Population growth ideals, wealth distribution

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

European countries with native populations that have receding growth rates are countries I also believe give a lot of foreign aid. In other words, western civilization do not believe it responsible to have more than 1-2 children by wilful choice when they know they are taking care of a lot of countires (or at least attempting to) where there is a:

Culture for economic gain through children, children secure the elders and replenish the labour way beyond the numbers of 1-2 children.

Myst describes gaining children in european countries as a economically negative impact. First I wanna note that how can you identify one generation that is unproductive when all generations are based on each other's labour and yet their own specific circumstances.

The reason european children are not economically beneficial is no specific trait to them as children, its because western civilization has decided that it is natural and required rights for children to be able to gain nourishment, toys, freedom to realize themselves, education and healthcare.

I challenge anyone who would label european children as unproductive or a economic hazard to get around the average living age that humans with severe disabilities have in the western world compared to whatever definition you would label the rest under. There's a cost associated with the ethical conviction that no individual is without value or unwanted as a surviving member of society.

The biggest problems we have in the world today is the distribution of wealth (what politics is often described as the very definition of) and the confrontation between our state of excess and mass production versus our life style's impact on the environment.

The conclusion for me is that the "old west" have to sacrifice some of their economic power to transfer the conviction of social welfare, the value of all individuals and what it means to be a self-realized individual. We have to start living shittier or perhaps more effective and with less luxuries in a transitional period until the distribution of wealth is much more even, regardless of whether or not a individual DESERVES their massive wealth if we are not going to turn into a complete class and corporation world society where people are numbers but numbers are not people to other people.

[Groundfire]

So, for the people that need to get our brains warmed up to contemplate the European social welfare issue.. binge, hang-over, sober?

So, you're an advocate of austerity?

#inb4Unknown

[Hicks58]

He's just continuing his launcher discussion with Myst tbh.

[Groundfire]

Oh, so its a slug-fest

Smokey vs. Mysty

I should lock this and then give only those 2 permissions to post and we can all place bets and it will be fun and stuff

[Smokaz]

I just found the definition of children as a expense in europe by Myst and underpopulation being a bigger problem than overpopulation worth opening a thread about. I'm sure there's some PR stuff for achievers like ground to get ready for the patch this weekend lulz while we battle it out

So, for the people that need to get our brains warmed up to contemplate the European social welfare issue.. binge, hang-over, sober?

while welfare gets more complicated with bigger numbers, perhaps there is something to learn from welfare policies that are less composed of commercial gain than the other way around

that saidi'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying that the european welfare issue is centered around binging, hangovers and being sober?

i'm definitely not a fan of austerity directed towards welfare and healthcare, modesty needs to be introduced into the wealthy relative definition middle class by them spending less on clothes, vacation, electronic gadgets (a new cellphone generation born every week it seems) and i believe there needs to be found a justification other than fitness if we are to hold on to the core tenants of western social philosophy where equality, value of any individual and lawful rights are important but this cannot continue to live side by side with extreme differences in personal wealth

[Groundfire]

I just found the definition of children as a expense in europe by Myst and underpopulation being a bigger problem than overpopulation worth opening a thread about. I'm sure there's some PR stuff for achievers like ground to get ready for the patch this weekend lulz while we battle it out

Oh, you must not have contributor corner access..

that saidi'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying that the european welfare issue is centered around binging, hangovers and being sober?

On the first read through, it sounded as if you stated that europeans are living beyond their means with no youth to replenish the work force essentially forcing everyone to take a haircut.

I was trying to construct an analogy, but i've also been up for 18 hours and clearly my brain could not come up with anything better.

[Smokaz]

Nah it got removed, do you have any more derails to offer as i'm not feeling all that shamed yet by your referrals to your jurisdiction and your special insight

[Groundfire]

Naw, donate some of your failing euros and you'll get to see it like everybody else.

[Smokaz]

I give mine anonymously, let's call it a draw and you clean up our swordplay or move it to its own thread so I can discuss economics with a economics student and learn something

[aeroblade56]

Gypsys nuff said or Herrpants useless to the max.

[Groundfire]

I concede the floor to you sir

[Masacree]

Go get'em Smokey!

[Sachaztan]

If people spent less money and instead saved it/shopped second hand the economy would take a massive hit. Capitalism comes with a few drawbacks and this is one of them. In fact efficiency is the antithesis of capitalism.

If every product was made to last a lifetime it would be incredibly efficient both resource and work-vice. But then all the companies selling these products would go broke. Same story with buying used goods, sure it's super efficient to recycle and reuse everything but in a economical sense it's a disaster. Combine the two and the whole system falls apart.

If you want efficiency when it comes to the usage of resources and work hours then you better invent a new economical system because in the one that we have it isn't possible.

[Poppi]

what about AB doc?

[PonySlaystation]

underpopulation = everyone gets a higher standard of living.

overpopulation = over-consumption, over-exploitation of resources, enviromental destruction, poverty, hunger, malnurishment etc.

