It’s not much better in the rest of the West too. Turns out that building a society where money and career determines your social status and doing unpaid work like taking care of a family and raising children is not valued at all and even very expensive makes people choose to have less or no children.
People of course do want children, but those that do very often will choose one or two children, below replacement rate.
I lived and worked in Japan before returning to the US. It’s much worse in Japan. When you leave college, you’re basically employed for life by one company. Your place in society is determined by your work in that company. My company was one of the more progressive ones. Salaried personnel still had to clock in and out to prevent people from working too much overtime. People put in great effort to cheat the time clock and put in more overtime than would be acceptable. People would get to work an hour early and leave at 10pm. There was little effort to make work more efficient because the employees can just work more. The company had an employee discount deal with customer products and employees were pressured into buying their products. It’s much better in America where the common tactic is to switch jobs every few years. America has a long way to go when it comes to work, but saying it’s almost as bad as Japan is just not true.
Do they? I mean, even if first-world people aren’t as well-off as they could theoretically be, they’re still much better off than people in poor counties (or their own ancestors a hundred years ago). But those people in poor countries and those ancestors have/had a lot more children. Meanwhile people in Sweden have fewer children than people in the USA.
I think that many people in first-world countries do not in fact want children.
(And within a country, poor people have more children than rich people, so actually making more people poor would increase fertility.)
I am not sure if it’s really “I don’t want children” or more “I want a career (too)”. In Sweden 76 % of women are employed versus 57 % of women in USA. There are also more women with higher education in Sweden than in the USA.
You have to decide whether you want a career or a child. And when a good career is a viable and achievable option, you decide to have a career instead.
I wanted children, but I wanted to be independent and not poor when I am older, more. I know so many women who are poor and lonely because they did not focus on their jobs. While I am often sad to not have children, I’d never give up my independence and safety cushion just for that biological urge. I know of many women who think the same way.
Sure, and people in the south are popping them out like crazy even though they definitely can’t fucking afford them and need constant welfare support (that they’ll turn around and rail against politically) so it’s clear that things like education are also involved.
If people understood the scarcity of resources and their own earning potential they’d be fucking TERRIFIED of having children. Since they’re all dumbass hicks, they just fuck and don’t think about it. I’m sure Uncle Sam will show up with a other WIC check to help their poor decisions.
this pigbrained subhuman cruelty betrays you as an american citizen, thank god your shithole is in decline lol you should all rot and die there for the good of the world
There are Americans that routinely get sent to jail protesting/fighting to change America for the better every day. There are those of us in this very thread that agree with you calling the other commentor a pigbrained subhuman. The strict adherence to an absolutely shit narrative given to them by Reich Wing Media disgusts a large portion of our population.
It’s not entirely our fault that propaganda is so effective at keeping the absolute worst possible people in office and rotting the brains of our neighbors. The blame rests on the oligarchs and ultra wealthy assholes looking to divide and conquer, turning all of us against each other while they laugh all the way to their 3rd private island…
I agree, some of you are alright, it is the elite of america and the very notion of “america” as a nation itself which must ultimately face justice for this situation. I hope you have a good day.
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let’s be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Then again, the destabilization of the U.S. is well under way and our collapse is inevitable so I guess disputing it is a moot point.
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let’s be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Well technically the continuation of america is more destructive than its inevitable decline, since america has a very awful pattern of killing millions of people for the enrichment of its elite, via means such as invasions, installing genocidal puppet leaders, and corporate extraction. The worst part is that america often destroys countries just as their people are on the brink of greater liberation.
Notable examples include:
Installing the Taliban in Afghanistan to oppose a Socialist government then destroying it
Destroying Iraq for Oil
Helping quash the Protocommunist Taiping Rebellion in China
The current blockade of Cuba
The current blockade of North Korea
The murder of socialist president Salvador Allende in Chile and the installation of Pinochet, a neoliberal dictator
The Contras
Sending $3 billion a year to isntreal for the mass killing of Palestinians
The genocide of first nations peoples on the North American continent itself
Assassinating Fred Hampton and the political killings of the Black Panther Party
Meddling in the affairs of practically every single third world country on Earth
Fucking Monsanto and their land grabbing bullshit
It is also probably the most inhumane of the corrupt capitalist powers as revealed in the details of these genocidal ventures either by using its own weapons or by proxy.
As such, the death of america would enable the possibility of a flourishing of socialist nations without the threat of the worlds most powerful military brought to full bear against their people for daring to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
…Until Russia and China start doing literally the same things if not worse. Russia wouldn’t hesitate to nuke countries that wouldn’t play ball with it, for example.
China has a no first nuclear use policy, and the USSR/Russia used to but dropped it down to threats to territorial integrity.
The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it “reserves the right to use” nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.
Both NATO and a number of its member states have repeatedly rejected calls for adopting a NFU policy, as during the lifetime of the Soviet Union a pre-emptive nuclear strike was commonly argued as a key option to afford NATO a credible nuclear deterrent, compensating for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in Eurasia.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war […] The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today. […]
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america’s allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america’s enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won’t start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: “Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative.” It’s been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Be careful what you wish for and all that.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
Because the US is one of the best examples of your desire to see the children of poor and unemployed people starve?
