A Rant....

[Good Times Good Times]

I'm going to rant for a minute.

There's a sort of populist conservative that likes to talk a lot about civilizational struggles, demographic suicide, the idea that Islam owns the future because Western nations don't have any babies, etc. etc.

I'm thinking of all sorts of people here, everyone from Mark Steyn / Breitbart crowd to Pat Buchanan to Steve King and many more.

This group has generally been one of Donald Trump's key cheering sections. For them, a vote for Trump was a vote against Western decadence, a vote against a globalist corporate-dominated GOP and a liberalism ready for dhimmitude, etc.

Okay. Well, guess what? We're in the middle of a major baby bust in the United States of America right now. Exactly the sort of thing these guys are always warning about. "You can't save your own civilization with other people's babies," that sort of thing.

Here are the details -- this isn't just a general decades-long trend, it's a plunge right now:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/the-great-baby-bust-of-2017-2f63907402fc

In the midst of this baby bust, the Republican Party is having a debate about whether its tax plan should take just a pinch of the money that it's devoting to tax cuts for globalist cucks -- er, sorry, corporations, and spend it instead on families with kids.

The proposed tax credit is linked to having a job. It's specifically designed to satisfy conservative concerns about subsidizing dependency, welfare mothers, illegal immigrants, etc. Lots and lots of its beneficiaries live in Trump country.

It's not going to end the baby bust. It's not big enough to have some major effect on birthrates. But it's SOMETHING. It's a conservative policy that's actually mildly responsive to the trends all these folks freaking about the Twilight of the West (TM) claim to care about.

And guess what? Their great champion, their idiot's version of Constantine or Charles Martel or whatever, came out *against* expanding it today. Because he doesn't want to take any $ away from his yuge tax cut for the very globalist types that all these guys claim to be against.

And naturally if you go to Mark Steyn's feed or Steve King's feed or the homepage of Breitbart dot com you'll find lots of outrage about this, because globalists are bad and demography is destiny and the family is the cradle ... oh, wait, no, there's nothing like there at all.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS. It isn't a video of a Muslim doing something bad or a Hollywood sex scandal or a stupid left-wing academic saying something stupid. It's just a pro-natalist policy in the midst of a baby bust and who would care about THAT?

I give them a hard time, but I don't really blame the Wall Street Journal guys for being against the child tax credit. They have a theory of what conservatism should be, what tax policy should be, and this stuff doesn't fit. Opposing it is just their nature.

But all these other "populists," these Trump-worshipers who presume to lecture the rest of us on how we're just surrendering to liberalism and refusing to charge the cockpit and blah blah blah -- what crap. What CRAP.

And now I hear the liberals saying, "oh, you just discovered the clickbait populists are full of it and doing Muslim-bashing for bubbas, welcome to reality." No, I didn't just discover it. Thanks. I AM WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS LIKE ON THE RIGHT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

But there are people within this populist world who are not cynics, who are sincerely afraid for the West's future. And I want them to stop and think about why this actual REAL WORLD "natalists versus globalists" policy debate isn't getting any traction in their favored outlets.

I want them to stop and think about why populist movements elsewhere in the West actually try to have a pro-family policy agenda to match their demographic worries, while American right-populism still lets Wall Street write its economic policy.

And I want them to wonder, while Mike Lee and Marco Rubio fight a lonely battle for a *pittance* of a refundable tax credit for American families IN THE MIDST OF A BABY BUST, why nobody in professional Populist Conservatism seems interested in making this a cause celebre.

I'd like to wake up tomorrow and find everyone from Steve Bannon to Tucker Carlson publicly hammering the president and the party on this issue that would be nice. But assuming they don't, this thread is my way of saying to professional Populist Conservatism, to hell with you.

I think if your politics, right or left, run on demonizing another, they crumble from inside and capital or muscle fills the void.

Key Point: GOP Tax plan is selling out even the White Nationalists (by not including child Tax credit) in favor of big business, and the media outlets that promoted alt-right are silent about it. In other words, it’s all scam.

tldr: No matter how much conservatives talk about family, the wealthy class underwrites legislation to protects its own interests.

