Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Illegitimacy Good, Questioning Modernity + Careerism Bad

The NY Times editorial board must have some on ice like I do with blog posts. I mean they must lack topics to push opinions on with our boring world. Editorials on ice is the only way I can explain this garbage editorial on fixing Japan's declining birth rate. This is a problem Japan's had for years, and the decline in births has been going on for decades. This is a global problem outside of Africa, and it is worst in Japan. Rather than a series on the self-annihilation of the developed nations and the slowing of births in developing nations not inhabited by Africans, the NY Times just publishes an editorial on Japanese birth rates, shoehorning their American social programming message "more social dysfunction".

One would think the Keynesian geniuses at the Times would use this as an opportunity to push exotic schemes to create incentives for people to form families and have multiple children. Japan's debt bomb will eventually go off one day, but for now the Keynesians could have fun. Why do they need population growth? Is it just to push the almighty GDP and their social welfare system? Japan may shrink and settle to a size that is appropriate for their society's goals with those having replacement level and above children becoming the heirs of the next phase in Japanese society.  The editorial could have suggested financial mechanisms to induce births. A Japanese version of the earned income tax credit, which would be just more government spending for the Japanese to print more dollars to cover. There is a short recognition of government spending on social welfare spending, but this does not target the two people making the decision to have the child directly. Instead, we get this brilliant plan:
One big reason for the low fertility rate in Japan is that women are increasingly postponing marriage in order to work longer and build a career. Over one-third of women between the ages of 30 and 34 are unmarried, and in Japan’s conservative society, marriage remains the socially accepted condition for having children.
Only 2 percent of Japanese babies are born outside of marriage, and there is still a strong stigma attached to such births. The vast majority of single mothers are divorced, as divorce has become more socially acceptable over the past generation or so. Public policies, like the tax laws, continue to discriminate against mothers with children born out of wedlock compared with divorced mothers with children.

This would be incredibly smart if the Times had not just published an epic article on the new American class divide being marriage and having kids in vs. out of wedlock. The dysfunction from single motherhood is so widespread that the progressive media can only fight a fallback option now and avoid mentioning how they pushed "single moms can do it as well as married parents" for decades. Japan's birth rate might bump up, but so would countless socioeconomic dysfunctions.

This is all the media mandarins have because first they would have to recognize the odd thing about "women are increasingly postponing marriage in order to work longer and build a career". Does that statement "work longer" mean they'd all automatically opt out? Does the Times wonder why Japanese women cannot find the time to find a mate? How do men do it? What is the magic trick men perform where they can build a career and find a spouse? Why would the Times solution of illegitimacy help these working women when in fact, it would complicate their lives? As women are the gatekeepers on reproduction "my body, my right", a series on this from the Times would discuss the dark side of the career gal in the city dream they push.

There is something else, even deeper. The scare articles last year were that the Japanese were not having sex anymore. Then other articles said no, they are having plenty of it. Business Insider recycled this no sex panic theme this year. They are having sex, just not making babies. This is hedonism and modernity turned to 11. No sense of continuing the chain of your culture. No sense of leaving something for the future that is part of your family and society. A frivolous existence of mass consumerism and focus on their individual experience. The media cannot train their eyes down that path and create a discussion of that phenomenon because for the SWPLs reading the Times, that hits a little too close to home.


klejdys said...

At least they didn't counsel allowing millions of undocumented Filipinos in the country to provide much needed "growth".

peterike said...

This is one of my pet peeves. What the hell is wrong with declining populations?

In 1900 Japan's population was about 40 million. It is now about 125 million. Did the Japanese somehow manage at 40 million? They sure did.

In 1950, America's population was 150 million. It's now well over 300 million. How are we better off? Is the sprawl better? The resource consumption? The environmental impact? The stress on infrastructure?

Wouldn't the world be much better off with 100 million fewer Japanese eating mountains of fish and wiping out the oceans?

Wouldn't America seem almost like a paradise with 150 million fewer people clogging up the joint?

Declining populations is a god-send. The next step is to pull the plug on African aid to let that blighted continent sink back into it's proper state of minimal population. But that won't happen. The last Progressive in America will send the last rat burger to feed a hungry African rather than his own white self.

I'd like a world with about 5 billion fewer people on it. If that's where the trends are going, then good. Every time I hear these growth proponents yakking on about "we must increase GDP forever!" I want to scream.

Hal said...

Shrieking that Japan should incentivize bastardy and single motherhood to goose their birthrate would be a great Onion article, but it's a depressing Times one. Peterike is exactly right, if Japan was smart it would promote a policy of managed, gradual population decline down to 50 million or less, and then try to hold there permanently. It would be a godsend in terms of improving quality of life for average citizens. Other developed countries should follow suit, and for heaven's sake stop subsidizing dysgenic population explosions in the 3rd world.

Origami said...

Agree with peterike and Hal,

And something that strikes me (hasty thought)--seems it not like there're actually lots out there who seem to recognize it too, except it comes out in a vulgar awful way, like saying "we need to wipe out a billion people," implying deliberate massacre of one or another kind. Is this a leftist or liberal thing to talk that way?

No the more I think of it it sounds like bullshit all through. They're always talking about limiting population growth, then turn around and say countries everywhere need immigration to counter population decline. Have I found another inconsistency here?