6 ms·

Given the negative world wide trend with birthrates, this should be a priority with every developed country even if it eventually comes at the expense of elderl

Given the negative world wide trend with birthrates, this should be a priority with every developed country even if it eventually comes at the expense of elderly socialized healthcare.

seneca 11mo ago
We would be even better off subsidizing parents staying home with their own children. Unfortunately most subsidies have proven ineffective at nudging up birth rates.
- mritterhoff 11mo ago
  Why would that be better? I think you'd miss out on economies of scale and end up paying more.
- runako 11mo ago
  Those subsidies tend to be €X00 per month. I am not aware of any scheme that even attempted to replace 80% of forfeited wages. A subsidy that ends up with you having to move impoverish yourself is not going to have the desired effect.
- chaostheory 11mo ago
  No, we wouldn’t. This subsidy directly benefits the survival rate of children while universal basic income is too broad. healthcare is more affordable than UBI.
- Avshalom 11mo ago
  In an emotional development sort of way: maybe. Subsidized childcare however provides two jobs to the economy for the price of one and every single person worried about birth rates is either a white supremacist or the sort of emotionless economist that 2:1 is appealing to.
jameslk 11mo ago
The arguments for more humans always sound like a Ponzi scheme to me: we need more people so we can support existing people. There’s plenty of downsides of having more people on the planet. And tech seems to be making it so there will be less and less a need for more people anyway, for better or worse
- esrauch 11mo ago
  There's potentially an argument for a ponzi scheme for one-ish more generation after which robots can do elder care and it's not necessary anymore. Japan already bet on it and the robots haven't materialized, so maybe it's a bad strategy or maybe they bet too soon or maybe it will turn out they did it at the right time.
- chaostheory 11mo ago
  Every modern economy, socialism included, requires a growing population. You’re right about the main benefit of population decline though. It gives Nature a needed break
  - monero-xmr 11mo ago
    It does not, because productivity can increase. You have a very common misunderstanding
    - trollbridge 11mo ago
      Doesn’t work if all of the productivity gains are captured by the wealthy owners of most of the capital though.
      - monero-xmr 11mo ago
        If more of society’s desires can be delivered with fewer people at lower cost, all of society benefits
        11mo ago
venturecruelty 11mo ago
If eight billion people is not enough, do you have a higher number in mind? And if so, what is it?

Given the negative world wide trend with birthrates, this should be a priority with every developed country even if it eventually comes at the expense of elderly socialized healthcare.

seneca 11mo ago

We would be even better off subsidizing parents staying home with their own children. Unfortunately most subsidies have proven ineffective at nudging up birth rates.

mritterhoff 11mo ago
Why would that be better? I think you'd miss out on economies of scale and end up paying more.
runako 11mo ago
Those subsidies tend to be €X00 per month. I am not aware of any scheme that even attempted to replace 80% of forfeited wages. A subsidy that ends up with you having to move impoverish yourself is not going to have the desired effect.
chaostheory 11mo ago
No, we wouldn’t. This subsidy directly benefits the survival rate of children while universal basic income is too broad. healthcare is more affordable than UBI.
Avshalom 11mo ago
In an emotional development sort of way: maybe. Subsidized childcare however provides two jobs to the economy for the price of one and every single person worried about birth rates is either a white supremacist or the sort of emotionless economist that 2:1 is appealing to.

jameslk 11mo ago

The arguments for more humans always sound like a Ponzi scheme to me: we need more people so we can support existing people. There’s plenty of downsides of having more people on the planet. And tech seems to be making it so there will be less and less a need for more people anyway, for better or worse

esrauch 11mo ago
There's potentially an argument for a ponzi scheme for one-ish more generation after which robots can do elder care and it's not necessary anymore. Japan already bet on it and the robots haven't materialized, so maybe it's a bad strategy or maybe they bet too soon or maybe it will turn out they did it at the right time.
chaostheory 11mo ago
Every modern economy, socialism included, requires a growing population. You’re right about the main benefit of population decline though. It gives Nature a needed break
- monero-xmr 11mo ago
  It does not, because productivity can increase. You have a very common misunderstanding
  - trollbridge 11mo ago
    Doesn’t work if all of the productivity gains are captured by the wealthy owners of most of the capital though.
    - monero-xmr 11mo ago
      If more of society’s desires can be delivered with fewer people at lower cost, all of society benefits
      - 11mo ago

venturecruelty 11mo ago

If eight billion people is not enough, do you have a higher number in mind? And if so, what is it?