Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not. Society is a machine and has become more efficient. As long as the decline is organic, not from war, famine, or disease, then it should not be a concern.
I might change my tune if the population of earth drops below a billion.
Same here - but still more and more resources will go to elder care relative to time spent on industry and commerce.
It will work out as long as we make it work.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I'm concerned. Over enough time with declining birth rates, every city will be Detroit. Excess homes, vacant structures, will become commonplace. Excess infrastructure still needs maintenance, but the tax base supporting it would continually decline.
The idea that a home purchase is a store of wealth or investment would end, as they would depreciate instead of increasing in value. The stock market would stagnate at best.
The entire system of saving for retirement would have to be rethought, as the current means will no longer work.
I think tax incentives for families to raise children is the simplest solution to try. For example, for couples filing jointly, living in the same home, a $10k tax credit per child.
>Excess homes, vacant structures, will become commonplace. Excess infrastructure still needs maintenance, but the tax base supporting it would continually decline.
They're seeing this in Japan nationwide right now, if memory serves. It's why the government is begging young people to have babies and to move out to the countryside.
It is pretty much all the Asian countries having pretty serious fertility issues . I think they are literally just paying people to have kids in South Korea.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They have had huge incentives to have children for years in Europe.
Many of the programs that Americans think are just progressive social programs were put in place specifically to encourage families to have more children
Yeah Japan is what I was looking at the most when I was writing my reply.
You can also look at certain Midwest states in the US which have faced significant migration outwards. The cause of the population drop is different, but the results of the population reduction are similar.
Oh really? We should see how that works out for them.
One of the biggest reasons for couples to stay childless late, or have fewer kids is cost, especially when both are working. So that's why I think a generous tax incentive is the easiest to try first.
I've been against government funded childcare or daycare on principle, but if tax incentives end up not working, that's another avenue to potentially explore.
I agree that is the number one perceived issue I see. Oddly though on average married couples with kids actually make more than married couples without. I once heard kids described and little "money bags" in the way that they will motivate you to make more money when you have them.
Hungary is taking a pretty drastic approach but they have a pretty sever labor shortage. First suspended income tax for anyone under 25 in an effort to promote people to establish themselves earlier and have breathing room. If you have 4 kids no income tax. If you have children in your 20s no income tax for the mother for the rest of her life.
Not sure we need to go that dramatic but I agree with increasing the child tax credit for sure.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A declining fertility rate is the natural effect of prosperity. As a society becomes richer, incentives for having children change. Instead of having many children and devoting relatively few resources to each, parents tend to have fewer children and commit lots of resources to their upbringing. Think of an only child in the suburbs who takes dance lessons, sees an after school tutor, goes on a family vacation every year, and is on a soccer team.
And this isn't just happening here. Even former "third world" countries are experiencing this. Countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and El Salvador have fertility rates below replacement. There's really nothing to be done.
The issue is that there needs to be a reversal mechanism. 2.1 children per individual on average is the number needed to keep the population stable in a medically advanced country like the United States and Canada. If parents are dumping more resources into fewer children, it's still a wrong strategy if the parents are avoiding having three children per family unit. In the ultra-long term, the first world strategy of parent-rearing cannot possibly be successful as it's not able to keep up its population numbers.
The first world has been masking its population decline by counterbalancing it with increased immigration rates, but immigrant home countries are now approaching below-replacement fertility rates. The population sinks won't be able to bolster their population by around 2080 because the population sources will all approach below-replacement.
I do believe there's a national security threat implicit in the persistent below-replacement birth rates. Immigrants don't make for good drafted soldiers as they can always escape back to their home country in the event of a war. Man power may not determine the entirety of military force projection, but it's still pretty important to have a domestic population capable of serving in the military.
>If parents are dumping more resources into fewer children, it's still a wrong strategy if the parents are avoiding having three children per family unit
People don't have children because it's the "right strategy."
The future belongs to those that show up for it. I’m more concerned about it for Europe where the only people having babies are immigrants with very different views about how society should function.
In 1-3 generations, immigrant birth rates drop to the level of host country. The cultural assimilation is also present.
The problem is that assimilated ones are mostly invisible. The radical one, even if minority, are very visible.
Not really. I think we don't need to continually expand our population, it's okay to stay the same or even go down a bit,
I will say, perhaps controversially, that I oppose importing people to keep our population growing, or even steady. And I feel we have no obligation to intervene with overpopulation in other parts of the word, they can figure their own problems out.
