U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-23-2020, 09:49 AM
 
3,966 posts, read 1,638,301 times
Reputation: 10239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
Since the advent of the welfare state in the 1960's we have incentivized poverty and monetized having kids. I know people personally that have gone two generations on public assistance. You only need kids to make it happen. I don't blame those people. If you have kids and no marketable skills your options are very limited. Much easier to get section 8, an EBT card and free healthcare. And if you grow up in a poor area that is what everyone around you is doing.
YES! My late husband observed that if we WANTED to create a system to break up poor families, the current system is it. Couples who have kids are pretty much better off if the guy flees the scene because the mother can qualify for more benefits.

It also goes back to what RationalExpectations said about opportunity cost. If you're college educated but not rolling in money, another child means higher daycare costs (or loss of income of whoever stays home with the kids). It also means more fees for school activities, saving for education, etc. If you're jobless and already collecting government benefits, another baby = more money. I really don't know how we can untangle this mess.

Someone mentioned Romania as a country where tax penalties were imposed on small families. Last year I met a woman who adopted a daughter from a Romanian orphanage back in those days. If you couldn't take care of the 5 kids you were supposed to have, that was OK- the government had these great orphanages and would take care of them. Except that the kids were pretty much left alone other than being fed and changed. Her daughter, a baby when they got her, at first didn't want to be held- she wasn't used to it. Even as a young adult and after years of therapy, she had a hard time forming attachments. That policy didn't work very well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2020, 10:02 AM
 
5,315 posts, read 2,281,988 times
Reputation: 3245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
So... you'd take about two generations of depressed GNP and (effectively) very high taxation rates to support the aging bubble, on the theory that that would represent some permanent change in US population? In isolation from world population? And with little or none of the "yeast" from immigration and new blood that is indisputably part of the US's historical strength?
I feel we have to start somewhere. And since every year the solution is to just kick the can down the road I feel the only option we have it to jump in head first. Once we are fully committed then our law makers will actually come up with a plan. Adding over 100 million people to our population over the next 50-60 years should not be an option on the table.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 10:18 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
31,168 posts, read 67,984,889 times
Reputation: 36999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher View Post
I feel we have to start somewhere.
Agreed. In the twenty or so other threads on these topics that I've participated in here the consensus on defining the starting point
has been drilled down to when the number that also agree that something needs to be done is a whole lot higher than it is now.
(even with the new COVID concerned).

Worse, we currently still have a large number actively working to increase population numbers.
Once the general agreement is achieved... to manage stasis of the then existing numbers will be job enough.

But yeah, I think that the US with a population in the 250Million range (maybe even lower) c/w/should yield a higher standard of living
for all of those people and regardless of how many hours any one or another of them is working at whatever interest they have.
It'll likely take two generations to achieve.

Last edited by MrRational; 05-23-2020 at 10:34 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 10:59 AM
 
2,781 posts, read 770,698 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Agreed. In the twenty or so other threads on these topics that I've participated in here the consensus on defining the starting point has been drilled down to when the number that also agree that something needs to be done is a whole lot higher than it is now. (even with the new COVID concerned).
Uh, I missed a curve or two there. Are you saying the consensus is that population is the problem and all other issues are secondary/not worth focusing on?

For one thing, I read 'the consensus' (here) as being no such thing. Other than a few pollyannas, it seems to be universally agreed that population is the number one problem and reducing earth's — not just the US's — population to some more sustainable number (5B?) is the number one priority... but while not failing to recognize that such a goal may take two centuries to reach, short of unimaginable disaster or genocide.

So just maybe we should pay attention to some of the other problems, of more immediate effect and more ready solutions, that contribute to the net solution as we slowly work towards that ultimate goal. Maybe?

Quote:
Worse, we currently still have a large number actively working to increase population numbers.
I think I stuck to the curves long enough to read this as "Gosh, some people are still having kids."

