Millennials say no to kids, population 'replacement level' turns negative

mexican birth rate drops because educational levels have risen and poverty has decreased, mexico has growing middle class...whenever that happens birth rates plummet ...educated people figure out fewer kids means more disposable income, as well it disposes of the need to have many kids to look after them in their old age(third world's version of a pension plan)...

 

So then they don't need to come here illegally if they are doing so well, right?

 

Wrong - looking around my neighborhood I'd say the figure is a bit north of 99%.

 

I disagree, society needs to adjust the economic system we currently have of perpetual growth that requires perpetual population increase to sustain itself...the planet has finite resources we cannot have perpetual growth, the entire process will eventually collapse, it can't do anything else...

I don't for see any politician in the near future proposing changing anything, it would be political suicide...proposing and aiming for a sustained 2.1 birth rate in my lifetime ain't gonna happen...

 

I agree, though , I never said we need perpetual population increase, we do need to keep procreation at a reasonable level though, I had two children, that was reasonable to me, for some it might be one... a dozen children is not a reasonable amount imo

 

2.1 is that magic number so you didn't meet the goal...I have four so I've got you covered for your shortfall...and it's cost me dearly, 4 x times an estimated $200K to raise a single child to adulthood

 

Do I need to reply to the same post five times in the same thread?

No, they've been dropping both in Mexico and the United States. Indeed, more quickly in the US.

 

College is expensive in every Western country, whether "neo-cons" exist in that country or college is paid for by the state.

 

some western countries have FREE! university education...the payback is a better educated country (wealthier) and a level playing field for rich and poor...

 

Think you missed my point. It's still expensive even in those countries.

 

And you are an ignoramus in an Economics Forum who does not understand the factual evidence that economists have researched.

Meaning what? If ignorance were bliss, you'd be in heaven.

Yet another Rightist dork who goes on "Ignore" ...

 

Thanks for the link.

The benefit of taxes upon Income (ie "Work") is that, unlike land, it is unlimited and is attributable to a larger part of the population.

Which does not mean that land/habitation should not be taxed as well. After all, public services (as Churchill got right) apply to both home and property owners (regardless of whether the property is built upon or not with either houses or revenue producing shops/offices/factories/etc.)

Still, a tax on either land or habitation ownership would escape about a third of the adult population in the US that "owns nothing" and rents. (The exact figure in the US is 67.4% of the population that actually owns its home and therefore rightfully pays a property-tax.)

So, it would be unfair to the other third of the population that does not own property and therefore does not pay property-taxes unless there were still Income-taxation to bring in revenue to the state; which is then distributed by means of services to all-and-sundry regardless of whether they own property or not ...

PS: Most countries tax both. I'm a bit surprised that Scotland is just getting around to property taxation!

 

So I was right about you ignorance you don't even understand the simple economic truth that wealth is created it is finite one having more doesn't cause another to have less
your stupidity explains why class warfare propaganda works on the ignorant masses

 

but is it?...the same is said about universal healthcare but when you factor in how much an unhealthy population costs the economy then the extra cost for universal healthcare makes sense, a healthy population costs the economy less and is more productive, higher GDP...the same applies for free education, an educated population is more productive than a poorly educated population, greater GDP, larger middle class, less welfare...

it's a matter of getting priorities in order, health and education

 

Yes. Unlike healthcare costs, education costs are almost uniform throughout the West. How they get paid is another matter. The point is that every individual is a greater investment in the West, and are becoming so everywhere.

 

The US has generous immigration laws and if needed we can admit more of them to compensate for labor force shortages, of course as the world demands higher skills we will need to select our immigrants carefully the huddled and poor masses yearning to be free are no longer needed as much as people with skilled trades and STEM educations wishing to immigrate and bring in comparably smart family members. So my only issue is we need to get more selective allowing people in we need or come in.

 

As opposed to being all about someone else? I don't understand the criticism. Of course I see the problem with being completely selfish, but why it would be just as bad, if not worse, for someone to have children they don't want out of obligation.

 

I don't share the same idea of 'fairness' as yourself and the idea in Scotland also has another dimension. 432 people in Scotland own 50% of the land and land that is in community ownership is only 2% of the land. 1% of Scotland is owned by one Individual. In addition these people's ownership of land improves all the time by roads and services paid for by people who are charged for working.

Your belief that it is fair for people to pay just because they are working is not fair at all. Most of the people in the UK who go to food banks are working...I think the intent is also to get land back .for the people of Scotland.

 

UNEXPECTEDLY: Cultural-Marxist Left Doesn’t Like Term ‘Cultural Marxism,’