5 ms·

Will you be happier with the tax money in your pocket and your local economy in the pits due to population aging?

thefz 7y ago
Human population on earth has been rising since we're here. Just 100 years ago nobody would ever thought about spending public money to make new humans, and I think we all turned out fine. The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption, because in many countries incentives are not in place, and you don't hear of economies collapsing and the elderly swarming the streets in search of food because people don't pop just the right amount of babies to reach the replacement rate. And again, we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in a system of limited resources.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  100 years ago life was pretty different. It was assumed mom would be home with kids, possibly grandparents, etc. Then we decided it was OK for women (including moms) to work. Then we restricted housing supply pushing most couples to be dual-earners (see The Two Income Trap). Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. As for child benefit (the cash) I see why it grates tbh, but I think it's meant to help avoid kids being in abject poverty. Whether it works, well, I dunno. I agree that we can't grow indefinitely, though.
  - thefz 7y ago
    > Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. Employer-wise, pregnancies are a loss. You have one skilled worker parked for 1,2, or 3 years. You have to hire and train from scratch a replacement. You risk, basically.
- undecisive 7y ago
  > The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption Not really: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-aging-population-becoming-more-of-a-problem/#7eb279a5140f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-agi... The economy might sort itself, but society has a much harder time of it. Also, there's a class discrepancy in childbirth. In many affluent countries - as you've rightly pointed out - those who can live off what paltry state benefits exist (or even see the childbirth benefits boost their incomes) will - and will procreate abundantly, relying on the state. But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. The kinds of people who engage with HN are probably the kinds of people we should be encouraging INTO childbirth, not out of it - for the sake of society as well as for the sake of the economy. And yes, there are limited resources. We need to deal with that. I don't think space travel or the next advance in GM is going to fix it all, by any stretch. We should do serious research into how to best fit the resource at hand, as a species. But high-brow fear-mongering is the worst solution pragmatically. And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). You clearly have some intelligence, so don't settle for the false economy of unfeeling intellectualism, it's counterproductive. Find real solutions, not rhetoric.
  - thefz 7y ago
    > But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. > Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. I find all of this Neo-Malthusian. There's abundant data showing that the more educated is a population, the less kids per capita they produce. This does not mean that the uneducated or poor shouldn't reproduce. > And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). Oh come on, that's not what is going to happen if we lift the monthly baby cheque.
    - undecisive 7y ago
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Fertility encouragement has been an active part of government, and religious (often a more potent power) policy for centuries.
  - thefz 7y ago
    And so let's assume it's the right thing to do, religious leaders and governments never fail.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      That wasn't your initial assertion. Only that it wasn't a matter of public expenditure, which is manifestly false.

Human population on earth has been rising since we're here. Just 100 years ago nobody would ever thought about spending public money to make new humans, and I think we all turned out fine. The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption, because in many countries incentives are not in place, and you don't hear of economies collapsing and the elderly swarming the streets in search of food because people don't pop just the right amount of babies to reach the replacement rate. And again, we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in a system of limited resources.

CalRobert 7y ago
100 years ago life was pretty different. It was assumed mom would be home with kids, possibly grandparents, etc. Then we decided it was OK for women (including moms) to work. Then we restricted housing supply pushing most couples to be dual-earners (see The Two Income Trap). Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. As for child benefit (the cash) I see why it grates tbh, but I think it's meant to help avoid kids being in abject poverty. Whether it works, well, I dunno. I agree that we can't grow indefinitely, though.
- thefz 7y ago
  > Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. Employer-wise, pregnancies are a loss. You have one skilled worker parked for 1,2, or 3 years. You have to hire and train from scratch a replacement. You risk, basically.
undecisive 7y ago
> The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption Not really: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-aging-population-becoming-more-of-a-problem/#7eb279a5140f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-agi... The economy might sort itself, but society has a much harder time of it. Also, there's a class discrepancy in childbirth. In many affluent countries - as you've rightly pointed out - those who can live off what paltry state benefits exist (or even see the childbirth benefits boost their incomes) will - and will procreate abundantly, relying on the state. But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. The kinds of people who engage with HN are probably the kinds of people we should be encouraging INTO childbirth, not out of it - for the sake of society as well as for the sake of the economy. And yes, there are limited resources. We need to deal with that. I don't think space travel or the next advance in GM is going to fix it all, by any stretch. We should do serious research into how to best fit the resource at hand, as a species. But high-brow fear-mongering is the worst solution pragmatically. And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). You clearly have some intelligence, so don't settle for the false economy of unfeeling intellectualism, it's counterproductive. Find real solutions, not rhetoric.
- thefz 7y ago
  > But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. > Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. I find all of this Neo-Malthusian. There's abundant data showing that the more educated is a population, the less kids per capita they produce. This does not mean that the uneducated or poor shouldn't reproduce. > And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). Oh come on, that's not what is going to happen if we lift the monthly baby cheque.
  - undecisive 7y ago
dredmorbius 7y ago
Fertility encouragement has been an active part of government, and religious (often a more potent power) policy for centuries.
- thefz 7y ago
  And so let's assume it's the right thing to do, religious leaders and governments never fail.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That wasn't your initial assertion. Only that it wasn't a matter of public expenditure, which is manifestly false.