5 ms·

>In short, I'd question why near-poverty while supporting family is unacceptable as a legal minimum. There are a lot of people who don't have a family. Because

>In short, I'd question why near-poverty while supporting family is unacceptable as a legal minimum. There are a lot of people who don't have a family. Because most people only choose to start a family once they already have the financial stability to support one. If the average 20-something male without a family earned more (or there was a drop in the cost of living), he'd be more likely to start a family, do it earlier and have more (and healthier) children.

barry-cotter 5y ago
> Because most people only choose to start a family once they already have the financial stability to support one. US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living by historical and global[1] standards that is indeed difficult. > If the average 20-something male without a family earned more (or there was a drop in the cost of living), he'd be more likely to start a family, do it earlier and have more (and healthier) children. That might be true if women couldn’t work but with two income families it certainly isn’t now. Greater wealth gets eaten up by positional goods, keeping up with the Jones, good schools as detailed in Warren’s Two Income Trap[2]. Wealthier countries don’t have more children. [1] Only one US state has lower GDP per capita than Germany, Arkansas https://www.stockingblue.com/article/830/per-capita-gdp-by-us-state-second-quarter-2020/ https://www.stockingblue.com/article/830/per-capita-gdp-by-u... [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-in...
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living by historical and global[1] standards that is indeed difficult. I may be somewhat biased, as I'm based in Melbourne AU, but I don't think you've given proper credit the explosion in the cost of Real Estate (both rent and mortgage costs; keeping in mind that you cannot lock in a set interest rate for 10+ years in other countries like you can in the US). >That might be true if women couldn’t work but with two income families it certainly isn’t now. You're not wrong there, but I was specifically looking at male incomes, which (at least when looking at localised populations) are strongly correlated with fertility.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. The people get what the people want. If that was viewed as a problem worth solving Melbourne could look to Tokyo with its flat house pieces over 20 years while population increased 50%, or it could enact a land value tax. Either of the Tokyo style sane zoning system or not rewarding being lucky enough to own property where the economy happens to grow works fine.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. Haha, unfortunately. Too many people riding the gravy train... Economics Explained made a video about it a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. It doesn't really matter what the GDP is - you can have a high GDP and have folks barely eating. It more matters how the money gets distributed. People did not have trouble supporting families then Yes, they did.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    People in the US in 1950 were aware on some level that they were the richest society in the world. Many of them were probably aware they were the richest society in human history. They were five years into a boom that lasted well into the 70s. I kind of doubt there was widespread worry about being able to afford to support a family. The historical record doesn’t show much evidence of it. The Baby Boom kind of militates against that idea too. As for the average US household consumption it’s marginally lower than in the city state of Hong Kong with its much smaller households, and almost $10,000 a year higher than Switzerland, the number three. The US is the richest society in human history, as has been true since it’s consistent parts were British colonies.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      It takes a quick google search to learn about poverty in the 1950s. The poverty rate was 22% - about 40 million folks in the US at the time. I'm pretty sure poverty makes you worry about not supporting a family, and I'm pretty sure that over a fifth of the population being in poverty is more than just a few folks. "The richest society in the world" can still contain a lot of poverty. None of the things you said mean poverty wasn't an issue. They are just numbers without context nor comparison. Links: https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201950s%2C%20the,million%20Americans%20living%20in%20poverty https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-s.... https://study.com/academy/lesson/urban-poverty-in-the-us-in-the-1950s.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/urban-poverty-in-the-us-in-... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-01/economic-growth-in-the-1950s-left-a-lot-of-americans-behind https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-01/econom...
    - imtringued 5y ago
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  > US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. Ok, now factor in that the mass entry of women into the workforce nearly doubles GDP per capita, plus the rising costs of education, health care, and housing. I think you'll start to see where the affordability issues come into play.
  - eru 5y ago
    I can understand the part about rising costs making affordability an issue. But could you please explain how 'mass entry of women into the workforce nearly doubles GDP per capita' is a problem?
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Households that don't want to conscript every possible family member into the workforce wouldn't reap as many of those per capita benefits. And even those that do are probably gaining less advantage than when a single breadwinner was more common.
      - eru 5y ago
        Women worked before as well, just inside the household. Technology eased that burden somewhat.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      It's simple math. People were supporting families in the 1950s with half as many people working. The same "per capita" effectively went almost twice as far.
      - eru 5y ago
        You mean supporting families with half as many people working outside the home? Household work is hard work. Modern technology has made it much easier. (And that's the bigger story here: the reduction of in-household workload. The consequence of women entering the workforce is a comparatively smaller effect.)
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Because most people only choose to start a family once they already have the financial stability to support one. This has been true for something like the last hundred years out of all of human history. It's not something you'd want to try to architect a society around. Also, it's not really about having the financial stability. People are terrible at estimating that; they are putting off starting a family until many, many years after they can afford to do it. There's a mass delusion of inability to afford a family -- but there isn't much inability.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >This has been true for something like the last hundred years out of all of human history. It's not something you'd want to try to architect a society around. Unfortunately I think the horse has already bolted there. Short of restricting contraceptives, the only thing we can do to increase fertility is give people a greater sense of stability. >There's a mass delusion of inability to afford a family -- but there isn't much inability. I honestly think you might be right there. A good friend of ours who had their first at the same time we did are on a single income, part-time wage and they are able to get by living frugally. He does miss out on certain experiences as a kid, though, and will have great difficulty trying to get ahead when he's a young adult as his parents won't own assets.

