Slashdot Mirror


US Birthrate Plummets To Record Low

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that the U.S. birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records. The rate decreased to 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age — a little more than half of its peak, which was in 1957. The overall birthrate decreased by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, but the decline is being led by immigrant women hit hard by the recession, with a much bigger drop of 14 percent among foreign-born women. Overall, the average number of children a U.S. woman is predicted to have in her lifetime is 1.9, slightly less than the 2.1 children required to maintain current population levels. Although the declining U.S. birthrate has not created the kind of stark imbalances found in graying countries such as Japan or Italy, it should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers, says Roberto Suro, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California. 'We've been assuming that when the baby-boomer population gets most expensive, that there are going to be immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what's happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions,' he said. 'When you think of things like the solvency of Social Security, for example, relatively small increases in the dependency ratio can have a huge effect.'"

567 comments

  1. OK, so... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... this means I'll get back $1 for every 20 I kicked into the system since 1969?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least you'll get something back, geezer. I don't expect social security to be around when I retire.

    2. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blame the politicians. They are the ones that for some irresponsible reason decided to treat social security as a IOU paid out by the younger generation instead of a retirement investment program paid for by the people benefiting from it.

    3. Re:OK, so... by jemenake · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least you'll get something back, geezer. I don't expect social security to be around when I retire.

      ... and for less contribution. I once saw a chart someone compiled where it showed the average tax rate paid by people of each age. For example, someone born in 1950... they added up the median income for a 16-year-old in 1966, a 17-year-old in 1967, etc, to get an idea of how much money they've earned over their entire life (adjusting for inflation, of course). They then looked at how much tax they paid, on average, at each of those ages to figure out, over your lifetime, what percentage of your earnings went to the 'gummint'. What they found was that, for senior citizens, because they paid such low tax rates back before the 70's or so, their effective lifetime tax-rate was something like less than half of someone in their 20's today.

    4. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop your whining. It was your generation in power that decided that starting multiple wars, deregulating the financial system, and then cutting taxes at the same time was a good idea. Your generation doesn't deserve shit for retirement compared to how your generation looted and pillaged the country thinking that your kids would clean it up.

    5. Re:OK, so... by NiteMair · · Score: 0

      Exactly - Social Security is basically just a government-run ponzi scheme.

      Having been born only a little bit after you were - I was raised with the assumption that it won't exist by the time I'm of retirement age, so I better find a better way to save.

    6. Re:OK, so... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1, Troll

      SS will be around when you/we retire. It's a separate tax that goes into a separate fund. That fund is presently about 3 trillion dollars, which is good because for 2 years now it's paying out more than its taking in due to the baby boomers starting to retire. Should the fund ever run dry they will have to stop paying more than is going in, at which point it will truely be the younger people paying for the older people. But it will not go away. I say this because if it goes away entirely they will have to eliminate the taxes that pay for it.V

      That said, I suspect Obama wants it to get into trouble sooner rather than later - hence the payroll tax cut which normally goes into social security. He probably figures if it goes bust it will "have to" become part of the normal federal budget. Not sure what the agenda might be, but the rules of the game would change dramatically if it were not separately taxed.

    7. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Security is an insurance program moron. That's why it's called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. It's funded via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, FICA, which if you look at you W2, you will note there is a little box labeled FICA and a dollar amount. It was always intended to be a pay as you go program exactly like every other insurance plan in the world.

      All that happens with social security is workers are taxed to reduce their consumption, old farts are paid to increase their consumption. And remember if there was no social security, likely you'd be shelling out cash to support your parents or grandparents.

      capatcha: depends

    8. Re:OK, so... by medcalf · · Score: 5, Informative

      You've got it backwards. The Dems generally want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security kept out of the regular budget, and not means tested. Doing those things would make the programs, in essence, just more welfare programs, and thus more easily cut in hard times. You are also mistaken about the "trust fund." The trust fund currently consists of Federal government bonds, because all the money was used at the time it was raised, to make the deficit appear lower. The net effect is that when it's time to make payments from the trust fund, the government must either inflate the currency to make those bonds less expensive in real terms to buy back (thus hurting people who actually save money), raise taxes to get more revenue to pay off the bonds (thus hurting those who will then be paying in to benefit those who are paying in now), sell other bonds to pay off the earlier bonds (thus increasing the national debt/interest on net, and on the assumption that US government bonds haven't gone off a cliff), or not pay the promised benefits. Some combination of these three is most likely. But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    9. Re:OK, so... by medcalf · · Score: 0

      Insurance is something you buy to protect against known, but comparatively rare, risks, so that you don't have to constantly maintain a large cash supply (harder than maintaining a cash flow). SS is sold as insurance, but it's not insurance. It's instead a pay-as-you-go retirement plan. It may or may not be a good idea (I suspect not, but that's irrelevant), and may or may not actually prevent destitution among the elderly (also irrelevant to my point), but it is most assuredly not insurance.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:OK, so... by JWW · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Well stated.

      Anyone who insists there is actually SS Trust fund is just plain wrong.

    11. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treating future tax liability as assets is absurd and embarrassing to witness.

      There. Is. No. Money.

      All there is in the treasury is an obligation of repayment which translates into higher taxation on future generations. How can you not see this? This is why politicians freak out and warn of problems any time issues like birth rate come up. They cannot meet payment promises if there are not enough tax livestock to support this ponzi scheme. Worse, at least a ponzi scheme permits the wary to avoid it. Kinda hard for your average person to decline the 'requests' of the USG.

      It just takes a moments thought to understand all this but if these ideas are hard to formulate on ones own, I recommend considering the arguments of those who have already made the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixUGs65NuE

    12. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is. It's invested completely in T bills.

    13. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize you just made the point that it is indeed insurance. A problem with retirement planning is you actually don't have a good idea who much you need to save, because well maybe you get hit by a bus and thus never needed to save anything. Or maybe you live to be a 100 and you'll outlive your savings. So it is insurance, insurance against outliving your retirement savings, outliving your children who might otherwise support you, which does happen.

    14. Re:OK, so... by neurophil12 · · Score: 1

      It's insurance against not having saved up enough for retirement, or for living longer than your savings could cover. This could be because you never made enough to save enough, you had bad luck (like a market downturn, investment gone bad, etc), or just poor judgement. That doesn't mean it is not a pay-as-you-go retirement plan as well, but there is certainly a very large insurance component. One might argue that we should then be means testing, which might be worthwhile, but others argue against it for strategic reasons as it could reduce the program's support.

    15. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no actual money in the SS Trust fund. Reagan took a bit of it, Clinton took most of it, and Bush Jr finished it off. There's only an IOU there with no economic value.

      This can be hard to understand: why is it bad that there's one kind of bond there instead of another? Here's a very close analgy to explain. Let's say you had good retirement savings in your 401K. But then you borrowed the entire amount for some emergency. There's *still* a financial instrument in your 401K - the record of the loan you made to yourself! But that loan has no economic value - at this point each dollar that you want in retirement you have to first put back in. You've got nothing to retire on - as you would expect, given you've already spent it.

      We already spent the SS trust fund, sorry about that, but I'm sure the Baby Boomers enjoyed it and will be very sand when their grandkids have nothing. "Oops, our bad".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:OK, so... by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

      But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.

      There is a trust fund in as meaningful sense as you can make it.

      Got money sitting a bank? What happens if that bank goes under?

      Hiding money/silver/gold in a vault/under a matress? What happens if someone steals it?

    17. Re:OK, so... by forand · · Score: 1

      I think you are mistaken unless you are not speaking about the US which would be odd. The marginal tax rate has been relatively stable and dramatically decreased on the highest earners over the time period you to which you refer (see this article). This is in fact generally true of the average tax rate and most other specific taxes (excluding SS which has remained stable) as can be seen in the data here. So why do you believe that we are being taxed currently at historically high rates?

    18. Re:OK, so... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      There is no Trust Fund, the money doesn't exist, and all we have is an IOU. The trust fund is nothing more than fraud covering up the ponzi scheme

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got money sitting a bank? What happens if that bank goes under?

      Worst case: you get all of it back, thanks to the FDIC, up to $100,000.

      Best case; the FDIC comes in with the US Marshalls, takes over the bank, sells it to a solvent bank, and the end banking customer is never affected.

      Or have you never heard of the FDIC, or ever read stories about what happens when a bank "goes under"? It's happened dozens of times over the last 3 years.

    20. Re:OK, so... by Guppy06 · · Score: 0

      I once saw a chart

      [citation needed]

    21. Re:OK, so... by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Having been born only a little bit after you were - I was raised with the assumption that it won't exist by the time I'm of retirement age, so I better find a better way to save.

      Why would it not exist? It can't run out of money. If you think otherwise, you're terribly misinformed about exactly what it is and how it works. It currently has a surplus, and at some time down the road it's likely the surplus will be gone. At which point, either it will continue to pay, but not in excess of the amount of money it takes in, or congress will weasel out and start running it in the red. Expecting any other option to occur is ridiculous. No politician is going to eliminate it, and it can't possibly cease to exist without congress eliminating it. The worst that can happen is the benefits will be not so great. But they never were...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    22. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got money sitting a bank? What happens if that bank goes under?

      FDIC

      Hiding money/silver/gold in a vault/under a matress? What happens if someone steals it?

      They get shot trying.

    23. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the good thing is that no one is going to get anything from it.

    24. Re:OK, so... by jemenake · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are mistaken unless you are not speaking about the US which would be odd. The marginal tax rate has been relatively stable and dramatically decreased on the highest earners over the time period you to which you refer (see this article).

      That's why you don't look at the highest earners (who actually enjoy some of the lowest rates, ever, right now). Back in 1928, people making less than $52k/year (in adjusted dollars) were actually in the lowest bracket, paying 1.5%. By 1935, those making less than $65k/yr paid 4%.

      This lasted until the start of WW-II, when tax rates went up and the thresholds for the brackets went down... to the point where someone making $60k/yr was in a 30% bracket. But, someone who had appreciable income earned before WW-II would have enjoyed some ridiculously-low tax rates averaged into their lifetime average.

    25. Re:OK, so... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The elderly are the strongest voting population, they would never let that happen. Any politician that gets even a finger pointed at them for tampering with SS will get voted out of office.

    26. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But most of the taxes you pay don't go towards retirement; they pay for services you're consuming now, and the further back in time you go, typically the fewer services the government offered. So it probably balances out quite well.

    27. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems willfully naive. Got money in a bank? You do know that your money isn't really in there right? All you've got is a promise from a federal insurance agency (FDIC, NCUA) to pay you if the bank goes under.

    28. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how you define pay as you go, but if you mean 'the dollars taken in today are the dollars paid out on claims today' you are at least partially mistaken. This is especially true in whole life programs where a payout is generally certain. This is probably the type of insurance most comparable to SS.

      Whole life programs have strict capital requirements that are enforced by the state insurance commissioner. As soon as a policy is taken out the company has to put a certain amount of capital in reserve. The capital reserves increase as the risk of payout increases (i.e. the customer ages). Usually, companies have to meet specific risk to capital ratios (the amount of payout risk on the books vs the amount of capital). If they don't maintain adaquate capital reserves they are siezed and put into runoff by the insurance commissioner regulating their business. The capital they maintain is rarely held in cash, but invested in other things. If those investments are risky, they must be marked down when calculating the amount of capital held. Often, these markdowns are statutory (say, holding a whole loan vs a MBS). All that to say that insurance companies aren't really a pay as you go operation.

      It's important to note that private insurance companies are generally much better capitalized than SS. Of course, private companies can't print money to cover their obligations- the government, with the help of the Fed, can.

      As an interesting note, there was this case of an insurance company writing insurance on credit defaults tied to mortgages. The CDS' weren't regulated and the insurance company wasn't required to carry reserves on the books to cover that risk. We all know how that turned out.

    29. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As pointed out by several other commenters, there is no actual cash in the SS trust fund, there are only U.S. Treasury securities in the fund. Congress borrowed from the SS trust fund many times over the years to cover deficits and gave the SS fund Treasury securities in exchange. This works out fine as long as the US Government solvent, but if in the future the US becomes insolvent (and can't service the debt), then SS itself will become insolvent since its only investment is, again, US Treasury securities.

    30. Re:OK, so... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. I pick no, but I will admit the issue has been deliberately muddied.

      First, the fund does not invest in T-Bills – it holds special units. They look like treasury notes, they pay interest like treasury notes, and are backed by the full faith and credit of the US. The fund claims that they treasury notes. Congress, on the other hand, has passed laws saying it is not debt, is not part of the government debt, etc.

      Second, one could question the logic of the Federal Government borrowing money from itself. It is a bookkeeping entry – promising to raise the money in the future from taxes. It is not a real asset, it has no economic value.

      So, quakes like a duck but by law is not one.

    31. Re:OK, so... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      First, the fund does not invest in T-Bills â" it holds special units. They look like treasury notes, they pay interest like treasury notes, and are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

      Not quite. Those intragovernmental t-bills that the SSA Trust Fund is made of of are Non-interest-bearing, like all inntragovernmental T-bills.

      In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.

      And will be about as worthwhile when the Congress has no money to pay the bills other than raise taxes or cut benefits....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:OK, so... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There is no actual money in the SS Trust fund. Reagan took a bit of it, Clinton took most of it, and Bush Jr finished it off. There's only an IOU there with no economic value.

      There is no actual money in the SS Trust Fund. There NEVER was any money in the SS Trust Fund.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    33. Re:OK, so... by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      The bonds in the SS trust fund have exactly the same economic value as the bonds that you hold in a money market.

    34. Re:OK, so... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is not how intergenerational transfers work. This is no ponzi scheme, unless the people in the US collectively decide to produce no more children and forbid all immigration. In which case I guess you'll have other, more urgent, problems. Ponzi schemes break down because eventually, you cannot grow the base fast enough. Intergenerational transfers work as long as there are new generations, which there will be for as long as there is a US of A. There are transitions between demographic structures, but these are temporary problems and require no long-term fixes : you can smooth out problems through borrowing.

      Basically, the US is broke exactly when people stop wanting T-bills, and not a moment before. The moment that happens is when people stop believing that the US will produce stuff in the next 3-10 years. And the rest of the planet offers significantly better prospects with very little risk.

      This will not happen. At least, not in the forseeable future.

      It doesn't matter that there is no money in the fund. In fact, it is a good thing: it is a terrible and wasteful thing to have large sums doing nothing in a bank account, and at the kind of scales we are talking about, this is nothing short of criminal. Because the ability to keep paying SS depends on the promise that the US is a place where riches are created (by which I mean goods and services, not bullion) it is an excellent strategy to invest the money in the fund to pay for whatever stuff makes Americans happy and productive.

      You want to know what happens when people start thinking like accountants? Look at Europe! Or think about outsourcing of IT departments, to give an example dear to the slashdot crowd. A country is not a household.

    35. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I like slashdot. In a post yesterday, you said a TON of shit I totally disagreed with. Today, on a different issue, I agree 100% with what you're saying.

    36. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter that there is no money in the fund. In fact, it is a good thing: it is a terrible and wasteful thing to have large sums doing nothing in a bank account, and at the kind of scales we are talking about, this is nothing short of criminal.

      Exactly how is saved money doing nothing? It provides financial security and flexibility. If you don't value either of those, you are an idiot.

    37. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 0

      No, that used to be true, but it's not anymore! Historically, you'd be right: the SS Trust fund used to have real bonds that it could sell for dollars - a store of value. Now it has non-negotiable instruments which cannot be sold. They are a record of how much future tax revenue from the general fund is owed, where they used to be a store of past tax revenue.

      You should be angry at this! We have all been robbed.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:OK, so... by operagost · · Score: 0

      Your examples are meaningless red-herrings. Money in a bank has been covered by the FDIC since 1933, so that's a bit of a tangle even bringing it up. And at least gold under a mattress is real money in your possession. The SS "trust fund" is more like giving your gold to the supermarket, the power company, the landlord, etc. and claiming it's "savings".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 0

      You seem to be arguing against a bunch of stuff I never said. Did you have this whole rant just waiting to copypasta into a random thread?

      Basically, the US is broke exactly when people stop wanting T-bills, and not a moment before.

      That used to be true. The SS trust fund used to have real bonds - but it doesn't any more! Pre-Reagan, the SS Trust fund held bonds that it could sell for money to meet its obligations - as long as people were buying treasuries, it was good. That has changed! It doesn't have those bonds any more. It has an IOU from the congress - special debt instruments than cannot be sold, and represent no economic value. It used to have a store of past tax revenue. Now it only has a promise of future tax revenue.

      BTW, Greece and such are in terrible shape because they spent so very much more than they made, to the point now when no one will lend them money (except Germany, but that's along story). The more we borrow, the fewer people will want to keep buying those T-Bills. If it ever reaches the point with us that is has with Greece, where no one actually believes we will pay off those bonds, the government will collapse: no one is big enough to bail us out!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re:OK, so... by operagost · · Score: 0

      Ponzi schemes break down because eventually, you cannot grow the base fast enough.

      That's the whole point, genius. What part of, "our birth and immigration rates are going down" did you not understand? We aren't bringing in enough marks to pay off the earlier marks.

      it is a terrible and wasteful thing to have large sums doing nothing in a bank account

      My money does not "do nothing" in a bank account. That bank uses it (lets ignore the implications of fractional reserve banking for now) to make investments. We could have put the SS money into relatively risk-free investments and gotten a little interest PLUS a tiny stimulation to the economy to boot. Instead, we spent it on all the government programs that have little or no measurable return. And don't tell me that even low risk is too much risk, at the same time those same leftists are telling me that the millions Obama wasted on doomed "green energy" companies were legitimate "investments".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:OK, so... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I think they pay interest - about 2.4%

      Rate: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/newIssueRates.html

      Formula: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n3

      And, well, all debt are IOUs. The difference is that Congress has put the SST “debt” into a special bucket all of its own. And, for budget purposes, does not consider it debt. Legally does this make a difference? I don’t know. But I do know it is poor accounting.

    42. Re:OK, so... by operagost · · Score: 0
      So what have you done to deserve your SS? Occupy Wall Street? Have the lowest academic performance in public schools ever? Create dubstep?

      By the way, I'm from Generation X and we haven't done shit either.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    43. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, doing "nothing" would be an improvement. I'll take a generation of slackers over a generation that starts wars and destroys economies.

    44. Re:OK, so... by swillden · · Score: 1

      But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.

      There is a trust fund in as meaningful sense as you can make it.

      Got money sitting a bank? What happens if that bank goes under?

      To make that analogy accurate, try:

      1. Take money from a friend and promise to pay it back later (we'll ignore the fact that you forcibly collect one amount from the friend and promise to pay a potentially different amount, most likely more, later).
      2. Deposit the friend's money in a bank.
      3. Borrow an equal amount from the bank, using the deposit as collateral (you can't withdraw the deposit without paying off the loan).
      4. Spend the borrowed funds on hookers and blow.

      Years later, when it comes time to pay the friend, how do you do it? Your bank deposits exactly equal your debts, so that nets out to zero.As long as you have a continually-increasing number of friends with whom you're doing this dance, you can use some of the money you get from new friends to pay off the old ones (which cuts into your hookers and blow budget, so you'll have to borrow that some other way). But if your stream of new friends begins to decline you'll find yourself in a situation where you don't have enough money from new friends to pay the old ones.

      Hiding money/silver/gold in a vault/under a matress? What happens if someone steals it?

      That isn't analogous at all. The SS trust fund doesn't have any hard assets, and if it did there's no one who could steal them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    45. Re:OK, so... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Stop your whining. It was your generation in power that decided that starting multiple wars, deregulating the financial system, and then cutting taxes at the same time was a good idea. Your generation doesn't deserve shit for retirement compared to how your generation looted and pillaged the country thinking that your kids would clean it up.

      Except that it wasn't the OP's generation that did all of that, at least not alone. It was all of the voting generations. Oh, and you forgot to include massively expanding entitlements (particularly Medicare) and bailing out the banks in your list of fiscal irresponsibilities.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    46. Re:OK, so... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      The retirement portion seems best characterized as an annuity you are forced to participate in and pay into on an installment plan.

      It does, however, have a twist that most annuities don't have. In a typical annuity, if pay in another dollar, you get at least as much (actuarial) benefit from that dollar as the previous dollar you paid in. Social Security retirement is the opposite, as you pay in more, the dollars give you less incremental benefit. In fact, the first dollar you put in returns a benefit six times that of the last dollar put in just before the taxable salary cap is hit (see bend points here).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    47. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is insurance, insurance against outliving your retirement savings, outliving your children who might otherwise support you, which does happen.

      That would make sense if only the people in those categories drew the benefits.
      But everybody who paid in gets it, regardless of current income or how much they have saved up.

    48. Re:OK, so... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all of those events (economic downturn, poor judgement etc) are known risks whose occurrence and impact on an individual are unpredictable. These are the sort of risks "insurance" pays out - but only when they occur. Social Security retirement (as contrasted to the disability portion of the program) pays the benefit based solely on the premiums, not on one of the risk events having happened. Therefore, I don't think it's properly characterized as "insurance" in the common usage of the word.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    49. Re:OK, so... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Since a dollar is just faith that the US government will pay its bill there is no real difference between a dollar in the trust fund and a tbill, except we got to use the dollars in the trust fund to create some economic activity. Personally I think the only way to save the social contract that social security represents is to start raising the age for future retirees now, as the average age starts to push 90 there's no way that we can expect to work for ~38 years and live in retirement for ~28, especially with a shrinking or very slowly growing population. My retirement assumptions today (I'm in my mid 30's) is that I won't retire until I'm 72 or so and that I will receive no SS benefits, if SS survives in any meaningful way it will just mean I have a slightly cushier life in retirement.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    50. Re:OK, so... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      What does it matter? The trust fund always was a piddling amount of money ... it's meant to cover fluctuations in receipts, Social Security is not a pension plan it's a pay as you go welfare scheme. It has always been a pay as you go welfare scheme.

    51. Re:OK, so... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Not if they target only young people which are outnumbered by the older folks. One just has to figure out where to draw the line to get 50%+1 support (along with some changes in the filibuster rules in the Senate). The hole has been dug, it will eventually have to be filled in somehow, the scheme can't last another 100 years without major changes (increased contributions and/or decreased benefits).

      My guess is Social Security will begin to be means tested. Likely it will be based on income (which is kind of already done a bit as Social Security retirement benefits are counted as taxable income ONLY if your total income exceeds some amount) with the limit set high enough, perhaps $100K of income a year, that the majority (ref. tyranny of the majority) easily accepts it. This won't raise much money, but it does start the process of boiling the frog. Then the income limit will creep down - those already excluded won't complain (they will figure the more benefits are reduced, the less risk they will have to pay general income taxes to prop the system up in the future) and those well below the new limit won't see the risk. This can happen in about 10 steps over time because no more than maybe 20% of the people will feel that they will be affected by each step. Eventually, any non-Social Security income will simply be deducted from your Social Security benefit. Then, of course, it will be just a welfare program -- and since only about 20% of the people are benefiting, the other 80% will support dismantling the program.

      There may also be some "asset based" means testing, but that is harder to implement so it will be less attractive to the politicians.

      This is not unlike the early days of the modern Federal income tax. It started out as being 7% on incomes above $500,000 (more than $10 million in today's dollars). Of course, the rates went up and the brackets slid down over the years.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    52. Re:OK, so... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      SS is a Pyramid scheme, not Ponzi. Please don’t confused people by mentioning Ponzi schemes and SS in the same sentence. While Ponzis are a sub class of Pyramids, Ponzs, by definition, cannot be sustained. This is not necessary true of Pyramid schemes.

      SS is set up so you get more then you pull in. (Unless you are an African American Male, but that is a different story.) Hence the pyramid part. As long as the base grows (increasing population, increasing income growth, etc.) you’re fine.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

    53. Re:OK, so... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Insurance is something you buy to protect against known, but comparatively rare, risks, so that you don't have to constantly maintain a large cash supply (harder than maintaining a cash flow). SS is sold as insurance, but it's not insurance. It's instead a pay-as-you-go retirement plan. It may or may not be a good idea (I suspect not, but that's irrelevant), and may or may not actually prevent destitution among the elderly (also irrelevant to my point), but it is most assuredly not insurance.

      By this definition, permanent life insurance (as opposed to term life insurance - see here) is also not insurance. In the purest sense, it may be true, but only in the same sense that Brahms is not strictly 'classical' music as he composed in the Romantic, not Classical era. It may be pedantically correct in one sense, but not to the point that it makes it incorrect to refer to SS as 'insurance' or Brahms as 'classical music'.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    54. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... this means I'll get back $1 for every 20 I kicked into the system since 1969?

      Not to worry because the US Government is allowing unfettered Indians into the country to support you in your old age. Of course between now and retirement you are screwed because US Government is allowing unfettered Indians into the country. Welcome to the Third World cesspool of Amerika.

    55. Re:OK, so... by neurophil12 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't argue that it is purely an insurance program, but it clearly does provide a form of insurance. It seems to me that it is the insurance aspect that has provided the basis for the argument not to privatize the program.

    56. Re:OK, so... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      The Dems generally want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security kept out of the regular budget, and not means tested.

      ...except when they're looking to lower taxes on poor people and the middle class...

      Talk about having your cake and eating it too -- "we need to give poor people a tax break and they already pay no income taxes...hrm, let's just reduce their payroll tax burden" -- a few years later... "we need to figure out what spending is absorbing all our tax dollars -- we seem to be spending alot on social programs...NO! That's not part of the budget!"

    57. Re:OK, so... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      There is. It's invested completely in T bills.

      And that's the problem - one government department owes it to another department, with the result being that there's no actual money there, just numbers on paper.

      Say your family is broke, but you want to pretend that you're not. So write a check to your wife for a million dollars and have her keep it in a safety deposit box. Then you can go around saying "We have a lot of money saved in a retirement account".

    58. Re:OK, so... by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.

      Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.

      John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.

      Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?

      Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.

    59. Re:OK, so... by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Your whole comment is invalid because you clearly don't understand the Greece situation. The only reason Greece needs to be "bailed out" to begin with is because its economy is beholden to a currency it doesn't directly control. If it were still on the drachma this crisis would not have happened, at least, not in the same way. Greece would've printed more money, inflation would've shot through the roof, but big deal, that's happened before. High inflation is bad, but not nearly as bad as a total economic meltdown. Similarly, the US Government can just print more money ad infinitum. It will never "run out." That's also why it's pointless for the SS Trust fund to hold real bonds. It doesn't need to, because the payout will be the same regardless. There's no sense in which SS could just keep trillions of dollars of bonds in a "vault" to be paid off at a later date. That would just remove trillions of dollars from the current economy for no reason, instead of having it do productive work like reducing the amount that the government needs to borrow from other sources.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    60. Re:OK, so... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The more we borrow, the fewer people will want to keep buying those T-Bills.

      Empirically, this is not true. Heck, even when the U.S. seemed to be on the verge of failing to fund required payments last summer, T-bills were going to near-record lows... even as the U.S. credit rating was lowered by some agencies, everyone was clamoring to buy more U.S. debt.

      It doesn't seem to be so much the amount of debt the U.S. has, or the rate of spending, or even whether the federal government even has its act together in paying out funds. It really just boils down to "confidence" in the U.S and "confidence" in the dollar... whatever the heck that is.

      Do you really think anyone in the upper echelons of T-bill auctions actually thinks the U.S. will EVER get completely out of debt?!? No one seriously believes that day will ever come. And, frankly, that issue is irrelevant... because the U.S. can print more money. It has control over its dollars. And as long as people have "confidence" in those dollars and in the "U.S.," all will be well.

      The difference with Greece is that they don't have control over their currency. They owe actual value in a currency whose value and distribution they can't control... similar to Germany between the world wars, who owed debts that had to be paid in foreign currencies.

      I'm NOT saying that the U.S. should just start printing money. I'm saying that it CAN print money to pay debts (actually, no printing would be involved, since all these debts are really numbers in some electronic database somewhere), and as long as no one is bothered by that, everything's fine. It all boils down to the "confidence" issue. No one's actually going to stop buying T-bills because of the absolute value of our debt or even our "ability" to pay off debts denominated in dollars (which is effectively limitless). They will only stop buying T-bills if they lack confidence in the continued stability of the federal government and its ability to project the "U.S." reputation for "confidence" throughout the world.

    61. Re:OK, so... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Exactly how is saved money doing nothing? It provides financial security and flexibility. If you don't value either of those, you are an idiot.

      If you think that we should model our macroeconomic government fiscal policy on how you manage your bank accounts, you are an idiot.

      Government spending does not work anything like the spending of a household, nor, in fact, like those of a corporation (even a big corporations). Neither individuals nor corporations have the ability to control the economy by printing money or by forced taxation... and that is a fundamental difference between your savings account and whatever the hell the government is doing.

      (P.S. Don't think I'm a fan of current federal fiscal policy... I'm not. But the analogy to a personal savings account is incredibly misleading and flawed in this instance.)

    62. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Greece would have had hyoer-inflation leading to economic meltdown, just like anyone else who thinks they can print money forever.

      Similarly, the US Government can just print more money ad infinitum. It will never "run out."

