Search Results: who worries more

The Vances oppose abortion for religious reasons, but tends not to mix that subject with the birthrate conversation except to say that with all the new restrictions on reproductive choice, it would make sense to do more for young mothers financially.

Rather than religious belief, Musks supporters are motivated by a fear that humanity will not replace itself. They dismiss immigration as a remedy, arguing that it can weaken the culture of the receiving country.

This Musk aligned group, which embraces assisted reproduction, is most visibly identified with Malcolm & Simone Collins, a media-friendly couple with 4 children born through IVF. They favor using genetic selection to pick embryos with desirable characteristics, an approach that Christian groups typically oppose. The Collinses said they recently composed a suite of suggested executive orders and sent them to allies in the White House. They include deregulating child care businesses to bring down the cost, and loosening car seat laws, which can now require buying larger vehicles to accommodate more than two children. Another would create an award for women who have six or more children, versions of which exist in a handful of countries, including France.

An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. Groups like Population Connection worry that the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren’t as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be. And increasing numbers of young people do not want to burden the planet by having children of their own.

Nevertheless, pro-natalists want the administration to establish a commission to elevate and study the subject, as well as to infuse their priorities across the federal government. The Biden administration screened many policies and grant applications for their impact on climate change and racial equity, they point out; the same could be done for procreation.

For some reason, various entities have dubbed the American public unique among the entire world and “not ready” for them. One thing they certainly share in common is the typical argument that tries to conflate the physical setting of a branch with its effectiveness: “

Postal banking does, however, face an additional, uniquely American obstacle; namely, the polarizing effect of involving the government in day-to-day life. The post office might seem like a rather benign place to put a bank in the U. K. or Australia, precisely because it’s seen as neutral. In the U. S., though, the effect is exactly the opposite.

Some think that because the government is involved, a postal bank would be unpleasant and inconvenient – “The DMV of banking.” Others would be concerned with the government putting its thumb on the scale of free competition. There are still others who worry about who would pay for it, or those who simply distrust the government for other reasons – both real and imagined.

The bottom line is: Once you change the question from, “How can banks expand service to less-profitable areas?” to, “Should the U. S. government start its own bank?” then you have taken a conversation about a smart business practice and hopelessly derailed it into one about political opinions, moral imperatives, and right versus wrong. That will be sorted out in a matter of years or decades, if ever.

In the meantime, the core concept behind either postal or agency banking – running leaner, more efficient branches through creative infrastructure and staffing arrangements – applies remarkably well to the problems facing brick-and-mortar banks today. Lower foot traffic, higher costs per transaction, and changing customer preferences can all be addressed this way; and banks in other countries have already done exactly that.