Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, And It's Going To Hit The Economy Hard

Tyler Durden's picture

Total fertility rates, which can be defined as the average number of children born to a woman who survives her reproductive years (aged 15-49), have decreased globally by about half since 1960. This has drastically shaped today’s global economy, but as Visual Capitalist's Caitlin Cheadle explains, a continued decline could have much more severe long-term consequences.

If the world has too many elderly dependents and not enough workers, the burden on economic growth will be difficult to overcome.

Global Fertility Rates

Fertility Rates Start to Decline

First, it’s important to address some of the reasons for these falling fertility rates.

In developed nations the introduction of commercially available birth control has played a large role, but this also coincided with several major societal shifts. Changing religious values, the emancipation of women and their increasing participation in the workforce, and higher costs of childcare and education have all factored into declining fertility rates.

Birthrates Wane, Economy Gains

Initially, reduced child dependency rates were actually beneficial to economic growth.

By delaying childbirth, men and women could gain an education before starting a family. This was important in a shifting labor market where smaller, family-run businesses were in decline and a more skilled and specialized labor force was in demand.

Men and women could also choose to start their careers before having families, while paying more in income taxes and enjoying the benefits of a higher disposable income. Increased spending power creates demand, which stimulates job growth – and the economy benefits in the short-term.

A Global Phenomenon

46% of world population is in countries with rates below replacement

Worldwide fertility rates began to fall substantially in the mid-1960s. While each country has its own underlying causes for this, it is interesting that in developed and developing nations, the downward trend is similar.

Part of this is due to developing countries’ own efforts to rein in their rapidly expanding populations. In China, the One Child Policy was introduced in 1979, however fertility rates had already dropped significantly prior to this. India’s government was also active on this front, sterilizing an estimated 8.3 million people (mostly men) between 1975 and 1977 as a method of population control.

The Age Imbalance

So here we are now, with a global fertility rate of just 2.5 – roughly half of what it was 50 years ago.

Today, 46% of the world’s population lives in countries that are below the average global replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman.

Because these countries (59 to be exact, including BRIC nations Brazil, Russia, and China) are not repopulating quickly enough to sustain their current populations, we are beginning to see a substantial imbalance in the ratio of elderly dependents to working-age people, which will only intensify over the coming decades.

Aging Population Map

By 2100, the U.N. predicts that nearly 30% of the population will be made of people 60 years and older. Life expectancy also continues to increase steadily, which means those dependents will be living even longer. Between 2000 and 2015 the average global life expectancy at birth increased by around 5 years, reaching an average of 73.8 years for females and 69.1 years for males.

Economic Reversal

What does this mean for the economy?

As this large aging population exits the workforce, most of the positive trends that were spurred by declining fertility rates will be reversed, and economic growth will face a significant burden.

Working Age Population

The global increase of elderly dependent populations will have serious economic consequences. Health care costs for the elderly will strain resources, while the smaller working population will struggle to produce enough income tax revenue to support these rising costs. It’s likely this will cause spending power to decrease, consumerism to decline, job production to slow – and the economy to stagnate.

Solutions

Immigration has been a source of short-term population sustenance for many nations, including the U.S. and Britain. However, aside from obvious societal tensions associated with this strategy, immigrants are often adults themselves when they relocate, meaning they too will be elderly dependents soon.

Several nations are already experiencing the effects of a large proportion of elderly dependents. Japan, with one-quarter of its total population currently over the age of 65, has been a pioneer in developing technologies, such as robotics, as a solution to ease strained health care resources. Many countries are restructuring health care programs with long-term solutions in mind, while others are attempting to lower the cost of childcare and education.

Source: Visual Capitalist

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
pitz's picture

Guess only NELLY can "fuck fly bitches" with impunity.  For the rest of us, the "legal system" has damaged the rights of men beyond repair, and we're refusing to procreate.  Throw in feminists who feel an entitlement to murder on demand (abortion), and no wonder things are how they are.

 

The most horrific aspect of it all is that the intelligent are highly discouraged from breeding.  Gone are the days of doctors with a half dozen kids because they were wealthy enough that they could afford it. 

 

The best that T-Rump can do is abolish the H-1B visas, and allow wage inflation to start taking its course. 

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

The second image is a bit deceptive in its highlighting of Russia, China, and Brazil as somehow special with regard to declining demographics.

Russia's fertility rate is rising and is higher than that in the EU.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russias-baby-boom-fertility-rate-f...

Russia also has the highest birth rate in Europe, and its demographics are reasonably healthy.

http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-demographics-are-now-reasonably-heal...

