US Fertility Rate Falls To Lowest In a Century (cnn.com) 281
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The fertility rate in the United States has been trending down for decades, and a new report shows that another drop in births in 2023 brought the rate down to the lowest it's been in more than century. There were about 3.6 million babies born in 2023, or 54.4 live births for every 1,000 females ages 15 to 44, according to provisional data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. After a steep plunge in the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, the fertility rate has fluctuated. But the 3% drop between 2022 and 2023 brought the rate just below the previous low from 2020, which was 56 births for every 1,000 women of reproductive age.
The birth rate fell among most age groups between 2022 and 2023, the new report shows. The teen birth rate reached another record low of 13.2 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19, which is 79% lower than it was at the most recent peak from 1991. However, the rate of decline was slower than it's been for the past decade and a half. Meanwhile, births continued to shift to older mothers. Older age groups saw smaller decreases in birth rates, and the birth rate was highest among women ages 30 to 34 -- with about 95 births for every 1,000 women in this group in 2023. Women 40 and older were the only group to see an increase in birth rate, although -- at less than 13 births for every 1,000 women -- it remained lower than any other age group.
The birth rate fell among most age groups between 2022 and 2023, the new report shows. The teen birth rate reached another record low of 13.2 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19, which is 79% lower than it was at the most recent peak from 1991. However, the rate of decline was slower than it's been for the past decade and a half. Meanwhile, births continued to shift to older mothers. Older age groups saw smaller decreases in birth rates, and the birth rate was highest among women ages 30 to 34 -- with about 95 births for every 1,000 women in this group in 2023. Women 40 and older were the only group to see an increase in birth rate, although -- at less than 13 births for every 1,000 women -- it remained lower than any other age group.
Economic harship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Such a surprise.
Re: (Score:3)
Contraception and the power of the religious nuts to deny people sex education getting smaller.
This is true, but a big part of this is males forgoing sex. Which of course is the ultimate birth control.Pew research indicates that 60 percent of young males are single, and that sexual intimacy is at a 30 year low.
It is not unreasonable to think that there might be other reasons than the standard reasons given. Indeed, back in the day, if there was any danger of pregnancy, my lady friends and I could have quite enjoyable evenings together, without getting our naughty bits close to each other. This i
Economic worship (Score:5, Insightful)
"We must have constant inflation or people might, you know, save!"
Then... basics cost (a lot) more and mid- to low-tier wages don't even come close to keeping up
Brutal housing, education, medical, food, vehicle, and fuel costs, crushing taxes on the lower tier workers... gee, sounds like a great circumstance to bring some ever-more-expensive rug rats into.
The "American Dream" is deader than Trump's diaper contents for a large swath of those of an age to be pumping out crotch goblins. But hey: The stock market is doing Great!
Or perhaps it's just that no one wants to hump someone with their pants falling off their butt — or otherwise dressing like a refugee.
Obligatory: get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:3)
TDS? I don't think we need to bring in belief in the former alleged president into this.
Re:Economic harship (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that you can blame this. The correlation / causation of birth rates to incomes is weird in that people with less money tend to have more kids.
Birth rate in the United States in 2019 by household income:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
The clearer trend is an overall decline in birth rates across all groups.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
We only had two and now that they're off to college and adulthood I wish we'd had more. Related, I understand why my state makes it hard to be approved as a foster parent, but damn, y'all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, employment is a lot less stable than it used to be. When I entered the workforce in the early 80s it was still common for people who were retiring to have worked for the same company all their lives. Young people now live in a gig economy; if they *do* work for a company, often they don't know how many hours they'll get from week to week.
And while things like TVs are cheaper than ever, essentials are often far more expensive. Median rents for a studio apartment in the US were about $250 when I got
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Economic harship (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Destroying middle class
The middle class has been gradually shrinking for 50 years, it didn't start just recently. Birth rates do not appear to track with that decline however.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re:Economic harship (Score:5, Informative)
Destroying middle class has predictable consequence of tanking birth rate. News at 11.
