atothek

Dude, you've been calling people anti-baby, anti-natalist, morally corrupt throughout this entire thread. I bring numbers and data to back up the fact that the reason global fertility rates are dropping is largely due to rising rates of female education in the developing world and I'm the barbarous heathen. Stop making this personal, we get it, you have children and you love them, that's great and I think that's great for you. But you have to recognize that the primary reason that fertility rates are falling is because women are being educated, this is well accepted throughout all economic fields. Edit - I mean you're free to not LIKE this reason, but it's predominant reason why fertility rates are dropping. Edit 2 - THIS ENTIRE TOPIC WAS RESTARTED WITH THE POSTING OF A STRAWMAN ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO HAVE BABIES AND CALLING THEM OLD MAIDS

I've been pretty delicate throughout this thread but I need to be pretty blunt it seems. We keep using this phrasing that falling fertility rates are a cultural issue and I want to be very clear that it's NOT a cultural issue. A cultural issue unique to Western Europe and the United States would not see this occurring in countries with entirely different cultures of our own. The reason why this is not a cultural issue is because the biggest correlation for falling fertility rates in a country is The Educational Attainment of Women in the Country: (Source - World Economic Forum) The strongest correlate to high fertility rates are uneducated women. India's Fertility Rate - 1960 - 5.92 | 2020 - 2.05 - India Female Literacy Rate - 1960 - 15% | 2020 - 70% Mexico's Fertility Rate - 1980 - 4.78 | 2020 - 1.90 - Mexico Female Literacy Rate - 1980 - 80% | 2020 - 95% Brazil Fertility Rate - 1980 - 4.04 | 2020 - 1.65 - Brazil Female Literacy Rate - 1980 - 73% | 2020 - 95% Indonesia Fertility Rate - 1980 - 4.49 | 2020 - 2.19 - Indonesia Female Literacy Rate - 1980 - 58% | 2020 - 95% Pakistan Fertility Rate - 1980 - 6.73 | 2020 - 3.56 - Pakistan Female Literacy Rate - 1980 - 15% | 2020 - 46% Global Fertility Rate - 1980 - 3.75 | 2020 - 2.3 - Global Female Literacy Rate - 1980 - 61%| 2020 - 83% The reason fertility rates have dropped globally is because the world, rightly so, wanted to give women equal access to education and professions equivalent to men. Women should be allowed to pursue education and careers (I can't believe I have to say this). This isn't some culture war, where a bunch of women with masters degrees decided to not have a kid, this is, "A woman in India learned to read at an 8th grade level and could communicate and plan with her husband because she had the ability to read and they co-decided the number of children they want to have". Social Security is doomed, but it's been doomed for 40+ years at this juncture, my undergrad college econ prof had a multi week presentation on the unsustainability of Social Security in 2004. We've known about this for 20 years. It is what it is, likely, eligibility for Social Security will need to go past 70, but that's okay, because in 1935, the average male only lived to 60 years old and a person wasn't eligible for benefits until they hit 65. If the policy were written the same way today, we wouldn't make people eligible for benefits until they're, like, 82 years old. The cost of a lower global fertility rate is well, WELL worth women having the ability to seek an education and the global economics and politics community is more than talented enough to find solutions to the policy problems that a lower fertility rate will create. In the words of the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: (Source - emphasis my own) I'm sorry, but this is three pages of a lot of people beating around the bush about how women, especially the global poor, receiving education in society is causing some massive societal ill and frankly I'm over it. I really hope no women stumble on this thread. Later.

So, I've been trying to desperately pull away from this thread, but there's something I need to say as this conversation continues. I have a feeling that the population commenting on this thread skews towards men and I think a group of females would handle this topic much differently and perhaps more delicately. Further, I think we need to be really careful about the tone toward fertility in this thread. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the reason for people taking time giving birth and them not having children is due to a personal choice. According to the CDC: (Source) Amongst my friends, all of whom are currently pregnant or have had children, about 50% of them have had fertility issues and it took them a year or more of trying before becoming pregnant (two of these people being very close friends). Don't take someone not talking to you about pregnancy as that person not trying or not wanting children. This choice may have been stolen from them by something entirely out of their control and they really don't want to have a hard, emotional conversation with a random stranger about why they don't have children. Further, the usage of pejorative language to describe those who do not have children is largely unnecessary and should really be reevaluated, especially in light of the many struggles women (and men) can have in procreation. Once again, falling back to my first post, pregnancy and child rearing is a deeply personal choice that includes a multitude factors including health, community, culture, religion, education, etc and one would be wise to sit on the sidelines than to judge a person by the number of their progeny or lack thereof.

