Monday, January 26, 2009
A TigerHawk poll: Would more children help the economy, or hurt it?
Do children help the economy, or hurt it? This question is specifically germane to the debate over the stimulus package (insofar as Nancy Pelosi argues that children are a "cost" that are, presumably, counterstimulative), but it also bears on a more challenging question: Would the United States and its economy benefit over the short, medium, and long term from a faster rate of population growth, or a slower rate? Let's take a poll! (Please consider the question below independently of the means by which we would increase or decrease the rate of population growth. We will tackle that knotty question in a different post.)
Please elaborate in the comments, particularly if you answered that it depends on the time period under consideration.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 26, 06:36:00 PM:
By faster rate of growth, do you mean procreation, illegal immigration, legal immigration, or some combination of the above?
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 06:38:00 PM:
Whatever Nancy states must be incorrect. European jobs are being filled with immigrants from northern Africa as there are no domestic workers. Nancy, say bye-bye Europe. But maybe if she is counting on the coming progressive socialism, she is correct. There won't be any jobs. Her socialist state will implode, along with America.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 07:38:00 PM:
The fact is that world population will increase from 6 billion today to 9 billion by 2050 (source: UN report?). There is no doubt (in my mind) that all these folks now and then, will effect the planet in all respects, including climate.
The campaign against global warming (imaginary!) is the effort to blame ALL this effect on wealthy nations, especially us, rather than on the poor nations that are really procreating. It is a classic shift wealth from the haves to the have nots situation.
We will be better off with more children to help defend our way of life and develop ways to overcome the effect (hell, even just feed) those in the poor but fertile nations. That is, if our children are taught our culture.
Conspiracy or no, if our culture in the future doesn't match our past culture, then our children won't have the drive to do what needs to be done. And, look how our culture has been corrupted over recent years. We encourage homosexuality and debase marriage, weaken Christian religions, teach not to offend, encourage illegal immigration and so on.
So, if our additional children will be like our parents were, yes, we need more children. If our additional children will be like the students at Columbia who shout down anyone with whom they do not agree, no, the nation is better off without them.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 08:29:00 PM:
I want to see more children, especially in the Anglosphere because we have the room, resources and culture, but I vote doing it with the current population set.
Boosting children without getting the fundamentals right for *better* children without silly incentives for breeding is no way to go.
In some respects too many people see kids principally as consumers and not as future nation builders.. and I'm old enough and crass enough to suggest that the better off and better educated are the group I want to see doing their bit.
JC
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 08:32:00 PM:
Sorry TH. I didn't vote in your ballot. You needed to ask what kind of population growth we need. In order to maintain our predominately judeo/christian and {strike}Anglo-Saxon{/strike} {strike}Northern{/strike} European heritage we need reproduction of a certain kind.
Just doin' my part down here. Three children(33,30,5) and three grandchildren, so far.
Also I can't believe that the Speaker didn't consider in this the fact that we need workers to feed into the Ponzi scheme known as Socual Security.
Hay let's open up the s, strike, or del tags. It's hard to do irony here.
JLW III
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 08:38:00 PM:
History has proven the Malthusian scholars wrong, and amazingly, one effective policy has been demonstrated to ease population pressure in countries all over the world: urbanization and economic development.
There are admittedly certain countries in the world where population growth would best be moderated, but that is certainly not the case for the United States, and for the world overall, which is not even close to being full.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 10:01:00 PM:
Perhaps San-Fran-Nan read the chapter on single mothers in Ann Coulter's new book, where Ann convincingly argues that it's not the children that represent the "cost," it's the single mothers themselves. It would have made more sense to Conservatives if Pelosi would have positioned her argument as a potential savings to the individual State’s welfare budgets.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 10:01:00 PM:
The question can't be answered without knowing the particulars.
By , at
Mon Jan 26, 11:19:00 PM:
I voted yes, but on reflection, I think that, despite thinking Pelosi is a turnip in drag, it depends on where the population is growing. If it is teenagers that are reproducing like rabbits, I'd say well maybe we don't need so many. If on the other hand we're talking about larger stable families I'd say more per couple is probably better for the economy.
Regards,
M.E.
By 
Michael Braly, at
Tue Jan 27, 01:47:00 AM:
I voted that we need more people. As to the why, there are a number of reasons. We want more people around who share our values, values which encourage us to innovate, create, and advance. That, and there's always the truth that children need things, you need to buy those things, and well, somebody needs to make those things.
So in sum: yes more people, assuming that they'll have the same enterprising nature of their ancestors.
By , at
Tue Jan 27, 08:34:00 AM:
In that children need to be fed, clothed, and entertained it would lead to more spending and economic activity, generally. As they age and begin their own families and become consumer they generate more spending, again, generally.
More importantly is the common leftist position that children are another commodity that should be controlled. In Nan's case probably government control. I find that disturbing ,but, coincident with her,and their position that abortion is not killing.
By , at
Tue Jan 27, 01:09:00 PM:
One of my children, a student at a well regarded Ivy school, was subjected to a freshman writing seminar (a required course) whose point was to teach that people are a burden to the ecology of the earth, young people are burdens to their parents and the economy, and fewer people make for a better, more moral world. I shit you not.
By Average American, at
Tue Jan 27, 02:08:00 PM:
The best ways to control our population would be to ship out all the illegal aliens and pass legislation banning any future liberal pregnancies. That would stimulate the economy now, and in the future, with less liberals we would be able to get back on the right(pun intended) track.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Jan 28, 09:32:00 PM:
It's a false choice, without a discussion of where any increase in population comes from. Increased population through illegal immigration and anchor babies and the resulting undereducated, poor communities are drains on society at large. Increases in population through American citizens and legal immigrants raising families that share the values this nation was founded are improve society at large.
You just can't separate the question of where population comes from and whether or not it is a good thing...
By , at
Thu Jan 29, 01:43:00 PM:
Squeeler said,
"History has proven the Malthusian scholars wrong.
Yes. But it's worth noting that a writing partner of Paul Ehrlich, the discredited modern Malthusian, just became Obama's Chief Science Advisor. The Harvard Crimson hilariously cited this very appointment as an indication that Bushie (ie, Luddite) views of science tinged by politics were finally changing! Hail Obama!
