little2add Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 The decrease of birthrates in countries where they operate negatively affect business. Most of our end-customers are newborns and children and, as a result, revenue is dependent on the birthrates in countries where we operate. In recent years, birthrates have dropped or stagnated as their population ages, and education and income levels increase. A continued and significant decline in the number of newborns and children in these countries could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. In other words, Americans just aren’t having enough kids to justify the existence of that many toy stores. In 2016, the fertility rate in the United States was the lowest it has ever been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 I don't know about the claim that American birth-rates are at an all-time low, so I looked it up and Pew says otherwise that this isn't an all-time low (at least not really) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/ ... In the process of looking up information for this I also found this chart that claims that the decrease in birth-rates has to do with less teen and college-age pregnancy. But looking up why ToysRUS failed it looks more like poor planning, not keeping up with competitors (which other retailers have), not keeping down prices, and not adjusting to changes in what children want as toys today. Personally my hunch why they failed is the pricing. Many families don't have the disposable income to spend on toys like they used to and most children now days really want more electronics than toys. Also the children I know from first hand experience want tangible experiences rather than toys but that is just my humble experience and maybe not reflective of anything beyond my family at-large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 Americans just aren't having enough kids to justify the existence of that many toy stores. Play out the low-birthrate factor and you'll realize that fewer kids over time equates to fewer consumers overall. Ten or twenty years from now we might see the same massive closures of the stores that are winning out over Toys R Us today. The change in the number of children born in the previous 12 years (and thus sitting right within the Toys R Us demographic), tracks closely with the company’s changing annual revenue. ...it’s nonetheless apparent that Toys R Us’s fortunes rise and fall with the population of its target market. And that’s why the company’s demise should worry the rest of us. Toys R Us focuses on kids, so it’s feeling the crunch from declining birthrates long before the rest of the economy. But it’s just a matter of time before the trends that toppled the troubled toy maker put the squeeze on businesses that cater to consumers of all ages. In stark contrast to their failure in the American market, all 53 franchised Toys R Us stores in Israel will remain open. Israel is known for having the highest birth rate in the developed world. The average Israeli woman has three children, nearly double that of the average American woman. The Israeli fertility rate of 2.6 exceeds both the American rate of 1.9 and what's known as the "replacement rate" of 2.3. The "replacement rate" is what a nation needs to maintain in order to ensure long-term survival. As this Post points out, "Economic growth is extremely difficult without population growth." For the American economy, Toys R Us might just be the canary in the coal mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 That is ignoring that for the overwhelming supermajority of human history, human population growth was virtually non-existant and population levels remained mostly the same. And while this chart doesn't show it... this chart could hypothetically extend back to 100-200,000bce. Which for the foreseeable future world population will continue to grow (or at least stabilize): Also... world fertility rates do have a relationship to economic development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate but rather the opposite of what you claim, which is that fertility rates suppress economic growth (mostly because higher fertility rates are inherent to less developed nations and require more resource into segments of the population that cannot give back)... A glance at a map of the world where fertility is high would easily confirm this: Which is why the United Nations is on the record as saying the very best contraception is economic development. A perhaps introduction to this issue to why we don't need more population growth and why we don't need to worry about gross overpopulation: Because the world is going through a transition to a more stable population... which is exactly what humanity was for almost its entire stay on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 36 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Which is why the United Nations is on the record as saying the very best contraception is economic development. All that glitters is not gold. Contraception is ending life. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, little2add said: All that glitters is not gold. Contraception is ending life. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Contraception 'prevents' particular individual new life by definition or at least the conception of life during intercourse. Something that does not yet exist cannot be ended. I am just pointing out to you that your rationale isn't quite right and that your conclusions are also not quite right. You are basically arguing 'the fertility rate is going down' (not really) and 'thats bad' (not really)... and 'thats why toys-r-us went under' (maybe, but if it was, it was a much smaller factor compared to the more glaring reasons why they went under)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 You obviously don’t understand how the pill works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Something that does not yet exist cannot be ended. Something, my ass your rationale is a bitter “pill” to sallow. Your “pill” terminates life. termnating a pregnancy will not bring on prosperity, never forget what Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, CatherineM said: You obviously don’t understand how the pill works. With a degree in science... I can assure you I am very aware of how it works... which I would note that various different contraceptives use different means to prevent conception. Not all contraception is a pill. But the two primary modes of contraceptives in women is the hormones estrogen and progesterone which prevents ovulation (the release of an egg) during sexual intercourse (thus no conception) and the second is causing the thickening