abortion is in essance killing people and the less people contributing to the economy the less people make, and the less people spend. so far weve killed 50million unborn babyies, some people say there are to many people, whatever. but reality is there need to be at least 2.1 people born or we could become extint
Your link doesn't link abortion to a bad economy; however, you have a faulty premise, low population leads to a stronger economy (if we cut out social security). Having less people means we have less people to be unemployed and we consume less resources. Consuming less resources allows us to both import less and export more. We therefore send less money away and draw more money in.
We will not become extinct if we don't maintain 2.1 birthrates. Population will follow a curve proportional to resources and need; when we have more resources that can be tapped but aren't we have more children; in India, the poor farmers need more help in the fields so they have more children. The same rule applies elsewhere, when there are the resources available to provide for children and the children will produce greater capital than input we have more children. When the population goes down in the United States we will have more jobs to be filled and we will be wealthier, we will also have more children.
well really it would be better if the amount of teen pregnancys could be controlled better,so there wouldn't be as many abortion to begin with.Also having a lower population does not mean you will have less people unemployed.Businesses are shipping all of their jobs over seas and this is causing people in America to have less job opportunities.Also having the second highest business tax rate is making it hard for new businesses to start up.Then there is of course a lost in interest among teens in America to try to get educated,which I find quite sad.My point is either way I doubt abortion will really have any real affect on the economy,but of course I am still against it,because people are killing off there own unborn children for their own selfish needs.If they are ashamed then they were the ones who made the decision to have sex and should face the consequences(unless there were certain circumstances behind it like they had no choice)Also if it is because they can't support the child then they can put the kid up for adoption,and this has happened before where kids get put up for adoption,then years later meet back up with their parents years later.Also if you say that would put them through too much trauma or something,then think about it in this way.Back in medieval times,(or sometime maybe before that,or after) they used to kill off people who had disabilities of any kind.Could you say that abortion is just as bad?Anyways I believe I have gone too off topic here,away from the economy.All I will say as a closing statement is this.I don't believe Abortion is needed.and it has no real effect on the economy in my eyes.That is all.
Well, then, just to say what I think. Abortion is wrong. It is not right to kill an unborn baby. If you don't want one, get used to condoms. It is against God's law to kill life like that. Abortion is just another way of saying you committed murder, to me. Don't have the baby if you don't want it...
This isn't a thread about abortion, it's about a correlation between abortions and a bad economy. Necromancer basically summed it up that if there were less people, we'd be a lot better off. We'd each be more recognized for our own talents and not corralled into the groups we are now.
I'm not saying I agree that abortion is wrong or right, but I'd like to see a statement saying how having less abortions would make the economy better.
A comment to your link... That website, which is also trying to sell us something, is saying that people are having less children, which is causing a decline in population (nowai!). If we started to go into a 'opulation freefall' then I'm sure something would be done. We all even each other out: some people wish to have six children, others wish to have none or one. Some people are infertile, which balances with those that wish to have many children. I think that website is an alarmist reaction.
I'm not saying I agree that abortion is wrong or right, but I'd like to see a statement saying how having less abortions would make the economy better.
The more the people, the better the market is driven, and also more tax money that goes to the state.
Of course, it would be quite evil to force mothers to have a child for a better economy?
That website, which is also trying to sell us something, is saying that people are having less children, which is causing a decline in population (nowai!).
With 6.6 billion people, we possibly could not be in a decline. Less children just means a slower growth.
It certainly is much more serious then a bad economy. The point of it all is that there are fewer and few infants. In the long term, the population will decline as a result.
The birthrate was quite high after WW2. This is reffered to as the baby boom. This (and the mass live span of a human) have increased the population to 6.6 billion. Now, if this next generation has less babies, we will see a decline as the old die out and are replaced with fewer newborns. So, the birthrate must > then the whole death rate. It isn't so evident because people live for quite a long time. So the equation includes ever person in the world! The death rate as we know it is how many people die in a period of time. But we have billion who will die sooner or later, and they must be replaced to maintain the population. Birth rate and death rate are revelant. For every birth, there must soon be a death.
It is calculated that the birthrate has dropped immensly, although we cannot see it because this doesnt acount for those who are still living. Now since the birth rate is a lot lower, there is fewer young kids around, who are the ones who will eventually reproduce. When the older die out, we are left with a lower populuation. The equation 2:1 since to maintain the population, a women must have 2 children, one to replace herself, and another to replace the men.
Since under capitalism, the market is driven by consumerism and relies on continual growth, a decline in population is a problem. Less population means less buying! The market would collapse since many buisness will not recieve profits and would have to close down.
If prices are driven by supply and demand, and the population decreases (therefore dropping the demand) would reverse inflation (Deflation? Haha) occur?
Then again, with less population to create the materials, the supply might decrease as well, therefore making the relationship stagnant still.
Well from the Marxist viewpoint, the value of an item is determined by how much labor it took create it.
"all goods, considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing except labor".
Or rather, thats how it should be.
If we are to go by supply and demand, then its quite hard to determine what the price of things would be. Looking at history, it was running smoothly before the growth of the population (I think). Although, there has been many many new buisnesses! A decline in population would destroy this and go toward more of a "roduction for use" instead of "for profit". There would be too much competition between too many buisnesses trying to get a low amount of people to buy their product. This would cause the losers to close down. The winners themselves would not be so benefical though. The profits would still be less though. For a big buisness, you need a big consumption for profit.
So I'm not sure how to answer your question. Surely, many buisnesses would decline, but I'm thinking supply and demand will be parallel in loss, so prices shouldn't change too much.