 

[9andaWiggle]

A teeny tiny tax cut is not going to offset the hundreds of thousands of dollars that NOT having children saves.

There are multiple facets to declining birth rates, many of which I probably haven't even considered, but here are a couple reasons I suspect contribute:

Womens liberation movement. Maybe an unpopular sentiment in today's PC world, but it cannot be ignored. When women decided that making money and chasing corporate dreams was more important than bearing / raising children, it set in motion a chain of events leading to a drastic change in the family unit and a decline in births among at least the middle class. When women joined the workforce and brought a second paycheck to the household, Corporate America responded by raising prices and increasing profit. Why? Because they could. Households now had the money to pay a little extra for everything, so price increases year after year went largely unnoticed, while pay stagnated. Again, due to two incomes, middle class families still have more than enough to survive on, so they haven't been too demanding about the overall loss of purchasing power.

Years later, those who may wish to start a family may find they are faced with some tough decisions. Does 1 parent quit work to raise the kid, virtually guaranteeing 18+ years of scrimping to barely get by, or do you pay nearly the equivalent of 1 salary for child care to keep working in order to boost SS earnings and possibly 401K match contributions from an employer so as to not totally sabotage your own retirement by having children? In today's America where everything is priced towards a full 2 family income, children become an increasingly expensive, financially burdensome luxury few can actually afford (if you put pen to paper and figure child rearing cost as a % of overall income the same as you would any non-human asset like a home/auto). I suspect fewer and fewer people are willing to make that sacrifice.

Finally, societal changes. Children are a YUGE responsibility. They demand a lot of time and attention (if you plan to raise them "right" - or "left" for GTGT lol ). A lot of people today do not value, or even need, the family the same as previous generations did. I am an example of that. I admit to being selfish. I don't want the hassle of children. The constant demand of my time/attention/money. I rather enjoy doing pretty much what I want when I want. I've witnessed friends over the years have kids and noticed how their lives change. Most seem to really enjoy being a parent, but it's just not for me. I can't bear the thought of trading an evening out with the wife to a quaint, quiet wine bar for a Saturday afternoon at Chuck E Cheese. I suspect many who withhold from parenthood share my attitude (for better or worse).

 

[Good Times Good Times]

The article linked contains those arguments as to why people don't have children.

My wife and I didn't have ours until after 7 years, which was good. We enjoyed some traveling, etc.

As for raising her, I don't intend on raising her towards any political persuasion. I plan to provide the arguments for and against on a topic and let her decide. She doesn't have to think like me or do the hobbies I've done in my life.....its her life, I want her to find her passion and be relentless in pursuit of her goals.

That's just me.

 

[Djarum300]

College debt. Who wants to have kids when they are saddled with college debt, poor paying jobs and living in a dumpy apartment.

Maybe instead of giving welfare to parents with 20 kids there is a tax deduction for private and federal college loans? How about making interest payments a credit instead of a deduction on home loans? Interest rates are so low that it takes a mcmansion to realize the deduction.

 

[9andaWiggle]

Good point.

And to GTGT, admit I just skimmed the article before replying.

 

[Djarum300]

A teeny tiny tax cut is not going to offset the hundreds of thousands of dollars that NOT having children saves.

There are multiple facets to declining birth rates, many of which I probably haven't even considered, but here are a couple reasons I suspect contribute:

Womens liberation movement. Maybe an unpopular sentiment in today's PC world, but it cannot be ignored. When women decided that making money and chasing corporate dreams was more important than bearing / raising children, it set in motion a chain of events leading to a drastic change in the family unit and a decline in births among at least the middle class. When women joined the workforce and brought a second paycheck to the household, Corporate America responded by raising prices and increasing profit. Why? Because they could. Households now had the money to pay a little extra for everything, so price increases year after year went largely unnoticed, while pay stagnated. Again, due to two incomes, middle class families still have more than enough to survive on, so they haven't been too demanding about the overall loss of purchasing power.

