Indian Population and sustainablity

[Muloghonto]

Please read abouty Nazi party and hitler. They have only one role for women and that is to produce kids.No western style liberation. As far as Russia and other communist countries are concerned that was just pseudo liberation.There were hardly any woman politicians in power and there was no attempt by them to tell men to share household chores.Infact communist dictators used women when required.For example first Soviet allowed abortion but in 1936 they banned it all because birth rate was getting lower

Politicians dont matter to the argument. But it is in cold, hard census data that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany circa 1925-1930 onwards had much higher women's participation rate in the workforce than western women till the 1980s. What is also starkly clear from census data is that the commies and the Nazis were much better at paying women fair wages (ie, parity with men) than the western society is even today! The 'suzy homemaker' was far more common an ideal in the west when i first came over in the late 80s than it is today. The relevant info regarding women's emancipation to this topic is not whether men were chauvinists and didnt do chores or hogged the limelight, the relevant focus is whether a credible life existed for women outside the home-maker role in society. In the case of Eastern Europe & Germany, the answer is most definitely, yes. It is indisputable facts, stored in cold hard census data, that women in eastern Europe & Germany had a far greater professional/career driven participation rate than even the west till around late 80s/early 90s. What you are saying about the late Stalin era is true- there was a rollback of women's workforce participation and guess what ? USSR's birthrate also showed a correlative jump. Bear in mind that this is the same Stallin that upheld 'women for every job' slogan of Lenin, implementing it when he first came to supreme power in the early 20s.And after Stalin went kaput, Krushchev immediately turned back the stallinist policy and Soviet Russia, again, showed greater workforce participation with similar correlation to falling birthrates. (The simple explanation of Stalin's repeal of 1936 was that he knew WWII was comming and Stalin need babies to replace the millions that were gonna die.) The relevance is so, because the correlation between birth rates and women's emancipation is not necessarily the rights given to them or symbolic participations in power but more importantly, to female work rate. Check it out if you dont believe me. Virtually every graph of every industrialized nation shows an inverse correlation between birth rates and female workforce participation rates.

Also if we look at rural India most of women are in workforce yet they produce 3-4 kids.It is not like they are housewives producing kids. They work in farms , raise their animals or do any job available so I don't know how this study is relevant for indian circumstances

Workforce does not mean simply having things to do. Workforce implies an employer-employee relationship that can be terminated without catastrophic loss of sustainance. These women are working for their hubby/daddy for grub and roof over their heads, its not like they are getting paid or have the option to go work someone else's farm. They are not slaves, but for the economic purposes, put in the 'invisible workforce' category, which is also occupited by slaves, indentured laborers, etc. So i think the 'rural career girl who doesnt have time to raise kids' does not really apply as an analogy.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

why not simply sterilise all the people below a certain socio-economic status?

[Muloghonto]

why not simply sterilise all the people below a certain socio-economic status?

..... This is why communism came around in the first place. Classist A-holes wanting to get away with anything and everything to keep their status quo alive. Do you have any idea how many successful people have come from dirt poor background and how many failures have come with silver spoons in their mouth ? if you want to force sterilize, there is only one real legit way: pure random lottery.

[Tiger80]

Politicians dont matter to the argument. But it is in cold, hard census data that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany circa 1925-1930 onwards had much higher women's participation rate in the workforce than western women till the 1980s. What is also starkly clear from census data is that the commies and the Nazis were much better at paying women fair wages (ie, parity with men) than the western society is even today!

I have read enough about Nazi Germany , but never ever i came with an article that there was more women workforce particip[ation in Nazi Germany

The Nazi model woman did not have a career, but she was responsible for the education of her children and for housekeeping. Women only had a limited right to training revolving around domestic tasks, and were, over time, restricted from teaching in universities, from medical professions and from parliamen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany

Soviet definately yes.Marxism encouraged women to work

(The simple explanation of Stalin's repeal of 1936 was that he knew WWII was comming and Stalin need babies to replace the millions that were gonna die.)

This is simply not true nobody knew in 1936 that such a destructive war is coming . Infact in 1936 Hitler just broke treaty of versasile and started rearmament of Germany.and in 1939 Germany signed non voilence pact with soviet.If Germany could had lost the war from France and England in 1940-41 then there was no0 way millions of russians would have been killed

The relevance is so, because the correlation between birth rates and women's emancipation is not necessarily the rights given to them or symbolic participations in power but more importantly, to female work rate. Check it out if you dont believe me. Virtually every graph of every industrialized nation shows an inverse correlation between birth rates and female workforce participation rates.