      Since we adopted the leaf as a curency, we're all rich! Do you really think this is some new idea? Almost every government in history has been in desperate financial straights at one time or another. Those who tried to print their way out soon starting having to add a 0 to there bills every year, then 3 0s every month, then just start over and peg their currency to the dollar.

      SS did in fact just keep trillions of dollars "in a vault" until the 80s. It really was a seperate account from the general fund, and had securities it could sell and not be (directly) dependent on Congress for money. Really.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    63. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Empirically, this is not true. Heck, even when the U.S. seemed to be on the verge of failing to fund required payments last summer, T-bills were going to near-record lows... even as the U.S. credit rating was lowered by some agencies, everyone was clamoring to buy more U.S. debt.

      Record lows against what? Currencies failing even worse? Sure. But have you seen the price of gold? It's not like there's some sudden new industrial demand for the stuff - gold's rise is mostly the dollar's fall.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    64. Re:OK, so... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Sure it will be around, but the question is whether or not it will actually pay you anything before you're already dead.

      It doesn't matter how you slice it, this IS a Ponzi scheme. The people who started it won big (I recall reading that the first recipient of it paid $29 into it, and received something like $27,000 back) but the people at the bottom of the pyramid (us) are the losers. We'll pay a LOT more into it than we ever get back, that is guaranteed.

      Also, have a look at the number of people going on disability lately, it is growing 50% faster than the population is increasing. Either our bones are breaking easier and/or our minds are going zanier, or we are simply heading where socialism inevitably ends: the house of cards falls apart once everybody figures out how to get quit working (or work half assed) and still make a living.

      There is no clever social system that leads to a magical utopia. Every time it has been tried, disappointment is always the result. There never has been a lasting commune. Karl Marx was dead wrong (not to mention he was a rich boy who started a movement against the wealthy once daddy cut him off.) This isn't Star Trek.

      The answer for retirement (and by the way, prior to the 1900's pretty much nobody retired, you just worked til you died) is building a nest egg.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    65. Re:OK, so... by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make sense. Why would it matter if they could be sold or not? That economic value of treasuries is based on the assumption that the U.S. government pays its debts. The selling part just keeps you from having to wait until maturity.

    66. Re:OK, so... by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.

      Let's be clear about this for the honesty disabled.

      John has cash in his right pocket. With his left hand, he writes an IOU to his right hand and exchanges it for the cash. The right hand digs into the right pocket, takes the cash out, and gives it to the left hand. The left hand spends it. The right hand puts the IOU in his left pocket.

      Is John's IOU a trust fund that he can rely on (i.e. trust) when he needs cash in the future?

      Honest people say no. John is broke. He has no trust fund on which to live, and no trust fund to support anyone else.

      So why do you think a dollar backed by the US Govt is somehow more real than an IOU for a dollar backed by the the US Govt? It's all the same.

      If you want to claim US currency and derivative claims are all subjective and therefore worthless, you have a really easy out: take your USD and buy gold, copper, wheat, coffee, or whatever, and laugh as the fools trusting in dollars get ruined. No need for philosophy or drama.

    67. Re:OK, so... by Genda · · Score: 1

      The problem with gold and other tangible assets is that they won't protect you in an economic blowout. You can't eat gold. Thry guy with the food and water trumps all other players

    68. Re:OK, so... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sure, but a wheelbarrow of cash is also worth less than the effort it took to supply food and water. Either way, you're back to a barter system.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    69. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas I think he says a tonne of shit every time he posts.

      Isn't /. wonderful?

    70. Re:OK, so... by felix+rayman · · Score: 1

      If John has the right to print currency, then yes the trust fund can be relied on and no he is not broke.

    71. Re:OK, so... by felix+rayman · · Score: 1

      "There's only an IOU there with no economic value"

      IOUs written by the US government have economic value. They have so much value that over the last few years, investors have occasionally paid the US government for the privilege of being allowed to hold those IOUs, as in a negative interest rate.

    72. Re:OK, so... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Record lows against what? Currencies failing even worse? Sure.

      The people who invest in the U.S. do have a choice, beyond buying bonds in any currency. There are a lot of investment choices. T-bill rates go lower when demand is higher. It's as simple as that.

      But have you seen the price of gold? It's not like there's some sudden new industrial demand for the stuff - gold's rise is mostly the dollar's fall.

      So?? Both T-bills AND gold are in high demand, and have been even as people have predicted economic disaster in the U.S. The people buying these T-bills are not idiots. If they thought the U.S. would actually collapse and end up in insolvency, there's no way they'd be buying T-bills with ridiculously low interest rates... why do that if there's high risk?

      The value of gold is just as much an illusion as any fiat currency. I just don't get why you "gold standard" guys don't understand that. You're absolutely right -- there's no significant increased industrial demand. Gold prices just went up because some people decided that "shiny rocks" are valuable. Next year they might decide that "green pieces of paper" are more valuable than shiny rocks. Neither gold nor dollars have a lot of inherent value in terms of usefulness. (Admittedly, gold is useful as a conductor and in other applications, but that, as you admit, has little impact on its perceived value.) If we ever had a global economic collapse where fiat currencies become worthless, people are going to care a lot more about things like food or clothing than shiny rocks... the people who will be able to buy stuff in such a dire situation will be people who can trade things of actual useful value, not shiny rocks. Good luck with your shiny rock strategy... it's no more inherently stable than the green piece of paper strategy.

      Which is why I said in my original post: it's all a confidence game. Right now people have confidence in the U.S. AND confidence in gold. A few years back, fewer people had confidence in gold (remember what happened to gold prices a couple decades ago?). Maybe it'll be different in a few years... and one will go up or down. But it's all just made-up conceptions of value allocated to arbitrary things like useless shiny rocks or useless pieces of paper.

    73. Re:OK, so... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wasn't aware that the General Fund was dedicated entirely to Social Security and the balance of government was paid out of something non-existent.

      The SS Fund is the left pocket, while the General Fund is the right pocket. SS taxes go into the left pocket. The entirety of the left pocket is then emptied into the right pocket. SS expenditures are tallied and an IOU from the right pocket is placed in the left for the balance. Then the contents of the right pocket are spent entirely.

      That is SS in a nutshell. Anything else is sugar coating to make it look like something other than a scam.

    74. Re:OK, so... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      The fund is depleted each and every year by the sitting Congress. People lay the blame at the feet of certain Presidents, but Congress is the branch of government which controls the access to the purse strings 100%.

      Don't get me wrong: most of the Presidents who have held office were scum of some sort, but only a few of them can be blamed for major Congressional expenditures.

    75. Re:OK, so... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      That's not true when you consider value relative to the party holding the bond. There is only positive value if you consider the Treasury Dept and the Social Security Dept to be separate entities. In fact, they are two parts of the same entity, which makes the bonds value-neutral.

      If I hold an IOU from a third party (assuming they will pay), that IOU has a positive value to me. If I hold an IOU from myself, that IOU has no value to me as anything other than an accounting trick.

    76. Re:OK, so... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards. The Dems generally want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security kept out of the regular budget, and not means tested. Doing those things would make the programs, in essence, just more welfare programs, and thus more easily cut in hard times. You are also mistaken about the "trust fund." The trust fund currently consists of Federal government bonds, because all the money was used at the time it was raised, to make the deficit appear lower. The net effect is that when it's time to make payments from the trust fund, the government must either inflate the currency to make those bonds less expensive in real terms to buy back (thus hurting people who actually save money), raise taxes to get more revenue to pay off the bonds (thus hurting those who will then be paying in to benefit those who are paying in now), sell other bonds to pay off the earlier bonds (thus increasing the national debt/interest on net, and on the assumption that US government bonds haven't gone off a cliff), or not pay the promised benefits. Some combination of these three is most likely. But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.

      I agree, and it was wrong ever to make a SS trust fund. But that was all part of structuring it as an "insurance" program. The SS tax rates should always have been kept close to the current cost of the program so the funds wouldn't be borrowed (stolen) to pay for current programs.

    77. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The problem with this analogy is that ALL money, including that in your bank account, is an illusion created by the government. We go along with the illusion because a) money is incredibly useful, and b) if we choose to participate in some other government's made-up-money we will be unable to pay taxes to our current government, and the current government will throw us in a very real jail cell.

      In the US, Obama has the right to make coins in precious metals himself, in whatever denominations he thinks necessary, so even if Congress and him decide to not fund T-Bill payments to Social Security with taxes he can fund them himself.

      Moreover, do you think there is any chance (literally ANY CHANCE) that a political system controlled by a) the old-dude-dominated Republican Party, and b) lefty-progressive-commie-types who have near fanatical loyalty to the Social Security System as created by their favoritist President ever won't find a way to pay Social Security's bills? I cannot think of a scenario where either party (much less both) decides to both not fund those T-Bills through Congress, and a) also manages to pass a law preventing the platinum coin trick or b) convinces the President to tell all his voters "sorry your grandma's just gonna have to starve;" that does not also include the total collapse of the US Economy. And it's not like a SS Trust Fund full of Apple Stock would survive a total economic collapse either.

    78. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I really hate these analogies.

      Do you know why your bank account has dollars it? Because the federal government says so. If the bank tries to screw you you can sue it in Federal Courts, and they will have to stop. You know why your dollar has value? Because the Federal government and all it's subordinate state governments demand Americans pay taxes in US Dollars. So Federal accounting has very little in common with the accounting you do as an individual.

      In the extremely unlikely circumstances that the Social-Security-user-dominated-GOP and the Social-Security-worshipping Democrats in Congress ever decide to not pay those T-Bills owned by Social Security the US President will have very good reasons to work around those morons and pay the T-Bills anyway. Every one of his voters is either using Social Security or has a grandma. He has tools that will work. the legal right to declare a random platinum disk infinity dollars, deposit it in the Federal Reserve, and pay the T-Bills anyway. He's got the right to issue precious metal coins in any denomination he can think of, and it's literally unconstitutional to say he can't do whatever he wants to pay off that debt. The 14th Amendment says flat-out "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned."

    79. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Dude,

      You really do not understand how federal finances work.

      Since the government defines what is money, it has a lot more flexibility then a normal person. For example, during the debt ceiling crisis last year everyone agreed that Obama could have solved it simply by issuing a platinum coin with an arbitrary face-value, which could then have been deposited in the Federal reserve. The money would have been perfectly legal. It would have been really bad economic policy for him to do so, and it probably would have killed his re-election chances, but he could have done it. John can't do that.

      Moreover you're ignoring the fact that Social Security debt is debt the American people owe their grandmothers. You ain't gonna win re-election on a platform of "let's not pay grandma what she's owed," which means Federal debt is a lot more likely to get paid then that loser John's debt.

      In other words, if any US Elected official decides to screw grandma by not paying those T-Bills the economy as a whole has almost certainly already collapsed and anything in that trust fund is worthless.

    80. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The people who invest in the U.S. do have a choice, beyond buying bonds in any currency. There are a lot of investment choices

      True enough. I don't think we really disagree: like any borrower, we survive based on the confidence lenders have in our willingness and ability to repay. I won't buy US federal securities any longer, as I lack that confidence. Far more worrying: the Chinese central bank seems to be making the same choice, to favor direct investment in US stocks over buying new US treasuries.

      If the stock market ever wakes up again, and reverts to the historical norm for long term gains, federal debt just won't be very appealing as an investment, and that could be very painful.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    81. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You might be right about Greece, but the other PIGS countries probably would have been fine with 10% or so inflation for a few years. It wouldn't have been fun, but it wouldn't have been Catalonia-wants-to-break-up-the-country bad either. Even Greece probably could have survived better then this if they had not printed money to pay their bills. There's plenty of ways to be inflationary without causing hyper-inflation. Make the interest rates your banks pay negative, keep the deficit as high as it can go (15% interest on bonds is not fun, but if you control your own currency it is payable), etc.

      The core problem is that the low-inflation policies that Northern Europe loves just do not suit economies dominated by inefficient small businesses and relatively weak state-structures. In Germany you can call six guys to a meeting in Berlin and hash out the economic policies of the textiles sector in an hour. In a country where textiles are family businesses this does not work. It never will. Even if you find six guys, and get a deal together, nobody has the power to enforce it.

    82. Re:OK, so... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Since a dollar is just faith that the US government will pay its bill there

      No,that's backwards! A dollar's value at it's most fundamental is faith that you can pay your bill to the government using it. The core of value for any national currency, fiat or otherwise, is that the government will accept it as payment of taxes. You have to have some dollars to pay your taxes, so there's some value in those dolars.

      More practically, the value of the dollar is roughly the value of everything the US can produce divided by the number of dollars.

      My retirement assumptions today (I'm in my mid 30's) is that I won't retire until I'm 72 or so and that I will receive no SS benefits,

      I plan to retire by 50 (which is getting scary-close for me). You can too (well, mid-50s if you haven't started saving). Live on half your take-home pay and invest the other half. It takes less that 20 years to reach the point you're self-sufficient that way (20 includes some margin for stupid investment mistakes during the first 5). If financial independence isn't enough of a priority to sacrifice lifestyle today for it, well, then you won't get financial independence. For sure no one's going to give it to you.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    83. Re:OK, so... by swillden · · Score: 1

      What you say is true, but in practice it's a distinction without a difference.

      When a government can't pay its debts, it has two basic options: default or devalue.

      Default is decidedly unlikely in the case of the United States. Unless we decide to actually pay down the debt, devaluation is what we'll do... and the president doesn't have to do anything bizarre like declaring some disk as being worth some huge amount. It's much simpler than that. The fed will simply keep set the prime lending rate to zero and keep it there, which will have the effect of creating all of the money anyone wants to borrow, which will create heavy inflation, reducing the real value of the debt until it gets to a level where it can be paid.

      This is not, however, an outcome to be desired.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    84. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Let's look at three universes with slightly different SS Trust Funds and extreme inflation.

      In universe a) the government buys stocks, bonds, etc. in private corporations to put in the trust fund. In universe b) the government buys Federal bonds, and c) they basically stash the cash under a mattress. What happens to the trust fund if the Feds can only pay their debts by causing massive inflation?

      In universe a) many companies go out of business because massive inflation is bad for the economy. The trust fund is the least of our worries, but it's definitely one of them because inflation is really hard on investment portfolios. Not only will the next, sane, non-inflationary government have to deal with inflation, it will also have to find $hundreds of billions to restock the trust fund.

      In universe b) the economy is still shot, but the trust fund is not a problem. It can pay exactly the amount it was designed to pay out, because the government bonds are still paying their 1% interest. The next government is gonna have problems with the trust fund being too small, because the $12,000 a year SS benefits it pays out are inadequate post-inflation, but it's not gonna have the problem of finding $hundreds of billions to pay those $12k benefits.

      You probably knew this already, but Universe c) is most fucked up of all. It's basically universe b), except the inflation is hyperinflation because taking hundreds billions of dollars, letting them sit in a Federal Reserve account for 20 years, and then taking them back out is economically identical to printing hundreds of billions of dollars. I only bring it up for completeness sake.

      IMO universe b) is by far the best option.

    85. Re:OK, so... by swillden · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you disparage option a). It's clearly the best of them, because b) has all of the problems of a) plus its own problems Why? Because in b), the federal government has to come up with the tax revenue to fund the bond redemptions, and tax revenue comes from private sector companies, some directly, mostly from their employees. So when massive inflation crushes many of the revenue-generating companies, and unemployment skyrockets, the tax base gets smashed flat, meaning even more inflation is required to fund the bond redemption.

      But even more important, had the money been invested in private markets, which is to say, had the money been invested, period, rather than simply being spent, massive inflation would have been less necessary. Option b) is a big part of the problem whose solution your'e trying to say is less painful under option b).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    86. Re:OK, so... by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      That's not the correct analogy at all. Because the government doesn't owe that money to itself. It owes that money to social security beneficiaries. The government is borrowing from all of us (taking social security taxes today and paying out benefits in the future). But instead of holding the money in a savings account in the interim, it holds the money as bonds. Those bonds have exactly the same economic value as any other bonds that the U.S. issues. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

    87. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      Eventually you have to pay the piper, Nic. The Republicrats and Democans can continue to pretend there's enough money to go around while the country burns down around them but all the hot air in Washington doesn't change the facts that:

      1) The baby boomers are about to really start putting a load on our entitlement system.
      2) We're already borrowing about 40% of every dollar the Fed spends.
      3) There is no actual money in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box" or whatever euphemism you like.
      4) All of our entitlement programs will be paying out more than they take in within the next 10 years.
      5) The shortfall has to come from somewhere.

      You can inflate the currency, you can reduce benefits, or you can do a little of both. What you can't do is have your cake and eat it too. We have some very tough decisions coming.

    88. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      50 times in 2012 alone. Source: FDIC

      And I think the current limit is $250K per account.

    89. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      *facepalm* "Make the interest rates your banks pay negative, keep the deficit as high as it can go (15% interest on bonds is not fun, but if you control your own currency it is payable), etc."

      So then the banks buy up all the 15% bonds instead of taking the fed bank rate and you've dug the hole that much deeper! Now you've got an entitlement problem AND a debt problem.

    90. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      Just two little problems:

      " They [Greece] owe actual value ..." Yes, ACTUAL VALUE, which Greece can't produce enough of in any currency compared to its current obligations, and

      " as long as no one is bothered by that [inflation]..." Except that people WILL be bothered by that, people whose savings are suddenly not keeping up with the skyrocketing cost of living driving them towards poverty.

      There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    91. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      "The people buying these T-bills are not idiots." Neither were the people buying mortgage backed securities. I, mean, until it turned out they were.

    92. Re:OK, so... by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Because of two factors. First, everybody wants to believe that an amorphous and super-powerful force is keeping them from being who they dream they are. Second, If they aren't paying extra-high taxes then why aren't they as well off as their parents were with this kind of income?

      Most people today want to see the government as an amorphous and all-powerful force AGAINST them, when in fact the government is, ingeneral, just trying to do what it has been told to do by the people that aged P voted into office.
      And they aren't as well off because they have higher standards of living and higher expectations for their ability to spend beyond their income like their parents did.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    93. Re:OK, so... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      There's no perfectly correct analogy, because an individual does not have the ability to force a third party to cover the debt obligations they incur through the use of IOUs.

      A bond to cover debts to taxpayers is funded by taking money from taxpayers. It does not create value, it simply moves the column it's entered into. When the actual liquid capital is spent the year it's collected, the bonds written to cover the excess not paid to beneficiaries has no value until it is covered by other means when the bonds come due. Of course, this is all irrelevant now since it's unlikely that new bonds will ever be written for SS moneys deposited into the General Fund.

      A loan to yourself is not necessarily bad if there are valid reasons to perform the accounting in that manner. It should never be counted as a net asset though, which is what politicians have tried to pass the SS bonds off as. Sure, it's a net asset for the SS Dept., but there is no valid argument for claiming it's a net asset to the Federal government as a whole.

    94. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      If you actually read my posts you'll note that: a) The Fed Bank Rate does not exist in any country I was talking about because the Fed Bank is set by the Federal Reserve Board of the United States of America and b) I never said it would be painless, or cause no problems. I said high-inflation policies were an option that Italy, etc. could have pursued if they still controlled their own currencies.

      Given that Greece is likely to fall to Fascism in a few years, and nobody has an actual plan to prevent Spain/Italy/etc. from going down the same path as Northern European mandated austerity guts those economies; I have to say that it would take a whole lotts of problems to make the pro-inflation options I mentioned worse then the anti-inflation policies Europe has actually adopted.

    95. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You know it really is amazing how much anti-tax ideology has infested so-called economic thinkers.

      There is a third option: raise taxes. You don;t even have to raise the rates for Social Security. Simply making the SS tax apply to income above $110,100 would solve the entire problem for Social Security. And yet, you, who make a pretty good show of knowing economic issues, restrict the options for solving Social Security to "You can inflate the currency, you can reduce benefits, or you can do a little of both."

      Dude, taxes work. They raise money for the government.

    96. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I prefer option b) because I understand math. Inflation means every price goes up. That is the definition of inflation. Sales tax varies directly with prices. Salaries go up, too, albeit more slowly then consumer prices; which means more income tax revenue in dollar terms. Duties at ports go up. Payments on T-Bills, however, stay exactly the same. Which means that if your tax policy was providing enough money to cover the bonds prior to inflation it will be providing enough to cover them post-inflation. Granted you've got a lot of demands on that tax revenue because government costs are also sy-rocketing, but the Social Security Trust Fund just won't be one of those problems.

      OTOH, option a) only really works in theory. In theory an average return on the stock market is better then anything else. In practice it is impossible to get an average return, and in a down year due to inflation you're not getting that mythical 9.4% a year. You'll probably lose money (historically stock prices do not rise during periods of severe inflation). You'll have to make up out of tax revenue or cut benefits. Neither one is a good idea when you also have to increase the defense budget 10% or watch the entire Army resign.

      More importantly flooding the stock market with $2 Trillion controlled by politicians doesn't seem to be an ideal way to run a Social Security system.

    97. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      You're right, I did leave that option out and I was remiss in not explaining why: there is no amount of taxes that's going to make up for the shortfall in entitlements. There simply isn't enough money there.

      Even limiting the discussion to SS: removing the tax cap doesn't fix the shortfall. If you removed the cap entirely you'd still have to limit benefits at about to rate for the current cap in order to actually fix the SS deficit. (Source: CRS. And that's just SS.

      Raising tax rates also has the problem of diminishing returns. Historically tax rates have been all over the board but no matter what they've been set at we've never collected more than about 20% of GDP and we average about 18%.

      The worst problem is that raising taxes, even if it would work, only continues to give the junkies their fix. Instead of attacking our serious SPENDING problems we want to keep putting off the pain of withdrawal with another tax hit (or inflation). Indeed if you look at lot of the commentary on the Internet on the idea of removing the SS tax caps it's inevitably followed by salivating over how all that extra money could be spent on more wish list items.

      There is no such thing as a financial perpetual motion machine. I'm not optimistic that we're going to learn this any way other than the hard way.

    98. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the report you linked to? To quote it:

      Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range
      deficit in the Social Security Trust Funds. For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount
      had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all
      earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. If
      all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
      Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.

      Or perhaps you don't understand Social Security accounting. The accountants always project it will run out of money. This has been the case since it was created. They actually stop running the calculations at 75 years, so this says we'll be fine. Hell, everything is fine even if we have 50 years to plan because a) 50-year projections suck, therefore there's an excellent chance we're in the black, and b) even if the accountants perfectly predict the rise of the next great technology we still have 50 years to deal with it.

      As for the issue of "junkies," and "spending," the problem with your argument is it does not actually exist. Your example of an out-of-control spending program (Social Security) is easily solved by taxes that would not break the economy. Given that you'd be a total moron to present anything but your only example of out-of-control spending that can't be fixed by easy taxes it follows that a) you're a moron or b) the "spending problem" lives entirely in your head.

      BTW, in normal debate you'd be well-served by going to Medicare. That is a program that can't be fixed by simple tax hikes. In fact you'd have been much smarter to lead with it. SS is easily fixed by the simple tax hike I mentioned, and the rest of the budget is fine if we simply go back to Clinton-era tax rates. These tax rates may be higher then you'd prefer, but a) it's not that much higher and b) a JUNKY addicted to SPENDING needs more then slightly unreasonable taxes to support his HABIT.

      Unfortunately for you this is not a normal debate. I actually know the Medicare issue. Good luck figuring out what a fee schedule is, and figuring out how you can prove that Accountable Care Organizations = benefit cuts.

    99. Re:OK, so... by Specter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for checking my source, but please re-read it. The paragraph you quoted says exactly what I said. SS's deficit can't be covered even by completely removing the cap. You have to ALSO reduce benefits for the people who were previously above the cap in order for the system to no longer be running in deficit. Which is perfectly consistent with my original position: you've got to either inflate or cut benefits.

      As for making an example of SS, you introduced that into the conversation; my original post was directed at all entitlement spending. I agree that Medicare (and actually the entire Federal "health care" apparatus) is a much much bigger problem.

      If you're interested in some interesting debate on the PPACA and other health care stuff, check out: The Apothecary.

    100. Re:OK, so... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      SS benefits are based on the amount of money paid in, raising the amount taxed also raises benefits. The paragraph says that to bring SS into 75-year balance one would need to bust the cap on income taxed, but not increase benefits for people who paid more taxes. That's not benefit cut, by definition, because the everyone gets the same dollars they would have before.

      It's remarkably intellectually dishonest that you not only define everyone getting the exact same benefits as a cut, but you also take it as given I will agree with your definition. It shows you spend a lot of time in the conservative bubble.

      As for Obamacare, nobody has ever claimed it will solve Medicare's problems all by itself. It includes several pilot programs that are designed to find out whether we can actually save Medicare without cutting benefits (BTW, in terms of Medicare inflation would be a benefit-cut, since beneficiaries receive goods and services instead of cash).

      On the pro side the Canadian government spends something like 2/3 what we do on benefits per capita, and gets more care. The Canadian government actually spends less per capita on health care then ours does. All this implies there's a hell of a lot of inefficiencies in the US System that could be wrung out without screwing people. On the con side there's the fact that damn near everybody has tried to cut US Health costs, but nobody has figured out a way that works for more then a couple years.

      BTW, typical right-wing explanations for Canada's cheap health-care could explain some of the differences, but not all We're a little fatter, but they drink a lot more. We're actually less diverse -- almost 25% of Canadians are Francophones, and almost 20% are foreign-born; which means they needed to invent a special phrase for the people we call "minorities," the "visible minorities," who are another 16%; granted there's significant overlap between these groups, but still.

  2. Not a record low by mcgrew · · Score: 0

    However, it's the lowest it's been in 90 years. The US birthrate was very high before the 20th century. The population was relatively small, most people were farmers, and needed all those kids. My mother is 83 and the baby of the family, and she has three brothers and six sisters. Back then, that was normal. before 1900 the average family was even bigger.

    This is only a record low for most of our lifetimes.

    1. Re:Not a record low by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is being the very lowest it's ever been recorded as being since we began reliably recording it "not a record low"? Which word are we disagreeing on here, "low", or "record", since it certainly qualifies as a "record low" for any definition of either of these words I'm aware of. And if it's only a record low for most of our lifetimes, do tell us when it was lower? Which year? And how and where was that record recorded?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Not a record low by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, it's the lowest it's been in 90 years. The US birthrate was very high before the 20th century. The population was relatively small, most people were farmers, and needed all those kids. My mother is 83 and the baby of the family, and she has three brothers and six sisters. Back then, that was normal. before 1900 the average family was even bigger.

      This is only a record low for most of our lifetimes.

      I'm confused, you claim this isn't a record low because it used to be much much higher 100+ years ago? Your post honestly doesn't make any sense to me. This really is almost certainly a low for the US, since as you yourself point out, before the advent of modern medicine and technology, many women would have 5+ children. They needed to: not only was the help around the farm vital to succeed, but with the death rate being so high, especially among infants, the population could only stay steady if everyone who could had a lot of kids.

      Also, I should point out that it is a record low, quite literally: it's the lowest on record, which by definition is a "record low". It may or may not be the lowest ever for the US, but it quite likely is.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Not a record low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also confused, but maybe he's confusing "low" with "decline"? Meaning that a decline of 8% is nothing compared to the declines seen previously in the century (not sure if that would be true, but it would connect to his anecdote)

    4. Re:Not a record low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The US birthrate was very high before the 20th century....

      Wait... you're arguing that it isn't a record low because in the past it was much higher?

      This word "low"... I don't think it means what you think it means.

    5. Re:Not a record low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What really bothers me is the 3 interesting upmods. I know this is slashdot and all "I don't read the article, or summary, or sometimes even the title," but do we not even read the comment we're moderating now?

    6. Re:Not a record low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently neither you nor the moderators know what words like 'high', 'low', and 'record' mean.

    7. Re:Not a record low by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Which word are we disagreeing on here, "low", or "record"

      "Reliably." That's the word I missed.

    8. Re:Not a record low by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I'd still be curious when it was recorded as being lower, even if the record isn't reliable...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  3. Re:Immigrants... right by Lithdren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...who said they were illegal, and why would you assume simply refering to an 'immigrant' would result in only illegal immigrants?

    Wow, just...wow.

  4. Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Pollux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

    1. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The old generation mentality is wrong, and unsustainable. lower birth rates should be encouraged. It makes for a higher standard of living for all, and a higher quality of living for all. who knows, maybe fewer people could help create more social-cohesion and community:something many people lament this era is lacking in.

      the only downside is the current social programs have been geared for continual exponential growth (more young-ens sustaining the geezers) and they look a little scary with a low to negative growth rate.

    2. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is selfish to want you kids born into a home that is already financially stable? Personally, I find it grossly irresponsible to attempt to have children when you are constantly broke.

    3. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

      I suppose "One's" never stopped to consider that maybe those Americans who make fiscal security a priority over popping out offspring do so for the benefit of said potential offspring.

      Sure, the wife and I could have had kids as soon as we got married - and those kids would have grown up in abject poverty as a result. Instead, we decided to focus on getting financially stable first, so any children we do end up having get a better start than either of us did.