"Economic Hardship" has jack-shit to do with most of the declining birthrate. Women have more money than ever. If being poor hurt the birthrate, the Third World would have ceased to exist centuries ago. Women choosing careers over marriage has far more to do with it. Those that are getting married are doing so much later in life, when their fertility is already declining, and having few children is a consequence of that. Why do you think IVF and egg-freezing are in such demand? Because women that waited until 30 to get married discover, often to their surprise, that their best chances of pregnancy are in the rear window.
Women were told that they could have it all, the best of both worlds: that they could live like men in their twenties, living the single sexual life and moving up their corporate ladder, and after they had their fun, then they could marry the man of their dreams and have their family. All in a neat package. Except nature doesn't work that way. The Biological Clock is a thing, women have a set number of eggs, and by thirty, they start heading downwards in terms of fertility. Late pregnancies have a greater chance of complications and birth defects. The peak year for fertility and healthy birth is, IIRC, age 24 on average for females.
Life is a series of choices. And choices have consequences. Declining birthrates are inescapable considering the choices made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Economic Hardship" has jack-shit to do with most of the declining birthrate.
This is simply not true. You would be correct in saying the drop in birth rate from 1958 to 1978 had nothing to do with economic hardship. It was a result of the abnormally high birth rate after WW2 coupled with more women entering the workforce and other effects that economic prosperity has on lowering birth rates. But that drop had stabilized and even reversed a bit for 30 years until 2008, when fertility started to drop again.
The drop in US fertility since 2008 is not because of women entering the workfo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was discussing risk factors with my midwife, and filling out the survey, they had "age" listed as a risk factor. I'm pedantic, so I clarified "you mean old age, right?", which of course was true. They were talking about women being OLDER as a risk factor. But I asked if young age could also be a risk factor. They just laughed and said "no, older is always higher risk". Which didn't seem right, so I pushed...th
Re: (Score:2)
That's the exact opposite of how it actually works. Fertility rates tend to be highest among socioeconomically challenged groups, and lowest among high earning groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also the whole "trans" crap. Start working on kids...
Do you think trans kids would have otherwise been pumping out babies, and that it would be a good thing for more kids to be having babies??!?!?
Re: (Score:3)
Well sure. And when 95% of all statistics are made up, who can argue with it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.therecoveryvillage... [therecoveryvillage.com]
Various studies have been conducted around the world to determine the prevalence of gender dysphoria. A Dutch study indicated that 4.6% of 8064 study participants who were born male and 3.2% who were born female-identified themselves as ambivalent to their specific birth gender and were equally able to identify as male or female according to their internal perception of self. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dyspho
Re: (Score:2)
What do the stats you provided have to do with the statement at question, "that well over 95% of the kids that are "confused", grow out of it"?
Re: (Score:3)
That statement (that most trans kids just "grow out of it") is debunked [youtube.com] bullshit [erininthemorning.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You probably don't know any trans people personally. I grew up with the same beliefs about transgender people you have, until I actually got to know some of them. As impossible as it is for us to understand and as nonsensical as it appears to us, it's clearly not something most trans people choose.
It's OK for people to be different in ways we don't understand. Nobody has a duty to make sense to *us*. In any case, only about 0.6% of the population identify as transgender. Even if you completely outlawed
Re: (Score:2)
Can conservatives go one day without thinking about children's genitals?
If this isn't projection, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a fact. Conservatives are obsessed with kids' genitalia and with policing gender presentation, as if a piece of clothing has super-powers.
Conservative objecting to pubic blockers drugs (aka chemically castrate) and surgery on minors. Presenting it as a concern over dress code is extremely disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you speaking from experience? Who hurt you?
Re: (Score:2)
You have some typos there: "A lot of men don't want to deal with abusive women."
Here ya go: A lot of women don't want to deal with abusive men. (and realize they don't have to).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Or even abuse it seems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all abuse is physical, and women have basically the entire government (men with guns) at their disposal to meet out abuse if a relationship turns sour, if they so choose.
