The EU Needs A Three-Child Policy – And China Should Pay For It!

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

The EU’s policy of “replacement migration” is an economic failure and threatens to undermine China’s New Silk Road strategy for Europe by diminishing the continent’s much-needed consumer market potential, which should thereby serve as an impetus for Beijing to consider investing in social programs there as a means of encouraging replacement fertility for the EU’s citizens.

The Roots Of “Replacement Migration”

The EU’s liberal-progressive ruling elite aided and abetted the Migrant Crisis as a means of encouraging “replacement migration” to compensate for their falling populations, naively believing in the dogma of their bloc’s de-facto “Cultural Marxist” ideology that civilizationally dissimilar migrants will seamlessly adapt to their new host societies and quickly become productive citizens. They expected that the relatively impoverished and in many cases largely uneducated “New Europeans” from Africa, the Mideast, and South Asia who have uncontrollably flooded into Europe would have no problem climbing the ladder of socio-economic success in one day replacing their dying European counterparts in all professional spheres.

It should also be reminded in this vein that these “New Europeans” didn’t just appear out of nowhere, but are the product of the unipolar wars that created them in the first place and the NGO-assisted human trafficking networks that then imported these “Weapons of Mass Migration” to Europe, both activities of which the EU elite have been complicit in. As could have been anticipated by any objective observer not under the influence of “Cultural Marxism”, this irresponsible multi-layered policy has totally failed in its presumed economic intentions, though it’s cynically succeeded in planting the seeds for a massive socio-cultural reengineering of some leading European countries’ demographics.

China’s Strategic Stake In The EU

While one might be led to immediately think that the consequences of this epic disaster would be limited solely to the bloc’s borders, few people realize that it will also affect China’s grand strategy by eventually depriving Beijing of the robust consumer-driven marketplace that it needs from the EU in order to make its large-scale infrastructure investments there worthwhile. China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity is driven by Beijing’s desire to develop and secure new consumer markets to which it could offload its overproduction, as the failure to do so would with time lead to socio-economic consequences in the People’s Republic as state-sponsored firms are forced to lay off countless workers if they dramatically downscale production or can’t make ends meet anymore.

The New Eurasia Land Bridge Economic Corridor

The New Eurasia Land Bridge Economic Corridor

The Eurasian Land Bridge, the Silk Road connectivity project through Kazakhstan and Russia, as well as the Balkan Silk Road through Greece all the way up to Central Europe, are intended to connect China’s East Asian producers with Western European consumers, but if Europe is no longer the consumption powerhouse that it once was after a decade of “replacement migration”, then the whole strategy is nullified with potentially disastrous consequences for Beijing. Although it’s “politically incorrect” to admit as much in the West, the “New Europeans” from the Global South consume more in government subsidies than they do in actual products, and when – or in many cases, if – they enter the labor force, it’s usually in low-end and low-paying sectors which aren’t in any way capable of replacing the ever-aging consumers that are steadily dying out.

In addition, many of the “New Europeans” self-segregate themselves by refusing to assimilate and integrate into their host countries, which in and of itself increases domestic tensions even without considering the crime wave that some of them have helped contribute to. When the newly imported “replacement population” does acquire a little bit of extra money to spend on the economy, they’re more prone to patronize local neighborhood stores run by their fellow ethnic or religious compatriots (usually migrants themselves) inside of their anchor communities. Altogether, these socio-economic habits undermine the whole Silk Road spirit of inclusivity and are extremely problematic for China because of the country’s future dependency on EU consumption trends remaining as traditionally strong as they used to be.

Migrants in Europe

Looming Problems

Left unchecked, “replacement migration” in the EU will inevitably lead to a decrease in the bloc’s economic prowess, which in turn will jeopardize China’s grand strategy of using its New Silk Roads – and especially the EU-Chinese vectors of the Eurasian Land Bridge and Balkan Silk Road – as a vehicle for realigning global trade patterns and therefore building the sustainable framework for the emerging Multipolar World Order. In what could be seen as both a blessing and a curse, however, the rise of populist sentiment in the EU could divert the bloc’s present globalist trajectory towards a more “nationalist” course in both of its interlinked socio-cultural and economic manifestations. On the one hand, the masses might succeed in pressuring the elite to downscale or outright suspend their “replacement migration” policies, but on the other, they might also naturally advocate for semi-protectionist trade measures such as the “investment screening framework” that European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker recently proposed.

