Posted on 07/17/2017 8:56:45 AM PDT by EdnaMode
A new report in the Los Angeles Daily News details the many dangers that California’s record-low birthrate holds for a state where there is constant political pressure to expand welfare spending, and where the cost of living continues to outpace inflation.
The Daily News‘ Ian Wheeler writes:
The pace of motherhood in California is slowing and its members are aging, a shift demographers expect to continue and contribute to far-reaching and uncertain changes in the decades to come.
Births still more than replace deaths — factoring in immigration and longer lifespans, the four-county region is estimated to add 2.7 million people over the next two decades. But demographers warn the changing birth rate and population patterns may lead to a smaller workforce that will have to support more retirees, straining pension and health care systems.
The causes of the declining birth rates and delays in childbearing are both economic and a result of changing societal roles for women, who have more career and educational opportunities than in the past. Southern California’s cost of living also continues to outpace wages, and owning or renting a house to start a family now often requires two household earners.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The liberal solution would be to import more Mexicans and other third worlders, because people are fungible, and a younger population will work and fund the welfare state.
It’s not a good solution, but that’s never stopped them.
I have come up with a novel solution to the problem of shrinking populations. It would also have an impact on social security....
What if we gave people the option of “privatizing” or “ear marking” their social security payments?
What if we allowed people to have the option of either sending 6.2% of their earnings to the government who could then turn around and spend it on a social security recipient OR they could give their 6.2% DIRECTLY to a social security recipient? You could pick your parents or your inlaws or your favorite uncle...who ever you wanted. The catch would be that their SS checks from the government would be cut in half. The 6.2% of everyone’s pay that is contributed by their employers would still be given out to everyone.
Typically, kids work for 20 or even 30 years before their parents retire. During this time, they could be earmarking their payments to their grandparents or great-aunts and uncles.
If an elderly couple had 10 grandchildren who each made $100K per year, that would be $62,00 per year....on top of the 50% SS checks that would be coming from the government.
What would this do to the number of children future couples would have? What would this do to the interest of parents in raising productive, capable adults? I would still leave the public option for people who don’t have children, grandchildren or extended family members who would “ear mark” for them.
I think this would solve a vast number of problems.
California is going to lose their middle class eventually, then all they will have left is the Rich tech giants, and the poor. Sounds like a country we all know about, just south of their border
The welfare state require clients to survive. They know that each client generates more revenue. The more problems with a given client the greater the revenue. They will only run out of money if the fed stops printing it. Open borders and welfare for the protected classes is essential to the welfare state getting additional clients.
The Leftists probably will use this as an excuse to import even more Africans, Mexicans and Islamists.
They are using this in most Western nations, the falling birthrate excuse.
So is the low birth rate problem that there will be a shortage of good workers to support the slackers or that there won’t be enough slackers being born to justify the massive welfare spending?
Birthrate yes, but welfare no. Other states are experiencing the same reduced birthrate as California, but the welfare cost is far lower in all other states. California has 35% of all Americans on welfare.
There are over 60 million people on welfare. So 49 states are supporting 40 million welfare recipients, while California alone pays for 20 million people on welfare. California has 38 million people or about 10% of all Americans.
So california is paying at least tripple the rate of most other states and perhaps 4 times as much.
So California tax payers are getting hit far harder by this than other states.
I am nearly retired and living for the day I take my tax dollars with me to Virginia and give Commiefornia my financial middle finger.
Ridiculous.
In CA we are up to our necks in Anchor Babies and Illegal Invader Children.
In Los Mexicos, (Los Angeles for you out of State folks) most of the Public School Chillen (SIC on purpose) are Hispanic and many of them cannot speak English.
Not if we close the borders. There is no excuse to let the government destroy the language and culture of the USA. Go Trump, go!
Most likely, the only people giving birth are cradle to grave welfare recipients.
Nailed it. And then their kids are cradle to grave. It’s ever expanding.
Better than tbe slaveocracy.
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.