6 ms·

i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families screw taking out loans to feed money to the college cartels the equivalent of any bachelors degree is a

i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families screw taking out loans to feed money to the college cartels the equivalent of any bachelors degree is available online, minus lab hours - but you can actually get that if you really want it have people finish with their education by or before ~18 y/o. people who would have earned meritocratic scholarships can instead be subsidized to start a family and have children for the next ~10 years, this would allow more of the best to have more children -> a breeding experiment with a good outcome

dabluecaboose 4y ago
>i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families I remember seeing a proposal to that effect in Texas that was decried as "Handmaid's Tale" or something similarly trite We really do need to incentivize families, or we'll end up like China and Russia with their impending demographic implosions.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Who is we here?
  - dabluecaboose 4y ago
    We as in the US, I'm sorry. I was unclear. There are arguments that our large amount of incoming immigration has shielded us from demographic decline, but I don't think it's wise to rely on that forever.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      US isn't on track to have any issues with this. We already subsidize children in massive ways. Half of my property tax goes to schools. Happy to give it, but it is a LOT of money (I don't have kids).
      - sangnoir 4y ago
        > Happy to give it, but it is a LOT of money (I don't have kids). All workers pay lots of money into Social Security but are not retired - that's the deal we get for living in society - some of our tax money gets spent on things we don't directly benefit from, or possibly oppose. Pacifists taxes fund the war machine.
        roflyear 4y ago
        I'm not making an argument against it, I'm just saying I already spend an insane amount of my money subsidizing kids, and the US already has pretty good policies for this.
        sangnoir 4y ago
        You were pretty clear you aren't against it. I was just pointing out that it's the norm, not an exception for kids
greggsy 4y ago
Australia has had a ‘baby bonus’ for about 20 years now. It’s something like $2000 now, and is intended to subsidise the costs of child rearing, and bolster the country’s fertility rate. It received some criticism when a small number of parents were reported to have bought flat screen TVs, but that was just a politicised attack on welfare recipients, who obviously don’t deserve our hard earned tax dollars, and should continue suffering in abject destitution.
- Brybry 4y ago
  The US has had a child tax credit since 1997.[1] And (sometimes) personal exemptions for married couples since 1913. And (sometimes) an exemption or credit for dependents since 1917. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_States)#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_State... [2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c1148/c1148.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c1148/c1148.pdf [pdf]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
paxys 4y ago
It's going to happen. Societies around the world are going to start to realize that babies are the most valuable commodity for their continued survival, and parents will have to be incentivized well beyond the couple thousand dollars or so that is the norm today.
- js8 4y ago
  What "survival" are you talking about? There are more than 8 billion humans on Earth, more than at any point in history, in fact to the point where other ecosystems of the planet are threatened.
  - paxys 4y ago
    In most developed societies fewer and fewer babies are being born every year, well below the replacement number. The 8 billion people are going to age and will soon be unable to work. Who is going to support them? The current band-aid fix is importing people from developing countries. But those countries themselves will run into the same problem soon enough.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      With gains in worker productivity, we should be able to support more people per worker than we previously did. The strain on the economy is a problem of failure to adapt economic policy, not intrinsic to population growth leveling out. Infinite population growth was never going to be sustainable. If you went back in time and told Malthus that in sufficiently prosperous societies people ended up having fewer children, he would have jumped for joy, as it's vastly preferable to society growing until all resources are depleted, then dying off in droves due to overpopulation.
    - mdorazio 4y ago
      This is a problem of broken economic models that assume infinite population growth. Not a problem of “societies” or of “survival”. Economics will need to change and hopefully we will reach a global population level that is more sustainable. Here’s a thought: in the mid-1970s the global population was half what it is today. Did the world desperately need double the population it had back then or was society doing just fine?
kevviiinn 4y ago
>lab hours - but you can actually get that if you really want it Where, exactly, are you going to get wet lab experience without a degree
- stainablesteel 4y ago
  you don't need a degree to get wet lab experience, you get it while getting the degree you can google how to do things and buy the appropriate stuff, or find internships, its not impossible
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    >you get it while getting the degree Yes, that was my point
diveandfight 4y ago
Korea already provides a subsidy of ~$230/month to families with infants in their first year. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1163341684/south-korea-fertility-rate https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1163341684/south-korea-fertil...
- LeanderK 4y ago
  this doesn't seem like a lot tbh. What is it afterwards? Is it expected that the woman abandons her job and only cares for the child? There are a lot of costs involved
- antisthenes 4y ago
  Laughable peanuts. What's the realistic burden of raising a child from 0 to 22 years in a developed country (including college)? $300-500k last I checked, possibly even more. How much of that is covered by that $230 subsidy?
  - seoulmetro 4y ago
    It's not peanuts. It's around 15% of the average yearly net salary of younger workers. >$300-500k last I checked, possibly even more. Not in Korea. Probably $100k-$250k.
roflyear 4y ago
> i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families Why?
- stainablesteel 4y ago
  population collapse is a big issue for the world. in the west we've become too savvy with just importing people to offset our falling birth rate, but this is causing lower birth rates and high brain drain in the countries we source from. its a global issue
  - biftek 4y ago
    that's arguably a good thing
    - stainablesteel 4y ago
      no its a terrible thing, you've been misinformed, likely by a teacher or professor. most of us have been at some point on this issue. if a population pyramid is too top heavy, the economy won't be able to function resources are getting more abundant as we get better at using them, not less, and we are at no risk whatsoever of running out of them. people are producing more resources per value with their work than ever before and its only increasing.
      - biftek 4y ago
        > people are producing more resources per value with their work than ever before and its only increasing "Number has never gone down, therefor number will always go up" is an incredibly naive argument
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Can't grow forever, and we shouldn't support forever growth.
    - stainablesteel 4y ago

dabluecaboose 4y ago

>i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families I remember seeing a proposal to that effect in Texas that was decried as "Handmaid's Tale" or something similarly trite We really do need to incentivize families, or we'll end up like China and Russia with their impending demographic implosions.