I agree with you that every industrialised nation have inverse correlation between birth rate and female workforce participation but all industrialised countries go through cultural change as well .more and more materialistic lifestyle, old age importance of kids went down becoming less religious etc.I don't see this type of cultural change can come in India.So there are plenty of factors which contribute to birth rate

Workforce does not mean simply having things to do. Workforce implies an employer-employee relationship that can be terminated without catastrophic loss of sustainance. These women are working for their hubby/daddy for grub and roof over their heads, its not like they are getting paid or have the option to go work someone else's farm. They are not slaves, but for the economic purposes, put in the 'invisible workforce' category, which is also occupited by slaves, indentured laborers, etc. So i think the 'rural career girl who doesnt have time to raise kids' does not really apply as an analogy.

Majority of poor in rural area are landless labours , so their women do go and work for others.Whether they have hold on their income or their husband s simply take the money is other issue.Many times husbands of these women are working in cities so this is also not true that rural women don't work outsideYes rural career girl don't exist because their is no career in rural area not even for men

[someone]

Well, there can be many definitions of sustainability. And one of them is about having resources for your population. Our resources are not going to serve our population. And due to this high population growth, the existing resources that we had are already mismanaged and not done resourcefully. Something needs to make to done to break this cycle as if it continues longer, there is definitely a end breaking point.

[Clarke]

..... This is why communism came around in the first place. Classist A-holes wanting to get away with anything and everything to keep their status quo alive. Do you have any idea how many successful people have come from dirt poor background and how many failures have come with silver spoons in their mouth ? if you want to force sterilize, there is only one real legit way: pure random lottery.

Lets make sure everyone wins.

[Muloghonto]

Well' date= there can be many definitions of sustainability. And one of them is about having resources for your population. Our resources are not going to serve our population. And due to this high population growth, the existing resources that we had are already mismanaged and not done resourcefully. Something needs to make to done to break this cycle as if it continues longer, there is definitely a end breaking point.

Indeed. As i said earlier in the thread, 'sustainability towards what' ? What is it you are trying to sustain ? Putting food in people's belly, solving India's hunger problems and roof over their heads ? No problems, with land reform, we can feed, clothe and house 3-4 billion Indians in india. But if the question is everyone owns a house/apartment, has a car, disposable income, tvs, fridges & gadgets- then no, forget sustainability,we are way way overpopulated - India and the globe in general- to supply all that. Planet earth cannot sustain the 'American Dream' for more than 1- 1.5 billion human beings. It can however, support food & clothing & housing for up to 15-20 billion people atleast.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

..... This is why communism came around in the first place. Classist A-holes wanting to get away with anything and everything to keep their status quo alive. Do you have any idea how many successful people have come from dirt poor background and how many failures have come with silver spoons in their mouth ? if you want to force sterilize, there is only one real legit way: pure random lottery.

wow. what a stupid comment. quick question for you, mullah ghanta: is a successful person more likely to come from a dirt poor background or from a middle class or rich background? yes or no answer please, ghantamullah

[Muloghonto]

wow. what a stupid comment.

No, whats stupid is to argue for greater rights of the rich over the poor.

quick question for you, mullah ghanta: is a successful person more likely to come from a dirt poor background or from a middle class or rich background? yes or no answer please, ghantamullah

You present a question with an 'or' in it, so how is it a yes or no answer ? To answer your question, a successful person is far more likely to be successful if they are driven, regardless of their background. You get what you put in, efforts wise. There are plenty of Dhirubhai Ambani and Bachchan types, who were working for 50 rupees and failing to feed themselves, nevermind their families, yet became successful. PS: If you insist on corrupting my name, i will corrupt yours, comprende, senor Flip ?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

lmao, i just threw the last line in cos i needed to screw with your already hilarious name your answer still sucks tho, you're not being realistic. poverty is generational

[Muloghonto]

lmao, i just threw the last line in cos i needed to screw with your already hilarious name your answer still sucks tho, you're not being realistic. poverty is generational

In feudal societies, sure. In free market society, neither are poverty or wealth are generational in the long term. You can have branch of an Industrialist's family, 3-4 generations down living in a hovel, you can have the sons and daughters of brick layers become billionares. And even if its generational, it still doesnt give the rich better breeding rights.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

In feudal societies, sure. In free market society, neither are poverty or wealth are generational in the long term. You can have branch of an Industrialist's family, 3-4 generations down living in a hovel, you can have the sons and daughters of brick layers become billionares. And even if its generational, it still doesnt give the rich better breeding rights.

it IS generational bro, ur living in da nile. especially in india, where governments dont do **** and access to education and other civic amenities is restricted to ppl that can afford it. the overwhelming majority of poor ppl will never be able to produce nerdy industrialists and awful bollywood actors, they havent got the resources available to them. one or two exceptions mean nothing in this case. india needs to eradicate a large % of its population, and this is the only reasonable way to do so. would you like to inaugurate my sterilisation program?

