Wouldn’t that depend on which tubes were being tied? One guy can get 100 girls pregnant in the time it takes one of the girls to have a baby.
On the other hand, there’s not much benefit to giving vasectomies to incels.
If you could identify the Lotharios and give them vasectomies that would surely be the most bang for your buck. (Pun intended.)
That said, since females are the ones saddled with the unwanted pregnancy, they are probably more willing to get sterilized.
I’ve posted on this before. You could scale the offer to be higher for women with less children. Also cap/scale for age since fertility drops off heavily after about 35. Obviously include earnings and asset caps. Also you can use a procedure that is somewhat harder to reverse to make sure someone doesn’t just use part of the money to undo the procedure.
This. So very much this.
RN
Correlation does not imply causation. With an increasing population, one would expect “more bank accounts” to open. Broad scale implementation of ATM’s just might happen to be coincidental to this observation.
The whole argument is that automation kills jobs.
Bank accounts vs tellers. Total number vs per capita.
Ah yes, the broad scale of ATMs was designed to have no impact on the number of tellers. /s
For men, should the payment (if any) be scaled based on his success as a PUA (looking at twig93’s post above)?
Perhaps the clinic should have a woman on staff that the patient is ordered to flirt with, and they determine the payment based on how well he does.
So, the maximum payout is for a low income teen who has never had children. A few years later, she meets the right guy and they have a middlish income. She regrets the hasty decision she made at 18. She will never have children. Maybe she thinks the gov’t took advantage of a young kid who didn’t know how to say “no” to an amount of money that looked huge at the time.
I’m hoping we can all agree a government sterilization policy isn’t the right solution to anything.
You’re demonizing it when you phrase it like that. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to stop wanton population growth, especially amongst the poor.
It’s either that, or you end up with some version of squid game in the future. Your pick. I’d rather stop fetuses from emerging than kill full grown adults that cannot self sustain.
Yes, and I stand by that, I find it abhorrent.
No, it’s being demonized by it’s very presentation.
The SOA and CAS are trying to get rid of systemic racism like this, and here we are adding new causes to the mix.
Don’t offer men anything. In the population group you want to reduce fertility rates in monogamy is pretty rare. Vasectomies would have little impact on birth rates.
This is a possibility. The answer is that someone who had the procedure is not legally prevented from having it reversed. They would just need to be able to pay for it, on their own. Anyone who wants a child that badly and can carry out a plan to save that level of funds is likely to make a decent parent.
The key here is that it is completely voluntary. No one is forced into anything. I see nothing wrong with offering incentives that are likely to save the government money and quite possibly result in a better average level of parenting in lower level socioeconomic classes.
Let’s just not. Yes, there is a correlation between race and poverty in this country. That means that any program targeted at lower classes are going to have racial effects, if you don’t control for socio-economic status. The idea here is to help reduce generational poverty. Regardless of whether the persons involved are white, black, green, or purple.
I’m not sure why monogamy being rare implies that vasectomies wouldn’t have an impact. I’m sure lots of men would love to be free to bang as many women as they can without having to worry about paying child support.
It would require a much greater uptake level to impact birth rates. The program would be relatively ineffective for males unless you could engineer a high uptake. Given the differences in invasiveness of the procedures and macho attitudes about fertility I doubt that could be done in an acceptable fashion.
Bullshit. Programs like this have never been applied this way. Racism all the way down.
By that logic, nearly every single welfare program is racist. One could even twist a progressive tax rate structure as racist.
What’s the solution if rich people continue to have fewer kids and poor people continue to pump out kids?
Before I engage in this discussion. How big is this problem you are trying to solve with sterilization? Here’s a link to help you with your figuring. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
What is your goal in rough numbers? Do you expect to move what percentage of people out of poverty?