how to push the ultimate "non" solution
Jan. 9th, 2005 08:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearthis editorial in the 'post, in claiming that everybody is missing the root of the problem, is proposing the exact OPPOSITE of what this country (and planet) needs.
*sigh*
yes its true that SS depended on a constant birthrate. however, the country (and the *world*) doesn't need a constant birthrate. quite the opposite.
levelling off the birthrate is a sign of an educated society, one that recognizes that your chances of your one (or both) children reaching adulthood in safety and health is FAR higher than it used to be 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. We don't *need* everybody to have 3-6 kids each. We can't realistically feed them all, much less the rest of the damned planet, at that rate. That's not counting the fact that its highly unlikely we'll have jobs for them all.
to say nothing about the rediculous problem of sprawl and crawl. again, throughout the civilized world, not just here.
as a society, we've realized the fact that we don't *need* to have 5 kids each anymore. we can't care for them (not financially without a working mother as well as father, with all the side effects of social problems that some latch-key kids have for not having parental care while at home). European nations learned this generations ago.
no, there have to be other solutions, because increasing the population of the country so irresponsibly will only give our present more problems than the future is ready to deal with, more so than the problem's we're already giving them.
The only true solution is to ease the burdens on today's parents that are driving down birthrates
*sigh*
yes its true that SS depended on a constant birthrate. however, the country (and the *world*) doesn't need a constant birthrate. quite the opposite.
levelling off the birthrate is a sign of an educated society, one that recognizes that your chances of your one (or both) children reaching adulthood in safety and health is FAR higher than it used to be 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. We don't *need* everybody to have 3-6 kids each. We can't realistically feed them all, much less the rest of the damned planet, at that rate. That's not counting the fact that its highly unlikely we'll have jobs for them all.
to say nothing about the rediculous problem of sprawl and crawl. again, throughout the civilized world, not just here.
as a society, we've realized the fact that we don't *need* to have 5 kids each anymore. we can't care for them (not financially without a working mother as well as father, with all the side effects of social problems that some latch-key kids have for not having parental care while at home). European nations learned this generations ago.
no, there have to be other solutions, because increasing the population of the country so irresponsibly will only give our present more problems than the future is ready to deal with, more so than the problem's we're already giving them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 02:34 am (UTC)There is NO earthly reason for folks to go 'round having more than two kids, IMO. I'm not just saying that from the perspective of one who is childfree by choice, but from one who truly understands how very right Malthus was.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 01:37 pm (UTC)So technically, the Post editorialist is right: the only solution to the SS problem if we don't change the system is to get more people into the system long-term, and that means more children.
As far as his solution for encouraging more procreation, it's nothing but bovine-feces. Those without children (whether child-free by choice or medical condition, as well as those who've already reared their kids and sent them off) who scream bloody murder; and in this case they'd be right. Their taxes contribute to paying the costs of public education and other services provided for children, and they receive not direct benefit from those taxes; in effect subsidizing the education of others' children.
Whether those costs are more or less than the benefits they receive when those children work and pay taxes used to support the older generation (including those that were childless), I don't know. This co-called solution will create more problems than it would ever solve.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 07:55 pm (UTC)