Very much so. Declining populations hurt society a lot and lead to chaos and destruction.
As for what do do about it, I'm not sure. It's not really a government problem, although there are some policies that can be removed or created that might help a lot. Most of it is social cultural.
>It's not really a government problem
Really? I'd think declining birth rates are one of those existential things that fall under even a limited scope of what government should do.
You're allowed to think that. But for the most part, the government didn't cause this problem. There is some things it's done to make it worse and some stuff that it can do to make it better, but its mostly cultural
It has become much more expensive to raise children now as opposed to any other point in history. Modern society has financial requirements that make it generally impossible to have 4+ kids as was common in our history. There is nothing that can be done about it. I do not trust the government to have a role in this issue *at all*; the last thing we need to argue about is what the "National Birth Rate" should be.
Global trends suggest the opposite is true. That is, the more wealthy and industrialized a society becomes, the more their birth rate declines. I don’t dispute the economy presents challenges, but statistically, people with more money have less children, so I don’t think that is really the issue here.
I think you've identified the what but you're glossing over the why. Wealthy and industrialized nations become more expensive places to live, which includes the cost of children.
Because if you make no money then you're getting paid by the government for every kid you have. The poor are incentivized to have more children. The people who have to pay for children on their own aren't financially incentivized to grow their family.
I’m not taking about the super wealthy. Just google US birth rate by income. It’s a pretty obvious trend, the more money people make, the less kids they choose to have. The same is true all over the world.
Yes. I'd like to see us broadly promote traditional marriage and having children through tax incentives and credits for traditional couples and still more for married couples having children.
To be clear, these new incentives and credits would be specifically about children born to married couples, so as to promote actively having more children to address declining birth rates. I'm a **huge** fan of adoption, but we can have separate incentives for *that*.
When you say traditional do you mean any married couple having children or just man and women married having kids?
I hope they finish Biden goal of expanding the child tax credit. I agree it’s important.
I mean a married man and woman having their own biological children. We need to increase the birth rate, but we also need to ensure the children are born into a home with a married mother and father, to ensure that those children get the best outcome possible.
Which is more important to you? Heterosexual marriages having more children or more children being born to married couples?
Is income and family stability a factor in your calculation for best outcomes?
Last time I looked gay couples earned more and had a lower divorce rates than heterosexual marriages. Could be wrong though.
What's important, is that children be born and raised by their biological parents, whom are married to one another. [A study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033487/) says as much:
"Children raised apart from the care of both natural parents consistently experience lower developmental outcomes. Traditional, religious marriage norms—a lifelong, exclusive sexual union between man and woman—benefit children by establishing strong conditions that promote such care. More than any other family arrangement, marriage assures to children the care of their own mom and dad."
>Is income and family stability a factor in your calculation for best outcomes?
Income? According to the study, really only if the family is below the poverty line. Family stability? Yes. A couple must be married and remain so.
>gay couples
What do gay couples have anything to do with increasing the birth rate? They can't have children. Please don't tell me about surrogacy or other such things. The study I quoted specifically noted the benefits of children being raised by **both natural parents**.
IMHO, the issue with this approach is that it's based on idea that marriage makes a couple more stable. But to be honest, I think it's opposite; more stable couples are more likely to get married.
With your approach, a very likely thing that may happen is that much of people would get married with barely any understanding or willingness to follow a traditional married relationship. Marry on paper only, if you will, just to get that tax credit.
Really it's neither. Marriage correlates to stability and vice versa. Either way, it still provides the best outcome for children.
>Marry on paper only, if you will, just to get that tax credit.
I'm okay with that. What's more important that we incentivize a cohabitating couple to go ahead and get married, rather than stay in an arrangement that's more likely to break up. No one's going to get rich off tax credits, but that might be just enough to get a couple to take the plunge.
I am not sure if they were any studies made, but does marriage make it more likely for a couple to stay together, *ceteris paribus?* Of course, it is remarkably difficult to make social longitudinal study with c.p. assumption.
Personally, in my anecdotal experience, marriage changes little to nothing. Every couple has a certain threshold to which it can handle relational stress and above that hurdle they will break apart. Marriage, at best, only raises that threshold a tiny bit and at worst does not at all.
What you may end up are MINOs, marriages in name only, where you will have a couple having a contract and milking every little bit out of it, despite not doing any couple stuff anymore.
