Coming to soon to YOUR neighborhood:
Poor, underprivilaged..just looking to make a living.
GAG
Posted on 04/08/2010 6:56:47 AM PDT by NYer
.- The U.S. birthrate fell from 2007 to 2008 and is now below replacement rate. One population expert, noting that children are the “only future a country has,” warns that a scarcity of children condemns a country to stagnation, bankruptcy and eventually death.
The U.S. National Vital Statistics Report for April 2010 shows that the U.S. birthrate fell two percent from 2007 to 2008. It is a drop below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman.
In 2008 there were 41.5 births per 1,000 teens aged 15 to 19, also a two percent drop. The report also indicates that more U.S. children are being born out of wedlock than ever before.
According to the Washington Post, an October survey by the Pew Research Center said that 14 percent of Americans ages 18 to 34 and eight percent of those aged 35 to 44 said they postponed having a child because of the recession.
CNA discussed the report in a Wednesday e-mail interview with Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI).
Asked whether the drop in births could be attributed to the economic downturn, he replied:
“Children are an expression of hope in the future. With the downturn in housing prices, and the upswing in the unemployment rate, it is not surprising that many couples decided to defer having children until the economic downturn had corrected itself. We will, I predict, see a bigger drop in the birthrate in 2009, when the unemployment rate closed in on 10 percent, 9.3 percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
He said birth rates have fallen in Europe and other developed countries, “for the same reason.”
CNA asked whether an increase in the abortion rate could have been a factor in the falling birth rate.
Mosher said “anecdotal evidence” suggests Americans are “increasingly aborting babies who were unfortunate enough to be conceived during this economic recession.”
He reported that more men and women are having themselves sterilized and contraceptive use is also up.
Asked about the broader consequences for a country below a replacement birth rate, Mosher commented:
“Look at present-day Greece, which is going over a demographic cliff because of a scarcity of children. Too few young people are entering the work force to replace retiring workers, entitlement spending is increasing at the same time that tax revenues are leveling off, and the government is technically bankrupt.
“Children are the only future a country has, and countries that fail to provide for the future in the most fundamental way--by providing the future generation--are condemned to stagnation, bankruptcy, and death.”
Exactly. A large-population country that is riddled with corruption, absenteeism, religious opposition to the creation of wealth (think Spain, 17th century), a hierarchical outlook on life will be poor. A large-population country infused with the self-government that necessarily comes with the Judeo-Christian ethos, and with the "Protestant work ethic" (I know, I know...) will be rich. Culture is more determinative than many think.
3) Who would want to bring kids into a world where it is dominated by marxists who will have them under his control for the extent of their lives.
Watch out for this one - it is a lie from Satan. Here’s the Word to counter this lie:
Jeremiah 29
4 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”
There is no question that China's population growth slowed sharply after the government took steps to get couples to have fewer children, even if some couples managed to secretly have children “off the books” or not. That is not even an issue.
“Also, I would call into question some of your other assertions. China's is not necessarily “one of the strongest economies on the planet.” It is, in fact, quite fragile, and dependent upon foreign exports and an influx of foreign capital to take advantage of”
That's like saying America depends on cheap imports from China to keep our consumer spending going, and our inflation at a very low rate for the past decade. It works both ways.
China's economy is no more “fragile” than ours. We owe close to $13 Trillion, a lot of it to foreign countries and social security and Medicare currently have liabilities of over $70 Trillion.
Look at the kind of voodoo economy being practiced by Tim Geithner right now. He just keeps printing money, our entire Federal budget(and 0bamcare) is full of smoke and mirrors, and some of the financial tricks they are using, would land any private businessman whotpracticed such chicanery in jail for the rest of his natural life! We are a good one to talk.
“One population expert, noting that children are the “only future a country has,” warns that a scarcity of children condemns a country to stagnation, bankruptcy and eventually death.”
Nonsense. Americans tend to have the children they can afford. Our biggest population growth is from immigration, who tend to have more kids than they can afford and YOU pay for.
Duh?....Who the hell wants to bring up their kids in this mess?
Amen!
Coming to soon to YOUR neighborhood:
Poor, underprivilaged..just looking to make a living.
GAG
Not to worry. The Muslims and Latinos will take up the slack.
It’s all good.
Not even close. Russia was never a great exporting country like China is. Russia never dominated the imports of most consumer goods in America like China has.
They are not even on the same planet.
“Back then, informed opinion was convinced that the Soviets were the wave of the future since, hey, their economy was growing 10% a year”
Russia used to boast about “burying America” (Khrushchev ) from military power. No one that I know thought Russia was going to overtake America economically. We hardly ever imported anything from Russia. Consumer goods in Russia were always in short supply because they put their best brains and factories to work on the latest tanks and fighter aircraft. Remember that famous kicthen "debate" between Nixon and Khrushchev ?
