When a problem occurs we look around for the immediate cause, we then blame the problem on that cause. This is a natural way of thinking but some problems have a cause which is significantly distant into the past and for this reason we fail to recognise it as the cause. This is even more true when in the modern information age we get real time information. What I want to discuss is how the West began destroying itself nearly 100 years ago, and it was not the Jews or immigration policies. These are only consequences of what the West did and I am going to try and prove that to you.
{{us_interest_rates_1790-2015.png}} {{us_interest_rates_1790-2015-colin.png}}
The 2nd image shows the history of US interest rates. I'll use this as a proxy for economic activity, the 3rd image has the US birth rate overlaid but offset by X years where a correlation seems to exist. There seems to be correlations at +10 years, +25 years and +34 years. If this correlation is also an explanation we should be able to explain it. I'll use the US birth rate as a proxy for the West in general.
At about the age of about 34 people get a home loan ( http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/55433/zillow-average-first-time-homebuyer-33-years-age ) this would affect interests rates and economic activity.
At the age of 25 a person is likely to have started in the workforce, contributing to and buying from the economy, the extra productivity rases interest rates.
I am less certain about the age of 10, I specualate that this is when children require more sophisticated entertainment and education products. Perhaps parents have some answer to this?
What I hope this shows is that the effect of the baby rate has future impacts on the economy. Whilst we don't think, as individuals, that us having a child or not is very important to our culture or country, at scale it has a huge impact. This is probably not very surprising once you think about it. The bedrock of an economy is people existing to participate in it. For every child that does not exist about ~40-50 man-years of economy does not exist. (Assuming age 20/25-65/70 worklife.)
If any event occurs to reduce baby making, economic destruction begins to occur about 10 years later, is at maximum effect about 34 years latter and continues into the future non-stop. Knowing this we can now examine history and see how this plays out. I'll remind you that in the 24 hour news cycle age no one cares what happened yesterday (unless it pushes a narrative), and in 4chan no one cares about what happened an hour ago (unless it pushes a narrative) therefore no one cares at all about what happened a decade or more ago. So what I am sharing here is not going to be the typical description we know of history, even by normies or /pol/ perspectives.
part 1/4
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 993683488C3C92EE5291AA495A6BF741-43826.jpg (42.8 KB, 740x473, economic_decline.jpg)
File (): FBD2481B6227AF735B44499032D5DE3C-131647.png (128.6 KB, 1078x796, us_interest_rates_1790-2015.png)
File (): F5F62DB473EF534F3AFBB271E36FA902-291036.png (284.2 KB, 1078x796, us_interest_rates_1790-2015-colin.png)
File (): 5D8611796DFAAEECC705D975B9E661C2-8865.gif (8.7 KB, 570x300, us-fertility-figure1-contraception.gif)
The 4th image is US fertility rates and overlaid on it is the causes of the fertility decline. Since we have established that less economy, is caused by less babies, and now we can establish less babies is due to contraception, we can state more contraception equals less economy. Lets examine the 1920s. With the introduction of family planning and there being now no real opposition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_movement_in_the_United_States ), baby making rates begin to plummet. This creates in society an excess of wealth because the economy had naturally evolved to include a higher rate of spending on raising children. When this money has no children to raise it gets used in other ways. We end up with the Roaring '20s and the stock market boom. You can see how such a small change in society (condoms) has enormous effects on its economics and culture. This richness of society allows all sorts of decadence to become affordable, but not only that, sex itself has no consequences. Sex itself no longer carries the risk of 20 years of raising a child. What a great time to be alive! How liberating (shoutout to Liberals). Does this not show that a liberal philosophy is correct? Well, no because in 1929 the stock market has no more of this excess cash, plus all the bank loans added on to it, to hold it in bubble territory. Any selling is met with no buyer who has not already bought in. The stock market crashes and all the wealth that was historically reserved to raise children evaporates into nothing. Now there is no children and no confidence in the economy resulting in the Great Depression.
One of the strange things about humanity is that when times are hard we have more children, and when times are easy we have less children. At first this seems illogical but when you examine the mindset of people in a third world country the answer becomes clear. Every adult has the concern about making sure their old age is secure. There are two ways to secure your old age; 1) money 2) children. If we have enough money (and that does not just mean your bank account, it could be a government pension, or a expensive house you can sell) you have less pressure to guarantee your future old age with family/children. A rich society has a tendency to favour money for old age security, and a poor society has no choice but to depend on children who will grow up to look after them. And the more desperate a person's situation is the more children they will have in the hopes that some survive into the future to look after them. This is why dysfunctional societies breed and functional societies do not breed. Contraception makes the 'not breeding' option even easier to achieve.
The 1920s introduced family planning, that is the unimpeded distribution of condoms allow the rich West to destroy their future economy. This begins about 10 years after the introduction (as discussed above) and so in the 1930s we have the Great Depression. This desperate time creates a lot of unemployed men. These men are feeling "emaculated" they cannot provide for their families as they wish, their days are long, boring and depressing. One of the cheap ways for those men to feel masculine and uplifted and pass time, and achieve this at no cost with the energy they have from not working, is to have sex with their wife. This, coupled with condoms now being unaffordable or unobtainable stops the collapse in the birth rates as shown by the chart. Bad times = babies.
part 2/4
One of the strange things about humanity is that when times are hard we have more children, and when times are easy we have less children. At first this seems illogical but when you examine the mindset of people in a third world country the answer becomes clear. Every adult has the concern about making sure their old age is secure. There are two ways to secure your old age; 1) money 2) children. If we have enough money (and that does not just mean your bank account, it could be a government pension, or a expensive house you can sell) you have less pressure to guarantee your future old age with family/children. A rich society has a tendency to favour money for old age security, and a poor society has no choice but to depend on children who will grow up to look after them. And the more desperate a person's situation is the more children they will have in the hopes that some survive into the future to look after them. This is why dysfunctional societies breed and functional societies do not breed. Contraception makes the 'not breeding' option even easier to achieve.
The 1920s introduced family planning, that is the unimpeded distribution of condoms allow the rich West to destroy their future economy. This begins about 10 years after the introduction (as discussed above) and so in the 1930s we have the Great Depression. This desperate time creates a lot of unemployed men. These men are feeling "emaculated" they cannot provide for their families as they wish, their days are long, boring and depressing. One of the cheap ways for those men to feel masculine and uplifted and pass time, and achieve this at no cost with the energy they have from not working, is to have sex with their wife. This, coupled with condoms now being unaffordable or unobtainable stops the collapse in the birth rates as shown by the chart. Bad times = babies.
part 2/4
At the economic level everything is in a destroyed state, people are agitated all over the world, finger pointing is continuous, tempers are rising. When a government is experiencing threats from its population governments need to deflect blame to someone else. This deflection has to be someone who is not them and not the majority of the population (Shout out to Hillary Clinton and the "Russians"). The ideal scape-goat is someone over the border but it can be immigrants in the community also. But as you should realise by now it is at its core a birth rate problem caused by contraception and not by nations or races. It is true that these groups can add on to the problem, but they couldn't add on to the problem if the problem was not there to begin with. It is these stresses caused by contraception that causes the rise of international conflict and racism as everybody tries to deflect blame at the same time.
