Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

DL's of the world, unite, increase and multiply!


Recommended Posts

There is a crisis occurring in our near future.  Kimberly-Clark, maker of Huggies, Good Nites and other baby products has announced that they are going to eliminate 5000 to 5500 jobs in the next few years.  They give the reason that Millenials as a group are not having as many babies as previous groups were.  So the ball's in our court now, fellow DL's.  In order to save those jobs and keep the diapers coming, as I see it we must do one or both of the following:

#1 Poop and/ or pee more which will require us to use more diapers which will take up the slack caused by declining baby population.  ----or---- #2  Talk more adults into taking up DL life style.

We must act now to save those jobs and keep the diapers coming.

  

Link to comment

Or get another company to pick up Kimberly Clark's slack.  I mean, if pampers made adult sized diapers (good ones, not the super thin lake-leaking diapers), that would be pretty cool.  And, if KC is going to be cutting back on production, it would make sense for pampers to do so anyway.

Link to comment

Proctor and Gamble, makers of Pampers and Luvs, already makes a line of adult diapers called Always Discreet. Mind you that they are not the tape on kind that all we DLs love, but most people in the real world aren't going for that, and the kind that you can pull on and off makes most people's lives easier, thus the reason that the tape on kind is harder to get.

Link to comment

Remember P&G used to make Attends.  They sold their adult diaper line to Paper-Pak who continued to make Attends.  They could easily have gone ahead of Kimberly Clark's Depends if they wanted to way back in the day when Attends and Depends were about the only adult diapers around, but they lacked interest in marketing Attends which, as we all know, Kimberly Clark didn't with Depends.  On the other hand, P&G did very well with marketing Pampers.  Kimberly Clark used to make a very good and super absorbent baby diaper called "Kimbies" but that just couldn't compete with Pampers back in the day and were eventually discontinued (even though I felt they were superior to Pampers). Eventually Kimberly Clark got back in the baby diaper market but decided they needed a new gimmick in order to be competitive, something Pampers didn't have at the time.  That was elastic leg gatherers and they could easily promote that feature by stating it helps eliminate leaks.  What mom wouldn't like a diaper that didn't leak as easily?  Even the name "Huggies" was aimed at touting that new feature.  They started selling diapers and became a real competitor in the market finally being able to keep up with Pampers.  Pampers, of course had to eventually add elastic leg gatherers to Pampers in order to keep up with the "changes".  Kimberly Clark still does well with Huggies marketing of baby diapers but as far as adult products they have focused on their disposable pull up underwear for years now instead of tape on diapers.  They put a lot of eggs in that basket and went so far as to try and coin such phrases as "Underwearness" to get everyday people to wear their disposable underwear weather they need to or not (to no avail).  That showed me a couple things.  Either they got really greedy and wanted to sell as many Depends items as possible by trying to create a false need for disposable underwear, or possibly they were having trouble with sales and losing money?

In any event, they are probably correct in the number of kids being born today.  My high school has gone from a class AA to a class C over the years.  I'm just not sure as many kids are being born as in past years.  Take that into consideration as well as the many poorer people who may have more kids for whatever reasons.  When you can go to the dollar store and buy a package of generic type baby diapers for half the price of Pampers and Huggies, people with limited incomes will often get cheaper items to make their money go further.  Just about every major company has their own line of products these days and that includes baby diapers (and adult diapers as well).  Who cares that they may not be as high a quality as Huggies?  My own personal experience with using Dollar General baby diapers as stuffers is they absorb a ton of liquid!  When money is tight, many people will shop for cheaper products with so many on the market, especially baby diapers that they will just throw out anyway!

If you are the only show in town, so to speak, people have little options and you can charge what you want and make as much as there is a demand for.  Once people see you have a winning product, they will join in the market making a similar product to get their share and your piece gets smaller with each new company.  With so much competition and so many baby diapers being made, I can see cut backs if the market drops off when the population of babies drops.  I'm not sure if less babies is the real reason they announced cut backs.  I tend to believe it's the amount of different companies making baby diapers and the fact you can get the off brands cheaper.  Maybe a little over "saturation" in the low end baby diaper market is the real cause.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Elfy said:

Fun fact... The world isn't overcrowded, certain places are but the world can handle a lot more humans than currently exist.

It's not about having enough space, but having enough resources for everyone, because food, energy, clean water, etc, will run out long before we run out of space.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Elfy said:

Fun fact... The world isn't overcrowded, certain places are but the world can handle a lot more humans than currently exist.

I remember watching a program, don't remember what it was, and they said that the entire population of the world would fit in the state of Texas. 

 

2 hours ago, Firefly 35 said:

It's not about having enough space, but having enough resources for everyone, because food, energy, clean water, etc, will run out long before we run out of space.

That same program also stated that the earth with all its resources should only be able to sustain a population of 3 1/2 to 4 billion people. We are going on 9 billion people so it's only a matter of time before something has to give.

Link to comment

Isn't it less about resources available and more about our ability to transport them?

Some places have huge surpluses of food and water whilst other places have large deficits... The problem is moving from one to the other.

