I keep seeing people use this word all over the place, thinking they sound smart and they think of it as a big blob of magical, complex ‘technology’ instead of anything resembling reality.
Here’s a decent, simple example of how a human cell (work station) varies from a robot cell.
We don’t need higher population numbers because of these babies.
The labour won’t be there.
And you think Gen Y living at home is bad? Those are 1940s levels, common in the unmarried.
Naturally, this also means immigration has been outmoded as a policy. Only middle-class labours can be replaced past this point on a visa system, low-skilled workers are too low in IQ to be needed when these machines exist.
We overbred post WW1 anyway, pre-bust. The numbers you consider normal are biased, an evolutionary fluke. Unless we banned all forms of chemical contraception (fact: no Baby Booms since the Pill) to all people (inc. the married) then numbers will never get up, and maybe we should aim for a sustainable nation first and foremost before assuming that African levels of cloning are healthy for a society?
Look at food security and tell me population can afford to go up.
Soil fertility, malnutrition rates, obesity rates.
Clean house before extending the bloody thing.
Comment from Endgame Napoleon on ZH;
Automation is reducing the need for workers at a time when there is already too much competition for full-time jobs. America has generated new, full-time jobs at the paltry rate of 6% since 2005, and yet, we fret over the need to import more immigrant workers or to increase the birth rate, creating more future workers for the declining number of non-automated jobs.
That is irrational [cubed].
The story of the declining Western middle class is not, as sold, just a product of a declining birth rate. If the number of humans is the sole explanation for widespread prosperity, why was the U.S. at the peak of middle-class prosperity at around the mid 1960s to the early 1970s, when our population was much lower?
Between 1970 and the projected rate for 2020, the U.S. population will have close to doubled, with a far greater percentage of humans chasing increasingly automated jobs. America had a much bigger middle class when it had fewer humans producing and consuming products and when there was less global trade.
The stupid men in the economy have been replaced. This is eugenic.
It’s better than becoming cannon fodder, guys.
It is not just birth rates that determine middle-class prosperity. It is wage growth. The reason for the decline in widespread U.S. prosperity is the increase in women in the workforce. It concentrates the wealth from decent-paying jobs in fewer households due to assortative mating.
And it works on the smarties too. For the smarties.
It is not because of declining birth rates, but because two high earners marry, concentrating salaried wealth under fewer roofs.
The left hate inequality, the left hate marriage.
It punishes r-selected decision-making.
It lowers wages and hours at the bottom, too, including for single, childless women who face increased competition from married mothers with spousal income and from welfare-buttressed, single mothers who do not need higher wages in the still [and always will be] overwhelmingly female-dominated, low-paying, traditional jobs.
That’s without accounting for education, presentation and manners. Lookism and classism are real but not always bad.
You can’t just discuss women in an economy with two sexes. The economy is a system and since we live in the 21st century, IQ must be discussed. You can’t run away from HBD.
Every political plan fails if you ignore the full population and the HBD salient facts of it.
It hits those with earned-only income, no spousal income and no reproduction-based welfare the hardest.
Welfare parents are the new, artificial middle-class.
Poor single people are paying for the breeding habits of irresponsible mother-fuckers.
Who should be paying? The deadbeat dads. You breed it, you feed it. That’s your gender role.
Birth rates have declined, but we now have a large population of single mothers who need to work the welfare-reform minimum of 20 hours per week, staying below income limits for welfare to get everything from free food and free housing to child tax credits of up to $6,269.
Here we have child tax credits and they should be abolished. You chose not to abort. Why should I have to pay for the fruit of your uterus? Wealth transfers are theft. How can you save up for your own family? They don’t want you to.
And people wonder why wages never rise.
My favourite ZH commentor, she is, and no, it isn’t secretly me.
There are middle-class people, smug trendies reading the Guardian, pretending they aren’t on welfare (child tax credits and a host of others) and they wonder why birth rates suck?
The rights of a parent are based on the fact you literally pay for it.
Real women love researching our home econ. More money for shoes.
I’ll post the rest for the curious.
Women must be accommodated by government to work while having children,
national debt hangs over everyone
we wouldn’t be allowed to return to the home until ND is down
even though the decline of the Western middle class can be linked to the increase in working moms and even though automation is reducing the overall number of full-time jobs, resulting in a middle-class minority in the U.S.A.
And it is Not True that middle-class prosperity was higher when the ratio of low-consuming people over 65 was much lower. Back in 1970–when we had a much larger, high-consuming, American middle class and fewer working moms–only 9.8% of the U.S. population was over 65. By 2010 the ratio of elderly to high-consuming youth was only 3.2% higher.