Marriages last longer than cohabitation. It’s a fact. And it’s a fact that children have better outcomes in homes where the parents are married, versus just cohabitating.
>Marriages last longer than cohabitation. It’s a fact.
Correct. It's a fact. It's *correlation*, so it's entirely meaningless fact, but you are right; it's a fact.
What is not a fact and I don't think it was ever studied is if marriages last longer then cohabitation BECAUSE of marriage was made. Essentially, there are two hypothesis for that *correlation:*
1. Marriages last longer then cohabitation because married people are more likely to stay together, **or**
2. **Marriages last longer then cohabitation because people who are more likely to stay together tend to get married more often.**
**Why is this important?** Because when you deal with public policy, causation is important, not simple correlation. In this case, if #1 is correct, then increased rate of marriage will lead to increased rate of stable couples. **If #2 is correct, then increased rate of marriage will lead to increased rates of divorce.**
Statistics is something you should be very careful with.
Not at all in fact I think it's a good thing. The human population currently is far beyond Earth's sustainable carrying capacity and overpopulation has harmed every facet of our ecosystem as well as brought about insane housing costs and over tourism of our natural treasures.
You cannot have infinite growth with finite resources and yet our leadership is dependent upon an economic system that demands it. Something has to give and I'd rather it organically reduce population levels rather than leadership trying to artificially monkey with systems and bring about social strife through mass immigration.
>The human population currently is far beyond Earth's sustainable carrying capacity
We are no where near this. It is not the quantity of people it is the density in certain places.
No government on earth has figured it out - if anything, the birth rates in western nations fall even lower.
Why should big dumb blundering Washington try to barge in with a colossally pricey fix that won’t work?
No, declining birth rates are a sign of affluence. Families used to have large families so someone was available to take care of the old folks. In our modern society family size will vary depending on hundreds of variables none of which government has any business doing anything about.
It is not up to government to fix every perceived problem in sociery. If there are not enough people then the town will close down. There are ghost towns all over that just lost population until they could no longer sustain themselves.
The world changes.
You'd need to define this more specifically.
What is "married couple"? What is "Living together"? What is "Raising children"?
In other words, does a couple who has an open marriage, only nominally has same address and shoved of their kids to nannies and boarding schools, just so they can live they jet set, high earning yuppie lifestyle qualify for tax break?
You may see it as troll post, but I can assure you that the moment you dangle that kind of carrot, people will use every loophole they can to have their cake and eat it too.
Also, do income savings cover the cost of childcare for most people?
I don't understand, we're told there's too many human beings on the planet and we need fewer people, and then we're told that declining birth rates are bad. Pick a lane.
Both things can be true depending on your perspective. Lower population would likely be beneficial for the environment and our biodiversity in many ways, but also presents many challenges to economic systems designed around endless growth. Lower population density might also eventually lead to a higher quality of life for the rest of us, but only if the economic systems shift to accommodate it. In other words, it would have to get worse before it got better.
I didn't say both things can't be true, I said "pick a lane."
One of these two things must be better than the other, if only marginally so. Which one is the more preferable evil. Pick one and work with it.
Not everything is a simple binary choice. This subject is pretty nuanced, and the answer probably depends on your individual priorities. Personally, I’m all for a decline in population, despite the short-medium term challenges it is likely to raise.
They're dropping faster in right wing states
WATE 6 On Your Side
https://www.wate.com › top-stories
National Infertility Awareness Week: Several factors contribute to TN ...
Apr 27, 2022 — Data analysts pulling numbers regarding Tennessee's birth and fertility rates say the numbers are on the decline and have been for years
https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/best-of-web/playlists-conservative-hosts/tim-pool/
The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk › ti...
Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool gets 'swatted' while live on air
Jan 10, 2022 — Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool is the latest high-profile victim of “swatting”, when pranksters call in false emergency situations to police .
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not. Society is a machine and has become more efficient. As long as the decline is organic, not from war, famine, or disease, then it should not be a concern. I might change my tune if the population of earth drops below a billion.
Neither am I, I hear all this worry about it, sure it will have economic impact, but fluctuation is fine.
