Some claim slight improvements. I have two views of this that I alternate between without coming to any lasting conclusion. In the first view, they've merely managed to move forward births that were always going to happen. Some couple would have a child two years from now, but because the governemnt (of whatever country) bribed them, they had the kid early. This isn't particularly difficult to eliminate by proper windowing, I thought, but they're often bragging about the numbers early and (of course) juking the stats.
In the second view, they have actually slightly increased fertility (and only temporarily). But at what cost? No one refuses to believe that it's impossible to bribe someone to have a child they wouldn't otherwise have anyway. If you offered $1 billion in cash, up front, you'd probably have riots of women trying to sign up for it. But this is ultimately unaffordable is it not? If the US needs 500,000 extra births next year, we can't afford $500 trillion for that, and not when we need as many the year after, and the year after that. It doesn't become more tractable by reducing the bribe, you get far few takers (which is why they've only managed to slightly raise fertility rates so far, they offered far too little).
Whichever of these possibilities happens to be the truth, neither bodes well. Government doesn't have any levers that it can pull to meaningfully change this.
That’s a mindset problem. Every American is going to die. The replacement Americans surely don’t have to be American born.
America was built by immigrants, what’s so bad about them now?
If you let in people with the skills you want isn’t it mutually beneficial?
>If you let in people with the skills you want isn’t it mutually beneficial?
No. If a person can decide for themselves what they want (what benefits them), then I decide that I do not what that, and it is therefor not mutually beneficial. If you have some alternate theory of objective benefice, I'll hear it, but it seems you only assume such exists.
The other poster has quite an interesting article on the subject. Even a small increase in birth rates can have a very big effect.
On the negative side, China managed to decimate their demographics with their one child policy. The only improvement that springs to my mind is nazi germany.
Some claim slight improvements. I have two views of this that I alternate between without coming to any lasting conclusion. In the first view, they've merely managed to move forward births that were always going to happen. Some couple would have a child two years from now, but because the governemnt (of whatever country) bribed them, they had the kid early. This isn't particularly difficult to eliminate by proper windowing, I thought, but they're often bragging about the numbers early and (of course) juking the stats.
In the second view, they have actually slightly increased fertility (and only temporarily). But at what cost? No one refuses to believe that it's impossible to bribe someone to have a child they wouldn't otherwise have anyway. If you offered $1 billion in cash, up front, you'd probably have riots of women trying to sign up for it. But this is ultimately unaffordable is it not? If the US needs 500,000 extra births next year, we can't afford $500 trillion for that, and not when we need as many the year after, and the year after that. It doesn't become more tractable by reducing the bribe, you get far few takers (which is why they've only managed to slightly raise fertility rates so far, they offered far too little).
Whichever of these possibilities happens to be the truth, neither bodes well. Government doesn't have any levers that it can pull to meaningfully change this.
> If the US needs 500,000 extra births next year, we can't afford $500 trillion for that
And yet the US is spending money to deport people. How this plays out over the next few decades is going to be grim.
> And yet the US is spending money to deport people.
If the US citizens are slowly going extinct, why would we want to import foreigners? Aren't we simply giving our country away at that point?
That’s a mindset problem. Every American is going to die. The replacement Americans surely don’t have to be American born. America was built by immigrants, what’s so bad about them now?
If you let in people with the skills you want isn’t it mutually beneficial?
>If you let in people with the skills you want isn’t it mutually beneficial?
No. If a person can decide for themselves what they want (what benefits them), then I decide that I do not what that, and it is therefor not mutually beneficial. If you have some alternate theory of objective benefice, I'll hear it, but it seems you only assume such exists.
The other poster has quite an interesting article on the subject. Even a small increase in birth rates can have a very big effect.
On the negative side, China managed to decimate their demographics with their one child policy. The only improvement that springs to my mind is nazi germany.
Apparently so: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-pronatal-policy-work-it-did-...
Daycare is significant financial burden: https://blog.dol.gov/2024/11/19/new-data-childcare-costs-rem...
Of course the expected response is "that's the mother's job" but millions of families need both parents working to get by.