5 ms·

For most of my lifetime people have been talking about a shortage of labor as baby boomers retire and people having fewer children. It didn't match reality as w

by rr888 4y ago

For most of my lifetime people have been talking about a shortage of labor as baby boomers retire and people having fewer children. It didn't match reality as wages kept staying low year after year. Now finally it seems to be happening, it'll be less affordable to get people to do your tasks or cook your food but overall it should make society more equitable.

notch898a 4y ago
[flagged]
- ls612 4y ago
  If you raised your kids well it’ll be much better having them in your life in old age than not having them.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Kids are nice but -$250-500k you need to create the tax generation machine for the other boomers is a lot of money and methinks that should be reflected in the retirement benefits no? Why should the boomer who created the labor force that funds the other boomers not be allocated retirement such that they come closer to break even with the others on the investment? This seems like a huge free rider problem. Either spend $250k plus taxes and raise the kid, or just spend taxes charged for other kids. The latter is far cheaper and thus the incentive is to not have any kids yourself while relying on others to have them so you can get that sweet sweet retirement money when the IRS man extracts it from them.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-make-more-money.html https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-ma... > "Flash forward two decades later, and the comparisons look similar. In 2010, men with children earned a median income of $40,947, and those without earned $29,904. Mothers earned a median income of $24,350, and those who didn't have children earned $24,244." Now of course there are a lot of confounding factors here, but for an averaging of the median to a two-income household this means households with children earn "$65,297", while those without earn "$54,148". And those increased incomes means a larger social security check to spend in their old age.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Wouldn't the appropriate comparison here be equal income earners with and without kids? The former paid a greater tax into social security, in effect, as they made the larger investment once you include raising the tax generation machine.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Is it fair to compare equal income earners with and without kids though? How much of each earners income is because of, or despite, having children? I think it would be better to compare not based on income, but on other demographic factors such as work locale, job duties, career trajectories, education, partner, etcetera. That would show to what extent having kids is a net benefit or liability.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I think the wholistic benefit of children is an entirely different question.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Sure, but part of that, for men at least, is a direct financial benefit (the fatherhood bonus). Of course there's also the motherhood penalty. These things have to be factored into the equation.
    - jrpt 4y ago
      People with children already have gotten lots of benefits over the years: child tax credits, public education paid for by the rest of society (including people who never had children), etc. It’s pretty entitled to now ask for extra social security too because you had kids when you were younger.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Lol you cannot possibly think the taxes you pay for other peoples kids is anywhere close to the cost you pay to raise a kid yourself subtracting the tax differential. They wouldn't be asking for more, they'd be asking to just not get so much less! You are not getting "extra" social security because you start in the hole -$200k+ paying into social security in the form of raising the earner who pays the boomers. It seems entitled to free ride off that cost difference while still getting an equal share of the social security payment from the child of the boomers.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        It doesn't cost poor people anywhere near $250k - $500k to raise a child though. This may be a median price to raise a child, but this median includes money spent by the upper middle class on their children along with genuinely wealthy families. Childless retirees are probably less likely to lobby for things like reduced immigration and tariffs than retirees with children. Reduced immigration and tariffs boost the paychecks of retirees' children while making things more expensive for all retirees (including those who never had children). Is this fair? Social security income is contingent on how much you paid into the system. Not how much your children pay into the system. What more workers add to the system is a decrease in supply-side inflation.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I think you may have some misconceptions about social security. It's funded by your kids. It's almost like a pyramid scheme, but not quite. It's a common misconception that the money you get is actually like some sort of direct investment that is stored or whatever from what you pay in. Actually what you pay in is going, amongst other places, straight to your retired parents and their kin. When nobody has kids social security just dies. You get, in value, basically nothing for your retirement. Maybe some money is left but even then all you can buy with it is whatever is still being produced (very little if everybody is old) or already stored. Raising children is the single biggest investment/contribution in social security, and compared to someone who doesn't do that you basically start in the hole a six figure sum in the social security piggybank. >Not how much your children pay into the system I'm sorry but this is 100% incorrect. If our children don't pay into the system we get nothing. Social security is almost ENTIRELY dependent on how much our children pay into the system. >It doesn't cost poor people anywhere near $250k - $500k to raise a child though. This may be a median price to raise a child, but this median includes money spent by the upper middle class on their children along with genuinely wealthy families. Not to be snarky but I don't think you understand what median means. Upper crust wealthy, by definition, are not included in the median. Median would be the 50th percentile spender in effect. If you want to argue that those who vote for or against immigration should be suitably adjusted, I think that is a seperate question than adjustment for raising the tax engines.