[Jersey #10]

The word here is that everyone in India is a karodpati... Everyone that visits India from my part of the USA comes back with a word that everyone is rich as fk and have more money than we do in the US. and these are the people making big six figures in big IT firms

[hhunaeh]

The word here is that everyone in India is a karodpati... Everyone that visits India from my part of the USA comes back with a word that everyone is rich as fk and have more money than we do in the US. and these are the people making big six figures in big IT firms

Does it reassure and comfort you to read threads like this?

[Muloghonto]

it IS generational bro' date=' ur living in da nile. especially in india, where governments dont do **** and access to education and other civic amenities is restricted to ppl that can afford it. [/quote'] BS. There are millions of Indians who've come to the city, got a job and struck it bigtime or set their kids up to be big time success stories. Being poor in India today is not the same as being poor in India in the past, where you needed titles and castes to own land. Today, all it takes is for a hardworking poor-as-sod guy to go to the city and get a job. That doesnt mean everyone will do it or can do it, but the point is, it is not generational or locked in place, there is plenty of scope of poor people to advance in India. So what ? The country is not run by the nerdy industrialists or the aweful bollywood actors, the country is run by the legions of middle class workers. Its the middle class health that dictates how well a country is doing, not the top end or the bottom end. There are plenty of people who have become middle class wage earners within a generation. The number of poor people in India is decreasing by 10 million+ a year, which is staggering, since India adds 25-30 million people each year due to our population problem. That means India is decreasing its number of poor by 20-25 million if you factor in the birth rate. That is, each year, the equivalent of Australia's population are walking out of total poverty, into higher disposable income lives. That flies in the face of your assessment that it is 'locked in place'. A forced sterilization program might be inevitable but your idea that the criteria should be determined by wealth is not only morally reprehensible, it is not a better solution for India itself. if anything, the argument for terminating the top end of the spectrum's priviledges is even more compelling: most of their children are not parented even 5% as well as the poor or the middle class do, most of them are underqualified for their wealth ( in terms of experience & qualifications, there are millions of candidates who can take over from Dhirubhai Ambani and run the enterprise well). Above all, they are the biggest propagator of cronyism & nepotism, using their wealth to secure positions for their children. So society has better functionality if the super rich are subjected to the program first.

[The Outsider]

Looks like someone has been reading Dan Brown's Inferno recently.

[Crookbond]

The word here is that everyone in India is a karodpati... Everyone that visits India from my part of the USA comes back with a word that everyone is rich as fk and have more money than we do in the US. and these are the people making big six figures in big IT firms

:WTF:

[Jersey #10]

Does it reassure and comfort you to read threads like this?

yes

:WTF:

What I said. It's no news that, India has gone into a resurgence over past decade. Back when I lived in Baroda, people who made 10,000R were considered well off and people making 20,000R were even better. Now young kids start their jobs at 35 - 40,000R. With that though, the inflation has sky rocketed too so the real value of money has stayed in the same ballpark. I visited back home one time for 15 days in past 10 years and felt like the middle class had gotten a boost while the lower class was still just as poor.

[randomGuy]

this is an interesting piece which makes a strong case for popularizing television usage in Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, MP etc to reduce the fertility rates. washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/why-are-birthrates-falling-around-the-world-in-a-word-television See this image: washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/05/lewis14.png For detailed stats, see below: fertility rate state-wise - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate percentage Television ownership statewise - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_television_ownership In Bihar and UP, 14% and 33% homes have TV resp., fertility rates are 3.5 n 3.3 resp. In Tamilnadu, 90% homes have TV, fert. rate is 1.7. As literacy %age, TV and internet usage %age rises, fertility rate comes down. I think India needs to work on all the three. * since I am less than 10 posts old, I cant post links. You would have to copy-paste those web-addresses. sorry about that.