Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The global population pyramid

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: The global population pyramid

#121

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

cerealbad wrote: post #119

Religious and wealthy people will continue above replacement forever. Probably why these two strategies persist. Who is the poorest person you know? Are they religious and do they have many children? Who is the wealthiest and how many children do they have? Flattening this curve has been the world project of the Anglo-American establishment post WW2, with dubious results - unless replacing themselves and their own po…

Are you really saying that Anglo-American's not having enough children is the biggest blunder in world history?

Re: The global population pyramid

#122

Post by Mirioron »

vageli wrote: post #84
phkahler wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They redistribute wealth from young people right now to old people right now, but they are sold to young people as though they are investing into their future. I want to say that's fiction in the US but it's worse than fiction. The social security system pays out about what a person puts in over their lifetime. It is not the young paying the old as you say. But that's not the whole story. The "fund" has been robbe…

> >> They redistribute wealth from young people right now to old people right now, but they are sold to young people as though they are investing into their future. > I want to say that's fiction in the US but it's worse than fiction. The social security system pays out about what a person puts in over their lifetime. Does that payout account for inflation? Why are we forced to give up a percentage of our wealth to l…

I think the reason is that many people won't do it otherwise. Once they reach retirement age some of them will complain and others will demand that the government do something about it.

Re: The global population pyramid

#123

Post by narcindin »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #58
trabant00 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should support any woman that wants to work in STEM. We should NOT encourage anybody to work in STEM. Women are more likely to want to work with people, not sit in a chair looking at a screen, droning for the corporation 8 hours per day. The "toxic environment" is just what the field is. Dehumanizing by definition. It's got nothing to do with patriarchy or whatever else trending buzzword corporations push promotin…

Which part is meant to be sarcasm? If all of it then can you rephrase it without?

I am confidant that just the last line is sarcastic. The rest of the comment is serious.

Re: The global population pyramid

#124

Post by adwn »

mr_overalls wrote: post #94
trabant00 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should support any woman that wants to work in STEM. We should NOT encourage anybody to work in STEM. Women are more likely to want to work with people, not sit in a chair looking at a screen, droning for the corporation 8 hours per day. The "toxic environment" is just what the field is. Dehumanizing by definition. It's got nothing to do with patriarchy or whatever else trending buzzword corporations push promotin…

People should be free to do what interests them, and should be encouraged to follow careers that benefit society and themselves. Maybe we need _fewer_ people - men and women - giving each other head injuries in combat sports. Fewer people fighting in senseless wars. Maybe we need safer worksites, so that people - men and women - can work in construction or mining if it appeals to them.

> Maybe we need safer worksites, so that people - men and women - can work in construction or mining if it appeals to them.

Are you implying that construction site work is almost exclusively a male domain because it is relatively unsafe work?

I'm not saying that I'd disagree with that statement, not at all.

Re: The global population pyramid

#125

Post by goodells »

Sileni wrote: post #109
diNgUrAndI wrote: post #61

Pensions are not sustainable. Current mandatory CPP contribution in Canada seems like that. It's a promise that government makes that we contribute now which is taken to cover the current senior citizens. What if there isn't enough working force when we get older? How would the government keep the promise?

Social Security in the US as well. Most of my generation that I've talked to have just accepted it as another tax; there's not going to be anything left of it by the time we would actually expect to withdraw from it.

I (and many others) maintain that social security at the federal level is completely unconstitutional, and lament the system that has evolved around using it as the de-facto national identification in the United States. Of course there are externalities associated with the lack of a social safety net for the elderly, and at this point it very well may be "worth it" for the younger generation to pay it to avoid the consequences. What a mess.

Re: The global population pyramid

#126

Post by amanaplanacanal »

c0vfefe wrote: post #100
iguy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are n…

This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.

A lot of that is due to historical societal reasons. In a society where one gender makes money and the other takes care of kids, I don't know how it could have been any other way.

In today's society, what's fair is for the non-custody parent to help support the children by reimbursing the custody parent. Or in cases of joint custody, the one with higher income reimburses the one with lower income. Which I believe is the way it's done in my state.

