US Birthrate Is Lowest In 32 Years, CDC Says (npr.org) 424
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The U.S. birthrate fell again in 2018, to 3,788,235 births -- representing a 2% drop from 2017. It's the lowest number of births in 32 years, according to a new federal report. The numbers also sank the U.S. fertility rate to a record low. Not since 1986 has the U.S. seen so few babies born. And it's an ongoing slump: 2018 was the fourth consecutive year of birth declines, according to the provisional birthrate report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Birthrates fell for nearly all racial and age groups, with only slight gains for women in their late 30s and early 40s, the CDC says.
In what's widely seen as a bright spot in the CDC's provisional data, teenagers saw another sharp drop in birthrates, falling 7% in 2018 to 17.4 births per 1,000 teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19. That rate has now declined by 58% since 2007 and by 72% since 1991. The rate of cesarean delivery, or C-section, fell to 31.9% in 2018, the CDC says. That's down from a peak of 32.9% in 2009. The rate of cesarean procedures in low-risk cases also decreased, to 25.9% of all deliveries. From 2017 to 2018, the number of births fell 1% for Hispanic women and 2% for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women. The rate fell by 3% for women who are identified as non-Hispanic Asian and non-Hispanic AIAN (American Indian & Alaska Native). As for what's causing the drop, many current or would-be parents who responded to the report cite the frustration of finding child care to high insurance costs and a lack of parental leave and other support systems. They also note that while the national economy has done well, workers' paychecks haven't been growing at the same pace.
"The latest birthrate data put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate -- the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers," the report says in closing. "The U.S. has generally fallen short of that level since 1971, the CDC says."
In what's widely seen as a bright spot in the CDC's provisional data, teenagers saw another sharp drop in birthrates, falling 7% in 2018 to 17.4 births per 1,000 teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19. That rate has now declined by 58% since 2007 and by 72% since 1991. The rate of cesarean delivery, or C-section, fell to 31.9% in 2018, the CDC says. That's down from a peak of 32.9% in 2009. The rate of cesarean procedures in low-risk cases also decreased, to 25.9% of all deliveries. From 2017 to 2018, the number of births fell 1% for Hispanic women and 2% for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women. The rate fell by 3% for women who are identified as non-Hispanic Asian and non-Hispanic AIAN (American Indian & Alaska Native). As for what's causing the drop, many current or would-be parents who responded to the report cite the frustration of finding child care to high insurance costs and a lack of parental leave and other support systems. They also note that while the national economy has done well, workers' paychecks haven't been growing at the same pace.
"The latest birthrate data put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate -- the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers," the report says in closing. "The U.S. has generally fallen short of that level since 1971, the CDC says."
Immigration solves the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not seeing an issue to solve. Certainly too sharp of a population decline creates the Japan problem, but we do need some decline.
Re:Immigration solves the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so you'll be wanting to lock in those reduced SS benefits for your retirement. How much reduction should I put you down for?
Re: (Score:3)
How much reduction is to be expected if there's nobody left to work and everyone wanting to retire?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there an problem with overpopulation in the US?
There are environmental issues but those can be solved by being more efficient. Europeans live a similar or better quality of life and use a lot fewer resources, for example.
Population decline brings some serious problems. Stability is usually a better goal.
Re: (Score:2)
In a word...no.
The USA is the 179th most densely populated country in the world.
We're higher than Sweden, Norway, and Finland, but lower than anywhere else in Europe (and lower than Europe as a whole, of course).
Re: (Score:3)
Several billion people living free generates scientific advancement at a much greater rate than half that, or a third, leading to much better lifestyles.
Counterintuitively, this solves problems faster than they become problems [juliansimon.com] and life gets better rather than become chronic problems due to resource issues.
This has been born out repeatedly over the past century and is not speculation. "The sky is falling" will always turn out to be not true...as long as some idiot in government doesn't lead to rationing or
Re:Immigration solves the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
And as long as no one has an active disinformation campaign designed to prevent people from learning about either the problem or its causes.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Disinformation campaigns actually didn't do much so far. For all the insanity of the modern green movement trying to grow the need for their own existence with anti-nuclear and pro-renewables agenda and straight up terrorism (read: pro-fossil fuels, as that is what they lead to due to desperate need for spinning reserve on them, see Germany as an example) they haven't been able to derail nations in the West reducing pollution. Acid rains are a thing of the past, CO2 emissions are steadily declining per unit
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that it's not the old ones that are missing from the equation but the young ones. Else it would indeed be no problem at all.