barry-cotter 5y ago

> Because most people only choose to start a family once they already have the financial stability to support one. US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living by historical and global[1] standards that is indeed difficult. > If the average 20-something male without a family earned more (or there was a drop in the cost of living), he'd be more likely to start a family, do it earlier and have more (and healthier) children. That might be true if women couldn’t work but with two income families it certainly isn’t now. Greater wealth gets eaten up by positional goods, keeping up with the Jones, good schools as detailed in Warren’s Two Income Trap[2]. Wealthier countries don’t have more children. [1] Only one US state has lower GDP per capita than Germany, Arkansas https://www.stockingblue.com/article/830/per-capita-gdp-by-us-state-second-quarter-2020/ https://www.stockingblue.com/article/830/per-capita-gdp-by-u... [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-income-trap/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-in...

AussieWog93 5y ago
>US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living by historical and global[1] standards that is indeed difficult. I may be somewhat biased, as I'm based in Melbourne AU, but I don't think you've given proper credit the explosion in the cost of Real Estate (both rent and mortgage costs; keeping in mind that you cannot lock in a set interest rate for 10+ years in other countries like you can in the US). >That might be true if women couldn’t work but with two income families it certainly isn’t now. You're not wrong there, but I was specifically looking at male incomes, which (at least when looking at localised populations) are strongly correlated with fertility.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. The people get what the people want. If that was viewed as a problem worth solving Melbourne could look to Tokyo with its flat house pieces over 20 years while population increased 50%, or it could enact a land value tax. Either of the Tokyo style sane zoning system or not rewarding being lucky enough to own property where the economy happens to grow works fine.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. Haha, unfortunately. Too many people riding the gravy train... Economics Explained made a video about it a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. It doesn't really matter what the GDP is - you can have a high GDP and have folks barely eating. It more matters how the money gets distributed. People did not have trouble supporting families then Yes, they did.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  People in the US in 1950 were aware on some level that they were the richest society in the world. Many of them were probably aware they were the richest society in human history. They were five years into a boom that lasted well into the 70s. I kind of doubt there was widespread worry about being able to afford to support a family. The historical record doesn’t show much evidence of it. The Baby Boom kind of militates against that idea too. As for the average US household consumption it’s marginally lower than in the city state of Hong Kong with its much smaller households, and almost $10,000 a year higher than Switzerland, the number three. The US is the richest society in human history, as has been true since it’s consistent parts were British colonies.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    It takes a quick google search to learn about poverty in the 1950s. The poverty rate was 22% - about 40 million folks in the US at the time. I'm pretty sure poverty makes you worry about not supporting a family, and I'm pretty sure that over a fifth of the population being in poverty is more than just a few folks. "The richest society in the world" can still contain a lot of poverty. None of the things you said mean poverty wasn't an issue. They are just numbers without context nor comparison. Links: https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201950s%2C%20the,million%20Americans%20living%20in%20poverty https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-s.... https://study.com/academy/lesson/urban-poverty-in-the-us-in-the-1950s.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/urban-poverty-in-the-us-in-... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-01/economic-growth-in-the-1950s-left-a-lot-of-americans-behind https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-01/econom...
  - imtringued 5y ago
actually_a_dog 5y ago
> US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. Ok, now factor in that the mass entry of women into the workforce nearly doubles GDP per capita, plus the rising costs of education, health care, and housing. I think you'll start to see where the affordability issues come into play.
- eru 5y ago
  I can understand the part about rising costs making affordability an issue. But could you please explain how 'mass entry of women into the workforce nearly doubles GDP per capita' is a problem?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Households that don't want to conscript every possible family member into the workforce wouldn't reap as many of those per capita benefits. And even those that do are probably gaining less advantage than when a single breadwinner was more common.
    - eru 5y ago
      Women worked before as well, just inside the household. Technology eased that burden somewhat.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    It's simple math. People were supporting families in the 1950s with half as many people working. The same "per capita" effectively went almost twice as far.
    - eru 5y ago
      You mean supporting families with half as many people working outside the home? Household work is hard work. Modern technology has made it much easier. (And that's the bigger story here: the reduction of in-household workload. The consequence of women entering the workforce is a comparatively smaller effect.)

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> Because most people only choose to start a family once they already have the financial stability to support one. This has been true for something like the last hundred years out of all of human history. It's not something you'd want to try to architect a society around. Also, it's not really about having the financial stability. People are terrible at estimating that; they are putting off starting a family until many, many years after they can afford to do it. There's a mass delusion of inability to afford a family -- but there isn't much inability.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>This has been true for something like the last hundred years out of all of human history. It's not something you'd want to try to architect a society around. Unfortunately I think the horse has already bolted there. Short of restricting contraceptives, the only thing we can do to increase fertility is give people a greater sense of stability. >There's a mass delusion of inability to afford a family -- but there isn't much inability. I honestly think you might be right there. A good friend of ours who had their first at the same time we did are on a single income, part-time wage and they are able to get by living frugally. He does miss out on certain experiences as a kid, though, and will have great difficulty trying to get ahead when he's a young adult as his parents won't own assets.