the mucus around the cervix which makes it more difficult for sperm to reach an egg. A complaint by some stanch anti-abortion activists who radically oppose all contraception, ignoring the medical research in this matter and the expert opinion, like to allege that it affects the lining of the uterus and thus makes it more difficult for a fertilized egg to attach itself... but the evidence that this happens is kinda weak and its very unlikely a fertilized egg exists in such situations in the first place... And to note it is not uncommon in ideal unhindered sexual intercourse for fertilized eggs to not attach to the wall of the uterus... So... very aware... and if you are wanting me to accept the notion that it is preventing attachment of actually fertilized eggs I would want a lot of evidence for that... And even if you could show that (which I know you can't, no offense) the next question I would have is how is it any different from what could potentially happen normally? Is this just the 'well maybe it could happen, and if it did happen, theres some chance it affected the outcome'... I am not very impressed nor am I interested in really going far into that rabbit hole. 30 minutes ago, little2add said: your rationale is a bitter “pill” to sallow. Your “pill” terminates life. termnating a pregnancy will not bring on prosperity, never forget what Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” amen Well... then why do the nations with the strongest and most developing economies have lower rates of birth and less population growth? Why is it the nations of the world that have low rates of birth and low population growth (even decline) faring so much better? I mean if you want to argue from a very traditional and conservative Catholic viewpoint that contraception is just morally wrong... I can kinda get that... But once you start saying things like 'contraception terminates life' without evidence or you say that 'economic growth is extremely difficult without population growth' (also without evidence) in the face of countering evidence... You are entitled to your own beliefs. But not your own facts. No matter how much 'alternative facts' and the rejection of consensus science has become a mainstay in American culture now days. And to note... I didn't say the pill... and if I was to be really honest when I wrote contraception above it was referring to economic development and if I were to imagine contraception generally I would think of condoms. So its kinda moving the goal posts and a red herring to move it exclusively the pill. Edited March 22, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: Well... then why do the nations with the strongest and most developing economies have lower rates of birth and less population growth? financial prosperity isn’t everything. I would rather be poor with children of my own that Rich without ... 36 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said: I didn't say the pill.. I said termination, look it up, sweetheart Edited March 22, 2018 by little2add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, little2add said: financial prosperity isn’t everything. I would rather be poor with children of my own that Rich without ... I said termination, look it up, sweetheart Development is more than just prosperity or having wealth... its about having clean running water. It is about having basic access to health care, education, police protection, among others... And contraception doesn't work retroactively... your children would be unaffected by it... unless you do have retroactive contraception which it would mean your children never existed. But it is YOUR choice if you use it or not... so sort of a very moot point... also to be honest an overly emotional one. And you can say 'sweetheart' or 'look it up'... you are moving the goal posts and making a red herring fallacy of an argument. In fact the whole discussion about contraception is a poor attempt at a strawman fallacy. And I would very welcome and encourage you to look at what I wrote to CatherineM, that no... contraception does not end life... or at least the argument that it does is extremely specious and speculatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 Children are a blessing. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Your limited perceptions of wealth or prosperity is inconsistent with reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, little2add said: Children are a blessing. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Your limited perceptions of wealth or prosperity is inconsistent with reality You were discussing wealth and prosperity. I was discussing economic development... I will assume you are done and this is just a little immature pouting on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 I have different values, just because you disagree there is not need to to be rude. the American birth rate of 1.9 is well below what's known as the "replacement rate" of 2.3. The "replacement rate" is what a nation needs to maintain in order to ensure long-term survival. As this Post points out, "Economic growth is extremely difficult without population growth." For the American economy, Toys R Us might just be the canary in the coal mine. try to keep up; greenscapularedhuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenScapularedHuman Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 50 minutes ago, little2add said: I have different values, just because you disagree there is not need to to be rude. the American birth rate of 1.9 is well below what's known as the "replacement rate" of 2.3. The "replacement rate" is what a nation needs to maintain in order to ensure long-term survival. As this Post points out, "Economic growth is extremely difficult without population growth." For the American economy, Toys R Us might just be the canary in the coal mine. try to keep up; greenscapularedhuman It isn't a difference of values. It is a difference of you claiming things without sources or evidence then rejecting actual sources and evidences. You called me 'sweetheart' and I find you very thoroughly rude to be candid. I consider you rude with just about everyone from reading your comments. You haven't replied to any of my sources or arguments... I don't have to keep up. I've presented my argument, rebutted your very weak/laughable arguments, presented evidence, and have moved on because I can see that this is becoming a little bit of an emotional vindication your part. By the way... fun internet fact. People who are losing arguments like to taunt and pretend that they are winning. Because that isn't what you are doing at all... *rolls eyes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now