Make A Baby, Win A Car!

[SpamSandwich]

Just a little taste of the looming negative growth crisis that is becoming more evident to every nation. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_fe_st/russia_making_babies_day)

Negative growth simply means there will not be enough people in the work force at all levels to pay for our aging population.

Get ready for either Logan's Run, or a global implosion caused by overburdened "freeters" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeter).

[tonton]

Just a little taste of the looming negative growth crisis that is becoming more evident to every nation. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_fe_st/russia_making_babies_day)

Negative growth simply means there will not be enough people in the work force at all levels to pay for our aging population.

Get ready for either Logan's Run, or a global implosion caused by overburdened "freeters" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeter).

You see I don't get the logic behind this. Do the "population growth" advocates suggest that we just keep expanding to pay for the last generation who expanded to pay for the previous one who expanded to pay for the one before them? When does it stop? The only solution to the problem of growth is to keep growing? Fucking moronic.

There are too many people in the world. If we need to pay for it then we need to pay for it. Don't perpetuate the problem and make it worse. It's just like Republican economics!

[dutch pear]

a slow halt of the worlds exponential population growth is very good for the future of our planet IMHO.
Would be nice if this halt would be a little more evenly spread over the globe though.

[tonton]

Negative growth simply means there will not be enough people in the work force at all levels to pay for our aging population.

No.

Negative growth simply means there will not be enough people in the work force at all levels to pay for our aging population without a certain amount of selfless sacrifice.

Fixed it for you.

[SpamSandwich]

No.

Negative growth simply means there will not be enough people in the work force at all levels to pay for our aging population without a certain amount of selfless sacrifice.

Fixed it for you.

Selfless sacrifice = Government sanctioned theft

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

God forbid that people should SAVE during thier lifetime so they can SUPPORT THEMSELVES after they decide to quit working.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

To support a certain lifestyle, yes, of course.

But the government should guarantee at least a minimal living standard for everyone (like we do now)

Well, let's assume you mean the U.S. government ... Where in the Constitution is this "right" to a minimal standard of living decalred ?

[tonton]

Selfless sacrifice = Government sanctioned theft

Taxes in the US are reasonable compared to worldwide standards for well managed countries. Taxes are not "government sanctioned theft" (economically ignorant libertarian talking point). If you don't lilke living in the US under an environment where our taxes help take care of the needs of our population, I suggest you find another country that suits your ideas better. I hear Hong Kong has a fairly low tax rate and a good standard of living.

[SpamSandwich]

Taxes in the US are reasonable compared to worldwide standards for well managed countries. Taxes are not "government sanctioned theft" (economically ignorant libertarian talking point). If you don't lilke living in the US under an environment where our taxes help take care of the needs of our population, I suggest you find another country that suits your ideas better. I hear Hong Kong has a fairly low tax rate and a good standard of living.

Where have I heard that "if you don't like it here, leave" argument before? Oh, yeah, every dictatorship in history.

[tonton]

Well, if you think taxes for social programs are theft (and of course we all know theft is illegal) then go ahead and refuse to pay your taxes. Problem solved.

[tonton]

Where have I heard that "if you don't like it here, leave" argument before? Oh, yeah, every dictatorship in history.

That's kinda funny. Totalitarian dictatorships often don't let you leave. Your statement makes no sense. :rolleyes:

[Splinemodel]

There's a difference between Shawn's "minimal level of support" and what exists now. People live much longer now than ever before, and also work to older ages. In FDR's time only 1% of the population was over 65. So we could remain a bleeding heart society and just change the system to operate on a percent basis instead of a fixed-age basis (which makes no sense). I think even going with "oldest 4%" is still a pretty drastic reduction of what we contribute now to social security.

As for declining birth rates, it's pretty much the curse of the modern, developed economy. It's very inconveniencing for women to be mothers.

I'm not sure if this is a huge problem though. As a race we're not far from space exploration and, in my opinion, the sort of large scale cloning/genetic engineering that will have to accompany it.

[mydo]

It's also important to remember that if people have children later in life that will also reduce the population.