Completely possible mate, absolutely nothing invalid in what you’ve said or the potential benefits listed. However, there’s no guarantee of any of them and you could already argue those points to be true for the first two children per family.
Meanwhile the estimated savings I saw (take any gov numbers with a pinch of salt) were 2.5bn by drawing the line at 2 and that’s without even looking at the intangibles around overcrowding that I mentioned yesterday. I could rattle off 100 positive outcomes of a lower population which could end up true off the back of this, but a) it’s also potentials and b) checking the numbers last night it’s had no material impact to date (I think over time it will, 6 years isn’t much on this subject).
Being the one to find the right cost vs quality of life balance is not a position I’d want to be in at all but this country is not in a position to be funding everybody for everything that needs funding due to shit decisions of the past, so lines have to be drawn somewhere and I’d rather families got benefits for 2 children than none, then that supposed 2.5bn can support other initiatives.
I’ve also seen a lot of scenarios thrown around in this thread and while I can’t say they’re all covered, I did read a bit around the exception scenarios and I think those make provisions for some of what has been raised in here.
Tbh im not gonna spend much of m time diving into more numbers and details (last night 1am was enough) as I see perfectly valid points on both sides of the coin but I am personally ok with it remaining in place at a limit of 2, at least for now. Others aren’t and that’s absolutely fine. I’d love an excuse to criticise labour but this isn’t it for me.
yeah definitely wouldn’t want that, it’s hard a terrible effect on their society at large.
Japan is in a similar place but on the reverse… declining population. Their government has tried everything to get them to have kids but it doesn’t seem to be working.
Respect your honesty but I’m curious how you think that works given people leave the country? The country would have literally no shot at prospering with no potential to replace the talent leaving. Seems self-sabotage imo.
True, it’d likely need to be a much softer measure than China’s approach but unsure how it can be deployed in countries like Nigeria where religious ties are very strong which also encourage having children.
Nigeria suffers from huge brain drain at the moment too, they struggle to keep their best talent yet alone develop net new ones too.
Need to find ways to stimulate the key sectors and encourage people to either stay or come back after moving abroad for a short time.
I mean the UK just watches all its doctors and nurses piss off to Australia for better pay and way of life but refuses to do anything to improve their situation back home and stop it happening. They’ll probably now start throwing funds at training up new ones instead once it gets too bad, which could’ve just gone towards keeping the existing ones.
Nigeria is poised to become one of the biggest economies in the world soon enough, they have no reason to stop doing what they are doing in terms of demographics
They have the potential for an industrial boom by having many young workers in their population
Tbh, I think I’d do better at rubbing the thingies together and shouting “clear!” and giving someone’s heart a few charges than I would making a pretty pattern on top of someone’s caffeinated beverage.
Love that they try to say that it undermines international law when you draw an equivalence between the actions of terrorists and the actions of democratically elected leaders
As if the issue isnt that democratically elected leaders are carrying out actions comparable to terrorism.
I quite strongly disagree. Poverty is the greatest determinant of criminality, poverty is also one of the biggest determinants for poor health and educational outcomes.
Experts say that lifting the two child benefit cap will lift 1.6m kids out of poverty. Statistically, if you lift over a million people out of poverty you will see better outcomes for health and education among that group, and you will have fewer of them involved in crime.
On the individual level, you can’t guarantee anything for a single child lifted out of poverty, who knows what will happen to a single person. But across a sample size of one million plus, I think you actually can guarantee better outcomes in these three areas compared to if that many people stayed in poverty.
