4 ms·

Idk, have you considered passing laws that make it easier for people to stay at home, have sex, get pregnant, have the baby, keep the baby - all the while not l

Idk, have you considered passing laws that make it easier for people to stay at home, have sex, get pregnant, have the baby, keep the baby - all the while not losing their jobs? If the goal is helping people have babies, why not....help them?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
The goal isn’t just having babies, the goal is children raised in a manner in which they will grow up to be a net positive to society. That’s a much harder thing to incentivize with official policy, if not impossible.
polski-g 2y ago
Because carrots don't work. Carrots haven't worked in any country in the planet. Carrots haven't worked in Asian cultures, in Anglo cultures, in Scandinavian cultures. They should try a stick instead.
- kccoder 2y ago
  What would be examples of sticks in this scenario? Forced pregnancy and birth?
  - polski-g 2y ago
    No voting rights until X. Higher sales tax until X. Marriage lottery at age Y if no X.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > Because carrots don't work. Carrots haven't worked in any country in the planet. Carrots haven't worked in Asian cultures, in Anglo cultures, in Scandinavian cultures. > They should try a stick instead. Assuming this isn't a joke, let's go back to the old ages of treating women like horses to be traded at marriage and then force them to pop babies. As a budding politician, are you willing to accept the drop in GDP caused by a 50% drop in labor force participation rate? Are you willing to lose all the doctors, teachers, nurses in society that are disproportionately women? Are you willing to stand in front of the revolution it will cause to take away human freedoms? Easy to force "others" to do things. Harder to accept responsibility of your own choices.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    > let's go back to the old ages of treating women like horses Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only women's rights are at issue? Especially since it takes two to make a child. As for all those nice things you list that we would lose - we will lose them anyway if we do nothing, either because the economy collapses, overburdened by old people, or because the immigrants used to supplant population growth belong to cultures that keep fertility high in exactly those ways you dislike. What do you think happens to a country once become a majority?
    - nine_zeros 2y ago
      > Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only women's rights And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids?
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        > And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. > And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? Why would they have to abandon kids in dumpsters, instead of aborting them early or giving them up for adoption? This is nothing but a cheap emotional appeal, trying to equate encouraging fertility with horrific practices, with zero evidence. But to answer your question - no, infanticide would not give you a tax break. > What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids? Another cheap emotional appeal - child-favoring taxes and education system becomes "forced to have kids". This is as true as saying Americans are forced to eat corn and attend church, because taxation favors corn-growing and churches. But to answer the honest version of your question, "what happens to countries where having children is not disincentivized and neglected" - the same thing that happened to nearly every country (or rather, every nation) from the dawn of time, up until the mid 20th century - they continued to exist. Unlike what will happen to nations with prolonged sub-replacement fertility.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

The goal isn’t just having babies, the goal is children raised in a manner in which they will grow up to be a net positive to society. That’s a much harder thing to incentivize with official policy, if not impossible.

polski-g 2y ago

Because carrots don't work. Carrots haven't worked in any country in the planet. Carrots haven't worked in Asian cultures, in Anglo cultures, in Scandinavian cultures. They should try a stick instead.

kccoder 2y ago
What would be examples of sticks in this scenario? Forced pregnancy and birth?
- polski-g 2y ago
  No voting rights until X. Higher sales tax until X. Marriage lottery at age Y if no X.
nine_zeros 2y ago
> Because carrots don't work. Carrots haven't worked in any country in the planet. Carrots haven't worked in Asian cultures, in Anglo cultures, in Scandinavian cultures. > They should try a stick instead. Assuming this isn't a joke, let's go back to the old ages of treating women like horses to be traded at marriage and then force them to pop babies. As a budding politician, are you willing to accept the drop in GDP caused by a 50% drop in labor force participation rate? Are you willing to lose all the doctors, teachers, nurses in society that are disproportionately women? Are you willing to stand in front of the revolution it will cause to take away human freedoms? Easy to force "others" to do things. Harder to accept responsibility of your own choices.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > let's go back to the old ages of treating women like horses Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only women's rights are at issue? Especially since it takes two to make a child. As for all those nice things you list that we would lose - we will lose them anyway if we do nothing, either because the economy collapses, overburdened by old people, or because the immigrants used to supplant population growth belong to cultures that keep fertility high in exactly those ways you dislike. What do you think happens to a country once become a majority?
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    > Or punitive taxes on childless men & women, tax-supported tertiary education only for those with children, etc.. there are many sticks, why do you think only women's rights And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids?
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      > And what about the people who can't have children due to fertility issues? Do they still get penalized? Yes, as they don't have to bear the financial and time burden of raising children, but still benefit from living in a country where retirees don't outnumber working people - much like, in most of the world, the healthy also have to pay the taxes that fund hospitals. > And what about people who have to abandon their kids in dumpsters after birth? Do they still get penalized? Why would they have to abandon kids in dumpsters, instead of aborting them early or giving them up for adoption? This is nothing but a cheap emotional appeal, trying to equate encouraging fertility with horrific practices, with zero evidence. But to answer your question - no, infanticide would not give you a tax break. > What do you think happens to a country where people are forced to have kids? Another cheap emotional appeal - child-favoring taxes and education system becomes "forced to have kids". This is as true as saying Americans are forced to eat corn and attend church, because taxation favors corn-growing and churches. But to answer the honest version of your question, "what happens to countries where having children is not disincentivized and neglected" - the same thing that happened to nearly every country (or rather, every nation) from the dawn of time, up until the mid 20th century - they continued to exist. Unlike what will happen to nations with prolonged sub-replacement fertility.