this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
126 points (97.7% liked)

Politics

435 readers
438 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.

The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 10 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

This point keeps coming up. We are destroying the earth due to overpopulation and overuse, why is it bad for the population to decline for a while. Its very normal for populations of animals in the wild to spike and wane, its not some catastrophe.

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 12 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

...because western economies are built upon larger young generations paying smaller old generations for the privilege of participation; take away its buttressing and that "stable" economic pyramid becomes a rickety tower...

...you can prop up the generational productivity deficit with industrial automation to some extent, but only if the benefits of automation are democratised rather than hegemonised, otherwise a smaller-and-smaller oligarchy instead dominates an increasingly-marginalised peasantry until the whole thing comes crashing down...

...when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply...

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

…when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply…

dude, I've never seen it put that way before. That's the underlying theme for fascists. Send them to war, take away their benefits, stop them from having choices in life. It really doesn't matter to them because life is cheap. I'm going to get drunk this weekend I think.

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 hours ago

...roll back before fascism and take a look at feudalism to see how ugly things can get in a steady-state oligarch civilisation...

load more comments (2 replies)