This takes us to World War II, and the blaming of the Jews, which I hope now you can see as misplaced and the massive chimp out as the world goes full retard .... all because of a condom. Seriously! This massive war needs massive amount of rubber for tyres, this makes condoms less available and the birth rate rises dramatically so that by the end of the war the birth rate is approaching pre-condom levels. But the West is so "smart" it has a plan to make sure, even more, that it can stop babies from being born! We go through the cold war, the rise of the military-industrial complex, government secrecy, and then in 1960 we get The Pill! The next saviour of Western civilisation from the scourge of raising children and securing its future! And so the birth rate plummets again, and 10 years later we have the OPEC oil crisis. But wait how can a lack of oil be such a big issue if the economy should be slowing down because of The Pill. To answer this we need to look at the effects of birth rates beyond 10 years.
The last of the high birth rates was the 1910s, this means those people became 25 around 1935 this explains the bottom of the Great Depression, as well, and the uptick in the economy and also the birth rate because condoms are still unavailable (condoms were made in Germany! Shoutout to Weimar Republic and hedonistic Berlin! Condoms = degeracy!) at 34 they are wanting to buy houses and have families. Because this is occurring during the Great Depression and the War there is a baby making recovery, and those children are a boom in the economy, meanwhile these 1910s babies are also still participating in the economy at a reasonable level in the 1970s because they have not retired yet. This double whammy economic uplift causes economic strain on the infrastructure and the result is OPEC can use the situation to blackmail the West.
These adult booms cause the rise of interest rates to counter inflation because of the rise of demand from so many workers/consumers in the system. Meanwhile The Pill is "solving" the problem by decimating the birth rates again. However the West has an additional trick up it's sleeve to make triply sure children don't get born. In 1970 we also add the right to abort for any reason. Ha ha now we can be rid of these stinking kids all together! And so the baby boom of the recent past is the last boost given to the future of Western civilisation. And as these people die out so does the West. Lets take a look at that.
part 3/4
This takes us to World War II, and the blaming of the Jews, which I hope now you can see as misplaced and the massive chimp out as the world goes full retard .... all because of a condom. Seriously! This massive war needs massive amount of rubber for tyres, this makes condoms less available and the birth rate rises dramatically so that by the end of the war the birth rate is approaching pre-condom levels. But the West is so "smart" it has a plan to make sure, even more, that it can stop babies from being born! We go through the cold war, the rise of the military-industrial complex, government secrecy, and then in 1960 we get The Pill! The next saviour of Western civilisation from the scourge of raising children and securing its future! And so the birth rate plummets again, and 10 years later we have the OPEC oil crisis. But wait how can a lack of oil be such a big issue if the economy should be slowing down because of The Pill. To answer this we need to look at the effects of birth rates beyond 10 years.
The last of the high birth rates was the 1910s, this means those people became 25 around 1935 this explains the bottom of the Great Depression, as well, and the uptick in the economy and also the birth rate because condoms are still unavailable (condoms were made in Germany! Shoutout to Weimar Republic and hedonistic Berlin! Condoms = degeracy!) at 34 they are wanting to buy houses and have families. Because this is occurring during the Great Depression and the War there is a baby making recovery, and those children are a boom in the economy, meanwhile these 1910s babies are also still participating in the economy at a reasonable level in the 1970s because they have not retired yet. This double whammy economic uplift causes economic strain on the infrastructure and the result is OPEC can use the situation to blackmail the West.
These adult booms cause the rise of interest rates to counter inflation because of the rise of demand from so many workers/consumers in the system. Meanwhile The Pill is "solving" the problem by decimating the birth rates again. However the West has an additional trick up it's sleeve to make triply sure children don't get born. In 1970 we also add the right to abort for any reason. Ha ha now we can be rid of these stinking kids all together! And so the baby boom of the recent past is the last boost given to the future of Western civilisation. And as these people die out so does the West. Lets take a look at that.
part 3/4
Looking at the birth rate graph, lets use the year 1960 as the centre of the baby boom. Now lets add on a retirement age of 65 years old. Add them together and we get the year 2025. Since the rate of upcoming babies is very low, once these people leave the economy the economy collapses, its fundamental support is going to retire en mass. But that is not all, they don't simply leave, they become "gibmedats", they want a pension. They don't vacate the economy (which is bad enough), they accelerate the consumption of the remaining parts of the wealth in the economy. This is the death blow given to an already sick animal. This is the West's near term future.
This is why immigration is occurring. Someone has to pay for the retirees, someone has to pay taxes for the governments debts + interest. You can't protect a culture and a way of life which has decided to not breed AND afford to pay for old age people and interest payments. A Government's primary duty is the keep the economy afloat, preserving culture is necessarily secondary to financial collapse. Immigration is a symptom of the problem we face, not the cause.
The West is completely fucked, and we started this complete disaster in the 1920s, and in the 2020s we will (not) reap what we (did not) sew. Literally. The US and the West will collapse over the coming decades, the only choice we have is deciding which way we fall over but we will still fall over. We will be invaded one way or another, because nature abhors a vacuum, by war or by governments supporting it as policy. We can do this disaster with a WWII chimp out and still loose, or we can surrender to those who do breed peacefully. And remember it is dysfunctional societies that breed more, and functional societies that breed less.
I can go into more details if you have questions and I am very interested in having my hypothesis challenged. I like being wrong because it gives me the opportunity to be even more correct in the future.
I am making this post because I want anyone considering that harming others as a solution to understand that we did this to ourselves, it is not a conspiracy placed upon us by others. It is possible for others to kick us on the way down, just as we kick CNN on their way down. But just as the meme war won't be the primary cause of CNNs continuing failure, no other group is the primary cause of the West's failure. CNN shot itself in the foot, and so did the West.
Prepare for things to get worse.
part 4/4 end
This is why immigration is occurring. Someone has to pay for the retirees, someone has to pay taxes for the governments debts + interest. You can't protect a culture and a way of life which has decided to not breed AND afford to pay for old age people and interest payments. A Government's primary duty is the keep the economy afloat, preserving culture is necessarily secondary to financial collapse. Immigration is a symptom of the problem we face, not the cause.
The West is completely fucked, and we started this complete disaster in the 1920s, and in the 2020s we will (not) reap what we (did not) sew. Literally. The US and the West will collapse over the coming decades, the only choice we have is deciding which way we fall over but we will still fall over. We will be invaded one way or another, because nature abhors a vacuum, by war or by governments supporting it as policy. We can do this disaster with a WWII chimp out and still loose, or we can surrender to those who do breed peacefully. And remember it is dysfunctional societies that breed more, and functional societies that breed less.
I can go into more details if you have questions and I am very interested in having my hypothesis challenged. I like being wrong because it gives me the opportunity to be even more correct in the future.
I am making this post because I want anyone considering that harming others as a solution to understand that we did this to ourselves, it is not a conspiracy placed upon us by others. It is possible for others to kick us on the way down, just as we kick CNN on their way down. But just as the meme war won't be the primary cause of CNNs continuing failure, no other group is the primary cause of the West's failure. CNN shot itself in the foot, and so did the West.
Prepare for things to get worse.
part 4/4 end
You can blame my wall of text on Gypsy Mod >>46091 →
It's not the first time he has riled up the natives :P ;)
Just playing, Gypsy Mod.
Thanks for inspiring me to actually put my understanding together in an organised way and getting me to share it.
It's not the first time he has riled up the natives :P ;)
Just playing, Gypsy Mod.
Thanks for inspiring me to actually put my understanding together in an organised way and getting me to share it.
>>48245
It takes 20 years to convert a baby into a adult worker/consumer. So the solution for today is to make a baby 20 years ago. You can see how that is a bit of a problem.
Pragmatically speaking the West should ban contraception. But the liberation humanity feels over controlling baby making with result in a massive conflict.
So the other answer is immigration.