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/09/4259

pitz's picture

Russian/Urkrainain girls are cute.  American slobs, not so much.

Max Hunter's picture

We don't need more people on this planet.. That's pretty obvious.. 

Expat1's picture

Why didn't they include SUB-SAHARAN Africa?

#RefugeeCrisisNeverEnds

http://dailyresistance.com/migrant-crisis-never-ends/

Haus-Targaryen's picture

I think these low fertility rates are the byproduct of a few things: 

1) First and foremost, the pill.  This chemical trick ... getting the body to believe it is pregnant thus rejecting a fertilized embryo is the predominate reason why in Western Society fertility rates are so low.  While in-and-of-itself it is a good thing (I think) combined with the following factors is the single greatest detriment to the continuation of an educated population at above the replacement rate and has transformed into a material problem.  As the pill is handed out like Halloween Candy in all major Western Nations, normally under the pretext of acne control -- if western societies are serious about bringing their birthrates back to a normal rate -- there must be an age cutoff for the pill, when acne is no longer so damning (say 25 to 28 or so) and very strict control of its disbursements to women under that age.  

2) Culture.  We, sadly enough, have developed a western culture that looks down upon the "boring" "lame" "your life is over" deception of the family.  The idea that college and the time "before you're married" is the best time of your life, and you need to preserve this as long as possible has pushed prime child-bearing years back a decade (thus we only get 3 and some change generations in a century as opposed to 4 and some change).  My experience in Germany is while this aspect of the culture war plays on both sexes, women here (and in the US people from other countries feel free to comment) still want to have a family starting in their late twenties.  The main "victim" of this cultural onslaught against the middle part of someone's life is young men.  This culture has raised a generation of man-children that place more value on going to fucking bar every night and go clubbing twice a week, because, gotta stay young; gotta get that new BMW; gotta party hard; YOLO LOLGTFOANDBTFD; and gotta fuck bitches AMIRITE!?; et al As this shit is more important than reading to your kid after work, buying a toy lambo for your kid to peddle around the driveway in as opposed to the real thing, etc., etc.,  This generation of millennial-men (of which I am a part regrettably) will push off adulthood into their early 40s if possible.  The values instilled in us by the media we have consumed since childhood (where the family guy is a stiff that has no fun and sits in his lazy boy watch'in the ball game waiting to die) and the young single people have all the fun to now where movies and media specifically glorify singleness and demonize commitment, monogamy and family. 

3) Feminism.   No, I'm not talking about equal pay for equal work, or women being able to vote or open bank accounts ... I am talking about this third-wave feminism which instills in women that their value does not come from their families in whole or even in part, but their value comes exclusively from their equality or superiority to men and careers.  According to third-wave feminism the only way a woman can be "independent" or "emancipated" is if they are single and childless.  Never-mind how shortsighted this is -- it is also biologically incorrect.  Ladies, if you have a problem with me writing this -- don't shoot the messenger -- take it up with God.  Between the two sexs (and yes there are just two) only one sex can continue the species -- women.  Without women having kids the world would be "human less" in the next century.  Hate to brake the bad news -- but you HAVE to have kids should we want to survive.  Third-wave feminism has nothing to do with women's rights or protecting women, there is a good case to be made that the current iteration of feminism actively works to destroy women.  That being said -- if we are to get birthrates up we need an organized fourth-wave of feminism, so to speak which emphasizes women's values come predominately from the kids they raise and not how many zeros are in their bank account.  This movement has to be started by women, and it is one of my great hopes post-economic collapse.  As careers dry up and supply chains break down (even for the pill) -- birth rates will go up and the more traditional family structure returns to western civilization. 

4) Consumerism.  While this goes hand-in-hand with culture, it is so egregious I wanted to touch on it briefly here.  We as a society have begun to define ourselves not by who we surround ourselves with, our families but the shit we own.  This egregiousness is very evident as the wealthy (my boss is a great example) often say things similar to "those that measure success by family failed at everything else."  Putting off having a family so you can acquire more stuff will not satisfy you.  When you acquire the "more stuff" you'll find something else you "need" to buy before the kids arrive so you can "stay young and fuck bitches" as long as possible.  Thus normal couples, especially in their thirties put off having a family so they can purchase X, Y and Z because X, Y and Z is how they define themselves as opposed to their families.  This consumerism is a byproduct of culture and the media and will be the first casualty when the economy burns to the ground.  Unfortunately, this consumerism affects the middle and lower-middle classes more than anyone else in society.  They see people at work -- church -- school, etc., etc., getting that new car or that new big screen, which they admittedly cannot afford themselves. "We'll lets get a new x5 first because they are safe and then we'll have kids." Then they get said thing they really cannot afford otherwise and now want to "pay it off before we have kids, because kids are expense." NO SHIT! Anyways, this will be the first to go to getting our birth rate back up.  

