6 ms·
Sure, because people have many kids as an economic strategy. If you believe you'll need your family to take care of you in your old age, you'll have more kids.
by gyardley 14y ago
Sure, because people have many kids as an economic strategy. If you believe you'll need your family to take care of you in your old age, you'll have more kids.
Of course, the reason why people don't believe they need their family's support in their old age has a lot to do with government spending on programs like social security - which requires a lot of younger taxpayers to sustain, taxpayers we're no longer producing.
Eventually something will give, since situations that can't continue forever won't. Our social safety net will weaken, and fertility will increase accordingly. I hope this happens smoothly, and not all at once.
- sounds 14y agoThis is addressed in the article, specifically calling out a reduction in the fertility rate of 0.5 or less.
- philwelch 14y agoI suspect that this attitude directly collides with the notion that there are just fewer jobs to go around because of automation. If they're both true, both problems solve each other.
- waps 14y agoWhen social security triples (due to number of dependants), which it will do in less than 20 years, it will require a 100% tax rate. After that, costs will increase further.
- philwelch 14y agoNot if productivity also triples. The mistake is having a separate payroll tax earmarked for social security. If the government just eats the liability, drops payroll taxes, and raises income taxes to compensate, it'll be fine. Alternatively they could just supplement payroll tax out of the general fund. It's not nearly as dire as the doomsayers make it sound.
- dromidas 14y agoMachines don't pay taxes. Companies won't be donating the lost wage taxes to the government either. :P