      Sounds to me like "One's" is the person who doesn't deserve to procreate.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another take on it is that people who are responsible, and realize how much children cost and how much investment it takes in them, wait a long time to have kids and don't have many. Having a house and a two car garage, and having them paid off is SMART, it's how you can live your life without being a slave in someone else's salt mine (and making the kinds of decisions that slaves make).

      I don't see this trend as "bad", it seems pretty good to me. We have too many people, we consume too many resources, we don't really have enough to go around for any length of time. Let the population shrink to what it needs to be given the level of technology we have available.

    5. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

      Perhaps for a select few. However, I believe it is the financial squeeze put on families that is the bigger issue.
      In the past you would work most of your life at a single company and collect a pension. With security like that it was much easier to have a child, knowing they would be taken care of. With the economic uncertainty now why would you want to have more than 1 or at most 2 children.

    6. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, back-in-the-day you didn't get married until you could support a family. Which would mean you'd need a house, cars, sufficient insurance, etc. The real change here is when couples get married, not the conditions they look to achieve before having kids.

    7. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK a couple where only one person works can't afford kids any more. Even with two working parents it is hard, and some people feel they should be full time parents.

      I have a pretty good job but kids are out of the question for the foreseeable future, even if I did want them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world's population doesn't need to be as big as it is now. There are benefits to large populations (certain cultural output that can be replicated cheaply scales almost perfectly with population), but there are also downsides (natural resources must be divided). Exponential growth must eventually hit a limit, and presumably there is some optimal range for population. Why does everybody always assume that it's "what we have now, forever", for every value of now ever?

      Anyway, I don't think the United States population is even on a decline, even with a 1.9 birthrate, because of immigration.
      http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/30/187246/us-birthrate-plummets-to-record-low#
      (How is it selfish to not have children until you live in a nice neighbourhood with good insurance and creature comforts? Why isn't it considered selfish to have the kid first and then have to scramble to provide for it?)

    9. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by xs650 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Overpopulation is a problem that is getting worse, the selfish ones are the ones that have lots of children.

    10. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the old generation mentality was right. Why do you think it worked for so many thousands of years and yet we will somehow sustain a population with nobody having kids anymore. What, do you think you're going to magically live forever if you don't procreate? Are you leaving it up to someone else to have your 2.3 children? Good! I don't want more people who think like you to propagate.

      You aren't going to magically live forever, whether your propagate or not.

    11. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wha wha what? Was the population 6 billion a thousand years ago?

      The older generation is wrong in today's world. We could go for a few decades of birth decline and thin out the population by a few billion.

    12. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      So, your out of touch old people are saying that being financially stable enough to have a safe location (ideal in raising children) and enough money to live comfortably (ideal in raising children) prior to having children is... selfish? Further, that the very idea of not forcing yoru offspring upon the world is selfish?

      Well, my out of touch old people think Obama is personally going to break into their houses at night and steal their guns. All I can do is shake my head sadly and look to the future. If anything, fewer children should mean that we can better focus on educating them such that we can leave the "old ways" behind.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    13. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Judging by your account ID, I guess you couldn't be TOO much younger than I am.

      Back in the day, what the hell else was a woman going to do with her time? And how else were they going to get financial security for their old age?
      http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

      Social Security was created in '37. Medicare in '65. If you didn't have kids, you were looking at a pretty hard retirement.

      And, of course, the more kids you had, the more farm hands you had - if that was your life (as it was, to a fair extent, for my grandparents).

      So having kids often was the answer to financial security back then.

    14. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Informative

      "One's" is probably 70 or 80 years old, and grew up and raised children at a time when economic realities were totally different. When it was normal to support a family on a single salary. When you didn't have to go to college to break into (or stay in) the middle class. (One of my college professors told me that when he was in college in the 1940s, he earned enough money in his summer job to pay tuition for the year!) When the median house cost 2x the median annual salary, not 8x. When employees had job security and strong unions and could expect a pension, and medical costs were not 20% of the GDP.

      The bigger TV and even the second car are small expenses compared to the costs of establishing economic security in modern America.

      It's a conceit of the old that because they had it hard, we somehow have it easier. But it's understandable.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    15. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on that one. It seems most people that do have kids, have kids before they can PROPERLY provide for them. Back in the day it was unheard of for an expecting father to not have a job.

    16. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they get married a lot younger back in the day?
      But they were working; nowadays we have a bunch of twenty-somethings living on student loans and sponging off their parents.

    17. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem to have lot's of kids if you can support them all. The problem is people that decide to have kids that they can not support. They rely on family, friends, and the government to help them.

    18. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by JWW · · Score: 1

      The problem is that our economy is predicated on growth and has been engineered to be that way for decades.

      Lower population growth = lower economic growth

      There are ways to fix this issue, but we need to change the way we look at business and economics to do so.

    19. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, I suspect it's geared more towards the female spouse wanting a career first and foremost.

      Not a sexist thing at all, mind you - back in the day, women usually got married young, moved into the new home, and started having kids. Now, a typical woman fully expects to have some sort of good career going first before even thinking of having children (which also explains why women have their first/only kid later in life in recent times). These days, it seems the only females who have kids before 25 are the teenaged poor and those who end up on MTV's reality TV circuit.

      Also, guys in general don't get out of it that easily either. They want to spend more time playing the field, partying, 'self-actualizing' (or whatever term you prefer), and taking advantage of all that liberated vagina floating around out there. This means more birth control in spite of there being more sex. Sex has become less of a reproductive urge and more of a recreational activity. Nothing wrong with sex itself mind you, but how it is approached by society in general is going to have a huge impact on the birthrate.

      As funny as Idiocracy was, there were some good kernels of truth underlaying it...

       

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    20. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that your fiscal security will be taxed to pay for those who pop out offspring in abject poverty anyway.

    21. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the current social programs, lower birth rates should not be encouraged. It doesn't matter one bit what people save on their own or what programs there are. You need X amount of people to actually build things for Y number consuming. An old population is unsustainable. If you really want to limit population growth you would have to stop the growth on the old end, not the young end. IE put a cap on how long people can live. Of course, nobody will ever go for that.

    22. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think it worked for so many thousands of years

      No, historically in many places it didn't work and ended in horrible suffering due to overpopulation and depletion of resources. Exactly the same path we are heading right now, except this time not on a local, but a global scale.

    23. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you don't have to scramble for it. You give up the tv and the furniture to pay for it.

    24. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by codepigeon · · Score: 1

      Thats why you will only have 1.9 children instead of 2.1. You and your wife wait longer, wait until you're 'financially ready'. ....and apparently many other couples as well.

    25. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is a problem: more people == more resources used.

    26. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The old generation mentality is wrong. We are not an agrarian society anymore. Cities are overcrowded as it is.

      I am not having kids, and here are my reasons:

      1: The US's best days are in the past. I don't want to give a kid a life in a country where the only future he has to look forward to is either a worker overseas, a minimum wage slave, or (God forbid) another inmate in a private prison. After the older generations took their stuff [1] and companies have moved their wealth to BRIC countries. Banks won't lend, businesses can't get any loans, so there isn't much other than memories of past times left.

      2: Location. Unless I wanted to raise someone up horribly, I would have to move to a suburban area. Urban areas are places where kids become either victims, or see Jack Gangbanger as the example of what they want to be. In fact, you actually have to either home-school, or find a good private school if you want kids to have any hope of competing with people from abroad. Public schools in the US only teach "consume, comply, and cuff up".

      3: Environmentalism. People preach being "eco" by driving an underpowered hybrid car. Not having kids does a lot more for the environment.

      [1]: Amuses me when the older guys say the younger generation doesn't work hard. I'm seeing people hold down three jobs just to try to keep a roof over their heads, and what was once a need to get anywhere, going to college, doesn't mean shit.

    27. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by AdamHaun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do you think it worked for so many thousands of years and yet we will somehow sustain a population with nobody having kids anymore.

      It didn't work very well, though. Infant mortality was very high. Lifespans were shorter. *People* were shorter due to not getting enough food as kids. That is not a better world than what we have today.

      Furthermore, why do we need to sustain a population of 7+ billion, as opposed to some lower number? A century ago there were fewer than 2 billion, and it certainly wasn't the end of the world.

      --
      Visit the
    28. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly is this a desirable quality of life for raising children?

    29. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually my wife and I have higher IQ's than most and had ONE kid. and we both honestly love her dearly, and would not trade her for the world, but we would have been far happier in life if we did not have any children.

      Even at the age of 21 my daughter sends home her retarded young person drama.

    30. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by xs650 · · Score: 1

      That is an extremely self centered, selfish view of the world.

    31. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm an out of touch old people.

      I am 45, and when I was divorced tried dating 22-28 year olds. I dated several hotties, but could not stand being around them for long. While they are fun as hell in the sack, and not educated in sex so you can teach them some really dirty things that the old hags wont do anymore, you want to put a gun in your mouth if you have to spend more than an hour with them as they talk about the stupidest crap.

    32. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      I think that's the problem with American birth rates. As a whole they are declining, but I would like to see a study done on how they are changing based on salary?

      I would expect that the higher income levels would be closer to 1, while the lower income levels would be closer to 3.

    33. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If we decide to have any at all - with the seemingly never ending parade of anti-freedom, pro-surveillance, pro-excessive punishment policy that gets legislated into place day after day, I'm not sure I want my progeny to have to deal with such a world.

      Financial security means approximately squat when you live on a prison planet.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    34. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't children be viewed as both burdens and gifts? They might bring joy to your life but they are also the most costly expense that you will probably ever have. Try to have kids after you are financially stable. Not before.

    35. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old generation lived their entire lives in a Malthusian Trap with a ferocious infant and childhood mortality rate. My grandmother mentioned a diphtheria epidemic when she was a girl and of parents that found themselves suddenly childless. For average people a lower birthrate isn't a problem, you spend less on raising children and more on supporting old people, no problem.

      The overclass doesn't like it though. less people means less easy growth due to demographics. As in next year demand for sheet rock will increase by 2% because, households will increase by 2%. Very easy to get richer that way than to have to actually go out and invest in new technologies or human capital. The problem with the latter is Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, the wrong people get rich.

    36. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I have cousins who have made careers out of having children in abject poverty. I mean over a dozen children between three of them. I'm already paying for them. Can't afford any of my own.

    37. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      No, lots of population isn't "overpopulation", and the problem isn't getting worse. Is this something people just accept unquestioningly because they heard it from their teachers when they were very young, or something? Or you you just believe that all people are bad, and so more people ar worse?

      World population is expected to peak soon. The growth in technology which has consistantly enabled growth in population throughout history isn't slacking off. Does it shock you that population has been "sustainable" throughout history? (There have been unsustainable populations and crashes, we've seen evidence, but there are no histories from those groups - the basic technology to write down your history in some lasting way seems to be enough to get things rolling).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

      No. Quite simply, no. Let add a hand slap as well.

      Number 1 in foreign aid? The United States. Most expensive place to live? The United States is certainly up there, it costs much more to live here than in Poland, one of the countries I have recently visited. Yet, one comment I hear time and time again from new brides, I've had occasion to meet a few over the last few months, is the number of children they want. American families have many pressures on them right now, given the economy, 90% of the earners are both parents, so there are childcare costs, healthcare is still a mess regardless of what you hear the Obama boosters yelling, prices are rising, 60 hour work weeks are not unheard of, and YET these people still have the wherewithal to give away millions in charitable aid both domestically and abroad. And you're painting them as selfish? You're a goddamn idiot.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    39. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by xs650 · · Score: 1

      Some people will need to see mass starvation from massive failures of overspecialized crops before they realize there is a problem. Just as some people won't believe there is global warming problem until the Washington DC K Street lobbyists offices get flooded and they tell their bought and paid for politicians that it's real.

    40. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."

      Actually the first thing on their list was the desire to have sex, or at least stop feeling guilty about having it. Children came along as the inevitable result.

    41. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expecting people to care for their own fucking kids is selfish? I'd actually be inclined to turn it around and say that expecting everyone else to pay for your fucking kids is selfish.

    42. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 2

      Technology doesn't feed the population. Oil & Phosphate do. Technology just leverages those resources out of the ground, and once they're gone...

    43. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You need X amount of people to actually build things for Y number consuming.

      I guess you missed the innovations of the past few thousand years. "X" is a lot lower than it used to be. Quantity "Y" changed as well. But one would expect that if "Y" decreases, then "X" is going to decrease as well.

      If you really want to limit population growth you would have to stop the growth on the old end, not the young end. IE put a cap on how long people can live.

      Nonsense. Old people aren't the ones having kids.

    44. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Someone in every generation for the past 2000 or so years has said exactly the same thing. They've been wrong every time. The only time we've ever seen technology be lost historically is after a population crash.

      As far as global warming: until you're ready to talk about the cost of coping with the problem vs the cost of avoiding the problem, you have nothing useful to say.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Technology doesn't feed the population.

      That's only true in a way that's ridiculously pedantic, even by slashdot standards! Technology allows more people to live on a given bit of land, and has progressed since farming was invented.

      Nothing ever gets used up except stored energy, and there's more power coming from the Sun than everything else combined. If course, if the Sun ever stops providing power, we're preety much doomed. Oil as an input to farming is a convenience, nothing more. Crops get their primary energy from the sun, and the actual carbon that feeds us from the air.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children.

      Just wow. Such brutal negativity. Perhaps children are not top of their list for reasons other than selfishness such as the falling wages and outrageous costs of medical care? It seems rather irresponsible to bring a child into this world if you can not afford to provide proper care.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    47. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it backwards, having a child is always a selfish choice.

    48. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Overpopulation is a problem that is getting worse,

      Except that it isn't. Population is tapering off and will start falling by 2050 at the latest, but people are so in love with the malthusian story that they refuse to look at the data.

    49. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that the middle and upper class is selfish because they have less kids in order to fully provide for their families and the lower class is not selfish when they choose to have more kids than they can support and expect everyone else to provide for them? Did you get hit in the head or something?

    50. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Placing the raising of children over the acquisition of stuff does not demand high birth rates. The old folks are not protesting couples having only 2-3 kids; they're protesting the idea of collecting lots of crap (and debt) over having any.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

      Replying just so I could undo a negative moderation I did to parent post, by mistake.

    52. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Waiting is selfish, but having lots of children so that they can do chores and ease your workload isn't.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    53. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that argument all the time. However, wake me up when a solar cell actually produces more energy in its usable lifetime than it takes to make (and this doesn't mean just the PV junctions, but the lenses, the frame, and the other parts.)

    54. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by swillden · · Score: 2

      I suppose "One's" never stopped to consider that maybe those Americans who make fiscal security a priority over popping out offspring do so for the benefit of said potential offspring.

      When those older people grew up "popping out offspring" was the route to fiscal security. Maybe they didn't think of it that way, exactly, but it was. Lots of hands to help work the farm, and lots of kids to help support the parents when the parents got old. A larger family was a wealthier family.

      And, interestingly, when you have a national Ponzi scheme like Social Security running... more kids is also the path to fiscal security for people in their old age, except on a collective rather than individual family basis. For individual families the economic realities are different now, and it's smarter to keep your family smaller, but as those parents age and start living on social security they'll end up wishing their generation had popped out a lot more offspring. Again, they probably won't think about it that way, but that's the reality.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    55. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by guises · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, they haven't been wrong - we've already fought our first major modern war over food, that was World War 2.

      Shortly after that was the green revolution, which drastically increased crop yields and has allowed us to put off the next war for a long while. Ten billion people is unsustainable though, or at least it is as long as certain selfish countries keep insisting on dragging themselves out of poverty.

    56. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Solar thermal does today - very little energy to make. Solar thermal just isn't practical for home generation today (20-30 years to pay for itself) except for a water heater. Solar thermal is great for industrial power generation however - California used to operate a plant providing baseline power, until it was closed for "environmental reasons" (sigh).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    57. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound mexican

    58. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiight, WWII had nothing to do with Nazis feeling frisky, nope, they just wanted food you see ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old people have a way of lying about the past, or at least not remembering it correctly. Look around on a genealogy website. Many first borns were born 6 months after marriage. Either the gestation period is longer now or the more likely answer that people fuck when they're horny and we just have The Pill now.

    60. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm fine with 1.9 for some time. Population has been growing exponentially in the last century and all current data guarantees that there is no possible way in which we can all reach for a good average standard of living with our current numbers. If I remember correctly, .

      And yes, I would love nothing more than to have a big family, but reality tells me that is something "I want", not something that would actually benefit my children in the long run. Thus big families are, IMHO, no longer ethical. I'll stop at 2 children and do my part.

    61. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't children be viewed as both burdens and gifts? They might bring joy to your life but they are also the most costly expense that you will probably ever have. Try to have kids after you are financially stable. Not before.

      Having children could easily be a source of wealth generation if the government would stop interfering in the sale and purchase of babies. It's like the government is trying to destroy that whole market-sector or something.

    62. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The sad irony is a child of yours would have been likely to grow up to be the kind of adult the world needs. Meanwhile, people who aren't as conscientious litter our society with yet more mindless consumers.

    63. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call nonsense without thinking it through. While it is true it takes less people to produce things as it did in the past it is also true that it will still require X number of people to provide for Y number of population. Reducing or stabilizing the population by reducing the birth rate you raise the average age of the population. While older people can sit at a desk and shuffle paper, the actual labor required to mine, manufacturer, construct, plant and harvest the things that we need is much younger. A world with 6 billion people over 45 and 1 billion under 45 is going to have a lot of problems.

    64. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's a personal take on the bad economy. Maybe even a natural balance: Resource-constrained populations (bad economy) avoid children for quality-of-life reasons (theirs & children). That causes fewer children thereby reducing the resource constraint.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    65. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by guises · · Score: 1

      If you think World War 2 was caused by excessive friskiness, I have an entertaining and educational correction for you (you can skip to 8:15 if you want to avoid the summary, I wouldn't):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q78COTwT7nE&feature=BFa&list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9

    66. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      You would be (slightly) wrong. The quick and dirt version:
                The richer you are the more kids you have.
                The higher the cost of college the fewer kids you have.
                Recently, cost of college > rich.

      Long version: http://www.economist.com/node/21561112

    67. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed the best female breeding stock is between 18 and 27 years old. If I was a woman I would prefer raising family over slaving under some tyrannical manager in hopes of one day making a career for myself. Liberated vaginas, as you call therm, tend to wreak of odors best never experienced by any man. Look at the dating websites to see all the "liberated vaginas" and their claims "spending time with family and friends are most important." Then why in Hades are you advertising on a dating website? Oh right! These websites are fronts for prostitution and the young women are just expressing their sexual freedom. ROFLMAO When you are 40 and barren don't expect any man to put up with you.

    68. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You call nonsense without thinking it through.

      Let's kill off the non-breeding part of the population to reduce the rate of reproduction. That's what I called nonsense.

      As to your "takes X to support Y" assertion. X and Y are quantities that change over time. And there's no indication we will ever have less than X people to support Y people. ESPECIALLY, when the Y people can also be shifted over to X.

      While older people can sit at a desk and shuffle paper, the actual labor required to mine, manufacturer, construct, plant and harvest the things that we need is much younger.

      I guess you've never worked with an older person who does these things.

    69. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by khallow · · Score: 1

      They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children.

      And they just dropped a bunch of kids right? No thought given to a place to live or a job to feed those hungry mouths? I somehow doubt it. What happens now is that responsible child rearing is much more expensive now.

    70. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by tepples · · Score: 1

      In case you can't hear YouTube sound where you are, that video is captioned, for which I'm grateful. In case you can't watch video at all where you are, the gist is that Chancellor Hitler wanted Lebensraum (living space) for farmland to grow food for Germans.

    71. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world's population has doubled since about 1968. That implies the demand for food has at least doubled in the last 44 years. That is why the strain on the earth's resources is high. So less is more.

      Expect to see wars concerning drinking water. War also helps to reduce the population.

    72. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's an effect that follows middle class, as they shift from an unsustainable low class the rate of births drop. It's been known for a long time, and we'll see this in India and China soon. TED talks on this subject are fairly common too, Melinda Gates did a nice talk on it not long back.

    73. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's kill off the non-breeding part of the population to reduce the rate of reproduction.

      That is nonsense. And it's not what I said. I said to reduce the population.

      I guess you've never worked with an older person who does these things.

      I have, but exceptions are hardly the rule. And on a global scale, you'll find our way of life is sustained by younger populations working very very hard.

    74. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let's kill off the non-breeding part of the population to reduce the rate of reproduction.

      That is nonsense. And it's not what I said. I said to reduce the population.

      Exactly why I called it "nonsense". Glad we agree on something. As to "reducing the population", if you're not reducing the rate of reproduction, you're not reducing the population in the long term.

      I have, but exceptions are hardly the rule.

      Enough exceptions and they become the norm.

      And on a global scale, you'll find our way of life is sustained by younger populations working very very hard.

      So what? They'll become older populations working hard in a few decades.

    75. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, in the past?? I love when people refer to how things used to be, they are referring to how they used to be just once for one generation as some example of how things are supposed to be. Or that how things were in the mid-20th century should be a guide for how things should be going forward considering how we are really only on our second modern generation of people.

    76. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife's from China and we've been there many times. I also used to live in Tokyo. Anyone who thinks the population should continue to grow should live a few years in Bejing, Hong Kong or Tokyo.

    77. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've often thought that one of the greatest boosts to China was a result of the one child policy. If you only have one kid you probably are much more productive at work. Someone must have studied this somewhere but I can't come up with a link.

    78. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly the opposite. People who only think of themselves have many children and consume a lot of resources as a result. If you want to leave some resources for the rest of the world only have 1 or 2 kids.

    79. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by scared+masked+man · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't a Mathusian catastrophe (which can, on a global scale, be filed in the same category as the invasion of lizard men and the sun exploding), but rather that you get a diminishing return on increasing population. Essentially, a district has to figure out how much it will cost them to maintain the cost of living (and quality of life, however defined) at its current level for each new person. If that cost is more than the benefit they can expect to get (which would usually be economic but could also be social or cultural), they're probably better off discouraging immigration and child-bearing.

      In the past, the burden of each person has been quite small (and may even be negative if more people provide economies of scale), but once you have to desalinate water, import large amounts of food, do major infrastructure works to prevent unreasonable commutes (or get businesses to decentralise), it is easy for a region to be overpopulated or close to it.

    80. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Actually my wife and I have higher IQ's than most

      The fact that you bring that up is proof that you are just a common dumbass (with a little more arrogance, perhaps).

    81. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The selfish, but especially the narrowminded ones, because they truly don't know what horrendous evil they are causing to the planet with their uncontrolled augmentation.

    82. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because they didn't have much of a choice in those days, when sex generally led directly to babies, and there wasn't much one could do about that (except not have sex).

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    83. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      NO idea why this has been downmodded. It's spot-on.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    84. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying that we should selectively breed for the ability to amass bio-survival tickets.

      *Yawn*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    85. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like this?

    86. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can both afford 6 kids, and you have 6 while I'm content with 2, I'd say using 3 times the world's finite resources to exercise your right to a family as I do mine is a bit selfish, yes.

    87. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a father of four, I can testify that it doesn't ease the workload.

    88. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well most historians would probably argue your absurdly hyperbolic argument about ww2. There is no intrinsic problem growing food for 10 billion people on earth. Its a matter of waste, inefficiency, and distribution, which will always exist with economic inequality, maldistributed agriculture, populations, and imperial geopolitics.

    89. Re:Thoughts from my great uncles and aunts... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So basically this is Hitlers explanation at the time for why his war wasn't so evil? I expected something like that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have an idea where this is coming from...

    1. Re:pr0n by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      i have an idea where this is coming from...

      That or birth control?

    2. Re:pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have an idea where this is coming from...

      That or birth control?

      Masturbating to porn instead of having sex could be seen as a form of birth control.

    3. Re:pr0n by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      i have an idea where this is coming from...

      That or birth control?

      Masturbating to porn instead of having sex could be seen as a form of birth control.

      Touchè.

  6. must be my son's school then by alen · · Score: 1

    they built a new addition over the last 3 years to handle more students and they are still getting more applications than seats. this is for kindergarten. 160 some seats and they got almost 200 applications. this is for a NYC public school

    1. Re:must be my son's school then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not following. The story is about how there are fewer children being born, and you're trying to relate it to your son's school who has more children than they expected...?

  7. Need more immigration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an issue that doesn't get enough attention. Let's face it, if we are to have any near future (20-50yrs) for entitlement programs, we need to be encouraging both immigration and reproduction.

    Of course, if we want a long-term future for entitlements, we're going to have to reform them to some form of fiscal sanity. We cannot expect to grow out of our problems, as they will grow with us.

    1. Re:Need more immigration. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      If you want less pollution you want fewer people. If you want a richer nation (with more pollution and more environmental degradation) then you want more educated immigrants. Either way we should look to Canada and have an immigration policy where we set standards for those who want to become citizens.

      Any proposed solution will lead straight to Godwin's Law, sooner rather than later.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Need more immigration. by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      This is an issue that doesn't get enough attention. Let's face it, if we are to have any near future (20-50yrs) for entitlement programs, we need to be encouraging both immigration and reproduction.

      There is a fixed amount of land and resources available to the US. If they would simply tax corporations that extract those resources appropriately there would be enough wealth to go around.

      Adding more people is a band-aid solution to a failed system.

    3. Re:Need more immigration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxing corps doesn't work, they will just export the jobs to China. The only solution is to strip all of the free trade BS that created the tax dodgers.

    4. Re:Need more immigration. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. you tax them, if they leave, you tax their products more than if they were here.

      It works very well if you dont have your government full of scumbags that cater to rich corporations first and the country last.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Need more immigration. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. you tax them, if they leave, you tax their products more than if they were here.

      So you're going to make everyone better off by increasing the cost of the things they buy?

    6. Re:Need more immigration. by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. you tax them, if they leave, you tax their products more than if they were here.

      So you're going to make everyone better off by increasing the cost of the things they buy?

      So you're going to make everyone better off by increasing the cost of externally produced things they buy; thereby making the domestically produced items cheaper by comparison?

      Sounds OK.

    7. Re:Need more immigration. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes. Taxing coprorations is nothing more than a sales tax (where else will the money come from, lower profits? As if.), and sales taxes are regressive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Need more immigration. by superflit · · Score: 1

      Sorry It DID NOT worked in Brazil where we pay 3x times for a POS car.

      OR 4 times for every electronic (compare apple stores).

      Face it, you want cheaper cost of living invest in infrastructure and education.

    9. Re:Need more immigration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how it works here in the USA.

      We dont spend on those. we just have everything made by slaves in china. Cheaper cost of living based on exporting all manufacturing to countries where you can get away with anything is the best way.

      Right now we have the "oh god, please save the poor poor rich people" movement. where taxing them a little bit more is looked upon as if you are stabbing baby jesus. Mostly by the current idiot people that believe anything said from the pope of the church of Fox News.

      I personally want all taxes to go up 20%, and i HOPE the rich assholes leave. we dont need them.

  8. You heard em people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Get fuckin.

    1. Re:You heard em people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get fuckin.

      But the church said....

    2. Re:You heard em people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the church said....

      "Multiply and replenish the earth." Your point?

  9. Re:Immigrants... right by istartedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if you are here illegally, you get payroll deductions. In fact, since you're afraid of the government you may decide not to file a tax return and claim your refund. You might consume more services at the local level, such as going to the ER for medical care which is expensive. There's a lot of data sloshing around; but it's clear that illegal immigrants pay some taxes. They definitely can't avoid sales tax which is pretty high in California now. For the types of jobs immigrants work, that sales tax is a pretty big hit since they'll be spending a large portion of their income right away--even if it's under the table and has no payroll deduction.

    Note, I'm not defending the idea of coming to a country illegally. We need to secure the borders, and address the supply and demand for labor in a way that's fair, productive, and beneficial to the whole country. I'm just saying that it's not accurate to say they pay "no taxes".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. Re:Immigrants... right by shaitand · · Score: 1

    You do know there are millions of legal immigrants flooding into the country right? The bar for legal US immigration is low and it is intentionally made easy to immigrate. That is why some people don't think we should be giving a free pass to the illegals. They essentially bypassed taking a couple days to learn the Constitution and a basic English test and an oath of loyalty to the US. People who have a problem with those requirements aren't our kind of people.

    And the article didn't say they were depending on taxes from the immigrants, they are depending on their children and their children will be citizens whether the parents were or not.

  11. PANIC! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    the average number of children a U.S. woman is predicted to have in her lifetime is 1.9, slightly less than the 2.1 children required to maintain current population levels

    Oh my GOD! It's like we'll have to allow some people to migrate into our country just to sustain ourselves! QUICKLY, let's open the floodgates of and bring more people in before we all just wither and fade away!

    Seriously? This is an issue?
    That anyone feels this is newsworthy is why we have a distruct of sociologists. They have serious discussions over "well, duh" type findings.

    All that said, I see what they're trying to say: "Social Security if fucked". And while that's an important thing to say, it ALSO falls into the category of "well, duh".

    1. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh by all means, close the doors, then you along with the rest of the shrinking group of middle class Americans will be supporting the VAST numbers of ageing boomers.

      Your taxes will go up and your infrastructure will go down and you'll wonder why it happened.

      Oddly enough you can't run a society without people.

