Diaper sales down. Low birth rates.

[B4TOWParticipant 209]

Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Huggies and Kleenex, is laying off about 13 percent of its work force and shedding factories worldwide, amid declining birth rates that are affecting diaper sales and a retail price war that is weighing on profits.
Planning on 5,000 employee layoffs.

[Chase PesosParticipant 2136]

Chase a check, never chase a chick...

[Anonymous 42]

Used baby parts are BOOMING!

[AwakenedParticipant 35202]

Diaper Sales Down

Box-O-Wine Sales UP

Cat Food Sales UP

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

love it. a nontraditional economic indicator.

If you have the time, look into engagement ring sales data and report back to us.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[743 roadmasterParticipant]

Decline and fall of the west. Suppress productive bring in the s~~~ hole country to suck up the last of the tax dollars.
The CIA did its job well getting feminist up and running.

mgtow is its own worst enemy- https://www.campusreform.org/

[SH3LLZParticipant 5569]

You’ll likely see a rise in sport car and motorcycle sales over the next two years.

#ICETHEMOUT!!! #MANOUT!!! #HIDEYOURWEALTH #VAGINAISWORTHLESS

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Awakened wrote:

Diaper Sales Down

Box-O-Wine Sales UP

Cat Food Sales UP

SH3LLZ wrote:

You’ll likely see a rise in sport car and motorcycle sales over the next two years.

Invest in box wine and cat food.

Spend the dividends on motorcycles.

[TwistParticipant]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

engagement ring

Pray tell, what is this you speak of?

[SH3LLZParticipant 5569]

sidecar wrote:

Awakened wrote:

Diaper Sales Down

Box-O-Wine Sales UP

Cat Food Sales UP

SH3LLZ wrote:

You’ll likely see a rise in sport car and motorcycle sales over the next two years.

Invest in box wine and cat food.

Spend the dividends on motorcycles.

BRILLIANT!

#ICETHEMOUT
#MANOUT

#ICETHEMOUT!!! #MANOUT!!! #HIDEYOURWEALTH #VAGINAISWORTHLESS

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22523]

743 roadmaster wrote:

Decline and fall of the west. Suppress productive bring in the s~~~ hole country to suck up the last of the tax dollars.
The CIA did its job well getting feminist up and running.

They backed Gloria Steinem to get it going, among others.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[AussieParticipant 2509]

What I saved by not buying diapers I spent today on a lovely new Gretsch Electromatic guitar !
Being a non breeder is great !

" I feel threatened "

[Anonymous 6]

I smoke cigars. I’ll have one tomorrow to celebrate the falling birth rates. That fact is music to my ears.

[AttonParticipant]

A gynocentric future is an oxymoron.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

I feel sorry for the workers, however, our American economy seems to be on the up & up…so maybe they’ll get other jobs.

Other than that, a low birth rate is good news to me! Less traffic on the freeways. Less taxes for welfare checks too—unless we import millions of the world’s unwashed, illiterate masses.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[Anonymous 3]

The birth rate is only down a tiny fraction. We are still growing, just a bit slower than before.

Considering all the poverty and misery, it would be best for people to stop reproducing for awhile.

To rebuild its economy, China needed to do a 1 child only policy for a long time, which they’ve only recently repealed as I’ve read it. Truthfully the US economy is such a mess that it needs a no child policy for everyone that isn’t part of the upper class.

It stuns me the selfishness and cruelty of parents in today’s world. Why would you bring a child into this world? Obviously the people that do have no interest in raising that child or helping them, I have seen the lower classes physically and verbally abuse their children. Their children have no chance.

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

The greatest indicator is living space for single-person households. That will tell you how far things have gone.

https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/economy/behind-the-numbers/single-person-households-and-changing-american-family.html

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[MoreSkyParticipant 4865]

Would have thought the increase in sales of Kleenex might have compensated for the drop in nappy (diaper) sales.

Man-juice has got to go somewhere if it’s not going in diseased, used up meat-holes.

"...reinvent your life because you must; it is your life and its history and the present belong only to you.” It is Your Life, Charles Bukowski.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

The birth rate is only down a tiny fraction. We are still growing, just a bit slower than before.

But where is that growth coming from?

