Under there Boxer made the following statement worthy of explication.
“My interest in the topic is entirely pragmatic. Without marriage, the surplus labor in a society disappears, industry declines, and the standards-of-living crash. Those of us who live without a wife owe a great debt to the men who are keeping society afloat, and it is in everyone’s interest that the institution of marriage reproduce itself across time.”
To understand why this is true, let’s examine the population pyramid. In a healthy society there are always greater number of younger persons than older persons. Combined with low mortality rates, the population will steadily climb as the large base marries and produces children. Each generation produces more total children than the previous generation so the pattern holds.
Economically, the pyramid shape leads to ever increasing productivity and growth. Consider the population pyramid for 1950 Japan shown above. Those 0 to 9 year old children became the prime economic producers in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s leading to an economic boom:
Unfortunately, the sexual revolution taught the world to separate reproduction from sex and people stopped having children. Reproduction rates in many countries (including the United States) have since fallen below replacement. The result is the decline of society, industry, and high standards-of-living.
This graph overlays the 2017 population pyramid on top of the 1950 pyramid. Japan’s population pyramid has now inverted. The base is much smaller than the top. The bulk of Japan’s working population is about to hit retirement and there are not enough children to pay for their retirement expenses. China, after having experienced a similar economic boom, is now facing a similar population problem. Both countries are about to experience a major economic squeeze due to underpopulation.
Compared to Japan’s and China’s inverted pyramid, the United States is relatively much better off. Its pyramid reflects reduced reproduction rates, but from 1950 to 2017, the changes have not been quite so dramatic. However, the failure to reproduce since the 60’s is going to be increasingly felt in tightening standards of living.
(modified from this source)As a result of the sexual revolution and feminism, pregnancy, birth, and marriage rates have fallen to historic lows while abortion continues to be the hidden leading cause of death in America. So why has the U.S. not declined as fast as other countries? Immigration. The United States imports millions of working-age adults and children.
Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are initially a large economic drain. It takes until the second generation before the investment starts paying off. First- and second-generation immigrants are projected to make up 93% of the workforce growth by 2050. To maintain economic prosperity we are replacing native births with immigrants, for better or worse. (Citation: Pew Research Center)
It’s still not enough to stem the tide. Despite a flood of immigrants, the birth rate continues to decline. The only alternative to societal decay and economic collapse is for married families to have more children. We do owe a debt to those 24 million families with children that are holding us up, be they immigrant or native, but we need more.
Related: The Consequences of Feminism
Your arguments are so far off-target that correction is impossible. Low birth rates are not the West’s problem; the West being systematically genocided is. If couples had more kids then the extra kids would simply get raped, mutilated, drugged and/or indoctrinated into sterility.
“So why has the U.S. not declined as fast as other countries? Immigration. The United States imports millions of working-age adults and children.”
The Mexicans we’ve been flooded with are much better people than the Arabs & Africans infesting France, Germany, Sweden and UK. Also, we hold the world’s reserve currency and therefore can kick the can farther down the road than anybody.
Wow, you really are out in the weeds. Have more kids? When the government starts paying me to have more high IQ white kids instead of paying 75 iq black women to breed with 10 different men you can sign me right up. Right now they’re transferring wealth and the ability to have more kids from me to people who don’t have and never will have jobs.
Oh, and about jobs. What will my 6 white kids do for a living? 30-40% of jobs are supposed to disappear in the couple of decades due to automation/AI. Not much of gift to the next generation. These are not just low-skill jobs either, but knowledge jobs that computers will be able to handle, including diagnostic medicine.
Debt is what is currently keeping the economy afloat. That and ridiculous amounts of money being shoved into the stock markets, which when the last boomer retires will collapse when they start selling off and there’s only a tiny fraction of people who could afford to buy.
Using immigrant wimminz as baby factories isn’t viable in the long term, given America’s insistence on indoctrinating everyone into a radical feminist mindset…
https://piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-birth-rate-drops-historic-low-sharpest-drop-among-hispanic-women
Exactly. Even if first gen immigrants have above average numbers, the second gen adopts the feminist culture. It’s not enough to stem the tide. The Social Security Administration’s 2018 estimates for worst case fertility rates are already too optimistic. I’m not sure what world Gunner and Headhunter live in, but reversing the birth rate decline is the likely the only way to maintain our standard of living.
We absolutely need birth rates to go back up to increase the size of the labor pool and economic output. As headhunter points out, we have a looming debt bubble and we’re selectively breeding out our higher IQ members and replacing them with lower IQ members. What are the alternatives?
We could start actively killing off our elderly and infirm, either forcibly or by giving financial incentives for euthanization. Some of these will be killed off passively by receiving poorer and less frequent medical care. These processes have already begun in many countries and it is probably only a matter of time before it gains complete global acceptance.