roflyear 4y ago
Who is we here?
- dabluecaboose 4y ago
  We as in the US, I'm sorry. I was unclear. There are arguments that our large amount of incoming immigration has shielded us from demographic decline, but I don't think it's wise to rely on that forever.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    US isn't on track to have any issues with this. We already subsidize children in massive ways. Half of my property tax goes to schools. Happy to give it, but it is a LOT of money (I don't have kids).
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > Happy to give it, but it is a LOT of money (I don't have kids). All workers pay lots of money into Social Security but are not retired - that's the deal we get for living in society - some of our tax money gets spent on things we don't directly benefit from, or possibly oppose. Pacifists taxes fund the war machine.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        I'm not making an argument against it, I'm just saying I already spend an insane amount of my money subsidizing kids, and the US already has pretty good policies for this.
        sangnoir 4y ago
        You were pretty clear you aren't against it. I was just pointing out that it's the norm, not an exception for kids

greggsy 4y ago

Australia has had a ‘baby bonus’ for about 20 years now. It’s something like $2000 now, and is intended to subsidise the costs of child rearing, and bolster the country’s fertility rate. It received some criticism when a small number of parents were reported to have bought flat screen TVs, but that was just a politicised attack on welfare recipients, who obviously don’t deserve our hard earned tax dollars, and should continue suffering in abject destitution.

Brybry 4y ago
The US has had a child tax credit since 1997.[1] And (sometimes) personal exemptions for married couples since 1913. And (sometimes) an exemption or credit for dependents since 1917. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_States)#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit_(United_State... [2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c1148/c1148.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c1148/c1148.pdf [pdf]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

paxys 4y ago

It's going to happen. Societies around the world are going to start to realize that babies are the most valuable commodity for their continued survival, and parents will have to be incentivized well beyond the couple thousand dollars or so that is the norm today.

js8 4y ago
What "survival" are you talking about? There are more than 8 billion humans on Earth, more than at any point in history, in fact to the point where other ecosystems of the planet are threatened.
- paxys 4y ago
  In most developed societies fewer and fewer babies are being born every year, well below the replacement number. The 8 billion people are going to age and will soon be unable to work. Who is going to support them? The current band-aid fix is importing people from developing countries. But those countries themselves will run into the same problem soon enough.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    With gains in worker productivity, we should be able to support more people per worker than we previously did. The strain on the economy is a problem of failure to adapt economic policy, not intrinsic to population growth leveling out. Infinite population growth was never going to be sustainable. If you went back in time and told Malthus that in sufficiently prosperous societies people ended up having fewer children, he would have jumped for joy, as it's vastly preferable to society growing until all resources are depleted, then dying off in droves due to overpopulation.
  - mdorazio 4y ago
    This is a problem of broken economic models that assume infinite population growth. Not a problem of “societies” or of “survival”. Economics will need to change and hopefully we will reach a global population level that is more sustainable. Here’s a thought: in the mid-1970s the global population was half what it is today. Did the world desperately need double the population it had back then or was society doing just fine?

kevviiinn 4y ago

>lab hours - but you can actually get that if you really want it Where, exactly, are you going to get wet lab experience without a degree

stainablesteel 4y ago
you don't need a degree to get wet lab experience, you get it while getting the degree you can google how to do things and buy the appropriate stuff, or find internships, its not impossible
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  >you get it while getting the degree Yes, that was my point

diveandfight 4y ago

Korea already provides a subsidy of ~$230/month to families with infants in their first year. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1163341684/south-korea-fertility-rate https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1163341684/south-korea-fertil...

LeanderK 4y ago
this doesn't seem like a lot tbh. What is it afterwards? Is it expected that the woman abandons her job and only cares for the child? There are a lot of costs involved
antisthenes 4y ago
Laughable peanuts. What's the realistic burden of raising a child from 0 to 22 years in a developed country (including college)? $300-500k last I checked, possibly even more. How much of that is covered by that $230 subsidy?
- seoulmetro 4y ago
  It's not peanuts. It's around 15% of the average yearly net salary of younger workers. >$300-500k last I checked, possibly even more. Not in Korea. Probably $100k-$250k.

roflyear 4y ago

> i'd like to see subsidies for people to start families Why?

stainablesteel 4y ago
population collapse is a big issue for the world. in the west we've become too savvy with just importing people to offset our falling birth rate, but this is causing lower birth rates and high brain drain in the countries we source from. its a global issue
- biftek 4y ago
  that's arguably a good thing
  - stainablesteel 4y ago
    no its a terrible thing, you've been misinformed, likely by a teacher or professor. most of us have been at some point on this issue. if a population pyramid is too top heavy, the economy won't be able to function resources are getting more abundant as we get better at using them, not less, and we are at no risk whatsoever of running out of them. people are producing more resources per value with their work than ever before and its only increasing.
    - biftek 4y ago
      > people are producing more resources per value with their work than ever before and its only increasing "Number has never gone down, therefor number will always go up" is an incredibly naive argument
- roflyear 4y ago
  Can't grow forever, and we shouldn't support forever growth.
  - stainablesteel 4y ago