By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids.

 

Should united states downsize it's population.

Yes 14 18.67%
 
No 59 78.67%
 
Maybe 2 2.67%
 
Total:75

I actually agree with the first part (ending all immigration) and disagree with the second part. I support an immigration moratorium, and tax incentives for having more children. I would basically tax higher single men and women and apply credits to families with more children. 



Around the Network

Don't want to jump on anyone's toes but I believe the concept of jobs or at least the understanding of that concept by Americans is really outdated.

With the right system you can actually encourage people working 30 hours a week max. In the USA people officially work 44 hours a week (which to me is already crazy) but in reality more around 47 - 50 hours.

I do expect an average of 40% time reduction to only impact productivity around 25%. That on its own should add a couple million "jobs". People should keep the same pay of course. Let's say you worked 40 hours a week and earned 2500 a month then that 30 hours a week should keep the same. People will have more time for their kids, community activities, volunteering and actually focus on meaningful things at work.

Then make sure people have affordable up to free healthcare for everyone, readjust federal budgets and don't have crooked company monopolies increasing prices of basic things like rent, internet and utilities.

Also ensure private equity companies aren't ruining communities, business etc. and the US can become better.

I suggest to re evaluate and be critical to what you currently know and understand. Society should change completely to have human advancements and to support more people (up to a certain point)



Stories unfolded with my home made rap songs. Feel free to listen here with lyrics: https://youtu.be/vyT9PbK5_T0

FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:

I actually agree with the first part (ending all immigration) and disagree with the second part. I support an immigration moratorium, and tax incentives for having more children. I would basically tax higher single men and women and apply credits to families with more children. 

This is exactly what we have in Germany. Still, the native population keeps shrinking.

So the politics is raising immigration, in the worst possible way. Uncontrolled.



Snoopy said:
This opinion is unpopular with a lot of people I've talked to, but I don't care. There are over 320 million people living in the United States and the rate of growth is exponential. There is not enough jobs, money or resources to go around especially when automation is ramping up and killing the need for humans. Truck Drivers, Teachers, Retail, Restaurants / Fast food, warehouses, farming, some IT jobs (especially because of cloud services), and I can go on all day. I hate saying this opinion especially because I know a lot of people seek to be here in the United States, but this can't sustain for very long. Also, this should apply to the world, but since I live in the United States, I can only focus on our country.
 
I might be wrong and someone can point it out. Most of this is just me speaking from the top of my head.

Supposing we could even implement this kind of thing, even have it be effective _and_ no other bad side effects that are worse than the original problem.  Supposing all that it would take generations to come to fruition and finding out how good or bad this was.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:

I actually agree with the first part (ending all immigration) and disagree with the second part. I support an immigration moratorium, and tax incentives for having more children. I would basically tax higher single men and women and apply credits to families with more children. 

There are many single people with a low income that already have it hard as it is without those extra taxes for not being traditional,i would like it so much more if more orphans were emigrated to have a better life in countries that are not war ridden etc...



Around the Network

YES!



steve

Chomanno said:
FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:

I actually agree with the first part (ending all immigration) and disagree with the second part. I support an immigration moratorium, and tax incentives for having more children. I would basically tax higher single men and women and apply credits to families with more children. 

This is exactly what we have in Germany. Still, the native population keeps shrinking.

So the politics is raising immigration, in the worst possible way. Uncontrolled.

There's no legal way to stop it.

Germany is bound by EU law (like every other EU state) so they can't just ignore freedom of movement. The majority of immigrants come from other EU countries (mostly Eastern Europe).

Same is true for the right of asylum.



"Downsizing" the U.S. will not make it better. You will still have KKK members, neo-nazis, and alt right conservatives living here

Last edited by PortisheadBiscuit - on 17 June 2020

haxxiy said:
The US doesn't have tons of "empty space". Just about 5% of the lower 48 are wilderness untouched by humans. And the less is said about the UK and Europe, the better. Unless you mean urban sprawl creeping into rural areas, but then that'd mean some other stretch of land is going to be ruined elsewhere unless productivity increases enough to compensate for it (and even the green revolution is a dubious achievement long-term, considering the effects of top-soil degradation, imbalance in the phosphorus-nitrogen cycles and climate change).

Of course some people would be quick to jump in and defend Europe claiming forestation has grown in the last decades etc. but... I don't think Europe used to be a monoculture of symmetrically planted Norway spruces before humans. Ideally, you would want a population density similar to that of Australia, Finland or the Baltic countries to actually achieve a sustainable, zero growth civilization. But maybe it could be more as long as we develop quality artificial meat and opt for vertical farms.

It’s pretty wide open in my state of Utah.  Almost half the state is blm land... pretty much the same with all the surrounding states too... so depends what part of the country you are talking about...



gergroy said:
haxxiy said:

It’s pretty wide open in my state of Utah.  Almost half the state is blm land... pretty much the same with all the surrounding states too... so depends what part of the country you are talking about...

That is for certain. Unfortunately, we as a species tend to cluster in coastal areas and highly fertile, humid plains, both of which are biomass and biodiversity hotspots. And we also got everywhere instead of living in just a few dense regions.

If we all decided to build cities in deserts and also grow our food there, our ecological footprint would be several times smaller. Plenty of cheap solar energy as an incentive too.