PDA

View Full Version : Conservative VS Liberal Birth Rate - Red Wave In 20 Years?



jongib369
12-04-2021, 07:45 PM
"Liberals are not having enough babies to keep up with conservatives. Arthur Brooks, a social scientist at Syracuse University, was the first to point this out all the way back in 2006 when he went on ABC News and blew blue staters minds. “The political Right is having a lot more kids than the political Left,” he explained. “The gap is actually 41 percent.” Data on the U.S. birth rate from the General Social Survey confirms this trend—a random sample of 100 conservative adults will raise 208 children, while 100 liberal adults will raise a mere 147 kids. That’s a massive gap.

When we collected the number of children per capita in each state and then compared the data to statewide voting records, we found that the trend is so strong, that it can even be observed at the state level. Red States came out with significantly more kids per capita than Blue States.

https://images.fatherly.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/republican-states-children-inset-1.jpg?q=65&enable=upscale&w=600

There are, of course, sociopolitical reasons why Republicans might have more children. Conservatives tend to live in sprawling rural or suburban communities and are often social conservatives who eschew birth control and abortions, and summarily bump up the U.S. birth rate. Liberals tend to be concentrated in cramped city apartments and are more likely to get abortions.Not that it makes much of a difference—staunch conservatives who are procreating to stack the ballot box are likely to be disappointed by their Occupy Wall Street children, and it is unlikely that the political fertility gap will have any bearing on how adults vote. Although it is true that some studies suggest that 70 percent of teens vote like their parents, more recent work suggests that parents who insist on their political views at home are more likely to see their children abandon those beliefs in college.

Besides, a parent’s job is not to mass produce a voting populace—it’s to influence their discourse and, by extension, the discourse of the voting public. Parents across the political spectrum should explain that mutual respect is not only possible, it’s pleasurable. Tell your kids that power should be exercised benevolently, and that truth-seeking is obligatory. The country would be a better place if political discourse had these components—whether you live in New York or Nebraska."


https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-more-children/

With the way red states seem to be going about their business not isolating do you see a "red wave" happening to any degree, or will it be more like this article suggests?

Patrick Chewing
12-04-2021, 08:58 PM
Yup, I've noticed that the younger generation that's interested in politics tend to be Liberal and tend to not have children. And how can they? How can they take care of a child if they need safe spaces and are unable to handle criticism? They're pro-abortion so they clearly don't value human life even at its most basic level.

Doesn't surprise me that their numbers are dwindling when most of them can't figure out what gender they are.

Off the Court
12-04-2021, 11:06 PM
The white population majority has been steady shrinking for a while now while minority populations grow at a much faster rate so probably not.

Off the Court
12-04-2021, 11:18 PM
It's also worth noting that "per capita" probably isn't as important as that map image makes it out to be. It says New York is ranked #42 per capita but even at #42 that's probably more children than Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, etc all combined.

j3lademaster
12-05-2021, 10:54 AM
Poorer families always had more kids, and red states are poorer. That's the correlation. New York, California, Mass and NJ basically pay for all of America's welfare queens as they have more kids.

It's a big problem. If you don't believe me, look at median income vs average housing price in China. It's scary, and it's where we're headed. Our average housing price is already over $400k and our median household income is under $70k(household, not individual). In 1970 the min wage was $1.60 and the median price for a house was $17,000. You can get a union job back then and be okay. College was $50/semester. You watch that 70's show and you wonder how Red is able to afford a mortage, 2 cars and putting his daughter through college on a grocery store manager's salary... who actually thinks that's possible today? Ernst and Young starts their accountants off at $55k/year. They require a Master's. How the hell are people supposed to make it as a single income household? You either have to hit it out of the park and be a top 10% earner, or collect welfare and live in a trailer and accept that things aren't that great.

The rednecks with 5 kids in their trailer blaming immigrants for their problems are the same as the minorities living in project housing(who typically vote blue) and constantly blame white people. They're the demographics that pump out kids by the dozen and those are the household cultures we don't need spreading.

Shogon
12-05-2021, 02:08 PM
The rednecks with 5 kids in their trailer blaming immigrants for their problems are the same as the minorities living in project housing(who typically vote blue) and constantly blame white people. They're the demographics that pump out kids by the dozen and those are the household cultures we don't need spreading.

You wouldn't be well off without all of those people.

Gotta have the poor for you to be doing well. Just a fact of nature. It is part of the very essence of reality.

As for your talking points about wages/costs changing over the years... there are two big monetary failures of this society which obviously bleeds into other shit.

1) The Federal Reserve(the grand daddy)
2) Feminism and women all entering the workforce.

fsvr54
12-05-2021, 02:39 PM
Great news

j3lademaster
12-05-2021, 02:44 PM
You wouldn't be well off without all of those people.

Gotta have the poor for you to be doing well. Just a fact of nature. It is part of the very essence of reality.

As for your talking points about wages/costs changing over the years... there are two big monetary failures of this society which obviously bleeds into other shit.

1) The Federal Reserve(the grand daddy)
2) Feminism and women all entering the workforce.Agreed on #1. The Fed being a privatized piggy bank that's in obvious cahoots with our largest investors is a HUGE issue. I never looked into #2 to give an educated response.

I assume it's women wanting to work causing the supply of labor to essentially jump overnight, causing it to be cheaper? But these basic economic principles are such whiteroom theories that one has to look into it much more to get into the true nuances of it all. I mean, having women also creates a larger pool of talent which should theoretically manufacture better talent at the top(through more competition) and thus trickle down to the rest of us. Overall is it worth it to put women(generally speaking ofc) into the workforce? And who does this benefit the most, probably the employers? I don't know you got me thinking though. Good observation nonetheless.

dankok8
12-05-2021, 08:27 PM
Once Texas turns blue which is a matter of time, the window for the Republicans will be shut. Oklahomans and Idahoans having 15 children means nothing.

FultzNationRISE
12-05-2021, 09:15 PM
Once Texas turns blue which is a matter of time, the window for the Republicans will be shut. Oklahomans and Idahoans having 15 children means nothing.

Red and blue will not mean the same thing in 20 years time as they do today.

We tend to really underestimate how different things are going to be in the future.

Things like smartphones and uber/lyft arent even fifteen years old and they are now cornerstones of modern society. 15 years ago ago Democrat politicians were still against gay marriage. Today not even Republican politicians oppose it.

The Wall Street Government Media will always manufacture and exploit any demographic division it can, but it wont always be based on the kind of paradigms that exist in the present moment. In 20 years there likely wont even be any red and blue as we know them today. The division will likely be based on completely different issues, with different kinds of people aligned/opposed.

JohnnySic
12-05-2021, 09:26 PM
The idea that Texas is turning blue is way overstated. Outside if the cities it is deep red, its just that only 1/3 of eligible voters in those areas turn out to vote. The GOP needs to do a better job with that.

fsvr54
12-05-2021, 10:02 PM
The idea that Texas is turning blue is way overstated. Outside if the cities it is deep red, its just that only 1/3 of eligible voters in those areas turn out to vote. The GOP needs to do a better job with that.

Yeah.

Anyone who thinks Texas will turn blue is a fool.

The pendulum is swinging, people don't like woke garbage. More states will turn red now than the opposite.

Lakers Legend#32
12-06-2021, 01:46 AM
FOX News viewers are 65 years-old-and up. When they kick off their goes FOX and the GOP.

jongib369
12-06-2021, 02:21 AM
https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw

Seems like a never ending cycle of both sides being dumb f!cks majority of the time lol