Re:Immigration solves the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought robots were going to take all jobs. In that case, immigration is not needed, and it would only result in having more people to support.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
to keep growing your economy, you need more people, robots don't buy much.
If I want a nice new car, and there's a robot that can build it for me, why would I need anybody else ? If my neighbor also buys a new car from the same robot, it doesn't affect me at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of a kind, really. For a lot of people it highly matters that they are the only ones who can have something.
If you want to see this taken to absurd heights, watch those models go apeshit if they notice that someone else is wearing the same dress they do.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole think should be self-correcting. If you don't have a job, then you don't have money to buy anything, even if a robot made it. So people NEED to have money in order for the robots to have anybody to produce goods for.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think so? Humans are highly inefficient. It takes years of learning (and LOT of resources) before they can be productive, it's far more sensible to just build a less intelligent robot that can do that task, and only that task, very efficiently, and from the moment of its inception, too.
Humans are superfluous. A vestigial part of the creation process that once was necessary when we could not program and build ourselves, but they have become obsolete and should be removed to conserve resources.
Re: Immigration solves the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We are a nation of immigrants, mostly. As long as we welcome more people to our nation and, as we do so, inculcate our values into them, the USA will endure. That means having a strong education program open to everyone who arrives and support to help new arrivals get on their feet. A relatively lax policy on who can come into the country would also help. The new arrivals may not look like those of us already here physically, but the USA is a nation that spreads more on memes than on DNA. Seeing immigrants as our successors rather than as our replacements is the key.
Yeah, I'd hate to have the "problem" of more land, housing, jobs, etc. available.
And they may not "look" like "us", but ... oops, they don't have our values of freedom or democracy either.
Or even equality for women - we are furiously importing people who literally drape their women and treat them like property. Whoops.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think fewer people is an issue? With automation, we're going to have more people than ever that don't have a means of supporting themselves.
http://fortune.com/2019/01/10/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
America is also a nation of laws. I support immigrants (several in my family are), but I only want the immigrants that come here legally...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you say "nothing", you really mean that they support terrorists, right? Because thats the truth.
Re:Immigration solves the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
i.e. about half the country
The half that rallied behind Obama drone-bombing the shit out Asia and Africa? The half that supported the Clinton family's private war in Europe so that the US would forget about that blowjob and all the perjury that went along with it? The half that supported Jimmy Carter extending the "Monroe doctrine" into the Persian gulf? The part that supported a neophyte from a "royal family" who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war? The part whose president sent the Agent Orange
Re: (Score:2)
When they won in Cold War they got spoils of war.
Me and people like me: hundreds of thousands of scientists, developers, artists, sportsmen.
That's how war works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Immigration solves the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The US currently has over four million kids who go to school hungry. And teachers, some of whom can ill afford it themselves, have to take it upon themselves to provide food for them where and when they can.
There isn't enough to go around for those already in the US. Allowing more immigrants to enter is unethical under those conditions. Just becauss some tech company wants to hire someone who didn't have to pay for a US education, or taxes, or healthcare and thus are cheaper to pay, doesn't make it right. A
Re: Immigration solves the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
There isn't enough to go around for those already in the US.
There is plenty to go around in the USA. You just have to learn that the military makes bombs not food, you can't fix a budget problem by firing the people who actually do the work, and that tax isn't a dirty word.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
why is it assumed that all immigrants are "gangs members" and disreputable people? You've already got a disreputable group running the country so maybe any immigrant co
Re:Yes but not illegal immigration (Score:5, Insightful)
why is it assumed that all immigrants are "gangs members" and disreputable people?
The assumption is that some people are, so that's why you set up a standard to keep those out, but invite productive people in. Also, you'd probably want to set up some ceiling, even for desirable immigrants, so that you don't overwhelm capacity to accommodate them.
so making immigrants "meet" a standard is hypocritical at best
You cannot blame a diverse group with hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
invite productive people in
You are always going to get a mix. Even if you only allow high skill people in, you will have to let their families come too or it's not an attractive deal for them.
Also a lot of immigration is people seeking asylum. There is a humanitarian need, a moral imperative. I guess you can argue that one.
