5 ms·

I believe Peter Zeihan said something to the effect of... Kids on a farm were free labor. You had as many of them as you could. They improved your quality of l

I believe Peter Zeihan said something to the effect of... Kids on a farm were free labor. You had as many of them as you could. They improved your quality of life. Kids in a city condo are a destructive house pet that drains your time and money for at least 18 years usually with zero financial payoff. People aren't dumb, so they had fewer of them.

hammock 4y ago
Yes, Zeihan’s point is that increasing urbanization- 50%+ worldwide now- has decreased the utility of children (if we can use that term) and increased their costs
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Children are a luxury item, like a Gucci handbag, or a non working pet. A liability, not an asset. You only have them if you have money to burn and either intrinsically value the luxury or want to signal your social status to your peers.
  - disambiguation 4y ago
    > You only have them if you have money to burn this is quite cynical and disingenuous, given birth rates are highest among low income demographics.
    - hammock 4y ago
      It's a bathtub shaped curve. Even in low-birth-rate countries, birth rates have not depressed among the rich.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
Doesn't explain why birth rates are falling in countries with largely rural populations as well. India's fertility rate is now below replacement level. 65% of the country's population still lives in rural areas.
- triceratops 4y ago
  What's the distribution of fertility rates between rural and urban areas? Could consolidation and mechanization have reduced the need for labor on farms? (I don't know how advanced farming in India is, but that's been the pattern in developed countries) Or changing laws or opinions on using child labor on farms?
  - spaceman_2020 4y ago
    I'll have to find the first data point, but the percentage of people employed in agriculture has actually increased over the last few years [0]. 0: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/share-of-agriculture-sector-in-employment-sees-steady-increase-cmie/articleshow/85266073.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Doesn’t explain why birth rates are falling in countries with largely rural populations as well. Countries that still have “largely rural” populations are generally also urbanizing, in many cases more rapidly than those that no longer have largely rural populations. In any case, “urbanization” is, to the extent that it is part of the explanation, sill only part of the explanation, there are a lot of other factors (social safety nets being a big one, along with evolution in social expectations of minimum levels of necessary support for children, etc.) While these things may all very loosely correlate with each other, they don’t move in lockstep.
  - spaceman_2020 4y ago
    I think the reason is that children are a long-term project - 18-20 years at least. You might be living on a farm right now, but if you had an inkling that you will eventually move out to the city, you probably don't want to take on an expensive project - like having kids. Back in 1850s, if you were a farmer, you likely thought that you'll die a farmer. But today, if you're on a farm, you still get to see what's happening in the cities, often in real-time. And maybe you think that you'll eventually move there too, and skip having kids.
fasteddie31003 4y ago
That's the beauty of American suburbs - they are basically designed to raise kids.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  On the contrary, suburbs are horrible places for kids. Walkable and safe city centers are much better. Suburban homes are also much more expensive (in absolute terms) and time consuming than a city home. A child is almost completely helpless to travel and roam in a modern suburb until they turn 16 and get their drivers license and access to a car. A suburban home is an island of isolation that keeps a child locked under its parents control and gives very little opportunity for a child to develop a strong sense of independence in the real world.
  - wussboy 4y ago
    Fully agreed. Suburbs are a disaster for families. I spend hours every day driving my kids to school and activities because there is no where they can safely walk (no sidewalks! high-speed car traffic!) and nothing within range of walking (infrequent bus service! low-density single-family dwellings!). My kids have no friends that they can interact with from our house.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Suburban neighborhoods are built to limit high speed through traffic. Perfectly accessible with a bike (or no less accessible than they ever have been).
      - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
        Cul-de-sac developments are relatively safe for kids. But those developments are connected by stroads and highways where it's unsafe even for an adult to ride a bike. And the distances are too large. Every suburban parent I am aware of has to juggle the logistics of shuttling children around. They play taxi driver.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
That's an argument I can follow. It reminds me of an interesting bit of Canadian history when Britain decided to solve two problems at once: Britain had a surplus of orphans and street children, and homesteaders in the colonies had a demand for children (aka free farm labour) so they shipped out 100s of thousands of children under an adoption scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Fascinating bit of history!
- cvhashim04 4y ago
  Can’t imagine the amount of abuses that took place in sending children off to foreign lands with no guardian :(
guestbest 4y ago
Makes since until the farmer runs out of farmland to give to his kids so they have to move to the city to find work
bitlax 4y ago
> People aren't dumb Delaying gratification and optimizing for abstract goals are signs of intelligence.
theironhammer 4y ago
[dead]