5) No discussion about horrible birth rates is complete without abortion.  I am still shocked in societies that condemn the death penalty are completely ok with "oh I got drunk and knocked up and I don't want a baby right now" abortions.  Perhaps the cornerstone of third-wave feminism -- casual OTC abortions are the Holy Grail of third-wave feminism and the intrinsic ability of women to be as promiscuous as men are.   This is a lie told to women all over the world and it is just that ... a lie.  Simple biology dictates this is not the case.  Guys, if something is wrong with your junk, odds are you'll notice it pretty quickly as you can fucking SEE IT.  Women on the other hand don't notice issues until they start manifesting themselves with symptoms ... oftentimes when it (the STD, growth, cancer) is quite advanced.  Due exclusively to biology women are the gatekeepers to reproduction.  If the gatekeeps just throw open the gates metaphorically speaking and fucking anything that moves, we fail to allow Darwinism to operate as God envisioned. (Have fun with that last sentence you militant SJWs)  In countries such as Russia -- their declining birth rate would not only stop but completely reverse itself if they stopped the 2 million abortions that take place in that country every year.

6) Lastly, the loss of faith.  Apart from a few notable exceptions (USSR being the prime one) having faith/belief in a higher power and having kids typically have a direct correlation.  If one looks at the more religious parts of any Western nation the reproduction rate is materially higher than in parts where faith doesn't play a big of a role.  Luckily for Western civilization we're about to get hit with a huge dose of poverty, which traditionally brings people back into faith.  

HenryKissingerChurchill's picture

this new trendy wave of fat fuggly tatto piercing blue pink hair

helps a lot too

slender healthy clever working girls are more and more like rare diamonds...

 

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Do you understand what "working girl" means? 

HenryKissingerChurchill's picture

you are right,

"educated girl" then

DaveA's picture

Not a whole lot of difference there. If a woman is unmarried and working outside the home, various Ps will enter her V, permanently ruining her ability to settle down and be happy with one man.

freeranger100's picture

SO IN WHICH BIT OF YOUR BIBLE DOES GOD MENTION DARWINISM???!! HAHAHAHA!!!!

OH JUST SO YOU KNOW, DARWIN WAS AN ATHIEST

freeranger100's picture

I WILL EXPALIN THE CAMBRIAN PERIOD OF YOU EXPLAIN THE VIRGIN BIRTH

JUST BETWEEN YOU AND ME I THINK THAT MARY CHICK WAS A JUST A DIRTY WHORE

disc_golfer's picture

Don't forget about vaccines.  The children of the 70-80's were the first to absorb a full schedules of vaccines. Increasingly women from this generation and the next are having lots of trouble getting pregnant.  Anecdotally, I'm sure most of us know a couple, or multiple couples who are not able to get pregnant today.  So, even the ones who are game to breed are not able to conceive.  I also agree that the pill is a major problem for fertility.  We need to realize this has been done to us intentionally by our controllers, and it's not a random outcome.  See commandment #1 on the Georgia Guidestones. 

AGuy's picture

1. Families in Western economies have forced two income families to meet ends. When both parents are working, it's difficult to raise children.

2. High divorce rates. Probably half of the divorces are related that both husband & wife, must hope full time jobs.

3. Cost of raising children has increased dramatically. Western gov'ts have gone out thier way to put up roadblocks to having children.

4. Muslims breed faster than rabbits. I believe the average age of population in the ME is in the low 20's, as the ME had a fertility boom about 20 years ago. Unfortunately the world does not need radical jihads that have no education, and can't fill a productive job.

5. Technology is out pacing the skill/intelligence of the average western worker. Even factory workers now need advanced computer skills to run and maintain the factory equipment. The majority of westerners are slowly become unemployable as the skill set needed increases faster than they can adapt. This is also true with white collar workers.

