- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:45 pm to tigergirl10
quote:
Too bad your mom didn’t think that way.
Wasn't a very smart world back then
You are right
The trend is clear.
Educated and first world = people that realize its a bad idea
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:47 pm to YF12
quote:
Smart people realized having little cuunts running around was a waste of all kinds of time and resources.
If only more smart people held the opposite beliefs as you. The takers are outnumbering the producers by a large margin.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:48 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Didn’t Jack Ma and Elon Musk day that the biggest problem future generations will face is a contracting populace?
Yes and Bezos said the same thing.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:49 pm to RLDSC FAN
The Boomer life source is dwindling.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:51 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
If only more smart people held the opposite beliefs as you. The takers are outnumbering the producers by a large margin.
We will soon be due for a big correction
When you have a hundred million people in the United States living by taking money from others its going to be a problem. That is where we are now.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:55 pm to RLDSC FAN
the public water supply
Alex Jones was right
Alex Jones was right
Posted on 7/14/20 at 10:56 pm to RLDSC FAN
This has been going on for awhile. Hans Rosling, a physician, mathematician, and statistician, predicts the world has reached “peak child” (the point at which the number of children on the planet becomes a constant). That occurring means the world’s population will only grow to 11 billion people max. Most of the “fill in” (adding 3 billion people) will occur in Africa (2 billion) and Asia. Everywhere else is either at “zero population growth” (or below ZPG) or just above ZPG. Scope out the short version below (16 minutes).
Hans Rosling doesn’t seem to concerned (and he seems like a pretty damned intelligent man).
Hans Rosling video
ETA - he does a presentation with foam blocks illustrating the post above. It starts at the 3:45 mark and ends at 7:20 for those interested but pressed for time.
Hans Rosling doesn’t seem to concerned (and he seems like a pretty damned intelligent man).
Hans Rosling video
ETA - he does a presentation with foam blocks illustrating the post above. It starts at the 3:45 mark and ends at 7:20 for those interested but pressed for time.
This post was edited on 7/14/20 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:09 pm to RLDSC FAN
4 pages of a bunch of bitching and moaning from people simply not responsible enough to have children.
You all tell yourselves whatever you want about kids being too expensive blah blah blah, fact of the matter is you're just a pussy with low T.
You all tell yourselves whatever you want about kids being too expensive blah blah blah, fact of the matter is you're just a pussy with low T.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:16 pm to tide06
quote:
The US subsidizes poor people to have babies through transfer payments and has punished working and upper class people for having children through increases in the cost of education.
We as a society are paying for that mistake in 100 different ways and it could be fixed overnight through changes in our tax code and welfare laws.
This is a nice thing people tell themselves to remove the guilt, but let's face it - people who aren't having kids are rarely making some conscious effort because of the financial impact. They simply don't want to be "inconvenienced".
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:16 pm to kingbob
quote:True.
In the developing world, children work and bring in revenue for a family.
quote:More true.
In the developed world, children only cost money for a family.
quote:Most'est true.
In the developed world, children cost money for a family, but in Bigbee Hill's house, they also work and bring in money for the household by freeing up dad and mom's time to generate revenue for current endeavors (like say, vacation) and future aspirations (like say, an inheritance) by doing things such as weed eating, cleaning the grill, chopping the vegetables, sweeping the floor, etc."
Aside from the perplexing love that is only found in a child, they are useful on so many biological fronts, even today. I'm of the opinion that once you dive in and have one kid, assuming it's crystal clear to you that, while you can't exert much control over the rest of the world you can extert at least some control over the world of a minor regarding their utilitarian usefulness because they live under your roof and are legally regarded as you being the guardian of them, and they had better either comply with household utilitarianism or else lose their privileges (i.e., a comfortable living, e.g., no bills to pay, food in the pantry, transportation taken care of, aka, no worries about the mundane realities of the rest of their life) and if you chose to adopt the quid pro quo relationship of "parent and child" as the gospel truth and as THE absolute standard operating procedure, then having at least 1 or 2 more is a perfectly fine idea: If you play your cards right it'll be decades before taking out the garbage becomes the sole responsibility of you, the old man, once again.
The year 2020 be damned, to some degree- cancel culture or not- children have always carried the capacity to be an asset to the tribe just like any other pack animal. (The only difference is if the new addition becomes a liability we can't clean house like say, a male lion does.)
In their own way, a new addition into a family of human beings (usually via birth) not only insures the bloodline will pass on, but with all else being equal (e.g., birthing a future a crack whore) it also offers insurance to the elders of the pack that, after a little while, the workload will be that much more evenly distributed and they can rest by the nursing home fire for a little bit and have the perception ("perception" is just about all that will matter to me when my days are numbered) that they got people who got their back.
That said, I agree with the entire premise of your post, but I do believe it's a fallacy of today's society to think that in every way - to the point of totally abstaining from their supposed futility - that children offer nothing in return in terms of being an irreplaceable utilitarian asset to the home. Learning how to be a "utility" to others used to be a rite of passage for the entire human race, and overall it generated a literal host for our societies to feed and thrive upon. Nowadays the general consensus is that we're nothing more than parasites, and what's worse is that at this point, we probably are.
