6 ms·

Considering the ratio of career gains that go to those working in a few expensive cities, even if this is largely selection effects, I'm not sure this paints a

by pitt1980 8y ago

Considering the ratio of career gains that go to those working in a few expensive cities, even if this is largely selection effects, I'm not sure this paints a very rosy picture of the society we're creating. I'm reminded of how few heads of EU states are parents https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-childless-leaders-mean-the-death-of-europe-2017-05-26 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-childless-leaders-mean-...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
There is a Brazilian show on Netflix, 3%, that explores (caution: spoiler for Season 1) a sterile elite ruling over a dystopia.
toasterlovin 8y ago
This stage of the demographic transition is a huge problem, IMO. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a ratchet (as in, it only moves in one direction): Basically, two incomes are useful, so both people in a relationship pursue careers. Now they have more money to compete on the housing market. This seems like a good move, so others follow suit. At first this is largely a win for people who pursue this route. But, as more people do this, it becomes necessary in order to compete for real estate in good neighborhoods. Now there is an advantage to be had by putting off having a family even longer, or having even less children. So people do this. But as more and more people follow suit, the advantage evaporates. And so on and so forth until you have demographic implosion. For the life of me, I can’t see a way out of this in the short term. Maybe a wholesale transition to remote work?
- nomocrypto 8y ago
  Sane zoning laws would be much easier and do a lot more to ease the burden on people (I currently live in an “OMG no high rises! Won’t someone think of the neighborhood character!?” city and the rent is ridiculous). We just have to have the political will to change them, which unfortunately means angering very powerful monied interests, including Betty and Edgar who really love their now-valued-at-$500,000 house next to downtown.
  - sien 8y ago
    This is bang on. Looking at the graph look where Harris County (Houston) and Dallas are. If the graphs were plotted with increase in population against the change in fertility then those places would be outliers. Texas zoning and tax on houses work. The funny thing about housing prices is that a state in the US has handled house prices so well with an economy that is doing well but Texas is often ignored in these discussions.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      Thousands of acres with mcmansions in gated HOAs and no walkability sounds terrible.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Texas has pretty restrictive laws about parking minimums. It would be illegal to build a pleasant neighborhood (for my definition of pleasant) in Texas. Also, negative externalities of Texas' built environment (lung disease, cancer, potentially more autism near motorways(still early stages of research) dead people on roads, inability to travel or perform basic tasks for those who can't or prefer not to drive, being impoverished by your automobile, and the potential collapse of global civilization due to climate change) are not priced in, so often the neighbors or the rest of the world are paying for those houses.
    - krinchan 8y ago
      > Texas zoning and tax on houses work. Texas zoning also paved over all the marsh land that would've kept the city from flooding.
  - MarkSweep 8y ago
    I'm living in California and I have this idea for a zoning law: if a residential plot of land sells for more than $X million per acre, it is automatically up zoned to higher density. That way if the market says a location is really valuable more people get to live there. I've theory-crafted other potential policies like "require any increase in office build density to be matched by increased residential density". That seems more potentially game-able than simply increasing density of properties the market had determined are valuable.
- labster 8y ago
  Immigration will offset the demographic implosion, at least if current trends continue. But speaking as someone who studied climate science, a temporary population reduction can only be a good thing for long-term human survival. We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for humans, and though we've done a lot of tricks to expand capacity, we're currently putting a large swath of the biosphere in danger. If there are less people, then pressure for good neighborhoods goes down, and we'll reach an equilibrium. I think it only seems like a ratchet because we're in the middle of a downturn after a 5000 year run of exponential growth. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck to live in this time in terms of housing -- but in other terms, life is pretty outstanding. The two income thing is mostly new, but then compare the amount of time that medieval women spent on childcare and providing clothing. It's so much better now that they're not expected to spend every spare moment at the spinning wheel.