    2. Re:PANIC! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously? This is an issue?

      It's an economic bubble. Our country is based on debt, which is based on inflation, which is based on population expansion. More hands out means more hands to put money into which means more debt which means more money in the money system which means you can keep collecting interest. Issued debt grows and grows, but work gets done.

      Now when people start working their way out of debt and paying on assets, stop taking loans, etc, that fails. Stop taking mortgages? Credit crunch, recession, depression. Stop taking student loans? Credit crunch. With a credit crunch, we don't have as much money in the system. That means less money flowing around to pay off loans, making it harder for people to get high-paying jobs to pay down their debt, meaning defaults on debt, meaning people are foreclosed on and banks are left with worthless assets and lose money. Loss of money means the federal government doesn't get paid back, and banks fold, and the taxes go up--or the banks raise interest rates and add fees to take more money away from people. Economic damage.

      The whole system is based on population expansion. More population, more credit issue, more debt, more money flow. Stable population means suddenly a lot of things don't work. Thing is the population is basically an economic bubble--it grows, it shrinks. It can't grow and grow and grow any more than the spot price of AAPL.

    3. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly you can't run a country without jobs. The main problem with this shrinking population is smart people realize that jobs are not there, and they will not be able to support more kids. Bring jobs back and get the economy working correctly and the population will start to grow again. Back during the population boom, you only needed one parent to work to provide for a family of four. Now you need both parents to work for a family of three.

    4. Re:PANIC! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Brilliant gawddamn post. Mod this UP!!!

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    5. Re:PANIC! by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      I always hate to post this, but I wish I had mod points for your post. That explains why this article is news. Expect the market to go down again soon.

    6. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still talking about one of the symptoms of the problem, albeit the major symptom. Here's the real problem: the world's most sought after commodity has become Money, not food, not clothing, not shelter, but Money. There are fewer and fewer of us who are in a position to produce life's essential so our only choice is to make Money, at any cost, to buy life's essentials.

    7. Re:PANIC! by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Whoa now, you're not one of those people that thinks we need to bring back manufacturing are you?
      Because it never left.

      That's right, robots, computers, and better manufacturing processes have automated away the manufacturing jobs. And that's a good thing. We may not be able to have a society without people, but we can certainly have a manufacturing industry with a lot less people then we did before.

      So if you talk about "bringing jobs back", you're going to have to look somewhere other than manufacturing. (Same goes for bean counters and secretaries. We have computers now. While there will ALWAYS be some paper-pushers, not every company needs a mail department, and not every boss needs a secretary.)

    8. Re:PANIC! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD, that's terrible. If the population remains stable in the USA we'll be facing economic CRISIS!
      If only there was a MASSIVE HOARD of people wanting to get in to help us maintain our expected levels of growth.

      If... only...


      So, sarcasm aside, immigrants will save us. We can open up that spigot of immigrants pretty much as far as we want. Tightening it further than it already is seems to be a problem. It doesn't seem to be cost-effective to kick out all the Mexicans just to have them come back next year. And the people talking about fences and walls need to be shot, compressed into bricks, and added to a wall.
      But the USA has a REAL obvious solution to de-population: Just let more in.
      Duh.

      (Did I really have to spell this out?)

    9. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people != more jobs.

      These days, it takes education, skills, and training in order to do basic work. People are not just slogging corn in a bushel basket from a field to a mill. The days of coming to the US just a strong back are long gone. Even the migrant worker jobs are done by undocumented workers because it is cheaper to pay cash under the table than to deal with E-Verify, payroll costs, insurance, and other stuff.

      Immigrants just mean more deadweight that the productive citizens (who have a tough time as it is to find work) have to support.

      I'm for fair trade. How about the US government does the exact same regulations that China has on their soil? For starters, each foreign company has to have a domestic partner controlling 51% of the venture.

      The US is in a real pickle. In the past, resources such as gold rushes have gotten the economy out of jams. Now, there isn't much to be exported, other than Jersey Shore. The best days of this country are behind us.

    10. Re:PANIC! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It's as if we can use money to get the things we REALLY want...
      If you're really concerned about it, why not start a garden? We had a nice batch of shallots last year, but we couldn't be bothered to harvest the peppers and they rotten on the vine. Maybe you could be a lumberjack as a hobby? Pick up looming? You can knit into your old-age.

    11. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was not always the case. Economies did not always rely on artificial monetary/value expansion and debt for a "stable" economy. In fact, that is a relatively recent invention. Right now, the US financial policy (government and private) has shifted to attempt to artificially build up various parts of the economy that are deemed "good" at the time by certain groups. This could be the spectating investors in the dot com bubble, or the government programs to increase home ownership in the housing bubble. They are, intentionally or not, trying to create bubbles, and then getting upset when the bubbles burst. The country's wealth generally goes up, but slowly, and with its actual value much lower than what the stock market and GDP would have you believe. When bubbles pop, you see for a few weeks or months (until the next bubble starts filling), roughly the real wealth contained in the economy.

      I think you're mixing up the flow of money with the wealth of an economy. The wealth of an economy has always and will continue to be how much actual value of the goods and services it contains. Not its value on paper. Not its pieces of paper money or how much credit or debt it contains. It's concrete assets: houses, shoes, food, etc. And it's not just the sum of the prices of its assets either. The economy's wealth assets have to also be genuinely desired by people, at the real market price. Not some government enforced thing that citizens must buy or goods and services with non-market forces controlling their prices.

    12. Re:PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One answer would be to pivot to a welfare state system funded by taxes on wealth rather than labor and consumption.

  12. The best argument for prosperity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The best argument for prosperity is that people stop breeding like rabbits. You look at wealthy nations (US, France, Germany, Canada, Japan) and universally you have at or below replacement population growth among the domestic population. The Japanese government is actually marketing parenthood because their kids have simply ceased to reproduce.

    There are other ways to control population growth. You can rely on Malthus and starve/murder/plague people to a stable population. You can do as China has done and make >1 child a crime, with all the lovely consequences inherent to that. Only prosperity remains as the one certain method of stopping excessive growth without all of that heinous shit.

    1. Re:The best argument for prosperity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are trying to decrease the size of a population, the best bet would probably be to stop giving tax breaks for having new kids and give tax breaks to people who get fixed before having X number of kids.

  13. ahhhhh! now it make sense! by fredan · · Score: 2

    that's why the republicans does not want women to get subsides on their birth control pills!

    1. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by gatesstillborg · · Score: 1

      Biden was the first public figure I heard to say this back in the early 90's, specifically why they opposed birth control, abortion, and were subsidizing single mothers with welfare.

    2. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Honest question: Do the misinformed leaders who advocate this in the US really represent a material segment of the population?

    3. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation or STFU please. Don't mind that I'd actually like to see your sources, but given your posting histoy...yeah, source or STFU.

    4. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question: Do the misinformed leaders who advocate this in the US really represent a material segment of the population?

      Do falacious people make leading questions?

    5. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is completely anecdotal. I can't discuss politics, religion, science or art with my family. I can't publicly practice my religion without fear of being attacked. As in physically harmed. I can't let my customers know my political affiliations or my religion, or my business will loose the last little bit it's hanging on by. I do live in a red state. I hate it here and am finishing my degree and leaving. Even if I have to do it on foot, with my toothbrush in my purse and a change of clothes and the cat in a backpack.

    6. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Actually, your meal McDonald's meal is government subsidized, via the Farm Bill. The French Fries all come from US grown potatoes. The wheat for the burgers is made from US grown grain. The beef is made from a factory cattle farm. The cheese product came from Wisconsin. All receive generous subsidies from the government to keep farming in the US, under the control of USDA. (Likely, the lettuce and tomato was imported from Mexico, because our subsidies are skewed toward grains and meats.) This in turn means that McDonald's can pay low prices for the ingredients, and this reflects on lower prices on your meal.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    7. Re:ahhhhh! now it make sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a sad commentary that both your post and its parent are true.

  14. Why I'm not having kids by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My husband and I agreed not to have kids. By all rights we're in the sweet spot for it - young professionals, good careers ahead, own our house, etc. But.... I just don't see the need for it. We have his nieces and nephew any time we get the urge to play with kids or hold a baby. We have tons of friends with kids who are super glad to have us watch their rugrats for a night.

    And let's not get into how expensive children are, or how hostile work environments are to parents of either sex (but especially women.) I believe both parents deserve equal maternity/paternity leave and for a far longer period than most employers are willing to give them. We'd have to both be comfortably working from home to even consider it.

    So, we're not quite the couple in the beginning of Idiocracy, but we're close enough.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Playing with nieces and nephews can be a lot of fun, but there is no feeling comparable to the joy of raising your own child.

    2. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you for not having children.

    3. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I hate being away from either of my kids, one biologically mine, one fostered to hopefully adoption within the next year. She will be saved from a ghetto life on welfare like her mother has been on for years, and instead into a life where she will know the value of self sustaining wages and what it really means to earn a living. Thankfully I am paid for what I know more than what I do (like a construction worker or retail worker would be), but that took a long time to gain the knowledge and experience.

    4. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not a critique of you, I don't know you or your situation personally so obviously I cannot and will not judge, but:

      This is a kind of selfishness. You indicate that you think of having children entirely around how it would impact you, personally, and what you want. The problem with this is that having children is fundamentally not about you. It's about the potential children you could have, and about their well-being and prosperity, even if it is extremely costly and a tremendous sacrifice to you personally, and at a slightly higher level the economic and demographic well being of the country, which relies on a steady stream of young people to work and produce for society, and of course at the highest level it is simply about the continuation of the species and making sure humanity survives and prospers. That is why animals, all animals (humans included) have children. It isn't for your own pleasure or well-being, although I should point out that having kids actually does make you live longer, and happier, and in the long term more stably, since you have children to support and help you once you grow old.

      The mindset you exhibit is extremely common. It's the whole reason the US isn't having enough kids to sustain itself, and the reason the Japanese are probably going to collapse in a few decades from a population implosion. That attitude will destroy the country in which it becomes widespread, almost inevitably (hell, it's part of what destroyed Rome all those years ago).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Why I'm not having kids by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      There are countries, such as parts (maybe whole) of Scandinavia, which has quite more ma-/paternity leave - in Norway its approximately 1 yr, must be shared between the parents. This is mandated through regulation, and the parents recieve 100% of their normal salary from the social security system while on leave.

    6. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm on the other side of the coin. My wife and I both focused on our careers for too long before being "ready" for kids. $100,000 in fertility treatments later, we have one on the way. This may have been the stupidest mistake of my life; or it may have been the best move ever. It's yet to be determined.

    7. Re:Why I'm not having kids by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You titled your post "Why I'm not having kids" and the only reason I can tell from your post is that you don't want them.

      Which is a perfectly valid reason.

    8. Re:Why I'm not having kids by alen · · Score: 1

      depends on your job. there are high and low paying jobs where you have to be on site to work. my wife and i are lucky that we can work from home if need be

      and you think you have it good now, but wait a few decades. people's kids will grow up and they will forget about you since the kids can watch themselves. people will always spend time as a family with kids and grandchildren and cousins and others. you and your wife will be alone and bitter in your old age.

      or you will end up like some of the dummies i see who had kids late in life, like in their late 40's or early 50's. and when you're in the age where you want to chill out and watch the game on sunday you will have to manage with small kids that monopolize your time

      my first son was born when i was 35. i'm going to push my kids to have kids themselves in their early 20's and i'll try to play child care if i can. this way by the time they hit their older years they will be financially secure and will be able to relax more.

      i've seen people in the army have kids in their early 20's. one person i still chat with on facebook is in his mid 40's and some of his kids are grown up in their 20's. he's chillin now. that's right, right about the time you're older and make more money your kids are gone and you can use that money to pamper yourself

    9. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Kergan · · Score: 0

      Give it a try. Raising a kid likely is the most fulfilling thing you'll ever do in your lifetime.

    10. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I say this as someone who just had a child, but I think those who have children do it out of selfishness, too. You want to be the one to improve the world and help humanity (and make yourself feel good about yourself and boost your ego), so you do it by having a child. There is also the even more selfish ones who do it out of longing to have a family, the joys of parenthood, and maybe even so they hopefully have someone to take care of you.

      Most people have selfish reasons for their decisions, that is just human nature (as is altruism).

    11. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I respect your decision, I find it sad that people put such mundane things like work over the joys of creating life. There is nothing like it and nothing else compares with the joys (and trials) of being a father or mother.

    12. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true non-parent.

    13. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is not a critique of you, I don't know you or your situation personally so obviously I cannot and will not judge, but:

      This is a kind of selfishness."

      For someone who doesn't judge (and refused to), you sound awful judgmental.

      I am childfree and my reasons are selfish. All reasoning behind having kids or not is selfish. Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you had your kids for noble, selfless reasons. Did you want to continue your family line? Selfish. The argument that you didn't have kids for your own well being is absolute BS. Also, how can you know your kids are going to support you when you're older? Short answer you can't. I'm sure your kids are overjoyed at being mom and dad's retirement plan.

      I've seen and read a lot of studies about happiness and family life. Married couples who do not have children at home (either never having kids, not had any yet or the kids left the house) are happier than couples with children in the home. Am I saying as a childfree person that I am happier? Not necessarily but my happiness isn't based if I raise kids or not (and neither is yours).

      Honestly the only thing that truly scares me about not having kids is the number of ignorant, judgmental assholes who seem to have kids. If my attitude that "I'd rather regret not having a child than regret having one" bothers you - so be it.

    14. Re:Why I'm not having kids by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      I just don't see the need for it. We have his nieces and nephew any time we get the urge to play with kids or hold a baby. We have tons of friends with kids who are super glad to have us watch their rugrats for a night.

      I get it and I don't disagree with your POV. But that is nothing like actually having kids. They change your life in ways you can't imagine. There are pros and cons, and perhaps you think you're getting many of the pros without the cons. If so, you're badly mistaken. The process of raising children is one of the most rewarding things you can do. You get to influence the development of a human being in terms of character, education, wealth, etc from scratch. You can't directly program them, only influence them. Many slashdot readers are into some kind of programming/engineering/product development, but kids are the most advanced thing you could ever hope to work on ;-) It can be scary. It requires sacrifice. But I still highly recommend it.

      I would also say your impression of the workplace is misguided - or your employer sucks. When a family issue come up (and I don't abuse this for BS) you can usually just say so and walk out the door. People understand. OTOH, since you think it would take two of you at home, perhaps you're just not up to it. I think I smell a chicken ;-)

    15. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why "push" them? Hell, they may turn out to be some of the people that don't want kids!

    16. Re:Why I'm not having kids by JWW · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      But is something that you can't really figure out until you have children.

    17. Re:Why I'm not having kids by dugancent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if its not, you can't change your mind.

      I'm not going to risk it.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    18. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, the sickness and drain on national resources, welfare, and healthcare they could be.

      Stop pretending children are all sunshine and rainbows, and that having children isn't far more selfish (I want kids so I should have them, and damn the repercussions on use of natural resources!)

    19. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having children just to sustain the US is selfishness (and ultimately unsustainable). Having children to support you once you get old is even more so. Having children if you don't want them, is stupidness. Most people have children because they are supposed to, just like animals. Actually choosing to have or have not children seems thoughtful. That you disagree, and call it selfish, is thoughtless.

    20. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, evolution doesn't work that way. GP's nieces and nephews are blood relatives of the next generation. Their bloodlines are not dying out.

      I really don't get the obsession with wanting everyone to have children that seems so prevalent in this thread. I understand seeing those numbers and thinking that if people are not having children despite wanting to because their lives suck (essentially the economy reasoning referenced in the summary), then something should be done to make their lives not suck, but that's different.

    21. Re:Why I'm not having kids by bossk538 · · Score: 1

      While that's a nice benefit to have, it would really be little more than Band-Aid if applied to American society. Couples really need two incomes just to get by, even without any children. Childhood doesn't end after one year, and the long hours people have to work substantially reduces the amount of time that can be spent on parenting. It seems that having children these days amounts to paying hefty bills for daycare, clothes, food, etc. and maybe getting to spend a little bit of quality time with them on weekends.

    22. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the whole reason the US isn't having enough kids to sustain itself, and the reason the Japanese are probably going to collapse in a few decades from a population implosion.

      No, the problem with Japan's birth rate is that more and more males no longer want to even bother dealing with the opposite sex.

      And I wouldn't blame them. The "traditional" social expectation (and this isn't exclusively a Japanese thing) is for men to work day and night (as a salaryman), while the wife stays home.

      Some woman will probably chime in how hard it is to clean the house and take care of the kids, and those jobs are just as important. Well, if it's so hard and important how about we switch?

      Ah, but here's where social expectations come in. Technically it's possible, but socially the male will be seen as weak, a deadbeat dad, not a "real" man if he does that. Oh, and what if divorce happens? Who's more likely to have to pay child support?

      It's just getting less and less appealing to marry, let alone have children.

    23. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a try. Raising a kid likely is the most fulfilling thing you'll ever do in your lifetime.

      It might be the most fulfilling thing you can do. But guess what? It's not for everyone.

      Raising kids isn't like eating sushi - those who aren't inclined to do it shouldn't "give it a try" just because they might like it.

      Also, while you personally weren't making the "not having kids is selfish" argument, other people did, and so I'm going to point out that having kids to get a sense of "fulfillment" is a supremely selfish thing to do.

    24. Re:Why I'm not having kids by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      As for expenses... There is never enough money and there is always enough money. You learn to live within your means. If you had two kids, you'd learn to live within your means, too.

      Except that living within my means without kids to take care of is a whole lot sweeter.

      Especially when you consider all the extra time I have on my hands, and all the worries I don't have.

      I mean, I don't see anything wrong with people having kids, but I don't really see how any household that earns less than $150k / year would even consider it. You can make it with a lot less, my parents certainly did. I see what the stress did to them, though.

    25. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most of the people that I know who have lots of kids do so because they love having the kids around and like the idea of their unconditional love. That is fine, and it is their choice. Given the amount of resources that those kids use up I personally feel that the parents are the ones being selfish. They expect government subsidies in the way of lower taxes even though they use more resources, and I am the one who has to pay the difference. I cannot think of a single person that I have met who is having children out of some sense of "duty" to continue the human race.

      By the way, the idea that Japan is going bust is nonsense. They are doing quite fine. Their GDP per capita is still strong, and they have a first world life style. The human race is nowhere near being in jeopardy. The population can be reduced by quite a lot before there is any sort of problem that needs to be "addressed."

    26. Re:Why I'm not having kids by JD-1027 · · Score: 1

      Then you will have a great life, but never know the greatest part of life.

      Not only do you miss out on the most amazing moments, but you will never get a chance to truly appreciate your parents, nor have the reflection on yourself that bringing up children leads to.

      It is wonderful, painful, joyous, tearful, adventurous, humbling, chaotic, heartbreaking, breathtaking, overwhelming, and for all of that, indescribable.

    27. Re:Why I'm not having kids by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... I should point out that having kids actually does make you live longer, and happier, and in the long term more stably, since you have children to support and help you once you grow old.

      That depends entirely on the children and the parent's relationship with them. Nothing is certain and to think so is naive.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    28. Re:Why I'm not having kids by GreggBz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a father of an unplanned daughter, who at one point thought a lot like you, I can tell you that there's simply no practical reason to have kids. It's purely emotional. That being said, It's hard to put into words why you might want to have kids, but I'll try.

      There's the times when I pick her up at daycare, and she runs into my arms and says "daddy daddy!" That just makes any bad day better. :-)

      Other times, I get to thinking how maybe she'll get married one day, or have her own baby. I imagine when that time comes, I'll look at her and feel something like I felt when I held her right after she was born. I'll think how she's just this little girl that we brought to life, that we gave a chance to. When I get time to think of it, I'm deeply fufilled in knowing that my wife and I brought someone into this world. That we gave someone else a chance to know what life is all about, begining to end.

      At night, when she's not doing well or is sick, and calls for us, it's an overwhelming feeling of dependance, of importance. It's not replicated anywhere else in my personal or professional life. The notion that someone else's life depends entirely on us, gives me a sort of peace and direction I never otherwise had.

      Don't get me wrong. Having kids is hard, sleepless, exhausting work. No one tells you how hard it really can be. But, you know, I just started to embrace the challenge. And I realized it's the most important thing I'll ever accomplish. It's very hard to describe how that feels.

      Personally, I would'nt have it any other way.

    29. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Kergan · · Score: 1

      It might be the most fulfilling thing you can do. But guess what? It's not for everyone.

      Hence the likely. I didn't expect to get modded Flamebait though. Presumably by you?

      Raising kids isn't like eating sushi - those who aren't inclined to do it shouldn't "give it a try" just because they might like it.

      Which, I assume, you haven't. Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.

      Also, while you personally weren't making the "not having kids is selfish" argument, other people did, and so I'm going to point out that having kids to get a sense of "fulfillment" is a supremely selfish thing to do.

      I wouldn't raise that specific argument myself indeed, but I'd raise this equally explosive one: in countries where retirees are paid by contributions paid by those who work, retirees should probably expect their retirement to be subjected to how many children they contributed to society. As in, no child, no retirement; one child, half-retirement; two children or more, full retirement. Because, well duh, someone has to pay for this crap at the end of the day, and my children shouldn't be burdened with your retirement if you were pussy hounding throughout your entirely life.

    30. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Just wait to find the right woman.

    31. Re:Why I'm not having kids by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between "valid", "logical" and "persuasive." Essentially the post is just personal preference dressed up as logic, by taking what are lifestyle choices and casting them as non-negotiable requirements.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    32. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a family issue come up (and I don't abuse this for BS) you can usually just say so and walk out the door. People understand.

      And that's why I hate you. Why won't "you" let me do that for my priorities?

      My buddy from college that I haven't seen in person in a few years is in town and I want to leave early to spend time -- nope, that's abusing it. I need to leave on-time today so I can get some laundry done because there is no one else I can push that chore on - nope I had to stay late to do the work you left behind when you left to see your kids play.

    33. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. There are only two reasons that anything procreates.

      1. Becuase it is genetically programmed to.
      2. Pure selfishness.

      Your argument fits nicely under #2. Having children to sustain humanity, society, country or anything else for that matter is the ultimate in selfishness. It makes them nothing but a means to an end and is the majority of the content of your post. Funny that you mention support when you are old and how they make you happy as well. Notice a pattern?

      There are no selfless reasons to have children as non-existent beings have no desires and hence logically cannot be deprived of them by non-existence, so any good you irrationally apply to existence is irrelevant in the decision of making new life. In addition, creating life with full knowledge that said existence will entail suffering (all existence does) is unethical, which makes breeders like you irrational, selfish and immoral.

    34. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a kind of selfishness. You indicate that you think of having children entirely around how it would impact you, personally, and what you want. The problem with this is that having children is fundamentally not about you.

      No, everything about the decision to have, or not have, children is around selfishness. Show me just one child that asked to be conceived, and born. I posit there aren't any. Every single reason to have a child is pure selfishness. Ask pretty much any parent why they had kids, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of answers you get back start with "I wanted..." or "We wanted..." Continuation of the species? With my own DNA? Pure selfishness. If it weren't, we'd be playing with eugenics, and making a super-human race. Children to support and help you once you grow old? Pure selfishness. Not to mention a complete gamble. Perhaps they die before you. Perhaps they turn out to hate you, and reject you from their lives. Perhaps they turn out to be alcoholic, and can't support you. Perhaps they're born with a deformity or mental health issue that precludes them caring for you in your old age. You can't read the future, can you? Heck, even unplanned "oops" children are here because of selfishness -- namely the selfishness of the people who were too careless to ensure they weren't going to reproduce while joined, for the sole sake of pleasure, in an act that's meant for reproduction.

      Only once you have the child does selfishness need to (or is supposed to) go out the window.

      Yes, I am a parent.

    35. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that would probably cause Idiocracy to come up faster.

      Now on the other hand, it was a nice try to get karma, we all know this is /. and him (as the guy in his mother's basement) and his "husband" won't have any kids anyways.

    36. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and about their well-being and prosperity ...

      It's good to see popping-out babies isn't an imperative command. Gaining well-being takes time and effort by young couples.

      ... US isn't having enough kids to sustain itself ...

      There are 7,000 million people on this planet. There is already a "steady stream of young people to work and produce for society".

      That attitude will destroy the country ...

      There's the attitude that young women, who've barely touched a baby, have to be parents and that nurturing is natural. How about admitting that a biological process doesn't automatically mean capable parents?

    37. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      That is why you need to have kids.

      Literally most of the reason I'm having children is because I have an IQ of ~172 and my wifes is north of 140. Anyone past 120 should be at least considering 2 children so they replace themselves. Since you both have good careers going and you are successful at a young age, its fairly safe to say you are both in that bracket.

      For the good of humanity, please reconsider! More would be better, but you need to have two just to replace yourselves! Wait a few years and have some fun boating around the world maybe, but after the kids are 5-6 you can just take them with you for the most part. Also make sure you don't regret not having children later. No one ever regrets having kids unless you're part of the 0.001% that spawns a serial killer. LOTS of people regret NOT having children.

      As for workplace hostility... as long as one of you, the man or the woman, is willing to make the decision to sacrifice career advancement for children then you're fine. If you can, whoever makes the decision should look for a job either in a union situation or for government. People there are VERY family friendly because they're literally forced to be.

      If that fails, move to Canada. We have mandated 18 month leave for women and 9 months for men written straight into federal law. If they won't let you take it AND give you your job back afterwards(after which dismissing you for any reason within 6 months is going to cause them so many headaches they'd better not even think about it)

      We'd be happy to have you :)

    38. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who HAVE children are the ones being selfish. They're putting their desires over the good of the entire world.

      It's not our fault society designed itself around an ever-growing population. We're not going to ruin our lives and negatively impact the well-being of the entire planet just for the sake of propping up some poorly designed programs.

    39. Re:Why I'm not having kids by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You titled your post "Why I'm not having kids" and the only reason I can tell from your post is that you don't want them.

      Which is a perfectly valid reason.

      Yes, it is. And a perfectly valid reason to say "Thank you for removing your genes from the gene pool"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:Why I'm not having kids by dugancent · · Score: 1

      I already have. She doesn't want children either.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    41. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 2

      I did not see this as "dressed up as logic" or "non-negotiable requirements". I don't see where you're drawing these conclusions. We're talking about a couple's choice about having children, so of course it's personal preference.

      To me, her post could be condensed down to "I like kids, but I don't want kids, and this is why." which is different from my opinion of "I don't like kids, I don't want kids, the end." or someone else's opinion of "I love kids, and I have kids."

      An expression of personal preference is not an attack on your choices.

    42. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Until she panics at the idea of not having any. :-)

    43. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      You titled your post "Why I'm not having kids" and the only reason I can tell from your post is that you don't want them.

      Which is a perfectly valid reason.

      Yes, it is. And a perfectly valid reason to say "Thank you for removing your genes from the gene pool"

      Which quality, exactly, are you thankful that she removed from the gene pool?

      ...because not wanting to have kids is not a genetic trait.

    44. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      People who HAVE children are the ones being selfish.

      I think it's funny how quickly this thread turned into both sides of the fence calling the other side selfish. Yes, DAMN YOU for basing your personal decisions on your own desires, rather than mine!

    45. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of true about money. However, when you have to tell your kid that you can't afford something (when it is as "basic" as a field trip somewhere or some decent clothes), it shreds your soul. I sometimes regret not having kids, but on the other hand, I'd rather not have them, than have them starve.

      I'd rather have no kids than have kids raised up where they don't have a chance to compete in the marketplace [1] once 18, and trust me... competition is vicious to eke any sort of living out once out of high school.

      [1]: When I came out of high school, I only had to compete against Mr. Zima Swiller for the jobs in college. These days, it is a global economy, and people out of high school have to compete against H-1Bs who have had a free ride through college and are at a Master's or Ph. D. level before they are of the US legal drinking age. The generations going into college have it VERY tough compared to a decade or two ago.

    46. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the likely.

      That qualifier does make your statement less presumptuous, but only a little.

      I didn't expect to get modded Flamebait though. Presumably by you?

      Not by me, no. Even back when I used an account, I disabled mod points. And I wouldn't have modded you Flamebait even if I did have mod points and the inclination to use them. But I can see why someone else would. Intentionally or not, your tone is rather smug and smacks of "I know what you want better than you do".

      Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.

      Ignoring the fact that I'm already happily married and childfree...no. I already know I don't want kids. And yes, I can know that even though I haven't already tried raising them - just as I don't have to stop shaving and move to rural Pennsylvania to know that don't want to live as an Amish. You don't actually have to try out a lifestyle to know that it's not for you.

      in countries where retirees are paid by contributions paid by those who work, retirees should probably expect their retirement to be subjected to how many children they contributed to society. As in, no child, no retirement; one child, half-retirement; two children or more, full retirement.

      Except that you're forgetting that those retirees have been paying into the system the whole time they were working. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from it now that it's their turn to retire?

      my children shouldn't be burdened with your retirement if you were pussy hounding throughout your entirely life.

