“Experts” Find New Source Of Future Biden Economy Trouble: SCOTUS Abortion Ruling
Axios: “Experts warned that the U.S. will see devastating economic consequences from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The “Putin Price Hike” is so old-fashioned. Been there, done that.
Axios channeling “experts” is promoting the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling as the cause of future economic troubles:
“Experts warned that the U.S. will see devastating economic consequences from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Axios’ story ‘reports‘:
The U.S. will see devastating economic consequences from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, experts warned on Friday.
Why it matters: The landmark Turnaway Study found that women who have to carry an unwanted pregnancy were four times as likely to struggle with poverty years later. Raising a child costs over $230,000 on average, according to the Department of Agriculture.
What they’re saying: “This decision will cause immediate economic pain in 26 states where abortion bans are most likely and where people already face lower wages, less worker power and limited access to health care. The fall of Roe will be an additional economic barricade,” Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said in a statement.
* * *
The big picture: In an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court last year, 154 economists wrote that there is “a substantial body of well-developed and credible research that shows that abortion legalization and access in the United States has had — and continues to have — a significant effect on birth rates as well as broad downstream social and economic effects, including on women’s educational attainment and job opportunities.”
The abortion issue should not be viewed as an economic issue, it’s so much more. But if Axios wanted to focus on the economic impact of those declining birth rates, it might have mentioned the negative economic impact, as left-leaning 538 notes:
The U.S. fertility rate hit a record low in 2020 — just as it did in 2019, and 2018. Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have accelerated this decline, the drop has been underway for years. The total fertility rate — the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime — now sits at 1.64 children per woman in the U.S. Not only is this the lowest rate recorded since the government began tracking these stats in the 1930s, but it’s well below the so-called “replacement-level fertility” of about 2.1.
The latter number is what social scientists and policymakers have long regarded as the rate a country should maintain to keep population numbers stable. When the fertility rate falls below replacement level, the population grows older and shrinks, which can slow economic growth and strain government budgets. Today’s babies are tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers: They’ll not only staff the hospitals and nursing homes we’ll use in old age but also sustain the economy by funding our pensions when we retire, paying the taxes that finance Social Security, Medicare, and many other government programs we’ll rely on, and buying the homes and stocks we invested in to build our savings.
Regardless of which side you are on, abortion and the SCOTUS ruling should not be about dollars. But that’s where the Axios’ “experts” are taking it, and it’s fair to assume that will be part of the anti-SCOTUS talking points.
I think this tweet correctly predicts the next Biden administration (probably via proxies like Axios’ “experts”) post-Putin Price Hike theme:
“The Putin-Dobbs Price Hike”
Sounds unlikely? Wait for it.
— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) June 25, 2022
— Edward (@edwardrussl) June 25, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, it will potentially have a negative effect on the number of people willing to work, which reduces the supply of workers, and thus increases the cost of hiring.
Which won’t matter if the establishment continues to invite 2 million-people plus per year to come in, legally and/or illegally.
Employers don’t like American wages and benefits. That’s what’s going on. So import cheaper labor and destroy America. Problem solved.
Labor (e.g. immigration reform, ethical religion)… and environmental (e.g. Green deals, shared responsibility) arbitrage.
So black babies are bad for the economy because of government-sponsored welfare programs? So, it’s important to keep the black population shrinking because black people are bad for the economy. There is no way to say that and make it sound good.
Why just limit that logic to rationalizing killing anyone who is not among the elite? Maybe they should have pointed out that those 150 economists who submitted the amicus briefs were Malthusians.
Every single policy these radicals cram down our throats leads to massive death for certain people doesn’t it? Paranoid? Conspiracy theorist? Do facts matter?
Hmmm. Perhaps Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” will now be taken as a serious solution?
Don’t give them ideas. There are already enough people babbling about stem cells and adrenochrome.
Unchecked riots are usually bad for the economy, as we saw during the extended mourning period for St. George Floyd.
The mob that organized and delayed service to St. George Floyd of Fentanyl and Progressive Condition.
Experts? Really? More like insane Leftists displaying their insanity. That there will most likely be a recession at the end of 2022 or beginning in 2023 is highly likely. That it’s because of the Dobbs decision is the product of an addled mind..
As usual, events, will show the experts’ feet of clay.
These sorts of arguments amaze me; women won’t have access to abortion and this will burden them with an unwanted pregnancy, raising and caring for an unwanted child and cripple their future educational and employment prospects.
How about simple accountability? Women obviously take a higher level of risk in casual sex than men. Only women can become pregnant despite what some may say, though I would note the current abandonment of woke language scolds in the aftermath of Dobbs.
Women can choose not to engage in casual sexual activity with a partner who can’t be relied upon to support a child. They can choose from among the 15 different means of birth control available for women.
They could choose to restrict sexual activity to the confines of marriage. They could limit sexual activity to a committed long-term relationship where the potential for pregnancy is discussed and accepted by both partners. They could even choose celibacy, not likely but it is an option.
These sorts of arguments view women as helpless and incapable of making decisions because they decouple the responsibilities of free will from their decisions. Every choice in our lives has positives and negatives. Why do some people insist that consequences and responsibility be eliminated for women exclusively?
IMO, it’s demeaning to women because it operates from an underpinning that women are somehow incapable of rational thought. They are not. Whether they decide to engage in a rational cost benefit analysis is another matter but women are certainly capable of doing so.
Exactly. The pro-abortion crowd limits “My Body. My Choice” to abortions, but really the choices are much broader than that as detailed by you.
You see Leftists are insane. They will yell about women being the same or superior to men, and they will yell that women are inferior to men. To advocate that something is A and not-A is clearly the product of a severely addled mind.
“They can choose from among the 15 different means of birth control available for women.”
Or they can look up and scream, “The sky is falling!!!!!!”
“…an underpinning that women are somehow incapable of rational thought. They are not. ”
To be brutally factual, many women are just that. The Weaker Sex™, if you will, who operate based solely on emotion and peer review.
In an earlier era, these femmes were guided as to what to think by fathers and husbands; now it is Uncle Sugar and Twitter who formulate their opinions and inform their thinking.
I don’t mean to demean my own sex, but the myth of the all-powerful just-like-a-man I Am Women Hear Me Roar is at least 50% of the time, just that… a myth.
Not like a man at all, thank goodness, but certainly capable of eschewing emotions for rational thought, civility and decorum. Women in the corporate world demonstrate that ability at work so it’s more an issue of deciding not to outside the workplace.
So, kids are expensive? Yes, that’s true. But only a leftist would think that was a valid reason to kill them.
Putting them up for adoption is obviously not an option. Sure, it may be free but if the baby doesn’t die, what’s the point?
It sure does seem like a lot of side-splitting jokes these days start with “Experts say…”
Baby murdering is big business I guess.
Unlike manufacturing where companies have to provide the raw material, pregnant customers provide the raw material which is then aborted—for a price.
All of which mean there is a huge profit margin in the abortion industry. Some abortion doctors make more than 2 million dollars per year.
Taking note haven’t heard of any massive riots over it so maybe it’s not funded to well after all.
And, the very same people support millions of low IQ, criminal, shiftless, future public charges being immediately welcome upon their illegal border crossings.
Other than creating more demand for baby formula, I don’t see how.
Keep women affordable, available, and taxable.
I think Biden’s Blaming Wheel should have had a spot for “Harry Truman”, he of “the Buck Stops Here” fame.
Biden has a plaque on his desk that says, “The Buck doesn’t stop here.”
You Say “The Buck doesn’t stop here.”
FIFY
I believe that women have retained the right to use time-tested “oral contraception.” The best example is via the old joke:
Guy 1 – “I asked her to go to bed with me”
Guy 2 – “What happened?”
Guy 1 – “She said ‘No'”
But condom sales will necessarily skyrocket.
I know it’s unlikely at best, but a possible result could be that more men are forced to take responsibility for their own actions, resulting in some of them taking actual jobs to support their offspring and taking a more active role in raising them, via marriage or otherwise. The positive repercussions could be endless.
That would really be something.
If from sexual activity in long-term committed relationship where there is prior mutual agreement about the care of any child that is the potential result then sure, absolutely there is no disagreement about responsibility. The parties have already solved any issues beforehand.
If from a one night stand or other casual sexual activity outside a committed relationship where no such mutual agreement about a potential child exists? Not so much.
Unless you mean to say that no matter what the circumstances the potential child takes precedence because:
1. It takes two to tango
2. Both people understand the risks therefore both people are now under an ironclad legal obligation to:
A. Carry the pregnancy to term
B. Provide equal financial support for the child
C. Either get and stay married or agree to share 50/50 totally equal custody
D. Never deviate from the above; no divorce or no friction with who has custody when or in delivery to a court escrow account of 1/2 the financial needs of the child by each person, no moving away to another town or State.
That seems like far too ambitious a list in modern society but that list would reflect equality of responsibility.
There is no mutual agreement because every man knows that women can’t be held to their part of the bargain, and in today’s family court “equal financial obligation” is a farce.
For there to be equality the family CT system would need significant reform which I don’t see many feminists pushing.
It’s almost as if they aren’t after equality but rather the cherry picking of rights and freedom without any accompanying responsibility.
It’s not surprising. Democrats know that no matter how much they twist and turn, the economy is going to seriously handicap them in the midterms. So even this farce is not too far out for them to try.
Whoa there. Slow down. A fetus is just a mass of tissue. It doesn’t cost anybody anything.