I've known men who have had their lives and future prospects ruined by their former mates: family courts are overwhelmingly overseen by female judges, often from (literal) feminist schools of thought. It sometimes results in overly burdensome alimony, child support payments that supports a lavish non-working lifestyle for the former wif
Re:Economic harship (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com... [dadsdivorcelaw.com]
Myth: Fathers Almost Never Get Custody
It depends on the applicable definition of “never,” but generally, this is untrue. The most recent available Census statistics show that fathers represent around one in five custodial parents—an improvement over the 16 percent of custodial parents reported in 1994. However, studies indicate that dads simply do not ask for custody as often as mothers do, and courts generally do not award what is not asked for in that regard.
A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody (in other words, approximately 6.3 percent of all fathers in the study)
Of course, this leads to the obvious question: Why do so few men attempt to gain custody? While there are multiple factors at play, one to note is that since many men still believe that the court system is inherently prejudiced in favor of the mother, they do not try to seek sole or joint custody, believing it to be a waste of time and money. This contributes to any lingering biases or claims that men care less about their children, which is, in fact, mostly untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody
Notably, the percent that received sole custody is left out.
Re:Economic harship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why does anyone have to "ask" or "push" for custody of their own child? Both parents brought that kid into this world and by default both should be expected to have an equal part in raising that child.
Because we live in a country where reproductive rights are the sole province of women. The man is considered a wallet.
Take abortion for instance. Although I support abortion if it is Tuesday, the man has no part in it, if he is pro or con an instance where he opposes the woman's decision, he has zero input. But after birth, it is mostly his responsibility for the next 22 years.
You can see this in divorce cases, where the judges who are responsible have to constantly remind the women that the children
Re:Economic harship (Score:5, Insightful)
So you want people to believe that feminism directly relates to an increase in women abusing men? And that it is statistically relevant to the decrease in the birth rate for the US? Are you fucking kidding me?
If you want to somehow tie feminism into the declining birth rates, especially given the relatively recent MeToo movement, a less tenuous tie would be the increase in awareness that women have to how abusive men are, and thus taking steps to reduce or avoid having kids (or recognizing shitty partners before it's too late), especially early on (and that would also be backed by the birth rates per age group statistics).
I've known men who have had their lives and future prospects ruined by their former mates
I've known many women who have been raped and/or sexually assaulted. Your anecdote can get bent. If you feel threatened by feminism, go get some mental help.
... basically the entire government (men with guns) ...
But it's the womens fault still? GTFO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, "abuse" when the woman doesn't want to be with the guy any more and the guy doesn't take no for an answer. Sort of like this guy [nbcnews.com]. Or this gold medal catch [apnews.com] of a "man".
Because, as usual, the "man" always blames the woman for his faults and issues. Nothing is ever on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Economic harship (Score:4, Insightful)
REF: https://mankind.org.uk/statist... [mankind.org.uk]
https://www.domesticshelters.o... [domesticshelters.org]
Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, this is NOT to say that women aren't also abused, but just because they can be does NOT mean that men are not also capable of being abused.
Re: (Score:3)
women don't want to deal with abusive men
Yep. This is true and despite your tone, so is the opposite. Both can be true. It's probably also true that both genders of younger folks are a bit more entitled than previous generations, but I don't think it's a bad as folks make it out to be. Neither gender wants to put up with a bunch of shit they saw their parents have to eat.
Marriage has been a raw deal for women since forever
It's a raw deal for both genders in various ways. It's a bad system. I'm all for things like 5-year marriage contracts.
economic hardship has hit young men harder than young women
This appears to be statistically true and I think this point
Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate (Score:4, Funny)
"Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate" shouldn't come as a shock to anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Older does tend to mean wiser, after all. Well... okay, for some people.
Re: (Score:2)
It also says that the rate for that group is climbing, i.e. women are having children later. We see an increase in women freezing eggs when they are younger too.
