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

Basement Fertility

betonit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#21

Post by lotsofpulp »

cs137 wrote: post #19
missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

> Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse.

Taxpayer funded (which is what “public” generally means) pensions are basically the only defined benefit pensions left in the US. I do not know of a single city, county, state, or federal government that has gotten rid of them, especially not for cops.

Re: Basement Fertility

#22

Post by lotsofpulp »

missedthecue wrote: post #17
mikkergp wrote: post #11

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 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…

Defined benefit pension schemes only require constant population growth because the decision makers want to use the assumption that there will be constant economic growth, in order to make the obligations seem like they cost less.

They could easily assume 0% expected return on investment, but that would make it so the cash expenses today would explode, to the same level that they would if they simply paid employees the cash. Which is why politicians like to run on campaigns promising lower taxes, and in order to achieve that, they assume future economic growth so that instead of paying someone $10 today, the government can pay $1, and rely on economic growth to provide the other $9 (assuming purchasing power of the currency remains the same, which it will not).

Re: Basement Fertility

#23

Post by bombcar »

dfxm12 wrote: post #18
mikkergp wrote: post #11

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 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 i…

Importing workers fails for the world as a whole, and the number of countries that easy importation works for is also declining.

Re: Basement Fertility

#24

Post by yoyohello13 »

hunglee2 wrote: post #15
lotsofpulp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 correcti…

What is that course correction going to be? Unfortunately, it seems like the US is choosing to reduce opportunities for women, rather that reducing the economic burden of raising a family.

Re: Basement Fertility

#25

Post by bombcar »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #22
missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

Defined benefit pension schemes only require constant population growth because the decision makers want to use the assumption that there will be constant economic growth, in order to make the obligations seem like they cost less. They could easily assume 0% expected return on investment, but that would make it so the cash expenses today would explode, to the same level that they would if they simply paid employees t…

Defined benefit would work fine if the benefit defined was "comfortable living space, slop kitchen, basic healthcare, and a golf course" - as those can be provided at some fraction of the requirements for a defined money benefit pension.

Re: Basement Fertility

#26

Post by VictorPath »

After World War II a lot of public housing projects popped up, which were nice communities for working class families. Nowadays this is almost forgotten as public housing has been starved for decades, and is only thought of in most communities as synonymous with poverty and crime. This is the direction the United States went in but not all countries. Public housing funded as it was in the New Deal era can solve this problem as well.

Re: Basement Fertility

#27

Post by bombcar »

xnx wrote: post #13
mikkergp wrote: post #11

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 n…

I'd love an economic system that championed efficiency over growth.

I've seen arguments that almost all of the economic growth over the last 100+ years is directly attributable to population growth and very little else.

Re: Basement Fertility

#28

Post by olegious »

mikkergp wrote: post #11

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 n…

Less people isn't a bad thing as long as the demographic distribution within the smaller population is healthy- meaning it is shaped like a pyramid, a wide base of young and working age people and smaller numbers of old people non-working people on the top.

The problem for many first world countries today is that their populations are shaped like upside down pyramids- many old people and people nearing retirement age and much fewer young and working age people. Why is this a problem? The working age population represents the tax and production base that supports the non-working and non-tax contributing older population, the non-working young people represent the replacement for the working age people that will eventually retire.

Re: Basement Fertility

#29

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #4
bombcar wrote: post #3

A huge difference is even a few generations ago, the "growing family" would be the one owning the house, and grandparents (their parents) would move in with them - now it's inverted; only the grandparents have a house or can afford one, and so the "growing" or potentially growing family is living with them. It doesn't seem as much a difference but it is a really big one.

If I were a woman, there is no way I would entertain the idea of having kids without my name on the title or lease of the house.

[deleted]

Re: Basement Fertility

#30

Post by mordae »

As was said by rossdavidh in the comments, "eyeballing the maps, I don't see a great correlation".

I suspect this might have something to do with perception of supportive community rather than actual numbers. When to-be parents feel like they are on their own and neither $jobPeople, $friendlyPeople nor $familyPeople are actually going to help, they might be inclined to postpone.

Living with parents in a sane multi-generational arrangement might translate to more support and thus more children. Living with parents out of sheer necessity where parents look down on their offspring for not proving themselves in the world probably would not.

But that does not really explain scandinavia either.

Post reply on HN