> I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I did not "need" as much income as a co-worker with multiple kids...
Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.
Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.
Does that sound like a good plan, great for economy?
Between this and climate catastrophy, neoliberals are creating a self-destructive civilisation
Rather thank the politicians who sold you a pyramid scheme as a pension system.
> Between this and climate catastrophy,
If you argue with climate catastrophe, you should rather argue for decreasing the number of people (which includes avoiding having children) to decrease the CO2 footprint.
Immigration is only a temporary solution, it may not be a reliable solution by the end of the century. Global birth rates are falling and QoL is slowly improving, reducing the incentive to immigrate.
Maybe they should have thought about that before they based retirement on the Ponzi Scheme of income based taxation
No, it's the other way around.
Lowering birth rates is the very best thing we can do to ensure sustainability.
I mean the saying goes they are the future, and it a very literal sense, they are.
Why do "we" want that?
TLDR: you want children to exist now.
And that's ignoring how our society works, because the way pensions work you want about 4 times as many children as old people. That's a lot of kids we haven't had, but the alternative to that is way more taxes. Clearly we don't want way more taxes, so 4 times as many kids it is. Except we're not doing that either, and ... uh ... I guess we're hoping God will save us?
TLDR: you want children to exist now. And, actually, you should want the number of kids to roughly double from what we have now (in the US, in Europe, a minimum of 4x is needed)