Re: (Score:2)
Having children later increases the risk of defects and complications, and it's not just because of older genetic material so freezing it isn't a complete solution. And it's true for both men and women, for their respective parts. If we want more people to have more kids (which is something I question at a time when jobs are being eliminated by automation) and we want those children to be as health as possible, then we need to make it more feasible for young people to be able to afford to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, but this is the world we live in. The high cost of living and of accommodation gives women little choice.
Worse still there is little prospect of it getting better, because boomers will vote against anything that devalues property back to sane levels.
Re: (Score:2)
And besides....most of us prefer to bang younger chicks rather than older ones....
40's are pretty hard on most womens' looks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate" shouldn't come as a shock to anyone
And yet, that rate (13 per 1000) is nearly the same as the teen (15-19) rate (13.2 per 1000). Is that not surprising? (it was to me)
Re: (Score:3)
"Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate" shouldn't come as a shock to anyone
And yet, that rate (13 per 1000) is nearly the same as the teen (15-19) rate (13.2 per 1000). Is that not surprising? (it was to me)
They are comparing "women over 40" (no upper bound) against "teens from 15-19".
Re: (Score:2)
"Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate" shouldn't come as a shock to anyone
And yet, that rate (13 per 1000) is nearly the same as the teen (15-19) rate (13.2 per 1000). Is that not surprising? (it was to me)
They are comparing "women over 40" (no upper bound) against "teens from 15-19".
So? What's your point?
Here's data from 2022: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/... [cdc.gov]
"The provisional birth rate for women aged 40–44 in 2022 was 12.5 births per 1,000 women"
"The provisional birth rate for women aged 45–49 (includes births to women aged 50 and over) was 1.1 births per 1,000 women"
That's still nearly the same as the 15-19 rate, and those are MUCH more fertile ages.
Re: (Score:2)
They are comparing "women over 40" (no upper bound) against "teens from 15-19".
So? What's your point?
We seem to be ignoring the prime reproductive ages of 20s and 30s....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Women over 40 have the lowest birth rate" shouldn't come as a shock to anyone
And yet, that rate (13 per 1000) is nearly the same as the teen (15-19) rate (13.2 per 1000). Is that not surprising? (it was to me)
Actually I'm wrong. This much better article from the WSJ says "women 40-44". Free link: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/am... [wsj.com]
We import the birth rate. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk was right, children are a blessing (Score:2, Insightful)
It wasn't that long ago that Elon Musk was roundly criticized for saying we're facing a population decline, not an increase. He was right, having children is a blessing. As a family man, I can tell you that you won't find anything more amazing than being a Dad. It changes you. It gives you an enormous sense of purpose. When that first child is born, especially, you feel the weight of it: this wonderful creature, its very life and health, depends upon you now. You won't need to tell yourself to get up and go
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, that's actually legally the case in the UK. You can't sue for damages for having a child, e.g. because you raised them but found out you were not their biological parent, or your sperm was accidentally given to the wrong person at the fertility clinic etc. The law considered a child to always be a blessing, not something that can ever cause you financial loss.
Re:Musk was right, children are a blessing (Score:5, Informative)
Elon has something like 10 children and a number of them won’t even speak to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't that long ago that Elon Musk was roundly criticized for saying we're facing a population decline, not an increase.
We're not having a population decline. Not in the slightest bit. What we're having is a decrease in the rate of increase. That will be temporary at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that age changes you. You just happened to have kids, but you are still aging. I am a totally different person than I was in my 30's who was, himself, a totally different person than the 20's version.
Your mind bends and adapts to your situation. There is no doubt that having children is a catalyzing event that can really give you focus in life. But there are plenty of other circumstances that are just as impactful.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't age that does it....at least not everyone.
I'm pretty much the same in my head as I was in my 20's-40's, etc.
The only difference is...my body is physically slowing and telling me I cannot do what I used to do...can't stay out as late, drink as mu
Re:Musk was right, children are a blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
As a family man, I can tell you that you won't find anything more amazing than being a Dad.
