You think inflation is bad now? Just wait until abortion is banned

[ck4829]

All those mouths to feed, all those mothers who will need to get jobs, all those minimum wage workers even later on because we all know Republicans aren't going to take care of these "precious human lives" once they're out of the womb...

Sorry, but it's not gonna rain food and apartments from Heaven just because abortion is no more.

[Diamond_Dog]

1. How will all those mothers get jobs

When child care is so unaffordable? And I’m sure the states that are banning abortion aren’t going to concerned with the cost of child care. Remember Ron Johnson saying “it’s not up to the government to pay for your child care … you should have thought of that before you had children.”

[smirkymonkey]

2. They are going to have to find a way to go after the fathers of those unwanted babies.

That money has to come from somewhere and we know it isn't coming from the government.

[ck4829]

5. In other words: "Don't think it's not gonna suck for you, dudes"

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Every additional birth above stasis adds $320K in state/local taxes spread over an 18yr period.

.

These red states are going to drive themselves to bankruptcy in 10-15 years.

I hope they enjoy paying taxes.



Driving those RED States into further economic collapse as each extra child adds over $320K in costs

You can't put a price on life, actually you can. Every extra birth, above the stasis drives up taxes.

Between education, childcare, medical costs, food supplements, those who can afford to get abortions will, which places the lion's share of births on lower-income families that will have a higher demand for public assistance.


All of those tax-saving fiscal conservatives will do is drive up their local and state property taxes and put their hand out for more federal socialism. Rick Perry tried this shit years ago and in less than one year over 7,000 extra births resulted. It was so bad, he abandoned it. Imagine the simple compounding of just 10,000 extra births each and every year at a cost of $320K per kid over 18 years. This applies to average states, not low-education states like Idaho that pay around $8K per child for education and produde equally poor performers.


Example: 10K kids per year for 18 years will add $3.2 billion to the state tax requirements.


Year 1) 10000 x $12,000/year (birthing, food, heat, utilities, medical costs, daycare, etc.) = $120,000,000 increased taxes
Year 2) Now 20,000 x $12,000/year = $240M
Year 3) Now 30,000 x 12,000/year = $360M
Year 4) $360M + (10000 x $18000/year) (as education starts to kick in) = $360M + $180M = $540M
Continue compounding $180M each year until the oldest kids become emancipated.

And the above example is in 2019 numbers, not adjusted for costs and inflation.

.

[Pantagruel]

6. Terrific analysis

with one caveat. Each year in U.S. over 1 MILLION safe abortions reduce the number of unwanted kids by a MILLION. Criminalize abortion and my best guess is 100,000 women are discouraged from risking an illegal, unsafe or newly expensive termination.
In effect, your numbers are too low n by a factor of TEN.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Yes, I was just giving an example, one that would be simple to calcutate and portray the issue.

.

While the educational costs vary between states, there will be a future clash with the for-profit educational systems as they try and take public education students away. Those private firms wil want the highest education costs to transfer to them. Unfortunately, the GOPer will try to cut education costs to a minimum, so you either pay for private schooling or you get sub-standard education like that of Idaho.

The more and more these additional births enter the system, the more pressure there will be to trim education costs to a bare minimum. Yet, even if that is performed, sooner or later the additional births will overload stressed local, county and state budgets.


Note: The birth/budget issue is the quiet part that everyone is afraid to mention because that actually puts a cost on life. The real issue is, none of the Republicans will care unless this is hammered home, that these forced births will cost them in their own wallets. Only then will they listen. Republicans will balk at placing a price on life, but sooner or later, they will come to terms with it.


.

[Pantagruel]

11. "forced births will cost them in their own wallets. "

For years I've been trying to address the costs of repealing Roe but besides the constantly changing medical options of chemical abortion, you're right, few want to put a dollar amount on repeal. I've seen credible estimates of societal costs in the HUNDREDS OF $BILLIONS over a 10 year cycle. If that gets out the GOP might back down.

[Zeitghost]

7. It's been awhile

But I recall some data in a class I took 10 or so years ago that showed that abortion doesn't really reduce the number of children a woman has but rather mostly delays when in her life she has them. Which makes sense. Someone who had two pregnancies early in life that might have otherwise been aborted is going to make different family planning choices later in life.

Just to clarify, this isn't a defense of anti-abortion laws, only pointing out that it might not lead to spikes in the population that the OP alludes to.

[ck4829]

9. You'll get no argument from me, it's equally feasible

[brooklynite]

10. Of course not...

"Millions of dead babies" is an unsupported RW talking point. There would be no significant increase in population of aggregate child-rearing expenses.