How many babies can you pump out between now and 2025, anon? :) and can you convince all of the West to do the same?
As you can see we are screwed.
It takes 20 years to convert a baby into a adult worker/consumer. So the solution for today is to make a baby 20 years ago. You can see how that is a bit of a problem.
Pragmatically speaking the West should ban contraception. But the liberation humanity feels over controlling baby making with result in a massive conflict.
So the other answer is immigration.
How many babies can you pump out between now and 2025, anon? :) and can you convince all of the West to do the same?
As you can see we are screwed.
>>48253
As an Australian I have no information on what Americans or Europeans can do. I would suggest that learning to look after yourself off the grid is always a valuable skill. Learn to grow food, storing some food is sensible. Become more self reliant.
It is better to have a plan you don't need, than need a plan you don't have.
I would be away from the cities, concentrations of stressed civilians is a bad place to be.
The aggression we see in the world today, is what the future looks like more often, if I am correct.
As an Australian I have no information on what Americans or Europeans can do. I would suggest that learning to look after yourself off the grid is always a valuable skill. Learn to grow food, storing some food is sensible. Become more self reliant.
It is better to have a plan you don't need, than need a plan you don't have.
I would be away from the cities, concentrations of stressed civilians is a bad place to be.
The aggression we see in the world today, is what the future looks like more often, if I am correct.
File (): 4A9B96FC17A5FE4B50EBB2C3B0D2F4F7-16833.png (16.4 KB, 568x378, foreign born.png.CROP.article568-large.png)
>>48242
Okay, so a few things
In >>48241 you seem to place all of the blame, or most of the blame, for the vast decrease in birthrates on contraception. But the problem with that is, you already give a better explanation for why birthrates fell so greatly in the 20th Century in >>48240. That is, birthrates fall as people feel more secure. This explanation more thoroughly explains why birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world, than to attribute differences in birthrates to access to contraception
Second, you claim in >>48241 that immigration cannot be the cause of many problems. Now, immigration exacerbates problems caused by low birthrates, but it is entirely capable of causing problems on its own. Increases in crime, depression of wages for the lower classes, disruption of social cohesion, and displacement of native cultures, are all possible from excessive immigration at any native birthrate, even if the effects are far worse the lower the native birthrate.
Finally, in >>48242 you claim that lower birthrates are the cause of higher immigration. Now, that might be true of Europe, Australia, or Canada, but in the United States, Immigration was actually higher before 1920 (and the immigration act that cut immigration in half) and began to rise prior to the massive decline in birthrate (the INA of 1964 slightly preceded the time the decline in the birthrate was taking real effect). So in the US at least, immigration and birthrates are not correlated. See the attached graph
>>48247
Lol, glad I could be of assistance. You did a good job compiling your thoughts here
Okay, so a few things
In >>48241 you seem to place all of the blame, or most of the blame, for the vast decrease in birthrates on contraception. But the problem with that is, you already give a better explanation for why birthrates fell so greatly in the 20th Century in >>48240. That is, birthrates fall as people feel more secure. This explanation more thoroughly explains why birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world, than to attribute differences in birthrates to access to contraception
Second, you claim in >>48241 that immigration cannot be the cause of many problems. Now, immigration exacerbates problems caused by low birthrates, but it is entirely capable of causing problems on its own. Increases in crime, depression of wages for the lower classes, disruption of social cohesion, and displacement of native cultures, are all possible from excessive immigration at any native birthrate, even if the effects are far worse the lower the native birthrate.
Finally, in >>48242 you claim that lower birthrates are the cause of higher immigration. Now, that might be true of Europe, Australia, or Canada, but in the United States, Immigration was actually higher before 1920 (and the immigration act that cut immigration in half) and began to rise prior to the massive decline in birthrate (the INA of 1964 slightly preceded the time the decline in the birthrate was taking real effect). So in the US at least, immigration and birthrates are not correlated. See the attached graph
>>48247
Lol, glad I could be of assistance. You did a good job compiling your thoughts here
>>48250
>Pragmatically speaking the West should ban contraception
At this point, that would only lead to more out of wedlock births and children growing up without fathers, which is a social nightmare all of its own, probably worse than low birthrates.
>How many babies can you pump out between now and 2025, anon?
Absolute birthrate does matter, but relative birthrate matters even more. Can you have more children than the Central American woman who arrived two years ago? Can you prevent her from having children? At least in the US, where birthrate has remained at replacement rate, being replaced is the real fear, not not-having someone to pay the bills later
>Pragmatically speaking the West should ban contraception
At this point, that would only lead to more out of wedlock births and children growing up without fathers, which is a social nightmare all of its own, probably worse than low birthrates.
>How many babies can you pump out between now and 2025, anon?
Absolute birthrate does matter, but relative birthrate matters even more. Can you have more children than the Central American woman who arrived two years ago? Can you prevent her from having children? At least in the US, where birthrate has remained at replacement rate, being replaced is the real fear, not not-having someone to pay the bills later
>>48257
>Okay, so a few things
>In >>48241 (You) you seem to place all of the blame, or most of the blame, for the vast decrease in birthrates on contraception. But the problem with that is, you already give a better explanation for why birthrates fell so greatly in the 20th Century in >>48240 (You). That is, birthrates fall as people feel more secure. This explanation more thoroughly explains why birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world, than to attribute differences in birthrates to access to contraception
These later examples you mention I would like more data on, is it because of condoms? I don't wish to suggest that the world is simple to understand and that it can be explained in 4 posts. But what contraception does do is magnify the effect of 'wealthiness meaning no children'. A wealthy society without contraception would have less children, but only to a point, there is a lower limit and that limit is pent up sexual desire. Contraception allows the normal expression of sexual desire whilst avoiding children. This wealth + no kids = "degenerate" society because "degenrate" is purposeless sex. It allows the birthrate to fall below the lowest non-contraception rate. To test this we would need to see an example of a wealthy society without contraception.
>Second, you claim in >>48241 (You) that immigration cannot be the cause of many problems. Now, immigration exacerbates problems caused by low birthrates, but it is entirely capable of causing problems on its own. Increases in crime, depression of wages for the lower classes, disruption of social cohesion, and displacement of native cultures, are all possible from excessive immigration at any native birthrate, even if the effects are far worse the lower the native birth rate.
No, I suggest that low birth rates leads to societal and international stress. I see immigration alone as not a cause for problems, it needs to be added onto an existing problem for people to care about it. For example in the past a country would tend to immigrate people somewhat like itself to avoid issues. Modern immigration is a act which is not actually preferred but is uncomfortably forced upon the culture/society by economic strains which is at its core birth rate strains. In the current situation the Middle East hates the West which is nothing new but in the push by the West to continue to keep the Ponzi going (minus the babies) it has passed the strains in the West onto the Middle East, then via immigration it feeds back onto the West as those stresses return home. In my understanding I try to avoid local short term reactions and try to locate larger long-timelined primary causes.
part 1/2
>Okay, so a few things
>In >>48241 (You) you seem to place all of the blame, or most of the blame, for the vast decrease in birthrates on contraception. But the problem with that is, you already give a better explanation for why birthrates fell so greatly in the 20th Century in >>48240 (You). That is, birthrates fall as people feel more secure. This explanation more thoroughly explains why birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world, than to attribute differences in birthrates to access to contraception
These later examples you mention I would like more data on, is it because of condoms? I don't wish to suggest that the world is simple to understand and that it can be explained in 4 posts. But what contraception does do is magnify the effect of 'wealthiness meaning no children'. A wealthy society without contraception would have less children, but only to a point, there is a lower limit and that limit is pent up sexual desire. Contraception allows the normal expression of sexual desire whilst avoiding children. This wealth + no kids = "degenerate" society because "degenrate" is purposeless sex. It allows the birthrate to fall below the lowest non-contraception rate. To test this we would need to see an example of a wealthy society without contraception.