This initiative aims to give EU governments the power to selectively prevent the sale of strategic economic assets to foreign state-controlled or state-funded companies and is generally thought to be directed against China. Although grounded in plausible national security concerns and already implemented to varying extents in some EU and non-EU countries, the timing and nature of Junker’s proposal suggests that he’s more interested in capturing European markets for the bloc’s leading German, French, and Italian companies by crafting legislation which could deny their Chinese competitors equal access to them. Even though it’s being spearheaded by one of the EU’s most reviled bureaucrats and outspoken enemies of populism, this motion is expected to enjoy a surprising level of grassroots support because of its superficial channeling of populist energy, particularly as it relates to the perception of non-European foreigners taking over the continent.

China is therefore presented with a dilemma because it arguably stands to lose in the long-term if the “Cultural Marxist” policy of “replacement migration” is allowed to mature and begin systematically degrading the EU’s consumer market capabilities, but it also gains from the associated globalist policy of allowing unregulated investment from Chinese state-affiliated companies into strategic EU industries. From the reverse perspective in respect to populism, China’s Silk Road strategy would be safeguarded if “replacement migration” was done away with and replaced with populist initiatives encouraging the increased fertility of a nation’s population, though Beijing needs to be wary of the “economic nationalism” manifestation of populism which could see severe restrictions placed on its plans to invest in more of the EU’s strategic industries and maintain access to their national markets.

First Chinese cargo trains arrives in Hamburg

A Populist Solution For The Silk Road

The best approach that China could follow in encouraging higher birthrates in its top Silk Road target market while simultaneously pioneering creative ways for its state-linked companies to ingratiate themselves with their host states is to replicate the West’s new economic model in the “Third World” but apply it to European “First World” conditions. What’s meant by this is that China should “sweeten its deals” with the promise of investing in, or dispersing grant money to, soft infrastructure projects such as schools, healthcare facilities, and job-training programs in order to improve the quality of life of its partner state’s citizens. Western companies rarely implement this strategy like they’re supposed to because they’re more concerned about using it as a public relations ploy for boosting their attractiveness in other markets, and the host governments generally don’t hold them accountable because the ruling party/elite are often bribed through this plausibly deniable money-transferring channel to keep quiet about it.

China, however, doesn’t have to fall into this short-term trap and could order its state-linked companies to adhere to this model like it was originally intended in improving the living conditions of the recipient state and “winning hearts and minds” because of it. In the context of contemporary populism and with an eye on Beijing’s long-term New Silk Road interests in protecting the EU’s future consumer market potential, China could even subsidize (whether openly or discretely) the financial incentives that populist governments hand out to their citizens in encouraging higher fertility. After all, China knows that replacement birthrates produce better consumers than “replacement migration” does, and Beijing’s Silk Road strategy hinges on the EU retaining its impressive consumer market potential. Likewise, populists are against “replacement migration” and in favor of improving their citizens’ fertility, so this theoretically represents a win-win solution for both sides.

EU China trade

Concluding Thoughts

To reiterate the main point being expressed in this proposal, China needs to find a way to confront the dual challenges of the expected drop in the EU’s consumer market potential following the “successful” implementation of its “replacement migration” policy and also devise a creative strategy for preventing its state-affiliated companies from being denied access to the bloc’s strategic industries due to superficially populist initiatives such as Juncker’s “investment screening framework”. This necessitates that China craft a comprehensive policy which highlights its value-added differentiators in appealing to the rising populist zeitgeist in Europe, one which has already seen the Central European countries of Poland and Hungary promote higher birthrates through state subsidies and could probably become the continental standard in the next decade if the failed policy of “replacement migration” is eventually replaced. That said, this could only happen if the EU countries experience a surge in births across the coming decades, but many of them might not be able to afford the social costs that that this entails and would therefore have to look abroad for financial support if want to have any chance at sustainably implementing this proposal.

