Religion is the only answer. There’s a lot of Muslims in Paris. So that will resolve the issue of demographics in France.
high skilled immigration.....well I guess that idea is moot.
“Why paying women to have more babies won’t work”
Seems to me that since the result of giving women career opportunities was a PLUNGING birthrate, the solution to the problem is quite simple.
(sorry gals, but remember you’ll lose too if the country goes down the drain)
“Why paying women to have more babies won’t work”
Never heard if Welfare mothers ...
Y’all know we’d have more babies, if the laws were
more equatable.
Guys getting economically and emotionally raped by women in the courts doesn’t go over well.
I used to work with a guy that said he’d get married and a few years later give a house to his wife and her “new boyfriend,
Divorce should be more difficult!
Full disclosure;My mother had 4 husbands. I’ve seen how women break homes.
I’ve been married nearly 47 years to the same woman.
Better to eviscerate the Rats’ abortion evangelism that’s poisonous to the natural gift of motherhood.
#ing Rats
Whatta laff
“The Economist” - a snooty UK EuroSocialist claptrap rag - used to rail about “overpopulation” back 30 years ago, wringing their hands about what to do, what to do when we’re all crowded into tiny teeming tenements.
They said women going into the workforce and delaying children would “save the planet”.
Now they say it’s a problem but nothing you can do about it?
They caused the problem with their misanthropic nonsense.
Why listen to them on the flip side?
Direct subsidies would encourage the wrong people to have children for the wrong reasons.
A better answer would be to restrict immigration. This would put upward pressure on wages and downward pressure on housing, which together would encourage families and children. There was once a time when people could support a family with one income, and still afford to buy a home.
Lyndon Baines Johnson disproved this thesis when he destroyed the black family unit.
I can think easily of two dozen professional women, all married/heterosexual partners, and there is a total of eight children out of those 24 women. Two of those women have two children each. The rest have a single child or none.
It took decades to dig this hole.
When Murphy Brown aired in 1988, this anti-child and anti-marriage culture was already in full swing. Madonna, Cindy Lauper.... Materialism, consumerism, having fun, me, me, me...
This show simply echoed the prevailing cultural values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Brown
—Abortion
—Sterilization
—Contraception
—The Dual income childless couple
—Careerism by women and waiting to have children
In typical fashion, the writer of this article is looking for a quick fix. A magic pill. A single simple solution which will fix everything when we wake up tomorrow.
The simplest, cheapest, and fastest solution is the one championed.
There is a quick, easy and wrong way, and there is a longer term approach, that is more difficult, but the right way.
Politicians, business, and bureaucrats tend to opt for the wrong way in such cases. They are driven by short time horizons, the need to show immediate results, the path of least resistance, and to keep things as cheap as possible.
If we want to fix this, and frankly all Western nations are in the exact same boat (North America and Europe, even South Korea, Japan, and Australia), we need to ask ourselves some very hard questions that fly in the face of feminism, LGBTQIA, our concept of equity, even some environmental ideas...
The real culprit is a perverted value system (socially dysfunctional, unnatural, immoral, historically culturally unacceptable), a way of thinking which has been inculcated in government policies, education, and the arts and media. We as a society have been proselytizing values which are destructive for years because somehow some often inconsistent, non-doctrinal, and irrational arguments were created which sound good and were adopted by the masses/society.
If society were to preach that folks should play Russia roulette (1 in 6 chance), that would make more sense than what we’re doing regards LGBTQIA+ and HIV/AIDS (1 in 5 chance): https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M3H2/ https://www.salon.com/2010/09/23/us_med_aids_urban_gays/ But somewhere, somehow it became taboo to even ask the question if advertising for a behavior that is self destructive is smart. Society has adopted a laundry list of these dysfunctional ideas and the results are now becoming apparent. Is it really smart to wait to have children if genetic illnesses rise with age? Is it really smart for a society that isn’t even replenishing its own population to pay for abortions, sterilizations, and contraception?
Is it smart to have a tax code and benefits/entitlements in a society that is below a birthrate of 2.1 and falling, to incentivize having a child with $500 a year, but pay $1,650 a month for HIV preventing medication per individual? https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/prep-program
It took YEARS to get here. It will take years to fix this, and the resistance will be high, since you’re talking about making changes that involve what people today see as noble and ethical values, personal rights..
So we are to have more babies to benefit government coffers and pay for turd world immigrants? The days of needed 10 kids to work the farm are long gone.
The article should have begun with: "With the exception of impoverished Africa, the world is facing demographic collapse. The following are the hard but necessary steps we must take to stem the tide."
Regards,
They have to pay modern women to do the one thing unique to them they no longer want to do.
Unfortunately a stupid article with nothing useful in it.
If we’re really honest all the big problems facing our world can be laid at the feet of government. Governments always act to benefit themselves first with their answer to every challenge being more spending, more laws, more regulations, more restrictions on individual liberty, etc. The reals answer to our problems is LESS government, a lot less.
Another anonymous op-ed writer who has all the answers— hypothetically of course— and no idea how to implement them.
We need stable middle class jobs for MEN and we need to enable husbands to have pride in work and be good providers. This thing of the majority of women expected to forge careers in their childbearing years is not working. Men need a bone-deep, fundamental purpose in life so that women can live out their fundamental purpose.
Trump was 100% right to increase onshoring, levy tariffs on imports, create empowerment zones, encourage our own manufacturing, limit immigration and lower taxes. It’s why the globalist control freaks hate him.
Bring him back.
Think of all the vast farmlands that China has been buying up. We could once again have thriving cotton and linen textile industries and long-lasting cotton “normcore” garments (plain shirts, jackets, denims, shorts, chinos, khakis, uniforms), because the field work and refining of the fibers is now done very efficiently by machines.
If blacks get triggered by cottonfields as they drive by in their Crown Victorias, too bad—many a poor redneck picked cotton and was glad to put food on the table by it. You still see some smallholder cotton fields in the south —“Carolina snow.”
How much did family necessities (food, shelter, energy) cost in 1979 vs. today? Weekly average full-time earnings (hourly & salaried) have only gone from $335./week in 1979 to $365./week now. And that is using the govt. manipulated CPI, it is actually worse than that. Since going off the gold standard government monetary malfeasance has mandated “2-income families” thereby dropping the birth rate. I don’t see a way to recover at this point...hope I am wrong.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q