4 ms·
> saving 57 children in a single year is a lot Yes, but I think this figure was proposed in order to be contrasted with the reduction of 8,000 births that same
by piqufoh 6y ago
> saving 57 children in a single year is a lot
Yes, but I think this figure was proposed in order to be contrasted with the reduction of 8,000 births that same year.
- lultimouomo 6y agoThere's clearly quite a difference between dead kids and kids not being conceived, or condom manufacturers would by lynched on street corners. We can argue if the lives saved by seats are enough to counterbalance the inconveniences they pose, but among this inconveniences I would not put the reduction in the number of third children - I would actually put that as a plus, as a super-soft demographic control policy.
- gridlockd 6y ago> I would actually put that as a plus, as a super-soft demographic control policy. It is not a plus, because in the US there is no need to control births. To the contrary, there are not enough births.
- molesmolesmoles 6y agoWhy are there not enough births?
- bluGill 6y agoBirths in western Europe are less than the amount needed to keep the population stable: the population of those countries is long term decreasing. (but there is often immigration to make up for it) I think the US is about even, or slightly positive. But then the US has a lot less people than Europe on a per land area measure.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoSometimes there's only one candidate for a job and that person demands more than minimum wage. It hurts profit.