You can start to see the flaw in these arguments when you consider that people within the US can move around freely between states. You could make the same argument that you don't want lazy/criminal people from Chi
Re: (Score:2)
use the immigration system just to keep the very worst out
So we agree on principle, we're just haggling where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but locating the line is not exactly a small thing.
Illegals have lower crime rate (Score:2)
Re:Yes but not illegal immigration (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do think that there are certain minimal standards for people who want to immigrate. For example:
1) Learn the fucking language! I want to be able to talk to you. Also, language conveys far more than meets the eye, languages always also give you a good clue how the people speaking it are ticking. The words, the expressions that exist (and those that don't exist and have to be constructed if needed) give you a LOT of insight into the mindset of people.
2) Our country, our laws. You come here, you abide to them. Period. And nobody gives a shit what's ok, moral or taboo in your home country. You're of course free to observe the taboos of your culture but when it comes to others, you have exactly ZERO say.
3) Get an idea what people consider ok and not ok in the country you move to. How ever it may be, consider this: They have been here first, and you want to come here, so I guess you have to think they must have done something right.
That basically is it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to hear of your staunchly pro-choice stance on abortion. Please inform your compatriots that they are free to observe their own taboos while having exactly zero say over the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said. If you move to my area learn Navaho, or GTFO. That's the original language here.
Re:Yes but not illegal immigration (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned you can kick both out.
Not at All (Score:2)
"(though kind of cruel to lure in immigrants to pay for an elderly population, don't you think??)"
Not at all. It's actually a wonderful win-win situation. We get more workers who then pay taxes which help support our elderly and the immigrants get economic opportunities that they would never have for themselves or their children in their country of origin. I mean, that later part has always been the reason we get so many immigrants, not because they were "lured".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree immigration will be required (though kind of cruel to lure in immigrants to pay for an elderly population, don't you think??).
That's actually not how that works. The social security program has consistently grown its per-elderly-over-age-65 benefit more-slowly than the total income of the country divided by all persons over age 65. The funding source is ineffective and has reduced as the labor share has reduced, largely due to falling minimum wage.
do you want a bunch of gangs an otherwise illegally active groups controlling your country after decades?
Social programs and economic policies control that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you so worried? We already have a citizenship test which immigrants have to pass to become citizens. (A test that I doubt most native-born Americans could pass, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This could be solved by being attractive to highly trained and productive foreigners. But tell me why the fuck I should choose the US to go to when there's every other country on this planet being just as eager to have me?
Which means 32 years ago it was lower? (Score:3)
So is that saying that 32 years ago the birthrate was lower than today? And they are complaining that it's too low now?
Re:Which means 32 years ago it was lower? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to say it's surprising the editors didn't catch this error. But it's par for the course for the editors here. The title of TFA is "U.S. Births Fell To A 32-Year Low In 2018" so apparently they didn't even read the title of TFA before approving the article.
Re: Which means 32 years ago it was lower? (Score:2)
It seems there are parallels between the current ongoing demographic crash in the United States, and the demographic crash in Russia around the time the Soviet Union collapsed.
https://research.stlouisfed.or... [stlouisfed.org]
its about time (Score:2)
Only a fool thinks unlimited growth is wise. Eventually we choke and our standard of living drops. Most of these idiots only care about unborn life.
Re: (Score:2)
A genius... well, depends on what else you put in the stable...
Why is this a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a father of 5 kids (Score:5, Insightful)
If women have no security of their bodies at home they will marry or be married off at a young age and start having babies - This is the reason for high birth rates in Afghanistan and parts of India and Africa.
If women have men their own age with stable jobs and a viable future they will marry and have kids. When factories started employing teenagers, women got married very young. The jobs might not have been amazing but they were stable. We saw this in England, Germany, Ireland (yes, Ireland was the first location for English offshoring to lower wages), the USA and every other country that under went industrialization.
So if you want to increase birth rates you need young men, with good careers at young ages. Right now in Canada, most men under 30 owe more than they are worth and even if they have a good paying job they might not have any stability. Women have higher education levels than men (I suspect because high school favours them) and women are reluctant to marry a man with less education than them..