“G-g-g-get a grip, I don’t like my shitty views being challenged and I can’t actually defend them”
Mate if you’re going to post dumb shit you probably should have a better response than that.
I’m assuming you’re not actually very dedicated to the idea of starving children, that’s just something you’ve heard and parroted because your own economic status is precarious
You’re poor because you’re one or two crippling events away from poverty, you’re dumb because you’re choosing to be.
I’ve been to the US and the level of poverty is horrific. Meanwhile China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The idea of “brainwashing” came from returned American POWs who learned that they were getting a shitty deal from American capitalists who profiteered while the soldiers were firebombing Asia, so no, I don’t think you’re brainwashed. I think you’re a classic middle-class westerner attacking the poor because you see yourself as part of the actual wealthy class even if you’re not. You might have to examine why you’re not on $7 an hour, or if you were born unlucky, $2 a day.
Finally we see the true emerge - eugenicist takes on how poor people shouldn’t have children, and then how their children (who didn’t actually consent to be born) should be punished for that
When you work 8 hours a day, have 1 hour lunch break, waste 2 hours commuting, to earn barely enough of what Adam Smith considers ideal (twice the cost of living), it’s hard to sustain a second person, much less a third that requires near constant monitoring for over 7 years.
From a pure economic perspective, a child is a total money sink for at least 18 years. In many places (mostly urban), it’s simply not viable to have one.
Short term, raise the minimum wage. Force walmart to fill the gaps between what they pay and what their workers need to live. Right now, it’s the government is subsidizing that gap.
But how high is the rate of unemployment in your country? In Germany it is really low, so it probably costs a working person only a few euros per month to support all children of unemployed persons. Not sure if it is worth it to not help these children as they are already severely disadvantaged. Not to mention it can be seen as an investment in these children.
Incentivizing people to have children is pretty important for a society to continue on. Most societies are based around there being more young people than old people. When you reverse that, you historically don’t have enough people working to keep the country chugging along.
You would be surprised how many people actually cost the state money instead of bringing in money via tax in some countries. The problem isn’t the few unemployed people who could potentially work, the problem is that wages between high earners and low earners are out of proportion.
It’s not much better in the rest of the West too. Turns out that building a society where money and career determines your social status and doing unpaid work like taking care of a family and raising children is not valued at all and even very expensive makes people choose to have less or no children.
People of course do want children, but those that do very often will choose one or two children, below replacement rate.
I lived and worked in Japan before returning to the US. It’s much worse in Japan. When you leave college, you’re basically employed for life by one company. Your place in society is determined by your work in that company. My company was one of the more progressive ones. Salaried personnel still had to clock in and out to prevent people from working too much overtime. People put in great effort to cheat the time clock and put in more overtime than would be acceptable. People would get to work an hour early and leave at 10pm. There was little effort to make work more efficient because the employees can just work more. The company had an employee discount deal with customer products and employees were pressured into buying their products. It’s much better in America where the common tactic is to switch jobs every few years. America has a long way to go when it comes to work, but saying it’s almost as bad as Japan is just not true.
Do they? I mean, even if first-world people aren’t as well-off as they could theoretically be, they’re still much better off than people in poor counties (or their own ancestors a hundred years ago). But those people in poor countries and those ancestors have/had a lot more children. Meanwhile people in Sweden have fewer children than people in the USA.
I think that many people in first-world countries do not in fact want children.
(And within a country, poor people have more children than rich people, so actually making more people poor would increase fertility.)
I am not sure if it’s really “I don’t want children” or more “I want a career (too)”. In Sweden 76 % of women are employed versus 57 % of women in USA. There are also more women with higher education in Sweden than in the USA.
You have to decide whether you want a career or a child. And when a good career is a viable and achievable option, you decide to have a career instead.
I wanted children, but I wanted to be independent and not poor when I am older, more. I know so many women who are poor and lonely because they did not focus on their jobs. While I am often sad to not have children, I’d never give up my independence and safety cushion just for that biological urge. I know of many women who think the same way.
Sure, and people in the south are popping them out like crazy even though they definitely can’t fucking afford them and need constant welfare support (that they’ll turn around and rail against politically) so it’s clear that things like education are also involved.
If people understood the scarcity of resources and their own earning potential they’d be fucking TERRIFIED of having children. Since they’re all dumbass hicks, they just fuck and don’t think about it. I’m sure Uncle Sam will show up with a other WIC check to help their poor decisions.
Not to mention most are psuedochristian so they won’t even think about an abortion (not that it’s legal in the south anymore…)
deleted by creator
Do children deserve to starve because their parents aren’t employed?
deleted by creator
this pigbrained subhuman cruelty betrays you as an american citizen, thank god your shithole is in decline lol you should all rot and die there for the good of the world
Can you maybe not see entire groups as the same?
There are Americans that routinely get sent to jail protesting/fighting to change America for the better every day. There are those of us in this very thread that agree with you calling the other commentor a pigbrained subhuman. The strict adherence to an absolutely shit narrative given to them by Reich Wing Media disgusts a large portion of our population.