Therefore, the ideal win-win solution that China and the populists (whether in each individual EU country or the bloc as a whole) could forge with one another would be if Beijing agrees to an arrangement to bankroll an ambitious fertility-increasing policy and its attendant social requirements (schools, healthcare facilities, job-training programs, etc.) in exchange for continued and preferential access to their strategic industries and markets. Considering how far behind the EU’s population replacement rate is, then China and its partners should set the bar high by aiming for a three-child policy that the People’s Republic would help pay for by channeling its “communist spirit” to redistribute some of its state-supported companies’ wealth to the host country’s citizenry so as to ensure Beijing’s long-term interests with respect to the Silk Road. So long as China can succeed in preserving the EU’s consumer market strength and even enhancing its capacity, then Beijing won’t have much to worry about regarding its long-term strategy for Western Eurasia, but if the “Cultural Marxists” win by having “replacement migration” ruin all of this, then China will face a major threat which could jeopardize its future global leadership plans.

Comment viewing options

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

A new law that would benefit the producers of kids would benefit the migrants, as they out-reproduce the rate of the fair-skinned northern aborigines anyway. Anything else would be raciss.

old naughty's picture

and herein lies the "rub", no?
elites plan for more money (credit) flow needs more population growth
and im-migrating moar into EU to help manifest 1B1R !
so they knew!?

nufio's picture

this is such a retarded article. why would china pay to maintain the higher standard of living in EU while its own citizens enjoy a much lower standard of living.

china just needs to increase domestic consumption and it is already doing that. The EU wil just become irrelevant retirement communities where the rich chinese will own vacation homes, while the majority of the population there will ilve like the majority of chinese when the yuan comes to parity with the euro.

HenryKissingerZuckerberg's picture

EUrope needs to bend over and follow the plan: the KALERGI plan

ALL acording to plan...nothing to see here, it is just a plan to turn europe into a future race of mongrel (((bolshevik)))-worshippers...

check also:
-KALERGI plan (miscegenation into low IQ brown mongrels) / also Hooton plan
-George Soros leaks on the Merkel plan  http://soros.dcleaks.com
-ESI Merkel Plan Compassion and Control http://journal-neo.org/2016/04/27/how-nato-linked-think-tanks-control-eu...
-Kalergi/ Charlemagne Prize BEARERS list http://www.karlspreis.de/en/laureates
-Soros professional rapefugee smuggler operation http://gefira.org/en/2017/07/13/soros-sponsored-immigration-network-in-i...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-04/something-strange-taking-place-...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/ngo-fleet-bussing-migrants-eu-h...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/17/major-charities-smuggling-gan...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/22/public-anger-growing-at-taxi-...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/migrant-smuggling-business-mea...

-Barbara divörsity™ Lerner Spectre
"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive." ~ Barbara Lerner Spectre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit...
The man of the future will be a mongrel.  Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian–Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."Practical Idealism - by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
http://archives.eui.eu/en/isaar/89
http://www.karlspreis.de/en/laureates

http://upandnet.ydup5rznoh.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/3-1...

Mr 9x19's picture

europ do not need child policy... they import sand niggers who make up to 8 child per woman....

 

europ, always one episode late.

HenryKissingerZuckerberg's picture

europ do not need child policy... they import sand niggers who make up to 8 child per woman...

yes those high-net-worth tax payers ...

Teja's picture

A total bullshit article - like others wrote, why should China pay for richer people's kids? Especially when China has exactly the same demographic problem, first created by the "one child" policy, and even though that ended, "surprisingly" the Chinese still not getting more children?

Strange thing is NOBODY seems to think about WHY the birthrate has fallen way below 2 for most industrialized countries.

Might be the pill, might be general educational levels. Sure, both are part of the issue, but there are so many people who want to have children, without success. And there are interesting side facts - semen counts way down, fertility down, interest in sex and partnerships down (eg Japan).

My thesis is the industrialized, motorized society is stopping people from getting children, in a lot of ways. Stress levels (personal and financial), pollution, children hidden in the homes, not playing on the streets, have to be driven to school and everywhere, and so on. Most of those things connected with CARS. Car free towns & cities basically the core of any solution here.

