Is a negative birth rate sustainable tho?

Kinda. As the population goes down demand for labor goes up & people can afford to have children again

Things do tend to sort themselves out.

But they can't, because that takes at least one more person out of the labor force for at least a year or 2, preferably 10-15 at least. And it will take probably at least 14 years for new labor to enter the work force. So while families can afford to have children, companies can't so they will have to shrink.

It's an odd problem

Well, it's a race condition really, who can win. Jobs still around needing to be filled or new work force

But I guess life is a bit of a loop of growth followed by death

Not necessarily. Thats where jobs can be outsourced. It does create a problem in and of itself.. the jobs here become more qualified, making barriers to entry especially for the mothers who left to have children in the first place.

Life was simple when women where not allowed to work eh?

amirite

JP proven right again, we are still working out the unintended consequences of women being allowed to work

I mean, technically the state should have a stake in seeing positive or neutral birth rates. Which would consitiute taking over as the company to give a mother supplemental income. But that fucks with the market a bit. It would start to free up space for labor competition, but also basically allow companies to start at half the salary they should be offering

Hmmm, I wonder what a 100% tax break to married mother's would do?

If we want to uphold the convention of marriage and reproduction, yes. That tired old horse we keep beating. The progressives wanna move past that. Both ideas have merit but whenever you want to change something for the better, its the road paved with good intentions that leads to hell.

tax break to married mothers? Fix the black issue, no doubt.

Larry Elder would be happy.

Would go a way to helping the problem of needing to incomes to support a family.

Two*

The problem with marriage was two fold. 1) it was tied to religious norms, which it shouldn't have been. At least the governmental side of things, 2) it carried too much not related to reproduction.

I'm sure that would create its own discriminatory EOC for males issue and they'd end up making more money *again*

Religion should have been separate from state, yes, but its sorta tied to the culture that moved wester from Europe. Can't really break those norms when they're part of the bedrock.

A 100% tax break contract for 2 people who have conceived a child for 18 years if they remain together. For those 18 years, financially, you are one unit. Only 1 18 year contract allowed for any one person. May be extended for subsequent children with the same person for up to 3 times.

Something like that

Sounds like a lot of rules, man. What're ya some kind of socialist?

lol

@zero_consequences the government side of it didn't need to be called or remain being called marriage.

Lmao, well that's if we want something the state does. And that is a big if.

But basically it's saying you can only get this tax break for 1 couple so long as they remain together, and you can only get it up to 3 times.

3 times per person.

I'm not religious but I know it creates a structure for life that progressivism lacks so I tend to side with conservatives on most issues like this, even though they believe in a man in the sky and that they'll live up in that sky with him.

Basically, the only important part of the idea of marriage is having two parents until you are at least in your late teens

Would marriage counseling be part of this process, and is it sponsored or funded by the gov? My folks tried that a lot and they had very little incentive to stay together other than us kids.

I don't care if you wanna believe in God. I myself do believe in a higher power. I just find it ridiculous that anyone thinks some guy 2000 years ago got it all right

@zero_consequences it's a tax break. It's basically a gift for staying together. Want to split up? Fine, you lose the break. Want to have a second kid with someone new while in that 18 contract? Fine, he doesn't get a tax break, and if you split from the other guy, neither do you.

positive reinforcement. You do what we need you to do, enjoy the gift. Dont want to? Fine. Be like every other average Joe.

Deserves scrutiny but I like it.

This could be extended to adoption and maybe even same sex couples

Tax breaks are always a better route than government programs anyway.

Less is more

It would be easiest to start with biological parents first

Adoption is pretty hard to do from what I hear so I doubt there'd be much manipulation there.