151–160 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhDMqe8boEY... I don't see any correlation at all.
Thanks! I agree. The R-squared of these numbers is 0.11, which is much closer to 0 (no relation) than to 1 (perfect correlation).
It would have been good to see an x-y plot of living with parents vs. fertility. Eyeballing the maps he showed, I don't see a great correlation. Scandinavia has mediocre fertility compared to the rest of Europe, but the lowest percentage living with their parents. Other nations like Greece do satisfy his hypothesis, but a real test would be to plot those two percentages on an x-y plot and see how well they correlate…
Living with parents doesn't carry the same stigma as in the US or Western Europe.
The reasons for low fertility have nothing to do with living with parents there. They have everything to do with complex and rapid social changes following the fall of communism which are too long and complex to get into.
I actually agree with the overall conclusion *in the US*, and likely in other parts of the world. However, the argument seems flakey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this comment downvoted? It's literally what goes through the minds of parents of newly weds and weds-to-be. Let's not beat around the bush and be upfront about it.
Off topic. GP and the response from female POV are regarding living in the elders’ house, not the husbands house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did all those whole generations of parents and grandparents lost their houses and who took those houses?
few things impact this 1. Force to sell due to medicare or other end of life expenses (you can not have any assets if you need full time nursing care paid for by medicare) 2. the "Reverse mortgage" people fall for. 3. Baby Boomers, a Single Asset split 5-8 ways does not go far 4. the houses owned really were not that good. My Grandparents owned their home, bought it right after WWII, the house was a small 2 bed 1 bat…
Young people complain how much more expensive homes are now, and then can't be bothered to accept a starter home..
"I just can't understand why I can't afford this 3,600 sq foot home near downtown Austin at age 25, life is unfair!".
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…
Let us not forget the downward pressure this labor surplus created on wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Any more and you have to worry about overpopulation. That said, I'm of the opinion that we'll never really need to have any tough conversations about birth rates because they've fallen so drastically across the board. It seems that it will be enough to universally encourage higher birth rates in every…
> Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Only if you're the sort of person who cares about such things. I don't see any moral imperative to make sure any particular ethnicity or culture continues. Before someone calls me the usual assortment of bad things, please take a moment to consider (1) the difference between treating existing people…
Of course the term minority/majority is relative to the scope you're talking about, too. The "majority" of Americans are global minorities.
It feels like there's an implicit "More Kids Good" tone that pervades this. What's the "right" value for TFR? Why does it have to be higher? Why is it bad that it is lower in some places? The ecosystem we exist in / that sustains us surely has a carrying capacity.
Less than replacement means we go extinct eventually and while that is happening we don't have enough people to support those that leave the workforce as they age.
Currently growing population seems to still be an economically net-positive thing as we still need people in order to do new and bigger things. I think though that soon it will become net-negative as average person's total lifetime productivity will be losing to automation and you don't need 20+ years to start the robot up and 20+ years to take care about that robot once it got worn out. In that situation we'd better have less people yet more educated, trained etc. in order to be productive beyond what is replaceable by more and more automation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yet populations across Europe are not shrinking. Birth rates may go up and down but people still want to move there. Seems to work, so far. To use the phrase “die out” stinks 30’s Germany to me, and I think you could stand to think twice before using such verbiage.
>Vive la France?
> No one would be left to appreciate the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triomphe.
> French scientists were concerned about the nation’s birth rate 100 year ago. In 1860, there had been 1 million births in the country. In 1922, the number had fallen to 450,000.
> As one observer noted: “At the rate of decline in number of children born in that country, in the year 2022 — 100 years hence — there will be nobody left in France, except as they drift in from other sections of Europe. The figures show, unerringly, that the present rate of decrease, maintained for 100 years, would reduce the birthrate to zero.”
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2021/12/27/experts-...
And what happened in the 20th century post WW2? A French Baby Boom driven by increased marital fertility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-20th_century_baby_boom#Eur...
> France and Austria experienced the strongest baby booms in Europe.[19] In contrast to most other countries, the French and Austrian baby booms were driven primarily by an increase in marital fertility.[28] In the French case, pronatalist policies were an important factor in this increase.[29] Weaker baby booms occurred in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands.[30]
We really have no idea what is going on with fertility and what the end result will be. When population was booming everyone predicted mass starvation that didn't happen. Now when population is declining everyone is confidently predicting disaster, but who's to say it won't self-correct? (alongside appropriate societal efforts)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there were any place in the world where one would think that your supposed capability of creating ecosystems wholesale would manifest, it would be California with its nexus of engineers and venture capital. And yet, California is suffering from ever worsening drought conditions and forest fires, with no solutions in sight. Conversely, depopulation on an otherwise healthy planet is a trivially solvable problem. Our…
CA has a nexus of software engineers, and dot com capital Not Civil, Mechanical, or other engineers. Also venture capital has no interest in fighting 1000's environmental lawsuits and 10,000's of pointless regulations designed to stop any construction or development that would improve CA
> Not Civil, Mechanical, or other engineers.
What on earth makes you think that? All sorts of hardware is designed and developed here. It has the largest aerospace sector of any state. A lot of automotive design is done in the LA basin for the auto majors.
And that’s just off the top of my head. I’m in SV and even up here though we lost most of the defense manufacturing (e.g. tanks and ships) though a lot remains further south, when I need parts machined there are still plenty of local machine shops etc. I’ve brought in welders from the Central Valley when local ones were too busy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
… why does gender affect it? As a man, you would be fine with it?