    - gymbeaux 4y ago
      Yeah, generally speaking the US does not incentivize its citizens to have kids. Any other first-world country will at least give you free healthcare and maternity leave. Some give paternity leave and let you work fewer hours (for proportionally-less pay) if you are a parent. So if I have a child in the Netherlands, it costs me nothing (doctor checkups, delivery in the hospital, vaccinations, etc.), I get free PTO, and I get to go to a 4 or 3-day workweek. If I have a child in the US, I have to pay my deductible/coinsurance on medical costs, probably still ends up being several grand at least, get no paid time off and will be lucky to get unpaid time off for more than a week or two, still have to choose between 40 hours/week working or unemployment/self-employment, and I get to wonder if my child will come home from school every day. Oh, and I get to make a 401k withdrawal to put them through college unless they are top of their class or really good at sports… Why the fuck would I raise a child in the US?
      - notch898a 4y ago
        This is such a contentious topic in the US that my post was flagged for merely pointing out this kind of problem. The attitude is basically once you have the kid, get fucked and pay and then we'll tax the hell out of the kid thank you very much for your investment. It's incredibly easy to be "selfless" when the other guy is making the lions share of the investment and you still get your full share of social security receipts.
        gymbeaux 4y ago
        I haven't been here for very long, but it seems like a place that tries to be "better than reddit", and I do think in general the quality of the comments and discussions are higher, it's not just low-effort "you're wrong and you suck" stuff, but actual rhetoric. I like it, but as you've seen, some people will still be petty and do things like report comments they don't agree with. It's easier to ignore the comment and move on than to downvote it or report it. This is a website. Who the hell cares.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's not entirely true, but "only poors have kids" and so I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the SS budget comes from income earners with few or no kids. Entirely removing the SS cap would fix it.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > "Does a boomer get any better retirement benefits if they raised a child?" This is the sentiment you seem to want to express. Plenty of people have children without raising them. And vice versa for foster and adoptive parents. Also, everyone who rents or owns housing pays taxes to support schools, WIC, and the like. Plus the dependent tax breaks and tax refunds. Which happen early on, not later, and so have a greater value than retirement benefits which come later in life. And to round it out, people with children tend to live longer than those without children. Which directly impacts SS and Medicare use: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-kids-live-longer-2017042411562 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-kids-live-longer-20...
  - notch898a 4y ago
    You're right. Should have said raised. No one says "I'm gonna have a kid because it's cheaper than paying the taxes." It's cheaper to pay the taxes for WIC, etc. Than pay for a kid and slightly lower taxes for WIC etc. The only persuasive argument I see here is the living longer bit, it's an interesting consideration I hadn't thought of.
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  This isn't a complete or healthy perspective. To address the former - childless people support a lot of things that benefit the next generation (schools, WIC, etc.) in their taxes. They do this because we as a society are better off for it. Additionally, while SS is funded by "children of boomers", the childless people also paid into it while working and are entitled to their share. There are also countless ways in which our society incentivizes couples w/ children; people without either pay more for their share of housing, fewer economies of scale in food, and a number of other expenses reduced for families. Honestly, we need to stop thinking about "did I get mine" and think about the best solution for our civilization.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - notch898a 4y ago
    [flagged]
- Longlius 4y ago
  The boomers weren't really the generation that failed to have children. The main issue atm is that zoomers are generally the children of gen X and while gen X did produce children, gen X was also a small generation because their parents were born during Great Depression when birth rates were depressed. So even though gen X produced ~2 children on average, there simply weren't enough of them to produce the same echo boom the boomers did with the millennials. Millennials are the real toss-up at the moment. That generation had a systemic problem with youth unemployment that disrupted family formation and now the oldest of them are reaching the point of being too old to have children. However, the middle millennials and young millennials are still young enough to produce children and we've seen the birth rate tick up slightly over the last year as they finally have secure enough incomes to start making babies. This is only a modest gain though and it'll take decades for the children of millennials to be old enough to influence the labor market. tl;dr this stuff has roots so deep that the people who 'created' the problem are probably not even alive anymore.
  - shostack 4y ago
    Don't forget housing and inflation related issues getting in the way of people starting families. Hard to prioritize that when you lack stable income, enough space, or major quality of life changes as a result of the added expense.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
I’m extremely surprised the forecast didn’t take demographics into account? What is going on? Is this just some excel that extrapolates a random change from the last reported number ?
- rr888 4y ago
  Presumably demographics are a longer term trend where a monthly forecast would be based on recent trends.

