AOC- Amazon Pays their Employees in Starvation Wages.

[ImpulsE69]

The reason why child care has become more expensive in proportion to other things is because we have been unable to increase the productivity of child care workers as opposed to farmers, car builders, etc. This will continue to happen.

Paying people to help their child care would help a shitload of people. It should be one of the top issues of the next administration.

Like I tell my boss, they can't all be priorities. Everyone has their own opinion of what is the most important thing and someone has to decide what will get the most bang for the buck. Things cost money.

Besides, then everyone should be happy with Trump - he's found a way to do childcare on the cheap! *cough* (kidding)

 

[fskimospy]

Getting rid of future people will get rid of future greenhouse emissions. I don't disagree with you that less people can cause some 'soft issues' problems such as what you listed above, but 'economic challenges' don't tend to lead to half of your population dying, where climate change very likely will (imo). What I consider 'hard issue' problems are things like 50c temperatures in populated areas, cities running out of water, crop failure, and truly mass migrations, on the scales of tens to hundreds of millions.

I suspect taking the economic productivity of more people and turning it towards developing technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions would help a lot more.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I tell my boss, they can't all be priorities. Everyone has their own opinion of what is the most important thing and someone has to decide what will get the most bang for the buck. Things cost money.

Right, and this is a good thing to spend money on. When you look at the merits money spent on child care would more than pay for itself over time, it's just smart budgeting.

It's important when looking at a budget, especially on a national scale, to not just look at what things cost today, but what their effects will be twenty or fifty years from now.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Right, and this is a good thing to spend money on. When you look at the merits money spent on child care would more than pay for itself over time, it's just smart budgeting.

It's important when looking at a budget, especially on a national scale, to not just look at what things cost today, but what their effects will be twenty or fifty years from now.

I just don't agree with this. You are basically saying 'the decision/responsibility of having children is no longer on the parents'. This is and should not be true. This is a personal choice. A personal choice that has repercussions and should not be 100% the burden of everyone else. You may not agree with the repercussions, but that is exactly the point. It's one thing to help people in trouble, it's another to encourage those choices by giving them handouts. May as well just start making test tube babies in a factory so they can be the new 'workers'.

 

[fskimospy]

I just don't agree with this. You are basically saying 'the decision/responsibility of having children is no longer on the parents'. This is and should not be true. This is a personal choice. A personal choice that has repercussions. You may not agree with the repercussions, but that is exactly the point. It's one thing to help people in trouble, it's another to encourage those choices by giving them handouts. May as well just start making test tube babies in a factory so they can be the new 'workers'.

I said nothing about decisions or responsibility, I simply said that because people having more children is good for society government should encourage people to have more children. I also think people getting medical care is good for society so government should spend money on that. It's the same idea.

I don't care about feelings or morality, I just care about what's the smartest public policy and encouraging people to have more kids is smart public policy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I suspect taking the economic productivity of more people and turning it towards developing technology to limit greenhouse gas emissions would help a lot more.

In my head I'm imagining a chart, that presents a few lines. One line is the co2 output/time of humanity, with a threshold that is the point of no return for reasonable human life (say, 750ppm co2 levels). Another is the line that presents our progress toward something that can halt our co2 emissions, and possibly regress our co2 levels, also over time. I feel the latter is far more static, regardless of the number of people, because you can't just 'task' people with developing those technologies. The nexus of these two lines has to be below that 'point of no return' or you lose The Game, and we don't get to reload or restart.

You can moonshot program it, but I don't see that as likely given that currently, half the first-world humans seem to think that climate change itself is a conspiracy, much less the causes of it.

Given that, I think it's far more reasonable to extend our TTA (time to apocalypse) as long as possible, to give those working on terraforming technologies to get to the point where we can actually reverse what we've done.