      If you want to take that route, then maybe I shouldn't have been burdened with the cost of their education and picking up the slack from your tax breaks - after all, you're the one who decided to have those kids. Plus, there's the fact that they're also benefitting from all the productive work I did throughout my lifetime. I've done plenty for your kids. So we can either go our separate ways and everyone pays for themselves, or we can keep cooperating and scratching each other's backs. But you can't have it both ways.

    47. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      Literally most of the reason I'm having children is because I have an IQ of ~172 and my wifes is north of 140. Anyone past 120 should be at least considering 2 children so they replace themselves.

      My wife and I seriously considered this as a reason to have kids for some time, before realizing that it's an obnoxious elitist attitude and it still doesn't make up for our personal reasons for not procreating.

      Mostly, I'm just irritated that the original post got a flood of "No, you SHOULD have kids!" in response to her reasons. This is why it's impossible to explain to parents why one wouldn't want kids. No reason is ever good enough.

    48. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You titled your post "Why I'm not having kids" and the only reason I can tell from your post is that you don't want them.

      Which is a perfectly valid reason.

      Yes, it is. And a perfectly valid reason to say "Thank you for removing your genes from the gene pool"

      Which, in turn, is a perfectly valid reason to say "You obviously don't know how gene pools work".

    49. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax. The world takes all kinds. If someone won't commit to put themselves second, it's best they have the option.

    50. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Please hook up with a chick who has a child to see for yourself -- risk free.

      Ignoring the fact that I'm already happily married and childfree...no. I already know I don't want kids. And yes, I can know that even though I haven't already tried raising them - just as I don't have to stop shaving and move to rural Pennsylvania to know that don't want to live as an Amish. You don't actually have to try out a lifestyle to know that it's not for you.

      I'll defer to a separate commenter: it's the kind of stuff you only know when you actually experience it. (I'd wager it's probably true for the Amish lifestyle too, btw. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go that route myself, but I can kind of see what kind of sense they might make out of it.)

      Except that you're forgetting that those retirees have been paying into the system the whole time they were working. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from it now that it's their turn to retire?

      Because part of paying into that system should include having kids that (at least potentially) contribute into it?

      maybe I shouldn't have been burdened with the cost of their education and picking up the slack from your tax breaks - after all, you're the one who decided to have those kids. Plus, there's the fact that they're also benefitting from all the productive work I did throughout my lifetime. I've done plenty for your kids. So we can either go our separate ways and everyone pays for themselves, or we can keep cooperating and scratching each other's backs. But you can't have it both ways.

      Well, in addition to my prior point, education is a drop in the water in that very system, considering that 80% of your healthcare costs typically occurs during the last year of your life. Irrespective of unions, the going rate is much higher in healthcare than it is in teaching. Also, there's a strong argument to be made that if kids, mine or another's, don't get education (regardless of how it's funded), they produce less economic output to pay for benefits handed over to retirees.

      In other words, by funding education, you're (slightly) scratching your own back in addition to mine. But when my children are funding your retirement, you're (very energetically) scratching your own back unless you had kids. And thus, your point is essentially moot.

      That being said, I'd like to raise a separate issue here, because your reasoning is that of some person who is going to make retirement with millions upon millions of savings. If that's the case, which I hope for you, then good for you. For normal people though, this is the exception, rather than the rule. And if you are amongst the normal people, then I strongly suggest that you revisit the whole idea of getting medicare/medicaid (or whatever applies to you) as you know it when you retire, because more than a few youngsters object to the idea of paying for it considering that they won't get any of it themselves -- they simply won't, and revisiting your retirement plan may be in order.

    51. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If you don't think you should have children, you're probably right.

      Me, I was pretty much born to be a father. I love fatherhood. It's not for everyone and it's better that you know this before you make a child than after.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    52. Re:Why I'm not having kids by JanneM · · Score: 1

      I and my wife decided not to as well. In part it was because of economic considerations; we're both in professions with little to no job security and very uncertain future, and we could not responsibly bring up children without sufficient stability. But it was also because neither of us are very fond of children, and we enjoy our life together without that kind of responsibility. Doesn't seem fair to the kid to to have a child that is fundamentally unwanted simply because it is expected of us.

      Having children is a choice, and either way you choose is fine. It's your life after all, and your wishes and prioritites differ from other peoples. My brother has two, going on three (aiming for four) and is very happy. We have none, and are very happy. Horses for courses.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    53. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll defer to a separate commenter: it's the kind of stuff you only know when you actually experience it. (I'd wager it's probably true for the Amish lifestyle too, btw. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go that route myself, but I can kind of see what kind of sense they might make out of it.)

      It might have been something you only know when you experience it, but that's not true for everyone. You demonstrated that yourself with your response to the Amish example even while consciously trying not to. You know you don't want to live that way even though you haven't tried it. Similarly, I - and many others like me - know we don't want kids. It's disrespectful to suggest that we don't, and I'll wager that's what earned you your Flamebait mod.

      Oh, and something I forgot to mention earlier about your "find a chick with a kid and see for yourself" suggestion: You literally asked me to subject myself, some poor lady, and her kid(s) to a relationship that will almost certainly come to a painful end, just for the sake of satisfying a curiosity that I don't even have. What part of that sounds "risk-free" to you?

      Except that you're forgetting that those retirees have been paying into the system the whole time they were working. Why shouldn't they be able to benefit from it now that it's their turn to retire?

      Because part of paying into that system should include having kids that (at least potentially) contribute into it?

      Why? Why is all the money they paid in for all those years suddenly not good enough? And if your answer in any way resembles "there's not enough money to go around", then the problem was that we didn't have the retirees put enough money into the system in the first place, not that they're allowed to benefit from their own taxes.

      Well, in addition to my prior point, education is a drop in the water in that very system, considering that 80% of your healthcare costs typically occurs during the last year of your life. Irrespective of unions, the going rate is much higher in healthcare than it is in teaching. Also, there's a strong argument to be made that if kids, mine or another's, don't get education (regardless of how it's funded), they produce less economic output to pay for benefits handed over to retirees.

      In other words, by funding education, you're (slightly) scratching your own back in addition to mine. But when my children are funding your retirement, you're (very energetically) scratching your own back unless you had kids. And thus, your point is essentially moot.

      It's telling that you focused only on education and ignored the other ways I listed in which I contribute your kids' welfare. I don't deny that I get an indirect benefit from paying for your kids' education, but at the same time you have to acknowledge everything else I do for them. They benefit from my productivity, and their future productivity is built upon my own. And this is regardless of whether I have kids of my own or not. Well...not entirely regardless, because as I mentioned earlier, I pay more taxes for not having kids. So I'm doing a lot more scratching than you give me credit for, and I don't deserve to be locked out of the system I helped to keep going.

      That being said, I'd like to raise a separate issue here, because your reasoning is that of some person who is going to make retirement with millions upon millions of savings.

      No it isn't. I do expect to have some modest savings when I retire, and I am not optimistic about the state of Social Security, Medicare, etc at that time. But that's beside the point we're discussing, which is your contention that it is somehow right and fair to force me to contribute to a system and simultaneously forbid me to benefit from that same system because you don't approve of the way I chose to live.

      because more than a few youngsters object to the idea of paying for it considering that they won't get any of it themselves -- they simply won't

      That is a legitimate problem, but the solution you propose is a bad one.

    54. Re:Why I'm not having kids by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Novelist friend disagrees. She ranks the day she was signed on for her first trilogy one notch above the birth of her son. (To be fair, she had full blown eclampsia and was in a coma during her C-section, so she doesn't actually remember that night.)

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    55. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a woman has never wanted a child, she's not likely to suddenly panic over not being able to have any.

    56. Re:Why I'm not having kids by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I think this is a good attitude. I feel sorry for people who had their kids out of a sense of obligation, because they felt it was what they were expected to do. They seem to be unhappy with themselves, their spouses, their kids, and their lives. Then there's my coworker, who has two young boys and his world revolves around them. His eyes light up any time he talks about them. He is like you - born to be a father.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    57. Re:Why I'm not having kids by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, I forgot that the anon cretins still believe the myth that there are no girls on the Internet.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    58. Re:Why I'm not having kids by radtea · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that there's simply no practical reason to have kids. It's purely emotional.

      I think you need to to reconsider the nature of "practical" and the role that emotion plays in the life of a social primate.

      You might argue that there's not economic reason to have kids, but impractical? Your own post belies this.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    59. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, "I don't want kids so I'm not having them," is not logical? It appears pretty damned logical to me. It's also persuasive: she's persuaded me that they should not have kids, because they don't want them.

      You appear to feel that they should have kids because you think they should have kids. That is illogical, invalid, and most certainly not persuasive.

      Perhaps you're thinking of that "go forth and multiply" rubbish.

    60. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, aren't most pregnancies accidents? Which is tied in to your comment about us being like animals... Selfish we are in terms of our pursuit of satisfying our sexual desires, and dumb about the consequences much like animals.

    61. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Just... just wow.

      It's about the potential children you could have...

      So, in your opinion, every woman of childbearing age should have as many children as she can keep firing out, as often as she can. For the sake of the economy. You don't see this as a problem?

      It's amusing how often capitalists tell others how to run their lives, given that it's evil socialists who are meant to do that.

    62. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      It isn't an obnoxious elitist attitude, thats just what current politicians and social workers and thier "Everyones a winner!" bullshit guilts you into thinking. Not everyone is a winner. In order for there to be winners at all there are, of necessity, losers. The message they SHOULD be sending is that just because you're a loser in one field doesn't mean you can't be a winner in another.

      The reality is that its one of the most selfless thing you could ever do. You're procreating purely to help others. Your children have much much more potential than other children to be doctors, researchers, many different things that could GREATLY benefit society as a whole. Partly because of genetics and partly because of the fact that you can provide them with a proper education in whatever fields interest them.

      I'm NOT a parent as yet(soonish though). I'm just going to have kids. The regret thing is just pure fact. You will likely think about it in years to come and regret it, even if only a little bit. Even if you adopt later it could be nearly as fulfilling but you'll still wonder.

    63. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's more funny is that you're assuming that there's a correct answer, and that it's anything beyond selfish.

    64. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more I read, the stupider the comments.

      and you think you have it good now, but wait a few decades. people's kids will grow up and they will forget about you since the kids can watch themselves. people will always spend time as a family with kids and grandchildren and cousins and others. you and your wife will be alone and bitter in your old age.

      or you will end up like some of the dummies i see who had kids late in life, like in their late 40's or early 50's. and when you're in the age where you want to chill out and watch the game on sunday you will have to manage with small kids that monopolize your time

      Because nobody ever has something they want to do with a Sunday until they're in their 40s or 50s. You'll notice how difficult it was to come up with how stupid your statement was, but in case you can't, it wasn't.

      my first son was born when i was 35. i'm going to push my kids to have kids themselves in their early 20's and i'll try to play child care if i can. this way by the time they hit their older years they will be financially secure and will be able to relax more.

      You're going to push them? What gives you the right to dictate when your kids should have kids? Your rights to dictate to them end when they cease being minors.

      i've seen people in the army have kids in their early 20's. one person i still chat with on facebook is in his mid 40's and some of his kids are grown up in their 20's. he's chillin now. that's right, right about the time you're older and make more money your kids are gone and you can use that money to pamper yourself

      Good for you. Good for him. Too bad about people in their 20s having very low incomes and having to raise kids on that, eh? Never mind, you can pamper yourself when you're a little older!

      Just curious. When you can't pay for food for a week because a government entity forgot to bill you for a few years running, and then they suddenly take the money from your bank account, who'll cover it then? Yeah, you're right. That'll never happen... except that it just happened to one of the girls at work.

    65. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out three key words:In my opinion.

      It's not for everyone. Get over it, nobody else wants your shit pushed on them.

      Also, some people don't like the music you like, or the TV you watch. They don't want to play the same sports as you. They don't like your choice of car, or clothing style. They don't make as much as you, or maybe they make more. Maybe they think you're overpaid, or have an overly pushy personality. That last bit is quite likely.

      I guess that what I'm really trying to say, in short, is that people are different. Not everybody is you. Get the fuck over yourself and grow up.

      I guess you think I should have kids. Maybe I will, maybe I won't, but you know what? I wouldn't let you push me into it. You keep your fucking nose out of my life - and while you are at it, you keep your nose out of everyone else's lives, too. Unless someone specifically asks for it, nobody wants your advice, not a fucking word of it. Shut the fuck up. Really. Shut the fuck up. We don't want to hear your opinion.

      You should meet my mother's first boyfriend after my parents divorced. Cunt used to smash my head into a wall, and went out of his way to ruin my life. What can a five year old do that would deserve being slammed into walls and doors, while sitting down on a couch?

      Another one would smack me around a bit, push me into walls and doors, occasionally windows, and scream like a lunatic at me for shit that happened on the other side of the house when I wasn't there. Hell, both my mother and her various boyfriends psychologically abused her kids for our whole lives.

      My mother was born bipolar, and cannot find happiness. She has also made sure that I don't, either. She set my bedroom on fire when I was 10. She tried to stab my father, and when he fended her off she had him arrested for assault. She's beaten herself up, set him up and had him arrested and charged for it.

      I would make an unfit parent, and yet you could command me to have kids because it suits you?

      Just fuck off. No, don't just fuck off - fuck off and get cancer. It is one of the most wonderful, painful, joyous, tearful, adventurous, humbling, chaotic, heartbreaking, breathtaking, overwhelming, and for all of that, indescribable things you could do for the rest of us.

    66. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to to reconsider the nature of "practical"...

      practical, adjective, based on practice or action.

      So, I think you might need to consider the meaning of the word "practical."

    67. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Shados · · Score: 2

      Most rewarding to some, maybe most....absolutely not all. I personally highly dislike kids, and everyone around me knows it. The reasons aren't important, whats important is that since it is known that I hate kids, a lot of people will tell me things they wouldn't say out loud..generally out of shame.

      While i fully believe the VAST majority of the population loves their kids more than anything, a small, but significant percentage are just not meant for it (I've read a few studies that say about 10%....plus or minus a bit depending on gender. Don't know if those numbers are true...doesn't matter). The amount of people who'll say things like "This was the best thing that ever happened to me!!!" in public, then turn around and whisper in my hear they wish it had never happened, is almost scary. Then there's also the people who just were not ready when they got them, or the most commons: got kids with the wrong person (more common among people who get kids when they're young).

      After all, the only thing constant about human nature, is that its inconsistent :)

    68. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I don't really remember the date, but I remember the day I learned that I was going to be a father. I spent about ten minutes saying "OH MY GOD.OH MY GOD.OH MY GOD" over and over again in my head. When I finally calmed down, I took her out to Red Lobster and was all smiles afterwards.

      I know a lot of people who have different priorities in life. They find their fulfillment through the things they do themselves. Parents, at least the good ones, get theirs through helping their children to grow. I recognize many of my own flaws and I hope that I'm able to guide my children into being better people than I am. I hope that I can help them avoid some of the mistakes that I made. It might be another 10-15 years before I can afford to take the family on a vacation to Hawaii whereas my childless friends could do that next year, but I wouldn't change it for the world.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    69. Re:Why I'm not having kids by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      I would not call it thoughtlessness, I would call it instinct. I have an 8-month son. Did I want to have it? Not particularly. Did my wife? Desperately. Are we happy? Certainly! You can not discard maternal instinct, it's a powerful force. The problem is that instinct need to meet rationality, and that's why you should stop at 2 or less.

    70. Re:Why I'm not having kids by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      I also strife to explain it. It makes no sense if you want peace, tranquility, time for yourself, money, etc. Nevertheless, I think what a child really does is to switch your sense of accomplishment and self-esteem. Troubles at work are no longer the sole issues at hand, they are now "just another issue". In a sense, it's a switch in perspective more than anything else.

    71. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      Stop doing this.

      Almost every "why aren't you having kids?" inquery I've answered ended with the other party stating "oh, you'll change your mind." or "well, accidents happen." It's annoying as hell.

      Some people don't want kids. Let it go. It's not a comment on your choices.

    72. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      I have a difficult time believing that this switch in perspective can *only* be achieved by rasing a child.

    73. Re:Why I'm not having kids by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      We used to think like you do. Right now, as I type this, I'm sitting in bed watching Star Wars (episode 4, THERE ARE NO PREQUELS) with my 7 week old son. Last week we watched all of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. All I need to do now is teach him how to shift a manual transmission and I'm basically done parenting.

      There is no logical, dispassionate reason to have or not have kids, but it is awesome. You don't need to. But the best things in life you don't need to do. You don't need to play the banjo, but it's fun. You don't need to fly a plane, but it's exhilarating. You don't need to tear around the track in a sports car, but damn it's fun.

      It might not make the most "sense" to have a kid, but the best things in life don't make sense.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    74. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "pure fact" is pure speculation. And THAT is pure fact.

    75. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be true. But if it is true, the only way to know the truth of it, would be to actually raise a child - and that would be a pretty dramatic leap of faith which not everyone would be willing to make. What it's true for most people but not for everybody? What if I am one of the exceptions for whom parenthood would not be a rewarding experience at all? The very high stakes make the risk seem unjustifiable. There are other things I can do to feel good without having to bring another innocent, unsuspecting soul into this debt-ridden, polluted, sick and doomed world we've inflicted upon future generations.

      It may be a widespread personal tragedy, but those of us who are childless by choice simply won't know what we're missing out on until it's too late, if even then.

    76. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is a poor generalization that is often stated.
      "That person helping the other is selfish."
      Phrase it that way if you want, but ignoring the normal purpose of the word "selfish" is not helpful.

      Extreme example to make it more clear:
        A) Acting selfish: Those who have children want to improve the world
        B) Acting selfish: A murderer is hurting people
      Regardless of whether A is often true, one of these things is not like the other one, and calling them both selfish is not accurate or helpful.

    77. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know two couples who had vowed to never have kids. This wasn't a one day decision. They held this view for years. Neither couple knew each other. Years later, they each ended up having one kid. Both couples have shared with me since then that it was the best decision that they had ever made. Watching them raise their kids, I can't image their family without them.

      Disclaimer: I currently don't have kids, and I never tried to talk them into having kids. This is just what I have observed. I don't think it is wrong to decide either way.

    78. Re:Why I'm not having kids by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      When you're older, will you be able to talk to your "good careers", invite them over for the holidays, share times good and bad with them? Nieces and nephews are great, but it's not the same. Yes they're a lot of work and effort, but the best things take work and effort. I didn't realize until after I had children how much I would have missed if I hadn't.

    79. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to leave on-time today so I can get some laundry done because there is no one else I can push that chore on - nope I had to stay late to do the work you left behind when you left to see your kids play.

      Why on Earth would you need to leave work early to do laundry? Are you really responsible enough to hold a job that can't be taken over by the next person wearing a paper hat?

    80. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a few points:
      Potential children aren't people. I am a person. I'm more important. Agree, Disagree? Why?

      Why should I care about the stability of society? Or the species for that matter?

      Lastly, I plan to take care of my self, one way or the other, when I'm old. I'm not going to burden another person with that responsibility without their consent. And as they don't exist yet, I can ask their consent. How do you justify that?

      I'm not trying to come off as trollish, I really want to understand your point of view? I honestly myself use most of the excuse that the above commenter uses when explaining it to people, because my real reason don't go over very well.

    81. Re:Why I'm not having kids by anethema · · Score: 1

      You get 100% of that from having a dog.

      When I come home he SPRINTS for the door and I've never seen anyone happier to see me. When he was so sick he could barely lift his head and had to be put on an IV, he depended on us utterly and it was so sad to see.

      The only thing missing from what you said is the 'brought someone into the world' stuff, which is just your biological animal side driving you to have children. But you're not an animal.

      With the dog, he will never grow up and get hooked on heroin, or commit suicide, or keep me up all night wondering if he is out getting knocked up, etc etc.

      I think if raising your child is the most important thing you will ever accomplish, you are just passing the buck on doing things of true importance yourself.

      Imagine Tesla had married and had a child rather than fathered the electrical system we use today. Which would have been more important?

      Or if Alan Turing had had children rather than fathering computer science as we know it ?

      Heck Einstein had a son, but many reports show him getting ignored quite a bit along with the wife (They later divorced), and IMO Hans Einstein is hardly the most important thing Albert Einstein produced.

      We can't all be Turings or Teslas, but it doesn't mean that raising a child is the most important thing anyone with children can do, there is a lot one can contribute on their own. IMO it mostly seem that those with children wanting to contribute important things often must ignore their children to do it, which in essence makes it so if you DO have children, you are stuck in making them the most important thing, rather than contributing greatly yourself.

      Fine if it is your choice but it is certainly not mine, nor the choice of many if the story is accurate.

      Maybe with less having children we will start having those few geniuses among us better able to exploit their brains towards science and mathematics and we could maybe see a few more large leaps in the state of the art which is so rare these days.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    82. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you so sure about that? Has the thought not occurred that the subjugation of women's rights for literally centuries might not perhaps mitigate against women not wanting, for themselves, to have children?

    83. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its purely irrational genetic code is what you meant to say. if you don't feel this way about your children you are maladjusted or possibly have a chemical imbalance.

    84. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      When you're older, will you be able to talk to your "good careers", invite them over for the holidays, share times good and bad with them?

      1. It's a fallacy to assume that if another person chooses not to have kids, then their career must be the most important thing in their life.
      And since you know nothing about the GP, it makes you sound like an ass.

      2. You seem to imply that having children guarantees a functional family unit. Or that your adult children will want to spend time with you.
      Or that you will even want to see them. There are no guarantees in life.

      3. You're ignoring the differences in personality types. Some of us genuinely prefer solitude.
      That's rather difficult to achieve when you're catering to a child's needs.

      I didn't realize until after I had children how much I would have missed if I hadn't.

      I'm very glad that you appreciate your children. Far too many grow up without that appreciation. But raising children is not for everyone... and those who recognize that before procreating should not feel pressured to choose otherwise. Raising children is not the only way to be happy in life - though most parents seem to feel otherwise.

    85. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask your parents if they'd choose to replace you with a dog.

    86. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask yourself if that matters. If you answer with anything other than "no, of course it doesn't", you're lying.

    87. Re:Why I'm not having kids by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      When you're older, will you be able to talk to your "good careers", invite them over for the holidays, share times good and bad with them?

      1. It's a fallacy to assume that if another person chooses not to have kids, then their career must be the most important thing in their life.

      And since you know nothing about the GP, it makes you sound like an ass.

      Except that the GP mentioned his career. And his house. Really, it's in the second sentence. And your ad hominem makes you sound like, well you already said it best.

      2. You seem to imply that having children guarantees a functional family unit. Or that your adult children will want to spend time with you.

      Or that you will even want to see them. There are no guarantees in life.

      Well, I can guarantee that if you don't have children then no adult children will want to spend time with you. I never implied a functional family unit- I know several dysfunctional (to varying degrees) families that still communicate and meet. I know of very few parents who don't want to see their children- no guarantees, but I feel the odds are on my side here.

      3. You're ignoring the differences in personality types. Some of us genuinely prefer solitude.

      That's rather difficult to achieve when you're catering to a child's needs.

      If one prefers solitude to that extent then I would be surprised if they were considering parenthood, firstly due to needing another person for at least the first step.

      I didn't realize until after I had children how much I would have missed if I hadn't.

      I'm very glad that you appreciate your children. Far too many grow up without that appreciation. But raising children is not for everyone... and those who recognize that before procreating should not feel pressured to choose otherwise. Raising children is not the only way to be happy in life - though most parents seem to feel otherwise.

      Agreed- As much as I appreciate my children, I know people who should never ever have their own. I know people who have them who shouldn't have- their lives were a trainwreck before kids, and having kids in no way helped. My point with the post was to point out that they should consider the long term implications, not just the short term as their arguments implied.

    88. Re:Why I'm not having kids by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      This assumes that your children don't hate and despise you and that you live a long and prosperous life. My eldest sister hated our parents (well, she hates everyone) and after she had her baby and then got divorced a year later because she then hated her husband, her daughter suddenly had no grandparents to visit because she had cut herself off from everyone. I feel very sorry for my niece, who did nothing to deserve someone as spiteful as my sister for a mother, but I cannot do anything since we are not on speaking terms.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    89. Re:Why I'm not having kids by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      When you're older, will you be able to talk to your "good careers", invite them over for the holidays, share times good and bad with them?

      1. It's a fallacy to assume that if another person chooses not to have kids, then their career must be the most important thing in their life.

      And since you know nothing about the GP, it makes you sound like an ass.

      Except that the GP mentioned his career. And his house. Really, it's in the second sentence. And your ad hominem makes you sound like, well you already said it best.

      I would not assume that it was "the most important thing" in her life simply because she mentioned it in a post as a qualifier for being in the sweet spot for procreating.

      And granted, I should not have called you an ass - that's just how "will you be able to talk to your 'good careers'?" comes off. But an ad hominem would imply that your argument is wrong *because* "you sound like an ass". I did no such thing.

    90. Re:Why I'm not having kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't read what you quoted, huh?

  15. Over-population red herring? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

    I do remember many times seeing the reports of how over-population was going to put such stresses on resources that it would be catastrophic to the globe. Well, looks like the problem has been solved. Yes it will be painful for a moment in time, but once population stabilizes, or even falls, there will be more for folks.

    Frankly, the Govt can keep what I've paid into SS and the like. Just stop taking it out of my paychecks. I will take care of myself thank you very much.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:Over-population red herring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do remember many times seeing the reports of how over-population was going to put such stresses on resources that it would be catastrophic to the globe. Well, looks like the problem has been solved. Yes it will be painful for a moment in time, but once population stabilizes, or even falls, there will be more for folks.

      So over-population and global warming aren't intertwined at all? Carbon emissions are only half the problem. The other half is ALL THE FREAKING PEOPLE using the technologies which emit carbon!

    2. Re:Over-population red herring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will take care of myself thank you very much.

      You're missing the point. You're supposed to be taking care of all the other people who don't bother taking care of themselves.

  16. If you are young(ish), save for yourself by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I think within 20-30 years, social security will be just about tapped out and unable to pay more than a small percentage of people that paid in.

    What will end up happening is only the needy will be given social security money, anyone who has any amount of savings will not be allowed to draw out of it.

    So for anyone working now - just treat social security as a black whole, money taken from you never to be seen again. Save enough for your own retirement to be comfortable. It's not hard to do, even just a few thousand a year now can make a huge difference later.

    You might think that it would be better to save nothing so you would be one of the handful actually given social security money. But I wouldn't rely on that variable, save yourself and you know exactly what you have for retirement.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I think within 20-30 years, social security will be just about tapped out and unable to pay more than a small percentage of people that paid in.

      Note that according to the latest Trustee's report the trust fund will pay full retirement benefits until 2033, and thereafter will still be paying 75% of scheduled benefits through 2086 -- not a "small percentage". It's been proposed that the deficit could be completely wiped-out by means-testing OASDI payouts...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      The current projections are for the Social Security Trust Fund to be depleted around 2037, last I checked. At that point, assuming the government only pays out what it brings in, benefits will be reduced by about 25%. I would assume with current demographics, the payroll taxes will pay for an ever-shrinking percentage of the original benefits, until the baby boomers die off in significant numbers.

      I don't know anybody under the age of 55 who is planning on receiving benefits from SS when they retire.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    3. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there was money actually in the trust, instead of a giant IOU. So while you might end up getting full benefits until 2033 and 75% payout until 2086, that will come about via raised taxes on current income and 401(k).

      I don't know about you, but I'm betting that the total amount of extra taxes I pay (both currently and on my 401(k) withdrawls during retirement) will exceed the total amount of benefits paid out to me by the trust. So yes, as far as I'm concerned, it's a black hole, and my wife and I have both switched to funding both a 401(k) (pre-tax, taxed on withdrawl) as well as a Roth 401(k) (post-tax, not taxed on withdrawl.)

      IMO, the US is in for significant pain, thanks to both ruling parties and short-sighted voters. There was an article in the Economist that looked at the current financial issues, and it came to the conclusion that it was impossible to eliminate the deficit by simply taxing the rich OR by cutting spending. To really cut the deficit is going to require increased taxes across the board as well as curbing government spending. Can you imagine either Obama and Boehner actually coming to that compromise? Because the last article I read about the current state of negotiations made it seem like they were both total idiots and nowhere close.

    4. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the trust find doesn't exist and the money to pay for those benefits must come from increased taxation, increased printing of money, or decreased benefits, I would say that the Trustee's report is not worth the toilet paper that it is written on.

    5. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by Specter · · Score: 1

      Don't worry AC. Although we can't identify you here, you can rest easy knowing that the government is fully aware of the balance in both your 401(k) and Roth IRAs. When push comes to shove expect to start hearing serious talk about "nationalizing" your private savings plans.

    6. Re:If you are young(ish), save for yourself by Specter · · Score: 1

      While I agree that anyone under 55 needs to plan on there being no SS benefits when they retire, we've already passed the point of expenditures exceeding revenues.

      Here's the money shot:

      "Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."

        Source: SSA

  17. Kids cost money by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why would you want tonnes of kids when you can find a job and they want to cut your food stamps?

    You can't even get a living wage at Walmart!

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:Kids cost money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even get a living wage at Walmart!

      And there in lies your problem.

    2. Re:Kids cost money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try the other side of life... as a foster parent I hear about people that have kids so they don't have to work.

