4 ms·

We've allowed everything in life to be assigned a monetary value and it turns out that kids have a very low RoI

by munk-a 3y ago

baq 3y ago
yeah children used to be the best investment, nowadays in developed countries it seems a lot of young people think the opposite, and they have good reasons to. it's going to be a sad, empty and quiet world in the west a few decades in the future.
ilkke 3y ago
Only in the short-term, which is exactly the problem. Squeeze more now and don't worry about the long-term consequences. "Après nous, le déluge"
- justrealist 3y ago
  Well more concretely, it's that the people paying the cost do not directly reap the benefits of the investment. A child has extremely high long-term ROI for the economy. But (for good reasons) you can't take out a loan in the name of a future child for a larger house now. Someone (aka) the government needs to be future-sighted enough to make the investment. Unfortunately, governments are run by people who will individually not reap political benefit for good outcomes 30+ years in the future.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    > governments are run by people who will individually not reap political benefit for good outcomes 30+ years in the future. Study proposal: Are there more family-friendly policies in hereditary monarchies (which have longer incentive horizon than democratically elected politicians do)? Are birthrates higher in kingdoms?
  - WanderPanda 3y ago
    I don't agree that an incremental human is a big benefit for The Economy. In a steady state it should be mostly neutral in terms of the per capita GDP (of course there are non-linearities with things like scientific discoveries scaling to all of humanity). Even considering taxes an incremental average human should have no impact on the total welfare of society. In a changing demographic pyramid (inverting) I can agree to your point though because the child will be forced to pay an even higher amount towards the wealth distribution towards the care of (child-less) older people. I think the incentives could be fixed in a simple (not easy) way, by not letting childless people benefit from the safety net spanned by children of other people.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      > I think the incentives could be fixed in a simple (not easy) way, by not letting childless people benefit from the safety net spanned by children of other people. Yeah this is the only serious fix, but once childless people become a large % of the electorate (aka it's a real problem), they can vote against assuming responsibility for the problem they created... and your country is basically in an inescapable doom loop.
      - munk-a 3y ago
        That'd be an extremely complicated fix though. Are sterile people automatically excluded from old age benefits? What about someone who suffered from assault and finds reproduction traumatic? What about someone who simply finds reproduction repulsive? What about conscientious objectors who think that over population is a serious issue and refuse on moral grounds? What about people with disorders or genetic aberrations that they don't wish to pass on? What about women with physical defects that make pregnancy extremely dangerous? (some heart conditions for instance) That road is extremely grey and has a lot of really difficult edge cases you'll need to sort out. Also - if we just need a next generation in the workforce immigration is an excellent option for the time being.
        WanderPanda 3y ago
        First of all there is still adoption for many of the points you raise. Secondly, is it justified to risk societal collapse to right these naturally occurring wrongs/unjustnesses? It‘s a hard question especially because we don‘t/can‘t have a sound theory that predicts the future. I believe only society/country scale evolution can figure this out. IMO thats btw. one of the downsides of the EU, eliminating the differences/competition between countries stalling this kind of evolutionary truth seeking process
pyuser583 3y ago
This really defines the problem. (1) we approach child rearing as an economic proposition, and (2) it doesn’t make sense to as an economic proposition. But the more we fight the second proposition, the more we reinforce the first. Trying to make kids less expensive still treats this as a financial calculation. When you ask “why have kids?” there needs to be a real answer, and I don’t think “the economic public good” is going to convince people.
- pixl97 3y ago
  That's why religions tend to assign child rearing a extentential "Go straight to hell" punishment if you don't do it. It turns out it's a great way to keep your religion around.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    Although many religions encourage the raising of families more than secular culture does, I have not really seen this "have kids or go to hell" thing you're describing. They don't want you to sleep around, and in some religions they don't want you to use birth control, but there's not a lot actively saying you need to have kids. Sometimes having children is strongly implied for those who follow the path of marriage (and may officially even be the purpose of that), but there are typically also paths where people are expected to remain celibate. Arguably, say in the Catholic church, there is too much emphasis on the latter, what with celibate clergy and everything. In LDS I would say family is more of an ideal. This extends even into the theology. Catholics say "'til death do us part", but LDS say husband and wife go to heaven together and stay married there forever. Hinduism overall seems less obsessed with correct behavior (it has dharma, of course, but no simple hell thing), but it also provides both householder and ascetic paths. I think religions sort of take it for granted that enough people will want to get married, and that if you get married you'll have kids. Instead they're worried about self control. Little did they anticipate that the superego would maintain its iron grip without help, that the rationally-planning ego would have the means and motive to skip kids entirely, and that the id would get so distracted with hatred of other people that it wouldn't even try to bring them together, even in unwise or destructive ways. But that's where we are.