We’ll need continuous increases in productivity. This will require mass replacement of jobs with automation. Lower production costs will spur economic activity. The downside, of course, is the reduction in demand of unskilled labor. This will lead to an ever increasing wage gap and a socialist State.
We can (and will) wipe out our debt. We’ll do this through a combination of inflation and default. You can imagine who is going to be rewarded and who is going to suffer, but it’s inevitable and it’s already happening.
If countries don’t reverse their negative birth rate trend, they’re going to end up in the situation where having more children isn’t possible because marrying is discouraged and raising children is too costly and difficult. This creates a self-feeding cycle of ever decreasing birth rates. Look at Japan, it’s there for everyone to see. Their decline is here, but they are just the first in line.
The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes. This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism. I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again and again. The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle. I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.
One final point:
As Japan, and then China, followed by the Eurozone, enter economic decline, how do you think that is going to impact the U.S.? I believe that the U.S. will be better off economically because of those immigrants, but it is a global economy. The U.S. is going to feel the pain just like everyone else.
You can’t marry the unwilling…and that’s my primary reason why I haven’t got married.
This is true.
I’ll follow up this post with another clarifying what I meant by that statement (and address the misunderstanding at ballista’s blog at the same time). I need some time to compose it. I’ll spoil the punch line for you though:
Earl is a perfect example of what I’m suggesting. He is a front line soldier with skin in the game. He’s doing all he can to make it work. He’s not making excuses.
Derek is living in some kind of 1950’s delusion where increases in the labor pool lead to increases in productivity. U.S. workers ALREADY are the most productive in the world. More and more the jobs formally done by people are being done and will be done by machines and computers. There is an opioid/meth epidemic where literally millions of white people are addicted to/dying from drugs due to lack of work, stable communities.
Derek has some kooky agenda of his own, but his fundamentally unsound arguments here sure don’t support getting people to have more kids.
Derek, what part of they want to exterminate us all do you not understand?
We unsexy men can survive the Collapse. It won’t be fun but we men built this society, the previous ones and the next one, too. We’re the future. What’s stopping us is not a low birth rate, it’s us being taxed in more ways than we can comprehend while being excluded from every position that would empower us to fix the system. Breeding changes none of that.
Why is this hard? Society is dying because it disrespects the men who keep society running. Not just the fathers. The difference between a man and a father is ten seconds in a wet hole, nothing more. Instead of blaming us for refusing to do something that most of us already want to do, how about you Make. Us. An. Offer.
Less “my society will die if you don’t man up” and more “I sent my virgin daughter went to massage class instead of Leftoid High School. Want to be my son-in-law?”
@Kentucky Headhunter
You’ve called my arguments unsound, which presumably means you disagree with the premises. You’re wrong, but that’s fine. Present an alternative position and have Boxer publish it.
For economists, productivity is a measure of economic input-to-output efficiency. It includes more than just labor. The U.S. economy is the most productive. And it can continue to become more productive with or without labor changes, positive or negative.
At current productivity and birth rates, Social Security is headed for insolvency. Yet, birthrates are falling. The tax base is shrinking relative to the increasing retired population. The only way to maintain our standard of living will be to do some combination of the following:
1) increase births
2) increase immigration
3) increase productivity
4) increase labor participation (including higher retirement ages)
5) decrease the amount of unproductive participants (e.g. death)
6) transfer wealth from the rich to the poor
What would you suggest we do to maintain our standard of living?
Yes, you need stable communities. You can’t get them without stable marriage and family. For that, you need increasing numbers of stable marriages and families. This is my point.
Let’s humor you for a second and say that we are going to run out of available jobs, such that any extra births will result in reduced labor participation. What’s the best solution to the problem? Is it to have fewer children? NO! It is to have women leave the workforce and become stay-at-home moms.
Derek is proving to us here that solipsism isn’t a uniquely female trait.
@Gunner
Now you sound hysterical. But go ahead, refuse to marry and have children and thus exterminate yourself. That’ll own them hard!
Of course the problem is you being taxed! And it’s only going to get worse. You can’t survive the collapse. If you have money, it’s going to be transferred away from you. It’s already happening and you are powerless to do anything about it.
Breeding doesn’t change it. Anyone can breed. You need to form stable marriages and have large families. These are the foundational units for your new society. These are the future.
Do you think that the collapse of society is going to result in the previous society just magically disappearing along with all its constituent members? This is fantasy land. No, society is just going to descend into increasing levels of suffering until it finds a miserable equilibrium. You will be just as powerless to enact change then as you are now.
To replace it with something else, you need numbers.
Derek has an agenda and reality is not going to get in his way.
