Replies

"take away immigration, and we're europe or japan"

While I agree with this on its face, it ignores a deeper point. Namely, that it assumes that there will always be places somewhere with a growing, surplus population to provide immigrants. The west has adopted a "McCulture" which encourages hedonism and socialism, which discourage having large families.

Immigration is merely a poor band-aid. First of all, there are problems with assimilation. Pouring vast numbers of immigrants into a society may provide lots of bodies, but its not necessarily true that paradise will result. There could be a rise in communal conflict that will cancel out the economic benefits of population growth.

Also, what happens when the third world adopts "McCulture"? What happens when Latin America and India adopt western culture, and start having 1 child per family? Will the world be condemned to a global deflation?

The real answer to this problem is not immigration (which is a temporary, dangerous answer). The real answer is for europe and america to alter our culture in ways that bring back an ethos of 2-4 kids per woman. Then, we get the benefits of a growing population base without the social upheaval of mass immigration.

"The real answer is for europe and america to alter our culture in ways that bring back an ethos of 2-4 kids per woman."

As far as such a culture goes, what do you think about this idea:

1) Encourage one-earner families. So as not to be painted as a sexist, the one earner could be the husband or wife.
2) Reduce taxes significantly. Most specifically by phasing out the public education system and privatizing retirement programs.
3) The at-home parent is expected to rear and teach the children while managing the families savings and investments. This would be an interesting and challenging enough job to appeal to a lot of people.
4) Kids get quantity time with at least one parent, and quality time with both. The single working parent has more take home pay due to decreased taxes. The kids are smarter because they are home-schooled in coalition with whatever neighboring families they choose. They can even create sports teams!

More time. More money. More kids. How about it?

An admirable position but a tough sell given abortion on demand, cheap and universally available birth control, an anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-family culture, and sky-high marginal tax rates. I think the latter is the biggest factor. When I was a kid (I'm 54) we lived in a Chicago suburb with a predominately Catholic population. A minority of families still had large families. A colleague of my father's had 10 kids. No more than one housewife in four worked.(Divorce was as rare in those days as gay parents are today. At least 90% of the kids in my elementary school class had two married parents living together.) Granted, people accepted a lower standard of living materially, but the typical head of household making $7,500-$10,000 a year was in the 10% federal tax bracket with a $600 annual deduction per child ($8-10K in 2002 dollars), perhaps $10 annually in FICA tax paid on the first $2K of income, no state income tax, a 4% sales tax (which rose to 5% when I was 10 or 11). A typical new home cost $15,000-$20,000 -- 1.5:2 times the average annual income. Then as recently, you could get a mortgage for 5-6%. A typical monthly mortgage payment was $40-50. When my sister or I got sick, our general practitioner treated us at home for a $5 fee when I was small, later rising to $10. An antibiotic might cost $1-2. Most college students were men who attended without charge on the GI bill, because they were World War II or Korean War veterans. GIs got a $200-225 per month stipend to attend college, worth at least $15,000 a year today in pre-tax dollars. On that stipend, you could pay the entire cost of a college education at a public school, support yourself and a wife, and keep a used car running and insured. Is it any wonder fewer people marry today, that parents have children later, and have fewer children?