2 ms·

You're looking at the trees but missing the forest. Birth control is available in countries where women are having over 5 kids on average each despite that. Si

You're looking at the trees but missing the forest. Birth control is available in countries where women are having over 5 kids on average each despite that. Similarly, legalisation or the illegality of abortion has no significant effect on child birth rates. Availability of birth control (or abortion) alone doesn't explain the "big picture", it just alters it a little bit. These are Catholic and conservative talking points, not scientific theories with evidence, charts, graphs, and equations. Similarly, childbirth has always been dangerous, but is less dangerous now, so that has no explanatory power either. Etc... You're also confusing something else: Women's careers being interrupted by childbirth is the much closer to the truth. Women didn't work previously on anything but raising a family! In the economy/stress phase diagram, this is a different place, where a single income is no longer sufficient. THAT is the problem. If women are forced to enter the general workforce, then that alters the game-theoretic optimum for family planning. Similarly, the mere existence of a social safety net such as a government pension substantially alters the equation. Individual families are no longer incentivised to "invest" in their future by having kids themselves, because they expect "society to take care of it" with unemployment benefits and retirement funds. In the past, people had individual incentives to have kids, because that was their retirement plan.

lazide 2y ago
Not confused at all - both have to work because both can work. Supply increases, so ‘price’ decreases per person. Forest wise. Previously, women (unless celibate or okay having abortions a lot) had no choice but to spend time at home, which forced the market in that direction. And I’m also not confused about birth control availability. You’re confusing ‘theoretically available’ vs ‘socially acceptable available’, which those societies haven’t hit yet. Ideologically, they’re very resistant - but changing. Just like the changes in the US (starting to be possible in the 60’s) didn’t become the norm until the 80’s to 90’s or later. American Catholics have been okay with birth control since then (roughly), where South American Catholics are still against it. Which, notably, is when the US started to become more heavily two-income household dependent. And when wages stopped keeping up with growth. Without birth control being possible, none of it matters - which is why it being possible is actually important. And why we’ve been seeing steady change in societies since it has become possible.
CMCDragonkai 2y ago
Social security is going to go bankrupt, while cash savings get inflated away due to monetisation of the debt. So these expectations of government funded retirement may disappear quite quickly.

lazide 2y ago

Not confused at all - both have to work because both can work. Supply increases, so ‘price’ decreases per person. Forest wise. Previously, women (unless celibate or okay having abortions a lot) had no choice but to spend time at home, which forced the market in that direction. And I’m also not confused about birth control availability. You’re confusing ‘theoretically available’ vs ‘socially acceptable available’, which those societies haven’t hit yet. Ideologically, they’re very resistant - but changing. Just like the changes in the US (starting to be possible in the 60’s) didn’t become the norm until the 80’s to 90’s or later. American Catholics have been okay with birth control since then (roughly), where South American Catholics are still against it. Which, notably, is when the US started to become more heavily two-income household dependent. And when wages stopped keeping up with growth. Without birth control being possible, none of it matters - which is why it being possible is actually important. And why we’ve been seeing steady change in societies since it has become possible.

CMCDragonkai 2y ago

Social security is going to go bankrupt, while cash savings get inflated away due to monetisation of the debt. So these expectations of government funded retirement may disappear quite quickly.