Lawnchair: brantgoose: It is. It's done. The natural rate of increase in America is barely above replacement level. Replacement level is the lowest level which will maintain the population and also replace the workers with new workers. Drop below that level and you get "negative growth". This is bad for the economy except perhaps in the thinking of the more radical environmentalists, who welcome the prospect of the human race shrinking and doing less damage to the world through unsustainable growth and consumption.Zero-to-negative population growth is the future. Japan world. Places like Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico are already at replacement-level fertility. The US is an outlier among major western democracies for still having a near-replacement birth rate.That die is already cast. Humanity will be under 10 billion, within the lifetime of many people reading today. We aren't going to keep skimming off the growth fundamentally based on underlying 2% annual population growth (which is what we did in the 19th and 20th centuries). Nor could we, environmentally, forever and ever. If 'economics' can't handle steady-state solutions, we have to rewrite 'economics'.
Fano: Well sure, with data collection the Stasi and KGB would have creamed themselves for, a communist dictatorship is even easier than ever. The Chinese may have perfected a commie/crony capitalism situation.But we'll never know, because True Communism has never, and will never, be tried. Just like True Libertarianism.
hitlersbrain: Fano: Well sure, with data collection the Stasi and KGB would have creamed themselves for, a communist dictatorship is even easier than ever. The Chinese may have perfected a commie/crony capitalism situation.But we'll never know, because True Communism has never, and will never, be tried. Just like True Libertarianism.Well, the forces you mention are the exact same people as the greedy rich in America. The rich are trying to pull the same stuff, just power hungry insanity. We currently have (or perhaps HAD) a system where greed was kept in check by the power of government. We called it Capitalism but it's really Regulated Capitalism. This is a system doomed to failure as the rich get richer and more powerful. They've already convinced a lot of gullible people that it's best to just let them run things without the regulation part. Then it's just back to a garbage society run by kings and queens until they go too far and get the deaths they deserve.Something like Communism seems pretty inevitable.
cefm: In America, that is. Being "low income" as young parents of a young child is not unusual or unexpected. Young people are the ones having kids (they're fertile after all) and young people are unlikely to be fully established in their careers yet - they are much more likely to have lower incomes, even if they're on a good career trajectory. Furthermore, having a young child can frequently mean reduced work hours for one or both parents or even one parent not in the workforce at all which really craters income.In the rest of the civilized modern industrialized wealthy countries of the world, this is just normal, and there's no reason to believe that the child will be starving, unhealthy, uneducated or deprived access to the tools needed to grow up to be successful. The parents either, for that matter.It's only in America where we appear to hate poor people and kick them in the teeth at every turn that this is true. Assistance for food, rent, education, childcare is pathetic. If you're working poor and you have a kid, you're farked. If you're in a good career but raising a kid by yourself you're pretty farked too for that matter.
Dusk-You-n-Me: Otto_E_Rodika: Then, sit back and act surprised that any of this surprises you.What surprises me is your focus on black families receiving welfare, as if they're the only ones who do.
jim32rr: He mentioned illegal immigrants. Just what we need now, amnesty
FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: No, I can't. And I suspect you can't either, or else you would have by now.Haha, I certainly could but then you would give me some amateur Gordon Gecko like trite platitude, so what's the use?It really seems like you're using every excuse possible as to why you aren't. Maybe you can explain how socialism would work in the 21st century but just want to keep it a secret all to yourself?If you provided a sincere as reasonable explanation I wouldn't dismiss it. I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as I am unable to imagine how it would work in modern society.I think your hangup is that they aren't producing a tangible product.... I mean they are producing a service and they are putting labor into it. Labor isn't just swinging a pick or working on an assembly line with machinery labor involves the brain as well, and that in and of itself can be labor.Now, the means of production and workers control. What is another word for the means of production? Capital! These workers can seize the capital from the capitalist. Capital doesn't mean just money..... it's money and machines and the means of production all that good stuff. The workers could take control of the building from the owner and run the workplace via democratic centralism.There ya go. Bon apetit
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Alright, thanks or the reply. But I don't think a group of helpdesk employees are interested in storming a boardroom and taking control of the building. I just don't see that happening, or if it did, with the helpdesk folks successfully running the company.
lilbjorn: The wealthy: If we put a good education out of the reach of most people, we'll have a never-ending source of cheap labor.Brilliant!
DrewCurtisJr: lilbjorn: The wealthy: If we put a good education out of the reach of most people, we'll have a never-ending source of cheap labor.Brilliant!Yes, those wealthy bastards encouraging poor people to drop out of school.
obenchainr: More "forcing", or "creating the socioeconomic situations that most likely lead to that result" through things like denying cheap medical care or contraceptive services or not paying wages that blue-collar workers can live on.
Into the blue again: Tom_Slick: I blame No Child Left Behind, public schools now teach to the test, their only concerns are attendance and the test. Private schools (the good ones not the derpy creationist Christian schools) are actually still teaching like Public schools did 30 years ago, so if parents have the means and opportunity they are pulling their kids out.Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.Or you could move to the north parts of the country. We aren't retarded.
meat0918: hitlersbrain: We have to wait for the one thing that seems to ever solves our problems... technology. I'm not sure why it is taking so long to integrate fun computer games kids will love to play into education. I imagine there is a lot of push back from the stale educational establishment that will keep insisting that education be tedious and horrible.They exist, my kids use themStarfall.com is awesome for learning the alphabet and learning to read.They have some fun math games as well on other sites.
Yellow Beard: Koodz:I wonder if we cut defense spending to only 25% of the budget and contented ourselves with only having the most expensive military in the world instead of the galaxy how much welfare and tax cuts we could afford...While I agree we spend way too much on defense, I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan. Last I heard, about 3 million people work in defense related industries.
jjorsett: Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.I've long thought that we ought to try an experiment in some locale: in return for our supporting you, you have to come sit in a room for 40 hours a week. That's all you need to do, just be present. We'll treat it like a job where you get vacation and sick days and holidays, but you otherwise can't leave without getting docked on your "pay". I'll bet you'd see quite a drop in people applying for benefits.
OnlyM3: [upl.co image 660x513]
GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!
If you like these links, you'll love
Total accessTotal knowledgeTotal Fark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 18 2017 18:58:21
Runtime: 0.551 sec (550 ms)