|
Posted on 08/31/2008 12:53:07 PM PDT by wagglebee
Religious devotion is DROPPING among younger Poles, especially those who go to other countries to work. Birthrate in Poland is below replacement level, and has been for a decade.
My homeschooled kids entered college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. The two younger children graduated with B.S. degree in mathematics at the age of 18. The older of these two earned a masters in math at 20. They could have finished at a far younger age if they weren't required to take the time consuming “ethnic diversity” class and pop-psychology and pop-sociology courses.
No,...my kids are no smarter than any of the kids of the posters here on Free Republic. They were merely more efficiently educated. In their case they were homeschooled.
Honestly....There is plenty of opportunity to make education more efficient here in the U.S. and to get kids on with their adult lives far sooner. Honestly, I think too much of what consumes a youth's time in college is to maintain a job program for professors.
Charles Murray's idea of credentialing exams seems like a good one to me. Kids could study on line or in a tutoring center, take the credentialing exam for that grade, and immediately move on to the next level. Perhaps they could speed ahead in one or two areas ( English or math) and take a little longer in others ( History and civics).
On the college level, there could be “Board of Engineering” that might require credentialing in a particular branch of engineering. Employers may also want to see that their employees have a credential that guarantees full competency in the English language and another credential that guarantees a broad understanding of Western Civilization and American history.
Tou are basically correct. Socialism is as much a symptom (one of many) as it is a cause of the general malise that is afflicting the post-Christian western democracies. The U. S. is ending strongly into the same non-reproductive rut that the European nations are in. MIddle class and upper middle class Americans, which would be largely of the caucasian race, are having fewer children and having them later. Other demographic groups, including especially recent immigrants and illegal aliens, are responsible for any populatiOn growth the U. S. is experiencing, IMHO. And the Supreme Court’s unwarranted intrusion in re legalizing abortion is having terribly destructive consequences, both on the personal level and in terms of national survival.
|
That’s the only possible solution to the problem. It has to become financially possible and socially acceptable for people to marry and start having children in their late teens again.
Yup, abortion is generally a factor. I didn’t mention it explictly, but its enabled by Femninism and Secularism.
I think a lot of the problem could be solved by getting rid of birth control pills and having more women demand to get married before they have sex. If nothing else, Caucasians like to have sex. If they had to get married to do so, that would change the equation enormously.
I'm not so sure- we've seen tremendous drops in fertility in every country, Western and Non-Western, socialist and non-socialist, that has become first-world over the last 50 or so years, or that is trying to become one.
I think this is a natural reaction to the shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial or post-industrial one. The cost of raising kids, more freedom and education for women, increased sexual freedom, the loss of influence of religion etc. All these things seem to inevitably lead to plunging birth rates.
Putting aside the social issue, barring a massive program of welfare, having kids in your late teens or early 20's is always going to lead to financial problems in an industrialized economy like ours. Generally speaking, people who marry early and have kids early tend to be signifcantly poorer than ones who don't.
The only thing that could change this would be some sort of government intervention, which is obviously not an attractive solution to conservatives.
You can see the alternative all around you at this point: normal middle-class peopel refusing to have children and a rogue political party trying to import third world voting blocks for itself and getting away with it.
“The only thing that could change this would be some sort of government intervention, which is obviously not an attractive solution to conservatives.”
Why would it have to be a government solution? Perhaps a little rethinking of how we view the family is in order. We have this idea in the west that children need to leave the nest completely after they reach their 18th birthday. I’m beginning to think that’s sheer lunacy.
What the heck is the difference between an 18 year old and someone who is 17 years and 11 months? Is there some magic wisdom that is imparted on that 17th year 11th month and 29th day? I’m beginning to think that organizing families along a more clanlike structure is simply common sense.
Or perhaps it would be embarassing to think that our children get to a point in their teenage years where their hormones are raging and the smartest thing to do might be to get them married young? And to produce children tha teenagers may not be equipped to handle by themselves, but the extended family might be very well equipped to deal with.
I find it interesting that the further we get away from the family structures of say 100-200 years ago, the more it comes back to bite us on the posterior.