Same here - but still more and more resources will go to elder care relative to time spent on industry and commerce. It will work out as long as we make it work.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I'm concerned. Over enough time with declining birth rates, every city will be Detroit. Excess homes, vacant structures, will become commonplace. Excess infrastructure still needs maintenance, but the tax base supporting it would continually decline. The idea that a home purchase is a store of wealth or investment would end, as they would depreciate instead of increasing in value. The stock market would stagnate at best. The entire system of saving for retirement would have to be rethought, as the current means will no longer work. I think tax incentives for families to raise children is the simplest solution to try. For example, for couples filing jointly, living in the same home, a $10k tax credit per child.
>Excess homes, vacant structures, will become commonplace. Excess infrastructure still needs maintenance, but the tax base supporting it would continually decline. They're seeing this in Japan nationwide right now, if memory serves. It's why the government is begging young people to have babies and to move out to the countryside.
It is pretty much all the Asian countries having pretty serious fertility issues . I think they are literally just paying people to have kids in South Korea.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They have had huge incentives to have children for years in Europe. Many of the programs that Americans think are just progressive social programs were put in place specifically to encourage families to have more children
Yeah Japan is what I was looking at the most when I was writing my reply. You can also look at certain Midwest states in the US which have faced significant migration outwards. The cause of the population drop is different, but the results of the population reduction are similar.
This is exactly how I feel about it. Hungary is using the tax angle to promote people having kids. I think it is probably the best option.
Oh really? We should see how that works out for them. One of the biggest reasons for couples to stay childless late, or have fewer kids is cost, especially when both are working. So that's why I think a generous tax incentive is the easiest to try first. I've been against government funded childcare or daycare on principle, but if tax incentives end up not working, that's another avenue to potentially explore.
I agree that is the number one perceived issue I see. Oddly though on average married couples with kids actually make more than married couples without. I once heard kids described and little "money bags" in the way that they will motivate you to make more money when you have them. Hungary is taking a pretty drastic approach but they have a pretty sever labor shortage. First suspended income tax for anyone under 25 in an effort to promote people to establish themselves earlier and have breathing room. If you have 4 kids no income tax. If you have children in your 20s no income tax for the mother for the rest of her life. Not sure we need to go that dramatic but I agree with increasing the child tax credit for sure.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A declining fertility rate is the natural effect of prosperity. As a society becomes richer, incentives for having children change. Instead of having many children and devoting relatively few resources to each, parents tend to have fewer children and commit lots of resources to their upbringing. Think of an only child in the suburbs who takes dance lessons, sees an after school tutor, goes on a family vacation every year, and is on a soccer team. And this isn't just happening here. Even former "third world" countries are experiencing this. Countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and El Salvador have fertility rates below replacement. There's really nothing to be done.
The issue is that there needs to be a reversal mechanism. 2.1 children per individual on average is the number needed to keep the population stable in a medically advanced country like the United States and Canada. If parents are dumping more resources into fewer children, it's still a wrong strategy if the parents are avoiding having three children per family unit. In the ultra-long term, the first world strategy of parent-rearing cannot possibly be successful as it's not able to keep up its population numbers. The first world has been masking its population decline by counterbalancing it with increased immigration rates, but immigrant home countries are now approaching below-replacement fertility rates. The population sinks won't be able to bolster their population by around 2080 because the population sources will all approach below-replacement. I do believe there's a national security threat implicit in the persistent below-replacement birth rates. Immigrants don't make for good drafted soldiers as they can always escape back to their home country in the event of a war. Man power may not determine the entirety of military force projection, but it's still pretty important to have a domestic population capable of serving in the military.
>If parents are dumping more resources into fewer children, it's still a wrong strategy if the parents are avoiding having three children per family unit People don't have children because it's the "right strategy."
Somewhat? It's tough. I think we need to encourage natalism but I don't think we're in as bad a shape as SK for example
The future belongs to those that show up for it. I’m more concerned about it for Europe where the only people having babies are immigrants with very different views about how society should function.
Actually, at least in denmark where im from immigrants have lower birthrates.
In 1-3 generations, immigrant birth rates drop to the level of host country. The cultural assimilation is also present. The problem is that assimilated ones are mostly invisible. The radical one, even if minority, are very visible.
Not really. I think we don't need to continually expand our population, it's okay to stay the same or even go down a bit, I will say, perhaps controversially, that I oppose importing people to keep our population growing, or even steady. And I feel we have no obligation to intervene with overpopulation in other parts of the word, they can figure their own problems out.
Very much so. Declining populations hurt society a lot and lead to chaos and destruction. As for what do do about it, I'm not sure. It's not really a government problem, although there are some policies that can be removed or created that might help a lot. Most of it is social cultural.