Bwana's picture

Haus have you ever considered the cost of having children? Trust me they are very expensive. It has been estimated that every child a couple raises costs over $150,000 and higher depending on where you live. Lets assume the woman and the child are healthy and there are no complications in the pregnancy or afterwards. You still have to pay the following: Doctors fees directly tied to the pregnancy, pre-natal care, additional health insurance, delivery and hospital costs, clothing and shoes from infancy to emancipation, additional living space, additional furniture, additional food for about 22 years, additional health insurance for up to 26 years, their first automobile and the insurance on it, all the proms and dances, birthday parties, feeding their friends after school, extra-curricular activities and uniforms, help with college tuition, help with rent and if you have daughters you get to pay for the wedding. Since I only had boys I got to get them re-established in society when they finished with the military. My three boys still ended up costing over $600,000 conservatively. I worked as many as 3 jobs to make ends meet.

Years ago this was not so bad but as the governments at every level demand more of the paychecks it is approaching an impossibility to afford children in the US unless you are a high paid professional or on welfare. I happen to be a white male so welfare is out. My wife became a prescription druggy (valium) and I ended up raising 3 boys all by myself with no help or additional support. The boys are grown men now with their own children and they are struggling to make ends meet. Their wives also work and help with Household chores and assist their children with schoolwork. They are lucky, I chose poorly.

I blame most of the expense on the welfare state. Here in California a single woman with 2 children can get the equivalent of $60,000 per year paid to her benefit by the taxpayers. To me this is robbery by threat of financial disaster. If the taxes aren't paid their is a massive body of law that will make you wish you had paid them. To live the way welfare people live it would be necessary to make $30/hour after all taxes and deductions are taken out which would be at least $50/hour. The problem is even the professionals cannot afford large families. Only the welfare recipients can afford large families which means the majority of the children being born in the US come from parents who are basically unemployable and their children will be unemployable. Since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Nixon took us off the gold standard this country has been going downhill and for the average middle class couple it is difficult to have more than one child.

The accountant I use says I pay slightly over 61% in taxes by local, county, state and federal governments. That includes the tax I am charged to spend what I have left after paying all my expenses. I don't have any vices and my spending is only necessities. In my adult life 21-70 I have only been able to take two one week vacations. I have worn out most of the joints in my body to the point of being highly disabled. I will have to work until I die thanks to Obama, because the inflation he set up will diminish my savings by 75%.

The best thing I could have done when I was 21 was to have had a vasectomy even if I had to do it myself with a weed-wacker.

 

Infnordz's picture

The root cause was the sexual revolution in the 1960's and the rise of the stupid, selfish, Socialist, Third Wave Feminists who campaigned for 'equal rights' legislation beyond reasonable equality, and then conditioned women to become stupidly and destructively selfish.

Starting in the 1980's girls in affected countries became increasingly fussier and more slutty, only seeking years of casual sex during their peak beauty, this had a knock on affect with young men looking for casual sex rather than marriage. These foolish women hoped that they would still be attractive enough and house competent enough later for a quality man to want to marry them, and still be fertile, healthy enough and have enough energy to have children; trouble is they may have to setting for less or nothing.

A much higher proportion of women also went to work and stayed in work a lot longer, which harmed men's employment and earnings, thus marriage prospects, and the extra women's money in marriage, property speculation and too cheap credit pushed up the cost of living via higher property prices, taxes etc, and boosted consumerism, which also made it harder for new married couples to afford children. A stupid irony of women with babies working is that they may need to work longer to pay expensive baby care fees, when they should be doing this themselves and bonding with the babies more.

Some young women have started rejecting the stupidity of Third Wave Feminism, but a lot more need to do so.

Girls should really be planning to get married to have children in their early twenties not late twenties, let alone their thirties! It isn't just better fertility and energy levels, there are significant health benefits for young motherhood because of the shorter unprotected exposure to Oestrogen since puberty, including less chance of Breast Cancer later in life.

DaveA's picture

"Why didn't they include SUB-SAHARAN Africa?"

Monkeys aren't people, so their fertility is irrelevant.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Incorrect. 

We need fewer people in the third world and we need to maintain population in the first. 

The third-world population explosion is due exclusivly to the first world shipping them food and not teaching them how to grow their own.  Then when the first world has its next economic crisis and war the free food gets turned off to sub-saharan and African West-Coast and the population problem there solves itself.  

Seriously.  The economic collapse will solve this issue. 

dr kill's picture

Correct. All the do do do good bullshit in Africa has allowed the stupid dindus to survive in such numbers as to threaten the entire continent. And I'm not concerned about the elderly, robotics wil replace most human workers in the next 20 years. 

Kidbuck's picture

The problem is not the number of births or the number of people. The problem is producers vs parasites. Fuck dependent old people. They put their trust in government to enslave the next generation to pay for their depends and medicare.

