3 ms·

This is a popular theory on reddit, but it's not true. Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally

by smt88 4y ago

This is a popular theory on reddit, but it's not true. Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally have good work culture. You would also expect birth rates to be lowest among people working 2-3 low-wage jobs, which is also not true. As financial stability and safety increase, birth rates go down. That's the only common driver of it. Historically, children were sources of unpaid labor. They worked (either at the family business or outside the job), raised younger siblings, and took care of elderly parents. In short, children were (and sometimes are) a social safety net. What happens in societies that try to eliminate poverty, take care of the elderly, and ban child labor? A lower birth rate. Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation.

iggldiggl 4y ago
Endless (population) growth might not be sustainable, but > Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation. … neither is endless shrinkage, automation or not.
Miraste 4y ago
Resulting from otherwise positive changes doesn't mean low birth rates aren't a problem. It's a long term one, of course, but they have to be fixed at some point. If the entire world gets to the development level of South Korea with birth rates below 1, civilization will collapse until it regresses to a point that people start having >2 children again.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  What does the collapsing civilisation look like? It might just be a more frugal civilisation without the bells and whistles. And the bullshit jobs will disappear.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
> Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally have good work culture. I'll still bet that there's a significant career opportunity cost to leaving the workforce for a while like that. > You would also expect birth rates to be lowest among people working 2-3 low-wage jobs, which is also not true. If anything, aren't these the people for whom the opportunity cost is lowest? A gap on your "resume" after "McDonald's fry cook" to care for your kids doesn't require much explanation when you later apply for "Starbucks barista". If on the other hand you're a lawyer, maybe you didn't make Partner. > In short, children were (and sometimes are) a social safety net. I agree with this, and think it applies not just to children, but also to many adults, who can be helpful to their families but who might be unemployable in the larger market. The destruction of family businesses and informal employment is a problem, because society turns into, "get a job with formal compensation from one of these ten monopolies, or else you are worthless". And there are a lot of people who can't meet that standard. For example, say your family member has mental illness that makes it hard for him to keep a job. If you owned a farm, you could still find something useful for him to do, and put up with him, and he'd be able to earn his keep, more or less. Or say you meet a woman who, though creative and intelligent in many ways, also has unrealistic ideas about her "career", and who has never really had a proper job. So she's never going to make money, but she naturally tends to the house and does some cooking and contributes to the social life of the people around her. And say she wants to marry you. Do you do it? In a world of small family businesses, surely she'd help out somehow. In a world of FAANG-employed DINKs, she's worthless. And if she insists on living in California? "Sorry, I can't do this single-handed." What this whole structure of society forces on people is cruelty. "Can you make money or can you not?" becomes the only important question to ask about another human being. It's horrible. At some level, Jeff Bezos' calculations of human worth enter our own calculations. I'm not at all sure that the subjection of all things to the market has been progress. A world in which more "wealth" was in social/family networks, and where not all labor were so formal, might be a better one.
- tacocataco 4y ago
  > "Can you make money or can you not?" I'm dating right now, and it's almost always one of the first things asked. Tinder let's you stick that info up front so people can filter appropriately. Edit: Just double checked, occupation data is right below your name and age. Although people use much more flowery language then what you use. "What do you do for a living?" And so on. Wish me luck finding someone to split rent with. Peace y'all.
germinalphrase 4y ago
When you say “Ponzi scheme of retirement” are you referring to social security, pensions, other retiree payment plans? Or something else?
- smt88 4y ago
  Social security, yes. The other things... kinda. Social security (in the US) is explicitly designed such that each generation is paying for the one that came before it and generally needs to be larger. Pensions could and should work just as long as the funds grow faster than inflation, although in practice they can also indirectly rely on younger people paying for older people.

by smt88 4y ago

iggldiggl 4y ago

Endless (population) growth might not be sustainable, but > Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation. … neither is endless shrinkage, automation or not.

Miraste 4y ago

Resulting from otherwise positive changes doesn't mean low birth rates aren't a problem. It's a long term one, of course, but they have to be fixed at some point. If the entire world gets to the development level of South Korea with birth rates below 1, civilization will collapse until it regresses to a point that people start having >2 children again.

quickthrower2 4y ago
What does the collapsing civilisation look like? It might just be a more frugal civilisation without the bells and whistles. And the bullshit jobs will disappear.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

> Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally have good work culture. I'll still bet that there's a significant career opportunity cost to leaving the workforce for a while like that. > You would also expect birth rates to be lowest among people working 2-3 low-wage jobs, which is also not true. If anything, aren't these the people for whom the opportunity cost is lowest? A gap on your "resume" after "McDonald's fry cook" to care for your kids doesn't require much explanation when you later apply for "Starbucks barista". If on the other hand you're a lawyer, maybe you didn't make Partner. > In short, children were (and sometimes are) a social safety net. I agree with this, and think it applies not just to children, but also to many adults, who can be helpful to their families but who might be unemployable in the larger market. The destruction of family businesses and informal employment is a problem, because society turns into, "get a job with formal compensation from one of these ten monopolies, or else you are worthless". And there are a lot of people who can't meet that standard. For example, say your family member has mental illness that makes it hard for him to keep a job. If you owned a farm, you could still find something useful for him to do, and put up with him, and he'd be able to earn his keep, more or less. Or say you meet a woman who, though creative and intelligent in many ways, also has unrealistic ideas about her "career", and who has never really had a proper job. So she's never going to make money, but she naturally tends to the house and does some cooking and contributes to the social life of the people around her. And say she wants to marry you. Do you do it? In a world of small family businesses, surely she'd help out somehow. In a world of FAANG-employed DINKs, she's worthless. And if she insists on living in California? "Sorry, I can't do this single-handed." What this whole structure of society forces on people is cruelty. "Can you make money or can you not?" becomes the only important question to ask about another human being. It's horrible. At some level, Jeff Bezos' calculations of human worth enter our own calculations. I'm not at all sure that the subjection of all things to the market has been progress. A world in which more "wealth" was in social/family networks, and where not all labor were so formal, might be a better one.

tacocataco 4y ago
> "Can you make money or can you not?" I'm dating right now, and it's almost always one of the first things asked. Tinder let's you stick that info up front so people can filter appropriately. Edit: Just double checked, occupation data is right below your name and age. Although people use much more flowery language then what you use. "What do you do for a living?" And so on. Wish me luck finding someone to split rent with. Peace y'all.

germinalphrase 4y ago

When you say “Ponzi scheme of retirement” are you referring to social security, pensions, other retiree payment plans? Or something else?

smt88 4y ago
Social security, yes. The other things... kinda. Social security (in the US) is explicitly designed such that each generation is paying for the one that came before it and generally needs to be larger. Pensions could and should work just as long as the funds grow faster than inflation, although in practice they can also indirectly rely on younger people paying for older people.