If you truly believe what you believe you are going to arrive at two policy options:
1) Open Borders, we are all interchangeable worker units and africans can fund social security
2) More welfare for poor moms, since the marginal cost of an extra kid is theoretically cheaper for the poor then everyone else, and we are all interchangeable.
Though #1 might conflict with #2 since the third world is even poorer and has high fertility and so immigration could replace higher TFR in the first world and thus baby subsidies of any kind in the first world don't make sense. But I digress.
#1 is wildly unpopular across the whole world today. Basically every party left and right is moving further towards restrictionism because its been a huge failed experiment. I know you disagree but I think I'm with the median voter on this.
#2 has no support on the right. We already subsidize poor single moms to the tune of mid to high five figures a year through cash and in-kind support. I don't think there is an appetite to pour money money into that at a time when the middle class is struggling so much they aren't even having their own children.
So we will get the same proposals from the left of more means tested cash benefits for poor single moms and more money for Eds and Meds rackets full of baumol's cost disease. None of these will be popular with middle class taxpayers that have to take on that burden, and those same families will themselves have fewer children to try to afford the taxes to pay for it all.
But proposing tax breaks for large middle class families will also be unpopular with the left, who will see it as being "expensive" and mostly going to people who vote for the other party. If they do propose anything it will trend towards being in-kind (daycare rather than cash) and means tested to exclude the largest number of people they can, and fully refundable.
Linking tax credits to the # of kids one has would do absolutely nothing for the fertility rate; any number you want to throw out that would be at all politically/fiscally attainable would be a drop in the bucket of the annual cost of raising a child. It'd basically just be subsidizing Mormon family trips to Disneyland.
2) yeah the right are garbage humans. *always has been meme*
Natalism is very fraught policy wise, I think everyone can see this, but I am skeptical of if the feasibility is even worth discussing when much of the US supports a fascist movement which won't result in any good policy outcomes for society as a whole whatsoever. Really at a minimum any person who shares similiar views to the author here needs to first make sure the Republican party is shamed and shunned in all aspects possible socially. Any other priority feels...unserious right now. If we can't convince the country to even fully fund the IRS we'll never even be able to afford any vaguely pro social policies.
Certainly I am skeptical we'll even see much better turnout next presidential election even if Democrats promise things they can't make happen. (which seems to be what the left wants) Even then Dems will have to remove filibuster to have any chance of of us not returning right back to 'burn everything down' and I have to wonder if anyone even has the guts for that.
Darby did you block the fascists? Just checking. At least that makes it easier for me find & block more of them. I didn't think that there were progressive minded pronatalists, what I've seen so far pronatalists seems to be scary patriarchal types.
Yes, I blocked a bunch! And your comment is why I'm trying to write more progressive takes on pronatalism-- I think the falling birth rate is a real concern and progressives shouldn't be ignoring it!
I just wrote something somewhat related to this- https://substack.com/home/post/p-163650161 as I've been noticing so much nasty behavior by non-parents towards parents. I identify as child-LESS by circumstance not childfree, it's a distinction that matters! I am pro-reproductive justice, which includes the right to have children if one desires. My socialist feminist group is pushing for more inclusion & support of parents in our local DSA chapter, and I've been one of the people pushing for that. Nice to "meet" you!
Ethnic/racial groups are not particularly meaningful? Pull up any medical textbook, and it will talk about race and ethnicity as meaningful categories which can help determine a patient's ailment. To claim that these categories are not meaningful is both unscientific and yet another example of a white liberal trying to deconstruct the reality of race to make themselves feel more ideologically comfortable. I think you need to sit down and listen to black and brown voices instead of trying to deconstruct their identity.
Did you read the article that you are commenting on? And no, medical textbooks generally do not advise using race and ethnicity as diagnostic indicators when there is better data (like patient biomarkers, including genetic data like BRCA1) available
Certain diseases affect different races at considerably different rates due to genetic differences between populations. To deny that doctors don't take a patients race and ancestry into account when determining whether someone may have beta-thalassemia or sickle cell anaemia is absurd.
I think you need to educate yourself on the science and examine whether your own white liberal biases are preventing you from accepting certain facts.
“They don’t want immigrants coming to the U.S. and having babies here.” Maybe that is because immigrants to the US who have kids cost taxpayers a lot of money (mostly through Medicaid)? Australia and Canada have had much higher levels of immigration than the US in the past few decades, and much less political backlash over it, because the governments of those countries adopt and enforce immigration policies that aim to maximize benefits and minimize costs to current citizens. I suspect that if the US adopted the same immigration policies as Australia and Canada, support for immigration would be the same in the US as in those countries, and the US would have higher levels of immigration than it currently does.
I think that a reasonable, attainable, legal path to citizenship would go a long way towards getting immigrants more plugged into institutions vs. living in the shadows. Immigrants bring a lot of value to the U.S. economy, though. It's been estimated that undocumented contribute over $11 billion annually in state and local taxes, mostly through payroll and sales taxes.
