PDA

View Full Version : baby bonus


sway2sway
09-20-2007, 02:53 PM
I am always astounded when I hear about this, paying people to have more children when fertility rates are dropping within a country, pretty much a predominantly white country kinda thing, I think. They always seem so certain that this must be done, that they are right on the money. They must have more of their own natural born citizens, as opposed to immigration.
Then on the next page, is some smut about global warming, dare I say, overpopulation and overconsumption. Why don't these 2 stories ever meet in the middle. Think global when it's convenient to whatever ingrained doctrine is the flavor, but when it comes to actual people sharing resources, well, keep those ones over there and we'll just make some more of our own people, they fit the color scheme better...it's not racism, it's purely a design thing.
anyway.....this was in the opinion section.



B.C. should consider bringing forth a baby-bonus scheme

The Province
Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' plan to give families a $1,000 bonus for every baby born or adopted in the province is right on the money.

Declining or moribund birth rates across Canada are less than sufficient to maintain existing levels of population. And unless Canadian parents can be persuaded to produce more than the average of 1.6 children they do now, the country will soon be dependent on immigration for growth.

Canada currently ranks 176th on the world fertility chart -- among a cluster of other countries whose economic prosperity is also threatened by shrinking birth rates. Many have tackled the problem by offering incentives similar to those proposed in Newfoundland.

In Australia, a long-term decline in child-bearing was dramatically reversed when the government began offering couples $2,000 for each new baby. A Russian law entitles families to a bonus of almost $10,000 for every child after their first-born. And Britain, France, Germany and Sweden all offer variations on schemes to promote fecundity. In Japan, corporations offer employees cash incentives to build bigger families.

The baby drought has been so dramatic in Newfoundland that Williams' plan would cost only $4.5 million at current birth rates. In B.C., where the annual rate is relatively stable at around 41,000, a similar program would cost $41 million.

That's not cheap. But experts say such programs work. And we say it's something Premier Gordon Campbell should consider without delay.

angischy
09-20-2007, 03:06 PM
. . .overpopulation and overconsumption. Why don't these 2 stories ever meet in the middle. Think global when it's convenient to whatever ingrained doctrine is the flavor, but when it comes to actual people sharing resources, well, keep those ones over there. . .

"The baby drought has been so dramatic in Newfoundland that Williams' plan would cost only $4.5 million at current birth rates."

Did they just say baby drought?
I understand that many people are aching to have babies, but for the ones who aren't, why would a "baby bonus" be a good idea in any way?

Hey look I just got some money and a baby I never wanted to have. Great! Now what?
The world is so crazy. As if the people who actually desire and plan out their families don't already raise messed up enough kids (often despite their best effort), not to even speak of all the unwanted pregnancies out there.
I too am amazed at how sure of themselves they are. Yikes!

the duke
09-22-2007, 09:56 AM
the year they introduced our baby bonus, playstation sales skyrocketed...now they're offering a $4,000 one for the 3rd child...they're nicknaming that the 'plasma bonus' hehehe. It seemed that the population increased in the low income areas more than anywhere else...funny about that...

I agree think it's a bad idea, more people, means more consumption therefore more footprint on the world. And it's just a quick fix...what's wrong with a population drought??

sway2sway
09-22-2007, 05:15 PM
so stupid in my opinion. Plus, if you think of the segment of society that would be most influenced by a monetary reward for procreation, my guess is it is a lower socioeconomic group. Low socioeconomic status doesn't correlate to intelligence/coping skills/all that jazz across the board, but I'm guessing that by and large, this may not be the section of our human gene pool that we want to skew into a population explosion. maybe that sounds prejudiced, but it isn't meant to be.

the duke
09-23-2007, 02:40 AM
as horrible as it is, i agree completely with you sway. it just makes the population as a whole...worse(?). BUT, here at least, those people are the ones that vote based on material and superficial things, so maybe that's what the govt wants to do...

sway2sway
09-23-2007, 04:10 AM
I think you're on to something duke, they want to expand on the segment of population that is most easily subdued and controlled by all the shit they're peddling, in effect breeding a race of drone clones....survival of blankest (conspiracy theory 47 page 383 in the manual, section e)

Miss Shark
09-23-2007, 09:53 PM
A grand won't even get you diapers.

the duke
09-24-2007, 11:26 AM
but it'll get you a playstation shark! :) hehehe

sway2sway
09-24-2007, 03:04 PM
yeah, carpe diem!
worry about those babies tommorow,
or at least just hold out till the welfare check comes in.