>Second, you claim in >>48241 (You) that immigration cannot be the cause of many problems. Now, immigration exacerbates problems caused by low birthrates, but it is entirely capable of causing problems on its own. Increases in crime, depression of wages for the lower classes, disruption of social cohesion, and displacement of native cultures, are all possible from excessive immigration at any native birthrate, even if the effects are far worse the lower the native birth rate.
No, I suggest that low birth rates leads to societal and international stress. I see immigration alone as not a cause for problems, it needs to be added onto an existing problem for people to care about it. For example in the past a country would tend to immigrate people somewhat like itself to avoid issues. Modern immigration is a act which is not actually preferred but is uncomfortably forced upon the culture/society by economic strains which is at its core birth rate strains. In the current situation the Middle East hates the West which is nothing new but in the push by the West to continue to keep the Ponzi going (minus the babies) it has passed the strains in the West onto the Middle East, then via immigration it feeds back onto the West as those stresses return home. In my understanding I try to avoid local short term reactions and try to locate larger long-timelined primary causes.
part 1/2
>>48257
>Finally, in >>48242 (You) you claim that lower birthrates are the cause of higher immigration. Now, that might be true of Europe, Australia, or Canada, but in the United States, Immigration was actually higher before 1920 (and the immigration act that cut immigration in half) and began to rise prior to the massive decline in birthrate (the INA of 1964 slightly preceded the time the decline in the birthrate was taking real effect). So in the US at least, immigration and birthrates are not correlated. See the attached graph
There are always other factors going on which affect the world also. The rise of America was always going to have high immigration as it continued to establish itself compared to Europe. This is a valid other influence on immigration. I don't wish to suggest immigration only occurs due to contraception, it occurs when the current population is not considered large enough, one way that can occur is contraception. In the modern world we don't have new Americas rising up and so at this point lack of births is going to be the cause. The fact that immigration needs to be at 1870s rates to keep the Ponzi going is an indication of a large problem lurking underneath, and that is lack of babies.
>>48247 (You)
>Lol, glad I could be of assistance. You did a good job compiling your thoughts here
Thank you for your challenging reply also :) I am very interested in the "birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world" this would be a good test case.
part 2/2 end
>Finally, in >>48242 (You) you claim that lower birthrates are the cause of higher immigration. Now, that might be true of Europe, Australia, or Canada, but in the United States, Immigration was actually higher before 1920 (and the immigration act that cut immigration in half) and began to rise prior to the massive decline in birthrate (the INA of 1964 slightly preceded the time the decline in the birthrate was taking real effect). So in the US at least, immigration and birthrates are not correlated. See the attached graph
There are always other factors going on which affect the world also. The rise of America was always going to have high immigration as it continued to establish itself compared to Europe. This is a valid other influence on immigration. I don't wish to suggest immigration only occurs due to contraception, it occurs when the current population is not considered large enough, one way that can occur is contraception. In the modern world we don't have new Americas rising up and so at this point lack of births is going to be the cause. The fact that immigration needs to be at 1870s rates to keep the Ponzi going is an indication of a large problem lurking underneath, and that is lack of babies.
>>48247 (You)
>Lol, glad I could be of assistance. You did a good job compiling your thoughts here
Thank you for your challenging reply also :) I am very interested in the "birthrates only recently fell in Latin America and the Islamic world" this would be a good test case.
part 2/2 end
The per post character limit has been raised from 3600 to 6000
>>48260
>replacement
Being replaced is the worst fear currently because replacement of those absent babies is the current solution.
Replacement rates only is a flat line in a economic structure that has upward spiralling debts because money being magic'ed out of thin air with interest attached is a really stupid fucking idea. Because on the whole you always owe, and it can only be covered by economic expansion, which comes from higher baby rates.
End the Fed, usury is financial heroin, it's a great high, then you die.
>replacement
Being replaced is the worst fear currently because replacement of those absent babies is the current solution.
Replacement rates only is a flat line in a economic structure that has upward spiralling debts because money being magic'ed out of thin air with interest attached is a really stupid fucking idea. Because on the whole you always owe, and it can only be covered by economic expansion, which comes from higher baby rates.
End the Fed, usury is financial heroin, it's a great high, then you die.
File (): 972E64D3AA5806D4D5714C4347BAF56B-49853.jpg (48.7 KB, 678x600, BRLASSpring2013-Nancy-Under5MortalityFertility-750p.jpg)
File (): 193647F6491285E732C73058AD0809F4-37439.jpg (36.6 KB, 960x720, Iran.jpg)
File (): 5839D542CE8E32FE6BB8C988E5FD6BBB-67250.jpg (65.7 KB, 1005x600, Mexico4.jpg)
>I would like more data on, is it because of condoms
Well, the reason I believe the decrease in birthrates is not well explained by the availability of contraceptives is that many countries that have certainly had access to contraceptives for many decades have only just recently begun to have a sharp decline in birthrate. It seems economic or cultural change more easily accounts for this decline. See the attached graph.
>Contraception allows the normal expression of sexual desire whilst avoiding children
I've always wondered how effective contraception actually is in preventing unwanted pregnancies, since people don't really use it effectively or when they ought to. The percentage of all pregnancies in the US that are unplanned is vastly higher than the percentage of pregnancies in Nigeria that are unplanned, when according to contraception theory, the latter poorer nation should presumably have greater difficulty controlling pregnancies.
>In 2011, nearly half (45% or 2.8 million) of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the United States each year were unintended
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/2006/08/08/Nigeria-UP-IA.pdf
>An estimated one in five pregnancies in Nigeria are unplanned
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/2006/08/08/Nigeria-UP-IA.pdf
>I see immigration alone as not a cause for problems, it needs to be added onto an existing problem for people to care about it
Well of course immigration alone is capable of causing enough problems for people to care. Existing problems just compound the negative effects of immigration, causing people to care at lower levels of immigration than when such problems don't exist. For example, immigration of low skilled labor necessarily reduces wages for that wage level because of supply and demand - more labor means lower wages. But if in a booming economy, 35% of the labor force in the relevant sectors would have to be immigrant in order for people to feel uncomfortable, in a recession, only 10% need be for people to feel concerned, because they are already crunched for wages, and they don't want another factor limiting them. Remember that the late 1800s in the United States were a period of relative prosperity, yet people complained endlessly about income inequality (and what a coincidence! That corresponded to a period of high foreign-born population, even as GDP growth was high and the birth rate was high).
The cultural problems brought by immigration remain whether or not there is an issue with the birthrate or the economy. For example, in the late 1910s, in the US there was a strong anti-immigrant sentiment. Why? Because German immigrants and their children opposed the intervention in WW1, German immigrants were not necessarily learning English (Nebraska even banned the teaching of German in schools to force assimilation). Ukrainian, Russian, and Jewish immigrants were spreading communism, even plotting terrorist activities. And the child of Czech immigrants murdered the president in 1901. All of these were problems that lead to congress passing legislation that limited immigration over President Wilson's veto in 1916, then made a very restrictive immigration law in 1920, and then an even more restrictive immigration law in 1924. All of this happened in a period of relative economic prosperity (there was recession earlier, but it did not dominate the decade) and while there was a high birthrate. And in the modern situation, it's not any different. Seeing Burkas every where, and having sharia law courts, is going to rile nativist sentiments in European nations regardless of the birth rate or the economy, although it's probably fair to say there would be more outrage if there were a feeling the natives were being "outbred." And then there's the issue with crime. The Irish, Italians, Jews, Cubans, Mexicans, Russians, Albanians, and El Salvadorians, have all started their own mafias, gangs, and other organized crime syndicates in the United States and other countries they immigrate to, and this has happened at every point in American history, regardless of economics or birthrates, and it has been a problem.
