What changed was the need for women to enter the workforce to make ends meet. Women find it hard to work AND have kids.
What made it no longer feasible to live on just the husband's salary?
Posted on 07/12/2017 8:00:20 AM PDT by davikkm
One of the greatest political oddities is that across European nations, the first and last solution to diminishing birth rates is to decide that the next generation of Europeans should be a completely different race. There is a certain shortsightedness in this idea that is not only morally questionable, but also economically stupid.
Over the last decades, the birth rate in many European nations (the “wealthier” nations) has gone down; it is now at a point where European couples are not having enough children to replace themselves. For some reason, the governments have decided that the best solution to deal with the old tropes like “an ageing population” is to bring in a whole new race of people to pay the pensions, and provide the old-age care that will soon be needed.
It is almost criminally reckless to assume that a population should continue to grow indefinitely, and their solution ignores the fact that the migrants (the new race) will eventually get old and require even more people to import. But the biggest issue is about why the governments are not looking into why the birth rates are falling. It is not as though people are not having sex; and people are getting pregnant. In fact, in the UK, abortions are at a five year high: 185,824 abortions were carried out last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
The post Christian view is that children are a burden and marriage kills your freedom. I’m not sure why women want freedom, as their value to men diminishes with age. Isn’t easier to use immigration than to try to convince people to take on the “burden” of having more children?
Teddy Roosevelt on this topic: “If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you will have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground.”
It would not be the first continent to suffer Race Replacement.
I took the current statistical trend analysis with Germany. In approximately 1,200 to 1,300 years....we would be down to the last 10,000 Germans existing, unless immigration were allowed or the trend changed.
Over history, populations rise and fall due to many factors - war, disease, weather, economic conditions, cultural, religious, etc...
The obvious fallacy is - who says populations must always increase?
they must only increase if we live in a world of massive debt, with centrally-controlled currency, supporting a highly ideological ruling class. Then you need an ever-greater population to service that debt and support the nanny state (both as workers and as CUSTOMERS)
Why? Because the likely “breeders” in this country are the ones most despised by the elites who run the place. They feel they can rely on uneducated non-Christians to keep them in power. Thus those are the people they are importing.
I think that most of the European elite are only intersted in maintaining their lifestyles for the rest of THEIR lives. That’s why most of their solutions to problems in Europe seem so shortsighted. They could care less what happens to Europe once they’re gone.
Problem is that at a certain point the more fit decide to not have as many babies and countries are forced to get the less fit variety refugeed in to replace the worker class.
Thus, another social experiment pulling us down the proverbial toilet.
It’s not a political solution, this is what has always happened. You can only blame the people who aren’t having children.
People thought it was an idiotic thing to say --- then.
Now?
Anybody paying attention?
They still don’t get it.
I see a lot of people on FR blame immigrants and Muslims. They fail to remember we made a decision as a society to have so few children. We are responsible for the immigrants, the Muslims, etc. You can blame everyone else, but that is the fact.
Middle-class people have fewer children because
1) You need two earners to maintain a middle-class standard of living AND pay enough taxes to support the welfare class, and
2) It costs a lot to raise a child so that he or she will also attain a middle-class standard of living. The cost of college is a big factor. Rather than yet more government subsidies for college, it would be better to eliminate college as a requirement for many jobs. I would be in favor of, once again, allowing employers to administer IQ, reading, and writing tests, and accept the highest scorers without regard to demographics.
But that would mean that the "wrong" people get disqualified. See Griggs vs. Duke Power.
Great post.
Middle-class people have fewer children (if any) for the same reasons Western Europeans have done so for decades: It is inconvenient. You have valid points that point to the same conclusions.
We are arriving at the same destination the Europeans have reached; a “diverse” Babel with nothing in common, and the traditional cultures disappearing.
What changed was the need for women to enter the workforce to make ends meet. Women find it hard to work AND have kids.
What made it no longer feasible to live on just the husband's salary?
That is idiotic. What happens with every specie mass "die off" is a new regeneration of that specie as living becomes easy again for the survivors. This population decline will end level off and rise again naturally without importing the third world.
A declining population is no excuse to import millions of people unable or refuse to assimilate people. Every day Free Republic is getting more and more disappointing.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.