We've allowed everything in life to be assigned a monetary value and it turns out that kids have a very low RoI

by munk-a 3y ago

We've allowed everything in life to be assigned a monetary value and it turns out that kids have a very low RoI

baq 3y ago

yeah children used to be the best investment, nowadays in developed countries it seems a lot of young people think the opposite, and they have good reasons to. it's going to be a sad, empty and quiet world in the west a few decades in the future.

ilkke 3y ago

Only in the short-term, which is exactly the problem. Squeeze more now and don't worry about the long-term consequences. "Après nous, le déluge"

justrealist 3y ago
Well more concretely, it's that the people paying the cost do not directly reap the benefits of the investment. A child has extremely high long-term ROI for the economy. But (for good reasons) you can't take out a loan in the name of a future child for a larger house now. Someone (aka) the government needs to be future-sighted enough to make the investment. Unfortunately, governments are run by people who will individually not reap political benefit for good outcomes 30+ years in the future.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  > governments are run by people who will individually not reap political benefit for good outcomes 30+ years in the future. Study proposal: Are there more family-friendly policies in hereditary monarchies (which have longer incentive horizon than democratically elected politicians do)? Are birthrates higher in kingdoms?
- WanderPanda 3y ago
  I don't agree that an incremental human is a big benefit for The Economy. In a steady state it should be mostly neutral in terms of the per capita GDP (of course there are non-linearities with things like scientific discoveries scaling to all of humanity). Even considering taxes an incremental average human should have no impact on the total welfare of society. In a changing demographic pyramid (inverting) I can agree to your point though because the child will be forced to pay an even higher amount towards the wealth distribution towards the care of (child-less) older people. I think the incentives could be fixed in a simple (not easy) way, by not letting childless people benefit from the safety net spanned by children of other people.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > I think the incentives could be fixed in a simple (not easy) way, by not letting childless people benefit from the safety net spanned by children of other people. Yeah this is the only serious fix, but once childless people become a large % of the electorate (aka it's a real problem), they can vote against assuming responsibility for the problem they created... and your country is basically in an inescapable doom loop.
    - munk-a 3y ago
      That'd be an extremely complicated fix though. Are sterile people automatically excluded from old age benefits? What about someone who suffered from assault and finds reproduction traumatic? What about someone who simply finds reproduction repulsive? What about conscientious objectors who think that over population is a serious issue and refuse on moral grounds? What about people with disorders or genetic aberrations that they don't wish to pass on? What about women with physical defects that make pregnancy extremely dangerous? (some heart conditions for instance) That road is extremely grey and has a lot of really difficult edge cases you'll need to sort out. Also - if we just need a next generation in the workforce immigration is an excellent option for the time being.
      - WanderPanda 3y ago
        First of all there is still adoption for many of the points you raise. Secondly, is it justified to risk societal collapse to right these naturally occurring wrongs/unjustnesses? It‘s a hard question especially because we don‘t/can‘t have a sound theory that predicts the future. I believe only society/country scale evolution can figure this out. IMO thats btw. one of the downsides of the EU, eliminating the differences/competition between countries stalling this kind of evolutionary truth seeking process

pyuser583 3y ago

This really defines the problem. (1) we approach child rearing as an economic proposition, and (2) it doesn’t make sense to as an economic proposition. But the more we fight the second proposition, the more we reinforce the first. Trying to make kids less expensive still treats this as a financial calculation. When you ask “why have kids?” there needs to be a real answer, and I don’t think “the economic public good” is going to convince people.

pixl97 3y ago
That's why religions tend to assign child rearing a extentential "Go straight to hell" punishment if you don't do it. It turns out it's a great way to keep your religion around.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  Although many religions encourage the raising of families more than secular culture does, I have not really seen this "have kids or go to hell" thing you're describing. They don't want you to sleep around, and in some religions they don't want you to use birth control, but there's not a lot actively saying you need to have kids. Sometimes having children is strongly implied for those who follow the path of marriage (and may officially even be the purpose of that), but there are typically also paths where people are expected to remain celibate. Arguably, say in the Catholic church, there is too much emphasis on the latter, what with celibate clergy and everything. In LDS I would say family is more of an ideal. This extends even into the theology. Catholics say "'til death do us part", but LDS say husband and wife go to heaven together and stay married there forever. Hinduism overall seems less obsessed with correct behavior (it has dharma, of course, but no simple hell thing), but it also provides both householder and ascetic paths. I think religions sort of take it for granted that enough people will want to get married, and that if you get married you'll have kids. Instead they're worried about self control. Little did they anticipate that the superego would maintain its iron grip without help, that the rationally-planning ego would have the means and motive to skip kids entirely, and that the id would get so distracted with hatred of other people that it wouldn't even try to bring them together, even in unwise or destructive ways. But that's where we are.