Societies should put lots of effort into changing into a human and children friendly society. Neither "the market" will solve this nor "immigration from 3rd world countries".

BrownCoat's picture

"this is such a retarded article."

You've been Rick Rolled!
This article was intended to highlight (and mock) the stupidity of European policy.

silverer's picture

Actually, the focus should be on failed western financial policy and the banking system, which uses a totally dishonest fiat money system based on debt which demands that loans and debt constantly increase for the system to survive. The financial system runs against all logic of nature, and will drive the earth to extinction if adhered to and forcefully mandated to its final conclusive destination.

css1971's picture

Welfare in reality is the creation of an idiocracy.

Redneck Makin-tosh's picture

If the fair-skinned northern aboriginies need to grow a pair AND learn how to use them where will they go for lessons if some paranoid shizophrenic group think manage to cast out all the non gingers?

Badsamm's picture

wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for China to just send millions of Chinese to Europe?

Stef1304's picture

That's a very new & unusual perspective... 

I fully agree on the fact that the EU’s policy of “replacement migration” (from country with no middle class and/or at war) is a spiritual, cultural, social & economic failure.

And a very bad & bizarre substitute to the very simple, obvious and classic three children policy.

Last but not least, to link this to a win-win partnership with China is very unusual. But why not ? If it can help European countries, it is welcome.   

 

css1971's picture

The problem in the EU, is skim.

Politicians skim 40-65% of everything for their pet projects, then bankers and capitalists skim on top of that using the Cantillon effect. The typical person has no spare income to support children. And there is no need for larger populations. The reality is that Europe is overpopulated already and they only want more people to support their ponzi schemes; healthcare, pensions etc.

Parasites and rentiers everywhere.

Vigilante's picture

 

There's no way Euro #Bitchocracy would bother to call for more babies

How abt importing Chinese directly?

The Left will go ape if the EU gives preferential treatment to Chinks than to muds.

Decisions ...decisions

 

Xena fobe's picture

That's the Chinese plan.

UndroppedClanger's picture

Personally, I don't believe the European elites give a toss whether the migrants integrate. They live apart in their own, impenetrable circle of the rich and powerful and so won't be affected by the cultural division, by the loss of community, by the crime wave that follows a wave of jobless, homeless arrivals who have literally no other option (a friend of mine here in the UK has had a Syrian refugee staying with her family for three months now because a spelling mistake in his name on his 'leave to remain' papers means he can't work, can't do anything really so it was stay with them or he'd have to be begging/robbing - it's like the government want them angry and on the streets).

They just want a true, fully subjugated underclass again, more tax serfs.

Joe A's picture

For that to change, we first need to get rid of the cultural marxists in Europe with their "down with us" mentality. Then, we have to make having children affordable again so that people can afford having children (now working people that can't afford children and don't have the time to raise them, effectively work so that people that are on welfare -many of them often migrants- can afford them and do have the time to raise them). Also perceptions regarding parenthood should change. Now for many Europeans (and Americans as well), having children is being seen as a stand-in-the-way for achieving one's own "potential".

What only really matters in the end for all beings -biologically speaking- is to reproduce oneself. It is the most powerful human drive.

falak pema's picture

WTF is a cultural marxist ?

If such an animal exists today it is probably the outer skin of ONE PARTY CHINA which promotes the new silk route!

They are more Commie in cultural terms than Mutti or France !

This poster needs to get his historical facts and geopolitics right.

HISTORICAL DETERMINISM has died in Europe; the belief in "all history is the history of class struggle" type DOGMA; just like its predecessor the Abrahamic CREATIONIST and deterministic mantra of JUDGMENT DAY and preordained good or bad humans as defined by an all seeing deity. 

Nobody in his right mind in the age of science buys into that dogmatic vision of the Heavens, nor of temporal social constructs !

France, as an example, has a mixed race equation that goes back to the Roman invasion; aka 50 BC !

All races moved accross Europe from that day to modern times-- into an underpopulated and fertile temperate region-- and have created the french mix. The French have made race, religion, blood and soil politics a minority point of view; much like their latin neighbours of club med.

France is not cultural marxist; France is enlightened and trying to save its own democracy. 