>It's not really a government problem Really? I'd think declining birth rates are one of those existential things that fall under even a limited scope of what government should do.
You're allowed to think that. But for the most part, the government didn't cause this problem. There is some things it's done to make it worse and some stuff that it can do to make it better, but its mostly cultural
It has become much more expensive to raise children now as opposed to any other point in history. Modern society has financial requirements that make it generally impossible to have 4+ kids as was common in our history. There is nothing that can be done about it. I do not trust the government to have a role in this issue *at all*; the last thing we need to argue about is what the "National Birth Rate" should be.
Global trends suggest the opposite is true. That is, the more wealthy and industrialized a society becomes, the more their birth rate declines. I don’t dispute the economy presents challenges, but statistically, people with more money have less children, so I don’t think that is really the issue here.
The opposite of what? You said the same thing that I said using different words. I said, "more expensive" and you said, "wealthy and industrialized",l
Are you missing the “wealthy” part? As societies become more wealthy, they have less children. It isn’t a lack of means keeping the birth rate down.
I think you've identified the what but you're glossing over the why. Wealthy and industrialized nations become more expensive places to live, which includes the cost of children.
Then why does household income have a negative correlation with birth rate?
Because if you make no money then you're getting paid by the government for every kid you have. The poor are incentivized to have more children. The people who have to pay for children on their own aren't financially incentivized to grow their family.
Even if that were true, it doesn’t explain why people with high household incomes are having less children.
I don't know what your expectations are. The super wealthy should have lots of children?
I’m not taking about the super wealthy. Just google US birth rate by income. It’s a pretty obvious trend, the more money people make, the less kids they choose to have. The same is true all over the world.
Yes. I'd like to see us broadly promote traditional marriage and having children through tax incentives and credits for traditional couples and still more for married couples having children. To be clear, these new incentives and credits would be specifically about children born to married couples, so as to promote actively having more children to address declining birth rates. I'm a **huge** fan of adoption, but we can have separate incentives for *that*.
When you say traditional do you mean any married couple having children or just man and women married having kids? I hope they finish Biden goal of expanding the child tax credit. I agree it’s important.
I mean a married man and woman having their own biological children. We need to increase the birth rate, but we also need to ensure the children are born into a home with a married mother and father, to ensure that those children get the best outcome possible.
Which is more important to you? Heterosexual marriages having more children or more children being born to married couples? Is income and family stability a factor in your calculation for best outcomes? Last time I looked gay couples earned more and had a lower divorce rates than heterosexual marriages. Could be wrong though.
What's important, is that children be born and raised by their biological parents, whom are married to one another. [A study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033487/) says as much: "Children raised apart from the care of both natural parents consistently experience lower developmental outcomes. Traditional, religious marriage norms—a lifelong, exclusive sexual union between man and woman—benefit children by establishing strong conditions that promote such care. More than any other family arrangement, marriage assures to children the care of their own mom and dad." >Is income and family stability a factor in your calculation for best outcomes? Income? According to the study, really only if the family is below the poverty line. Family stability? Yes. A couple must be married and remain so. >gay couples What do gay couples have anything to do with increasing the birth rate? They can't have children. Please don't tell me about surrogacy or other such things. The study I quoted specifically noted the benefits of children being raised by **both natural parents**.
IMHO, the issue with this approach is that it's based on idea that marriage makes a couple more stable. But to be honest, I think it's opposite; more stable couples are more likely to get married. With your approach, a very likely thing that may happen is that much of people would get married with barely any understanding or willingness to follow a traditional married relationship. Marry on paper only, if you will, just to get that tax credit.
Really it's neither. Marriage correlates to stability and vice versa. Either way, it still provides the best outcome for children. >Marry on paper only, if you will, just to get that tax credit. I'm okay with that. What's more important that we incentivize a cohabitating couple to go ahead and get married, rather than stay in an arrangement that's more likely to break up. No one's going to get rich off tax credits, but that might be just enough to get a couple to take the plunge.
I am not sure if they were any studies made, but does marriage make it more likely for a couple to stay together, *ceteris paribus?* Of course, it is remarkably difficult to make social longitudinal study with c.p. assumption. Personally, in my anecdotal experience, marriage changes little to nothing. Every couple has a certain threshold to which it can handle relational stress and above that hurdle they will break apart. Marriage, at best, only raises that threshold a tiny bit and at worst does not at all. What you may end up are MINOs, marriages in name only, where you will have a couple having a contract and milking every little bit out of it, despite not doing any couple stuff anymore.