Years later, those who may wish to start a family may find they are faced with some tough decisions. Does 1 parent quit work to raise the kid, virtually guaranteeing 18+ years of scrimping to barely get by, or do you pay nearly the equivalent of 1 salary for child care to keep working in order to boost SS earnings and possibly 401K match contributions from an employer so as to not totally sabotage your own retirement by having children? In today's America where everything is priced towards a full 2 family income, children become an increasingly expensive, financially burdensome luxury few can actually afford (if you put pen to paper and figure child rearing cost as a % of overall income the same as you would any non-human asset like a home/auto). I suspect fewer and fewer people are willing to make that sacrifice.

Finally, societal changes. Children are a YUGE responsibility. They demand a lot of time and attention (if you plan to raise them "right" - or "left" for GTGT lol ). A lot of people today do not value, or even need, the family the same as previous generations did. I am an example of that. I admit to being selfish. I don't want the hassle of children. The constant demand of my time/attention/money. I rather enjoy doing pretty much what I want when I want. I've witnessed friends over the years have kids and noticed how their lives change. Most seem to really enjoy being a parent, but it's just not for me. I can't bear the thought of trading an evening out with the wife to a quaint, quiet wine bar for a Saturday afternoon at Chuck E Cheese. I suspect many who withhold from parenthood share my attitude (for better or worse).

I think there alot of meat there. I'm close to 37 without kids. 1 kid in daycare is 250 a week for the first year here. I'm still paying student loans. Do we not have running cars and a safe neighborhood just to have a kid?

I have a good buddy who's wife quit here good paying job to have their 3rd kid. They'll be tight for a while. They have a modest house, no car payments and a some student loans.

Another couple I know has the grandparents baybysitting. Thinking about that though, my grandfather retired at 60. My father retired at almost 68 but he was 36 when I was born. So the family dynamic is changing.

Want more babies? Corporations could be much more open to flexible hours and telecommuting. Manager still think they have to hover.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

1 kid in daycare is 250 a week for the first year here.

Geesh! 160 per week here, we can afford it but still. 1k per month seems excessive. I'm not disputing it I'm just saying that's quite high.

At the end of the day, I have one that's happy and healthy. That's all I can ask.

 

[9andaWiggle]

Depends where you're at I reckon. Supply/demand and economics of the area.

Corporations embracing telecommuting touches more than just babies. If they did that, it would have great impact - imagine the reduced demand on roadways at rush hour and ensuing reduction in pollution as well as less stress on the employee. Smaller office buildings built only for the occasional face to face meeting and work space for sporadic group projects. Fewer parking lots/garages... It would be huge.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Depends where you're at I reckon. Supply/demand and economics of the area.

Corporations embracing telecommuting touches more than just babies. If they did that, it would have great impact - imagine the reduced demand on roadways at rush hour and ensuing reduction in pollution as well as less stress on the employee. Smaller office buildings built only for the occasional face to face meeting and work space for sporadic group projects. Fewer parking lots/garages... It would be huge.

True fuckin' dat!

 

[Djarum300]

Geesh! 160 per week here, we can afford it but still. 1k per month seems excessive. I'm not disputing it I'm just saying that's quite high.

At the end of the day, I have one that's happy and healthy. That's all I can ask.

Demand is high here. Lots of engineers with either daycare and two incomes or really rich engineers/cto/managers with one at home taking care of kids. We have lots of DC/Virginia/Maryland/west coast transplants used to paying even more.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

The article linked contains those arguments as to why people don't have children.

My wife and I didn't have ours until after 7 years, which was good. We enjoyed some traveling, etc.

As for raising her, I don't intend on raising her towards any political persuasion. I plan to provide the arguments for and against on a topic and let her decide. She doesn't have to think like me or do the hobbies I've done in my life.....its her life, I want her to find her passion and be relentless in pursuit of her goals.

That's just me.

... but that a good outlook.