Cheers to having kids, and cheers to those people who accept the fact that having kids is not for them: If it ain't "for" the parent, then you can be guaranteegotdamntee sure that it ain't gonna be something the rest of us want to deal with either.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:16 pm to slackster
I got my first on the way and plan on having a 2nd.
If America wants a third or fourth outta me they need to cover the costs.
If America wants a third or fourth outta me they need to cover the costs.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:24 pm to tide06
quote:
The US subsidizes poor people to have babies through transfer payments
That subsidization isn’t reflected in the data, as the TFR for all ethnic groups in the US has been below replacement for nearly a decade.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:28 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
That subsidization isn’t reflected in the data, as the TFR for all ethnic groups in the US has been below replacement for nearly a decade.
Being a trailer park baby maker is not ethnic specific
Don't even know why anyone would think it was
When you allow a tax credit of $2,000 per year per child and then every state will essentially pay for the food and housing of said child
You have no incentive to even bother.
You will never owe taxes. You will never have to pay for housing.
If you pop out 4 kids spaced out you can live for decades without paying a single cent in to the system.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:29 pm to RLDSC FAN
Good. Too many people as it is.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:45 pm to YF12
quote:
Being a trailer park baby maker is not ethnic specific
What the frick are you talking about? Read what I wrote again. Because of the fact that the TFR for every ethnic group in the US, regardless of their class make-up, is below replacement, it means that the notion that the US is actually subsidizing an increase in births isn’t supported in the data. The common logic was that an increase in welfare payments would increase birth rates, but birth rates have been falling since 1970, for all ethnic groups. The logic that any state subsidization increases births also buttressed Japan’s first foray into attempting to increase its TFR, which, like I said, didn’t work. The point I’m getting at is that subsidization doesn’t correlate to an increase in birth rates, not in a 1 to 1 fashion, and certainly not to the degree that it would raise the completed fertility rates (which would account for your idiotic 4 children scenario).
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:52 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
it means that the notion that the US is actually subsidizing an increase in births isn’t supported
It is
The highest birthrates in the United States are from those making under 10,000 dollars a year
How you can possibly imagine that to mean we arent subsidizing them is remarkable to me.
They receive uniform federal and state welfare to pay for their lives
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
This post was edited on 7/14/20 at 11:54 pm
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:53 pm to crazy4lsu
If people on this thread have not yet seen the movie “Idiocracy” then it should be required viewing or rewatching before posting further.
By the way, my wife and I produced three healthy girls, all of whom graduated manga cum laude from LSU and only repaid with one grandson.
By the way, my wife and I produced three healthy girls, all of whom graduated manga cum laude from LSU and only repaid with one grandson.
Posted on 7/14/20 at 11:58 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Earth isnt overpopulated. Huge myth that needs to die
Overpopulation based on numbers is also a myth.. we see the trends in population distribution and overall land and potential resources are only a small requirement. The trend of overall urban growth is where overpopulation becomes a problem
Posted on 7/15/20 at 12:24 am to YF12
Holy shite, you don’t even understand what TFR means nor do understand what a fertility rate of 66 means. TFR as calculated accounts for age-specific birth rates, as it is specifically designed to make like for like comparisons to the population of reproducible women according to the year. If the TFR of the US was at one point 2.2 and now the TFR is 1.7, the degree to which the poor are supporting overall births is still down. It isn’t as though when the US had a higher TFR, the poor weren’t having the majority of children. They were, and the data supports this. In order to reach a TFR that low, you have to have a lot, and I mean a lot, of women who aren’t reproducing at all. Let’s say you have a country where you have 3 million women who are of reproducible age and you have a TFR of 2.5. That would put your total births for the period around 250,000 births total. A TFR of 1.7 would subtract 50,000-75,000 births.
In order to make sense of the fertility rates you posted, we would need to know the ages of the women in the demographic and how many women in that demographic who aren’t giving birth. Orphaned of that context, a total fertility rate of 66 is well-below replacement, as if we make the assumption that 66.4 can be treated the same as an age-specific fertility rate, we’d get the total fertility rate for that specific demographic to be 0.33, which is well below replacement. Just looking at those numbers, those rates are well below the rates for women of child-bearing age, where the rates average, in places with TFR’s above replacement, to be above 100, with rates in the 90s for women in their 30s, and reaching only those levels in women in their 40s.
In short, you still don’t understand what the numbers mean, and you keep making my point for me. I can’t attest to the accuracy of the data, as everything is behind a paywall on that site, but those numbers are utterly grim if you don’t want to rely on immigration for population growth.
In order to make sense of the fertility rates you posted, we would need to know the ages of the women in the demographic and how many women in that demographic who aren’t giving birth. Orphaned of that context, a total fertility rate of 66 is well-below replacement, as if we make the assumption that 66.4 can be treated the same as an age-specific fertility rate, we’d get the total fertility rate for that specific demographic to be 0.33, which is well below replacement. Just looking at those numbers, those rates are well below the rates for women of child-bearing age, where the rates average, in places with TFR’s above replacement, to be above 100, with rates in the 90s for women in their 30s, and reaching only those levels in women in their 40s.
In short, you still don’t understand what the numbers mean, and you keep making my point for me. I can’t attest to the accuracy of the data, as everything is behind a paywall on that site, but those numbers are utterly grim if you don’t want to rely on immigration for population growth.
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 1:17 am
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News