>Modern immigration is a act which is not actually preferred but is uncomfortably forced upon the culture/society by economic strains which is at its core birth rate strains
Did you intend to say "immigration" or did you actually mean "emigration" because the difference in words gives that paragraph a vastly different meaning, depending upon which word was intended.
>I don't wish to suggest immigration only occurs due to contraception, it occurs when the current population is not considered large enough
It's probably pretty fair to say that there are leaders in Europe who think that immigration needs to be high to replace lower birth rates. But of course there are globalists who don't care about national culture and want freedom of movement, people who want to help "refugees," and as mentioned America has just historically accepted large numbers of immigrants regardless.
>>48265
D'aww
Well, the reason I believe the decrease in birthrates is not well explained by the availability of contraceptives is that many countries that have certainly had access to contraceptives for many decades have only just recently begun to have a sharp decline in birthrate. It seems economic or cultural change more easily accounts for this decline. See the attached graph.
>Contraception allows the normal expression of sexual desire whilst avoiding children
I've always wondered how effective contraception actually is in preventing unwanted pregnancies, since people don't really use it effectively or when they ought to. The percentage of all pregnancies in the US that are unplanned is vastly higher than the percentage of pregnancies in Nigeria that are unplanned, when according to contraception theory, the latter poorer nation should presumably have greater difficulty controlling pregnancies.
>In 2011, nearly half (45% or 2.8 million) of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the United States each year were unintended
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/2006/08/08/Nigeria-UP-IA.pdf
>An estimated one in five pregnancies in Nigeria are unplanned
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/2006/08/08/Nigeria-UP-IA.pdf
>I see immigration alone as not a cause for problems, it needs to be added onto an existing problem for people to care about it
Well of course immigration alone is capable of causing enough problems for people to care. Existing problems just compound the negative effects of immigration, causing people to care at lower levels of immigration than when such problems don't exist. For example, immigration of low skilled labor necessarily reduces wages for that wage level because of supply and demand - more labor means lower wages. But if in a booming economy, 35% of the labor force in the relevant sectors would have to be immigrant in order for people to feel uncomfortable, in a recession, only 10% need be for people to feel concerned, because they are already crunched for wages, and they don't want another factor limiting them. Remember that the late 1800s in the United States were a period of relative prosperity, yet people complained endlessly about income inequality (and what a coincidence! That corresponded to a period of high foreign-born population, even as GDP growth was high and the birth rate was high).
The cultural problems brought by immigration remain whether or not there is an issue with the birthrate or the economy. For example, in the late 1910s, in the US there was a strong anti-immigrant sentiment. Why? Because German immigrants and their children opposed the intervention in WW1, German immigrants were not necessarily learning English (Nebraska even banned the teaching of German in schools to force assimilation). Ukrainian, Russian, and Jewish immigrants were spreading communism, even plotting terrorist activities. And the child of Czech immigrants murdered the president in 1901. All of these were problems that lead to congress passing legislation that limited immigration over President Wilson's veto in 1916, then made a very restrictive immigration law in 1920, and then an even more restrictive immigration law in 1924. All of this happened in a period of relative economic prosperity (there was recession earlier, but it did not dominate the decade) and while there was a high birthrate. And in the modern situation, it's not any different. Seeing Burkas every where, and having sharia law courts, is going to rile nativist sentiments in European nations regardless of the birth rate or the economy, although it's probably fair to say there would be more outrage if there were a feeling the natives were being "outbred." And then there's the issue with crime. The Irish, Italians, Jews, Cubans, Mexicans, Russians, Albanians, and El Salvadorians, have all started their own mafias, gangs, and other organized crime syndicates in the United States and other countries they immigrate to, and this has happened at every point in American history, regardless of economics or birthrates, and it has been a problem.
>Modern immigration is a act which is not actually preferred but is uncomfortably forced upon the culture/society by economic strains which is at its core birth rate strains
Did you intend to say "immigration" or did you actually mean "emigration" because the difference in words gives that paragraph a vastly different meaning, depending upon which word was intended.
>I don't wish to suggest immigration only occurs due to contraception, it occurs when the current population is not considered large enough
It's probably pretty fair to say that there are leaders in Europe who think that immigration needs to be high to replace lower birth rates. But of course there are globalists who don't care about national culture and want freedom of movement, people who want to help "refugees," and as mentioned America has just historically accepted large numbers of immigrants regardless.
>>48265
D'aww
File (): C29A7AB8BAF33522B972836352BCA1FB-145622.png (142.2 KB, 800x800, APUBURUMI.png)
>>48276
>Well, the reason I believe the decrease in birthrates is not well explained by the availability of contraceptives is that many countries that have certainly had access to contraceptives for many decades have only just recently begun to have a sharp decline in birthrate. It seems economic or cultural change more easily accounts for this decline. See the attached graph.
This is hair splitting I think and are probably interlinked in a way that we can't untangle. Richer people can afford contraception and equally don't need so many children. We are looking at the same coin from a different direction and arguing about what it looks like. My point though is that the root of this is; contraception amplifies the generalised social decision to not reproduce. Since my research concentrates on root causes I take this back to 'family planning' and condom availability itself.
Other countries that modernise and become wealthy later can't provide a clear view before easily accessible contraception and after. The US is a clearer model. And since we are discussing the West perhaps non-Western countries just muddies the discussion. No disrespect but now that I think about it, this might be a tangent which leads away from the basis of my hypothesis. It moves the goal post and forces me to support an idea outside of its intended scope - the West.
>The percentage of all pregnancies in the US that are unplanned is vastly higher than the percentage of pregnancies in Nigeria that are unplanned, when according to contraception theory, the latter poorer nation should presumably have greater difficulty controlling pregnancies.
Contraception effectiveness can be seen directly in the birth rate chart. Your stats sited do add a confusing message to the birth rates. I think the birth rate chart is more objective than a survey of peoples mindset. For example a pin is all that is needed for an """unintended""" pregnancy. I am forced to go with the birth rate chart as direct evidence over surveys.
>The cultural problems brought by immigration remain whether or not there is an issue with the birth rate or the economy
I'll concede this point. And I will change it to the scale of immigration problems is proportional to the desperateness of the need to immigrate anyway. Our future desperateness is greater, the problem will therefore be greater.
It is also interesting to note that your examples are in the early 1900s, and ours are in the early 2000's. This gives some support to the 100 year cyclic nature of these events. Which is implied also in the 1920s condom leads to 2020s retiree boom/economy bust.
> Did you intend to say "immigration" or did you actually mean "emigration"
Ha! I can read it both ways and agree. A war torn country would have people flow to a collapsing but still better country. The collapsing country needs the numbers, the failed country needs to slightly better opportunity.
>But of course there are globalists who don't care about national culture and want freedom of movement
Yes but I do not see these as primary causes. The vulture did not kill the animal, they just feast on the opportunity presented. I don't believe in successful conspiracies by small groups, I believe cracks appear and those group leverage those cracks. The sick or old animal is caught by the lion, not the healthy one. The West is both sick and old and getting older.
part 1 of 2
>Well, the reason I believe the decrease in birthrates is not well explained by the availability of contraceptives is that many countries that have certainly had access to contraceptives for many decades have only just recently begun to have a sharp decline in birthrate. It seems economic or cultural change more easily accounts for this decline. See the attached graph.