 

[fskimospy]

In my head I'm imagining a chart, that presents a few lines. One line is the co2 output/time of humanity, with a threshold that is the point of no return for reasonable human life (say, 750ppm co2 levels). Another is the line that presents our progress toward something that can halt our co2 emissions, and possibly regress our co2 levels, also over time. I feel the latter is far more static, regardless of the number of people, because you can't just 'task' people with developing those technologies. You can moonshot program it, but I don't see that as likely given that currently, half the first-world humans seem to think that climate change itself is a conspiracy, much less the causes of it.

Given that, I think it's far more reasonable to extend our TTA (time to apocalypse) as long as possible, to give those working on terraforming technologies to get to the point where we can actually reverse what we've done.

I think the sort of economic decline and collapse that sustained population decline would cause is far more detrimental to the sort of technological progress we need than more people. If anything that sort of decline is probably more likely to make people abandon carbon neutral activities and go back to the cheaper fossil fuel ones.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think the sort of economic decline and collapse that sustained population decline would cause is far more detrimental to the sort of technological progress we need than more people. If anything that sort of decline is probably more likely to make people abandon carbon neutral activities and go back to the cheaper fossil fuel ones.

That may be true, I'd hope that more people would abandon those, given what it's done so far, but that may be asking for too much. That mentality is exactly what will lead to a complete collapse of our species, rather than a regression and recovery.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I said nothing about decisions or responsibility, I simply said that because people having more children is good for society government should encourage people to have more children. I also think people getting medical care is good for society so government should spend money on that. It's the same idea.

I don't care about feelings or morality, I just care about what's the smartest public policy and encouraging people to have more kids is smart public policy.

you're still going with the status quo angle. Think of population like a business that grows too big. We want to rethink how our entire infrastructure works or it is going to collapse anyway. Things failing here and there should not be a concern, because things should fail. Toning down population growth is needed. The concept that we need to continue to multiply to maintain is old thought. We should be working smarter with what we have rather than throwing more people/more money at it). It eventually fails in the end because it is not sustainable. The only thing that is a requirement is the survival of the human species. All other things are secondary.

 

[fskimospy]

you're still going with the status quo angle. Think of population like a business that grows too big. We want to rethink how our entire infrastructure works or it is going to collapse anyway. Things failing here and there should not be a concern, because things should fail.

I'm not going with any angle other than population growth is good for the country as evidenced by the demonstrated effects of sustained population decline on other countries, namely deflation (really bad!) and an inability to sustain debt obligations. If you have some empirical evidence for why a not particularly densely populated country like the US should embrace population decline I'm open to hearing it but so far you've just made proclamations without evidence.

Toning down population growth is needed.

You said this before and I asked your basis for this but you didn't answer. What is your basis for this?

The concept that we need to continue to multiply to maintain is old thought. We should be working smarter with what we have rather than throwing more people/more money at it). It eventually fails in the end because it is not sustainable. The only thing that is a requirement is the survival of the human species. All other things are secondary.

It is irrelevant as to whether a thought is old or new, only if it is correct.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm not going with any angle other than population growth is good for the country as evidenced by the demonstrated effects of sustained population decline on other countries, namely deflation (really bad!) and an inability to sustain debt obligations. If you have some empirical evidence for why a not particularly densely populated country like the US should embrace population decline I'm open to hearing it but so far you've just made proclamations without evidence.

You said this before and I asked your basis for this but you didn't answer. What is your basis for this?

It is irrelevant as to whether a thought is old or new, only if it is correct.

No, I'm not playing the 'show me proof so I can tell you why it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I think' game that is so popular around here. It isn't sustainable. The mentality that things shouldn't be allowed to fail is wrong. Your numbers and 'evidence' are from the mindset that we have to constantly grow/increase to sustain - this is exactly the same thing businesses do. I'm saying no, we don't. Yes, things may not be great in the process, but long term it would be better for the world. You keep bringing up debt, but that would also decrease with less people as there is less needed. What we need is better people. Not more people.