AGuy's picture

"We need fewer people in the third world and we need to maintain population in the first. "

I don't think it matters at this point. The First World population is de-evolving into the third world. Half of the US population already is dependent on gov't wealthfare and lack the means to support themselves. Another 20% to 25% of the US laborforce will become unemployable because the lack the skills/intelligence as machines & automation take over the economy. I presume the situation in Europe is even worse than it is in the USA.

"shipping them food and not teaching them how to grow their own"
This is true in the west. Less tban 2% of the western population produces food, and the average age of the farmers in the US is about 60 years. Younger people are not replacing retiring farmers. That said third world have more farmers than the West has, and they are younger. its likely that the West will need to start importing farmers to replace western farmers that will be dieing off or retiring.

"Seriously. The economic collapse will solve this issue. "

Perhaps, but mostly likely with WW3. Every economic collapse of a major power has resulted in major wars.

A. Boaty's picture

I don't see you volunteering to leave.

Lockesmith's picture

Why don't you help by killing yourself

The_Dude's picture

Agreed...relieve the external stresses and Americans might decide to have children again.  That will only fix part of the problem.  Next is to understand the issues that have led to the destruction of the family and devaluation of life in general.

Eye opening video that people need to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxUD8E-qbyI

 

AGuy's picture

"Agreed...relieve the external stresses and Americans might decide to have children again. That will only fix part of the problem. "

I think its too late to fix fertiality in the West. Boomers are well past child baring years, Gen-X is near the end of child baring years, and the Millenials (aka Gen Cupcake/Feminist) is hopeless. The majority of Millenials have no interest in doing anything, except for near-instant gradifaction, addicted to held-held electronic devices, and need to be handheld, constant supervision while on the job.

Resistance Is Hope's picture

The feminist women and feminist men truly are to blame. The duty of women is to bear and raise good, moral, productive children. The duty of men is to provide for and protect the women and children. Not only is the West raising too few children, but the ones they do raise are of poor moral and spiritual quality. I'm a millennial and I can't stand most millennials or the younger generation.

Obviously, women cannot pursue a full-time career and still raise a sustainable amount of children that are decent quality. But the obvious is obviously not that easy for many people to see...

While I don't support Breiviks actions, I do recommend reading his compendium 2083: A European declaration of Independence. We must deconstruct the multicultural elites philosophy, and this does a very good job of that, tracing it back to Marx's disciples. We must know our enemy to defeat them.

Keep your head up and keep fighting. If Trump has proved anything, it is that we can win. And honestly I think we will win. The left is too weak in its contradictions, too possessed with seeking short term pleasure, too lazy, and too psychologically unstable. as we keep fighting, our movement will increase in momentum synergistically as more people join and add their energies, money, time, power, and wisdom to it.

Urahara's picture

All going according to plan. If you have the time, listen to the link and see for yourself:

https://ia601000.us.archive.org/28/items/New_Order_of_Barbarians_remaste...

luckylongshot's picture

The flip side is that uncontrolled population growth is one of the main causes of carbon emissions and deforestation. Furthermore robotics means there will be less need for people to work and so low birth rates are occurring at exactly the right time. The big issue that needs to be addressed is how to make society function in a low employment environment. What is clear is that the modern debt slavery financial system will not cope with low employment. One answer is returning the right to create money to the people and implementing basic income- a two child policy can be made part of the social contract. The other options seem to all involve lots of death and the banksters continuing to rape the public. Time to wake up people!

Snaffew's picture

This article is complete Bullshit...humans have added roughly 70 million persons to the planet each and every year since 1950 for an aggregate addition of about 5 billion consuming, polluting, destroying souls in less than 70 years.  If fertility rates are dropping, then nobody told the uteruses of all these women pumping out babies like aaple pumps out i-phones.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Material difference between some German lady having 3 kids and a lady from the Congo having 7. 

Camlon's picture

No, you need to educate yourself. Those predictions are based on the theory that african nations will reduce their ferility rate to around 2 in a few decades. UN says itself, if fertility rates stays at todays level, the world will have about 30 billion people in 2100. Most likely Africa will not reduce their ferility enough and their population will go out of control. If we allow them to immigrate, then they will take the rest of the world with them.

Also, too high population growth is not desirable. It doesn't prevent the aging of the population, unless it is very high. And even if it is, it probably won't help, because they won't find work. In addition to this, we have to keep spending a lot resources on upgrading infrastructure, and building a lot of houses. 

The best solution is to probably keep fertility rates around 1.7 and limit immigration to high skilled people. Due to net migration this will create a stable population.