by rr888 4y ago

notch898a 4y ago

[flagged]

ls612 4y ago
If you raised your kids well it’ll be much better having them in your life in old age than not having them.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Kids are nice but -$250-500k you need to create the tax generation machine for the other boomers is a lot of money and methinks that should be reflected in the retirement benefits no? Why should the boomer who created the labor force that funds the other boomers not be allocated retirement such that they come closer to break even with the others on the investment? This seems like a huge free rider problem. Either spend $250k plus taxes and raise the kid, or just spend taxes charged for other kids. The latter is far cheaper and thus the incentive is to not have any kids yourself while relying on others to have them so you can get that sweet sweet retirement money when the IRS man extracts it from them.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-make-more-money.html https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-ma... > "Flash forward two decades later, and the comparisons look similar. In 2010, men with children earned a median income of $40,947, and those without earned $29,904. Mothers earned a median income of $24,350, and those who didn't have children earned $24,244." Now of course there are a lot of confounding factors here, but for an averaging of the median to a two-income household this means households with children earn "$65,297", while those without earn "$54,148". And those increased incomes means a larger social security check to spend in their old age.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Wouldn't the appropriate comparison here be equal income earners with and without kids? The former paid a greater tax into social security, in effect, as they made the larger investment once you include raising the tax generation machine.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Is it fair to compare equal income earners with and without kids though? How much of each earners income is because of, or despite, having children? I think it would be better to compare not based on income, but on other demographic factors such as work locale, job duties, career trajectories, education, partner, etcetera. That would show to what extent having kids is a net benefit or liability.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I think the wholistic benefit of children is an entirely different question.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Sure, but part of that, for men at least, is a direct financial benefit (the fatherhood bonus). Of course there's also the motherhood penalty. These things have to be factored into the equation.
  - jrpt 4y ago
    People with children already have gotten lots of benefits over the years: child tax credits, public education paid for by the rest of society (including people who never had children), etc. It’s pretty entitled to now ask for extra social security too because you had kids when you were younger.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Lol you cannot possibly think the taxes you pay for other peoples kids is anywhere close to the cost you pay to raise a kid yourself subtracting the tax differential. They wouldn't be asking for more, they'd be asking to just not get so much less! You are not getting "extra" social security because you start in the hole -$200k+ paying into social security in the form of raising the earner who pays the boomers. It seems entitled to free ride off that cost difference while still getting an equal share of the social security payment from the child of the boomers.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        It doesn't cost poor people anywhere near $250k - $500k to raise a child though. This may be a median price to raise a child, but this median includes money spent by the upper middle class on their children along with genuinely wealthy families. Childless retirees are probably less likely to lobby for things like reduced immigration and tariffs than retirees with children. Reduced immigration and tariffs boost the paychecks of retirees' children while making things more expensive for all retirees (including those who never had children). Is this fair? Social security income is contingent on how much you paid into the system. Not how much your children pay into the system. What more workers add to the system is a decrease in supply-side inflation.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I think you may have some misconceptions about social security. It's funded by your kids. It's almost like a pyramid scheme, but not quite. It's a common misconception that the money you get is actually like some sort of direct investment that is stored or whatever from what you pay in. Actually what you pay in is going, amongst other places, straight to your retired parents and their kin. When nobody has kids social security just dies. You get, in value, basically nothing for your retirement. Maybe some money is left but even then all you can buy with it is whatever is still being produced (very little if everybody is old) or already stored. Raising children is the single biggest investment/contribution in social security, and compared to someone who doesn't do that you basically start in the hole a six figure sum in the social security piggybank. >Not how much your children pay into the system I'm sorry but this is 100% incorrect. If our children don't pay into the system we get nothing. Social security is almost ENTIRELY dependent on how much our children pay into the system. >It doesn't cost poor people anywhere near $250k - $500k to raise a child though. This may be a median price to raise a child, but this median includes money spent by the upper middle class on their children along with genuinely wealthy families. Not to be snarky but I don't think you understand what median means. Upper crust wealthy, by definition, are not included in the median. Median would be the 50th percentile spender in effect. If you want to argue that those who vote for or against immigration should be suitably adjusted, I think that is a seperate question than adjustment for raising the tax engines.