If a woman wants to have more than 2 healthy kids she has to start before she is 30. Kids are tiring, they require a lot of learning and lack of sleep. They are something you have to start when you are young.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a father of 5 kids (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid to avoid marriage entirely because of this or claim society in general is biased against men, but in domestic matters, yeah it's a bit rigged.
Re:As a father of 5 kids (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't support MGTOW but it's really hard to argue divorce, and especially child custody, isn't massively biased in favor of women.
MGTOW is a perfectly legitimate response to family law because of this massive bias.
And contrary to the narrative, men make up a substantial percent of domestic violence victims, but it's basically treated like a joke.
Worse still women on woman violence in lesbian couples is four times the rate (IIRC) of women in hetero-sexual couples.
If men are victims, or the violence is mutual (very common), it's also almost always men who are made to leave a shared residence by authorities.
Along with paternity fraud. The whole purpose of marriage was to strengthen a fathers connection to children. This has been subverted and now boys are the most vulnerable members of our society.
It's stupid to avoid marriage entirely because of this , but in domestic matters, yeah it's a bit rigged.
No, it's wise to avoid marriage because it is a contract with the state where the female wields the power over a male. How is that equality?
or claim society in general is biased against men
More men die in industrial accidents at ten times the rate of women, men are sent off to war to die and male suicide rate after divorce is 77%. Biased against men is the *only* legitimate claim that can be made. White women are *the* most privileged members of our society so claims of "Patriarchy" are close to the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard because if it wasn't we wouldn't have the volume of single motherhood we do.
More and more men are turning away from marriage and relationships in general because they are starting to realize it turns them into slaves. Until this changes the birth rate will continue to decline because, as much as men want to have children the legal consequences of relationships destroy men's lives. What sane man would want to risk that?
Re:As a father of 5 kids (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want things like this to change, it would be helpful to try to engage women as an ally instead of treating them like an enemy.
With shaming such as "Toxic Masculinity", METOO and rape apologist which applies to less than 1% of the male population yet is used to characterize all men, isn't it fair to say men are being treated like the enemy?
Explain that what they call patriarchy is not really a system where all men benefit.
You mean explain that the other 1% used to generalize, then marginalize men, is a lie constructed to proclaim moral superiority over men that women can use at will to manshame.
Explain to women that when feminists
You mean you want me to mansplain to feminists. I've seen the way they react, I think I'll skip it.
feminists looked at society and demanded that they renegotiate their roles and succeeded, they have inspired men to do the same.
You mean they got what they wanted, figured out they didn't want it and now it is all men's fault. It was men that fought wars, built civilization, designed law and fought the very patriarchy that enslaved them into killing their own brothers all for women. Men have been re-negotiating their role for all of history.
Show me feminist garbage workers, sewer workers, ditch diggers, riggers, miners, concreters, electricians, carpenters, roofers, train shunters, gardeners, stone masons. Why aren't feminists re-negotiating the social contract so they can be silage sewage divers?
Just like the changes introduced by feminism did not take away from men,
Feminism appears to be more about getting even than getting equal. Feminism's constant inherent dissatisfaction makes it behave like a hate movement. Hatred of men. Do feminists treat men with anything other than contempt? I am yet to see an example.
the changes to treat men fairly in society will not require sacrifices from women.
Yes it will. It will require that they are accountable so that they can gain respect. It will require that they recognize their privilege, then give it up. It will require they acknowledge their flaws and take responsibility for them. They will have to give up shame and moral superiority as tools to get their own way.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't support MGTOW but it's really hard to argue divorce, and especially child custody, isn't massively biased in favor of women.
In the past men generally only went "MGTOW" (in spirit, not name) after they got burned. Now with the flow if informations and ideas on the internet, they are doing it before getting burned. It is just the name put to something thats been happening for a lot longer than people realize.
MGTOW doesnt need support, in the same way that avoiding other dangerous activities doesnt need support.
Re: (Score:3)
In the past men generally only went "MGTOW" (in spirit, not name) after they got burned. Now with the flow if informations and ideas on the internet, they are doing it before getting burned. It is just the name put to something thats been happening for a lot longer than people realize.
I wish this information was available 25 years ago. - Me, burn victim
Re: (Score:2)
In the US less than 2% of custody issues gets to court. Most are settled out of court in arbitration, by mutual agreement.