This is hair splitting I think and are probably interlinked in a way that we can't untangle. Richer people can afford contraception and equally don't need so many children. We are looking at the same coin from a different direction and arguing about what it looks like. My point though is that the root of this is; contraception amplifies the generalised social decision to not reproduce. Since my research concentrates on root causes I take this back to 'family planning' and condom availability itself.
Other countries that modernise and become wealthy later can't provide a clear view before easily accessible contraception and after. The US is a clearer model. And since we are discussing the West perhaps non-Western countries just muddies the discussion. No disrespect but now that I think about it, this might be a tangent which leads away from the basis of my hypothesis. It moves the goal post and forces me to support an idea outside of its intended scope - the West.
>The percentage of all pregnancies in the US that are unplanned is vastly higher than the percentage of pregnancies in Nigeria that are unplanned, when according to contraception theory, the latter poorer nation should presumably have greater difficulty controlling pregnancies.
Contraception effectiveness can be seen directly in the birth rate chart. Your stats sited do add a confusing message to the birth rates. I think the birth rate chart is more objective than a survey of peoples mindset. For example a pin is all that is needed for an """unintended""" pregnancy. I am forced to go with the birth rate chart as direct evidence over surveys.
>The cultural problems brought by immigration remain whether or not there is an issue with the birth rate or the economy
I'll concede this point. And I will change it to the scale of immigration problems is proportional to the desperateness of the need to immigrate anyway. Our future desperateness is greater, the problem will therefore be greater.
It is also interesting to note that your examples are in the early 1900s, and ours are in the early 2000's. This gives some support to the 100 year cyclic nature of these events. Which is implied also in the 1920s condom leads to 2020s retiree boom/economy bust.
> Did you intend to say "immigration" or did you actually mean "emigration"
Ha! I can read it both ways and agree. A war torn country would have people flow to a collapsing but still better country. The collapsing country needs the numbers, the failed country needs to slightly better opportunity.
>But of course there are globalists who don't care about national culture and want freedom of movement
Yes but I do not see these as primary causes. The vulture did not kill the animal, they just feast on the opportunity presented. I don't believe in successful conspiracies by small groups, I believe cracks appear and those group leverage those cracks. The sick or old animal is caught by the lion, not the healthy one. The West is both sick and old and getting older.
part 1 of 2
>>48276
However conspiratorial groups do attribute to themselves the "victory" and the conspiracy theorists agree because blaming others is comforting. There is nothing more uncomfortable than knowing you did it to yourself.
>>>>"Gas the kikes, race war now"
(not attributed to you but /pol/ tier thinking)
It also gives the delusion of a "Final Solution", and just over the horizon is Utopia. We all love fairytale endings.
I have to disagree with that thinking. And to be honest I like pre 1939 NatSoc but conspirators weren't Germany's actual problem in my view. They were just watching and waiting opportunists. Germany manufactured the condoms, Berlin went degenerate, etc. etc.
part 2 of 2 end
However conspiratorial groups do attribute to themselves the "victory" and the conspiracy theorists agree because blaming others is comforting. There is nothing more uncomfortable than knowing you did it to yourself.
>>>>"Gas the kikes, race war now"
(not attributed to you but /pol/ tier thinking)
It also gives the delusion of a "Final Solution", and just over the horizon is Utopia. We all love fairytale endings.
I have to disagree with that thinking. And to be honest I like pre 1939 NatSoc but conspirators weren't Germany's actual problem in my view. They were just watching and waiting opportunists. Germany manufactured the condoms, Berlin went degenerate, etc. etc.
part 2 of 2 end
>The German publication DWN has come out and warned that the German Pensions system is collapsing. They wrote:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdeutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de%2F2017%2F07%2F01%2Fschwere-maengel-das-deutsche-renten-system-funktioniert-nicht%2F&edit-text=
>>The core problem of the German economy and society is miserable demography. A positive development, namely the increasing longevity of the population, is an extremely negative groundbreaking, namely a small number of children. This is reflected in one of the lowest birth rates in the world – and this has been the case for decades. The record-breaking birth rate is by no means rooted in a biological, but in deeper social causes and inadequate policies at different stages. One consequence is a pension system that is not sustainably financed , because the ratio of contributors and receivers will drastically deteriorate.
>The very design of pensions has been universal. They assumed that population would always increase and thus pensions would be funded by taxing the current generation to pay for the previous. The declining birthrate and the increase in longevity has blown out the pensions systems on a global scale. In the case of Germany, this is a primary reason behind accepting refugees with hopes of making up the decline in the birth rate. The problem has been the lack of a desire to assimilate when we are looking at 70% of refugees are males and are really just economic migrants lacking skills and language.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/germany/germany-pensions-system-crisis/
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdeutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de%2F2017%2F07%2F01%2Fschwere-maengel-das-deutsche-renten-system-funktioniert-nicht%2F&edit-text=
>>The core problem of the German economy and society is miserable demography. A positive development, namely the increasing longevity of the population, is an extremely negative groundbreaking, namely a small number of children. This is reflected in one of the lowest birth rates in the world – and this has been the case for decades. The record-breaking birth rate is by no means rooted in a biological, but in deeper social causes and inadequate policies at different stages. One consequence is a pension system that is not sustainably financed , because the ratio of contributors and receivers will drastically deteriorate.
>The very design of pensions has been universal. They assumed that population would always increase and thus pensions would be funded by taxing the current generation to pay for the previous. The declining birthrate and the increase in longevity has blown out the pensions systems on a global scale. In the case of Germany, this is a primary reason behind accepting refugees with hopes of making up the decline in the birth rate. The problem has been the lack of a desire to assimilate when we are looking at 70% of refugees are males and are really just economic migrants lacking skills and language.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/germany/germany-pensions-system-crisis/
File (): AA132F56193F31DB6FDF642D5D1EA942-130759.png (127.7 KB, 1574x798, screenshot.png)
I think pic related explains Germany's insistence on European immigration. They want the economic gains whilst distributing the costs of policing them to (marginally) better off European countries.
There are other European countries in a similar state but they don't have the power and influence of Germany.
There are other European countries in a similar state but they don't have the power and influence of Germany.
Answer me this, shitposter-kun: how much did (((they))) pay you for this? It seems really suspicious to me that you try your best to ignore their role in causing the problem you describe. Maybe it's because you simply don't know enough about (((their))) deeds in which case you simply need to lurk more, or you're doing this because you have some kind of ulterior motive in mind. Also, you need to remember that family unit is extremely important for the economics and the society as a whole. If you want to destroy a nation, or civilization, then you just need to destroy their family unit and, voila, nation or civilization are now in ruins!
If what you say is true and we are headed toward a great collapse, albeit I think there are some other factors to consider causality, and our options are dealing with the immigrants or ww3 chimp out then I'd chose the later. I will not capitulate. I will not just roll over and die. I'd rather burn out bright and strong than fade into nothingness. Keep in mind a world war today would be different from the rest. If it means the difference between victory and defeat nukes will be used. Just like a plague on an overpopulated place this might be inevitable. Nature has a way of fixing its imbalances. I think we should all hope it doesn't come to that and instead persist through hard times no matter what. I'd sooner live a poor life with my own than an easy degenerate one with foreign hands.