“Stalin's program of enforced industrialisation actually was successful in creating a large-scale industrial base where one had not previously existed. “
Correction: Stalin;s forced collectivization ruined Russian agriculture. Remember how the Soviets used to import wheat from America so they wouldn't starve during the days of Leonid Brezhnev? Stalin's forced collectivization increased Russian industrial output for WAR materiel, not for normal everyday consumers goods like cars or even houses, which continued to be in short supply in Russia long after Stalin was gone, right into the time of Gorbachev.
Well it is, because the off-the-books children mean that China's population growth hasn't slowed as much as your assertion, relying on "official" statistics, would suggest. More so, the primary point you appear to be trying to argue - that high population growth tracks with poverty - is simply not tenable. Wealth and economic strength are more dependent on culture than on demographics.
We are a good one to talk.
Problem with your argument is that pointing to our own weaknesses does not make the case for China's supposed strengths.
Besides, we can always sell them Hawaii, and get ourselves out of debt. (kidding)
That doesn't matter. My point is about industrialisation and attendent "on paper" economic growth. That point is unassailable.
Russia used to boast about “burying America” (Khrushchev ) from military power. No one that I know thought Russia was going to overtake America economically. We hardly ever imported anything from Russia. Consumer goods in Russia were always in short supply because they put their best brains and factories to work on the latest tanks and fighter aircraft. Remember that famous kicthen "debate" between Nixon and Khrushchev ?
Your assumption seems to be that economic strength is directly related to the willingness of a country to manufacture cheap plastic junk for other nations. It isn't. It is more closely related to the underlying ability of a nation to produce - period. Factories can always be retooled, if need be.
Correction: Stalin;s forced collectivization ruined Russian agriculture. Remember how the Soviets used to import wheat from America so they wouldn't starve during the days of Leonid Brezhnev? Stalin's forced collectivization increased Russian industrial output for WAR materiel, not for normal everyday consumers goods like cars or even houses, which continued to be in short supply in Russia long after Stalin was gone, right into the time of Gorbachev.
Who said anything about agriculture? That is irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about industrialisation, nothing more. But all the same, your argument makes my point - simply having good numbers "on paper" does not equate to having a truly strong and sound economy. Likewise, just because China posts large growth numbers and positive trade balances does not mean that China has truly sound long-term economic strength. In fact, the massive amounts of American debt you mentioned above make this point - a good share of China's riches comes from interest payments made by the USA and other debtor nations. It doesn't come from home-grown wealth creation.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 34 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 309 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975% (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
This is the same false argument used by many European nations. For example, a new report issued in March has revealed that 53.4 per cent of Italian families have no children. The report said that 21.9 per cent of households have only one child and just 19 per cent have two. While mass immigration contributes to Italy’s population growth, the country’s rock-bottom fertility rate of 1.31 children born per woman has resulted in a largely childless and aging nation
Italy does not have mass immigration in any meaningful sense of the word. Its net migration rate is 2.06 migrants per 1,000. Compare that to the US 4.32 or Canada's 5.63 or Australia's 6.23. And to equate what is happening in Italy and much of Europe in terms of birthrates is pure nonsense. Italy's fertility rate is 1.31 comapred to our 2.05.
100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration On the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060
I’m very glad to hear that!
SS is a pay as you go system. Currently, we are paying out more than we are taking in, a situation that will obtain for the next couple of years. In 2017, SS will go permanently into the red. There is no secret stash.
Where are we going to get productive tax serfs to farm?
China’s annual population growth rate is 0.655%. With a population of 1.4 billion, that amounts to 9.2 million additional people a year or more than three times the population the US adds each year.
The problem isn’t the number of children, it’s who’s having them. The functional and productive classes are being taxed to death to subsidize the welfare classes. Responsible people won’t have children unless and until they’re in a position to raise, house, and educate them decently, so responsible people are delaying and limiting their childbearing, while they’re forced to pay huge taxes to support the welfare addicts and gangbangers and crack whores who are breeding like feral cats. More babies born to welfare addicts and gangbangers and crack whores won’t do our nation any good at all.
There is a case in Ballard, WA, near Seattle, where the school and Planned Parenthood have a government funded program to obtain abortions for teenage girls without their parents' consent. They just put the child in a taxi and send her from school to the abortion clinic and bring her back the same way. My liberal friend says that this is a pilot program funded with federal dollars. (she didn't seem to be aware that federal funds aren't supposed to be used for this purpose)She says that this program was in response to the girls in Mass. who all had babies the same year and kept them.
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.