4 ms·

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

judge2020 3y ago
The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.
- Veraticus 3y ago
  If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks. And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck. It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spouse or children. In fact I agree that it's better now that women are no longer literally forced to find a man to live separate from their parents. It's just bad that capitalism made it impossible to be a mother without two incomes (as in, forcing both parental figures to have enough of an income to provide for the child). To add, this is partially what the school system is for - not just to educate the workforce of the future, but to babysit them during the day so that their parents can work their 9-5.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth. Worse for whom? For women personally, probably. For nations? For the species? I don't know.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      I thought nations and the species were composed of women, so what is worse for women is probably worse for them too. Or are women outside of nations and the species?
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        Come on. Life depends on reproduction to sustain itself. That's completely at odds with the current status quo where both men and women postpone or even forgo reproduction for economic reasons. How are you supposed to have a human race if it doesn't reproduce? What's good for the individual does not necessarily align with what's good for the collective.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline Already happening. Even in developing countries. Less productive young people in the work force, more unproductive old people depending on social security and whatnot. Everything's gonna be fine until the money runs out. Gigantic economic disaster in the making. There is no nation without natalism. > This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's It will. As will every other country if nothing is done to heavily incentivize motherhood and family formation. When I say this people usually downvote me to oblivion for some reason. Maybe they think I'm making this up. Well, I'm not. They should read what actual japanese government officials have been saying about this. They use the word "extinction".
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Let me explain then. Automation, increased productivity continue to rise at least as fast. Not clear we won't be fine simply because of that. And No we do not have to chase the Malthusian Catastrophe to 'win'. We can do it other ways. Quelling consumerism. Reigning in capitalism. Sensibly designing cities. The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan, which is on the face of it a racist policy. Not a real strong point in the argument. Japan will persist, with a normal mix of people from around the world creating a new culture that they want. Not something frozen in time that the octogenarians of Japan worship and cling onto.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan > Japan will persist > with a normal mix of people from around the world > creating a new culture So what you're saying is the actual japanese people will go extinct and all the immigrants who actually have children will replace them and create a new japanese culture. And you see nothing wrong with that at all.
      - Veraticus 3y ago
        Why would there be anything wrong with it? This is the way cultures and people have changed since time immemorial.

judge2020 3y ago

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth. I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.

Veraticus 3y ago
If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks. And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.
- judge2020 3y ago
  I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck. It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spouse or children. In fact I agree that it's better now that women are no longer literally forced to find a man to live separate from their parents. It's just bad that capitalism made it impossible to be a mother without two incomes (as in, forcing both parental figures to have enough of an income to provide for the child). To add, this is partially what the school system is for - not just to educate the workforce of the future, but to babysit them during the day so that their parents can work their 9-5.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth. Worse for whom? For women personally, probably. For nations? For the species? I don't know.
  - Veraticus 3y ago
    I thought nations and the species were composed of women, so what is worse for women is probably worse for them too. Or are women outside of nations and the species?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Come on. Life depends on reproduction to sustain itself. That's completely at odds with the current status quo where both men and women postpone or even forgo reproduction for economic reasons. How are you supposed to have a human race if it doesn't reproduce? What's good for the individual does not necessarily align with what's good for the collective.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline Already happening. Even in developing countries. Less productive young people in the work force, more unproductive old people depending on social security and whatnot. Everything's gonna be fine until the money runs out. Gigantic economic disaster in the making. There is no nation without natalism. > This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's It will. As will every other country if nothing is done to heavily incentivize motherhood and family formation. When I say this people usually downvote me to oblivion for some reason. Maybe they think I'm making this up. Well, I'm not. They should read what actual japanese government officials have been saying about this. They use the word "extinction".
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Let me explain then. Automation, increased productivity continue to rise at least as fast. Not clear we won't be fine simply because of that. And No we do not have to chase the Malthusian Catastrophe to 'win'. We can do it other ways. Quelling consumerism. Reigning in capitalism. Sensibly designing cities. The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan, which is on the face of it a racist policy. Not a real strong point in the argument. Japan will persist, with a normal mix of people from around the world creating a new culture that they want. Not something frozen in time that the octogenarians of Japan worship and cling onto.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan > Japan will persist > with a normal mix of people from around the world > creating a new culture So what you're saying is the actual japanese people will go extinct and all the immigrants who actually have children will replace them and create a new japanese culture. And you see nothing wrong with that at all.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      Why would there be anything wrong with it? This is the way cultures and people have changed since time immemorial.