hammock 4y ago

Yes, Zeihan’s point is that increasing urbanization- 50%+ worldwide now- has decreased the utility of children (if we can use that term) and increased their costs

anonporridge 4y ago
Children are a luxury item, like a Gucci handbag, or a non working pet. A liability, not an asset. You only have them if you have money to burn and either intrinsically value the luxury or want to signal your social status to your peers.
- disambiguation 4y ago
  > You only have them if you have money to burn this is quite cynical and disingenuous, given birth rates are highest among low income demographics.
  - hammock 4y ago
    It's a bathtub shaped curve. Even in low-birth-rate countries, birth rates have not depressed among the rich.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

Doesn't explain why birth rates are falling in countries with largely rural populations as well. India's fertility rate is now below replacement level. 65% of the country's population still lives in rural areas.

triceratops 4y ago
What's the distribution of fertility rates between rural and urban areas? Could consolidation and mechanization have reduced the need for labor on farms? (I don't know how advanced farming in India is, but that's been the pattern in developed countries) Or changing laws or opinions on using child labor on farms?
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  I'll have to find the first data point, but the percentage of people employed in agriculture has actually increased over the last few years [0]. 0: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/share-of-agriculture-sector-in-employment-sees-steady-increase-cmie/articleshow/85266073.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators...
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Doesn’t explain why birth rates are falling in countries with largely rural populations as well. Countries that still have “largely rural” populations are generally also urbanizing, in many cases more rapidly than those that no longer have largely rural populations. In any case, “urbanization” is, to the extent that it is part of the explanation, sill only part of the explanation, there are a lot of other factors (social safety nets being a big one, along with evolution in social expectations of minimum levels of necessary support for children, etc.) While these things may all very loosely correlate with each other, they don’t move in lockstep.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  I think the reason is that children are a long-term project - 18-20 years at least. You might be living on a farm right now, but if you had an inkling that you will eventually move out to the city, you probably don't want to take on an expensive project - like having kids. Back in 1850s, if you were a farmer, you likely thought that you'll die a farmer. But today, if you're on a farm, you still get to see what's happening in the cities, often in real-time. And maybe you think that you'll eventually move there too, and skip having kids.

fasteddie31003 4y ago

That's the beauty of American suburbs - they are basically designed to raise kids.

anonporridge 4y ago
On the contrary, suburbs are horrible places for kids. Walkable and safe city centers are much better. Suburban homes are also much more expensive (in absolute terms) and time consuming than a city home. A child is almost completely helpless to travel and roam in a modern suburb until they turn 16 and get their drivers license and access to a car. A suburban home is an island of isolation that keeps a child locked under its parents control and gives very little opportunity for a child to develop a strong sense of independence in the real world.
- wussboy 4y ago
  Fully agreed. Suburbs are a disaster for families. I spend hours every day driving my kids to school and activities because there is no where they can safely walk (no sidewalks! high-speed car traffic!) and nothing within range of walking (infrequent bus service! low-density single-family dwellings!). My kids have no friends that they can interact with from our house.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Suburban neighborhoods are built to limit high speed through traffic. Perfectly accessible with a bike (or no less accessible than they ever have been).
    - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
      Cul-de-sac developments are relatively safe for kids. But those developments are connected by stroads and highways where it's unsafe even for an adult to ride a bike. And the distances are too large. Every suburban parent I am aware of has to juggle the logistics of shuttling children around. They play taxi driver.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

That's an argument I can follow. It reminds me of an interesting bit of Canadian history when Britain decided to solve two problems at once: Britain had a surplus of orphans and street children, and homesteaders in the colonies had a demand for children (aka free farm labour) so they shipped out 100s of thousands of children under an adoption scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children

anonporridge 4y ago
Fascinating bit of history!
cvhashim04 4y ago
Can’t imagine the amount of abuses that took place in sending children off to foreign lands with no guardian :(

guestbest 4y ago

Makes since until the farmer runs out of farmland to give to his kids so they have to move to the city to find work

bitlax 4y ago

> People aren't dumb Delaying gratification and optimizing for abstract goals are signs of intelligence.

theironhammer 4y ago

[dead]