3 ms·

> Does anyone really honestly think that there's a high percentage of women out there wanting to give birth 10 to 20 times? I think 10-20 is hyperbole but the

by ng12 9y ago

> Does anyone really honestly think that there's a high percentage of women out there wanting to give birth 10 to 20 times? I think 10-20 is hyperbole but the inverse relationship between GDP and birth rates is well documented -- a chief argument being unemployed people have time to make babies. > With that said, I only see those changes as more possible through UBI because people with their basic needs met have more time and mental space to engage in being more informed and more involved as citizens. This is where UBI loses me. So many of it's advocates are convinced people freed from labor will become scholar poets. Proles will be proles whether you call it Marxism or UBI.

matt4077 9y ago
> a chief argument being unemployed people have time to make babies. That is an incredibly stupid argument, and I've never heard anybody make it, chief or not. It's easily proven by comparing across time: being a peasant in the middle ages didn't come with a lot of leisure time, yet they had plenty of children. Reproductive rates are driven by education, health care (esp child mortality), women's agency, and alternative methods of ensuring one's welfare in old age.
- dnautics 9y ago
  over the long span of history (things may have changed) reproductive rates are chiefly driven by whether not having children is a economically a liability.
- ng12 9y ago
  It's the reductionist view but certainly not wrong. You're saying the same thing: time is more valuable for educated women with agency. Women in poor countries have more time on their hands because it's undervalued, and that excess of time tends to translate into a larger family. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf
jpindar 9y ago
So what if they're not poets, or whatever you consider worthy? If we don't need their labor (we might now, but someday we probably won't), what difference does it make what they do with their time? The one exception to this is that children might not finish school if they think they won't need to get a job. To avoid this, we might limit UBI to those who have at least made an effort to get a high school education.
- ng12 9y ago
  Because now you've structured your entire society around having a class of consumers who don't even have the pretense of contributing back to the greater good via productive labor. To the point of the original article this creates a situation that's ripe for exploitation. Not to mention this opens the door to a whole bunch of uncomfortable questions: should we continue to subsidize childbirth as the economic value of a citizen tails off? Why spend money educating people who will never enter the labor force? What happens to immigration when immigrants statistically no longer provide economic value?
  - Alan_Dillman 9y ago
    >should we continue to subsidize childbirth as the economic value of a citizen tails off? Why spend money educating people who will never enter the labor force? What happens to immigration when immigrants statistically no longer provide economic value? That was one of the purposes of early universal healthcare in Europe and Canada at the end of WWII. To subsidise it even more. After the war, Europe needed babies. My farmer grandparents had one child during WWII, in 1944, then another in 1947. After this point, maternal and infant healthcare became subsidised, and my grandparents went on to have ten more children. Their prosperity over the next thirty years was eased by this, and the extension to all citizens helped even more. This enhanced the boom generation effect in my country, and small towns really started growing. My family did much much better than equivalent farmers in the USA(we have cousins there), and everyone ended up as productive members of society. Instead of paying for healthcare insurance, they sent their kids to university. People eating, getting educated, driving on the roads, taking vacation, all grow an economy. Non-working citizens, ie children and students, have economic value. Always have, always will. Increasing native birthrates will drop the need for immigration, and the attendant terrors thereof, which will please a lot of people. The early Australians were written off as useless, non contributing members of British society, and were consigned to transportation to the Antipodes. But instead of being lazy ne'er do well types, they rose above their reputations to craft a shining egalitarian society. Good and productive people will come from big, poor families.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I think 10-20 is hyperbole but the inverse relationship between GDP and birth rates is well documented The observed inverse relationship is between birth rate and strength of social support systems; this roughly tracks GDP, but it also explains the outliers, like the US which (among developed countries) has both a high birthrate and a weak social support system. UBI strengthens the social support system (it also removes bureaucratic drag on the economy and replaces systems which disincentivize certain economic exchanges, which should also increase GDP.)

by ng12 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

> a chief argument being unemployed people have time to make babies. That is an incredibly stupid argument, and I've never heard anybody make it, chief or not. It's easily proven by comparing across time: being a peasant in the middle ages didn't come with a lot of leisure time, yet they had plenty of children. Reproductive rates are driven by education, health care (esp child mortality), women's agency, and alternative methods of ensuring one's welfare in old age.

dnautics 9y ago
over the long span of history (things may have changed) reproductive rates are chiefly driven by whether not having children is a economically a liability.
ng12 9y ago
It's the reductionist view but certainly not wrong. You're saying the same thing: time is more valuable for educated women with agency. Women in poor countries have more time on their hands because it's undervalued, and that excess of time tends to translate into a larger family. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf

jpindar 9y ago

So what if they're not poets, or whatever you consider worthy? If we don't need their labor (we might now, but someday we probably won't), what difference does it make what they do with their time? The one exception to this is that children might not finish school if they think they won't need to get a job. To avoid this, we might limit UBI to those who have at least made an effort to get a high school education.

ng12 9y ago
Because now you've structured your entire society around having a class of consumers who don't even have the pretense of contributing back to the greater good via productive labor. To the point of the original article this creates a situation that's ripe for exploitation. Not to mention this opens the door to a whole bunch of uncomfortable questions: should we continue to subsidize childbirth as the economic value of a citizen tails off? Why spend money educating people who will never enter the labor force? What happens to immigration when immigrants statistically no longer provide economic value?
- Alan_Dillman 9y ago
  >should we continue to subsidize childbirth as the economic value of a citizen tails off? Why spend money educating people who will never enter the labor force? What happens to immigration when immigrants statistically no longer provide economic value? That was one of the purposes of early universal healthcare in Europe and Canada at the end of WWII. To subsidise it even more. After the war, Europe needed babies. My farmer grandparents had one child during WWII, in 1944, then another in 1947. After this point, maternal and infant healthcare became subsidised, and my grandparents went on to have ten more children. Their prosperity over the next thirty years was eased by this, and the extension to all citizens helped even more. This enhanced the boom generation effect in my country, and small towns really started growing. My family did much much better than equivalent farmers in the USA(we have cousins there), and everyone ended up as productive members of society. Instead of paying for healthcare insurance, they sent their kids to university. People eating, getting educated, driving on the roads, taking vacation, all grow an economy. Non-working citizens, ie children and students, have economic value. Always have, always will. Increasing native birthrates will drop the need for immigration, and the attendant terrors thereof, which will please a lot of people. The early Australians were written off as useless, non contributing members of British society, and were consigned to transportation to the Antipodes. But instead of being lazy ne'er do well types, they rose above their reputations to craft a shining egalitarian society. Good and productive people will come from big, poor families.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I think 10-20 is hyperbole but the inverse relationship between GDP and birth rates is well documented The observed inverse relationship is between birth rate and strength of social support systems; this roughly tracks GDP, but it also explains the outliers, like the US which (among developed countries) has both a high birthrate and a weak social support system. UBI strengthens the social support system (it also removes bureaucratic drag on the economy and replaces systems which disincentivize certain economic exchanges, which should also increase GDP.)