For you, personally. If someone follows your advice and finds that's not the case, then, well, that's a bit of a permanent situation.
And statistically, well...
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychol... [bps.org.uk]
Anyway I have no kids. My brother does but seems desperate to live vicariously though them which doesn't lead to happiness because they aren't interested in the same things.
You won't need to tell yourself to get up and go, not ever again, not until they leave home.
Observation of other parents strongly indicates that is not in fact true for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You won't need to tell yourself to get up and go, not ever again, not until they leave home.
Most people half-ass parenting. I see it every time I go out into the world, and not just from the results (but that too.)
Re: (Score:2)
I have kids. I'm glad I had them. But would I have been less happy had I not had kids? I'm not sure. My kids are all adults now, and out of the house and independent, and I have to say, I greatly prefer this stage of my life than when the kids were little.
Re: Musk was right, children are a blessing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's time (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in the west, we have disincentivized male/female relationships to the point where many males have largely given up. Some whack statistics out there.
Marriage If you marry, she can divorce you for any reason, and take your children, most of your stuff, and you get to pay child support, and often alimony, as well as half of your retirement. around 80 percent of divorces are initiated by women.
What person would go skydiving if there was a 50 percent chance their parachute would fail
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest privilege group is women. Visit family court if you want to see it in action.
You might also look up "spermnapping". Supposedly there is a how-to on TikTok about using the contents from a condom to self impregnate, thereby locking in that wonderful child support plus all those government benefits.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Developing uterine replicators will never happen in the West, so it's up to the Chinese and North Koreans, although the South Koreans may get desperate enough to do it as
Today, having kids is Irresponsible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, kids can be raised to be properly functioning adults instead of adult babies seeking to sponge off others and be lawless which by the way is a major pillar of a particular political party in the USA.
Computers and automation continue to CREATE jobs as it always has.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But affluent people are the ones having fewer babies.
Why suffer to make more suffering? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of life is dreary, then most of the rest is pain.
Life could not but evolve to make more life, with zero benefit to the individual. Humans live out of instinctual fear of death, not of joy.
Making more is vain and cruel so why do that?
expecting (Score:2)
Maybe youse were expecting something different when most women are either lesbians or actually men?
It's about health, family, child news readership (Score:2)
The primary readers of relationship, family and health news stories are women.
The message in those stories caters to the woman readers, ignoring the other half of the population.
The message often times has shaming words used towards men.
This is why the discussion on birth rates, fertility, childcare centers around and caters to women.
Men are relegated to a 'must step up', 'must not be afraid of commitment', 'men don't get to make childcare decisions' role.
It becomes apparent once you count the 'shaming lang
This isn't new. (Score:3)
This isn't new. I have some friends..not many, but some. Curiously, few are my age. They're either 10-20 years under, or 10-20 years over. But i've known them all for 25+ years now.
I don't have kids. They don't have kids. None of us wants kids, and when we do talk about the subject, it's always been -- even as far back as the 1990s -- "who wants to raise a child in this world / economy / geopolitical situation?"
You imagine? Trying to raise a child in today's world? With war looming ever larger on the horizon, the economy on an express ride to hell, and then all the bizarro-world inversions were good is bad, left is right, up is down?
Nah bruh. We're done feeding the machine. You won't make money from my offspring, because I have none.
I do have exactly three friends my age -- I grew up with them, went to elementary and high school with them. We were all raised catholic, but I lost my religion around age 14 - 16. They remained devout catholics. They're the only ones with kids. They're also the only two of my whole group who stayed in PR. I find it curious, that it is the religious ones that chose to / blundered into having a family.
Re:Good thing we have immigration. (Score:5, Informative)
The Neanderthal misanthropes want more legal immigration, including a much clearer path to citizenship for skilled workers like our H1-B friends and people completing STEM degrees in US universities. You won't hear it on TV, but we're getting that done too, with the trendline clearly increasing many decades. The problem is the calls for that get lost in the noise of pushing against *illegal* immigration.