Link to comment

In some countries where there is rampant poverty people work in the fields to survive and screw because there is nothing else for them to do.  No TV, golf, concerts to go to, expensive cars or boats and no hobbies.  That's one reason such countries are over run with kids and not enough resources to feed and care for everyone.  In a country like the USA, babies boomed after the second world war.  People were coming home from Europe, getting married, buying homes and had good paying jobs throughout the 1950's.  Lots of babies were born, hence the "Baby Boomers".  They have grown and I believe people now are focused on their careers and outside interests.  True, couples still have sex but perhaps are more careful and use birth control more.  Less babies in some countries for many reasons.  That doesn't mean the world is over populated or under populated.  It means in some countries people just aren't as into the "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" lifestyle of the 1950's when families had one car, one TV (if they were lucky), and the mom stayed home to be the homemaker while dad went off to be the one and only provider.  With the booming economy of the 1950's, people could afford to have many kids while the mom stayed home.  Now days our demands are higher. New car every few years, several cars, newest I-phone and tablets, internet buying, the biggest and best of everything money can buy.  That may mean both husband and wife work to afford the luxury and they may opt for fewer kids.  Changing world, and I don't mean changing diapers!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, DL4LIFE said:

I remember watching a program, don't remember what it was, and they said that the entire population of the world would fit in the state of Texas. 

 

That same program also stated that the earth with all its resources should only be able to sustain a population of 3 1/2 to 4 billion people. We are going on 9 billion people so it's only a matter of time before something has to give.

That also depends on how much we use and recycle.  If everyone continues using plastic shopping bags and other disposable items, we are obviously going to run out of resources very fast, but that won't be the case if we use reusable items more.  (And, that would probably save some money as well.)

6 hours ago, Elfy said:

Isn't it less about resources available and more about our ability to transport them?

Some places have huge surpluses of food and water whilst other places have large deficits... The problem is moving from one to the other.

We could do better at that.  By outsoucing things to china instead of making them locally, you'd probably end up adding an extra 1000-2000 miles to the shipping distance and therefore a lot more enviormental impact.

Link to comment

Honestly, I am not that worried. Technology and innovation is only getting better with time. Back in the 1800's they said that the earth could only support 1 billion people before there would be mass starvation occurring. What they did not anticipate was the industrial revolution. As technology improves, we will be to more quickly and efficiently produce, transport and organise resources. Technology and economics always wins.

Also as people around the world are having fewer kids they say the population should stabilise at around 10 billion people. That is because as countries become more wealthy, the cost of living increases thus people have less kids. 

 

Link to comment
On 1/25/2018 at 9:51 AM, diaperedandspanked said:

agreed, way to many people on the planet already.

Trump is working on that, by going easy on the gun laws.

Link to comment

It is amazing how much junk gets recycled. We were supposed to have gone extinct from all of this about 10 years agol None of these prophecies has come true when they were supposed to have so they phony Cassandras revise their timelines

Does anyone remember THE POPULATION BOMB? well that proved to bey a myth (If it were not, I would not be writing this and you would not be readingt it) . Th US reached the ZPG stage some 35 years ago. The population-resources problem is mostly confined to the Third World, where they are slowly modernizing and more people are surviving but their industries are not keeping up.It seems that when people become more prosperous,they have more enjoyable things to do than have an army of children to fuss with. Even in the 1970's there were jokes about the "'average number of children per family in the US is 2.5' Just WHAT is the '.5' of a child?". I remember when 3 or 4 was the norm. Hemann Kahn, a noted futurist, in the 1980's said that the earth could comfortably support 10 billion people. Paul Ehrlich (THE POPULATION BOMB) was not the first Doomsday theorist to crash and burn. There was a guy named Maltus and another names Ricardo. around 250 years ago

LIke Mike & the Mechanics said "Don't believe the church and state, and all they have to offer"

Link to comment

I have an Environmental Studies degree from 45 years ago (Yes, there was an environment back then) one of my instructors very profoundly stated we would run out of oil in 15 years, cars would never get more than 25 mpg and that electric cars would never be practical as they used lead acid batteries. Also there was not a mention of global warming and no awareness of CO2 levels rising. A few things the instructor got right – if the Chinese achieved a middle class lifestyle like the west it might cause massive pollution and resource depletion.

Predicting the future is usually a losing proposition, but sometimes the effort does cause change. The Population Bomb was defused by the Chinese with their one child policy which contributed to their economic success.

The planet is definitely warming, but it should be noted that we have been there before.  In fact, for most of its' geologic history there has been little ice on the planet.  We live in an icehouse phase of the earths history.  Take a looks at this chart of deep time temperatures (present is to the right).  On the scale of this graph you can't even see the current warming.  Part of the problem is the rate of change is so rapid that many species are not able to adapt.  This may be the 6th Mass Extinction, but likely not nearly as bad as the K\T extinction event (dinosaur go bye,bye).  So in my opinion don't panic (like writing off electric vehicles), work the problem and accept that change is inevitable.

Chart.JPG

(from Goldilocks Planet)

Link to comment
On 1/25/2018 at 12:58 PM, DL4LIFE said:

I remember watching a program, don't remember what it was, and they said that the entire population of the world would fit in the state of Texas. 

 

That same program also stated that the earth with all its resources should only be able to sustain a population of 3 1/2 to 4 billion people. We are going on 9 billion people so it's only a matter of time before something has to give.

Close but not quite right, 9 billion is the supposed breaking point and we are pushing close to 8 billion. 7.6 billion right now. Originally it was believed we would hit 9 billion by 2020 but fortunately over the last decade birth rates have been on the decline globally with the exception of a few countries 

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...