[TheVolskinator]

I give mine anonymously, let's call it a draw and you clean up our swordplay or move it to its own thread so I can discuss economics with a economics student and learn something

Amazes me that Smokaz is actually smart.

Being a lowly senior high student, I don't have much input to offer other then "the world is collectively overpopulated, and a nice war or worldwide natural disaster to knock down the numbers a peg would probably be welcomed in a generation or two."

[Sachaztan]

Amazes me that Smokaz is actually smart.

Being a lowly senior high student, I don't have much input to offer other then "the world is collectively overpopulated, and a nice war or worldwide natural disaster to knock down the numbers a peg would probably be welcomed in a generation or two."

The damage to both society and nature is far greater from war than overpopulation...

[Mysthalin]

Smokaz - you misunderstood what I meant, though I guess that's forgiveable as I wasn't very clear in speech after not sleeping for a rough 40 hours.

When I said that children are an economic burden what I meant was that they are an economically expensive "commodity" to have for any one FAMILY (the state and nation don't have to come into the model until later).
A child not only costs you money to give them food and shelter (direct cost). A child can also cost you money indirectly in the sense you will have to take maternal/paternal leave from work in the early years of the child's life. Not only will you get paid less for your time off (in quite a few countries. I know some have full-pay maternal leave) - but during your time off you're forgoing any chances to be promoted or getting a raise (the indirect long run income effect).

Now that it's established kids cost money both in the short run and the long run - both directly and indirectly, we need to acknowledge the fact kids do not bring economic benefit (in the short and medium run) to the family. We have child labour laws, which mean kids can not be sent by their parents to work in the local coal mine from the age of 12. Although teenage jobs do happen from around 15-16, the pay received is usually so little it's not even worth considering to be a significant impact on the family's income.

After the kid finishes school or university and ends up with a job - the kid will usually be spending his time working to support himself, or his own family. Money trickling back down to the parents is usually just not going to happen in any European country, unless the parents get into a very tough financial situation. The parents are entitled to a pension in most European countries - so having kids to "care for the parents at their old age" isn't really all that worth it considering the previously incurred costs of having the kid in the first place.

So it all boils down to a fairly basic decision of how many kids you would actually LIKE that you could actually AFFORD - as opposed to the old European, or say - modern Indian of MOAR KIDS = MOAR MONEY. Of course, child benefits in quite a few countries kind of create a similar illusion - but just the cost of food and school supplies for the kid usually swallows up the increases in child benefits.

So all in all - people usually like to have 1 or 2 kids - just to perpetuate their own genes and give love to something small (until that something turns into a teenager and makes the home a living hell). They have no real incentives to get any more kids - their genes have been perpetuated - while the disincentive of cost remains as valid as before. It's nothing to do with a feeling of "collective responsibility" over the countries with high birth rates (and, seriously - we don't give THAT much money as aid).

Think about how life works in Africa and India - compare it to the (poor) society found in 18th-19th century Europe and you'll get a good idea why they have loads of kids. It just makes sense to have them (for a family) from a purely economic perspective. There's nothing stopping you from employing the kid at age 6 on the fields, while food itself is relatively cheap. Heck, since you know you're gonna lose a few kids as they're growing up - you'll want to bulk up just so you're not left on your own when 2 or 3 die in accidents.

As for the state - the state itself will generally benefit from having more people live in it - given that the society is educated to at least a certain level. The main benefit from having many people within a country is ideas being put into fruition - inventions, good investments, etc. And those ideas are more and closer together when there's more people to think of them. Sure, some ideas will be stupid - and some people will just not really make much progress by themselves - but that's fine, as long as they do the basic jobs that still need doing, or as long as not too many people end up doing absolutely nothing. Society can afford a few leeches.

Returning this to children - although having kids is good for the state - it should still be mentioned this needs to be somewhat controlled. If the birthrate increases too much - you'd have just way too many kids at school - leading to lower teaching standards overall if the schools can't cope - which would reduce the human capital attained from each additional child. And that would sort of defeat the purpose of having more kids in the first place.

Hope this clears things up? I'll answer your silly ideas on equality later on.

[GORKHALI]

i do know that having kids in europe espically in Nederland where i am living is very hard to feed more then 2 children if u r a middle class family. kinder gardern r so expensive now that dutch family r looking kinder garden in belgium coz they r cheaper there, or one of the family member stop working to look after the kid and you will automatically lose the extra income. the child waelfare that you get in nederland is not even enough to buy child diaper for 3 month.. i admit child in europe is getting expensive and difficult day by day. nederland will have more older people in the future then younger generation as most couple stop making more then 1 or 2 children, and Nederland might have to yet again in the future have to bring migrant workers to do the job.

[I2ay]

War damages society? Since when? We get all these great books from authors who are disenchanted with humanity after wars.