And you’re using feminist tactics with the herd mentality and one-line snark non-argument rebuttals.
What has Derek written that isn’t true, exactly? If he’s mistaken about something, you ought to be able to make an argument.
So, U.S. workers are the pride of the world, and U.S. workers are succumbing to a opioid/meth epidemic? Isn’t that a contradiction?
My people aren’t jacking themselves up on meth, and neither are Cuban-Americans in Florida. Both of those ethnic groups are more “white” than Appalachian Americans, who are a 100% mixed race population, with Negro and Native-American admixture.
What sort of handouts do your people want? How are we supposed to keep your people from committing suicide? Why should we give your people more welfare handouts? What’s in it for us?
If you’re all deciding to replace yourselves with brown immigrants, isn’t that the “survival of the fittest” in action? Why should the strong and productive subsidize the weak and the unfit?
Of course! I forgot. The fact that you people are unable to tell your wimminz “no” is the fault of the jews! [insert the Shlomo Shekelberg “happy merchant” icon here]
White wimminz bad behavior is all the fault of men who practice some religion that isn’t yours! That makes all the sense in the world. I get it, now.
The primary reason I started this blog was to try and get people to argue more effectively. You’re free to post antisemitic rants here, but don’t think that you won’t be asked to support your contentions.
Boxer
It’s not even that hard to do! Go back a few of my article links to the first time I discussed this topic here and I linked to Larry Kummer’s discussion on the topic. He is of the opinion that population decline is an overwhelmingly good thing. You can read his arguments on his blog and see if you think they are more compelling than mine. He’s a published financial writer after all and I’m a nobody.
Many economists think that that productivity gains will offset any demographic decline (including in Japan) and that we’ll be able to maintain an average 1.0-1.5% GDP growth indefinitely with room to absorb and bounce back from occasional recessions. These economists would say that I’m a crazy doomsday prophet. And you know? Maybe I am. Predicting the future is a tricky thing. Yet, for all that, the link Boxer provided shows that we’ve already breached 2018’s idea of the “worst case scenario” for Social Security. So who is wrong here?
Those criticizing me actually agree that we are headed towards social collapse. The difference is that they would like to see the collapse fully take place, causing massive suffering in the process. So yes, I have an agenda to try to prevent massive suffering from taking place.
“So, U.S. workers are the pride of the world, and U.S. workers are succumbing to a opioid/meth epidemic? Isn.t that a contradiction?”
First, I didn’t write that U.S. workers are the pride of the world, I wrote that it was the unemployed who were succumbing to drug problems, so no contradiction.
“What has Derek written that isn.t true, exactly? If he.s mistaken about something, you ought to be able to make an argument.”
In order to maintain our standard of living Derek thinks we need to :
1) increase births
Derek wants to increase the tax base by having more children in the face of ever-declining job prospects. How is that going to work? Fewer jobs means fewer taxes paid in.
2) increase immigration
Flooding the country with low-skill immigrants is counter productive from net taxes in/out standpoint. Decreasing the overall population would lead to increased wages instead for the jobs that do exist. Higher wages equals higher taxes paid per capita.
3) increase productivity
As Derek noted himself, ”
“The U.S. economy is the most productive. And it can continue to become more productive with or without labor changes, positive or negative.”
Ok, so no need to have more kids to increase the labor pool. This seems negate Derek’s argument to have more kids.
4) increase labor participation (including higher retirement ages)
Keeping older people working longer almost guarantees that younger people will have delayed entry in to the job market, and thus interfere with their abilities to form families.
5) decrease the amount of unproductive participants (e.g. death)
This is certain for all of us sooner or later, but is Derek advocating for death squads?
6) transfer wealth from the rich to the poor
Well, that’s already happening. It’s called taxation. If he’s actually talking about just forcibly taking all the personal wealth from people above a certain amount, that will work for a period of less than a year according to some things I’ve read about that total versus say 1 year budget for the fed gov. The top 10 wealthiest Americans are worth about $700-800 billion combined depending on stock prices each day. So that’s goign to go very far.
Derek’s point about female labor participation:
Most women who work are not net wealth producers. Government, education, healthcare jobs dominate. When they work in private industry, they are often low-level jobs that couldn’t support a family or non-productive one like HR. Not much to be gained by trading them out for men in terms of increasing the over-all tax base.
“Derek, what part of they want to exterminate us all do you not understand?”
“Of course! I forgot. The fact that you people are unable to tell your wimminz .no. is the fault of the jews!”
Nah, there’s plenty of whites wanting to exterminate whites. Cultural autophagy is a real problem.
“To replace it with something else, you need numbers.”
To replace society, I need to be the one teaching your kids what to believe. Having my own kids is unnecessary, as the feminists have proven to spectacular effect.
