Give women the choice to have more babies
Any – fertile – woman’s got the choice right now. What is meant here is that the birds want more subsidy in order to make the “right” choice. However:
If fertility rates don’t rise, the UK faces economic stagnation or vastly higher levels of immigration
No. Economic growth is about what we do, not how many of us do it. Productivity, not the number of producers. After all, the aim is higher GDP per capita, not just higher GDP.
BTW, the places – like the Scandis – that have what will be demanded, longer and better paid maternity and paternity leaves, more free childcare etc, actually have lower fertility rates than we do.
or vastly higher levels of immigration
Implying that’s how immigration works.
But that’s not how immigration works.
It’s not a public choice, and there is nobody in the British government who is even remotely interested in stopping it under any circumstances, and this has nothing to do with British birth rates except inasmuch as they provide another excuse to keep the spiky golf shoes pressed down on the necks of legacy white populations.
You will get as much immigration, crime and Islam as you’re willing and physically able to tolerate. I.e. there are no brakes on this train. We tried hitting the voting brakes many times, but they were severed by saboteurs.
“places – like the Scandis – that have what will be demanded, longer and better paid maternity and paternity leaves, more free childcare etc, actually have lower fertility rates than we do”
Ah, but, as you also say, “Economic growth is about what we do, not how many of us do it. Productivity, not the number of producers”
It would be interesting to see whether things like better paid maternity leave change who has children, rather than how many are had – and whether that changes their productivity once they reach adulthood.
Don’t know whether it would make a difference – or which way it would go if it did, but it would be interesting to find out.
Which gives the better results – child benefit, which will have most behavioural effect on those on lower incomes and benefits, or full maternity leave, which will have most behavioural effect on those in work?
If fertility rates don’t rise, the UK faces economic stagnation or vastly higher levels of immigration
To be fair to Miriam Cates this is the sub-editor rather than Cates writing but even a sub in a hurry should realise that this is nonsense. Why should a smaller population of necessity worsen the lives of the individuals in that population when on the showing of the last couple of decades social cohesion has lessened as immigration has boomed.
Fertility rates drop with wealth and education so I read, 2.1 to replace and its 1.7 ish in the west.
Some Chinese cities have it down at 0.7 .
In the long run, women will either have babies voluntarily, or non voluntarily. But they will have babies.
Which do they prefer?
‘https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/rapist-s-release-after-high-court-decision-triggers-senate-debate-20231109-p5einx.html’
I’m thinking of the High Court’s judgement about how wicked it is to keep this poor migrant in detention until he leaves just for raping a 10 year old boy.
They seem to think the government has some responsibility to find someone who’ll take him. I of course feel that it’s his responsibility and moral duty to leave. And to find someone who’ll take him. And that he commits a crime against us every second he stays in Oz.
But the woke always want more migrants. Especially this sort.
You could certainly do it. You remove a lot of the -ve value jobs that so many women do for the state, or to support bullshit regulation created by the state. These jobs are stuffed full of women. Their husbands get taxed less because they aren’t paying for them, and they can spend more time at home with the kids.
A lot of women out there already do very low productivity jobs, as in, after you take off costs like childcare and travel to work, they’re making a couple of quid an hour. They could save that by doing home cooking instead of eating out and having takeaways so much, don’t have the second car etc.
Some of this is cultural though. Women are brainwashed into this “career women” thing, even though most of them have a job after having kids. It’s a fantasy that they’re going to be the kickass woman running Body Shop.
Quality matters too, not just quantity. Subsidise the working- and middle-classes to have babies, and you get another generation of working- and middle-class. Subsidies the underclass and immigrants, and you get more undesirables. I suspect the Swedish system produces more middle-class types, though I haven’t looked into it in much depth.
If ‘the aim is higher GDP per capita’ why is it ‘not the time’ for a nursery to remove Anne Frank from its name?
After all, the aim is higher GDP per capita, not just higher GDP.
Perhaps you’d like to introduce this concept to HM Government as it would be completely novel to it. Since it’s been striving to do the opposite, the past few decades.
@Boganboy
I’m thinking of the High Court’s judgement about how wicked it is to keep this poor migrant in detention until he leaves just for raping a 10 year old boy.
Fucking hell. If people won’t rise up at this, what will they rise up at?
It’s a perfect illustration of the magnificent job the people who run western (and western-allied) countries have done in destroying any sense of kinship between us.
For 90% of the population, as long as they have fat bellies and there is shite on the telly what do they care? Wouldn’t be amazed if the kid’s own father doesn’t really care – odds are the kid is living in a single mother house or one with some other bloke posing as his father.