  - gymbeaux 4y ago
    Yeah, generally speaking the US does not incentivize its citizens to have kids. Any other first-world country will at least give you free healthcare and maternity leave. Some give paternity leave and let you work fewer hours (for proportionally-less pay) if you are a parent. So if I have a child in the Netherlands, it costs me nothing (doctor checkups, delivery in the hospital, vaccinations, etc.), I get free PTO, and I get to go to a 4 or 3-day workweek. If I have a child in the US, I have to pay my deductible/coinsurance on medical costs, probably still ends up being several grand at least, get no paid time off and will be lucky to get unpaid time off for more than a week or two, still have to choose between 40 hours/week working or unemployment/self-employment, and I get to wonder if my child will come home from school every day. Oh, and I get to make a 401k withdrawal to put them through college unless they are top of their class or really good at sports… Why the fuck would I raise a child in the US?
    - notch898a 4y ago
      This is such a contentious topic in the US that my post was flagged for merely pointing out this kind of problem. The attitude is basically once you have the kid, get fucked and pay and then we'll tax the hell out of the kid thank you very much for your investment. It's incredibly easy to be "selfless" when the other guy is making the lions share of the investment and you still get your full share of social security receipts.
      - gymbeaux 4y ago
        I haven't been here for very long, but it seems like a place that tries to be "better than reddit", and I do think in general the quality of the comments and discussions are higher, it's not just low-effort "you're wrong and you suck" stuff, but actual rhetoric. I like it, but as you've seen, some people will still be petty and do things like report comments they don't agree with. It's easier to ignore the comment and move on than to downvote it or report it. This is a website. Who the hell cares.
bombcar 4y ago
It's not entirely true, but "only poors have kids" and so I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the SS budget comes from income earners with few or no kids. Entirely removing the SS cap would fix it.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> "Does a boomer get any better retirement benefits if they raised a child?" This is the sentiment you seem to want to express. Plenty of people have children without raising them. And vice versa for foster and adoptive parents. Also, everyone who rents or owns housing pays taxes to support schools, WIC, and the like. Plus the dependent tax breaks and tax refunds. Which happen early on, not later, and so have a greater value than retirement benefits which come later in life. And to round it out, people with children tend to live longer than those without children. Which directly impacts SS and Medicare use: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-kids-live-longer-2017042411562 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-kids-live-longer-20...
- notch898a 4y ago
  You're right. Should have said raised. No one says "I'm gonna have a kid because it's cheaper than paying the taxes." It's cheaper to pay the taxes for WIC, etc. Than pay for a kid and slightly lower taxes for WIC etc. The only persuasive argument I see here is the living longer bit, it's an interesting consideration I hadn't thought of.
edmundsauto 4y ago
This isn't a complete or healthy perspective. To address the former - childless people support a lot of things that benefit the next generation (schools, WIC, etc.) in their taxes. They do this because we as a society are better off for it. Additionally, while SS is funded by "children of boomers", the childless people also paid into it while working and are entitled to their share. There are also countless ways in which our society incentivizes couples w/ children; people without either pay more for their share of housing, fewer economies of scale in food, and a number of other expenses reduced for families. Honestly, we need to stop thinking about "did I get mine" and think about the best solution for our civilization.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notch898a 4y ago
  [flagged]
Longlius 4y ago
The boomers weren't really the generation that failed to have children. The main issue atm is that zoomers are generally the children of gen X and while gen X did produce children, gen X was also a small generation because their parents were born during Great Depression when birth rates were depressed. So even though gen X produced ~2 children on average, there simply weren't enough of them to produce the same echo boom the boomers did with the millennials. Millennials are the real toss-up at the moment. That generation had a systemic problem with youth unemployment that disrupted family formation and now the oldest of them are reaching the point of being too old to have children. However, the middle millennials and young millennials are still young enough to produce children and we've seen the birth rate tick up slightly over the last year as they finally have secure enough incomes to start making babies. This is only a modest gain though and it'll take decades for the children of millennials to be old enough to influence the labor market. tl;dr this stuff has roots so deep that the people who 'created' the problem are probably not even alive anymore.
- shostack 4y ago
  Don't forget housing and inflation related issues getting in the way of people starting families. Hard to prioritize that when you lack stable income, enough space, or major quality of life changes as a result of the added expense.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

I’m extremely surprised the forecast didn’t take demographics into account? What is going on? Is this just some excel that extrapolates a random change from the last reported number ?

rr888 4y ago
Presumably demographics are a longer term trend where a monthly forecast would be based on recent trends.