476
Fox News doc says not enough ’15 to 19′ year-olds are having kids: ‘The fertility is down’ (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Fox News Senior Medical Analyst Marc Siegel made some eyebrow-raising comments lamenting that birth rates are down among teenagers aged 15 to 19.

On Thursday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low. The agency reported that the number of births per 1,000 women of childbearing age declined from 53.8 in 2024 to 53.1 last year. The latest figure represents a continuation of a decades-long decline in fertility rates.

Siegel joined Friday’s edition of America’s Newsroom, where Dana Perino said that while the continuing trend is not surprising, “the numbers might feel a little shocking.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 6 months ago* (3 children)

There's still a 1.53 replacement rate. That means if you just reallocate the people that idk, are currently making bombs to throw on other people (or other such things), to producing "food and stuff" instead, we'll definitely have enough food.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Defense indudstry in most countries is under 5% of all employees I'm pretty sure. And we also kinda need weapons to defend ourselves. Maybe you don't, but if Russia sends bombers here, it'd take a whole 5-10 minutes to reach my house from the moment they exit Russian airspace.

    If anything, I think we should do away with the entertainment industry, liberal arts, etc. If anyone wants to produce art in their spare time that's fine, but everyone under 75 should be forced to work a real job. We could also mostly get rid of the auto industry since old people shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway so that's a good thing, but then that doesn't exist in most countries either so it's not really a great place for cutbacks in most of them.

    I also propose cutting back on doctors and nurses in fields that disproportionately affect older people. Great way to reduce the burden on society.

    OR we can just start slashing the social safety nets now. I'm paying into the national pension of the current old people now, but there are going to be no young people to pay my generation's. They're already raising the retirement age, but they'll have to start raising it faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    NATO is pushing a commitment to a minimum of 5% of GDP on defense.

    Which, admittedly even the USA does not do. But in the 60s it was north of 9%.

    Most of the cost of things is the embedded cost of labor. Even minerals in a lot of cases. There are a lot of deposits of pretty much everything we could be mining but aren't because of the cost.

    One business may only have 25% labor costs, but the suppliers also have labor costs, and their suppliers, all the way down the line. And 25% is on the low side. Even rent has labor costs embedded.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The trouble with getting rid of all that is that other countries won't. Until we have one world order, it's not feasible to completely abolish defense.

    NATO works. Russia has not dared to attack a single member. I'm writing this from a former soviet country that would've been conquered by now if we weren't a member of NATO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent