Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by grumple on Monday May 18, 2020 @03:09PM
(#23227029)
Ah, eugenics by wealth. We've seen it before, here it is again.
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by andrepd on Monday May 18, 2020 @03:10PM
(#23227045)
The curve has beyond been flattened already. It's nosediving. We're below replacement fertility and falling. I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". And mind, this is coming from someone very much opposed to unrestrained growth capitalism. A proponent of "degrowth" if you will.
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by godelski on Monday May 18, 2020 @07:19PM
(#23229529)
I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries[0][1] and didn't state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. there is population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline).
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by dominotw on Monday May 18, 2020 @09:24PM
(#23230368)
These are the best graphs I saw all day. Thank you.
Pro-natalist, as in promoting births just for the sake of it.
> . I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist".
Yes it is, because you are incentivising births just to float above an arbitrary level.
Let's face the fact that pronatalist agendas have been pushed by the major religions for centuries in order to better control the population.