3 ms·

I don't that is "clear" at all. In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the worl

I don't that is "clear" at all. In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc. What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc

gspr 6y ago
I think you and I have a very different understanding of why people postpone having children. And what makes you think people will go back to having the same job for 40 years? What indicators show that air travel will become prohibitively expensive? Why would big houses become illegal? And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). It also involves a lot less economic growth. And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. Sure, maybe you'll be a little more respected, but chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. > Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap. People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
  - gspr 6y ago
    > We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion. > It also involves a lot less economic growth. Perhaps. > And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me. > chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years". > People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city. Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.
    - neutronicus 6y ago
      People delay kids mostly because there's other stuff they want to do first (or instead). Travel, succeed in their careers, etc. This is especially true in a high-growth economy because early-life career advancement, investment, etc is more valuable because of compounding. In an austere, sustainable lifestyle, there are fewer things to do instead of have kids. The current economy both applies lots of pressure to delay kids and provides lots of alternatives to people on the fence about them. In an entirely re-imagined, sustainable, economy, will the invisible hand keep family sizes down the same way it does in developed nations today? I'm not sure.

gspr 6y ago

I think you and I have a very different understanding of why people postpone having children. And what makes you think people will go back to having the same job for 40 years? What indicators show that air travel will become prohibitively expensive? Why would big houses become illegal? And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.

neutronicus 6y ago
We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). It also involves a lot less economic growth. And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. Sure, maybe you'll be a little more respected, but chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. > Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap. People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
- gspr 6y ago
  > We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion. > It also involves a lot less economic growth. Perhaps. > And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me. > chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years". > People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city. Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.
  - neutronicus 6y ago
    People delay kids mostly because there's other stuff they want to do first (or instead). Travel, succeed in their careers, etc. This is especially true in a high-growth economy because early-life career advancement, investment, etc is more valuable because of compounding. In an austere, sustainable lifestyle, there are fewer things to do instead of have kids. The current economy both applies lots of pressure to delay kids and provides lots of alternatives to people on the fence about them. In an entirely re-imagined, sustainable, economy, will the invisible hand keep family sizes down the same way it does in developed nations today? I'm not sure.