Meanwhile the very same fucking authorities that could send the cops to beat up Australians for not wearing masks and sack them for not agreeing to be poisoned can’t do anything about this because the lawyers say it’s just the way it’s gotta be.
Cunts, the lot of them.
Just a thought on that subject. All the billions that are being spent putting up the rubber boaters in 4 star hotels have to be turning up as positive numbers in GDP, don’t they?
Interested – I care.
I suspect this is why my mental health is very poor. This is a great time for sociopaths.
Steve – I care too. My mental health is fine, but I’m extremely fucking angry.
Interested – I’m glad to hear it.
Stay sane, healthy and whole.
It is very easy to fall.
I can see a case for selective natalist subsidies to increase the more productive people in the UK to reproduce more. At present, the underclass are subsidised to breed, and they, like sub-saharan migrants and many islamics, have low IQs – ie under 90….
“At present, the underclass are subsidised to breed, and they, like sub-saharan migrants and many islamics, have low IQs – ie under 90….”
Bearing in mind what can be raked in on the bennies plus subsidised housing without being troubled in one’s other activities, I’m inclined to think the IQ’s are rather higher than that. The low IQ’s can be assigned to tax payers paying for it.
Women who do have babies reproduce at higher than replacement rate, i.e. they have two or three. It’s the ones who have no babies who pull down the birth rate.
The causes of never giving birth are manifold. Perm any from late marriage, entitlement (she / he’s not good enough for me), materialism, promiscuity, lack of seriousness, etc.
In theory dating apps should allow everyone to find a suitable partner. In reality the reverse seems to be the case.
“Economic growth is about what we do, not how many of us do it.”
Yes, but we can do more with more people. Just as improving a machine so that it produces 12 widgets per day instead of 10 is an increase in output, so is buying a second machine.
@Boganboy
If you read about the case, you’ll find that the ruling applies to someone who has already served their sentence. As such, unless you’re going to insist on a racist justification, there is nothing wrong with the judgement. There is already an element of racism in the treatment of convicts in that, after serving their sentence, citizens get to resume normal life, while non-citizens are liable to be deported.
@Charles
No racism here. The sentence is for the crime. Deportation is because you can’t follow our rules. So why should we keep you here? That goes double if you are here illegally.
I think the thing with dating apps is that the people who use them abdicate their agency. They think the app will absolve them of having to make any effort to get a relationship, and the ease of use re-enforces the known behaviour of the top 90% of seekers only willing to accept a partner from the top 10% of targets.
@ Charles
The correct answer to an accusation of racism is “So the fuck what?”.
If it makes me a bad person, I don’t care.
One factor putting families off having more than two is H&S cost:
eg Child car seats: most can only take two
@RichardT
GDP per capita [+] 2022
Sweden: $55,689
UK: $45,775
USA: $77,469
@bis, November 10, 2023 at 12:09 pm
Spot on. JRM agrees too
@bis, November 10, 2023 at 12:21 pm
Very likely. Small plus is most comes from DfID budget, although Labour, EU, UN furious
Charles
The bloke is not imprisoned for rape, he’s detained because he won’t leave. His very presence here is a crime which he refuses to stop committing.
All he needs to do to get out of detention is to leave. As to where he goes and who’ll take him, that’s his problem. If they hang him when he gets back home; well, we don’t rule those places. If you don’t like their laws, blame them not us.
Some people, mostly fervent anti-imperialists, seem to have this incredibly imperialist outlook which says we have the power to tell these foreigners how to run their affairs. We don’t.
These heroes have made sure the savages are back in charge. And naturally blame not themselves, or even the savages, but of course us.
One part of our fertility problem is the wannabe power skirts who eschew stable relationships in their 20s while pursuing careers (usually via meaningless degrees that add the extra burden of student debt) that 95% of the time don’t work out. Even HR and DEI departments have an upper limit – albeit not in the NHS, local government or civil service.
10 years later they realise that the decent blokes have all been taken while the limited stock of state and affordable housing is occupied either by either Vicky Pollard or Abdul and his 4 wives. The consequent upward pressure means even a one bed flat in the city of their choice (because never ever ever will they consider moving out of town) remains unaffordable at 15-20 times their, at best, middle-management salary.
Cue 2 decades of frantically scouring dating apps resulting in endless disappointments and a lonely existence in a scruffy rented flat complete with cats and winebox. But still they have to keep working because no-one else is going to be there to support them while ironically their taxes are generously subsidising the by-products of Vicky’s fecundity and Abdul’s cultural norm.
In a perverse way this dismal scenario, one person working/contributing while others provide the population increase, is precisely what the likes of Sunak and Hunt with their perverse total GDP fixation are formulating policy to enable.