First of all, from an achievable policy perspective, arguing over fertility rates in a representative democracy is the definition of tilting at windmills. Absent draconian federal policy that would make George Orwell blush or come straight out of an autocrat's playbook, governments have very few levers to pull to functionally stop / change this direction. Dropping fertility rates is a hallmark of any country as their economy modernizes and is seen regardless of preexisting cultural norms. Just look at India's fertility rate over the 50 years. Further, I don't think the demographic cliff that many portend to be the end of all civilization and the economy is on the horizon. This may be saved and reiterated for a freezing cold take in the future, but I don't see it as the economic issue it could be when male workforce participation is at its lowest rate in 50+ years (source) and economic gains and growth have been maintained despite America's fertility rate being the same today as it was in 1974. Also, if we're truly worried about the demographic side of this equation, there's a simple and immediate answer to the demographic cliff in the United States, reduce barriers to immigration. The arguments here also end up being functionally reductive where we all sit around forming ad hominem arguments against people that have different cultural view points than our own. The decision to have a child is a complex one that involves a multitude of factors including a person's culture, finances, religion, etc and the government already provides plenty of incentives to carrot people towards having families. At the end of the day, the discussion inevitably devolves in to people self-affirming their own decisions and deriding people whose decisions differ from their own. Finally, I worry that concern over fertility is used in political circles as a way to use demographics to obfuscate discriminatory policy prescriptions. For example, JD Vance isn't against gay marriage, he just worries about how our economy will continue to grow if people don't have more children and which leads us to demographic cliff, that's all!

Yeah, I was shocked at how fast it sold out. But you're probably right, they probably had invites for regulars at the brewery and for some of the events they hold there and then rest of the public on their email list was notified last. Still hyped to go and visit when it's fully open though. It looks beautiful.

Cross post from Columbus Beer and Alcohol news, so if the double post is annoying, I get it being deleted. But CBC's soft opening is this weekend, which means the full opening should be imminent.

This dropped in my email this week and it's already fully reserved, but we should be seeing the grand opening of Columbus Brewing Company's East Market location imminently.

https://devresearch.ohio.gov/files/research/P6090.pdf Above is there population projections starting in 2010 through 2040. They were low on Columbus’ growth by about 30,000 people for 2020. Is that a huge difference? Not really, but I mean it also isn’t sacrosanct. This was the first dataset I could find in like a five second search.

I mean the state notoriously undercounts city / state growth and routinely under provisions services. ODOT has been 10 years behind since at least the start of the 2000s.

Yeah, I'd also love to see a much more competitive mayoral race as well, but agree that Motil isn't the one to do it. I would also like just for the Democratic Party to have a generally more healthy primary season within the city instead of just pre-selecting the candidates. Just to improve the accessibility of our elected offices. Honestly, I think the Republican Party has taken a back seat to running anyone in local columbus as a way to further push the culture divide at the state and federal level. By not having any power or input they are able to position their state and federal candidates as pushing back at the largesse, inefficiency and crime of the liberal cities to those in the suburbs or further out. It's likely that it's a waste of money to run anyone and it serves for convenient advertising to their core constituency. Not to say any of this is healthy or how a political party should operate. Just the reality of on the ground politics in America.

I honestly doubt he makes it out of the primary given his performance in other elections, but regardless woooffff. Nothing makes me see red faster Motil and his marginally thought out policies. Awful choice for mayor.

My bet is because services like water, sewer, electricity are already run to the site, whereas the empty lot they'd have to pay to run services.

