Most annoying and or dumbest of the CDBros?

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

Actually there’s no dispute that Americans of child bearing age have continued to have fewer and fewer kids. That’s been the long term trend. The google should have told ya.

That wasn't your question, dumbass. Alt

The question was what, if anything, should we do about the above.

Pitchfork51 said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

Actually there’s no dispute that Americans of child bearing age have continued to have fewer and fewer kids. That’s been the long term trend. The google should have told ya.

That wasn't your question, dumbass. Alt

The question was what, if anything, should we do about the above.

Stop anyone under 60k household income per year from having a child. Full stop.

HHusky said:

Pitchfork51 said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

Actually there’s no dispute that Americans of child bearing age have continued to have fewer and fewer kids. That’s been the long term trend. The google should have told ya.

That wasn't your question, dumbass. Alt

The question was what, if anything, should we do about the above.

Stop anyone under 60k household income per year from having a child. Full stop.

As much as I’m inclined toward this and its corresponding reduction of the GOP base, as a country we can’t really afford to further discourage reproduction by Americans.

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

Well Mikey, this is what I said:

“That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?”

It looks like the same fucking question and argument to me.

So tell LTE more about only wealthy are having kids while low income minorities birth rates are increasing. Fuck stick

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Pitchfork51 said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

Actually there’s no dispute that Americans of child bearing age have continued to have fewer and fewer kids. That’s been the long term trend. The google should have told ya.

That wasn't your question, dumbass. Alt

The question was what, if anything, should we do about the above.

Stop anyone under 60k household income per year from having a child. Full stop.

As much as I’m inclined toward this and its corresponding reduction of the GOP base, as a country we can’t really afford to further discourage reproduction by Americans.

Queers are cutting into population figures as well. Consume resources and produce only attorneys that destroy free enterprise.

Homosexuals can now marry and are more likely to have kids than at any time in the past. You really don’t think things through.

Show me two men that can have kids. Fucking science breakthrough God couldn't even work out. Anal produces attorneys. Everyone knows this!

Post pictures of your ultrasound.

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Pitchfork51 said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

GDS said:

Swaye said:

MikeDamone said:

SFGbob said:

YellowSnow said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

http://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204502293237903366?s=19

Odd because the company I work for has six weeks of paid parental leave and they didn't do it because of the government. The market created a competition for labor that necessitated the need to offer that as a benefit in order to attract the level of employee they were looking for. There was no government involvement needed.

My wife got 22 weeks of company paid leave for our 1st kid.

You must work for the government. Nobody in the private sector offers that kind of benefit, the market wouldn't allow it.

Some do. Tech companies like AirBnB. Competition for workers is fierce in some industries

@GDS you should look into AirBnB that way when you and your husband adopt you can get some good tim off to go on social media and show off your new Korean baby.

Had 12 weeks paid paternity leave when each of my kids were born.

I had a few days off. That was fine. JFC. People have had kids since the beginning of people. Billions and billions have been born. Now all a sudden it's a human right that parents take 6 months off and get paid for it. Through 99.99% of human history people had kids and got back to work. Now it's some sacred miracle that people seem to think they are the only ones to ever do it.

Fine with me if companies want to offer it as benefit. But it's not a right and not a government function. If you want kids figure your own shit out.

I don’t think it’s a right. That said, the incentives to have kids these days are small and the disincentives are large. What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?

Lol. So outside the wealthy Americans aren't having kids? Christ. It's the fucking opposite dumbass. They poor are shitting out more than ever. The middle end upper class isn't.

HHusky. Dumb as ever.

Imagine thinking high income is $200,000. Yes Mikey, the traditional relationship between income and fertility holds true for the incomes you’re talking about.

Just admit you were wrong. JFC. This isn't saying 200,000 is high income. It says that people having kids are low income. The opposite of what your dumb ass said.

" What, if anything, should we be doing to address the fact that outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?" - HHuskyFS

$200,000 annual household income isn’t “the wealthy”. US fertility rates are in the dumpster and to the extent we use income as a proxy for wealth, $200,000 doesn’t really cut it. Your exploration of birth rates within the non-wealthy population doesn’t refute what demographers have noticed about the fertility rates of the wealthy.

And your a fucking idiot. Even if the wealthy had a high birth rate the number of wealthy by your definition is tiny. Would hardly make a dent in the birth rate of lower income.
Take the L and move on. Or post up a link that says "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids?". Lying piece of shit.

Take the L when you’re making my very point? You don’t seem to know how this works.

You're an idiot.

https://www.prb.org/population-growth-concentrated-among-the-poorest-communities/


Seems like "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". Is made up bullshit. Like I said take the L. You weren't even arguing fertility rates. Yuh were taking absolute numbers. But I'm not surprised you'd move the goal posts. That's a typical CDBros tactic.

Sorry my trick arithmetic concepts confused you. I learned them in elementary school.

So the statement "outside of the wealthy, Americans of child bearing years aren’t having kids". was a lie. Got it.

Actually there’s no dispute that Americans of child bearing age have continued to have fewer and fewer kids. That’s been the long term trend. The google should have told ya.

That wasn't your question, dumbass. Alt

The question was what, if anything, should we do about the above.

Stop anyone under 60k household income per year from having a child. Full stop.

As much as I’m inclined toward this and its corresponding reduction of the GOP base, as a country we can’t really afford to further discourage reproduction by Americans.

Queers are cutting into population figures as well. Consume resources and produce only attorneys that destroy free enterprise.