Nordic countries need more babies to fund their system

[s0me0nesmind1]

Honestly in hindsight of the American economy, I would have thought that the problem is that people have to focus too much on work. No stay at home moms anymore, every day from 6AM - 8PM is working, coming home and eating dinner... At what point are people supposed to fuck anymore?

But Europe is pretty lax with time off, work hours are strictly enforced, etc... So obviously that's not the right answer.

 

[pmv]

Do you honestly think the majority of South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East will ever get to that point?

Population growth has already started to level off in South America and Asia and a good-part of the Middle-East. They're well on the way to that point already.

Just look at the growth rate graphs on here

http://www.worldometers.info/population/world/

Africa is the exception, however.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Communism, certainly. Lots and lots of blood.

Interesting also that the nordic countries are commonly held up by the left as examples of socialism done right. Now when there are problems we blame capitalism.

It's less interesting when you realize open borders will allow them to repopulate and evolve as an economy. Adapt or die.

They would rather die so... adios muchachos.

 

[feralkid]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

Again you arrive on the scene to demonstrate to the world that you don't know how anything fucking works.

 

[desy]

Growth economies aren't sustainable economies which is the problem. Its why we have to have x number of planets to support an American lifestyle.
It why my house in the 70's is half the size of my new house with less people in it. In the 60s I had a 4 drawer dresser that held all my clothes and in fact one drawer dedicated to books and other oddities. My kids have xtra tubs to put seasonal options. . . .

 

[dank69]

Do you honestly think the majority of South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East will ever get to that point?

No because brown people are savages and will never evolve like white people. Wait, what?

 

[blackangst1]

So do we, actually.

 

[cytg111]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

Ponzi scheme?
Are you reading stuff from that John Prager dude?
This is too much. I cant internet more today.

 

[realibrad]

Do you honestly think the majority of South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East will ever get to that point?

Yes I do.

 

[Vic]

All economic systems require population growth to fuel economic growth. Otherwise, there would be a shortage of labor.
And it's not a ponzi scheme. Except for extinction, human civilizations are never going to run out of new 'investors.'

 

[mect]

No, definitely meant the cost. It's true that in general rich people have fewer children than poor people due in part to opportunity costs but that has changed in recent years due to increasing inequality and increasing cost of child care. Basically poor people take care of their kids themselves or use family members, middle class people have fewer kids because they can't afford child care anymore, and rich people have more kids because they can.

https://qz.com/1125805/the-reason-the-richest-women-in-the-us-are-the-ones-having-the-most-kids/

As I said, opportunity cost. If poor people can afford to have a parent stay home with the kids, then obviously a middle class family could also afford this. It just isn't worth what they would have to give up. Also, looking at the data from your link, it appears the wealthy and middle class are having approximately equal numbers of kids, its just that the number of kids the wealthy are having has increased while the middle class has stayed the same. In fact, based on the data from Statista, the trend from 2010 isn't holding in 2015 where there the wealthy are having less kids than the middle class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

 

[Jhhnn]

All economic systems require population growth to fuel economic growth. Otherwise, there would be a shortage of labor.
And it's not a ponzi scheme. Except for extinction, human civilizations are never going to run out of new 'investors.'

That's not really true anymore, given the rapidly advancing state of technological innovation in manufacturing, farming, transportation & all the rest of it. Capitalism needs more consumers, not workers, and poor people in the US consume more than they would if they were still in Central America. Whatever the Rich pay them it all gets hoovered back up to the top, anyway, and whatever they save gives fractional reserve bankers more to work with.

 

[fskimospy]

As I said, opportunity cost. If poor people can afford to have a parent stay home with the kids, then obviously a middle class family could also afford this. It just isn't worth what they would have to give up.

I’m sorry but again no, I meant cost, not opportunity cost. The cost of child care in real dollars has increased, making people consume less of it.

For your correction to make sense you would need to show that the real cost of child care has stayed the same or declined while fertility has gone down. Otherwise you’re just saying ‘this other thing affects the decision to have kids too’.

Also, looking at the data from your link, it appears the wealthy and middle class are having approximately equal numbers of kids, its just that the number of kids the wealthy are having has increased while the middle class has stayed the same. In fact, based on the data from Statista, the trend from 2010 isn't holding in 2015 where there the wealthy are having less kids than the middle class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

See above, you’re not actually addressing my argument.

 

[whm1974]

That's not really true anymore, given the rapidly advancing state of technological innovation in manufacturing, farming, transportation & all the rest of it. Capitalism needs more consumers, not workers, and poor people in the US consume more than they would if they were still in Central America. Whatever the Rich pay them it all gets hoovered back up to the top, anyway, and whatever they save gives fractional reserve bankers more to work with.