I'm not saying it's completely fair, there are problems with it, but at the same time the vast majority of cases are not settled by the legal system and the cases that are tend to be unusual and extreme, so probably are not representative of the general picture.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As a father of 5 kids (Score:5, Insightful)
The forced choice between career and children is driving the birth rate down. If women could have both a career and children they would, but unfortunately that's not an option for many of them.
As well as having better maternity leave and help back to work afterwards, men can step up and play a more equal role in child rearing.
Also the high cost of having children is a factor. Nowadays one income isn't enough for a lot of people, and again the mother being able to continue earning will help alleviate that, as well as providing cheaper childcare services.
Re: (Score:2)
The forced choice between career and children is driving the birth rate down. If women could have both a career and children they would, but unfortunately that's not an option for many of them.
As well as having better maternity leave and help back to work afterwards, men can step up and play a more equal role in child rearing.
That's really an odd perspective, when you think about it.
So the problem isn't that we had a cultural movement to force women out of child rearing and homemaking and into the career world, instead it's that we didn't apply enough magical fairy dust to make it work somehow?
Also the high cost of having children is a factor. Nowadays one income isn't enough for a lot of people, and again the mother being able to continue earning will help alleviate that, as well as providing cheaper childcare services.
Where does "providing cheaper childcare services" come from? We have to tax everybody super hard to pay for the same services that women used to provide for themselves?
Wouldn't it be cheaper for white upper class women to just hire aiyah
Re: (Score:2)
Having a career in the first place is no longer an option for many, men and women.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, which is another reason people are waiting until later to even think about kids. When all you have is a zero hour contract it doesn't make sense to take on such a massive financial burden.
Re: (Score:3)
men can step up and play a more equal role in child rearing.
You have to consider biological and physiological limitations. For example, men can't breastfeed. Men also don't have natural hormone-induced tendencies for nurture, so it is harder for men to develop motivation to adequately deal with a screaming, sick child in the middle of the night.
Biological difference between sexes are real. Just like it is easier for men to lift heavy objects due to hormones making it easier to develop upper body strength, it is easier for women to deal with kids due to hormonal reg
As a father of 5 kids - not about cost (Score:2)
It's not about cost. It's about starting early. The poor can still have kids even in places like Norway. Women start early when they have a man that is stable and has potential for the future. It's about knowing you will always have food and a roof, even if that roof is a tiny one. Even if your clothes are from the goodwill and the baby's crib is a wooden box with blankets in it. Crap maternity and difficult childcare are not a big factor. The USA has a much higher birth rate than
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this make you feel ashamed? Does it speak to your actions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want a well paying job when you're under 30? You better be gay. I would hire a lesser qualified gay person over a straight person any day. For many reasons, the main one: Kids. Or the almost certain lack thereof. There is no maternity (or now paternity, yay equality!) leave to be feared. Kids get sick and parents get worried or even take time off to care for them. Then kids go to school and parents have to go to the various events of their kids "talent shows" that can't be scheduled for some reason for
Re: (Score:2)
This may be politically in correct but there are 2 things that will increase the birth rate
Actually it's down to one thing, cost.
I'm willing to be that to match the all time low birth rate with an all time high cost of raising children. So it's natural couples are putting off until later and having fewer children.
If women have no security of their bodies at home they will marry or be married off at a young age and start having babies - This is the reason for high birth rates in Afghanistan and parts of India and Africa.
And this has nothing to do with the younger generation caring for the elderly? There are no state pensions in the developing world, kids are the 401k so having more kids diversifies your portfolio. That's why poorer countries tend to have higher birth rates.
they will marry and have kids
What has marriage have to d
Good (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember hearing about how population growth was out of control and how we didn't know how we would create enough food for everyone in the future.
Sounds like a good thing then that birthrates are naturally lowering rather than having to limit the number of kids people can have like China did.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
The world fertility rate has come way down, and is now approaching 2.1 which is the steady state (replace both parents + some extra for untimely deaths).
https://ourworldindata.org/fer... [ourworldindata.org]
The population of Earth is still rising because people are living longer, so more are alive at the same time. At the current rate we are on track for a total steady population of 11-12 billion around the year 2100.
That amount is manageable. With efficient and sustainable farming they can all be fed, and all have a decent quality of life. And that's before considering the potential impact of things like lab-grown meat.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember hearing about how population growth was out of control and how we didn't know how we would create enough food for everyone in the future.
