FYI, mandatory vaccination at my Federal contractor means discharge from the company by 11/30 if non-compliant. Funnily enough, there is a hefty Hold Harmless statement in the vaccination "consent" form, by which the company is seeking to deflect liability to the Federal government for illness or death caused by the completely safe Pfizer vaccine.

Fear! It is the only thing that can save you!

Fire the health care professionals who refuse the vaccine, too!

I posted a complaint from a childfree person. Here's a complaint from a parent.

"Please Stop Telling Me 'Well, You Chose To Have Kids...' "

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/please-stop-telling-well-chose-130025860.html

Btw, the author has a Ph.D.

Interestingly, the commentators are not very sympathetic - and yes, some of those are parents. Including a single mother.

But I do think that if certain famous conservative writers - like Albert Mohler and Ross Douthat - are going to argue that even near-poor Americans need to have more babies than they want, for the economy, they SHOULD be the ones pushing for more European-style family policies, such as the author suggests.

After all, when it comes to deciding whether or not to have kids, who can blame American fencesitters for deciding: "no, I won't, because I LIKE living in a cozy, safe neighborhood, and I couldn't afford that with a kid."

The backlash against clout chasers is on:

https://mobile.twitter.com/sonicdrivein/status/1445142106394308613

"... to argue that even near-poor Americans need to have more babies than they want, for the economy, they SHOULD be the ones pushing for more European-style family policies ..." ~Lenona

And how effective were those policies?

Also it is cute you think Mohler and Douthat have much influence.

I did NOT say they have much influence. Sheesh. (But I'd be kind of surprised if Mohler DIDN'T have much influence, given his status. However, as I've mentioned, membership in the Southern Baptist Convention has been plummeting for years, so that would suggest Mohler's influence is diminishing as well.)

My real point is, they're not exactly obscure.

Which suggests that they're the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people and policies that are hostile to family planning. (Another one: Rick Santorum.)

As one commentator said at Newsweek, in 2013: "...Does anyone wonder why now the problem is not enough kids (in the U.S.)? The 'economy' doesn't want kids; it wants 'cheap labor.' "

IF you agreed with Mohler and Douthat (note: that's "if"), I'd love to know just how YOU would suggest convincing struggling Americans to have more kids.

When it comes to how well the policies are working in Europe, one could argue that at least they're helping to prevent the birth rate from dropping a lot faster.

From the Yahoo article:

Alexis
"I know America bashing is everyones favorite pass time but do people know why so many countries have what this author calls 'family friendly' policies? Because they arent having enough children. Countries need a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman in order to maintain their population. Or more importantly - have enough workers to support their population. The U.S. supplements their low birth rate with immigration. Meaning we bring workers from other countries to make up for our shortfalls in birth rate. The vast majority of other countries cant do that so they need to encourage women to have more babies. Is it right? Probably not, but thats why other countries do it and we dont."

Boodica
Replying to Alexis

"You hit the nail on the head. And something else: workers pay the Social Security of retirees. People need to understand that either kids (when they're grown) or immigrants are going to fill that role. Unfortunately, some people are against both family-friendly policies AND immigration, but still expect to collect that retirement check when they retire."
__________________________________

Bottom line is, as the wise man said: "Nothing except diamonds is above the law of scarcity value." I.e., in a world of almost 7.9 billion, no, babies are just not that valuable. Even a perfect young adult can get hit by a car and become a vegetable, so having kids is a gamble. Conservatives have to make up their minds as to which is the lesser evil - increased immigration or family-friendly policies.

As a 60-ish winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences wrote, in May:

"The point is, whether we like it or not, we will live a long time with slow population growth. And we need to start thinking about economic policies that take this reality into account."

"When it comes to how well the policies are working in Europe, one could argue that at least they're helping to prevent the birth rate from dropping a lot faster." ~Lenona

Then you aren't good at logic. The argument that things in my imagination would be worse is a terrible argument.

"Which suggests that they're the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people and policies that are hostile to family planning." ~Lenona

No it doesn't suggest that.

"I'd love to know just how YOU would suggest convincing struggling Americans to have more kids." ~Lenona

Number one proven effective policy? Less government. Less handouts to parents and everyone else for that matter. Lower taxes and fewer regulations. The history shows that is what works. Well, that and punishment for not having kids. But the second option leads to revolutions and crime.

The argument that things in my imagination would be worse is a terrible argument.
________________________________________

So, why don't they come up with some other solution? Besides, how do you know those policies AREN'T working, somewhat - at least until they can create some better policy?
________________________________________

No it doesn't suggest that.
_______________________________________

If they were obscure, you would be right. As I said, they're not obscure. (Another example: when two or more famous book reviewers or film critics condemn a new book or film, that's a pretty strong sign that most of the mainstream critics will agree.)
_______________________________________

Less handouts to parents and everyone else for that matter. Lower taxes and fewer regulations. The history shows that is what works.
_______________________________________

Funny, I seem to remember that conservatives like to argue that welfare and handouts to parents ENCOURAGE them to have babies - and that struggling people shouldn't be having babies. Why would people who were cut off without a cent, want to procreate more?

But, of course, if everyone refused to have children until they were affluent - a version of Lysistrata, if you will - all of a sudden, there would be far fewer poor people desperate enough to support any politician, and, maybe, far more registered voters. Not really what politicians want to see.

"far more registered voters"

That should have been "far more registered voters, percentage-wise."

Of course.

"Besides, how do you know those policies AREN'T working, somewhat" ~Lenona

You can look at before and after implementing the policy. You can use near by geographic areas for comparison. It is very clear if you actually look that such policies are complete failures. And if you think about things it isn't hard to see why.

Who is the target population? Who are you wanting to have more kids? Pretty much everyone. So where will you get the money to pay for this program? Tax the rich? The reality is it is easier to get $1 from 1 million people than to get $1 million from 1 person. You will tax everyone to pay for the program. So what does this program look like financially. You are taking x dollars from everyone and giving a little less than x dollars back in either straight cash or presumably valuable goods and services.

Is it any wonder people don't feel like having more kids now that you've impoverished them slightly?

"Why would people who were cut off without a cent, want to procreate more?" ~Lenona

You forget the money has to come from somewhere. There isn't a magic money tree or secret horde to pay for it all.

Also, being not obscure doesn't mean you are influential. Douthat is the token conservative at the New York Times. His career is over. He hasn't had significant influence for a while. Getting a job at the NYT is a last attempt to monetize his former fame. In a decade or so it will be obvious to even NYT readers that Douthat has no significance and he will lose the job to the next token conservative.