4 ms·

This is hard to read. The author suggests that the alternatives to having children are: -More immigrants -More pension contributions The former overlooks the

by Tade0 2y ago

This is hard to read. The author suggests that the alternatives to having children are: -More immigrants -More pension contributions The former overlooks the fact that those are just someone else's children, so the suggestion appears to be to drain other countries off of their workforce - provided it even exists as fertility rates have been plummeting across the board. The latter has been, in a way, tried in some places in Europe and net effect is birth rates plummeting and an increase in illegal employment. In any case we're way past talking about going above replacement fertility - currently the conversation is focused on preventing a downward spiral that will negatively affect everyone's quality of life.

drivebyhooting 2y ago
Increased pension contribution also assumes immigrant labor to administer care. Many people in their old age will need a lot of assistance. No amount of savings and judicious planning will help of there’s a labor shortage. We’d have to pay $1500/hour for a day nurse.
- Tade0 2y ago
  Never mind the cost! As anyone with relatives who need care can attest, you can't really buy being treated like a human being when you're at your weakest. Having children is of course no guarantee, but relationships overall are one's best bet to have at least one person giving a damn about you.
delfinom 2y ago
Yea it's an article with an agenda. The western economic model has long been designed as a ponzi scheme.
mindslight 2y ago
It's so hard to read because the author is still thoroughly steeped in their overabstracted models - eg this whole "economic growth" thing works as a metric, but not a target. They noticed a crack starting to form in one of their assumptions, but instead of this causing them to examine the rest and wonder what else they might be missing, they're merely entertaining dropping that single one while doubling down on the rest.
- Tade0 2y ago
  That is my sentiment as well. It's as if they assumed all else would remain equal, even though we know that's not the case. It's like when Ben Shapiro said that if people were really anticipating warming oceans to engulf coastal cities, they would be selling their properties, to which one man rebutted with "To whom? To fucking Aquaman?".
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Yeah, it's tough because it feels like more trashing and churn that will never lead to any sort of understanding, just like where they had come from. Optimizing for line-goes-up is exactly how we got to this place where most women are forced to work full time. Then if they want kids, their family has to scavenge that now-additional time from somewhere. It's more egalitarian for sure, but the economic system has transmuted it into equality of losing. I don't know if that rebuttal about oceanfront property really makes sense - even if you're concerned today about future destruction, you can generally find a buyer who won't be. I think the situation is more like people will happily continue enjoying what they have, and plan on being bailed out when something catastrophic does happen. There are also ways to get the equity out of the properties without having to sell them (eg reverse mortgage), and the carrying costs likely aren't that high having been mortgaged under ZIRP. So like the rest of the property bubble, the calculus is ongoing mortgage payment versus expected appreciation, not any type of core asset value.
johnea 2y ago
So basically, you're admitting that it is a ponzi scheme. That "everyone's quality of life" is dependent on an ever increasing population. And, 8 billion people isn't enough? What about 10 billion? 12 billion? Every argument in favor of this ever increasing population is based on an imaginary structure called finance. While completely ignoring a physically real structure called nature. At what point does the imaginary structure acknowledge it's impact on the real structure? What is the capitalist plan in identifying when the population is large enough, and instituting a transition at that point? The simple answer is of course, never. That's what makes it a ponzi scheme. Even looking at historical trends doesn't support the argument that increased population supports "everyone's quality of life". The US population has approx. doubled in the last 50 years, and yet the economic position/buying power of almost all people have diminished in that same time. Instead all economic growth in that period has gone to the equity class, with no mitigation of this trend in sight. This really brings us to the questions of: Who is "everybody"? and What constitutes their "quality of life"? Does another billion really improve Elon's? There's more than enough prosperity, but it's very unequally distributed. Apaparently heating the atmoshpere, melting the poles, clear cutting the rain forrests, extincting many species, depleting fresh water supplies, depleting soil fertility is all on the table, but spreading the wealth around so retiring old people can live indoors is absolutely not an option.
- Tade0 2y ago
  Please read the last paragraph of my previous comment.

by Tade0 2y ago

drivebyhooting 2y ago

Increased pension contribution also assumes immigrant labor to administer care. Many people in their old age will need a lot of assistance. No amount of savings and judicious planning will help of there’s a labor shortage. We’d have to pay $1500/hour for a day nurse.

Tade0 2y ago
Never mind the cost! As anyone with relatives who need care can attest, you can't really buy being treated like a human being when you're at your weakest. Having children is of course no guarantee, but relationships overall are one's best bet to have at least one person giving a damn about you.

delfinom 2y ago

Yea it's an article with an agenda. The western economic model has long been designed as a ponzi scheme.

mindslight 2y ago

It's so hard to read because the author is still thoroughly steeped in their overabstracted models - eg this whole "economic growth" thing works as a metric, but not a target. They noticed a crack starting to form in one of their assumptions, but instead of this causing them to examine the rest and wonder what else they might be missing, they're merely entertaining dropping that single one while doubling down on the rest.

Tade0 2y ago
That is my sentiment as well. It's as if they assumed all else would remain equal, even though we know that's not the case. It's like when Ben Shapiro said that if people were really anticipating warming oceans to engulf coastal cities, they would be selling their properties, to which one man rebutted with "To whom? To fucking Aquaman?".
- mindslight 2y ago
  Yeah, it's tough because it feels like more trashing and churn that will never lead to any sort of understanding, just like where they had come from. Optimizing for line-goes-up is exactly how we got to this place where most women are forced to work full time. Then if they want kids, their family has to scavenge that now-additional time from somewhere. It's more egalitarian for sure, but the economic system has transmuted it into equality of losing. I don't know if that rebuttal about oceanfront property really makes sense - even if you're concerned today about future destruction, you can generally find a buyer who won't be. I think the situation is more like people will happily continue enjoying what they have, and plan on being bailed out when something catastrophic does happen. There are also ways to get the equity out of the properties without having to sell them (eg reverse mortgage), and the carrying costs likely aren't that high having been mortgaged under ZIRP. So like the rest of the property bubble, the calculus is ongoing mortgage payment versus expected appreciation, not any type of core asset value.

johnea 2y ago

So basically, you're admitting that it is a ponzi scheme. That "everyone's quality of life" is dependent on an ever increasing population. And, 8 billion people isn't enough? What about 10 billion? 12 billion? Every argument in favor of this ever increasing population is based on an imaginary structure called finance. While completely ignoring a physically real structure called nature. At what point does the imaginary structure acknowledge it's impact on the real structure? What is the capitalist plan in identifying when the population is large enough, and instituting a transition at that point? The simple answer is of course, never. That's what makes it a ponzi scheme. Even looking at historical trends doesn't support the argument that increased population supports "everyone's quality of life". The US population has approx. doubled in the last 50 years, and yet the economic position/buying power of almost all people have diminished in that same time. Instead all economic growth in that period has gone to the equity class, with no mitigation of this trend in sight. This really brings us to the questions of: Who is "everybody"? and What constitutes their "quality of life"? Does another billion really improve Elon's? There's more than enough prosperity, but it's very unequally distributed. Apaparently heating the atmoshpere, melting the poles, clear cutting the rain forrests, extincting many species, depleting fresh water supplies, depleting soil fertility is all on the table, but spreading the wealth around so retiring old people can live indoors is absolutely not an option.

Tade0 2y ago
Please read the last paragraph of my previous comment.