Re: The global population pyramid

#127

Post by bhaak »

anyanswers wrote: post #106
mr_overalls wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand it's great that women have all these new rights. . . Do you mind if I ask how old you are? The rights of women to freely choose careers, and to make their own reproductive decisions, are at least several decades old. > Western society is trying to make boys out of girls, and girls out of boys. . . Can you provide examples of this? Not to preempt your arguments, but this is an oft-repeated conservative p…

> Do you mind if I ask how old you are? The rights of women to freely choose careers, and to make their own reproductive decisions, are at least several decades old. i think OP of this subthread means "new" in the context of human society "new". Several decades is still pretty "new" if you take into account human history.

> i think OP of this subthread means "new" in the context of human society "new". Several decades is still pretty "new" if you take into account human history.

The "woman stays at home taking care of the children and the man goes out and earns enough to feed the family" concept is also new if you take into account human history.

It got introduced for the most part during the 19th century. Before that you couldn't afford to not let the women work anyway. Actually, during the industrial revolution and the growing social disorder there, you also couldn't afford to not let women and children work but often you had to.

And if you look at the whole of human history, the most common model of raising children was by a whole community. From groups of 5-10 individuals to even larger communities, all were somewhat responsible for and watching the growing children.

The idea that everybody could raise a child with only two or even worse just one parent is laughable if it weren't so sad that it's a common view.

Re: The global population pyramid

#128

Post by cerealbad »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #121
cerealbad wrote: post #119

Religious and wealthy people will continue above replacement forever. Probably why these two strategies persist. Who is the poorest person you know? Are they religious and do they have many children? Who is the wealthiest and how many children do they have? Flattening this curve has been the world project of the Anglo-American establishment post WW2, with dubious results - unless replacing themselves and their own po…

Are you really saying that Anglo-American's not having enough children is the biggest blunder in world history?

The Anglo-American establishment is a power consensus after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, two world wars and decolonisation. It refers to the hand off of power from Great Britain to the US. It has nothing to do with "Anglo-Americans" unless you're talking about a specific small group of anglophile elite families from the north-east of America with political and industrial wealth. A ruling consensus was established after the Yalta conference and Bretton Woods accord. In the immediate post war period the USSR has lost 30 million people and there is only one global nuclear power. Losing this dominance to the degree of the present world order is the second biggest blunder, should these people also then be completely minimized inside their own nation states by the force of global capital they allowed to emerge would be the biggest yes. It's the equivalent of receiving the entire wealth of the world then losing it in a few generations. What do you find controversial about this? A blunder is an unforced error which greatly diminishes your own position in a game, perhaps leading to a total loss. Or do you believe all human beings are playing equally for the interest of all others?

Re: The global population pyramid

#129

Post by amanaplanacanal »

vageli wrote: post #84
phkahler wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They redistribute wealth from young people right now to old people right now, but they are sold to young people as though they are investing into their future. I want to say that's fiction in the US but it's worse than fiction. The social security system pays out about what a person puts in over their lifetime. It is not the young paying the old as you say. But that's not the whole story. The "fund" has been robbe…

> >> They redistribute wealth from young people right now to old people right now, but they are sold to young people as though they are investing into their future. > I want to say that's fiction in the US but it's worse than fiction. The social security system pays out about what a person puts in over their lifetime. Does that payout account for inflation? Why are we forced to give up a percentage of our wealth to l…

Your question sounds like it is about the history of Social Security, and how it got to be the way it is. Some googling will put you on the right track.

Re: The global population pyramid

#130

Post by amanaplanacanal »

fullshark wrote: post #102
koonsolo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

I find it bizarre culturally that being a stay at home mom is so frowned upon in many circles. The idea that working 9-5 for some corporation is one’s highest calling seems silly. Perhaps one day we will respect mothers again.

I find it bizarre that you automatically assume that it should be the mother who stays home and takes care of the kids, rather than the father.
Post reply on HN