Conflating legal and illegal immigration is a technique to make the people you are told you disagree with seem dumb. Most of them aren't, but you'd never know that because the nuances are lost when you're busy shouting past each other instead of listening.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If H1-B recipients had the *option* to change jobs without having to go back through the entire H1-B process, then companies would be forced to pay competitive wages to them. As it is today H1-B workers are effectively indentured servants. It's a huge problem that implicitly suppresses American and guest worker wages. That needs to be fixed, and with that done I'd like to see a path to citizenship opened for them too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless there's a sudden surge in applications from Scandinavian millionaire Christian fundamentalists: The only combination of demographics they'll tolerate.
But even if that weren't the case, the wealthy and educated are rarely known for having big families. Attracting every upwardly-mobile tech worker in the world looking for new digs would not substantially impact demographic collapse. You have to let in normal people, and judge merit b
Re: (Score:2)
You've assumed here that all the "Neanderthals" are racists that hate black and brown people. Some absolutely are. It is a serious issue. My lived experience is they are the exception, not the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Scratch their surface and you'd find a grey uniform, be it 1860s or 1940s, every single time. And that's not remotely hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan himself was the first to grant citizenship to millions of Hispanic immigrants. Both sides of congress enjoy the thought of immigration - one side approves it because it increases short-term corporate profits by importing workers who willingly do the same tasks for a fraction of a native professional's pay, and the other side loves illegal immigration not only for that reason, but also because it ensures a massive future voting block of the descendants of those immigrants who are very likely to vote for their party for the rest of time, flipping states like Texas and all but guaranteeing the demise of their political rivals
This is my prime example of republican overton window shifting. The greatest republican to ever exist, Ronald Reagan was in favor of granting amnesty for people in the country illegally.
What would happen today if any republican proposed that?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you spent any time looking into the backstory on that deal? My understanding, and I am speaking from ignorance so check this, is that Amnesty passed as part of a comprehensive solution that included significant revisions to the immigration system and upgrades to reduce illegal border crossings. Then, the very next yea
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans also controlled the senate at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They say they want more legal immigration, but then close down all the legal routes.
For example, there is a greater than 20 year waiting list for applications for family reunion visas for people in Mexico. For most practical purpose, there is no legal option. Same thing in the UK, the government bangs on about wanting safe and legal routes for refugees, but there aren't any. It's literally impossible for them to even apply for asylum without first illegally entering the country.
I don't buy that they even wa
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, just like the con artist was hiring all those legal immigrants [time.com] to work [thehill.com] on his failing properties [vanityfair.com]. The same guy who doesn't hire Americans [msnbc.com] but always finds a way to hire an immigrant.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with this. Human lives have more value than that. There needs to be a path for amnesty for those that genuinely need it, deportation for those that do not, some form of reasonable i.e. non-fatal punishment for those repeatedly apprehended.
To dig into the weeds on some OTTOMH points...
An amnesty claim should start with two strikes against you IFF you are apprehended in country illegally prior to requesting amnesty, and conversely voluntarily entering that
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes... and where exactly do these magical beings you call immigrants come from? From countries that are, themselves, developing and thus going through the same "falling birthrates" carousel the 1st world is suffering. And I imagine that you wouldn't want their criminals or "undesirables", just their brightest, at just the right age where they can start contributing to the economy.
These calls for immigration by good-hearted people always make me laugh. They're painted under the light of giving someone a b
Re:You reap what you sow ... MGTOW :) (Score:5, Funny)
Women being treated like property who should submit to a good fucking on demand is not an acceptable solution to your difficulty finding a partner for sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a podcast recently
Was it one of Andrew Tate's?
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that children supported their parents into old age. Now their parents are the wealthy ones, with property that massively increased in value, while the adult children struggle with rent and high prices.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that social security was in the family. Now it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It all went to shit in 1960. Been shit ever since.
What else happened in 1960?
Quite a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Can you be more specific?