you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 1 month ago (20 children)

Yes, this IS fine. There's too many people on this fucking planet. The only reason this is considered a problem is because capitalism and the Bible says so.

No other reason. Period.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    While I half agree with you, that's definitely not the only issue.

    Senior citizens become people to take care of, that won't/can't work and I don't mean that in a "dear God consider the GDP" way, but literally just people who will not be contributing but still require services, in fact likely a lot more than normal.

    It ends up being a lot of neglected senior citizens dying in horrible ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Senior citizens become people to take care of,

    Children need more resources to raise than seniors take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I suppose if you are just thinking about things like cost of formula, diapers, clothes, education. In terms of time spent, children take less and less one on one time as each year passes. They have a finite timeline of required care.

    The elderly become less and less independant, the care they require becomes more and more medical in nature, and there is no timeline. Someone with dementia can require around the clock medical care for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    An infant requires more constant care than a dying elderly. Parents are on rotation 24/7 for the first year. That's more than elderly get in hospice.

    Moneywise it's $600k for a child. $400k from parents. $200k from the state for the free k-12 education.

    Elderly on average have $200k in savings age 65-74 and spend $155k in medical costs their last 3 years.

    Children are more expensive in money and direct labor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Not really. The unique expense for a kid is education compared to the old, and elder care can easily eclipse that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The unique expense for a kid is education

    Young kids require a lot of health care, tbf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I said unique, old people need a lot of health care, generally way more than a kid. Most kids after birth just have routine checkups and not much else. Infants might get a bit more doctor visits because the parents don't know if they should worry or not because the infant can't speak, but generally even those amount to nothing.

    Babies more universally need diapers than old folks, and do eat more than an older person, but health care is absolutely bigger for elderly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Cost per child is $300k, $400k including college. The state (which means workers' taxes) chip in an average of $17k / year for k-12 which is another $200k. That's $600k per child, not including the free labor from the parents.

    The average savings for someone 65-74 is $200k. End of life costs are $155k for the last 3 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    So you just said about 20 years of life is only twice that of the last three years of life for your starting figure. Add in college and it's still not that egregiously more.

    You feel the need to add public school costs, but not add in medicare, social security, and other expenses exclusive to old age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Medicare and SS are prepaid. So you need to figure out the difference between if that money was invested instead of taken in taxes. Then it would be the amount that retires take over that amount.

    Please show numbers!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Cost per child is $300k, $400k including college.

    Only one in three Millennials have gone to college, so you'll need to pro-rate this. You're also talking about a population that begun employment between 14-17, even in an advanced economy like the US. So that cost is offset by revenue, especially in those later years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Since more people in the world are in China and India you are probably wrong about it being the Bible. It is religious texts that encourage more reproduction for religious spreading to the masses and China just has more landmass so more people overall

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    There’s too many people on this fucking planet.

    There's really not. The human ecological footprint changes enormously by region. Relatively small populations in countries like Qatar and Brunei punch well outside their weight class in terms of ecological devestation.

    A much smaller population that lived at this degree of pollution and destruction would be no better globally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago*

    There’s really not. The human ecological footprint changes enormously by region. Relatively small populations in countries like Qatar and Brunei punch well outside their weight class in terms of ecological devestation.

    Yeah, uh, the oil produced by those small populations is used in places like China, Europe and Australia too. In fact they export most of their oil, so we all share that blame.

  • source
  • parent