The U.S. fertility rate is below two births per woman. At our mortality rate, a replacement fertility rate is around 2.1 births per woman, so we are not even making replacement. But it’s even less than that because that sub-two births per woman fertility rate is an average over living generations. Since women in the past had more than the replacement rate, it means the younger generations of women today are having far fewer than even the average.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, just that it is what it is. Our population is not growing due to births. If we relied on birth alone, our population would be declining.

Our population is, however, growing. Thanks to largely uncontrolled immigration. And what births we do have generally come from people least able to pay for their own children, who are largely immigrants. We are breeding and importing dependence.

Truthfully the US economy is such a mess that it needs a no child policy for everyone that isn’t part of the upper class.

I agree that a sane population policy is absolutely necessary. However without controls on immigration, such a policy would be ineffective and worthless. And restricting reproduction to the “upper class” is both elitist, short sighted, and impossible to enforce.

A much simpler policy, which would solve both problems of uncontrolled immigration and population growth, can be summed up as: “Pay for your own damn children yourselves, ladies.”

In other words, cut off the welfare.

Without the taxpayer funded largess as an attractant, immigration really would mostly be people coming to work. And without the burden of paying for other people’s children, the productive segment of the population would be more financially capable of having children of their own.

The population would still decline, but as you, yourself point out, that’s an economic boon for the common worker.

Unfortunately the existing power structures have a vested interest in unsustainable population growth. On the corporatist side of things, an ever increasing population means an increasing labor supply, which lowers wages. At the same time it mean an increasing demand for goods and services, which raises prices. Lower wages and higher prices mean increased profits for the few and increased poverty for the masses. Meanwhile on the socialist side, economic growth forced by population growth allows the expense of socialist parasitism to be passed on to future generations. Make twenty gen-Xers pay for the rich gifts given to ten boomers. Rinse. Repeat.

And, of course, certain political philosophies find the idea of a large majority of dependent captive voters very attractive.

But there’s no such thing as sustainable growth.

Eventually it all comes crashing down, leaving Thomas Malthus very smug in his grave.

[Jim01Participant 6678]

sidecar wrote:

phoenix wrote:

The birth rate is only down a tiny fraction. We are still growing, just a bit slower than before.

But where is that growth coming from?

The U.S. fertility rate is below two births per woman. At our mortality rate, a replacement fertility rate is around 2.1 births per woman, so we are not even making replacement. But it’s even less than that because that sub-two births per woman fertility rate is an average over living generations. Since women in the past had more than the replacement rate, it means the younger generations of women today are having far fewer than even the average.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, just that it is what it is. Our population is not growing due to births. If we relied on birth alone, our population would be declining.

Our population is, however, growing. Thanks to largely uncontrolled immigration. And what births we do have generally come from people least able to pay for their own children, who are largely immigrants. We are breeding and importing dependence.

Truthfully the US economy is such a mess that it needs a no child policy for everyone that isn’t part of the upper class.

I agree that a sane population policy is absolutely necessary. However without controls on immigration, such a policy would be ineffective and worthless. And restricting reproduction to the “upper class” is both elitist, short sighted, and impossible to enforce.

A much simpler policy, which would solve both problems of uncontrolled immigration and population growth, can be summed up as: “Pay for your own damn children yourselves, ladies.”

In other words, cut off the welfare.

Without the taxpayer funded largess as an attractant, immigration really would mostly be people coming to work. And without the burden of paying for other people’s children, the productive segment of the population would be more financially capable of having children of their own.

The population would still decline, but as you, yourself point out, that’s an economic boon for the common worker.

Unfortunately the existing power structures have a vested interest in unsustainable population growth. On the corporatist side of things, an ever increasing population means an increasing labor supply, which lowers wages. At the same time it mean an increasing demand for goods and services, which raises prices. Lower wages and higher prices mean increased profits for the few and increased poverty for the masses. Meanwhile on the socialist side, economic growth forced by population growth allows the expense of socialist parasitism to be passed on to future generations. Make twenty gen-Xers pay for the rich gifts given to ten boomers. Rinse. Repeat.

And, of course, certain political philosophies find the idea of a large majority of dependent captive voters very attractive.

But there’s no such thing as sustainable growth.

Eventually it all comes crashing down, leaving Thomas Malthus very smug in his grave.

great post

[Author]

Posts