Ham-bone's picture

The following article is based on the UN medium and low variants of population growth...only in the UN's low variant does the UN show a slowdown in Africa...it's base case is Africa is all net growth in the world for the next 100yrs

https://econimica.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-world-looks-like-x-africa.html

HenryKissingerChurchill's picture

The flip side is that uncontrolled population growth

so you want Bill Gates and George Soros to decide how many children will you be allowed to have? How about just plane simple FREEDOM?

AGuy's picture

"The flip side is that uncontrolled population growth is one of the main causes of carbon emissions and deforestation. Furthermore robotics means there will be less need for people to work and so low birth rates are occurring at exactly the right time. "

Your right, but its not that straight forward. The Boomer generation is entering retirement, and there needs to be economy capable of floating them until the die off. The issue is that they still vote and are likely to demand a much higher tax burden on the dwindling worker class to support them.

In additional robotics and automation is not like going to support a declining laborforce. Robots pay no taxes and do not consume. For every robot added to the economy probably about 5 to 10 workers will lose there jobs and be contributing less taxes as well as be forced to cut consumption, which will create a feedback loop. Less consumption means less need for production of goods and services.

We also have trillions in debt that need to be services. The debt is owed to people with savings and retirements. A declining labor force can't support debt created an ever increasing population dependent on entitlements and wealth fare. As robots and automation take over their will be increasing demand on Weathfare as fewer people will be able to find jobs.

For the robotic/automation economy to be sustainable, the world needs a smarter more skilled labor force. The majority of labor force will need be engineers and skilled technical workers that can leverage automation. Sadly, just the opposite is happening as the number of engineers and skilled tech workers is in decline.

Grandad Grumps's picture

This means that if the old people, such as the septuagenarians running the governments of the world, want wars then they need to be the ones to fight them so that the young can breed.

It is said that an ancient civilization that populated our solar system had a population of around 100 billion. But, they had spread throughout and who knows where else.

Snaffew's picture

was that Ron from Scientology lore you speak of?  Tell me more of this fantastic civilization of 100 billion people that populated our solar system...did you collect the evidence from a book purchased at Amazon?  WTF is wrong with you?

JRobby's picture

Still LMFAO, and it's only 530. Good one.

Northern Lights's picture

There are people breeding, problem is, it's the wrong kind of people.  The people that should be breeding aren't, and the one's that you don't want, ARE.

Not sure why it's a problem really.  There are no jobs, hence, no way to sustain oneself, much less, a family of 4.

I think the problem is that the one's that shouldn't be breeding who actually are, won't have anyone to look to, to pay the taxes for the welfare programs that these useless fucks depend on. Example, that Spic-whore who's thug humping and having kids from 10 different thugs will come to find that the EBIT and SNAP that she so needs to feed her brood will one day just dry up because there's no one left responsible to work a job that no longer exists to pay for those SNAP cards.

OneOfUs's picture

and that is why mankind is devolving. 

OverTheHedge's picture

Theoretically, mankind is still evolving, in response to the environment. The fact that the environment encourages increases in parts of the population you perceive to be below par is irrelevant. Evolution doesn't seek out the best solution - it seeks out the most successful solution. Successful in this sense would be producing the maximum number of offspring, for the minimum effort. Now, I agree that in the future this strategy may not be the most productive, but you have to admit that the trailer-trash great-grandmother who has 200 great-grand-children has a better stab at genetic survival than the Babyboomer father with non-reproducing 30-something children, who are waiting for old dad to die so they can claim their inheritance.

It turns out that all the nice, middle-class respectable people have been shafted, long-term, by the poor. Result.

 

NoPension's picture

r/K Selection Theory. Anything not covered by this theory, is thoroughly explained by watching the documentary " Idiocracy ".

JRobby's picture

"Gimme my shit mothufucker!"

"Just a moment while I program this terminal to accept your. CHASE EBT card."

TheRideNeverEnds's picture

Haha no, never gonna happen. Your theory assumes taxes actually pay our bills, they don't.

Never really have. We create the money. Well we don't, the Jews do but you know what I mean. That being the case now money is simply a tool of control as the supply is infinite.

Now if the water dries up or the food runs out things will quickly get very interesting. Wouldn't take much to stop the food trucks from coming and allegedly that big ol aquifer which much of the US.ag draws from is getting mighty low.

debtor of last resort's picture

In the old days, imports solved a lot of problems. The problem we have to deal with now is inversed slavery. Or is that raycis?