@Kentucky Headhunter
It is a mathematical certainty that more retired folk will cost more than less retired folk. To maintain our standard of living, something must change. If nothing changes, our standard of living will necessarily decline. As for what we do? That is a decision that society will make, but it is likely a combination of the things I mentioned.
This is a contention in need of support.
As Pew notes first generation immigrants more expensive than natives, but second generation immigrants are not. They tend to make about the same income as any other American and they are less likely to live in poverty.
America has been benefiting economically from immigrants since its founding. Without the influx of immigrants during the last 3 or 4 decades, our population pyramid would have inverted much faster, leading to significant economic stress. Have a look at this chart. You can see that first generation immigrants are mostly working-age. They don’t bring families in significant numbers and when they have children, they are the second-generation children that get added to the “native born” side of the chart. The data clearly supports my stance here.
The per capita increases in taxes caused by a declining population is a wash on total taxes. This does absolutely nothing to address the increasing costs of an aging population. Without additional taxes, you’ll have a lower standard of living cause by lower spending on needed resources. With additional taxes you’ll have a lower standard of living from higher taxes.
It’s not a negation, it’s an acknowledgment that productivity has more variables than labor. These variables can change independently and still produce a net gain.
This is a contention in need of support.
I’m advocating for increased birth rates. If we don’t have increased birth rates, then sooner or later we are going to have voluntary, forced, and/or incentivized euthanasia.
Direct personal taxation is just one method. Monetary policy is another. Do you know where all that injected fluidity went? You’ve already had your wealth forcibly taken and redistributed, you just didn’t notice.
So which is it? Do we have too many workers and too few jobs or do we critically need women working?
Increasing the number of stay-at-home moms allows a family to have more children. In an environment where women stay at home, they do not have to pay childcare expenses and they can do home-based economic activities (farming/gardening, crafts, food preservation, clothing repair, etc.) for minimal cost. As the supply of workers decreases, wages and/or jobs increase. This is excellent for both husband and children.
Have you been in a school lately? Trading out the staff sounds fantastic for society as a whole. When can I sign up?
LOL.
I don’t think there’s a religion out there who hasn’t ingested some of the pagan goddess worship which has filled women’s egos with delusions of grandeur and turned men into simps hoping to get some scraps of affection. That’s what happens when we get farther and farther away from the true God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost).
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the USA. I notice it is missing from your death chart. Stay away from the medical cabal. If you are smart, you and “Dr. DuckDuckGo” are miles ahead of the guy down at the hospital who will give you less than 18 seconds, on average, to describe your symptoms, before he interrupts, and starts telling you what to do. If you are really stupid, a stranger, trained in yesteryear’s medical groupthink, dispensing patented substances that are not natural, may actually be better than self directed care. However, those who are smart, can find better alternatives, if they devote the time to figuring out their own best treatment.
Doctors in Canada occasionally go on strike. Whenever they do this, the death rate goes down.
Whether this has something to do with doctors or with Canada, is a question I’ll leave you to ponder…
I think perhaps that the reason there is sometimes data given on deaths without the massive amount of deaths attributed to medical error, is because often the information on the cause of death is logged by the same folks (the medical industry) that just killed the patient. The doctors, medical examiners, and coroners, who fill out the information as to the cause of death would prefer to blame a disease, to blaming the employer and industry they’ve devoted their lives to.
I was also saddened to see abortion as the leading cause of death. It is so easily preventable, and is always takes the most innocent lives.
Considering that, in my opinion, it is already known how to clear and decalcify your circulatory system with supplements, preventing most heart disease, and how to prevent and reverse most all cancers with supplements, the first four leading causes of death in our nation are all performed or abetted by our medical cabal who also exercise much control over the information and treatment that the general public does or doesn’t receive. While we will all eventually die, it is a crime that our medical industry hastens death by requiring adherence to flawed protocols and prevents the application of more current experimental research based treatments. Most recently in our nation, as government provided healthcare has become available to all, the average life expectancy has actually dropped. Ponder that for a moment. Consider that the government will be having to deal economically with too few young workers to support the older retirees, and would benefit greatly from your early demise, and then think about whether you want the government to fully control, and be your only source of treatment to insure your wellness into your elder years.
Where your family’s medical care is concerned, get a second opinion, but don’t get it from a second doctor spoon fed the same bullshit flawed medical dogmas. Do your own research on the latest research findings, alternatives, outlawed cures, cures the government claims to have debunked, anecdotes of successful alternatives, and breaking medical discoveries. Typically the smartest doctors are the most contrarian towards their whole industry. Many of the most contrarian doctors would have been run out of the medical industry, if not for their Nobel prizes and slew of cured patients willing to testify in their defense.