Also this >>48359
Also this >>48359
File (): CCF0A791C90FCB0BC47A3BC6C245D06F-20952.jpg (20.5 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg)
File (): 819B64B8ABB5B398A154EFAA24728AF1-1424293.png (1.4 MB, 2928x2737, 1461169189251.png)
File (): C71320CD77225DFEEA64D54F5165761E-1622522.gif (1.5 MB, 580x326, 1491700636382.gif)
>>48563
They have sex with Rarity? /confused. But you goyim confuse me all the time. I think it's your low IQ. What is actually great is pony waifus work even better than condoms to stop the West breeding!
We here at the JIDF absolutely love the new strategy of getting the youth of the goyim to prefer cartoons over real women. /mlpol/ is actually our favourite website!
And not only that but solving problems by being..... Friendly.... OMG we laugh so hard, truely awesome.
Which pony is your waifu, anon?
They have sex with Rarity? /confused. But you goyim confuse me all the time. I think it's your low IQ. What is actually great is pony waifus work even better than condoms to stop the West breeding!
We here at the JIDF absolutely love the new strategy of getting the youth of the goyim to prefer cartoons over real women. /mlpol/ is actually our favourite website!
And not only that but solving problems by being..... Friendly.... OMG we laugh so hard, truely awesome.
Which pony is your waifu, anon?
File (): 66F77F1DBE4F3DEAF45F98D14EBC8CB6-509312.jpg (497.4 KB, 1543x1474, PicsArt_06-28-03.47.39.jpg)
This is why I still like Catholics.
File (): 2CD141679784505AA1A55A1C8E06A424-21138.jpg (20.6 KB, 553x315, MM20170712_b-lg.jpg)
File (): 31B82872F4FE9156C01801BAFFEFA077-349489.jpg (341.3 KB, 1243x847, ECM-1970-2084-colin.jpg)
A small update. According to this article (about Australia) https://www.moneymorning.com.au/20170712/rip-retirement-postponed.html which I can't archive.is because of the popup blocking reading it (I appologise for the crappy naggy site, but the article is good):
>There you have it, folks — the bad news on retirement.
>Too few. Too many. Too much. Too high. Not enough. Too long.
>Too few children being born.
>Too few taxpayers in an increasingly automated workforce.
>Too many in the dependent category.
>Too much has been promised to too many.
>Markets are too high and extremely vulnerable.
>There simply will not be enough to go around.
>And finally, we are living too long for the current retirement funding model.
>The end result will be RIP — ‘retirement is postponed’.
>While the official age might be 67, we should mirror-reverse those numbers and expect the unofficial number to be 76.
My calculations are based on 65 for retirement. If we push that out to 75 that means 2035 as the tipping point. What makes that interesting is Martin Armstrong's computer models predict 2032 as the stock market crash and the next great depression.
The first image shows that around 2030 Australians will be supporting more old people than children. The second is Armstrong's computer model.
>There you have it, folks — the bad news on retirement.
>Too few. Too many. Too much. Too high. Not enough. Too long.
>Too few children being born.
>Too few taxpayers in an increasingly automated workforce.
>Too many in the dependent category.
>Too much has been promised to too many.
>Markets are too high and extremely vulnerable.
>There simply will not be enough to go around.
>And finally, we are living too long for the current retirement funding model.
>The end result will be RIP — ‘retirement is postponed’.
>While the official age might be 67, we should mirror-reverse those numbers and expect the unofficial number to be 76.
My calculations are based on 65 for retirement. If we push that out to 75 that means 2035 as the tipping point. What makes that interesting is Martin Armstrong's computer models predict 2032 as the stock market crash and the next great depression.
The first image shows that around 2030 Australians will be supporting more old people than children. The second is Armstrong's computer model.
File (): 96F8DF687BA670810D686D21F98ED2AC-1122329.gif (1.1 MB, 300x225, embracing death.gif)
>>48264
Thanks!
>>48239
>>48240
>>48241
>>48242
Not gonna expand too much in text, I'm a bit sleepy right now, but I think there is a little variable you haven't considered yet: How workforce needs have evolved over time.
Before the XV century every single Bible had to be handwritten, then Printing was a reality and suddenly those big staffs of priests having to manually copy every single word in the Bible didn't had to. Instead you need people to adjust patterns, take care of the printing itself and people to maintain the printer. So I would say this is the first automatized job.
Then you get steam machines, coal devices, electronics and informatics, in that order. All of that made possible three things: A faster supply chain, less people needed in a formerly manual job, and the possibility to fulfill a bigger amount of wants. Still, you need specialized jobs to watch that the process keeps in line and the machines don't stop, as often to resume their operation implies costs, and potential losses for dead time.
What I am aiming to, is that jobs, requirements, technology and supply chain have change a lot through time, with a constantly accelerating rate; so jobs that people are trained to perform when they are 25 quickly become old and you have people in their 50s whose condition is very unstable and their skills have become obsolete because of this replacement, and need of ever specialized jobs. I have seen it a lot myself, as I work in STEM.
And so, having a well paid job will become increasingly difficult as the needed skills to compete in the job market will be ever growing and become obsolete much quicker. That's the main problem in my eyes.
Thanks!
>>48239
>>48240
>>48241
>>48242
Not gonna expand too much in text, I'm a bit sleepy right now, but I think there is a little variable you haven't considered yet: How workforce needs have evolved over time.
Before the XV century every single Bible had to be handwritten, then Printing was a reality and suddenly those big staffs of priests having to manually copy every single word in the Bible didn't had to. Instead you need people to adjust patterns, take care of the printing itself and people to maintain the printer. So I would say this is the first automatized job.
Then you get steam machines, coal devices, electronics and informatics, in that order. All of that made possible three things: A faster supply chain, less people needed in a formerly manual job, and the possibility to fulfill a bigger amount of wants. Still, you need specialized jobs to watch that the process keeps in line and the machines don't stop, as often to resume their operation implies costs, and potential losses for dead time.
What I am aiming to, is that jobs, requirements, technology and supply chain have change a lot through time, with a constantly accelerating rate; so jobs that people are trained to perform when they are 25 quickly become old and you have people in their 50s whose condition is very unstable and their skills have become obsolete because of this replacement, and need of ever specialized jobs. I have seen it a lot myself, as I work in STEM.
And so, having a well paid job will become increasingly difficult as the needed skills to compete in the job market will be ever growing and become obsolete much quicker. That's the main problem in my eyes.
>>49351
Yep, another factor slowing economic activity between people whilst debt keeps expanding exponentially. Nothing can go wrong with this.
Yep, another factor slowing economic activity between people whilst debt keeps expanding exponentially. Nothing can go wrong with this.
File (): 60BBAFAE1E4A3C54C0E5F1BBC37505C5-78405.jpg (76.6 KB, 1325x600, screenshot.jpg)
Japan has longer term low fertility rates than the West. We can use them as a guide to the future for the West.
pic source: https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:JPN:USA:DEU&hl=en&dl=en
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3512644/Japan-suffers-geriatric-crime-wave-Elderly-turn-shoplifting-locked-cared-for.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/27/japans-elderly-turn-to-life-of-crime-to-ease-cost-of-living.html
https://globalhealthaging.org/2016/05/10/japan-confronts-crime-wave-with-aging-population/
>A crime wave among older people is underway in the world’s greyest nation. Just last year in Japan, the number of criminals over 65 overtook the number of teenage criminals for the first time since the country started publishing age-related crime statistics in 1989. Over a third of shoplifting crimes are committed by those over 60, and 40 percent are repeat offenders. Criminal offenses by those age 60 and over have also quadrupled between 1994 and 2014.
pic source: https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:JPN:USA:DEU&hl=en&dl=en
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3512644/Japan-suffers-geriatric-crime-wave-Elderly-turn-shoplifting-locked-cared-for.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/27/japans-elderly-turn-to-life-of-crime-to-ease-cost-of-living.html
https://globalhealthaging.org/2016/05/10/japan-confronts-crime-wave-with-aging-population/
>A crime wave among older people is underway in the world’s greyest nation. Just last year in Japan, the number of criminals over 65 overtook the number of teenage criminals for the first time since the country started publishing age-related crime statistics in 1989. Over a third of shoplifting crimes are committed by those over 60, and 40 percent are repeat offenders. Criminal offenses by those age 60 and over have also quadrupled between 1994 and 2014.
