this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
720 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2410 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In his remarks, not only does Johnson claim Roe “gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children,” but he rails against the imagined economic detriments of abortion, pushing his caucus’ outlandish claim that by depleting a hypothetical workforce, abortion has defunded social security: “Think about the implications of that on the economy. We’re all struggling here to cover the bases of social security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest,” Johnson says. “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this... Roe was a terrible corruption.” Mind you, social security and health care have been gutted in the last several years by Republican lawmakers, not people who choose to end a pregnancy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LavaPlanet@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's them saying the quiet bit out loud. They see population growth stagnating to dangerous levels and they need more poor people to feed thier capitalism machine, while not acknowledging that low population growth is occurring because they've starved people of the necessary resources to keep a child alive and enjoy / be able to afford parenting. The choice was provide adequate resources or force people to have babies without resources.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There are really only two ways to fix demographic decline:

  • Increase fertility rate
  • Replace dying people with people from elsewhere (i.e. immigration)

The first requires social spending at levels that the Republican Party absolutely refuses to consider. Subsidies for childcare! Bigger tax breaks for poor and middle-class parents! Free preschool education! Mandatory paid parental leave! Higher wages for family breadwinners! Oh, the horror!

The second requires admitting brown people into the country! Oh, the other horror!

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

demographic decline

What "demographic decline"?

Sounds to be more a case that the parasite class is worried that the "surplus labor" (ie, impoverished people) might not be all that surplus for much longer.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

"Demographic decline" is when the population of an area shrinks because more people are dying off than being born. From an economic standpoint, this is bad for a few reasons (regardless of the underlying economic system)—

  • You could lose economies of scale with things like public infrastructure. If you have millions of people contributing to the upkeep of, say, a metro line via the fruits of their labour (directly or through taxation), then that's all fine, but if your population suddenly shrinks to half of what it was, the cost of upkeeping the metro line hasn't halved, but the amount of total wealth in the area has halved, as now there are only half as many people contributing to the communal wealth.
  • The labour pool has shrunk. This is important because some things have a fixed amount of labour required and do not scale well. For example, a train always needs exactly one conductor regardless of how long it is, but now you only have half the number of conductors available. Again, it doesn't matter whether we're looking at a communist or a capitalist system, it's easy to see how this is bad in both systems.
  • People tend to get poorer because the vast majority of economic activity (and therefore wealth) is generated through people interacting with each other. This also results in a reduction of government budgets because revenue is generally tied to group wealth and economic activity. This happens at a disproportionate rate compared to the actual percentage of population loss, meaning the amount of revenue per capita goes down as well.

Some countries are already experiencing demographic decline. It's bad for everyone, but it's much worse for rich people than for poor people (in absolute terms), at least in capitalist countries, because rich people have much more direct exposure to the macroeconomic forces that result from it. Additionally, a lot of rich people's wealth is tied to growth. Infinite exponential growth is impossible; it's not a sustainable model for wealth. But they have a lot to gain from at least postponing the pyramid's collapse until after they die.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Judging by what happens in Japan and Europe, I think you actually need to bribe women to have kids. Which I'm all for.

I think the first two kids should include all expenses paid Disneyland vacations annually, free diaper service, free childcare, schools etc. Min 2 years aid maternity leave.

Third kid? Congrats, you're a hero, you get a free house and a million bucks.

However, applicants must hold a college degree. I'd rather not have a bunch of idiots continue to reproduce.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe not a million dollars, but something like a $50,000 cash bonus per child successfully raised to adulthood and has graduated school without being expelled would motivate a good number of parents. The $50,000 is a paltry amount compared to the economic activity that a person generates throughout their lives so it's a great deal for the Government, even when combined with things like childcare subsidies, etc.

The second condition would encourage parents to deal with delinquent behaviour and keep their kids in school. If the kid gets expelled, you lose the $50K.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Don't forget about loneliness. If people don't engage with one another in the first place, then abortion isn't even needed, let alone any parental care or accomodations.

Thanks American individualism for that.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Birthrates decline as populations become richer though? The poorest populations have done of the highest birthrates.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Which is the only rational explanation for Republicans excuse of their shitty policies. Keep people poor to maintain the supply of infants. They do it for selfish reasons however.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

They look at Europe and get scared. Don't let America turn into no-go zones! 🤦🏾🤷‍♀️

/s