Obviously “bizarre population pitch” is an innapropriate way to phrase it, but it’s this article’s title
How does threatening women with forced hysterectomies even make sense? Is the solution to increase birthrates not as simple as implementing policies that just make having a family easier, like better job security and shorter work days/weeks/years?
The idea is that women are afraid not to have children at all and get emergency children before 30.
That this will turn women into breeding and child caring machines has the nice side effects that you not only get a bunch of women who don’t have time for education, and thus more job security for me men, and it keeps them at home, so you don’t need child care facilities.
So all in all a great step forward into the 1920!
It just halves the family income I guess nothing major. Doubt they are going to pay me double.
Maybe the dads are supposed to work double shifts.
I think even just getting rid of at-will employment for expectant parents and people with dependents would provide safe incentive for having more kids.
Imagine working double shift In Japan. 70 hr work weeks is supposedly standard.
Also nothing like being a absent dad. Real traditional values.
So many people think that if their owner wasn’t taxed as much, or if the company could save money somehow, it would mean they would get a raise. No Jimbob, you sweet summer child, the owner is just going to pocket the savings and pay you the same.
People never taught how slave owners said the same thing.
Don’t go making so much sense now!