  - 4ad 8y ago
    I don't think most people have a problem with having a smaller population in general, they have a problem with the shift in the age distribution. Having less people is fine, having few young people who have to care for a general aging population is not.
  - s_kilk 8y ago
    > We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for humans, and though we've done a lot of tricks to expand capacity, we're currently putting a large swath of the biosphere in danger. Given the vast differences in climate impact between different populations and consumption habits, this doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for Rich Americans".
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    The issue is that the U.S. isn't overpopulated. India, China are tho.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Worth remembering that the average person in the US emits far more than the average person in India or China.
- ceras 8y ago
  There's a book somewhat related to this idea called The Two Income Trap. I haven't read it yet, but recently read a good book review of it[0] that discusses the extra competition created by two-income households and tries to vet the book's evidence. It also discusses the related problem that comes from treating "good school districts" as a positional good, causing a negative externality of over-competition and consumption beyond the intrinsic economic benefit of that good. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc...
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    It’s a great book, written by (now Senator) Elizabeth Warren (from the great state of Massachusetts).
- shados 8y ago
  Yup. It widens the income gap significantly. The problem with anything that raises average income, is that people without average income are worse of. If families have at most 1 earner, then the worse case scenario is to have 0 earners, being one down. If most families have 2 though, when you fall to 0, you're much, much worse off compared to the norm. People with kids vs people without. People with college degrees in high demand profession vs people without. Basically, every time we push people in drove toward a more efficient "lifestyle", the worse off people who don't are.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- johnrob 8y ago
  Solution: create a surplus of homes. That will detach price from income. Nothing else will work. (Note: we did this with food and it successfully kept prices low)
  - raquo 8y ago
    Not necessarily. The least affordable housing markets tend to be bigger cities. Growing the cities further will not necessarily make housing in those cities more affordable. There's a positive feedback loop between cities being bigger being more desirable.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    Cheap public transit is all. In case of food, it comes to your nearest super market. So its not just overproduction of food, its also supply chain optimization.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  You're spot on about the basic underlying mechanic. A mechanic like that can be found directly causing or partially contributing to almost all the problems we face today. Obligatory link going deep into this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Yes, we seem to have gone from women not having the choice to work to women not having the choice to not work.
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    This is false. There are 500$/mo rents everywhere and food costs are the lowest in history. If you dont care to keep up with the Joneses and have minimum wage people cook you food, you can easily live off 1 low-income salary.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      ...if you leave the big city? There are not $500/mo rents in many popular places. But sure, Des Moines, Pocatello, you can live like that. And why not - at that salary, you sure aren't going to the Bolshoi Ballet any time soon.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        I can't find a $500/month 2-bedroom apartment for rent in Des Moines (https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/des-moines-ia/2-beds/price-300,900?sort=price&lease-term=long&box=-93.68547,41.55029,-93.56393,41.6281 https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/des-moines-ia/2-beds/pr...). The cheapest I see is $625, which is 25% more than $500/month.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

