Most active commenters
  • lotsofpulp(6)
  • pstuart(4)
  • epgui(3)

←back to thread

594 points geox | 20 comments | | HN request time: 0.513s | source | bottom
Show context
dgb23 ◴[] No.44454168[source]
There are so many red flags with this administration that I lost count. Policing speech, suppressing information, cutting research funding, cutting social programs, increasing spending and intensity for deportations, deporting people for political affiliation, an unnecessarily disruptive economic policy and many reports of general incompetence, lying and corruption.

It's all so bleak. Where is the payoff?

replies(6): >>44454185 #>>44454193 #>>44454376 #>>44455419 #>>44458260 #>>44459955 #
1. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44454185[source]
The new tax bill, which benefits asset owners (wealthy), older people, and the beneficiaries of the wealthy.

When you have a population age histogram that is flattening and eventually an upside down triangle, you need some way of extracting labor from the young and giving it to the old (the chosen ones who can afford it) to maintain the socioeconomic hierarchy.

The young without inheritances won’t ever have it as good, so you’ll need to distract them and otherwise fool them into believing it is their duty to transfer their earned income via earned income taxes to the elderly.

replies(2): >>44454744 #>>44455026 #
2. epgui ◴[] No.44454744[source]
Right, because that’s a “smart” way to tackle the demographic collapse/crisis while totally not making the problem worse.
replies(2): >>44456998 #>>44457111 #
3. Loughla ◴[] No.44455026[source]
I don't think it really has a whole lot to do with socioeconomic hierarchy; I think that's just a happy accident.

Old people vote. Old people vote in midterms and odd timed elections. Therefore, old people decide the candidates. Any politician would be smart to court them as a voting bloc.

As for the benefits for the wealthy; that's just the same old bullshit in a new protectionist wrapper. Get my friends and family as much benefit as I can while I have the ability sort of thing.

replies(3): >>44455066 #>>44455145 #>>44456479 #
4. Dumblydorr ◴[] No.44455066[source]
Nice theory, however you’re believing people vote for their best interests, and the above comment believes they’re deluded by misinformation.

I think both are occurring. Young white men went GOP, why is that? Anti vaxx leftists went with Kennedy, why is that? Why do anti-immigration and pro-economics claim the top two republican policy slots, when they’re firmly opposed in their effects on the economy? This is the contradictory trend of delusion and cult of personality.

If the BBB just passed is an indication, I think overall we are more on the deluded side, most of these deluded non-rich white folks are more anti-immigrant than pro-economics.

Of course I do not believe GOP economic policies are better than the alternative, I’m not the one who voted for that policy regime however!

replies(2): >>44456249 #>>44458489 #
5. ◴[] No.44455145[source]
6. pixelatedindex ◴[] No.44456249{3}[source]
> Why do anti-immigration and pro-economics claim the top two republican policy slots

Pro-economics? This admin can’t tell supply from demand. Anti-immigration, definitely.

replies(1): >>44459776 #
7. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44456479[source]
Old people voting in their own interests at the expense of young people is them trying to maintain their higher position in the socioeconomic hierarchy. There is a secondary component related to skin tone and ancestry as well.
8. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44456998[source]
I don’t see a way to avoid population decline, assuming women have freedom and access to 100% effective birth control.

The whole process of pregnancy/birth//breastfeeding/infant rearing sucks, so that most women will opt for 1 or 2, max.

Then you have to account for all the men and women who opt to stay single (or queer or whatever). The number of women that need to have more than 2 kids to offset those with 0 and 1 will never happen.

The only possible mechanism to align incentives is to remove all old age benefits and wealth transfers, so that one likely has to depend on their children. But even then, I doubt it would work.

replies(1): >>44458089 #
9. triceratops ◴[] No.44457111[source]
Why do we need to "tackle" the demographic collapse? The CEO of Ford just said he expects 50% of white-collar jobs to be eliminated soon. Tax the AI and you'll have plenty of money for retirees. There's nothing wrong with naturally, and gradually, going back to the population levels of 1980 or whatever.
replies(1): >>44460106 #
10. epgui ◴[] No.44458089{3}[source]
Immigration.
replies(1): >>44459788 #
11. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44458489{3}[source]
>> Why

Because Biden was much better at doing than talking about what was done, and in an absence of words any words dominate.

The Democratic party needs to stop looking at election results as mistakes by underinformed voters, and start looking at them as feedback on engagement.

12. pstuart ◴[] No.44459776{4}[source]
> Anti-immigration, definitely.

Hold on -- the regime recently welcomed refugees from Africa! If only we could understand why that group, versus the ones they're actively deporting. If only there was some pattern, a clue or hint as to what matters to them...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/12/trump-administratio...

13. pstuart ◴[] No.44459788{4}[source]
Yes, that's part of it but helping to ease the economic burden of child rearing would definitely help.

The documentary Idiocracy has some interesting insights into the issue -- it's worth the watch.

replies(1): >>44460320 #
14. cwmoore ◴[] No.44460106{3}[source]
[flagged]
15. epgui ◴[] No.44460320{5}[source]
Of course. My response was overly simplistic, simply because the parent comment seemed to suggest that there existed no solution.
replies(1): >>44465221 #
16. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44465221{6}[source]
What do you mean? I see no success so far across the world, and simply paying people to have kids is the wrong incentive (since badly raised children are worse than no children).
replies(1): >>44466577 #
17. pstuart ◴[] No.44466577{7}[source]
> paying people to have kids is the wrong incentive

I absolutely agree. Childcare is horribly expensive and just easing the burden of that would make parenting far more palatable to those who would otherwise be good parents.

replies(1): >>44468958 #
18. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44468958{8}[source]
Even the Scandinavian countries with world’s most generous childcare subsidies are nowhere near a replacement total fertility rate (~2.1).

Expecting other societies less egalitarian and less rich than them is pie in the sky thinking.

replies(1): >>44483501 #
19. pstuart ◴[] No.44483501{9}[source]
My point is that this is a problem that can be solved, the only thing stopping us is us.

As this thread happening in a post about machinations by the current regime, the likelihood of it being solved (let alone correctly) borders on near impossible. The only thing that they'll do that will affect this is take away reproductive rights and that will lead to more unplanned births.

replies(1): >>44490854 #
20. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.44490854{10}[source]
My point is that it's easy to say it can be solved, but I have yet to see any evidence of how (absent removing or reducing women's rights).

Solved meaning achieving replacement rate total fertility rate, not just people having the amount of kids they say they want.