I told you I was done reading long articles. Please do me the courtesy of pasting in excerpts that support your point, as I have done for you.You can believe that if you wish, but there is no hard data to suggest it definitely will take place.
Make no mistake here. There is absolutely no scenario in which shrinking and / or aging populations will be a benefit to the industrialized world except but on the most extended and esoteric of long term scales. Frankly, even then, we'd almost certainly be better off if they simply kept right on growing.
All these kinds of changes will result in are shrinking workforces, stagnant GPD, sluggish economic growth, fewer opportunities, higher national overhead in the form of social security and other such "safety nets," and more social stress exacerbating existing societal problems.
A great many experts are already warning of these things.
Population Decline Is Bad For Us
Shrinking Societies: The Other Population Crisis
I provided a chart and and a excerpt on why that is not true.I said it was coming almost exclusively from lower income demographics which had a strong tendency to be on welfare, not that they were necessarily on welfare.
They are dropping at a lower rate and that is good since it the most recent drop was attributed to families holding off on having children while the economy was unstable.A) It has not "stabilized." It's rate of drop has simply slowed. It is still far too low to be sustainable.
B) Numbers continued to drop in 2013.
Birthrate continues to decline in the U.S.
See my first comment in this reply.Japan is an example of exactly the same principles in action. As such, yes, it does apply.
Beyond that, do you deny that the kinds of men being described in this thread exist, and that they are a recent development in our culture?
Get pregnant at 25 if you want a high-powered career
All of her links in that quote, are to other blog posts of her own and they do not link to any statement that supports the hotlinked text. For instance this one: There is no evidence that doing well in school during that period of your life will get you worthwhile benefits.
It links to this blog post of hers and I cannot find that she says that anywhere in the post and in fact, she seems to be making the opposite argument:
So, we can dispense with her.It used to be controversial to say that college is a rip off. At this point, I think the arguments have reached the mainstream. The problem is that, while some kids win the intellectual lottery, it's too risky for most kids to skip out on the credentials.
So the question is: how can you make the most of the fact that you are going to college at a time when most people think college does not prepare you for the next step in your life?
She made reference to the following in doing so.
Why Women Still Canít Have It All[/quote]
The next paragraph:
There is a clear precedence for this.Yet this sequence has fallen out of favor with many high-potential women, and understandably so. People tend to marry later now, and anyway, if you have children earlier, you may have difficulty getting a graduate degree, a good first job, and opportunities for advancement in the crucial early years of your career. Making matters worse, you will also have less income while raising your children, and hence less ability to hire the help that can be indispensable to your juggling act.
"Waiting" often leads women to simply never get married or have children at all.
Frankly, beyond even that, there is the issue that pregnancies later in life tend to be far more dangerous than those in a woman's twenties, and result children which are far less healthy.
Is that really fair?[/quote]
That is a choice for a woman to make with her partner/spouse/.
Three examples from the list:Many of the most successful women did not follow that trajectory at all.
Meg Whitman, eBay founder and now CEO of Hewlett-Packard, earned her degree and began work at Proctor and Gamble before having kids.
Virginia Rometty, CEO of IBM, no kids.
Patricia A. Woertz, obtained her degree in 1974 and began work at Ernst & Young, before having children.
This is all so meandering so I condensed it. Yes, others will come along to replace those who haven't replaced themselves and so on, but the country will go on, adapting as it ever has. We bear little resemblance to the founders of this country. In 200 years, the same will be true.Maybe so. Again, however; the simple fact of the matter is that the impacts of this have not been in any sense positive. Basically all that line of thinking seems to result in on a long term basis are the groups which indulge in it slowly dying off and be replaced by others, who simply happen to follow the more traditional model. It is essentially equivalent to cultural suicide via out of control materialism. Again, it is what it is. Why would you imagine that society needs strong "masculine" men when women have chosen to go it alone instead? Women said that they wanted to be "equal." As such, more men have started treating them as such, basically by not giving a damn. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this regard. Too little, too late. Furthermore, the trend towards childlessness is only increasing over time, not decreasing.
The rest I can make no sense of, so I'll just say, society benefits from the contributions of both genders. Each brings something complimentary to the table. Women have not replaced men by going it alone. It's laughable that wanting to be treated as equals results in, in your estimation, men not giving a damn. If we can't keep to our "place", we are not worthy of having being in a relationship.