I wonder what would happen if the vast majority of Mass Labor is replaced by machinery? I'm getting strong feelings that most "work" will be information, cultural, service type work.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wonder what would happen if the vast majority of Mass Labor is replaced by machinery? I'm getting strong feelings that most "work" will be information, cultural, service type work.

The rich will always want human servants, sales clerks and so on, as it's no fun ordering around a robot, so there will always be some scut work for 'the people'.

 

[mect]

I’m sorry but again no, I meant cost, not opportunity cost. The cost of child care in real dollars has increased, making people consume less of it.

For your correction to make sense you would need to show that the real cost of child care has stayed the same or declined while fertility has gone down. Otherwise you’re just saying ‘this other thing affects the decision to have kids too’.

See above, you’re not actually addressing my argument.

I disagree. Just because the cost of child care has gone up doesn't mean that the middle class can no longer afford to have children, it just means that they would have to give up more to do so. The fact that the poor can afford to have 4 kids for example is evidence that a middle class family can financially afford to have 4 as well. They are just not willing to give up the lifestyle that would result, or, possibly even more important, sacrifice a career. The wealthy can afford to pay someone to care for the kids. For a middle class family, after 1 or 2 children, the financially reasonable decision would instead be for one person, typically the wife, to give up her career. Just because the cost of something has gone up and people consume less of it doesn't necessarily mean they can't afford it. It might just shift the cost benefit analysis.

Look at your original argument. You stated that the cost of child care had become prohibitively expensive to allow for larger families. Based on the data, that is clearly not the case. I don't see how you can try to argue this when poorer families clearly have larger families than either middle class or wealthy families.

 

[Jhhnn]

I wonder what would happen if the vast majority of Mass Labor is replaced by machinery? I'm getting strong feelings that most "work" will be information, cultural, service type work.

Who's going to pay them when there's little profit in it, other than govt?

 

[Jhhnn]

The rich will always want human servants, sales clerks and so on, as it's no fun ordering around a robot, so there will always be some scut work for 'the people'.

"Some" being the operative term. There's only so much of that Rich people can use or even care to have.

 

[whm1974]

Who's going to pay them when there's little profit in it, other than govt?

Basic Income?

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. Just because the cost of child care has gone up doesn't mean that the middle class can no longer afford to have children, it just means that they would have to give up more to do so. The fact that the poor can afford to have 4 kids for example is evidence that a middle class family can financially afford to have 4 as well. They are just not willing to give up the lifestyle that would result, or, possibly even more important, sacrifice a career. The wealthy can afford to pay someone to care for the kids. For a middle class family, after 1 or 2 children, the financially reasonable decision would instead be for one person, typically the wife, to give up her career. Just because the cost of something has gone up and people consume less of it doesn't necessarily mean they can't afford it. It might just shift the cost benefit analysis.

Look at your original argument. You stated that the cost of child care had become prohibitively expensive to allow for larger families. Based on the data, that is clearly not the case. I don't see how you can try to argue this when poorer families clearly have larger families than either middle class or wealthy families.

Yes, my original argument was when something becomes more expensive people do it less. Based on the data that’s pretty obviously true. The real dollar cost of child care has gone up, meaning having kids is more expensive than it used to be. Unsurprisingly fertility has declined.

I’m genuinely confused as to why you’re even arguing this.

 

[sandorski]

Do you honestly think the majority of South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle-East will ever get to that point?

They can, eventually. China has been pouring $billions into Africa for securing Resources and Cheap Labour. China's economy has grown so much that Cheap Labour is no longer available within China. They have also been arranging various projects in South America, causing some friction with the US.

 

[mect]

Basic Income?

One issue I do have with Basic Income is related to the conversation Eski and I have been having. There is actually quite a bit of shortage of workers in the US, particularly when it comes to child care and social work. As a country, we just don't value these fields like we probably should. I would much prefer to redirecting tax dollars to pay for subsidized child care and an increase in social workers before we go straight to Basic Income. But yeah, we still have to convince people its okay to raise taxes on the wealthy.

 

[whm1974]

One issue I do have with Basic Income is related to the conversation Eski and I have been having. There is actually quite a bit of shortage of workers in the US, particularly when it comes to child care and social work. As a country, we just don't value these fields like we probably should. I would much prefer to redirecting tax dollars to pay for subsidized child care and an increase in social workers before we go straight to Basic Income. But yeah, we still have to convince people its okay to raise taxes on the wealthy.

OK then limited Basic Income, with important and needed things subsidized.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Some" being the operative term. There's only so much of that Rich people can use or even care to have.

Soma for the rest.

 

[Jhhnn]

OK then limited Basic Income, with important and needed things subsidized.

Eeebil Soshulism! Bootstraps, biatches! Get a job! Have a yard sale! Stay the fuck away from my pile, ya fuckin' moochers! If rich people like me want any bullshit from you, they'll hire you to spread it on their golf course!