The idea that higher costs drive down birthrate is absurd. What drives down birth rate is an acceptance of two things: the selfishness of contraception in conjunction with wanting to have a lifestyle that's of itself luxurious and overly materialistic.
Case in point:
This couple has 13 kids total, some old enough to be out of the house:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cent-debt.html
Between dad's salary and odd jobs, etc., they pull in around 110k a year. He went from owning a bookstore making 36k to doing a STEM job (software development) which pushed his salary higher... IT isn't rocket science. PLenty of average folks could do it if they'd devote what... 1-2 years of self-study to get their foot in the door.
COL comparison:
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-li...ings-co/110000
He would make around 91k here in COS (and since he is work from home, if he doesn't HAVE to go into the office a day or two a week, he could move somewhere even cheaper than Bowie, MD).
I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics who place the fecundity of a marriage and the relationship of the family first and materialistic outlooks are low, low, low on the list. The husbands didn't "follow their dreams" and go into low paying liberal arts nonsense; they also didn't rest on the laurels of being some low level union-job having lackey. Not all of them are STEM, either. Of all, the wife doesn't work but stays home with the kids and generally homeschools -- if there's a period where there is an age gap big enough for older kids to take care of younger ones, they might get a part time job if needed. A few are light blue collar (and some are so blue collar you need a glove to shake their hand if you don't want to lose skin) and instead of buying some place in the city, they bought a little land and do things like sell chicken eggs, the kids do odd jobs to earn spending money, and clothes are passed down and repaired until they need to be replaced. Fanciest new things? No. TV cable costs? No. etc.
Let's be honest -- as Americans, in general, we live like kings of yesteryear. And we have no need to do so. We do this based on a cycle of debt and a post-ww2 seeking of (as Ann Barnhardt puts it) "precious, precious shit" which would give our grandparents a heart attack. One of my grandfathers was a mid-level manager of a mining operation in rural florida (phosphate), having worked his way up from the phosphate pits themselves. They lived in the same house my dad and his brother lived in as kids. 3 bed, 1 bath, 20 acres. Granddaddy and Granny gardened, canned food, and had very little in the way of possessions. What they lacked in shiny, they made up for in familial love and solid, traditional values. They were by and large happy. My mom's parents were much more well off, and they were generally miserable (possessions and pursuits don't fill the gap left by a horrible family life). Papa was a senior sales exec for Florida Citrus, making darn good money. Always in debt though, because the jump from being the wife of a ww2 sailor who left high school early to join the Navy to "being somebody" went to Mimi's head; Country Clubs are a hell of a drug. I would not call her atypical of the era and certainly she was more in line with today's mentality than not. Appearance mattered. Having new things mattered. My mom swears that when Papa got promoted and they moved to a "richer" area, the family began falling apart. Yet, they did have 6 kids total, the oldest of whom died shortly after being born due to complications from spina bifida. The problem, though, came in when they adopted a mentality of having possessions mattered, as did maintaining a social standing. Be honest -- isn't that the reason most people have their 1.2 kids, if any? Because it's too "expensive". It's not. What's expensive is a materialistic approach+kids+thinking they need all kinds of crap too+keeping up not only with the Joneses, but outpacing them.
I also know a young family, 3 kids all under 4, husband is a great friend of mine (actually my godfather from when I converted). He is an apprentice Electrician. If I had to guess, he probably makes around 17-20 an hour. They don't have a glorious life. Wife stays home with the kids. But, as best I can tell, they are happy. They're working towards a goal of him getting his foot in the door and becoming a Journeyman and eventually Master Electrician. He's non-Union. They do little things to make up for areas where $ might be lacking... i.e., leftover/scrap wire, he takes home, strips, and sells the copper. He strips it while they watch a dvd after the kids are asleep. No one promised him a rose garden, and after 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, experience as an outdoors guide in Alaska, converting to the Faith, he is not upset about life -- he's seen and experienced worse. In short, he's a man and not some whiny little boy with a possessions addiction.
I know far too many families with huge amounts of kids to believe that the economy is the problem. The economy is a symptom of the problem. Those who have a will, will make a way. It's just that simple. Blaming someone is a bitch move. THAT's why I don't dig the so-called Alt-Right. They seem more into blame than they do solutions.

Originally Posted by
HBARleatherneck
not all of us are catholics though.
And Catholics are bloc voters for the left.

Originally Posted by
CavSct1983
One doesn't need to be, in order to have a kid. Case in point: Mormons.
Thank for proving my point. Everyone who is struggling must be a bitch, or the issues they face must not exist as you do not face them...This classic moralist mindset is what is wrong with the so called right.
Really? Have you seen our solutions? Have you seen what I have recommended here? I am not the one whining and bitching without adding some kind of ideas on how to fix things.
SGI talks about wasting political capital on real moral issues, but then goes out into alt-right (that is, far left) field on ridiculous immigration issues which have no historical basis in working. It's like saying, "I want to eat the whole buffet, so kick out the other folks who want to eat". That doesn't solve the problem of a national gluttony. America has ALWAYS been a nation of immigrants. If Mexican/OTM immigration is a thing he wishes to stop, taking away the incentive to come here and
stay would be a good middle ground to start with. We had that in the Bracero program. Two things led to its demise: Commie agitator Cesar Chavez and mistreatment by farmers. Reinstitute the program smartly, expand it to jobs Americans won't do aside from just farming, and you might just realize Pedro would rather be here 6 months and make 3 Mexican years of wages that he
takes back to Sinaloa before he repeats the cycle. Kill NAFTA and make sure Mexican farming stops dying due to Big .Gov support of domestic failure, and you might find that a bunch of Pedros have no need to come here. Engage Mexico smartly as an ally, instead of facilitating their destruction, and one might find people are more apt to stay there.
A reaction from one extreme to the other extreme will only swing the pendulum. It's doesn't turn back the ticking of our national timebomb. That would require a national reawakening to the values, morals, and lifestyle that made America great in the first place. At that starts at home, not in some political office.