      As long as you have a kid under 3 you get WIC (Women, infants and children) and with 6 kids, it's cheaper to pay you than send them all to daycare and school so you can work, and no single uneducated parent will be making the 6k a month to pay for that much daycare...

    3. Re:Kids cost money by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      I disagree. According to Walmart here, the average Walmart associate makes $11.75 an hour.

      If 4 such associates were to pool their resources, they would collectively make $94,000 a year. More than enough to allow 4 people to live a very comfortable lifestyle. Or even 9 people to live a somewhat comfortable lifestyle (assuming 4 adult workers, 1 adult child care, 4 children).

      Of course this isn't the "American Dream" of 2.1 children, a white picket fence, dog in the yard, 2 cars, a home entertainment system, cable, internet, smartphones, Disney vacation per year, Starbucks latte every day, Prada purse, etc. etc. etc....but it's certainly livable.

      -

  18. the birth rate has smoothed out by alen · · Score: 1

    if you read the article they have a nice chart going back to the 1800's. the last 50 some years the birth rate has been flat since peaking in 1960.

    right about the same time as women going into the work force and becoming independent and having children later. instead of peaks and valleys like before we will probably have a nice smooth birth rate going forward as people have kids later in life

    1. Re:the birth rate has smoothed out by Kergan · · Score: 1

      right about the same time as women going into the work force and becoming independent and having children later.

      Actually, it's right about the same time as refrigerators and wash-machines became widespread (less household chores), and women got to take the pill (no unwanted child-rearing burden). That women went into the workforce and had children later is a mere consequence of the latter two. By some accounts (e.g. J.M. Roberts), btw, these two events happen to be the single-most important (as in society shaping) of the 20th century -- with antibiotics, computing and telecommunications coming close behind.

      instead of peaks and valleys like before we will probably have a nice smooth birth rate going forward as people have kids later in life

      Insofar as I'm aware, there were no peaks and valleys before. Only high birth rates, due to lack of effective contraception. Then again I'm no specialist, so take this with a grain of salt. If the past century is any indicator though, the birthrate varies with the economic conditions, i.e. with how much you trust that your children will have a good life.

  19. This isn't a bad thing. by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, the social security problem is easily solved by actually making the wealthy pay their proportionate share of the taxes. It isn't even a significant factor compared to the effects of uncontrolled population growth on the human race.

    Our population is far too high as is and it going shrinking some isn't a bad thing. Just because we've been planning for overcrowding, increasing resource usage, etc doesn't mean should not demand that our population continue it's horrible growth increase to fulfill our fears.

    People often like to claim that humans consume without bounds and replicate until all resources are used up and will eventually move on. A stop in population growth would indicate an equilibrium with our environment and disappoint them. Is that really so bad?

    1. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by alen · · Score: 1

      most wealthy people don't get their money from salary, but from investments.

      fat chance on taxing everyone's investments that haven't been turned into cash

    2. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by LehiNephi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm afraid the data doesn't match up with your perceptions. The rich already pay a higher effective tax rate than those in lower income brackets on average (about 24%), while the bottom 50% pay an average of less than 2%. Yes, by all means, let's let the wealthy pay their proportionate share of taxes, by reducing their tax rates!

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    3. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      Money collected from any means other than Social Security withholdings cannot be used fro Social Security payments, nor can money collected for Social Security be used for any other purpose.

      =Smidge=

    4. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid the data doesn't match up with your perceptions. The rich already pay a higher effective tax rate than those in lower income brackets on average (about 24%), while the bottom 50% pay an average of less than 2%. Yes, by all means, let's let the wealthy pay their proportionate share of taxes, by reducing their tax rates!

      That's just income taxes. You replied to someone posting about payroll taxes, which aren't on your misleading table. Nor are sales taxes or the majority of taxes most people pay. I thought after Romney's stupid 47% comment you people would finally give up this deception.

    5. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by forand · · Score: 3, Informative

      You quote Average tax rate not the social security tax which is what matters. Please see these data. Which show that, in fact, the highest quintile of earns pay a much smaller percentage than the second to highest. As this quintile makes the most money we are effectively taxing the most money less. More precisely you do not pay SS tax on monies earned over a fixed number.

    6. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Money collected from any means other than Social Security withholdings cannot be used fro Social Security payments, nor can money collected for Social Security be used for any other purpose."

      Not sure where you got these silly ideas. There is nothing to stop congress from putting funds into social security and a big part of the reason social security is in trouble in the first place is because they've never hesitated to dip into it's funds. The only thing that MIGHT stop them from doing either is an explicit Constitutional prohibition but most likely they'd just ignore it or reinterpret it as somehow meaning that they are not only not restricted but have gained some new magical power to to regulate individuals rather than regulate states.

    7. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tough shit, rich boy. How much do you need to live? The value of money (anything) decreases the more you have, so factor that into proportionate.

      Is the point of taxes to be fair on paper, or to provide for and advance civilisation?

    8. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A proportionate share of taxes would be based on wealth not income and would be a fixed rate tax on all wealth both liquid and non-liquid with no deductions allowed with zero exceptions for any cause.

      If you have a billion dollars worth of wealth that wealth costs a billion times as much in infrastructure, manpower, public services, etc than a dollar worth of wealth. It doesn't cost any less to produce or maintain just because it is in the hands of one person. And it costs to maintain on a continual basis so there is no reason you shouldn't be taxed on that wealth again next year.

    9. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a feature, not a flaw. Tax rates are suppose to be progressive, not regressive. Do you expect someone who makes $30,000 to pay 20% on their income tax to the IRS? That's $6000. Hell they don't even have that much in savings.

    10. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are an asshat. The tax rate of the bottom 50% might be because a lot of them are living below the poverty line. But wait, that doesn't stop them from having to pay into social security. The tax rate you cited is only about federal income tax. There are tons of other taxes that hit the poor a hell of a lot harder than they hit the wealthy.

      Feel free and try to defend yourself, I really don't give two shits. Facts are not subjective. Poor people pay a sizable percentage in taxes in proportion to the amount of money they have coming in and their cumulative wealth. To deny that is a bald face lie concocted by someone who wants to whine about their own tax rate.

    11. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by medcalf · · Score: 1

      So all the T-bills that the SSA bought were illegal, and paying them off would be illegal too? Either I misunderstood your point, or you are not looking past the end of your nose. These things are really easy to game.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    12. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Those are not ordinary T-Bills, so no it's not illegal.

      =Smidge=

    13. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid the data doesn't match up with your perceptions. The rich already pay a higher effective tax rate than those in lower income brackets on average (about 24%), while the bottom 50% pay an average of less than 2%. Yes, by all means, let's let the wealthy pay their proportionate share of taxes, by reducing their tax rates!

      That's income tax only. Add in social security tax (flat percentage until you hit a cap, then 0% so high earners pay a lower total %age), sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes (direct and indirect - the land lord doesn't pay the property taxes, he includes the tax in the rent payment), etc. When you add it all up, the working poor pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

    14. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I should be more specific;

      Like any other trust fund, Social Security is able to invest portions of the fund to increase its value. The SSA buys special, non-public treasury bonds as a means of investment. This has the net effect of loaning money to the federal government, but it is a loan that, believe it or not, the government is obligated to pay back when the bonds mature.

      Congress is not forcing the SSA to buy those bills, so it has no control over how much in bonds are purchased and therefore no control over how much money they can borrow. So this is entirely unlike congress spending or putting money into the SSTF.
      =Smidge=

    15. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not true. Since 1984 any surplus collected from SS tax has gone to the general fund and been spent that year. That law was put into place and is required. Your statement that SS money can't be spent elsewhere is a complete lie.

      Bonus... The ONLY way Clinton "balanced the budget" is with this SS surplus. If they didn't include the SS surplus in his budgets as part of the general fund he never balanced the budget and ran a deficit every year.

      I really wish more people would learn the truth instead of repeating the same lies over and over.

    16. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Our population is far too high as is and it going shrinking some isn't a bad thing.

      This article is about the USA. The USA does not have an overpopulation problem. There is plenty of space left to support people in the USA.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Statistics, liars and all that.

      When you include ONLY federal income tax your numbers are right. Tack in payroll taxes (which are ironically not included as federal taxes even though they are federal taxes), state, local and sales taxes and the poor are paying the majority of taxes and the rich aren't paying anything, as long as it's a percentage of income that's being discussed.

      And realistically % of income is what matters, not the total dollar figure as that's just a way to confuse the issue .

    18. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      If you have a billion dollars worth of wealth that wealth costs a billion times as much in infrastructure, manpower, public services, etc than a dollar worth of wealth

      Where could you possibly get such an insane idea?

      So if I have a billion dollars in the bank, it costs a billion times the infrastructure of having $1 in the bank? Wow, hard drive prices must have taken a steep jump lately!

    19. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      You really don't understand the concept of equity vs. equality, do you?

      I think I might finally be starting to understand the American right-wingers.

      What a scary concept.

    20. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      What your reference doesn't show is the projected Social Security benefits available to that highest quintile of earners. You can't determine what rate is "proportional" without considering the fact that higher earners also get lower benefits (relative to lifetime earnings).

      I would hazard a guess that if you look at lifetime benefits relative to Social Security taxes paid, the ratio is slanted heavily against the higher earners, and that doesn't even consider the fact that the higher earners also tend to be less dependent on Social Security for their own needs. They've already paid in far more than their fair share of other people's retirement funds, and the purpose of SS first and foremost is social security, not redistribution of wealth.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    21. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That billion dollars didn't come out of the ether you know. Even literally sitting in the bank it represents risk and as such it gets a billion times more share of the costs, infrastructure, and manpower that goes into securing and operating the entire United States banking and investment infrastructure that the dollar does. You didn't think the only cost was a computer and the power it takes to generate the actual digital figure did you? That is in there too. There is also the cost to verify the integrity of the system. All the tax breaks taken by all the institutions involved. All the costs for all the federal authorities needed to regulate and police them. You don't need to assure much integrity for a $1, you don't need much security, you probably need no regulation whatsoever. You need a billion times more assurance, integrity, security, and regulation for a billion dollars. Your billion dollars worth of wealth is a billion times more desirable to steal and that isn't just police but a proportionate share of the cost of the military.

      That billion dollars came from banks who borrowed it from the Fed. They borrowed it because people wanted to borrow it from them. Those people had to use that money to do something that generated more interest than the money costs. The money has already cost lots of resources at this point, tax breaks for banks, a portion of the costs of running and securing the federal reserve, the infrastructure surrounding it, etc. That something is usually some sort of business. That business might involve lots of labor, production, and transportation or not. But if not, it carries a smaller percentage of profit since rewards are related to risk. At the end of that chain, there is a billion dollars worth of goods and services represented by that billion dollars and if you hold it, you are responsible for all the public infrastructure, tax breaks, police, etc required to generate those goods and services.

      That is why those bottom 2% get and should get such heavy tax breaks, they generated far more wealth than they received (which is generally at or near nothing for the bottom 2%, they spend all their income so the wealth they generate goes to the owners of good and service providers). The top 2% got far more wealth than they generated. A tax system that doesn't tax in proportion to the wealth you actually ended up with isn't proportionate at all. Even if had your billion in gold bullion , paid the tax on that wealth the first time to cover the cost to generate it, and locked it in a secret vault, on your yacht in international waters, not flying a US flag so the US military isn't protecting you, so that you secured that gold yourself with your own personal weaponry, your billion still costs a billion times more. That is a billion dollars worth of the collective wealth of the people of the United States that isn't being used to generate new wealth to cover the cost of consumed goods and services.

    22. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social security is supposedly a retirement system where you get back what you put in. Currently, the rich pay 12.4% of their first $110,100 or about $13,652/year.

      That should be enough to handle their retirement. If you increase the amount they must pay into the system, you also increase the amount they get out of the system.

      Now, if you are arguing that Social Security should be purely a welfare system* and that the rich should pay more into it and get nothing out, that is a reasonable argument to make. However, you also need to take into account the consequences of that decision -- the loss of the perception that Social Security is not a welfare program and a drop in support for the program as a whole.

      *Social Security actually is a welfare system. The benefits formula is skewed towards lower earners. In addition, those receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit actually pay nothing at all into the system and still receive benefits.

    23. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not receive benefits for SS over a fixed number, you are purposely misleading to the point of lying to make your point.

      To have it your way it suddenly becomes welfare and not "insurance". Wanna bet how much easier it is to cut a welfare program instead of cutting SS? Ask Clinton, he did it to celebration and is considered a genius for cutting welfare.

    24. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Our population is far too high as is

      Clearly, you've never been to Phoenix, AZ... The Southwestern US consists of about 300,000 sq miles of mostly vacant desert land, and only very little else. The US population at large continues to move further south and west every year.

      People often like to claim that humans consume without bounds and replicate until all resources are used up and will eventually move on.

      Only the highest order fools make such claims.

      http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your SS benefits are based on your salary, to a point as well. Hence the cutoff.

    26. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by iceperson · · Score: 1

      So are you arguing that you should divorce Social Security benefits from what people pay in? Or would that be just for "rich" people? Under our current system if you make the "rich" pay in more and you'll have to pay them more too, and since they have better access to health care and tend to live healthier they tend to live longer and this will collect even more...

    27. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the social security problem is easily solved by actually making the wealthy pay their proportionate share of the taxes.

      Actually, you do it by raising the retirement age. That's a much more direct method of preventing problems, as it limits the payouts a lot. Any good actuary can tell you that.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    28. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      The problem is that you can't make people fit for work for longer just for the sake of making of numbers working out. It won't work as well as you think anyway. Our SS retirement age is already far higher than employers will actually tolerate and the result is pressed early retirement.

    29. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      The funds "go into the general fund" by way of the Treasury Bonds. congress has no control over how much money is involved in this transaction since they have no control over the SS surplus. Also, Clinton's surpluses could not have included SSA bond buying since this shows up as a DEBT in the records, due to the treasury bond proxy required to get the funds out. Roughly $2.7 trillion of our national debt (over 16%!) is owed to the SSA.

      Nothing I said was untrue. You, however, are insinuating that congress can just stick their hands into the trust fund's coffers any time they wish. THAT is a lie.
      =Smidge=

    30. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easily solved by actually making the wealthy pay their proportionate share of the taxes

      I'll divide your fallacious assertions into two two parts.

      easily solved by

      Clearly you have no concept of the magnitude of the problem. The problem exists because during the Vietnam war and after, revenues were transferred out of the Social Security (SS) 'Trust Fund' to pay for other entitlement programs and misc social benefits ... wait for it ... that should have been paid for with other revenue sources. In short, the electorate of that time wanted more than they were willing to pay for. This essentially turned SS into a pyramid scheme. Other 'adventures' and increased entitlements (medicare/obamacare/medicaid) afterwards is only compounding the original problem. Raising taxes only on the rich does not even come close to solving this problem. Please point to 1 _reputable_ source that has run the numbers and said this will make anything close to a substantial impact.

      making the wealthy pay their proportionate share of the taxes

      I agree, we should only make them pay their fair/proportinate share! And while we're at it, we should go after the people who disproportionately but pay low income tax. Think of how much tax money we could generate if people who aren't paying any income tax started to pay their fair and proportionate share too!
      Ok, having said all that ... they already pay their proportionate/fair share. Sources:
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/12/timothy-geithner/geithner-says-top-1-percent-have-tax-rate-low-20s/
      Using 2009 numbers which include all taxes paid (a fair assessment imho): http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373
      The bottom 60% paid 13.5% of all taxes and accounted for 29.6% of all income (proportionality is 13.5/29.6 ~= 0.45) , while the top 20% paid 67.9% of all taxes and accounted for 50.8% of all income (proportionality is 67.9/50.8 ~= 1.34). So, not only do the top 20% of income earners pay approx 34% MORE than their proportionate percentage of income, the bottom 60% pays ALMOST 50% LESS than their proportionate percentage of income.

      So please, stop with your emotionally based argument and actually look at the numbers before you open your mouth.

    31. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American right wing understands this: pursing equality at any cost guarantees there will be equity for no one. History has been unkind to those who do not understand this and act accordingly.

    32. Re:This isn't a bad thing. by Specter · · Score: 1

      The point of taxes is to pay for the commitments our governments have made to spend our money.

  20. Basis of the US economy by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a problem with the US economy in general - it is based on growth. Those European/Asian countries that have been around for thousands of years are more stable, and have economies based more on sustainable goods and services. One of the main economic numbers that drives the US stock market is "new housing starts" - a number based solely on having the population continually increasing. Once that slows down - and can't even be propped up by the banks fudging mortgages - the entire country is headed for a depression.

    1. Re:Basis of the US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US doesn't have much to offer that is unique to people and businesses. It's very hard to convince a business to settle here now. It's like saying go to france and set up shop that sells american novelty goods. The result is a far from fantastic.

    2. Re:Basis of the US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, do you even have any concept of current economic conditions in the world based in reality? You'd better read up on economic forecasts for Asia. Make sure you research what makes their economies tick.

    3. Re:Basis of the US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those Those European/Asian countries don't have this type of problem at all:
      http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/japan-population-aging-business-oxford-analytica.html
      http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5667781&page=1#.ULkJm6zAfvY

      It's a world problem, not just a US problem. We as a world society need to figure out have to have a stable economy that is not dependent on population growth.

    4. Re:Basis of the US economy by alen · · Score: 1

      there is no asian/european country that has been around for thousands of years in a stable condition. they all have been invaded and their populations killed off to make room for the invaders.

      mongols invaded china
      the romans pushed the gauls into england and then ireland. the current french are franks, who were invaders in the early part of the last millenium. same with most other europeans. they were the barbarians who invaded the roman empire and settled down.

    5. Re:Basis of the US economy by alen · · Score: 1

      kill off the old people?

    6. Re:Basis of the US economy by Kergan · · Score: 1

      This is a problem with the US economy in general - it is based on growth.

      Can you name an economy that is based on anything but growth?

      Those European/Asian countries that have been around for thousands of years are more stable, and have economies based more on sustainable goods and services.

      Which ones? Germany and China? Seriously? Sorry, but no. Both are driven by exports and excess savings, and they recycle profits by lending the latter to their customers. If their customers default (and they probably will) and set up stiffer trade barriers (which they likely will too), they'll tank... Hard... Much harder than economies that traded goods and services for funny money. Oh, and they both have major demographic problems due to low birth rates. And China additionally has a major rebalancing problem on its hands.

      One of the main economic numbers that drives the US stock market is "new housing starts" - a number based solely on having the population continually increasing.

      I suspect that Bernanke has a lot more to do with it than you suggest. He's continuing to inject liquidity into the banking system. Since the money isn't getting lent out to businesses and consumers, it needs to go somewhere, and that somewhere happens to be asset markets.

      Once that slows down - and can't even be propped up by the banks fudging mortgages - the entire country is headed for a depression.

      The entire country is likely headed for a depression no matter what.

    7. Re:Basis of the US economy by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Which ones? Germany and China? Seriously? Sorry, but no. Both are driven by exports and excess savings,

      Exactly. Germany is actually *shrinking* in population, but doing quite well, because their economy is not dependant on population growth.

      The US is currently growing at about a 1% rate, and is the fastest growing major country. China and the UK are growing at about a 0.5% rate. Germany and Japan are shrinking in population.

    8. Re:Basis of the US economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with a growing economy if there money or labor is being used efficiently. The problem is that Wall Street wants exponential growth in profits.

    9. Re:Basis of the US economy by Kergan · · Score: 1

      the current french are franks, who were invaders in the early part of the last millenium. same with most other europeans. they were the barbarians who invaded the roman empire and settled down.

      Not. Back then, a so-called invasion was when a few thousand warriors took over a whole area. The locals stayed and bred with the invaders, plain and simple. Or got raped, because it was customary until the 19th century to plunder/rape/raze a place you conquered as a bonus payment for troops. Contrary to what you're suggesting, population wasn't anymore on the run at large because of some odd newcomer than they did a few years ago when Iraq invaded Koweit. The French are a mixed-breed of the huge variety of people who overran the place in the past two millennia -- and there were many, especially if you consider the areas which only became French in more recent history. The place basically was a boulevard throughout history. Not to mention recent immigration. If there's a melting pot nation anywhere on Earth, France comes close second to the likes of America or Brazil.

    10. Re:Basis of the US economy by jheath314 · · Score: 1

      This is a problem with the US economy in general - it is based on growth.

      If by "growth" you mean primarily population growth, this is balderdash.

      Historically speaking, the way the US became an economic giant was by increasing productivity at rates far higher than mere population growth (thereby raising living standards and income per capita.) Things like mechanization, industrialization, automation, and the information age have made it possible for an individual in each successive generation to produce more than individuals from prior generations. If the US economy only grew at the same pace as the population, then on a per capita basis that's the same as standing still, which is clearly not the case for most of US history.

      In fact, I'd argue it was the lack of population that fueled American innovation since early colonial times. When confronted with vast resources and a shortage of labor, the early pioneers were forced to develop the technologies that could amplify any one individual's efforts. (At least in the North. In the South they attempted to solve the labor shortage through the importation of slaves.) Contrast this with Europe, which had the inverse problem of large population and limited land, which made increasing individual productivity less of a priority.

      If the US population stopped growing today, economic growth would still be fueled by gains in productivity, just as it always has been.

      --
      Procrastination Man strikes again!
    11. Re:Basis of the US economy by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      A voice of reason and intelligence. MOD PARENT UP.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    12. Re:Basis of the US economy by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      You've misunderstood. The problem isn't falling populations. Falling populations aren't a problem. We are, arguably, running out of resources. The problem is having an economy that demands constant growth, an entire philosophical need for it, in fact. The US almost always manages to post impressive growth figures year in, year out, to the extent that it's a disaster if growth isn't 3-4% even during a recession. Immigration tends to provide a large chunk of that growth.

      I think we basically agree but you're reacting to something different to what I would.

      The US is built on a fantasy, and that fantasy requires substantial, at least 3-5 per cent per year, growth or the market gets concerned. Immigration and population growth in general goes a long way to providing that growth. When the home team starts to slacken off it becomes a cause for concern.

      None of this makes the US a worse or less desirable place to live. In fact, you wouldn't want to live in the US after a hundred years of 5-6% population growth per year. It's good that things calm down and expected that GDP will slow down also.

      Short term this will mean that a bunch of US companies will have their chickens come home to roost and stock prices will fall in certain cases because illusionary projected profits will never happen.

    13. Re:Basis of the US economy by dadioflex · · Score: 0

      France? FRANCE? If anyone was defeated more and raped to buggery left and right it was Britain. How dare you suggest that France has been conquered more often. When we got our act together we also conquered more, had a bigger empire and, most importantly, embraced it better. France may have the banlieues but we would have no culture or food worth talking about without the gift of our adopted sons and daughters. For all the troubles we have with racism, it's still a small thing to address in comparison to the gift we have from a real multi-cultural society.

  21. Sandra Fluke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The birthrate may be low but not for lack of fucking.

  22. Re:Immigrants... right by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

    They essentially bypassed taking a couple days to learn the Constitution and a basic English test and an oath of loyalty to the US.

    Legally immigrating to the US does not require one to do any of those things. Only those who wish to take US citizenship, which legal immigrants are eligible for only after years of living in the US, must do those things. And many legal immigrants to the US are happy to stay at the level of permanent residency, never applying for citizenship.

  23. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the reason I find the Fair Tax to be an interesting idea.

  24. Re:Immigrants... right by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    Der gonna take er jerbs!!!!

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  25. We must allow immigration by jjo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do you assume immigrants must be illegal? The law should allow the amount of legal immigration we need, and the immigrants that will help our country grow. Immigration is vital to our economy now, and will become more so as the population ages.

    Young, vital, driven immigrants are just the sort of people we need, yet nativist know-nothings act as if immigrants are a blight, not paying taxes or contributing anything to the economy. If we shut off immigration, as the xenophobic fringe demands, we will look like Japan soon, with an aging population and not enough young people to support them.

    The USA was built by immigrants. It would be the height of folly to excessively limit immigration now when we most need it.

    1. Re:We must allow immigration by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      I don't think the arguments against securing our borders are because of the legal immigrants. The stink is about the illegals using our resources and not paying tax like the rest of us do. I am sure most legal immigrants pay taxes on their income. I have no qualms about legal immigration, even from mexico, it's the illegal immigrants I have a problem with. And, yes I know they take most of our crappy low paying jobs that most people wouldn't work. They still do not pay taxes on their income and use our resources.

    2. Re:We must allow immigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very large percentage of illegal immigrants do pay taxes, using stolen or even made-up SSNs. They'll never draw any of that money back.

    3. Re:We must allow immigration by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      It is obvious to most people that there are different sorts of immigrants that can come to the US. One type is a rural farm hand that can't make more than $2 a day where they were and has zero skills other than hauling, dragging and slopping. Another type is a graduate engineer that has an offer from a company in the US.

      Which sort do you believe we are current encouraging to come to the US more? Right - the farm hand. Who, on a good day, can get a job raking leaves for a landscaping company. The engineer isn't going to be able to get in illegally and it wouldn't occur to them to try to do so. So they have roughly a five to ten year wait right now.

      Also, please understand that the engineer is going to undermine the wage pool at the company he is joining. He will work for $20K less than US graduates and the company will be glad to pay him $20K less. And then hold him up as an example of the sort of future employees that are needed. At some point the US needs to come to terms with the idea that there are a finite number of such engineering jobs and under the current rules they will likely go to the lowest bidder.

      With a real 15-20% unemployment rate, heck even with the 8% the government is touting, we can little afford to be bringing in people that have only one destiny - to drive wages down and to provide a real alternative to hiring currently unemployed people already in the US. Sure, immigration can be a good thing in good economic times with a 3-4% unemployment rate. But trying to pit immigrants - legal and illegal - against the unemployed is just wrong.

    4. Re:We must allow immigration by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      If we shut off immigration, as the xenophobic fringe demands, we will look like Japan soon, with an aging population and not enough young people to support them.

      We already are the world leader concerning immigration. The nearest country is france which has nearly a quarter of the amount immigrating as we do. Annually we're at over a million legal residents a year. So anything but upwards of what we're doing is xenophobic? LOL.

      The USA was built by immigrants. It would be the height of folly to excessively limit immigration now when we most need it.

      There are many issues at work here, but why don't we take care of the people already here, unless you're volunteering to tell that to the currently unemployed. We're facing record unemployment, levels not seen since before WW2. What jobs are these people going to do?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  26. awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years like this mean fewer competition which means my son will be supporting me in retirement!

  27. A healthy middle class.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .... will allow people the luxury of having children. If a couple has a hard time feeding themselves, how the heck are they going to feed a family. Let's bring back the tax rates from Eisenhower and see what happens when the pie is more fairly distributed.

    1. Re:A healthy middle class.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ya, 70%. Let's do that. I'll have to close my store and sell my house. (seriously)

    2. Re:A healthy middle class.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really need those things, comrade? You live in small apartment and eat turnips and do your job, all provided by the mother land. We will have nothing together.

  28. It's a fallacy that more people are needed by echtertyp · · Score: 1

    The status quo assumption is that retirees can only be cared for if there are more people in every generation to tithe. A far better model is to equitably distribute "ownership" of civilization's resources and technology. Then instead of tithing the young and depending on unsustainable population growth, people would simply earn income from their share of ownership of human civilization. This should in fact be OK with conservatives, because the principle (passive income received from inheritance) is one of their bedrock principles. We just have to extend it (via redistribution of title to assets) to everyone. This also solves the problem of The Race Against the Machine.

    1. Re:It's a fallacy that more people are needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should in fact be OK with conservatives, because the principle (passive income received from inheritance) is one of their bedrock principles.

      Right... because every conservative talk host dead or living won't be running to their microphones screaming "COMMUNIST!!!!" at the top of there dead black lungs when you try to implement that.

  29. Wouldn't say 1.9 is "slightly" less than 2.1. by gatesstillborg · · Score: 2

    Close to 10%.

  30. Why the argument for more immigrants anyway? by zildgulf · · Score: 1

    Why does the author seem to argue for increased immigration? He says we need more tax paying immigrants and their children to pay for Social Security in the future but the number of jobs available is effectively decreasing per capita in the country and we all know unemployed people, natives and immigrants, are a net drain on our government services. So if we restrict immigration to stabilize or decrease our supply of labor to meet the current demand for labor we will have to massively cut Social Security benefits to stabilize it.

    This looks to me to be a Catch-22.

    1. Re:Why the argument for more immigrants anyway? by JWW · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Its not really a catch-22.

      Everything the Republicans were telling you about immigration before the election was a lie...

      Immigration leads to job growth and economic expansion.

    2. Re:Why the argument for more immigrants anyway? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      LEGAL immigration leads to job growth and economic expansion.