There is a Brazilian show on Netflix, 3%, that explores (caution: spoiler for Season 1) a sterile elite ruling over a dystopia.

toasterlovin 8y ago

This stage of the demographic transition is a huge problem, IMO. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a ratchet (as in, it only moves in one direction): Basically, two incomes are useful, so both people in a relationship pursue careers. Now they have more money to compete on the housing market. This seems like a good move, so others follow suit. At first this is largely a win for people who pursue this route. But, as more people do this, it becomes necessary in order to compete for real estate in good neighborhoods. Now there is an advantage to be had by putting off having a family even longer, or having even less children. So people do this. But as more and more people follow suit, the advantage evaporates. And so on and so forth until you have demographic implosion. For the life of me, I can’t see a way out of this in the short term. Maybe a wholesale transition to remote work?

nomocrypto 8y ago
Sane zoning laws would be much easier and do a lot more to ease the burden on people (I currently live in an “OMG no high rises! Won’t someone think of the neighborhood character!?” city and the rent is ridiculous). We just have to have the political will to change them, which unfortunately means angering very powerful monied interests, including Betty and Edgar who really love their now-valued-at-$500,000 house next to downtown.
- sien 8y ago
  This is bang on. Looking at the graph look where Harris County (Houston) and Dallas are. If the graphs were plotted with increase in population against the change in fertility then those places would be outliers. Texas zoning and tax on houses work. The funny thing about housing prices is that a state in the US has handled house prices so well with an economy that is doing well but Texas is often ignored in these discussions.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Thousands of acres with mcmansions in gated HOAs and no walkability sounds terrible.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Texas has pretty restrictive laws about parking minimums. It would be illegal to build a pleasant neighborhood (for my definition of pleasant) in Texas. Also, negative externalities of Texas' built environment (lung disease, cancer, potentially more autism near motorways(still early stages of research) dead people on roads, inability to travel or perform basic tasks for those who can't or prefer not to drive, being impoverished by your automobile, and the potential collapse of global civilization due to climate change) are not priced in, so often the neighbors or the rest of the world are paying for those houses.
  - krinchan 8y ago
    > Texas zoning and tax on houses work. Texas zoning also paved over all the marsh land that would've kept the city from flooding.
- MarkSweep 8y ago
  I'm living in California and I have this idea for a zoning law: if a residential plot of land sells for more than $X million per acre, it is automatically up zoned to higher density. That way if the market says a location is really valuable more people get to live there. I've theory-crafted other potential policies like "require any increase in office build density to be matched by increased residential density". That seems more potentially game-able than simply increasing density of properties the market had determined are valuable.
labster 8y ago
Immigration will offset the demographic implosion, at least if current trends continue. But speaking as someone who studied climate science, a temporary population reduction can only be a good thing for long-term human survival. We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for humans, and though we've done a lot of tricks to expand capacity, we're currently putting a large swath of the biosphere in danger. If there are less people, then pressure for good neighborhoods goes down, and we'll reach an equilibrium. I think it only seems like a ratchet because we're in the middle of a downturn after a 5000 year run of exponential growth. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck to live in this time in terms of housing -- but in other terms, life is pretty outstanding. The two income thing is mostly new, but then compare the amount of time that medieval women spent on childcare and providing clothing. It's so much better now that they're not expected to spend every spare moment at the spinning wheel.
- 4ad 8y ago
  I don't think most people have a problem with having a smaller population in general, they have a problem with the shift in the age distribution. Having less people is fine, having few young people who have to care for a general aging population is not.
- s_kilk 8y ago
  > We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for humans, and though we've done a lot of tricks to expand capacity, we're currently putting a large swath of the biosphere in danger. Given the vast differences in climate impact between different populations and consumption habits, this doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for Rich Americans".
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  The issue is that the U.S. isn't overpopulated. India, China are tho.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Worth remembering that the average person in the US emits far more than the average person in India or China.
ceras 8y ago
There's a book somewhat related to this idea called The Two Income Trap. I haven't read it yet, but recently read a good book review of it[0] that discusses the extra competition created by two-income households and tries to vet the book's evidence. It also discusses the related problem that comes from treating "good school districts" as a positional good, causing a negative externality of over-competition and consumption beyond the intrinsic economic benefit of that good. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  It’s a great book, written by (now Senator) Elizabeth Warren (from the great state of Massachusetts).
shados 8y ago
Yup. It widens the income gap significantly. The problem with anything that raises average income, is that people without average income are worse of. If families have at most 1 earner, then the worse case scenario is to have 0 earners, being one down. If most families have 2 though, when you fall to 0, you're much, much worse off compared to the norm. People with kids vs people without. People with college degrees in high demand profession vs people without. Basically, every time we push people in drove toward a more efficient "lifestyle", the worse off people who don't are.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
johnrob 8y ago
Solution: create a surplus of homes. That will detach price from income. Nothing else will work. (Note: we did this with food and it successfully kept prices low)
- raquo 8y ago
  Not necessarily. The least affordable housing markets tend to be bigger cities. Growing the cities further will not necessarily make housing in those cities more affordable. There's a positive feedback loop between cities being bigger being more desirable.
- kamaal 8y ago
  Cheap public transit is all. In case of food, it comes to your nearest super market. So its not just overproduction of food, its also supply chain optimization.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
You're spot on about the basic underlying mechanic. A mechanic like that can be found directly causing or partially contributing to almost all the problems we face today. Obligatory link going deep into this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
Yes, we seem to have gone from women not having the choice to work to women not having the choice to not work.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  This is false. There are 500$/mo rents everywhere and food costs are the lowest in history. If you dont care to keep up with the Joneses and have minimum wage people cook you food, you can easily live off 1 low-income salary.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    ...if you leave the big city? There are not $500/mo rents in many popular places. But sure, Des Moines, Pocatello, you can live like that. And why not - at that salary, you sure aren't going to the Bolshoi Ballet any time soon.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      I can't find a $500/month 2-bedroom apartment for rent in Des Moines (https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/des-moines-ia/2-beds/price-300,900?sort=price&lease-term=long&box=-93.68547,41.55029,-93.56393,41.6281 https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/des-moines-ia/2-beds/pr...). The cheapest I see is $625, which is 25% more than $500/month.