The only real evidence I need is the projections of population in 20-30 years. That alone should be enough.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm not playing the 'show me proof so I can tell you why it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I think' game that is so popular around here. It isn't sustainable. The mentality that things shouldn't be allowed to fail is wrong. Your numbers and 'evidence' are from the mindset that we have to constantly grow/increase to sustain - this is exactly the same thing businesses do. I'm saying no, we don't. Yes, things may not be great in the process, but long term it would be better for the world. You keep bringing up debt, but that would also decrease with less people as there is less needed. What we need is better people. Not more people.

You’re not going to play the ‘provide evidence for your statements’ game? The guy lamenting the state of discourse on this board a few days back is outraged that he should need to provide evidence to back up what he says. Lol.

To quote Christopher Hitchens that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your argument is dismissed as wrong until you back it up.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You’re not going to play the ‘provide evidence for your statements’ game? The guy lamenting the state of discourse on this board a few days back is outraged that he should need to provide evidence to back up what he says. Lol.

To quote Christopher Hitchens that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your argument is dismissed as wrong until you back it up.

Pretty sure you could have done this on your own, but you just want to be right, so I'll patiently await for your objections as to why these aren't evidence. The part you've continually missed is that to progress how we are now, requires what you are suggesting. We have problems. More people/more money is NOT a solution as evidenced by many companies in the last 200 years. We've been doing that, and is why we are where we are. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are getting at, we don't need to pay people for having children. That should only happen if population is below what it should be. I agree there are people with children that need help, but that is not the same thing as what I think you are suggesting.

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty sure you could have done this on your own, but you just want to be right, so I'll patiently await for your objections as to why these aren't evidence.

You realize it is your job to provide evidence for your position, not the job of people who disagree with you, right?

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

So your argument for why the US should encourage a sub replacement level birth rate is two articles, neither of which argue for a sub-replacement level birth rate, instead talking about a global maximum population and how the problem is basically one of extremely high birth rates in developing countries. Feel free to explain why you think that indicates the US should maintain a sub-replacement birth rate.

Don’t be mad at me because you made a bad argument that you can’t back up. After all, aren’t you here to learn new things and maybe change your mind?

 

[ImpulsE69]

You realize it is your job to provide evidence for your position, not the job of people who disagree with you, right?



So your argument for why the US should encourage a sub replacement level birth rate is two articles, neither of which argue for a sub-replacement level birth rate, instead talking about a global maximum population and how the problem is basically one of extremely high birth rates in developing countries. Feel free to explain why you think that indicates the US should maintain a sub-replacement birth rate.

Don’t be mad at me because you made a bad argument that you can’t back up. After all, aren’t you here to learn new things and maybe change your mind?

But they do support my argument. What you are suggesting isn't sustainable, you would only be adding to the problems. But you did exactly what I assumed you would do which is why I didn't want to waste my time. And you already did 'comparisons to other countries' so you can't just say 'well it would be fine for the US' argument either. It works both ways. Besides, as all the immigrants are let in, we shouldn't have any issues with population growth right?

EDIT: Also, you are saying 'encourage sub replacement' which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying don't 'incentivise childbirth'. They aren't the same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

But they do support my argument. What you are suggesting isn't sustainable, you would only be adding to the problems. But you did exactly what I assumed you would do which is why I didn't want to waste my time. And you already did 'comparisons to other countries' so you can't just say 'well it would be fine for the US' argument either. It works both ways. Besides, as all the immigrants are let in, we shouldn't have any issues with population growth right?

Yes, I showed how your links do not support your argument. I'm sorry you don't like that. If you would like me to not do that the answer is simple - provide links that support your argument.

You said the US should have fewer people. Provide links that show the US would benefit from this and I'll be the first to congratulate you!

 

[fskimospy]

EDIT: Also, you are saying 'encourage sub replacement' which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying don't 'incentivise childbirth'. They aren't the same thing.

Someone has hacked your account then and is impersonating you.

