be a cog in the machine. To help bath old people. To serv you your food. I think that's a bright future for your child to look at. "You're gonna grow up to work for McDonalds and have no healthcare". Bravo. Go ahead and have kids for that reason alone. I would love to see how they turn out.
Also your data is flawed since by 2025 we're predicted to see a growth of almost 1.5billion more people. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html <-source.
I like the idea of a cutoff limit. I have no problems with removing welfare so long as this country provides something more fufulling than work. I guess it is what you make it. But as I was displaying earlier. The mother with the kids in the SUV. That's considered making. That's the "good life". Keep doing it until you're 65. Ha, wait keep doing it till your 70. Oh wait, now we don't have any SSI for you either. Just great.Kthulhu wrote:You were giving me shit over something far less harsh than that idea a few days back. Removing welfare completely won't really help much - it'll flood the low end labor market. Those who can't be hired will become homeless. Many will resort to crime. And the government will more than likely sink the money they save in some other program.klinky wrote:*Remove welfare
A solution I like is a "cutoff" limit. Two kids (since twins are somewhat common), then you get a choice of free sterilization or no more welfare for any additional. Rare multiple births (such as triplets) would be exempted, so long as there's a valid doctor's statement.
Look at eh-hem, the healthcare system, the eletric system. Look at humans actual physical & mental health. We're lucky the United States is so big. I am not going to actually say that the US is a third world country. But I wouldn't exactly say it's a first world one eitherKthulhu wrote: Without children, we may as well forfeit the US to the Third World.
.See you're letting the people responsible off the hook. Look, if you don't have the money to have the kid. Don't have the kid. How much does a kid cost. Oh gosh. Let's say $300/mn for food & medical and all that good stuff. That's 12 times a year, 18 times until they're an adult. Then tack on atleast 20K for a university(many cost more). Only $84,800. :} Now of course they don't need this all at once, but I would expect them to atleast have 1/4th on hand already. This is just so that they show that they can sustain the child. So that's $21,200 saved up. That's just for the kid now. You need to think about yourself as well. But I think atleast $21,000 saved up is a good idea. Oh and if you can't afford it, maybe somethings wrong with the society you live in. Maybe it's not providing for you.Kthulhu wrote: What's good financial proof? Savings? Most people are lucky to have $20,000 in the bank by the end of their most fertile years. Stocks? Those are fluctuating assets. A job? People go through several in their lives.
If you don't pay it, someone else has to. That's why I wanted to get rid of family incentives.
I would like to see a %20 - $30 FLAT TAX. For everyone. I pay about %26 in taxes. Once you move up into the next tax bracket, which is around 60,000, they start to take up %40. Which really defeats the purpose of moving up doesn't it now. Meanwhile you have Bush giving the top %1 of the tax bracket nice hefty cuts and I get a $2.34 tax break. Thanks! There would be no loop holes to get through. Everyone would pay atleast the minimum.Kthulhu wrote:How much? Remember, too, that for a rich person, income tax isn't much of an issue. They don't work, so much as collect. Are you willing to cut the government down, too?Klinky wrote:*No tax shelters, no tax cuts for the rich.
Ugh - quoting is a bitch.
About companies moving overseas because of inspections on their ecological. If they move overseas for those reasons. Ban their products or tax them on import. Guess what, they can stay here and follow the rules or they can leave and not make a profit. So our health and wellbeing should take a backseat to money. Thankyou.
Fuckin' eh, did you see that damn link I posted earlier. You don't even have to move to third world countries to pay third world wages. Just import them on special visas or sneak them across the border
. Oh and fuck have your US workers train the bastards before you fire them!!!! SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!Housing, water & electricity are needs. Everyone needs these to function in a society. If you do not have these you have dejects. Would you rather see a homeless bum on your walk to work or would you like to see him in a cheap housing. I am thinking of a 8x8 room with a kitchen and bathroom. Made from energy effiencent materials. This probably sounds like The Projects and Ghetto. But I don't know. I think alot of poor people would not mind this. Put in a garden, playground and let a community grow around it instead of stuffing it in crap parts of town. Put some effort into this. How is it going to be paid. That's really upto how much money is available I guess. But I think it is a worthy goal that everyone have access to basic needs.
If someone is making enough, they can move out and go build thier own house or buy one. Other than that. You can come back in whenever you please. I guess that's my idea.
About creativity, nothings wrong with it. But I was thinking take two people. A painter and someone who races hotrods. Paints = posinous. Gas, oil, exhaust = poisnous. Both are enjoyed. But both destroy at the same time. If there were strict enviromental controls out there, who knows maybe we would have less poisnous paints, less poisnous hotrods. Then people could still have their fun. It's just, what alot of people view as being worthwhile are actually damaging to the world around us.
Such as ATVing in the wilderness, showing off that new SUV, using your computer sucks power and there is alot of lead and other chemicals used to create it.
I guess my point is, how many SUVs can this world take? How many painters can it take? How many computers can it take? How many power plants need to be made? I don't think anyone can really answer that question, but what I am really afraid of is it'll be answered for us when we all die from our creations.
Free will and thought are what allow me to express this so I enjoy them emensely. I would like to live in a society that doesn't restrict these. But having your house and all your toys may be good for you, you think, and society has probably push the notion that two kids, a house & a car is what's good. When really we're all slowly killing each other :}.