“This is nothing more than the natural result of socialism.”
And the culture of death.
We're not really set up, as a society, for intergenerational family groups all living together in one household. That used be be common when people lived on multi-acre farms, but how do you make that work for the average suburban or city-dweller? Also, that assumes that the kids can stay at home during college and/or that they find a job nearby.
I’m beginning to think that organizing families along a more clanlike structure is simply common sense.
That might work in rural areas or for families that can afford a large property (such as the Kennedys) but I can't see how that would work for the average familiy living in the suburbs or in the city. You're talking about a major shift in the way Americans live, one that is not likely to be attractice to many people.
Or perhaps it would be embarassing to think that our children get to a point in their teenage years where their hormones are raging and the smartest thing to do might be to get them married young?
Statistically, people who marry young and have kids are poorer and have a higher divorce rate than those who defer marriage and childbearing until their late 20's and early 30's.
I find it interesting that the further we get away from the family structures of say 100-200 years ago, the more it comes back to bite us on the posterior.
You're correct that the nucelar family of mom, dad and the kids is quite unusual in the span of human history.
“We’re not really set up, as a society, for intergenerational family groups all living together in one household. That used be be common when people lived on multi-acre farms, but how do you make that work for the average suburban or city-dweller?”
You’re right: we aren’t set up this way. Hence the need to rethink what we’re doing. I think it’s possible to do intergenerational family groups with homes in the close proximate area and in rural areas. If you look at American neighborhoods of the early 20th century, there’s a model. I think it went by the wayside in part because in conjunction with the intergenerational living, you had extreme poverty as well. Not a fun way to live.
“You’re talking about a major shift in the way Americans live, one that is not likely to be attractice to many people.”
Yup. But I think that to a certain extent, those who wish to survive and prosper are going to be pushed towards this kind of model. The economics will be compelling. Have you ever considered what happens after national pension systems, such as social security, finally collapse under demographic pressure? I see four potential outcomes: grandma has enough saved to make the collapse irrelevant, grandma starves, grandma is euthanized, or grandma goes to live with the kids. I’ve seen the savings data; the first scenario is not all that common.
“Statistically, people who marry young and have kids are poorer and have a higher divorce rate than those who defer marriage and childbearing until their late 20’s and early 30’s. “
They do, but I wonder if it’s a chicken and egg conundrum. Is it the economics that drive the higher divorce rate or the age? Or is divorce driven by some other sort of variable that is not being measured such as church attendance, underlying views regarding marriage, etc.
“You’re correct that the nucelar family of mom, dad and the kids is quite unusual in the span of human history.”
And contrary perhaps to the views of many at FR, the nuclear family as we saw from 1920-1980 is probably deader than the proverbial doornail. It just doesn’t make sense from an economic perspective. In my view it really boils down to the economic value of children. So, you’re supposed to bear, raise, and educate children who cost a fortune and when they reach the age of majority, you send them off on their merry way?
Kids are great. But in order to inspire people to have the number of kids that are necessary to preserve a culture, it has to make some sense from an economic perspective.
I prefer not to think about it, it's too depressing :) It's the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about. I'm 32, and I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never see a penny of social security. But a lot of people haven't given it much thought, so you're correct- when the whole scam comes falling down, a lot of people are going to find themselves having to radically change their lifestyles.
And contrary perhaps to the views of many at FR, the nuclear family as we saw from 1920-1980 is probably deader than the proverbial doornail.
I saw a poster on a thread claim that the nuclear family is the most "natural" arrangement for people. Which is so wholly ignorant of human history to be ludicrous.
I don't really know what the future holds. I don't want to sound like Obama, but I think that the American lifestyle of mom, dad and the kids living in a big house in the suburbs and driving a couple of SUV's to work is going to be a historical curiosity a century from now.
Yep, but we still bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year and 500,000 to 1 million illegals, which is why our population has increased by 100 million since 1970 and we will add another 167 million by 2060. We will be a nation of nearly half a billion with one in five being foreign born. By 2042, minorities will be more than 50% of the population. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children. Demography is destiny.
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.
Aldous Huxley was a prescient man.