With the 'stube closing, I've now lost both my undergrad bar (RIP the 'zig) and my grad school bar. So I get the nostalgia about losing it and I can empathize with the people making one last trip. But someone having a home is far more important than the feelings I have for s**tty dive bars I've poured myself in and out of throughout my life.

Yeah, the fact that the owners of the 'stube have been conspicuously mum on all their public platforms and not responding to any requests for comment for any of these articles strikes me that a business decision has been made and that they're ready to put their feet up on a beach somewhere.

It's literally one of the most agreed upon things within the field of economics: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control/

Not to be that guy, but that's the naming convention that they use for most of their fabs. Their Chandler campus is CH1 to, like, CH7 or whatever number fab they are on. So my assumption is that each fab will be, like, OH1.

At this juncture I'll take any infrastructure improvements that isn't just spray painting a bike on the street.

Hot Take Incoming - Clintonville is just for upper middle class people who want the living standard of the suburbs while saying they live in an urban environment. Saying Clintonville is nice is like saying Dublin, Worthington, Upper Arlington or New Albany are nice. Like, it's verifiably true, many of those communities have created perfectly fine walkable areas and none of those communities (including Clintonville) honestly desire to have development exceeding the idealistic nature of the suburbs from the 1950s to the 1990s. However, as we are a board with many urbanist members, I don't think the community is above criticism. While Clintonville has successfully created a, "Nice" community, I don't think the community is particularly sustainable as long term it's either going to need to grow or it is going to become so expensive that it will functionally become the Berkeley of Columbus. Edit - It's future sustainability will also suffer from all the same sustainability issues that all other suburbs face that have been outlined in Strong Towns, which is basically prerequisite reading for creating an account on this site.

So before I say this, I will say that additional money for public housing will help and any additional housing in the Columbus area is a good thing. I will be supporting this ballot measure and everyone on this board should as well. However, I think it may be wise to temper expectations as to what the city will be able to build with this amount of money. Looking at the $50 million 2019 bond measure that was then used to leverage an additional $300 million in outside funding and they were able to build 1,300 80% AMI housing units (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/OHCCC/bulletins/2f6a733?reqfrom=share). This is to their credit! However, HUD estimated in 2020 that the three year annual growth in demand for our region will 12,550 units (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/ColumbusOH-CHMA-20.pdf). So it only met, like, 10% of the total construction demand for the entire region. I know this is the absolute example of preaching to the choir, but we need to build so much housing in this region and I don't think most people realize how much we are under building. I don't know, this was a long way in me saying, please go and support this, but also support all other proposals, we're under building so badly and need more housing direly. But I think we all already know that.

Haven't seen this posted on this forum, so don't know if people already know this or not. But went to Requiem at the Rock of Faith church on Main over the weekend and got some insight in to the development being done on the site with Equity. Apparently the church is working with Equity to do a bunch of development in the area and they have a pretty high level outline on their website (https://rofcdc.org/phase-one/). It seems like a lot of this is just ideal notions and big strategic plans (especially everything phase 2 and beyond), but at least it gives some concrete ideas for the near future as to their plans for the site.

I measured it out once and just the entire campus including historic crew stadium and the fairgrounds occupies, like, 1.5km^2 of space. For context, the main campus of Ohio State occupies 2.26km^2 of space. It's just absolutely atrocious land use as this city continues to grow.

I seem to recall reading that the first floor of the apartment building across Oak would be commercial space. But now I can't find documentation for this claim, so I can't remember if this is a false memory or not. Still the additional density is great for the area and will hope attract more building and infill in the area.

Same. Truth of the matter is I've migrated here and some other older bulletin board forums like this from reddit because my toxic personality trait is scrolling opinions I disagree with and reddit, especially the local subreddits, tend to be full of 'em. I also really enjoy having an actual dialogue than just the same tired talking points and I really hated how voting on posts / comments basically chills any dialogue that doesn't agree with the mainstream opinions. But anyway, back to the topic on hand of Clitonville not wanting to develop anything taller than the quirky kangaroo sign in their neighbors yard. Please ignore our main drag of high street being absolutely filled with nothing but nationwide chains, we're still counter culture and quirky!