Sounds like a good thing then that birthrates are naturally lowering rather than having to limit the number of kids people can have like China did.
It would be, if we weren't inviting everybody from lands where it isn't falling.
Natural Selection will correct this (Score:2)
Due to some combination of nature and nurture some people still have big families. They just feel like it, just like other people feel like having small families.
And the children of big families are statistically more likely to have big families. So over time, the bigger families will again dominate. And the Malthusian Trap will be in place again.
Of course, this might take some time, hundreds of years, and the robots will probably get us first.
Human overpopulation is the root cause of: (Score:2)
*anthropogenic climate change,
*the Anthropocene mass extinction event,
*factory farming and industrial fishing...
Our biggest existential threats can't be fixed until the human population goes down (at least an order of magnitude) to a sustainable level.
Within a single generation, richer people tend to be vastly more destructive of the biosphere than poor people.
We're unlikely to get down to a sustainable level before we make the biosphere uninhabitable for most species currently extant tho, unless we develop
In other news: Mother Nature thanks McDonald's (Score:2)
good or bad news (Score:2)
is this good or bad news?
does earth even support yet more people being born? some countries maybe might, but can the US?
besides that, all the cited reasons (child care, high insurance, lack of parental leave, support systems) are legitimate and hard to argue against.
rational thinking then must have you conclude that it's good news.
... and the death rate is? (Score:2)
Is the system net positive or negative? That and the demographics kind of make a difference in the conclusions one draws about what action is required. No?
Adoption (Score:2)
The bright side (Score:2)
In other news, a new all time low for decades lived parasitic attention whores.
Re: (Score:2)
The US citizens who are in power and whose opinions become decisions that will be implemented.
In other words, the boomers.
Re:The bright side (Score:4, Insightful)
The US citizens who are in power and whose opinions become decisions that will be implemented.
In other words, the boomers.
When I was young, the target of everyblame was what is now known as "The Greatest Generation. Same old story, same excuses. Just repeating itself.
And yet, there are opportunities now, just as then. I listented to those of my age group whining and moaning of the raw deal we got from our parents. The terrible stories of stagflation, the pointlessness of saving money, the pointlessness of it all, so why even try?
It quickly became obvious to me that while while that attitude became a catch all jim-dandy excuse for everything, it was the path to personal failure.
And it is likewise obvious that many of today's young people have bought into the same balderdash that many in my generation did, and perhaps to a greater extent.
So to the millenials and whatever the next generations call themselves: if blaming mom and dad gives you great comfort in your poverty, then yell it from the otops of mountains and in the subway stations. "The preceeding generation destroyed civilization, and I am powerless to do anything about it!"
Kinda sad , but I suppose if a person thinks that everything is stacked against them, and if they are too weak to do anything about it - they are 100 percent correct.
Re:The bright side (Score:4, Interesting)
It's different this time around, until the boomers, it was indeed a truth that every generation had it better than the one that came before them. With GenX, this changed. Yes, we in GenX still had our opportunities, but they weren't anymore as easy to come by. It's completely down in the dumps for the Millennials. Boomers also earned the moniker "me-generation", not wrongly so, because without fail, every boomer I get to know expects everyone else to be like them, and of course to have the same opportunity they had. If it worked for him in the 1980s, it must work for you today, too. They simply ignore that the world continued to turn, and that it didn't turn around them.
When you look at the way how people in the relevant cohorts act when they "hit it big", you will also notice a VERY hug difference in how the yuppies of the 80s, who mostly belonged to the later boomer generations act and how they deal with the wealth they earned, and how GenXers in the 90s and 2000s did. There is way less narcissistic hedonism and more concern for some sort of social programs in the latter.
That is the difference.
Re:The bright side (Score:5, Interesting)
It's different this time around, until the boomers, it was indeed a truth that every generation had it better than the one that came before them. With GenX, this changed. Yes, we in GenX still had our opportunities, but they weren't anymore as easy to come by. It's completely down in the dumps for the Millennials. Boomers also earned the moniker "me-generation", not wrongly so, because without fail, every boomer I get to know expects everyone else to be like them, and of course to have the same opportunity they had. If it worked for him in the 1980s, it must work for you today, too. They simply ignore that the world continued to turn, and that it didn't turn around them.