    3. Re:Why the argument for more immigrants anyway? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If that's supposed to be a "TFTFY", it's misplaced.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  31. blame modern medicine by alen · · Score: 2

    used to be you had 5 kids and 2 of them would die by 5 or 10. smallpox, typhoid, cholera, polio, death in child birth. add in your normal bacterial infections spreading and making your kids blind or some other disability because anti-biotics weren't available.

    these days we have vaccines, antibiotics and other drugs to treat conditions that used to kill.

    my older kid had pneumonia a few years back. a little zithromax and he was ready for day care in 2 days.
    one of my school teachers once said that pneumonia put her in the hospital for a month
    before that it wasn't that unusual to die from it

    1. Re:blame modern medicine by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      This is already taken into account. That's why it says we need 2.1 children per woman in order to sustain the population. 90 years ago that number might have been 3, and even greater the further back you go. The reason this is big news is because it means the population may start declining.

    2. Re:blame modern medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my older kid had pneumonia a few years back. a little zithromax and he was ready for day care in 2 days.
      one of my school teachers once said that pneumonia put her in the hospital for a month

      Welcome to the difference between bacterial pneumonia and viral pneumonia...

  32. Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in: Fewer women less interested on having sex with their obese male counterparts.

    1. Re:Dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Japanese men more into tentacle pr0n than women.

  33. So tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the whole SS system not a Ponzii scheme? If it relies entirely on a steadily increasing population to fund it, why is it even legal? It will eventually collapse in on itself, and here they are panicking because it may (or may not) collapse sooner than anticipated.

    1. Re:So tell me again... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the only viable alternative is the stock market. Now, to scare you even further:

      How is the entire stock market not a Ponzii scheme? It relies entirely on steadily increasing numbers of consumers to buy the goods, driving the sales growth that sustains all of those high P/E ratios. The whole system will eventually collapse in on itself, so every time I hear about a downturn in stocks, I wonder why everyone is panicking merely because it may or may not collapse sooner than anticipated....

      See how much scarier it is when you look at the big picture instead of just a narrow part of it?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  34. How Does a Woman Have 1.9 Children? by hondo77 · · Score: 1
    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  35. Who's having those babies by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suspect that people with education and stable incomes continue to have children at the already low rate that they have historically.

    That immigrants are also reducing the number of pregnancies hints that they understand the consequences and costs of raising children. Or maybe it hints that with access to free medical services (and yeah, lets not kid ourselves, for them it is free), they have managed to throw off the traditions of the third world of having many children even when living in squalor in the hopes that some of them will survive to take care of them in their old age.

    (You would sort of expect this, since anyone willing to abandon their homeland and go on a long and dangerous journey risking arrest, and sometimes life, in the hopes of improving their conditions, would seem unlikely to fall back into the trap that they left).

    Its been a long time since this country had a depression lasting 5 years, (with another 4 years on the horizon). Long enough for even the clueless to begin to understand the costs involved of feeding kids while out of work.

    So who is still having those kids? I suspect the least able to support them. Unmarried teen age girls living in poverty. Despite nationally declining rates, teen birth rates in the United States remain persistently high, at 34.4 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19. And these rates are dramatically higher than in other developed countries. Twice as high as Canada.

    Also those living on public assistance, of one form or another, where having another kid means another increase in their assistance check.
    The birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance. See page 15.

    With no skills, and no prospects, there seems to be an entire population of breeder-class individuals. And they are not necessarily the immigrants that we all thought they were.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Who's having those babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why a condition of receiving public assistance should be injectable/implantable birth control.

      Taking care of someone who us unable to do for themselves is one thing, allowing them to breed is another thing entirely.

    2. Re:Who's having those babies by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Its been a long time since this country had a depression lasting 5 years, (with another 4 years on the horizon).

      Uh, what are you smoking? We've been in a depression for nearly 80 years. After the last economic downturn, we all got major credit cards and have been riding on that since. Seriously, how do you think money comes about under FDR's New Deal? It's LOANED into existence. Loaned to the banks, who loan it to people to buy houses and cars, or businesses to expand and pay employees. You're not in any debt? But the guy that shops at your boss' shop is buying shit with money paid to him from a loan his employer has, which they got from a bank who borrowed the money from the Federal Treasury. The money in your bank accounts is owed to someone else by someone else, but they gave it to you instead.

      It's like losing your job, having $5000 in the bank, taking a $250,000 credit card with a $50 minimum monthly payment, and living like a king. Then 9 years later, you cry that you're suddenly broke, and you haven't been broke for almost a decade... uh, you've been broke as a motherfucker for 9 years, you moron.

      Also 4 more years because Obama? When Gary Johnson gets elected in 2016 it's not going to magically get better. It's gonna be a lot more than 4 years....

    3. Re:Who's having those babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be solved by making all women and men using public assistance have one of those injectable birth control devices. I would even consider it for teens under the age of 18.

    4. Re:Who's having those babies by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is qualified to take the injectable ones. Girls who are properly educated on how to handle oral contraceptives can handle them just fine. And for me, this isn't even a matter of everyone on public assistance - every single girl should be given a thorough education on birth control and given the option to go on it from 14 years and older. Modern US sex education is full of fail, because of this stupid misbelief that if we talk candidly about sex with teenagers, they'll be more eager to go out and try it.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  36. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it depends on the state? In California for sure if you are here illegally you get paid in cash and pay no taxes and no social security at all. It is against the law to hire an illegal, so you sure as heck don't put them on a payroll and have it be known that you hired illegals. Years ago it used to be legal and yes, they could get normal payroll and deductions. Now that it is not legal to hire illegals they mostly all get cash payments.

  37. If only... by Valgar · · Score: 1

    Now if only the birth rate would drop world wide. Sigh, pipe dreams.

  38. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avoiding fertility tests is a crime.

  39. I can see it now .. Everyone, we need more fucking by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the point of kids? So you have someone to look after you when you get old? ;-) I jest, I jest.

  40. End the pyramid scheme by jemenake · · Score: 4, Informative

    Frankly, I'm repulsed by this notion that "Hey, we gotta keep pumping out more kids so that we have a big base paying into social security to offset all the geezers taking their benefits". In any other situation, the notion of needing lots of new contributions to help fund the payouts to the holders of mature shares would be called what it really is: a pyramid scheme. Every pyramid scheme, eventually, runs out of sources of new influx as the system grows exponentially. And, in the case of population, it brings with it all sorts of negative consequences, like soaring housing costs in places that don't suck.

    Frankly, I view population growth as akin to deficit spending... you can only get away with it for so long. So, rather than wait until we've exceeded the earth's capacity to support us, let's bite the bullet now. Let's embrace policies which encourage either zero-growth or population reduction and just accept the fact that it means that we'll all have to work a longer % of our life-expectancy.

    1. Re:End the pyramid scheme by alen · · Score: 2

      say you have a 401k with mutual funds. who is going to buy the stock from you when you're old if there are less people? what if there are less people to buy less products? less profits and less money for your retirement in your supposedly non-pyramid scheme plan

    2. Re:End the pyramid scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      negative consequences, like soaring housing costs in places that don't suck.

      So, why is New York City housing costs so high?

    3. Re:End the pyramid scheme by jemenake · · Score: 1

      say you have a 401k with mutual funds. who is going to buy the stock from you when you're old if there are less people?

      That's a poor justification for increasing the population... it's just a marginally better idea than mandating that people have to buy my shares.

      what if there are less people to buy less products?

      Right. Supply and demand decrease, together, so prices should stay about the same. Not as many people making TV's, and not as many people looking to buy TV's, so we're okay. The only exception are things which aren't made by the population (and, therefore, don't have their supply affected by population), like real-estate, oil, raw materials.... these can all be expected to lower in price.

      less profits and less money for your retirement in your supposedly non-pyramid scheme plan

      The fact that there's going to be pain involved doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Like I said earlier, every pyramid scheme collapses because there's always some aspect of it which cannot scale exponentially, and that's going to be a lot more painful if we wait. You shouldn't forgo getting a tooth cavity drilled/filled just because the novocaine shot is going to sting.

    4. Re:End the pyramid scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are assuming "constant growth" and inflation as the models.

      We do it the old fashioned way: simple accounting. How much does it cost to retire. How much does housing cost. How much is medical. Save. Spend later.

      No pyramid scheme.

    5. Re:End the pyramid scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I necessarily think it will work, but if the population was stable rather than shrinking the people buying into their 401ks in preparation for retirement would be the ones buying his stocks. Obviously that doesn't work in a shrinking population though.

    6. Re:End the pyramid scheme by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'm repulsed by this notion that "Hey, we gotta keep pumping out more kids so that we have a big base paying into social security to offset all the geezers taking their benefits". In any other situation, the notion of needing lots of new contributions to help fund the payouts to the holders of mature shares would be called what it really is: a pyramid scheme.

      Social Security is NOT a pyramid scheme. Full stop.

      It is an indefinitely sustainable system, just not quite at the current level of benefits. There has been one big hick-up in the Social Security model... The great depression and WWII caused two decades of population growth to be compressed into a couple years, hence the baby boomers. As the baby boomers start to retire, Social Security will be (temporarily) stressed, but it will survive.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:End the pyramid scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Security is NOT a pyramid scheme. Full stop.

      Well, first off, understand that I'm a fan of social security. I'm not one of those sink-or-swim conservatives who wants to scrap it. Now..

      It is an indefinitely sustainable system, just not quite at the current level of benefits. There has been one big hick-up in the Social Security model... The great depression and WWII caused two decades of population growth to be compressed into a couple years, hence the baby boomers. As the baby boomers start to retire, Social Security will be (temporarily) stressed, but it will survive.

      Well, I think you're giving credence to what I said. The way it's currently set up, it requires that there be more people at each "paying in" age, on average, than there are at each "taking out" age. This is due to a combination of: 1) the "retirement" age where you stop paying in and start taking out, 2) how much people pay in when they're paying in, and 3) how much people take out when they're taking out. What those 3 things are set to, right now, the system is not sustainable with zero population growth.

      Let's work the numbers. With zero population growth, the number of people at any age should be about the same (sure, it gradually trickles down from accidental deaths and diseases, but for the sake of working the numbers, let's figure that everybody lives until the average life expectancy and then kicks the bucket). Let's figure that they start working after high-school or college (so, on average, 20 years old) and work until 65. At 65, they retire and live to 80 (the life-expectancy of someone born recently). So, however many people there are at each year of age, N, there will be (65-20)*N people paying in, and (80-65)*N people taking out. If people paying in are each paying in an amount, A, then the amount available to each person taking out will be A*(65-20)/(80-65) = 3*A.

      Now... I'm making around the median income, and I'm currently paying in about $250/mo to Social Security. So, that means that someone collecting SS if there were *zero* administration costs would be about $750/mo. That's quite a bit less than what I understand SS to be currently paying out.

      So, yes, I stand by my earlier statement. as the system is currently structured, it needs more people at each age-year in *younger* ages than in the *retired* ages... so, it's a pyramid scheme. Now, what I'm *advocating* is that we bite the bullet, raise the retirement age and/or decrease benefits and/or increase the contributions so that we don't have this incentive to keep swelling our demographic numbers.

    8. Re:End the pyramid scheme by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Just because something isn't long-term sustainable, doesn't make it a pyramid scheme. If it was, EVERYTHING that isn't profitable would be called that, and it would lose all meaning.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  41. My immodest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to eat the elderly!

    1. Re:My immodest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Green is people!

  42. It IS a record low by Kergan · · Score: 1

    I'm curious to know this as well.

    "Not a record low" might make sense if data was limited to the boomer generation, which it clearly isn't since they're (per TFS) reliable since 1920. In the context of a --widely documented-- plummeting of birthrates during the industrial revolution, I'd be hard pressed to think this is anything but the lowest record ever for the US. 1920, in case it needs reminding, was a year after the Spanish Flu pandemic, and in the midst of the economic depression that followed WWI -- shit tons of bad debt got liquidated almost overnight, so it didn't last like the current one. In a country that never say a battle on its soil after it entered the latter in 1917, at that.

    FWIW, that birthrate seems to have "little prospects for a better economic future" written all over it. Probably for good reasons, too.

    On a separate note, it might be time to open the immigration floodgates with Mexico. Oh wait!

  43. Not so fast! by killmenow · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Washington Post reports that the U.S. birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records.

    Except for Hawaii. Their earliest year with reliable records was 1962 apparently.

  44. Re:Immigrants... right by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    You forgot those who use fake IDs and someone else's social security number for work. They get the full deduction, but not a cent of refund.

  45. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Googling around, it cuts both ways. It probably depends on the personality of the immigrant. A bold, smart, devious one might get a fake ID, work a job, and claim a bunch of dependents to cheat the IRS. OTOH, others are probably "just laying low" and trying not to violate the law too much, hoping that it will put them in good stead and eventually help them get legal. The former might be in a gang and get deported. The latter might eventually get amnesty.

  46. huge farm families in PBS Dust Bowl doc by peter303 · · Score: 2

    I was amazed at all those large Okie families in the PBS series on the Dust Bowl. Of course most of them were formed in the 1920s when the rain, crop yields and WWI reconstruction demand were good. Maybe they most stopped having kids during the Depression and Dust Bowl.

  47. What age is childbearing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more interested in the amount of births for the women of NON childbearing age. What a strange demographic. I wonder how they sorted that out. Too bad I'm too lazy to find out.

  48. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, the rumor goes, the employer gets the deductions back once the SS# fraud is corrected.

  49. Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi there. Immigrant to the US from Canada here. I figured I'd just respond to the parent (mostly a troll) and some of the siblings here.

    Immigration to the United States requires a significant amount of money and time. First, you have to qualify for either one of the immigrant visa categories, or come across on what's called a dual intent visa and then adjust status to Permanent Resident. These processes variously require interviews with USCIS and a significant wait for certain categories (more than a decade in a few, months to years for most), not to mention that the filing and other fees for the whole process can run into the thousands of dollars. (Did you know that USCIS, like the Post Office, doesn't take taxpayer dollars and instead is self-funded from filing fees? Good for you, not great for immigrants.)

    If you came over on a nonimmigrant visa, like a visitor, work, or educational visa, you're likely going to have to return home before you can start the real immigration process, unless it's "dual intent" like the K-1 fiance(e) visa as I mentioned before.

    Reason has a very good overview of the various paths available.

    No, we aren't required to take a test on civics and English. That is required when one naturalizes, or becomes a United States citizen. This has a prerequisite of legally residing continually in the US for three or five years, depending on the visa category in which you entered. (Oh, and another thousand dollars, thanks.) The process, like other USCIS processes, takes about a year in wait and processing time. The process is also entirely not required; one can continue to be a permanent resident for as long as one likes, as long as one continues to file for an extension of one's Permanent Resident status (i.e. green card).

    I personally plan to become a US citizen (well, dual citizen) as soon as possible though, because it allows one to obtain a US Passport (faster border travel), means one is done with USCIS forever (barring very specific, very rare circumstances), and allows one to vote.

    So I guess what I'm saying is, the next time you want to make assumptions about legal immigration, look into it first. It's quite complicated, expensive, and not for the faint of heart.

    "Give me your tired, your poor"? Not so much.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. The continual jousting at "comprehensive" immigration reform is basically an excuse to keep doing nothing, from which both major parties benefit politically. A sane policy, not based on partisanship, should start with the realization that legal immigration should be easy, low-cost and low-risk, while illegal immigration should be difficult, high-cost and high-risk. The GOP only focuses on the latter half, while the Dems only focus on making illegal immigration easy, low-cost and low-risk. So for a start, why don't we just make legal immigraion easy, low-cost and low-risk, and then see what problems remain after the adjustments for that? I suspect the remaining issues would be a much easier problem to solve, and in the process we would have both obtained a lot more useful human capital and been more true to our founding principles. Of course, the opportunities for graft, corruption, demagoguery and vote-buying would be less .... Never mind; answered my own question.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Not sure why I'm responding to an obvious troll, but in case people believe you...

      Most cross over from mexico, have a baby born in the US and automatically become citizens.

      Citation please, because I have seen nothing in the laws that allow this. The baby becomes a citizen by birth; that does nothing for the parents. They might not get deported as easily (CBP et al do care about families, whether you like it or not) but they don't get Citizenship.

      Then you have all the ones who come here and do absolutely nothing but get free everything that most american born citizens cant afford.

      How, exactly? For just about every means-tested benefit you need a valid social security number. Can't get an SSN without ID. I suppose next you'll claim they just fake an ID with the same level of evidence as everything else you've said, which is zero.

      The rest of your comment is just ad hominem.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Citizen with a K1 wife here. She came first as a tourist, decided to get into a university so got the status converted to a student visa, then 6 months later converted again to a K1 when she met me and I wouldn't let her leave. ;-)

      She never had to go back "home" during these status changes, by the way. We've been married a number of years and she is waiting to complete the naturalization process. The costs are crazy. Thousands. And that's doing all the paperwork ourselves, no lawyer to help or be paid. And they made her go get fingerprinting done like 3 times. WTF? Did they think her fingertips have changed? More likely they just wanted to collect the $300 fee each time...

      And the stupid rules... Her parents came to visit and ended up staying longer than the tourist visa because there was some family issue, a cousin living out in Texas died or something (before I met her), so now they are NEVER allowed back. Really? Banned from coming and visiting us because they forgot to file an extension? Is that one of those new rules that protects us from terrorists?

      When my ancestors got here, by the boatload as they did ~100 years ago, our country was a lot more welcoming.

    4. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I'm the K-1 in our marriage. I didn't know you could adjust your visa status to K-1 without leaving, that's crazy (it didn't matter so much to me since I was "just" five hours away). We did all the paperwork ourselves too (if you can understand it, a lawyer is a waste of money and is more likely to fuck it up anyway). I only had to do one medical but I've been fingerprinted twice (they do love those biometrics appointments, don't they?)

      And yeah, misrepresentation is one of the worst things you can do as far as USCIS / USCBP is concerned. They might be able to file to come back after like ten years. If you want to look for a solution for that, you can post their situation on VisaJourney and see what they say. (God, I love VisaJourney. If they didn't exist my immigration process would have sucked that much more.) Sorry to hear about that.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    5. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      because it allows one to obtain a US Passport (faster border travel),

      Really? How so?

      As a fellow Canadian, I've never had any problems / delays when traveling to the US. I've gone there at least a dozen times over the past 5 years,and I can't see how having a US passport would have sped up the process. Is there a special line for US passport holders?

      Maybe I've just got an honest face (or the fact that I often travel with the wife & kids), but customs has usually been: show passport & declaration, move along....

    6. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Actually, what you're talking about wouldn't be misrepresentation, it would be overstay, which I think entails a three year ban for greater than six months, and a ten year for greater than one year (forget where the lifetime ban starts). How long did they overstay their visa?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    7. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      How about adjusting policies so that legal immigration for people with skills that there are few if not zero unemployed people that have is easy and low-cost?

      How about making it incredibly difficult to emigrate to the US to take a job that people are graduating from schools all over the country to take only to find out that there are no openings - except for H1B visa holders.

      Today illegal immigration is solving the wage problems for companies with low-skill job requirements. If you need more people at your trucking terminal moving crates around, there is no problem as long as the foreman speaks Spanish. The folks that were working there in 2004 and could speak English have been replaced by other people making half or less.

      Legal immigration is a terribly confused process whereby there are lotteries and the whole H1B system. If you don't fall into one of those, where luck is a huge factor and just being in the right place at the right time ... well, yes, you can expect it to take a long time and be expensive. The illegal folks have it much, much easier and there is zero risk to them - at most the most severe prosecution is deportation. Which means getting on the shuttle bus back to the US as soon as it leaves.

    8. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      How long were you staying? I also take it you were travelling by car, which typically is easier than, say, travelling by Greyhound bus, which I did a fair bit back in the day.

      Legally speaking, they can't keep you out of the country if you have a US Passport. That was the main gist of what I was saying. Even as a green card holder, if you get a CBP guard in a particularly bad mood, they could snap your green card in half and you'd be more or less screwed.

      Mostly I just want to be done with USCIS, and vote. As an aside, you can get in a special faster line, if you get a Nexus pass (which I'm going to do once I get my 10 year green card).

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    9. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by volmtech · · Score: 1

      "give me your tired, your poor". You do know that the French foisted that pile of *rap on us. If was up to me they can take that statue and the poor and tired back to France.

    10. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute but the chart is missing asylum visas and refugee visas. However they did remember to include the visa given to investors.

    11. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by bmo · · Score: 0

      "Give me your tired, your poor"

      >French

      Do you know how much of a stupid douchebag you are? Do you really? Do you even know one whit about the history of your own country? Were you skipping class that day in US history, out back, smoking weed with your stoner friends?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lazarus

      Fuck you, very much.

      --
      BMO

    12. Re:Your Local US Immigrant Reporting by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Hi there. Immigrant to the US from Canada here. I figured I'd just respond to the parent (mostly a troll) and some of the siblings here.

      Immigration to the United States requires a significant amount of money and time. First, you have to qualify for either one of the immigrant visa categories, or come across on what's called a dual intent visa and then adjust status to Permanent Resident. These processes variously require interviews with USCIS and a significant wait for certain categories (more than a decade in a few, months to years for most), not to mention that the filing and other fees for the whole process can run into the thousands of dollars. (Did you know that USCIS, like the Post Office, doesn't take taxpayer dollars and instead is self-funded from filing fees? Good for you, not great for immigrants.)

      If you came over on a nonimmigrant visa, like a visitor, work, or educational visa, you're likely going to have to return home before you can start the real immigration process, unless it's "dual intent" like the K-1 fiance(e) visa as I mentioned before.

      Reason has a very good overview of the various paths available.

      No, we aren't required to take a test on civics and English. That is required when one naturalizes, or becomes a United States citizen. This has a prerequisite of legally residing continually in the US for three or five years, depending on the visa category in which you entered. (Oh, and another thousand dollars, thanks.) The process, like other USCIS processes, takes about a year in wait and processing time. The process is also entirely not required; one can continue to be a permanent resident for as long as one likes, as long as one continues to file for an extension of one's Permanent Resident status (i.e. green card).

      I personally plan to become a US citizen (well, dual citizen) as soon as possible though, because it allows one to obtain a US Passport (faster border travel), means one is done with USCIS forever (barring very specific, very rare circumstances), and allows one to vote.

      So I guess what I'm saying is, the next time you want to make assumptions about legal immigration, look into it first. It's quite complicated, expensive, and not for the faint of heart.

      "Give me your tired, your poor"? Not so much.

      ====
      Back to the original topic, the birth rate. Here is my point of view. Demand a standard of living that is above realistic. That is, expensive vacation cruises, Highly mortgaged homes on one acre lots, private schools, private medicine, must have new cars after 3-4 years, high cost of education and the latest electronic toys. So what is it, a new toy or unnecessarily lifestyle, or children?
      If you establish a need of restaurant living, high life styles, no savings, and debt for the toys, where is the moeny for that second or third child? And while I am not a follower of a religion that frowns on contraception, look to your own conjugal practices. In my province, 50 years ago 85% of couples married with a religious ceremony. Today, 52% are cohabiting without religion in the house. The provincial law now stipulates that a couple, cohabiting and with a child, are, after two years together, legally married. They do not require a justice of the peace to sign papers. So, when you look at why the birthrate is low, you need only look at the society's value system.
      New or devout religious families are having 7 to 8 children on the low side, and 15 to 18, on the high side. Many do not have TVs, or enjoy American style vacations. Their vacation is measured as success of their children.
         

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  50. Re:Immigrants... right by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most white people in the USA are illegal immigrants. Just ask any American Indian.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  51. Not just the overall rate... by johanwanderer · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not just the overall birth rate, but also the break down of birth rate to various segments of population that matters.

    The linked article displays population projection from now to 2050, broken down by segments. It also shows the education levels of each segment. What it imply is we will end up with a less educated work force moving forward unless we are doing some heavy investing now.

    So, your $20 in 1969 may turn into $0 (albeit in 2050) unless we can somehow shore up "the kids these days".

    1. Re:Not just the overall rate... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Where do you see the education levels in that graphic? all I saw was birth rates by ethnicity, not education.

    2. Re:Not just the overall rate... by johanwanderer · · Score: 1

      Click on the second thumb nail below the picture.

    3. Re:Not just the overall rate... by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      There were three images. The third one showed education levels.

    4. Re:Not just the overall rate... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Dumb people have a brood of children. Smart people have little to no children. By having more time to themselves, they can focus on their career and further development. This however is not sustainable for the future of a nation. America needs stupid people to survive. Oh, but one catch. We don't offer much to the world that can be done by a stupid workforce.

      Ok, so it's not a black and white issue. But there is a sliding scale. Because raising children is a JOB in of itself! You only have so much time in the day to prioritize what's important to both you and your children.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  52. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, all those guys hanging out in front of Home Depot file quarterly tax payments.

  53. Re:Immigrants... right by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    "You do know there are millions of legal immigrants flooding into the country right? "

    Stop listening to Rush Limburger and the other members of the idiot brigade.

    there are NOT millions of them FLOODING into the country.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  54. Re:OK, so...immigration by snooz_crash · · Score: 1

    ...or loosen immigration laws and have those with healthier birthrates to contribute to the system.

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig
  55. World of Warcraft by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

    It's hard to have kids when half the world is raiding.

    1. Re:World of Warcraft by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what "bio-break" was for...

      Ok, admittedly, not for actual labor and delivery, but conception, maybe...

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  56. Re:Immigrants... right by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    you're not going to secure borders if you prevent people from becoming legal citizens just because they got here illegally. As the phrase goes, you trap more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you think taxes is even a focus on that, it's just ignorance by definition and a 100% incorrect focus.

  57. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Illegal by what law? You can't be illegal if there is no law.

  58. Re:Immigrants... right by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Illegal immigration is the vast majority of current immigration. No need to assume, when you can measure.

    However, most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, pay Social Security taxes! It's amazing how often that's overlooked in debate. The number of cash-only dayjob workers is statistically small, and most immigrants (legal or otherwise) have some social security number associated with their job! Given that social security is the primary tax most people pay these days, the notion of the "illegal working tax-free" is unfounded.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  59. Not news by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    So wait, you're suggesting that a giant Ponzi scheme (you know, the kind where you have to keep adding new people to continue payouts, aka Social Security) starts to fail when it no longer gets new members?

    And that even a government-MANDATED Ponzi scheme will eventually fail when demographics turn against it?

    How is this "new" or "informative"?

    --
    -Styopa
  60. Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ON my lawn!

  61. Its in Agenda 21. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Population reduction is actually in the United Nations Agenda 21 and Obama has signed the US full out on it (most Americans don't know this or what all is contained in Agenda 21).

    There are over 7 billion people on this planet and Agenda 21 goal is 1 billion or less.
    There are a number of ways this is being achieved, one of which has been the consumption of GMO corn with sterilizes (caused reduced sperm count) men (hey guy there is your birth control)
    All this really does cause one to question laws to kill gays.... re: Uganda

    1. Re:Its in Agenda 21. by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Could you point out where?I am failing to see in the agreements and documentation where is states that we will reduce the world's population. Mostly I see agreements on human rights and protecting children?

    2. Re:Its in Agenda 21. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Provide birth control upon request" != "sterilize"

      The article is lying. The question is, did you take the lie at face value (thus proving that you aren't the independently-thinking media skeptic you fancy yourself to be), or did you knowingly repeat that lie here (thus proving that you are a liar yourself)?

      Those are your only possible choices.

    3. Re:Its in Agenda 21. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The anti-Agenda 21ists believe that phrases like "more sustainable population," and "reduced population growth," are code for massive population reduction. They do not seem to understand that there's a difference between wanting DRCongo to stop growing it's population faster then it's ability to feed itself and demanding 45 million Congolese be sent to death camps.

      Glenn Beck is one of them.

  62. Exactly why we need a more open immigration policy by conspirator23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Advanced material wealth and higher education suppress birth rates.
    2. Advanced material wealth and higher education attract immigrants.
    3. Emigrating is difficult under the best and most legal circumstances. Therefore, immigrants tend to be more ambitious and harder working than average.
    4. Consequently, immigrants can supplement native birth in broadening the economic base, while simultaneously adding economic dynamism via their own ambition and the more generalized effects of cultural diffusion.
    5. Profit!!!
    6. GOTO 1.

  63. Dumb & Dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a quick summary of the Social Security IOUs:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_hz5HFmA6A

  64. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Der ker Durr!

  65. Citizenship vs Redistribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The long term solution to solving a stability issue is not redistribution (although redistribution is applicable to a healthier economy as a whole). Providing steady contributions from a leveled social security system does make ss more solvent. This can be easily solved by increasing citizenship for currently illegal residents. This pathway to citizenship could be defined with age requirements effectively segmenting newly accepted citizens by age, but I imagine this would not be too popular.

  66. Why we just started having kids in our mid 30's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The short reason my wife and I waited until our mid 30's to have kids was money.

    My wife and I decided not to have kids when we were younger. We married at 25/26, and I had recently graduated from university with a BS in Comp Sci. The best work I could find was in providing desktop support for an architectural firm, making $35k a year. There just weren't enough software development jobs available. I also had $110k in student loan debt, just from my undergrad education, because I chose an in-state private school, and my parents were lower class, blue collar types. My wife was about 3/4 of the way toward completing her electrical engineering degree, with a 3.9 GPA, when she had to leave for financial reasons, before we met. She worked at several internship positions before withdrawing from her university, so her resume was too good to work as an executive assistant, but not good enough for an electrical engineering position. Engineering firms wanted her to have her degree, and everyone else was afraid she'd leave to finish her degree.

