Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor not withstanding). Is there a version of the world where we have less people with a collective higher quality of life, particularly as technology improves individual productivity? What about the vintage-futurism economic dream of 10 hour workweeks?
Basement Fertility
11–20 of 239 posts
Re: Basement Fertility
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.
I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.
There's a lot of tension between an economic environment that rewards high levels of mobility, and desire to live near/in a strong local web of friends and relatives who can help support you.
Re: Basement Fertility
#13Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…
I'd love an economic system that championed efficiency over growth.
Re: Basement Fertility
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out
What is an evolved state? I assume almost all people live in multi generational households because they cannot afford not to. My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
Evolved as in the true meaning of the term - Darwinian evolution. Homo Sapiens have live and grow and die in extended kinship groups, this has been the case for 99.9% of the time we have been around - and if we go further back to pre-human times, we likely lived in those kinship groups too. We only collapsed this structure since industrialisation / urbanisation - last hundred, maybe two hundred years
Re: Basement Fertility
#15I believe OP is making the general case that our commitment to nuclear family living raises the cost of raising a family as there are no economies of scale compared to multi-generational living. A moments thought about it, and he's clearly correct
I think a big component of rising opportunity cost for raising families is simply the fact that women now have opportunities. A lot of societies are about to find out the burden women were implicitly carrying simply because they had no choice, either due to lack of financial independence, birth control, or civil rights.
yes, this is absolutely true. Hans Rosling did one his most well know presentations on the the impact of female education to the eradication of poverty via two mechanism - female entry into the market economy + reduction in the number of births. That said though, all developed economies are now so far down this road that we are below the replacement rate and will die out in a few generations without a course correction
Re: Basement Fertility
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.
yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out
Cities have always been population reducers: below replacement fertility, with migrants from the countryside increasing the population. This was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. It's hard to say for sure why this is, but I'd imagine it's that urban people have more awareness of economic inequality. Rural people suffer from it, but they don't see it on a daily basis, so they aren't constantly reminded of the disadvantages that 99% of them will inherit in the way urban people are.
These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.
Re: Basement Fertility
#17Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…
Capitalism doesn't require for constant population growth. But public pension schemes do. And there are geopolitical advantages to being bigger than your foes.
Look at Japan. Japan's population has been on the decline for about 1.5 generations. They still get as much food, shelter, and entertainment as any other developed economy. They have hobbies, travel, discretionary income... The worries there aren't about capitalism failing.
Demographic collapse just has a lot of nasty social consequences in general. An inverted pyramid spells pain for future generations.
Re: Basement Fertility
#18Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…
Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing?
It's mostly seen as a bad thing in the lens of ethnic nationalist ideology that low fertility rates will change the demographics of a country (see Great Replacement [0]).
After all, if Musk (and other capitalists) needed, they can get labor from other countries south of America's borders, but there is a push to not make these workers Americans! This isn't an issue only in America either.
Re: Basement Fertility
#19Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…
Capitalism doesn't require for constant population growth. But public pension schemes do. And there are geopolitical advantages to being bigger than your foes. Look at Japan. Japan's population has been on the decline for about 1.5 generations. They still get as much food, shelter, and entertainment as any other developed economy. They have hobbies, travel, discretionary income... The worries there aren't about capit…
Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse.
I don't think an inverted pyramid is as bad as it sounds. It's a check against ageism and falling wages (there's no longer a horde of hungry young people who want the jobs) and, given how little of the work people do is actually necessary--white-collar jobs are 85% sending passive-aggressive emails--I think society can afford it. It might be the only thing that provides enough value of labor to keep conditions relatively humane.
Re: Basement Fertility
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism doesn't require for constant population growth. But public pension schemes do. And there are geopolitical advantages to being bigger than your foes. Look at Japan. Japan's population has been on the decline for about 1.5 generations. They still get as much food, shelter, and entertainment as any other developed economy. They have hobbies, travel, discretionary income... The worries there aren't about capit…
Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse. I don't think an inverted pyramid is as bad as it sounds. It's a check against ageism and falling wages (there's no longer a horde of hungry young people who want the jobs) and, given how little of the work people do is actually necessary--white-collar jobs are 85% sending passive-aggressive emails--I think society can afford it. It might be the on…
By public pension, I mean what we in the US call Social Security. Most developed economies have an equivalent.