Quote:
I think that the US with a population in the 250Million range (maybe even lower) c/w/should yield a higher standard of living for all of those people...
It is a grievous mistake to think only in terms of the US population, or that reducing it unilaterally/in a vacuum will result in a higher standard of living for them. Nine or ten billion out there might have different ideas, 11 carrier groups and nuclear weapons or no.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Niceville, FL
8,861 posts, read 17,426,972 times
Reputation: 10184
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Slightly less connected are public sector pensions. They are funded by the assumption of an ever-larger number of people from whom taxes can be collected in real time to pay benefits to retirees.
Except they often are not. The pension plans are huge institutional investors in commercial property and financial markets. One of the malls in my town is owned by one of the California pension plans; the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club was long owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, much to the annoyance of Leafs fans. (The Leafs were in a position where maximizing revenue for the teachers didn't necessarily mean putting a good team on the ice.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
The author found that decline in religiosity is the major cultural reason.
And yet some of the most religious countries in the world like Brazil and Mexico have seen huge drops in birth rates along with the rest. It's hugely common in Mexico now for 'good Catholic women' to have a tubal in the hospital right after they deliver their second child, church teachings on birth control notwithstanding.

The big three factors associated with fertility rate drops globally are more years of education for women, birth control, and urbanization. Other cultural influences also trump religiosity- Brazil's famous 'telenovela effect' about how the old time conservatives were right- people really do model their behavior based on what they see on television.

https://www.iadb.org/en/news/brazili...cial-behaviors
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 12:39 PM
 
2,781 posts, read 770,698 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmouse View Post
Except they often are not.
This. Most mature pensions (pretty much all that remain) are funded at least in the majority by investments, not continuing contributions. And, of course, it's been an eternal problem that some made bad investments or were milked by OC, but most remaining will not have the problem of Social Security, which indeed is funded almost entirely by current workers (with some complications, yes).

Quote:
The big three factors associated with fertility rate drops globally are more years of education for women, birth control, and urbanization.
I'd idly wonder how much education levels for women might taper off or even evaporate as a factor as the rate of education increases. Right now, in most societies, where women have tended to lag and are often still in a minority... sure. It's a select population. But as ed becomes more common among women, I think the curve would reassert itself.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 02:38 PM
 
1,747 posts, read 887,551 times
Reputation: 4349
Interesting. Some posts approach ideas in the Handmaid's Tale. Yet too, it's clear that women have the power to save (depending upon your view...either way) the world's economy.

How's about $2000 a month for every mother? Universal income for mothers?...For life? (If that's the side you're on.)
Or, if you're on the other side:
How's about $2000 a month for every woman who doesn't have children?

I mean, since women are commodified.

Not a bad idea, actually.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 02:43 PM
 
2,781 posts, read 770,698 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
INot a bad idea, actually.
No, but a good flag that this thread has expended itself in all the nonsense one topic can hold.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 02:45 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
31,168 posts, read 67,984,889 times
Reputation: 36999
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
How's about $2000 a month for every woman who doesn't have children?
How about a big chunk if the FIRST child is delayed past age X (25?)...
and another big chunk later (45ish?) if she has had 2 children or fewer?

Give her a real shot at getting educated, well started in life ...and cover all the angles too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 02:52 PM
 
5,248 posts, read 2,995,812 times
Reputation: 6815
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Disagree. You can buy condoms pretty much anywhere.
Condoms are not that expensive either. If a male compares the cost of condoms over an 18 year period to the cost of raising a child for 18 years, the rational male will choose condoms over having a child if cost containment is the only variable.

There are broader cultural and economic consequences if too many people think this way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmouse View Post
The big three factors associated with fertility rate drops globally are more years of education for women, birth control, and urbanization. Other cultural influences also trump religiosity- Brazil's famous 'telenovela effect' about how the old time conservatives were right- people really do model their behavior based on what they see on television.

https://www.iadb.org/en/news/brazili...cial-behaviors
The big 3 factors are correct. In an urban environment, children are a financial liability and not an asset. In a rural environment, they can be an asset as farm labor.

There is a tendency to think of Latin American women as baby factories. The actual numbers do not bear that out. In Mexico, in 1970, the fertility per woman rate was 6.6. It is about 2.2 now. Brazilian women have gone from 5 births per woman in 1970 to 1.7 in the present.

Hispanic women in the United States have been more fertile than non-Hispanic white women in the U.S., but even that requires a caveat. Foreign-born Hispanic women generally have higher fertility than U.S.-born Hispanic women.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top