That is not a huge difference.
The economic difference is in the percentage of working moms, diluting the wage pool, in addition to the wage-lowering mass immigration, offshoring and now automation. Those forces reduce the purchasing power of Americans.
In ascending order of importance.
The average WASP mother has a higher IQ than an immigrant off the boat. In the rare brain drain cases, the working mom types aren’t going for the same job as the typical educated American man, are they? No, it’s immigrant competition for traditionally male occupations and don’t you dare deny that fact.
There is only one extra-large population of SS-age elderly to support, namely the Baby Boom, making these demographic economic arguments even weaker.
High-earner working parents are not creating jobs. Most are not taking the risk to start businesses. They are taking 2 salaried jobs with benefits undergirded by a $260 billion employer tax exclusion, resulting in a concentration of access to employer-provided benefits, like the concentration of decent-paying jobs in fewer households. Thus, fewer Americans are covered by so-called employer-provided health insurance, which is actually a super-costly part of the U.S. budget due to the tax exclusion.
If you look at the total numbers, by household.
The supposedly pro-Patriarchy guys are aware of none of these arguments. This is why I post.
Women didn’t work much before (they did work, but not in the same capacity as men) because it wasn’t known they were capable. Post-WW, we know. We can’t go back. The politicians will never let us. Infinite growth!
Dual-earner parents are mostly doing the safest thing they can, financially speaking, with government accommodating the liberal social concept of working moms to the hilt.
Don’t punish the K-types for providing for their children, a PSA.
But it is not growing the stagnant economy. It is not resulting in a bigger middle class. And it will only get worse as computer programs and robots continue to absorb full-time jobs, with an increased birth rate among the native born or more imported immigrant workers only making it worse, in that we will have more mouths to feed and fewer non-automated jobs.
What politicians should be doing is making it easier for more citizens to be stay-at-home parents, not taking two jobs out of an economy with insufficient, full-time jobs, and having the number of kids they can afford. There should be more emphasis on the quality of child rearing.
The truth is: More American parents are working in the wage-earning economy while doing a bad job at the unpaid job of raising their kids. The U.S. has 5% of the global population and 25% of its incarcerated humans. How about some emphasis on quality over quantity?
Stay-at-home fathers are awesome, if they can afford to. Part-time is ideal.
1950s fathers would be considered deadbeat for going down the club or “hanging out” at a bar. Forsaking all others, it’s a vow.
Encourage K-selection, because birth rate is no indicator of quality.
As mass immigration has been reliably demonstrating for the past century.
As another comment put it
Automation is going to mean that we want to have less consumers, eg: less useless mouths to feed, not more.
And in the economic depression we’re fast approaching, K-types will prosper. Over-breeders will not.
Update: I would like to point out humans shifted in the West to a more K model as soon as infant mortality dropped. This is a fact, it is so overt in nature it proves itself if you only look. It demonstrates itself. The rest of the world (e.g. India) has failed to make this shift to reflect medical changes and that is why the Malthusian trap will hurt them more and others like them (presently by things like a drop in standard of living from overcrowding), since they choose to ignore this selection pressure change. That isn’t our fault, they could copy us, they seem to think they can have their cake and eat it, have too many kids and just cash in on the prosperity from the finite resources as before, a billion mouths and counting. No. For the same reason I can’t buy a cup of coffee then wonder where my money went. If your culture doesn’t adapt, it is culled by the inevitable courses of events. You can’t keep outsourcing your problems, including by blame games.
The shift the Victorians called civilizing or civilization was well-known at the time, they wanted imperialism to expand these benefits.
Common sense is about survival so no, I don’t give a shit what IQ China claims to have, they are stupid by dictionary definition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stupid
They are pursuing a pre-Industrial sexual strategy, producing a billion economic drains like resources are infinite and ignore the mathematical impossibility of it turning out in their favour.
It is foolish to think that what has worked in the past will continue to work into the future, Politicians are, unfortunately always backward looking.
The 20th century is the exception, not the rule.
We know about the number obsession, it’s all about the ego of your virility, get over yourself. You’ll be changing those diapers, no nanny from Spain.
Smart people raise quality offspring, not an infestation of Geldofs.
We need less degenerates, of any hue.
That includes the neopagans who larp with fire and booze for debauchery because the idea of a patriarchal Sky Daddy threatens their phallic neurosis.
no-fault divorce is really just the quittershits, isn’t it?