Message from @zero_consequences

Discord ID: 450786283166367744


2018-05-28 22:08:36 UTC  

Is a negative birth rate sustainable tho?

2018-05-28 22:10:16 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:12:28 UTC  

Things do tend to sort themselves out.

2018-05-28 22:12:46 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:12:52 UTC  

It's an odd problem

2018-05-28 22:13:32 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:14:02 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:14:11 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:14:50 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:14:58 UTC  

amirite

2018-05-28 22:15:40 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:18:14 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:19:11 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:19:13 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:20:01 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:20:08 UTC  

Larry Elder would be happy.

2018-05-28 22:20:34 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:20:42 UTC  

Two*

2018-05-28 22:21:49 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:22:11 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:23:45 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:24:38 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:24:43 UTC  

Something like that

2018-05-28 22:25:23 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:25:24 UTC  

lol

2018-05-28 22:25:25 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:25:51 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:26:33 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:26:50 UTC  

3 times per person.

2018-05-28 22:27:30 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:28:13 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:28:49 UTC  

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.

2018-05-28 22:29:15 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:31:28 UTC  

@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.

2018-05-28 22:32:16 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:32:24 UTC  

Deserves scrutiny but I like it.

2018-05-28 22:33:01 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:33:02 UTC  

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

2018-05-28 22:33:06 UTC  

Less is more

2018-05-28 22:33:49 UTC  

It would be easiest to start with biological parents first

2018-05-28 22:33:51 UTC  

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