    Our first apartment was 500 square feet, and we lived there for three years. It was the quintessential slum housing. Our neighbors were into loud music, drug use, and domestic violence. When I got my first job as a software developer, I had to commute 90 minutes on public transit, each way, because we couldn't afford a car. My wife then transferred to another university, and by the time she finished she had $45k in student loan debt, even with a scholarship that paid for 50% of her tuition, and my salary providing for our necessities.

    Just as she finished school, I was laid off when the company's profit margins shrank, back in 2009. She found a job 750 miles away from our family and friends, so we packed up and moved. I've since found a job that I enjoy, making a decent salary, as a software engineer. Only after two years of working these jobs, and living in a 2-bedroom apartment, could we afford to purchase a decent car, and take on a mortgage. It was at that time we also decided to have children. We now own two commuter cars (Focus and Elantra), a 1,700 square foot townhouse, earn a combined $160k, have a daughter who's about to celebrate her first birthday, and are expecting another in eight months.

    In all that, we always lived within our means. We rented housing which we could afford, didn't own a car we couldn't afford, never had any credit card debt, we saved enough money to have a six month emergency cushion, and contributed 10% of all pre-tax income toward a 401k.

    Here's why, I believe, we were unable to have children earlier:

    • Poor parents
    • Chose a university that was too expensive
    • Bad economic conditions
    • Cripplingly high interest rates on student loans
    • Expensive child care ($220/week, per child)

    If my wife and I had more support, from either family or the government (subsidized child care), and weren't indentured to banks because college costs are out of control, we would have had children much sooner. With current economic and legislative conditions, our generation is going to suffer when we reach retirement age. Without children to support our generation, the social safety nets will collapse (Social Security), and we without several of our own progeny, my wife and I will have nobody to care for us, or about us.

  67. Re:Immigrants... right by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Correct. I have an east German sitting beside me right now that never plans to become a citizen, even though she is eligible to do so. She has an SSI card, & pays taxes, just can't vote in local elections or hold (most) offices.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  68. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that the Indians had laws regarding the immigration of Europeans to North America.

  69. I still bet though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the percentage of actual births is still mostly mexicans who come across the border to have a baby so they can automatically become citizens so they can leech our system, work decent manual labor jobs and then send all of their money back to mexico instead of putting it back into our economy all while not learning a single word of english and instead force americans to learn their language.

  70. "real world" tax rate? by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    I don't know the term but while the federal rate has gone down the "real world" rate (state, medicare, gas, etc) of taxes paid is and has been rising, as a percentage of income, for a long time. All that has happened is that people being bad at math focus on that one federal number while their pockets are picked clean in a myriad of taxes and fees used to make up the difference.

    1. Re:"real world" tax rate? by Genda · · Score: 2

      That's because in 1960 corporations paid 40% of the taxes collected by the government and the wealthiest 10% paid tremendously more tax than they pay now. Corporations now only account for less than 5% of the total taxes collected so the entire tax burden now rests on the shoulders of the middle class. Also, by the way, when CEOs complain about the ridiculous taxes they pay call bullshit, most fortune 100 companies pay little or no taxes and energy companies got huge government subsidies even when they made record profits. Check out the Taxes and Government Revenues over at Wikipedia. Most enlightening, and rather infuriating as well. We've been sold a pile of cow flops.

      Supply side should be renamed screw John Q.

  71. America, home of the Immigrants by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bar for legal US immigration is low and it is intentionally made easy to immigrate.....They essentially bypassed taking a couple days to learn the Constitution and a basic English test and an oath of loyalty to the US.

    If the bar is that low, then why are people coming here illegally? Perhaps you are buying into some sort of illusion of how easy it is to get in, because based on the number of people sneaking in, I don't buy it. You do realize that sneaking in isn't easy or safe, right? Why would anyone sneak in if getting in legitimately is really that simple? I call bullshit....

    People who have a problem with those requirements aren't our kind of people.

    You know, I actually would welcome those people. Because to sneak in, you have to deal with possibly dangerous characters, risk injury, imprisonment, or even death sneaking across miles of desert. Anyone who wants freedom that badly is OK in my book. These are the people who will appreciate its value, because they had to earn it. The people I don't think we need are the lazy, self-centered assholes already here who expect that freedom is safe, easy, and free.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:America, home of the Immigrants by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "If the bar is that low, then why are people coming here illegally? Perhaps you are buying into some sort of illusion of how easy it is to get in, because based on the number of people sneaking in, I don't buy it. You do realize that sneaking in isn't easy or safe, right? Why would anyone sneak in if getting in legitimately is really that simple? I call bullshit.... "

      In other words your argument is "nu uh."

      "You know, I actually would welcome those people. Because to sneak in, you have to deal with possibly dangerous characters, risk injury, imprisonment, or even death sneaking across miles of desert. Anyone who wants freedom that badly is OK in my book."

      They don't want freedom. They just want more money. Most of the western US was Mexican territory. The US invaded it under manifest destiny policies and then after beating the Mexicans to death engaged in a PR stunt by offering $15 million to buy the territory they already effectively conquered (which they paid half of). It was a great trick, we now claim we "bought" the western states from Mexico. The result is that Mexicans generally believe this land was stolen from them. Many have family that has lived in this territory since it was part of Mexico. These individuals feel justified in immigrating to these lands because they feel they are theirs. They feel they are entitled to the wealth in these lands. They believe that the US is responsible for Mexico being poor in the first place because of this history, especially due the amount of wealth generated in California.

      I'm not saying these feelings are completely unjustified and illegitimate. If the US hadn't essentially taken this territory by aggression it might have had a significant impact on the wealth and power we have relative to Mexico today. But justified or unjustified the bottom line is these immigrants are NOT loyal to the United States. They are desperate people coming to take a piece of wealth they feel they are entitled to. This is why they organize marches with Mexican flags. They believe the US is responsible for the corruption poverty of Mexico and want to restore a true Mexico not join the United States.

    2. Re:America, home of the Immigrants by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Takes courage to rob a bank too. Clearly robbers are more worthy than the lazy assholes who play it safe and work.

  72. 2 Solutions by GeneralSecretary · · Score: 1

    The country must maintain its population and ideally grow. There are many reasons. The economy relies on a growing consumer base and a growing labor pool. The influence the US has on the world is somewhat proportional to its population, so we need a large population to exert our influence on the world. Militarily we need a large population to use to defend ourselves. Also, a decreasing population is an aging population which becomes more and more difficult to care for when there are not enough young people. We are nowhere near overpopulation. Most of the country's land is empty. Food is relatively cheap and can be famed on less land than ever before. 1) Make it more affordable to have children: Increase tax deductions. Subsidize day care. Pay 100% for paternity/maternity leave immediately after birth (some states have a waiting period). 2) Increase immigration. Allow anyone from any country to immigrate to the US as long as they are healthy, not criminals or terrorists and are capable of working and supporting themselves until they have a job. There should be no quotas. Waiting periods should be minimized. A man should be able to walk into any US consulate in the world and be in the US 90 days later after we have verified he meets all those criteria.

    1. Re:2 Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy relies on a growing consumer base and a growing labor pool.

      Then that's one fucked up, unsustainable economy; I can't wait to see it go!

  73. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to enslave Americans is by debt. Now just before Bush came into office in 2001, as an example, 1 American dollar was worth about 1.75 British pounds and the national debt was about 3-trillion dollars. After Bush left office the national debt was about 12-trillion dollars and 1 American dollar was worth about .55 {cent/pent} in British currency. So after Bush sent Americas future wealth to the Queen of England, we as American will never be able to own the land just rent it from the British. The birth rate has drop because the Hispanics are going back to Mexico were the jobs are. Now as the Neo-Cons continue to increase our debt to the British; the economy collapses, America becomes a poor country and jobs start coming back. Since America is now a poor country, Briton becomes it protector and largest investor. America become cheap labour for Canada's war machine. Briton has America allied with Mexico, fight proxy wars in South American to continue its conquest of complete control of all the Americas.

  74. correlations by junkgoof · · Score: 1

    Singapore tried to influence birth rates with some success, some failures. First they tried to lower it, and were successful, then they tried to raise it and were successful. They also tried to get educated and successful people to have more kids and poor uneducated people to have less and did not succeed.

    Whether the overall birth rate was high or low the group with the most kids was "women who did not finish high school."

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  75. college by junkgoof · · Score: 1

    I was able to earn enough in the summer to pay for college and beer (but not rent, lived at home, bought most of my own food, though) in the early '90s. Of course I'm in Quebec. Maybe you should try massive civil disobedience like students here (they protested school fee increases when they should have protested offshoring, but the government was aiming for the higher loans/higher fees cycle so the kids had a point).

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  76. The World Doesn't Need More Children by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Be part of the solution. If you have not had a family yet, limit yourself to 2 kids of your own and adopt the rest if you want more. If you already have a family, teach your kids not to have more than 2 of their own either. Current Population: http://tinyurl.com/currentpopulation 6.9 billion people World fertility rate for population replacement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility 2.33 children per woman From: http://tinyurl.com/futurepopulation According to the United Nations, the global population could be as high as 11 billion in 2050 or as low as 8 billion, if the right programs are put in place now.

  77. What About When The Economy Improves? by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    It will be a great day when the economy improves without pollution and population levels rising.

  78. Internationally, what are the stats? by drwho · · Score: 1

    I know that Germany has a horribly low birth rate, which is already causing problems. In Europe, Ireland is relatively high, though lower than it used to be. It would be interesting to predict the long-term social situation caused by large portions of the population being outside of the workforce. A country with a 2.1-2.4 children per couple, stable over a long time, is going to be a stable, happy country.

  79. Re:Immigrants... right by Zalbik · · Score: 3

    Illegal immigration is the vast majority of current immigration. No need to assume, when you can measure.

    Bullshit. And why bother measuring, when you can just make up numbers?

    According to Wikipedia, there is 7 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US.

    According to the US census bureau, there are 40 million immigrants in the US as of 2011.

    Doesn't quite seem like a "vast majority", or actually any kind of majority, does it?

    Seriously. 2 minutes of googling. But why bother if you already have the wrong answer in your head?

  80. you signed off with a cheap shot by doug141 · · Score: 1

    on a country with a diversity immigrant visa lottery program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

    1. Re:you signed off with a cheap shot by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      The Act makes available 55,000 permanent resident visas annually to natives of countries deemed to have low rates of immigration to the United States.

      "Give me your tired, your poor... if they happen to come from the right country and are lucky enough to win"

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:you signed off with a cheap shot by doug141 · · Score: 1

      You're just mad we got Shatner.

    3. Re:you signed off with a cheap shot by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Shatner's a proud Canadian, we don't particularly care where he lives. :^)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  81. Holy Christ, this is disingenuous. by superdude72 · · Score: 1

    Baby Boomers are *supposed* to gobble up the Social Security trust fund! The reason the trust fund was created in the first place was to pre-fund the retirement of the Baby Boomers!

    Believe it or not, people didn't just discover the Baby Boom last week. The actuaries of yesteryear were not complete morons. Changing demographics were built into Social Security from its inception.

    The AP has really deteriorated. Shame on them for publishing this scare-mongering, disingenuous piece worthy of Fox News.

  82. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except everything you said is bullshit because the ZOG is running the show.

  83. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now just before Bush came into office in 2001, as an example, 1 American dollar was worth about 1.75 British pounds...After Bush left office...1 American dollar was worth about .55 {cent/pent} in British currency.

    You are clearly mistaken about the exchange rates. The USD has never been worth anywhere near 1.75 GBP, at least going back to 1953.

    The rate was 1.48 GBP to 1 USD in Jan 2001 (when Bush takes office) , and 1.45 GBP to 1 USD in Jan 2009 (when Bush leaves office). It did go as high as 2.10 in the interim, but there was no trend even close what you are suggesting.

    Not that I'm defending Bush, nor do I think that any of the rest of your post is remotely accurate, but those figures just stuck out to me as being entirely wrong.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  84. Want it back up we need to be able to afford them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 15 percent tax the rich pay is what cased the top loading. the fix for America is to now switch it give middle class a 15 percent tax and the wealthy pay what were paying until it is level then make every income taxed the same.

    All other remedy's are bullshit.

    Then we can afford to have kids once again.

  85. One important Correction by jd.schmidt · · Score: 2

    All Government bonds, including those owed to SSI, are considered part of the Debt (well, if you are going with the $14 trillion number). The only way to pay off the debt is to buy back the bonds and when you lower the deficit you will by definition be selling less bonds to all customers, including SSI. So the trust fund was used to "fund" the deficit, but it never changed the apparent size of the deficit. One consequence of this is that paying less benefits doesn’t lower the debt or deficit in any way. It DOES allow us to more easily continue to fund the deficit however with the net result of lowering taxes.

    If you don’t like looking at SSI as separate, that is fine, but then you need to cut that debt number nearly in half.

    Not that we don’t have some real decisions ahead. Let me give you a hint, when granny finally squares off with the military, granny is gonna win. The cards are in her favor and until the SSI fund actually runs out, everyone else gets the short stick.

    Of course politicians on both sides love to play smoke an mirror with this.

  86. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have had laws against that for tens of thousands of years. Hell they repelled the Viking invasion a hundred years before columbus even though of coming here.

    Erik the Red was here in the Americas WAY before anyone lese.

  87. Re:Immigrants... right by afidel · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because the ~45M illegal immigrants are all standing outside the 2,200 Home Depot stores (not all of which are in the US)...

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  88. Re:Immigrants... right by shaitand · · Score: 1

    That reinforces my point, rather than detracting from it.

    But the presumption is that permanent residency is a stepping stone to citizenship.

  89. Re:Immigrants... right by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Yes. There. Are.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_legal_immigrants_does_the_us_take_in_per_year

    People with mod points. Please stop modding people up informative when you can paraphrase their argument as "nuh uh" just because you agree with their politics.

  90. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try reading the UN Charter.

  91. Financial Perspective by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Overr here, from a financial perspective, kids are INSANELY expensive. The media (toys, tv, movies, clothing, etc) and our government (school costs, taxes, regulations, esp college costs) have leveraged people's natural desire to have children against those people. Wanna have kids? You're going to be broke unless you make a very large salary.
    I keep being told how cheap kids are by some people, but seeing the financial reality it goes like this:

    "My husband has a fine, comfortable job making 75K a year! We have two cars and a house, let's have a kid!"
    Me: (more nicely than this) As your financial advisor, I advise you to make double what you are now and then consider it.
    Them: Well it's our decision
    Me: Ok.

    Them 12-18 months later: Barely able to afford house repairs, have to trade down to one car, and the "free" parent has to greatly consider getting a job because these people finally realize that schooling and giving kids opportunities costs a HUGE amount of money.
    Me: Can't say I told them so, but I watch their happy, healthy lives go to shit as they are ground down under the weight of their new responsibility.

    I know this sounds horrible and terrible and all sorts of bad things, but this has been the de facto standard in everyone around me who I've seen have kids. Thing is? THEY KEEP HAVING THEM! Suddenly they have 3 or 4 kids, no saving for retirement or college, and are locked into "family life". For a while this is nice... until the kids hit school age and the bills start piling up.

    From what I've seen, I recommend that people NEED to be making at least 50K PER PERSON in a family. If you're making 100K you're pretty much ok with two people. 150K? Ok, you can have a kid and give them what they need to get by in the world. Want more? You better work your buns off or you're looking at a grim future.

    This is just my opinion, but sadly i've found it true more times than I'd like. I'd like to think everyone can have kids, but the financial reality these days is that you'd have to be crazy to do so without a lot of backup cash or a cushy job.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Financial Perspective by Shados · · Score: 1

      Putting hard numbers is kind of pointless. I'm going to go on a limb and assume most people reading this are either north american or european...

      If you live in Montreal, you can make 75k (USD equivalent), have 4 kids, send them to college, and while its not gonna be fun by any mean, everyone will be fed, you'll be able to send them all to daycare, and in the end they'll all have the option of getting whatever degree they want.

      If you live in Boston, NYC or London, make 75k, have 2 kids, you can probably make it? Their highschool may have a few more thugs than you'd like, your apartment's landlord probably won't give a damn about you..money's gonna be tight.

      If you live in Tokyo. Lets just not.

      Cost of living is just too different to give out blanket numbers.

  92. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pre conquest native Americans lived in societies with customs, rules, traditions and culture, they had their laws which I am quite sure didn't include allowing the influx of a load of white folk to take their land and livelihood. Much like my ancestors completely ignored Saxon immigration controls around 1066. Nasty stuff happens, it is illegal at the time but the victors then legalize it after the event.

  93. Re:Immigrants... right by hrvatska · · Score: 2

    Here's a CBO report on illegal immigrants and their effect on taxes. While illegal immigrants do use services, they seem to pay quite a bit in taxes, too. They pay sales taxes and by renting property they are indirectly paying real estate taxes that fund local governments and schools.

  94. Yeah but by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    they also had much, much higher wages and a larger share of the profits. Wages have been falling for 40 years. Right now the the only way to get anything out of the rich is to tax it out of them. Also, if you just look at the top 1% taxes are the lowest they've been since 1920. It's the middle and poor that are getting hosed.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  95. It's neither by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's a social welfare program for people too pig headed to accept charity. Ayn Rand famously refused it at first, until a friend convinced her to take it so she wouldn't die homeless in a gutter (not that I'm speaking literally here, not in the idealized die in the gutter 'cause your poor sense that so popular with the conservative kiddies these days).

    Basically you can't live independently unless you're really, really lucky (think Mitt Romney and with his dad's connections and millions). The vast majority of us just get picked off by the capitalists who throw the yolk of the 'Free Market' on us and turn us into Wage Slaves (16 tons, whata you get?).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  96. You're making a bad mistake.... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    You're misplacing your anger. It was not his generation. It was a few select people that used their wealth and power to trick, cow and frighten the entire USA. They use sentiments like you just expressed to divide us so they can conquer us. Stop thinking in terms of punishment for mistakes. Start asking what people REALLY deserve. Food. Housing. Health Care. You ARE entitled to those things. Don't let the Mitt Romneys of the world tell you otherwise. Don't let them set you at each other's throats....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're making a bad mistake.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Housing, food and health care are consumables. %someone% has to be involved in its creation. The economic incentive *must* be there for these industries to be sustainable. So when you speak of entitlements, that's code language for government distortion of supply and demand. And at the end of the day, that will be paid for on the backs of the tax payer. If you're ok with that, fine. But please keep in mind that entitlements are not "free"!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:You're making a bad mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entitled, uh?

      Someone has to go in the fields to get the food.
      Someone has to build/maintain the houses.
      Someone has to go to med school and do 24hr shifts in the hospital to provide care.

      You say you're ENTITLED to these things. So, if no one wants to do these things, are you going to force them?

      At gunpoint if need be, perhaps?

    3. Re:You're making a bad mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's stupid. no one is entitled to good and housing. please show me where that's written.

    4. Re:You're making a bad mistake.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE entitled to those things.

      then why are there people that are starving?

  97. Kids are your retirement plan by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    My mom always said, "so in my old age, you can keep me in the way I wish to become accustomed to."

    And seeing my grandparents' struggles - grandma a former teacher on a pension, grandpa a vet on a pension, both taking piece-work and part time work just to keep ends meetings, I can definitely see why.

    Inflation eats any savings plan you can come up with. Kids are a safety net that improves with age. ... usually.

  98. Re:Immigrants... right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins/2010/immigrationupdate1.aspx Roughly 3100 legal, permanent residents enter the US every day, and about 2000 people enter the country illegally or violate the terms of their visas. So, about 3:2 legal:illegal immigration. Illegals are very definitely not the "vast majority of current immigration."

  99. Thanks everyone who decided not to have kids by alexmin · · Score: 2

    For making more resources available for mine.

  100. Re:Immigrants... right by theArtificial · · Score: 1

    there are NOT millions of them FLOODING into the country.

    It depends is you count multiple years. Immigration to the United States puts the legal figure at over a million a year. How many are unaccounted for?

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  101. Re:Immigrants... right by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    My friend from India (who moved to England and then to here) said he had to go through hell just to get a green card, something I think like three different exams covering American history, the Constitution, and Civics. He isn't a citizen, and he hasn't found any compelling reason to become one due to the costs and red tape involved.

    He says all the time how crazy it is that all you have to do is be born here, and you're automatically a citizen. He is a pediatrician, by the way, and tells me that he gets illegal immigrants in his clinic all the time that take advantage of the state's free health care program (which is pretty damn good, by the way.) My state (Arizona) spends billions per year on illegal immigrants. People wonder why the state senate passed SB1070; that's why. I haven't yet met somebody who came here the legal way (without simply being born here) who is opposed to SB1070, in fact they've only spoken favorably about it. Several of the senate members who voted for the bill in fact are immigrants.

    No country in the world allows illegal immigrants to run under the radar as much as we do. Mexico, who complains the loudest about our immigration policies, denies legal immigrants the right to protest or assemble, and if they have a job, and a citizen wants it, they have to fire the immigrant and take him even if he is less qualified.

    Meanwhile, special interest groups that have nothing at all to do with our state, come and file lawsuits on behalf of people who aren't supposed to be here at all under law, as if we're the ones breaking the law. SB1070 only applies existing federal law to the state level. In fact, federal law ALREADY requires all immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times, yet we get called the "papers please" state for enforcing that law locally. Godwin's law at its finest.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  102. Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I was on vacation, ok?

  103. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

    replying to my own post to correct:

    I just re-read this, and those rates should read 1.48/1.45 USD to 1 GBP. The point still stands.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  104. Re:Immigrants... right by Rutulian · · Score: 1

    The bar for legal US immigration is low and it is intentionally made easy to immigrate. That is why some people don't think we should be giving a free pass to the illegals. They essentially bypassed taking a couple days to learn the Constitution and a basic English test and an oath of loyalty to the US.

    Interesting statement. It clearly indicates you know nothing about immigration to the US. While it is (relatively) easy to get a student visa to go to school in the US, it is far more difficult to get a resident-work visa. To get a resident-work visa, you first need to find an employer who is willling to sponsor you, fill out the paperwork, and pay the fee. Then you need a labor certification from the Department of Labor, more money and time. Then you can file the actual visa application (money) and wait for an eligible date (time). How long this takes depends on your visa category and the country you are applying from. If you are in the E3 category (Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Unskilled Workers (Other Workers)) and applying from an oversubscribed country (ex: Mexico), this can take a long time. Only 140,000 employment-based visas are granted for 2012. With a 7% cap on each country and an ~29% issuance to the E3 category, a restaurant worker from Mexico would be competing for one of ~2800 visas granted this year. They likely won't get it and will have to wait until the following year or longer.

    That is the minimum required for immigration to work unless you are in the priority category or have some other kind of exemption. You could stop there. However, your visa will expire eventually and usually cannot be renewed. So if you want to stay in the US, you have to start applying for permanent residence, which is another big hassel that takes a lot of time and money. Without at least a Master's degree (PhD is better), you can be waiting for a lottery number for a very long time, and paying a lot of money in lawyer's and application fees.

    So, no, it is not easy to immigrate to the US. It is arguably easy to figure out what forms to fill out and submit them, but it is not easy to get the actual visa that you need to get, which then allows you to get the permanent residence, which then allows you to apply for citizenship.

  105. Modern birth control by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

    Back in/before the 70s, The Pill could only be taken for a few years - the dosage was considered too strong. So, after a few years of marriage, kids started showing up.

    And for thousands of years of recorded history before that, there was no "choice". You had kids until you couldn't.

    We represent the first generation of humanity that can cheaply, easily, truly choose when/how many in regards to children. So it should be absolutely obvious we would wait to be more financially ready. It has very little to do with greed, and I find it more than a little little ironic that members of America's most selfish generation (boomers) should point such blame at anyone else.

  106. Unless... by formfeed · · Score: 1

    Playing with nieces and nephews can be a lot of fun, but there is no feeling comparable to the joy of raising your own child.

    Unless you are Donald Duck and are raising your "nephews".

  107. Re:Immigrants... right by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Huh? There haven't been any East Germans since 1991.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  108. What about carry on the genes and heritages? by antdude · · Score: 1

    If no offpsrings, then nothing to carry down. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  109. Excellent News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is really excellent news. The problem of overpopulation is the biggest problem we face on our planet and it is the main cause of global warming, climate change, acidification of our oceans and pollution. A little bit of extra CO2 and pollution is not a problem, but when there are several billion more of us than there should be, it becomes catastrophic.

    People are meant to be living in abundance, but the more people there are, the more resources need to be used up, more forests need to be deforested, more livestock needs to be bred, more water will be polluted, more overfishing will occur and it goes on and on and on. Nature has no chance of keeping up with the amount of us. Besides that, we are robbing the habitat of all the other species of flora and fauna, and driving them toward extinction due to the selfish and mindless propagation.

    If only the people in Africa, India and China would follow suit, we would have real progress.

  110. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ZOG WTF? Who controls Iraq know? America does, and who controls America? The British. Who controls Mexico? America does, yet the rebels are fighting back they'll eventually loose thought; The media calls it a drug-war, yet its really Mexicans fighting against the Neo-Cons and their New-Wold-Order. But will Russia and China continue to allow Briton to expand into South-America, The Middle-East, Africa, and know colonise Mars. I don't think so, Russia and China will have to slow Briton down, or they'll be surrounded by British Lords. Seriously do think Russia and China will allow Briton to control Iran also? COME ON PEOPLE TURN OFF THE TV FOR A SECOND, AND THINK UNASSISTED.

  111. Not for a lack of trying by taintedhobbit · · Score: 1

    My wife and I have been trying to have kids for a few years now, but just last year we found out she has PCOS, so that's why we've been unsuccessful. Since our insurance isn't covering it, we have to save up $16k for a shot at our first child. To achieve that end, we're sacrificing many things that are unnecessary. I'm curious to know how many of the stats take infertility into account.

  112. As usual, the wrong discussion by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    This system of government is obsolete and desperately in need of updating. I find it startling that we are still using it. It just cannot handle the needs of the country. Reference the fiscal disaster pending in the new year, caused by political cowards and manipulators. Reference the exploding debt. Reference the suicidal deficits. Any government that cannot fund itself and the nation is either illegitimate, or desperately in need of structural change. This form of government has failed the test of fiscal responsibility. Until we talk of structural change and call a new constitutional convention that sets up a new modern structure that cannot be paralyzed by venality and greed for power we are just supporting failure. I find it hard to believe that a couple of million political ancestors hundreds of years ago had all the answers with regard to the proper structure of our government. Are there no geniuses in our 300 million citizens? Are there no courageous men left?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  113. I'm well aware they're not free by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    no one ever said they were. Just that you are entitled to live. Real freedom isn't the freedom to die in a gutter. If you must work as a slave to buy the bread to eat, to buy wood to burn in the winter to survive, to buy medicine to live, are you really free? True freedom is economic security. Without economic security you are at the mercy of the haves. Of the lucky few. You're not free, because if you stop doing what they tell you then they let you die. Remember, you're not free when I can compel you to do something against your wishes...

    Also, you're making another mistake, which is assuming we're incapable of providing food, housing and health care for one person without depriving it from another. This isn't the 1800s. We're no longer at the mercy of mother nature. The Dutch, for example, unencumbered by notions of false capitalistic "Freedom", have solved the problem of their port cities being destroyed by storms ever 30 years. Meanwhile America continues to let it happen while building ever increasing monuments to the petty desires of a few lucky bastards...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  114. Re:Immigrants... right by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Yup & she was one of the 1st ones over the wall when it fell.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  115. 50 percent chance of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Child support for 18 years.

  116. missed this topic when it went by, but by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    my impression is that one of the factors that strongly affects birthrate is the prospective parents' faith in their future, their confidence and optimism. This phenomenon may be mediated through the effects of chronic elevated stress hormone levels. I don't have access to my reference database at the moment, so I apologize in advance for not being able to provide cites to support my thoughts. But given the dismal economic prospects for those in the lower and middle classes in America, and the fact that they comprise the vast majority of prospective parents in the US, is it at all surprising that birth rates have fallen so low?

  117. Re:OK, so think of it like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to correct you, but you are reading the currency pair the wrong way round. In my lifetime, the GBP has always been stronger than the USD.

  118. Re:Immigrants... right by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    You know why Mexico is hard on illegal immigrants? It's because an illegal immigrant can become legal in Mexico simply by spending a few hours filling out forms. If you are in Mexico illegally one of two things is true: a) you are too damn stupid to ask what Mexican immigration law is, or b) you are actually a criminal. It's not easy to immigrate to Mexico and get a job there if a) is true, so the Mexican legal system makes the understandable assumption that anyone there illegally is a criminal. That's a bit different from the US, where most illegals are perfectly normal, but can never be legalized.

    Note that, in person, I would never bother correcting a person like you on this point. There is no point in disagreeing with someone who is smart enough to do the research and find out what Mexican immigration law is, but is so blind to reality that he doesn't ask "why would a nation of immigrants do that?"

    BTW, your Indian friend isn't Indian if he's surprised at our citizenship system. India also used jus soli citizenship until 2004. I suspect he's not actually your friend, he's merely a brownish guy with an accent who chose not to argue with you when you brought up immigration.