Europe --as seen in Britain today-- has an imperial past and this creates a natural migrational trend from past colonies.

To avoid cultural shocks we need to avoid communatarist ideologies where the melting pot-- an american invention-- is encouraged to create communal values-- which defy republican, democratic and humanitarian values; the bedrock of modern societies.

Don't chase false prophets of ideological perversion in their hate bait games !

Aristotle taught us that !

Its an old trick of the bent of mind like Hitler and his kind.

Even Aristotle was treated in his times by the rabid "blood and soilers" as a : METEQUE; aka an inferior half-breed person.

Haha!

By those values Einstein would also be an "untermensch"...that word summarises the hate bait mentality all thru the ages!

You play that game at the risk of losing your own mindset into corruption unfathomable; that is History's lesson!

Ask Homer! He started that ball rolling in the West and pointed to the hate baiters : the Oligarchs of the house of Atreus, the blood and soilers, mad for hubristic power who got their comeuppance to the last man !

DaveA's picture

Stupid Jewess gives away the game. She says, in effect, "Hitler was right: Gas the kikes or become a minority in your own country!"

unsafe-space-time's picture

France is the most degenerate Marxist country in EU. Can't buy a vitamin without a prescription. Creatine is illegal. Any kind of self defense is illegal.

http://authorityresearch.com/Articles/Transformational%20Marxism.html

Cultural or Transformational marxist is a globalist hybrid of Freud and Marx. They make opinions and consensus more true than facts. Destroy patriarchy and tradition through group thinking and feelings. If it feels good do it. They consider children more sexual than adults.

I don't understand why commie satanists(humanists) like you are on this site. There are plenty of like-minded places on the web

Hope Copy's picture

Ah, ah, ah; next Chinese export, workers and NK refugees.  You ain't see a cultural divide yet like the one that is coming.

sinbad2's picture

Not needed, the US is herding millions of people into Europe, five and a half million from Syria, two and a half million from Afghanistan.

People love Americans so much, they will leave everything they have worked for, to get away from Americans, do you think it might be bad breath?

BritBob's picture

 The Crazy EU

MEPs and legal experts have claimed the veto over the territory’s future after Brexit would give Spain special status among EU nation, when they should be on an equal level. 

The EU’s Brexit negotiating guidelines stated that the Brexit deal will not apply to Gibraltar without an “agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK”.

Experts have told the Telegraph that the veto could be illegal under EU law. 

Spain's Gibraltar claim has NO legitimacy and YES would be illegal.

They've effectively signed the territory away 3x times!

Gibraltar – Spanish Myths and Agreements (single page):

 

https://www.academia.edu/34608739/Gibraltar_Spanish_Myths_and_Agreements

PresidentCamacho's picture

After reading your comments, I now fully support an independent Gibraltar. I also think the Falkland Islands should be independent as well. I think britian should be carved into 4 or 5 different independent governments too and reparations should be paid to all commonwealth states and former colonies  and millions of muslims should be used to replace the native british inbred stock.

Obsidian Samctum's picture

White people need to have as many babies as humanly possible.

ipso_facto's picture

'White people need to have as many babies as humanly possible.'

Or stop non-white babies.

Obsidian Samctum's picture

So the human race can become extinct? Breed or gtfo.

Faeriedust's picture

I take it from that comment that you are unable to have babies, i.e., MALE.

If you want white WOMEN to have babies (by white males, I assume) then you will have to provide them the necessary social and economic support.  This is not likely to happen in a country where 25% of able-bodied men don't bother WORKING.  Caring for children is a nonstop job, and if you want it to be done, you'd better prepare to pay for it.

DaveA's picture

For that to happen, women need to resign from all high-paying jobs and let men have them. We should have a 100% payroll tax on female employees to encourage corporations to seek out qualified straight men. Women would then need husbands, so once hired, these men are expected to get married within a few months.

Women can either be supported individually by their husbands or collectively by the state. If women choose the latter, why should men work and pay taxes to support families they are no part of?