The population could stand to decrease a bit.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yes, I showed how your links do not support your argument. I'm sorry you don't like that. If you would like me to not do that the answer is simple - provide links that support your argument.

You said the US should have fewer people. Provide links that show the US would benefit from this and I'll be the first to congratulate you!

That's your assumption. I never called out the US specifically. I've repeatedly said world/global in the posts. The US is part of that and yes we contribute to the problem, no need to add to it. But if that's the sticking point for you, and you are unable to understand based on my links and my posts on why I'm saying what I'm saying, I'm sorry that you've wasted both our time.

Let me spell it out very clearly for you: Lack of population is not our issue. Giving 'bonuses' for having children is not a solution. The WORLD has too many people. As someone mentioned in another thread I think, the population density needs shifted, but we do not need more people. We need a decrease in population(and yes, this would be an opinion based on current population trends and suspected maximum sustainability). We need better people, not more people.

You can agree or disagree, but I would vote against anything at this time suggesting to pay people to have children. Look at it like animals? Pay the puppy mill or get one from the shelter? (aka immigration)

 

[fskimospy]

That's your assumption. I never called out the US specifically. I've repeatedly said world/global in the posts. The US is part of that and yes we contribute to the problem, no need to add to it. But if that's the sticking point for you, and you are unable to understand based on my links and my posts on why I'm saying what I'm saying, I'm sorry that you've wasted both our time.

This is incorrect, you called out the US specifically. I hope you will acknowledge your error.

The population could stand to decrease a bit. That alone here and world wide would help with some of the bigger issues.

I understand your links much better than you do, clearly, as they do not support your argument for sub-replacement level birth rates in the US.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This is incorrect, you called out the US specifically. I hope you will acknowledge your error.



I understand your links much better than you do, clearly, as they do not support your argument for sub-replacement level birth rates in the US.

Really you fucking quote me where I said exactly what I just said. Now you're being an idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

Really you fucking quote me where I said exactly what I just said. Now you're being an idiot.

Uhmm, did you not read the quote? I even bolded the relevant part for you.

It is possible you do not live in the United States and if that's the case then you're right you didn't say it. Do you live somewhere other than the US?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Uhmm, did you not read the quote? I even bolded the relevant part for you.

It is possible you do not live in the United States and if that's the case then you're right you didn't say it. Do you live somewhere other than the US?

Dude, seriously context. It's literally the same sentence, I know you are smarter than this. And yes, I'm in the US.

 

[fskimospy]

Dude, seriously context. It's literally the same sentence, I know you are smarter than this. And yes, I'm in the US.

So you are presumably acknowledging that 'here' meant 'the United States', correct? Can you explain how that's not calling out the United States specifically?

 

[ImpulsE69]

So you are presumably acknowledging that 'here' meant 'the United States', correct? Can you explain how that's not calling out the United States specifically?

let's put this sentence together rather than try to pick it apart to fit your narrative. "That alone here and world wide ". If you'd like we can remove it so that you feel better? How does it make a difference to you in the grand scheme of things? Do you think the US should not play it's part in keeping population under control? Or do you still maintain that we should throw money at people to have children rather than work and screw the rest of the world?

 

[fskimospy]

let's put this sentence together rather than try to pick it apart to fit your narrative. "That alone here and world wide ". If you'd like we can remove it so that you feel better? How does it make a difference to you in the grand scheme of things?

I'm not picking anything apart, I simply quoted your own words back at you which showed you explicitly mentioned the US despite falsely claiming you did not. I don't understand why this is a big deal, you should just acknowledge your error and move on.

Do you think the US should not play it's part in keeping population under control? Or do you still maintain that we should throw money at people to have children rather than work and screw the rest of the world?

The US birth rate is already below replacement level and the idea that we should trap the country in a deflationary spiral in order to to make a marginal impact on global populations when the real drivers are Africa and India is pointless and foolish.

Subsidizing child care would be throwing money at people specifically so they could have children AND continue to work.