It’s not entirely our fault that propaganda is so effective at keeping the absolute worst possible people in office and rotting the brains of our neighbors. The blame rests on the oligarchs and ultra wealthy assholes looking to divide and conquer, turning all of us against each other while they laugh all the way to their 3rd private island…
I agree, some of you are alright, it is the elite of america and the very notion of “america” as a nation itself which must ultimately face justice for this situation. I hope you have a good day.
😠
America falling apart would be horrifyingly destructive for the rest of the world, for it will allow other corrupt capitalist powers that are, let’s be honest, not as humane, take over the rest of the world.
Then again, the destabilization of the U.S. is well under way and our collapse is inevitable so I guess disputing it is a moot point.
Well technically the continuation of america is more destructive than its inevitable decline, since america has a very awful pattern of killing millions of people for the enrichment of its elite, via means such as invasions, installing genocidal puppet leaders, and corporate extraction. The worst part is that america often destroys countries just as their people are on the brink of greater liberation.
Notable examples include:
It is also probably the most inhumane of the corrupt capitalist powers as revealed in the details of these genocidal ventures either by using its own weapons or by proxy.
As such, the death of america would enable the possibility of a flourishing of socialist nations without the threat of the worlds most powerful military brought to full bear against their people for daring to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
…Until Russia and China start doing literally the same things if not worse. Russia wouldn’t hesitate to nuke countries that wouldn’t play ball with it, for example.
That opinion has no basis in reality, there’s one country that has used nuclear weapons aggressively and it’s isn’t russia
Americans and projection, name a better duo.
China has a no first nuclear use policy, and the USSR/Russia used to but dropped it down to threats to territorial integrity.
The US has also repeatedly planned for first strikes and escalated tensions: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america’s allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america’s enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won’t start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: “Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative.” It’s been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
It’s really hard to find someone worst? Look at what they did to Libya or are doing to Ukraine
Damn it’s too bad we won’t have the humane government that did the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and invented Eugenics
And the children of these people deserve to starve?
Children should starve because their parents don’t want to be abused for $7 an hour, top post mate
deleted by creator
Because the US is one of the best examples of your desire to see the children of poor and unemployed people starve?
“G-g-g-get a grip, I don’t like my shitty views being challenged and I can’t actually defend them”
Mate if you’re going to post dumb shit you probably should have a better response than that.
I’m assuming you’re not actually very dedicated to the idea of starving children, that’s just something you’ve heard and parroted because your own economic status is precarious
deleted by creator
You’re poor because you’re one or two crippling events away from poverty, you’re dumb because you’re choosing to be.
I’ve been to the US and the level of poverty is horrific. Meanwhile China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The idea of “brainwashing” came from returned American POWs who learned that they were getting a shitty deal from American capitalists who profiteered while the soldiers were firebombing Asia, so no, I don’t think you’re brainwashed. I think you’re a classic middle-class westerner attacking the poor because you see yourself as part of the actual wealthy class even if you’re not. You might have to examine why you’re not on $7 an hour, or if you were born unlucky, $2 a day.
Finally we see the true
emerge - eugenicist takes on how poor people shouldn’t have children, and then how their children (who didn’t actually consent to be born) should be punished for that
Cool viewpoints child starver
When you work 8 hours a day, have 1 hour lunch break, waste 2 hours commuting, to earn barely enough of what Adam Smith considers ideal (twice the cost of living), it’s hard to sustain a second person, much less a third that requires near constant monitoring for over 7 years.
From a pure economic perspective, a child is a total money sink for at least 18 years. In many places (mostly urban), it’s simply not viable to have one.
deleted by creator
Short term, raise the minimum wage. Force walmart to fill the gaps between what they pay and what their workers need to live. Right now, it’s the government is subsidizing that gap.
Gigantic mothefucking emphasis on short term.
Our
piece of shit, bought and paid forpoliticians LOVE to pull the “we’re fighting to raise the minimum wage from X to Y!” but only over such a long timeline that the value of Y equals what X was… God forbid the Job Creators™©® have to ever actually pay more.deleted by creator
Because rich assholes need to feel speshul, so they waste money on lobbying to ensure those below them never get anywhere
deleted by creator
My guess is that, destroying the US would go a long way for world peace.
Because the people who own the mega corps own the governments
Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.
The rich can pay lobbyists to pay politicians.
deleted by creator
Your wording alone demonstrates exactly what SloppyEngineer said about unpaid work not being valued at all.
Have you calculated how much money goes to these children of non-working people?
deleted by creator
But how high is the rate of unemployment in your country? In Germany it is really low, so it probably costs a working person only a few euros per month to support all children of unemployed persons. Not sure if it is worth it to not help these children as they are already severely disadvantaged. Not to mention it can be seen as an investment in these children.
deleted by creator
Incentivizing people to have children is pretty important for a society to continue on. Most societies are based around there being more young people than old people. When you reverse that, you historically don’t have enough people working to keep the country chugging along.
You would be surprised how many people actually cost the state money instead of bringing in money via tax in some countries. The problem isn’t the few unemployed people who could potentially work, the problem is that wages between high earners and low earners are out of proportion.