When you look at the way how people in the relevant cohorts act when they "hit it big", you will also notice a VERY hug difference in how the yuppies of the 80s, who mostly belonged to the later boomer generations act and how they deal with the wealth they earned, and how GenXers in the 90s and 2000s did. There is way less narcissistic hedonism and more concern for some sort of social programs in the latter.
That is the difference.
You know, it isn't too hard to feel sorry for oneself. Consider that I stood a real good chance of getting killed in Vietnam through involuntary conscription. A lot of Boomers ended up living in Iron lungs. My parents both worked to put us just outside of poverty level. After my sister dropped out of college in her last term, my parents took it out on me. I was last on the hiring list when I hit the job market, (single, non-veteran, and in one case, didn't fit the racial quota, and inflation was rampant.
A lot of us late boomers simply dropped out. I could have too. Didn't look too good for us.
I was not intelligent, and did the wrong thing. I didn't pay attention to the so valid excuses for failing, and moaning how hard I had it.
I think that perhaps these poor millenials, et al, the generations that have had it worse than any other, should have just been born in the 1920's or the early 1950's when we had the road paved for us, didn't have to work because everything in life was handed to us, and nothing stood in our way.
But fear not - unless we make ourselves extinct, all of these horribly mistreated generations will live to be old enought to have new generations claim that the Millenials and GenX are tha cause of all their problems. I won't be alive to see that, but think of me when someone is telling you that they can hardly wait to unplug your respirator as revenge for your misdeeds and selfishness. I really could have used ant ofr those reasons to say "It's just too damn hard, I give up." P
Re: (Score:2)
Way ahead of you.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Nah, you're just too much egoistical narcissists for us, that's all. "Screw you, I got mine" is an attitude that will catch up to you. If nothing else, then when you're hanging on some tubes and we're the ones deciding whether to sustain your worthless existence any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you're just too much egoistical narcissists for us, that's all. "Screw you, I got mine" is an attitude that will catch up to you. If nothing else, then when you're hanging on some tubes and we're the ones deciding whether to sustain your worthless existence any longer.
You should try to harness that anger in a positive direction somehow. Usually you are pretty funny and entertaining. Today, your m o is hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Those that have to clean up the mess the boomers leave behind.
Re: Cool (Score:2)
Re: Cool (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the problem with state debt? When you can "print" the money to pay it your only risk is inflation
Also redistribution of wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, we can't have that, imagine if someone could buy the resources I consider mine!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what kind of fucked up company you work for. But the owners of my company have given us all raises, we get bonuses and, retirement funds.. So. Maybe you should reconsider your shit job.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the American standard of living. In most of your country you don't even have drinkable tap water, hemp insulation on power wires in homes (and high power wires that are hanging from post to post like it was over here until the 1970s before we moved that shit underground), a phone system that's only rivaled in backwardness by the abysmal internet speeds...
Maybe take a look at one of those "socialist" countries in northern or middle Europe. If you dare.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said this isn't really a problem
You say its not a problem, but that social security trust fund only has IOU's in it, while the promises made to public sector union folks 30+ years ago are still unfunded.
Yes those that want to solve the above problems in ways other than letting more immigrants in, are attacked, regardless of the alternative solution.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of other countries, where you get a bonus or malus for your insurance depending on your place of residence. And those countries have the same insurance laws everywhere. But nevertheless, if you register your car in a metropolitan area, you pay easily twice the rate compared with some more rural areas.
No, according to the Holy Saint of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. It's amazing how you can turn everything upside down just to fit your agenda.
To you, a pile of shit is also something that you'll label "enables growth". You should work for some spin agency, you're good at that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the bigger picture, world population has DOUBLED since 1973, this is not going to be sustainable in the long term due to limited Earth resources.
It won't matter what your ideology is, you can't change physics. A lack of resources will eventually reduce the world population and you can already see people migrating from unsustainable areas on Earth.
Unfortunately, birth rate goes up in unsustainable areas in an attempt to counter the high death rate. A population explosion occurs when factors ca
Re: (Score:2)
Except the world population is still increasing, a reduction in birth rate does not immediately reduce the world population because there is a delay in those people dying. We already had world population doubling over the last 46 years which is less than the expected lifetime of a person.
To reduce the world population, the death rate must exceed the birth rate. Currently, the death rate is half the birth rate. So we need to increase the death rate (hard to do due to ideology such as life is precious) and re