Passer by's picture

It does not matter how rich the country is, or how rich a woman is. There is not a single country where white women have positive TFR. Interestingly enough, the richer the woman, the lower the birth rate. Rich women are those most likely to be childless. So its not about the money. Its about egoism and decadence.

 

Your time has come. You are weak and decadent. You allowed to be ruled by people who hate you, so you will go away and be replaced.

andrej's picture

Totally unrealistic idea.

China is currently getting EU&US technology in exchange for cheap labour & environmental damage. The moment China is able to develop tech of its own, it won't need EU anymore.

 

Sudden Debt's picture

386 billion... and the EU prints a trillion a year... 

Faeriedust's picture

Government efforts to encourage population growth have been fairly useless going back to Augustan Rome. The best way to encourage educated Western women to have babies might be to increase the availability of cheap immigrant nannies. Failing that, Europe could, if its "child protective" apparatus is anything like the American institution, reduce their interference in parenting so that ordinary parents are not held to standards unachievable without three times their time and income. I certainly would not have children today in a country where allowing one's children to play alone in a fenced back yard is a criminal offense.

Building schools and hospitals  isn't going to affect individual cost-benefit analysis much.  If you want more brats, boys,  you have to make it worth a woman's while.

Passer by's picture

Nope, rich women have all the money for nannies, but they have the lowest birth rate and are those most likely to be childless. So its not about money. Egoism can not be fixed by money. When someone has power and wealth for too long, degeneration follows. Luxury corrupts. This is what happened to white ppl. Plus you allowed the J  parasite (who hates you) to take you over. So there will be no mercy for you. You will be replaced.

Aussiekiwi's picture

Automation is going to mean that we want to have less consumers, eg: less useless mouths to feed, not more.

 

It is foolish to think that what has worked in the past will continue to work into the future, Politicians are, unfortunately always backward looking.

Last of the Middle Class's picture

It pays to have a cheap supply of immigrant labor for burger flipping, credit card distribution, and college credit applications. This is what happens when everything in the country is designed for high volume with no quality controls. Our whole society is built upon "more volume" in everything we touch and it originates with the Fed printing trillions with the promise of "more volume" in the economy which will result in the needed inflation to off set the debt. It was a sucker bet 8 years ago when the Fed started down this path and it's a sucker bet today. It is an economic theory built on the idea that there is no finite limit on the economy, that it can and will expand forever, especially if the Fed, itself, has the ability to print unlimited amounts of fiat and within this expansion choose the winners and losers. The problem lies in the Feds choosing winners and losers rather than letting the market determine those things. It results in a forest of zombie corporations with massive valuations that produce nothing but propaganda and "tunnels to Mars". It's actually easy to spot the damage as we're definitely at "peak propaganda" when employers encourage their employees go disrespect the national flag while at work in the most grand standing effort possible. Pitiful really.

Endgame Napoleon's picture

Automation is reducing the need for workers at a time when there is already too much competition for full-time jobs. America has generated new, full-time jobs at the paltry rate of 6% since 2005, and yet, we fret over the need to import more immigrant workers or to increase the birth rate, creating more future workers for the declining number of non-automated jobs.

That is irrational [cubed].

The story of the declining Western middle class is not, as sold, just a product of a declining birth rate. If the number of humans is the sole explanation for widespread prosperity, why was the U.S. at the peak of middle-class prosperity at around the mid 1960s to the early 1970s, when our population was much lower?

Between 1970 and the projected rate for 2020, the U.S. population will have close to doubled, with a far greater percentage of humans chasing increasingly automated jobs. America had a much bigger middle class when it had fewer humans producing and consuming products and when there was less global trade.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf

Sure, China could sell into its internal market, like we did more back in our economic heyday, but if it does what the U.S. did due to fake feminism, middle-class prosperity will not result, even less so with automation.

It is not just birth rates that determine middle-class prosperity. It is wage growth. The reason for the decline in widespread U.S. prosperity is the increase in women in the workforce. It concentrates the wealth from decent-paying jobs in fewer households due to assortative mating.

The number of working women quadrupled, starting in 1958, and by 2014, the the U.S. middle class was the minority, with only 29% of the nation's wealth accruing to the high earners in the early Seventies and 49% in the hands of the upper classes by 2014. It is not because of declining birth rates, but because two high earners marry, concentrating salaried wealth under fewer roofs.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-l...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-...

