IKEA is doing their part. They must hate women. And the planet. And be a bunch of modular, self-assembling racists.
Also, look for me on CBS Sunday Morning this weekend. You’ll never guess what I’m talking about . . .
In Other “What to Expect” News
Previous post: Spencer Ackerman, For The Win
Next post: Comic Books as IP Loss-Leaders
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
In the last chapter of Jonathan’s book, he reaches these two conclusions: that “we cannot –nor should not– induce women to have babies that they don’t want…and…all we can do is to make it easier for women to have the babies that they do want.” The book discusses the failures after failures of National efforts to reverse the fertility rate in various countries. Jonathan uses the propaganda of hopelessness to convince us of his two conclusions. Jonathan never explicitly states why his first conclusion must be final, especially in light of government policies and the media on issues other than fertility. The problem with Jonathan’s first conclusion is that “what women want” can be influenced by policy and the media. For example, white women in the southeast U.S. and California did not just wake up one day and decide that they were all committed to having abundantly more non-white babies. But that is exactly what is happening as verified by any kindergarten in these regions. The reason for this change of women wanting more non-white babies is directly related to government policy and the media. The policies of diversity, minority influence, whiteness studies, and the media constantly deluging us with rap music and ghetto culture has produced a change in women’s preferences. As this example shows, there is no reason why we cannot –nor should not– induce women to have more babies. Culture is a more powerful tool than economic incentives or government policies that are unknown to the masses. The truth is that we have never utilized the power culture to reverse the fertility rate. This is just one example. In fact it is literally the job of government to persuade public opinion on public policy issues and in fact they do this on issues such as immigration, austerity, ObamaCare, gun control, green energy and many more. Someone should take Jonathan out behind the woodshed and give him a hard lashing for espousing such propaganda and pessimism.
The more I read and hear about the demographic trends described in “What to Expect…” the more I’m reminded of Alice Sheldon’s classic sci-fi story The Screwfly Solution.
It has led to some sleepless nights.
Jonathan,
I just read the interview by Ed Driscoll and will buy the book ASAP. I have followed the fascinating issue of demography since I read Wattenberg’s book “Fewer” after it came out in 2004, as well as the Eberstadts’ essays. At the end of 2011 I wrote an article about demography based on the books by Wattenberg, Longman, Kauffmann and Spengler. If you would like to read it, please go to the website, it’s at the top of the list.
Mmm, behind the woodshed. Well, we’ve never tried it there. They say you can’t get pregnant if you do it behind the woodshed…
Speaking of cribs, $1400 doesn’t seem like all that much for a crib. That’s much less than we spend on childcare every 2 weeks.
I apologize for my error: In “America’s One Child Policy”, Mr. Last reported that the Avila crib sells for only $1285, not $1400.
However, the article also states that a full-time babysitter costs less than 10,000 per year. How can that be? The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If a babysitter works 2000 hours per year, then $7.25 X 2000 = $14,500, or at least $15,400 after adding employer payroll taxes.