File (): E11E4E05CA0831084106015BAB40E015-54848.jpg (53.6 KB, 608x471, 20140626124207.jpg)
>Japan had a postwar baby boom between 1947 and 1949, however, the law of 1948 led to an easy access to abortions, followed by prolonged period of low fertility, resulting in the aging population of Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
So this puts Japan about 10 (Pill 1960) to 20 (1970 abortion) years ahead of the West.
pic source: http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/06/26/130259
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
So this puts Japan about 10 (Pill 1960) to 20 (1970 abortion) years ahead of the West.
pic source: http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/06/26/130259
File (): 5AE58DD866BAA53344331E9D45237CC7-143878.jpg (140.5 KB, 910x1024, 309year_civ_cycle.jpg)
I discovered a new black pill.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/why-global-warming-is-good/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/why-global-warming-is-good/
File (): 058FE13977E3C29E08EA796FC90836B6-199264.png (194.6 KB, 600x593, 1498569144034-1.png)
>>51567
Interesting but I'm pretty sure global warming is just propaganda.
The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking by the day and we are getting more efficient at reducing our impact on the nature by the day.
It's just suspicious that despite all our work some people insist that the global warming "problem" is getting worse and worse.
Maybe it's a natural thing that happens you know, not everything is the evil white man's fault.
Interesting but I'm pretty sure global warming is just propaganda.
The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking by the day and we are getting more efficient at reducing our impact on the nature by the day.
It's just suspicious that despite all our work some people insist that the global warming "problem" is getting worse and worse.
Maybe it's a natural thing that happens you know, not everything is the evil white man's fault.
File (): 7D42D2DBE5138EBE0C6DC5ADBAF4BE4A-38925.jpg (38.0 KB, 500x296, BinaryIceAge.jpg)
File (): 665E5B504ED1E86F0725CE3AE21AC798-49139.png (48.0 KB, 800x400, climate-timeline-10000yrs.png)
File (): 114BA539EDCE64FB84FD070D70A16841-89576.jpg (87.5 KB, 1024x590, globalwarmingromanmedieval.jpg)
File (): 97E5A62491DA5C07D143D7D4272C7305-78323.jpg (76.5 KB, 960x572, whywouldyoupostthat.jpg)
>>51580
If you read the linked article the author is saying global warming is actually a good thing for society. What is in front of us, it claims, is global cooling. Global cooling is bad for society because activity slows down. It goes on to imply that the sun has a 309 year cycle where its output drops and then so does civilisation.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/paris-climate-accord-junk-science/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/sun-activity-has-collapsed-to-the-lowest-in-9300-years/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/why-global-warming-is-good/
I'll add some images that shows this. The implication is the downturn he expects in 2032 will be also part of a larger 309 year downturn also as temperatures drop. Which is what he thinks adds to the demise of the current civilisation.
If you read the linked article the author is saying global warming is actually a good thing for society. What is in front of us, it claims, is global cooling. Global cooling is bad for society because activity slows down. It goes on to imply that the sun has a 309 year cycle where its output drops and then so does civilisation.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/paris-climate-accord-junk-science/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/sun-activity-has-collapsed-to-the-lowest-in-9300-years/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/why-global-warming-is-good/
I'll add some images that shows this. The implication is the downturn he expects in 2032 will be also part of a larger 309 year downturn also as temperatures drop. Which is what he thinks adds to the demise of the current civilisation.
>>51590
Aye i understand your post pretty well, it is nice to know global warming has a positive effect on humanity and how global cooling is bad.
Thing is all the propaganda we have right now is against global warming, people issuing global warming as a real thing.
If the world is getting cooler and we are being deceived into thinking it's getting warmer then there's something really fishy going on.
Either that or we have a lot of 60 year olds who feel guilty for screwing up the planet and now think “global warming” is an actual thing and it's their fault.
tl;dr if the planet is getting cooler we are trying to make it cooler.
Aye i understand your post pretty well, it is nice to know global warming has a positive effect on humanity and how global cooling is bad.
Thing is all the propaganda we have right now is against global warming, people issuing global warming as a real thing.
If the world is getting cooler and we are being deceived into thinking it's getting warmer then there's something really fishy going on.
Either that or we have a lot of 60 year olds who feel guilty for screwing up the planet and now think “global warming” is an actual thing and it's their fault.
tl;dr if the planet is getting cooler we are trying to make it cooler.
File (): 4A5D3E63386E533D9199E39C722E883D-93130.jpg (90.9 KB, 398x262, causes of death for blacks in usa.jpg)
>>51564
Giving women voting rights and access to legal abortions is a sure recipe to ruin your statehood.
Giving women voting rights and access to legal abortions is a sure recipe to ruin your statehood.
>>51597
I would say we had some short term warming but we can't tell how much is our fault because the sun has such a huge impact which totally overwhelms what we can do. But long term cooling is on the cards. Timing all this though seems very difficult, he suggests 2032 is when the cooling really bites into us.
I would say we had some short term warming but we can't tell how much is our fault because the sun has such a huge impact which totally overwhelms what we can do. But long term cooling is on the cards. Timing all this though seems very difficult, he suggests 2032 is when the cooling really bites into us.
File (): 39FEB173CF20AE4516F8BB608776906C-305347.png (298.2 KB, 791x562, co2_temperature_historical.png)
One more "global warming" chart showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the very long term view.
It was suggested to me today that old age pensions might be the cause of less need to raise children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#History
It's the German's fault again!
I'd now suggest the pensions and condoms work together to stop breeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#History
It's the German's fault again!
I'd now suggest the pensions and condoms work together to stop breeding.
File (): 1EBCDC760F1918C4AFF37159448D5272-30670.png (30.0 KB, 553x453, proxy.png)
File (): 45135897371549C18F0CCB45CFF7F400-36218.jpg (35.4 KB, 543x474, ideology-cycle.jpg)
Demographic Dysphoria Looms As Doctors Discover Sperm Counts In Western Men Plummeted Nearly 60%
>Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth...so a downturn in population growth matters...particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest. I'm not describing something that may happen in the future...I'm describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/demographic-dysphoria-looms-doctors-discover-sperm-counts-western-men-plummeted-near
This population drop is what kills the economy and the Left. "Hard times make hard men". See pic, for some the future has a population deficit, but it's economy is based on perpetual expansion. Low sperm count is an additional factor along with pensions and contraception.
>Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth...so a downturn in population growth matters...particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest. I'm not describing something that may happen in the future...I'm describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/demographic-dysphoria-looms-doctors-discover-sperm-counts-western-men-plummeted-near
This population drop is what kills the economy and the Left. "Hard times make hard men". See pic, for some the future has a population deficit, but it's economy is based on perpetual expansion. Low sperm count is an additional factor along with pensions and contraception.
46 replies | 31 files | 10 UUIDs | Archived