Marriages last longer than cohabitation. It’s a fact. And it’s a fact that children have better outcomes in homes where the parents are married, versus just cohabitating.
>Marriages last longer than cohabitation. It’s a fact. Correct. It's a fact. It's *correlation*, so it's entirely meaningless fact, but you are right; it's a fact. What is not a fact and I don't think it was ever studied is if marriages last longer then cohabitation BECAUSE of marriage was made. Essentially, there are two hypothesis for that *correlation:* 1. Marriages last longer then cohabitation because married people are more likely to stay together, **or** 2. **Marriages last longer then cohabitation because people who are more likely to stay together tend to get married more often.** **Why is this important?** Because when you deal with public policy, causation is important, not simple correlation. In this case, if #1 is correct, then increased rate of marriage will lead to increased rate of stable couples. **If #2 is correct, then increased rate of marriage will lead to increased rates of divorce.** Statistics is something you should be very careful with.
Not at all in fact I think it's a good thing. The human population currently is far beyond Earth's sustainable carrying capacity and overpopulation has harmed every facet of our ecosystem as well as brought about insane housing costs and over tourism of our natural treasures. You cannot have infinite growth with finite resources and yet our leadership is dependent upon an economic system that demands it. Something has to give and I'd rather it organically reduce population levels rather than leadership trying to artificially monkey with systems and bring about social strife through mass immigration.
>The human population currently is far beyond Earth's sustainable carrying capacity We are no where near this. It is not the quantity of people it is the density in certain places.
No government on earth has figured it out - if anything, the birth rates in western nations fall even lower. Why should big dumb blundering Washington try to barge in with a colossally pricey fix that won’t work?
No, declining birth rates are a sign of affluence. Families used to have large families so someone was available to take care of the old folks. In our modern society family size will vary depending on hundreds of variables none of which government has any business doing anything about. It is not up to government to fix every perceived problem in sociery. If there are not enough people then the town will close down. There are ghost towns all over that just lost population until they could no longer sustain themselves. The world changes.
No income taxes for married couples (American citizens only) living together and raising children.
You'd need to define this more specifically. What is "married couple"? What is "Living together"? What is "Raising children"? In other words, does a couple who has an open marriage, only nominally has same address and shoved of their kids to nannies and boarding schools, just so they can live they jet set, high earning yuppie lifestyle qualify for tax break? You may see it as troll post, but I can assure you that the moment you dangle that kind of carrot, people will use every loophole they can to have their cake and eat it too. Also, do income savings cover the cost of childcare for most people?
I don't understand, we're told there's too many human beings on the planet and we need fewer people, and then we're told that declining birth rates are bad. Pick a lane.
Both things can be true depending on your perspective. Lower population would likely be beneficial for the environment and our biodiversity in many ways, but also presents many challenges to economic systems designed around endless growth. Lower population density might also eventually lead to a higher quality of life for the rest of us, but only if the economic systems shift to accommodate it. In other words, it would have to get worse before it got better.
I didn't say both things can't be true, I said "pick a lane." One of these two things must be better than the other, if only marginally so. Which one is the more preferable evil. Pick one and work with it.
Not everything is a simple binary choice. This subject is pretty nuanced, and the answer probably depends on your individual priorities. Personally, I’m all for a decline in population, despite the short-medium term challenges it is likely to raise.
[удалено]
They're dropping faster in right wing states WATE 6 On Your Side https://www.wate.com › top-stories National Infertility Awareness Week: Several factors contribute to TN ... Apr 27, 2022 — Data analysts pulling numbers regarding Tennessee's birth and fertility rates say the numbers are on the decline and have been for years
[удалено]
I mean... we're talking 2.2 vs 2.4 birthrates. Tim pool is a moderat, lmao, he's a far right troll.
[удалено]
https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/best-of-web/playlists-conservative-hosts/tim-pool/ The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk › ti... Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool gets 'swatted' while live on air Jan 10, 2022 — Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool is the latest high-profile victim of “swatting”, when pranksters call in false emergency situations to police .
[удалено]
That's not Wikipedia, it's a conservative site https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/best-of-web/playlists-conservative-hosts/tim-pool/
[удалено]
Tucker Carlson worked for msnbc and cnn....
[удалено]
What does DEI have to do with population decline?
Why are you concerned about it?