It lowers wages and hours at the bottom, too, including for single, childless women who face increased competition from married mothers with spousal income and from welfare-buttressed, single mothers who do not need higher wages in the still [and always will be] overwhelmingly female-dominated, low-paying, traditional jobs.

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/TraditionalOccupations.pdf

It lowers wages for men whose incomes have not risen in 4 decades.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-31/for-u-s-men-40-years-...

It hits those with earned-only income, no spousal income and no reproduction-based welfare the hardest.

Birth rates have declined, but we now have a large population of single mothers who need to work the welfare-reform minimum of 20 hours per week, staying below income limits for welfare to get everything from free food and free housing to child tax credits of up to $6,269.

And people wonder why wages never rise.

Women must be accommodated by government to work while having children, even though the decline of the Western middle class can be linked to the increase in working moms and even though automation is reducing the overall number of full-time jobs, resulting in a middle-class minority in the U.S.A.

And it is Not True that middle-class prosperity was higher when the ratio of low-consuming people over 65 was much lower. Back in 1970--when we had a much larger, high-consuming, American middle class and fewer working moms--only 9.8% of the U.S. population was over 65. By 2010 the ratio of elderly to high-consuming youth was only 3.2% higher.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf

That is not a huge difference.

The economic difference is in the percentage of working moms, diluting the wage pool, in addition to the wage-lowering mass immigration, offshoring and now automation. Those forces reduce the purchasing power of Americans.

There is only one extra-large population of SS-age elderly to support, namely the Baby Boom, making these demographic economic arguments even weaker.

High-earner working parents are not creating jobs. Most are not taking the risk to start businesses. They are taking 2 salaried jobs with benefits undergirded by a $260 billion employer tax exclusion, resulting in a concentration of access to employer-provided benefits, like the concentration of decent-paying jobs in fewer households. Thus, fewer Americans are covered by so-called employer-provided health insurance, which is actually a super-costly part of the U.S. budget due to the tax exclusion.

Dual-earner parents are mostly doing the safest thing they can, financially speaking, with government accommodating the liberal social concept of working moms to the hilt.

But it is not growing the stagnant economy. It is not resulting in a bigger middle class. And it will only get worse as computer programs and robots continue to absorb full-time jobs, with an increased birth rate among the native born or more imported immigrant workers only making it worse, in that we will have more mouthes to feed and fewer non-automated jobs.

What politicians should be doing is making it easier for more citizens to be stay-at-home parents, not taking two jobs out of an economy with insufficient, full-time jobs, and having the number of kids they can afford. There should be more emphasis on the quality of child rearing. The truth is: More American parents are working in the wage-earning economy while doing a bad job at the unpaid job of raising their kids. The U.S. has 5% of the global population and 25% of its incarcerated humans. How about some emphasis on quality over quantity?

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/15/jim-webb/webb-...

Octagon's picture

The planet has never been more populated. Some would say it's already overpopulated.

More people is not the answer.

Sparehead's picture

Overpopulation is primarily a problem in the third world. The western world is providing aid and incentive to continue to grow their populations, and as our "growth-based" economies are fixing to implode we're now foolishly trying to expand our own populations by importing socialist-minded welfare recipients rather than growing our own native populations. So in short, less native western people is not the answer either.

silverer's picture

"Overpopulation is primarily a problem in the third world."

And since the world is now a global community, any resources at all that cross borders creates an effect.

Sparehead's picture

There's a very obvious growing backlash against the sort of people that say things like "the world is a global community", "diversity is our strength", "we're citizens of the world", etc. The globalists are losing their grip and I'll take national sovereignty over a global community, thanks.

Boubou's picture

True. The natural order is that a population limited by availability of resources in the region.

Over breeding then automatically leads to suffering and death in hard times.

We have tampered with that mechanism by supporting non viable communities.

Now all will share a diminishing life. 

DaveA's picture

You're right, we should spay/neuter all welfare recipients so as not to burden the planet with unwanted babies.

silverer's picture

Your negative posters want the planet floating in each other's armpits. Yuk.