If you truly believe what you believe you are going to arrive at two policy options:
1) Open Borders, we are all interchangeable worker units and africans can fund social security
2) More welfare for poor moms, since the marginal cost of an extra kid is theoretically cheaper for the poor then everyone else, and we are all interchangeable.
Though #1 might conflict with #2 since the third world is even poorer and has high fertility and so immigration could replace higher TFR in the first world and thus baby subsidies of any kind in the first world don't make sense. But I digress.
#1 is wildly unpopular across the whole world today. Basically every party left and right is moving further towards restrictionism because its been a huge failed experiment. I know you disagree but I think I'm with the median voter on this.
#2 has no support on the right. We already subsidize poor single moms to the tune of mid to high five figures a year through cash and in-kind support. I don't think there is an appetite to pour money money into that at a time when the middle class is struggling so much they aren't even having their own children.
So we will get the same proposals from the left of more means tested cash benefits for poor single moms and more money for Eds and Meds rackets full of baumol's cost disease. None of these will be popular with middle class taxpayers that have to take on that burden, and those same families will themselves have fewer children to try to afford the taxes to pay for it all.
But proposing tax breaks for large middle class families will also be unpopular with the left, who will see it as being "expensive" and mostly going to people who vote for the other party. If they do propose anything it will trend towards being in-kind (daycare rather than cash) and means tested to exclude the largest number of people they can, and fully refundable.
So basically more of what we have now.
Linking tax credits to the # of kids one has would do absolutely nothing for the fertility rate; any number you want to throw out that would be at all politically/fiscally attainable would be a drop in the bucket of the annual cost of raising a child. It'd basically just be subsidizing Mormon family trips to Disneyland.
1) no shit.
2) yeah the right are garbage humans. *always has been meme*
Natalism is very fraught policy wise, I think everyone can see this, but I am skeptical of if the feasibility is even worth discussing when much of the US supports a fascist movement which won't result in any good policy outcomes for society as a whole whatsoever. Really at a minimum any person who shares similiar views to the author here needs to first make sure the Republican party is shamed and shunned in all aspects possible socially. Any other priority feels...unserious right now. If we can't convince the country to even fully fund the IRS we'll never even be able to afford any vaguely pro social policies.
Certainly I am skeptical we'll even see much better turnout next presidential election even if Democrats promise things they can't make happen. (which seems to be what the left wants) Even then Dems will have to remove filibuster to have any chance of of us not returning right back to 'burn everything down' and I have to wonder if anyone even has the guts for that.
Darby did you block the fascists? Just checking. At least that makes it easier for me find & block more of them. I didn't think that there were progressive minded pronatalists, what I've seen so far pronatalists seems to be scary patriarchal types.
Yes, I blocked a bunch! And your comment is why I'm trying to write more progressive takes on pronatalism-- I think the falling birth rate is a real concern and progressives shouldn't be ignoring it!
I just wrote something somewhat related to this- https://substack.com/home/post/p-163650161 as I've been noticing so much nasty behavior by non-parents towards parents. I identify as child-LESS by circumstance not childfree, it's a distinction that matters! I am pro-reproductive justice, which includes the right to have children if one desires. My socialist feminist group is pushing for more inclusion & support of parents in our local DSA chapter, and I've been one of the people pushing for that. Nice to "meet" you!
This is great- thanks for sharing it!
it's kind of a rambly mess, but it's a bunch of intertwined topics that I'm passionate about!
Ethnic/racial groups are not particularly meaningful? Pull up any medical textbook, and it will talk about race and ethnicity as meaningful categories which can help determine a patient's ailment. To claim that these categories are not meaningful is both unscientific and yet another example of a white liberal trying to deconstruct the reality of race to make themselves feel more ideologically comfortable. I think you need to sit down and listen to black and brown voices instead of trying to deconstruct their identity.
Did you read the article that you are commenting on? And no, medical textbooks generally do not advise using race and ethnicity as diagnostic indicators when there is better data (like patient biomarkers, including genetic data like BRCA1) available
Certain diseases affect different races at considerably different rates due to genetic differences between populations. To deny that doctors don't take a patients race and ancestry into account when determining whether someone may have beta-thalassemia or sickle cell anaemia is absurd.
I think you need to educate yourself on the science and examine whether your own white liberal biases are preventing you from accepting certain facts.
“They don’t want immigrants coming to the U.S. and having babies here.” Maybe that is because immigrants to the US who have kids cost taxpayers a lot of money (mostly through Medicaid)? Australia and Canada have had much higher levels of immigration than the US in the past few decades, and much less political backlash over it, because the governments of those countries adopt and enforce immigration policies that aim to maximize benefits and minimize costs to current citizens. I suspect that if the US adopted the same immigration policies as Australia and Canada, support for immigration would be the same in the US as in those countries, and the US would have higher levels of immigration than it currently does.
I think that a reasonable, attainable, legal path to citizenship would go a long way towards getting immigrants more plugged into institutions vs. living in the shadows. Immigrants bring a lot of value to the U.S. economy, though. It's been estimated that undocumented contribute over $11 billion annually in state and local taxes, mostly through payroll and sales taxes.