February 20, 20232 yr 22 minutes ago, Foraker said: Everyone who is concerned about barriers to people having kids should want to make it as easy as possible. Free healthcare for kids (other countries do it)? Paid maternity and paternity to cover the first two years (other countries do it)? Free childcare and preschool? Free after-school care? Europe does all of this and their birthrate is lower than ours. 22 minutes ago, Foraker said: Housing and food assistance for low-income families? My friend's youngest sister, who is 27, just had a kid with her boyfriend before getting married. She's collecting food stamps, etc., and now delaying the wedding to stay on food stamps and because she wants a destination wedding in Montana.
February 20, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Europe does all of this and their birthrate is lower than ours. My friend's youngest sister, who is 27, just had a kid with her boyfriend before getting married. She's collecting food stamps, etc., and now delaying the wedding to stay on food stamps and because she wants a destination wedding in Montana. Jake, I’ve never once heard you mention having kids. Do you have kids? If not, why not? Having kids is the hardest thing I’ve ever done, by a long shot. Of course parenting is that much more difficult for my wife. And we have healthy, well behaved kids, which we both wanted, and had on the timeline we intended. Parenting is hard work, and unless a person really wants to be a parent, they shouldn’t. Kids deserve parents who want to be parents. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 20, 20232 yr Decades of Maury, Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil didn't make having kids look cool to young people either. Made it look like it would be 100% drama.
February 20, 20232 yr 49 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: Decades of Maury, Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil didn't make having kids look cool to young people either. Made it look like it would be 100% drama. They can't really figure out why the teen birthrate has fallen so dramatically since the 90s. It's similar to the violent crime rate - a huge, steady drop-off starting around 1990. There is some theorizing that the EPA crackdown on leaded gasoline affected both issues.
February 20, 20232 yr 55 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: Do you have kids? No. 55 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: If not, why not? Women hate me.
February 20, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Lazarus said: No. Women hate me. I find that really hard to believe. /sarcasm Edited February 20, 20232 yr by Boomerang_Brian Platform doesn’t like apple emojis When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 20, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Lazarus said: Europe does all of this and their birthrate is lower than ours. But that does not tell us whether Europe's birth rate would be even lower than it is without those programs. Northern European countries generally have higher birth rates than southern European countries -- and the northern European countries generally have more generous family leave and support programs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000017/ I'll grant you that those programs do not increase the birth rate above replacement value. On balance, it seems like early-childhood support programs are helpful but insufficient for getting a country to replacement-rate births. If you don't think offering more support for early childhood care makes a difference in birth rates, what would you suggest -- not doing those things because having children should be hard? (In my experience, even if I had had a LOT more help, raising kids would always have been hard.) Personally, I think we as a society should do more to protect and care for children and make sure as many children as possible get a good start on life. And yes, a lower birthrate will ultimately lead to a lower population. But with all the productivity gains in my lifetime I'm not convinced that we really need so many people to keep society going (a reduced population might not be the catastrophe than some are predicting). And the US continues to be a preferred migration destination -- and climate change and world conflicts look likely to provide a large population of potential immigrants for a long time to come, should the US come to some agreement on allowing larger numbers of immigrants to actually come. If we don't take those immigrants, some other countries with declining populations will.
February 20, 20232 yr On 2/17/2023 at 2:40 PM, Gramarye said: Switching over to something I mentioned years ago on a different thread, I think maybe the health care one: Sticker price for my second child's birth was $93,000: $33,000 for emergency C-section at Akron General, $5,000 for an ambulance ride from Akron General to Akron Children's (note: a distance of 2 city blocks), and $55,000 for two weeks in the NICU at Akron Children's. I'm privileged to have good health insurance and so paid nowhere near that, and most people are insulated from those numbers because they don't look at their explanations of benefits other than the "patient responsibility" line (only strange people like distressed-debt lawyers do that ...). But if you want to find where I sound most like Bernie Sanders, talk to me about health insurance companies sometime. Of course the most absurd irony about it is that my reasons for it are the complete opposite of his--his are about maximizing individual autonomy and mine are about collective obligations to deal with the consequences of admitting one of the most consequential limits of personal autonomy. The thing that I hate is that what gets thrown around in the media is all about "sticker price" Nobody pays that in health care, even those without insurance. The problem with health care is nobody has any clue what anything costs because the billing system is so convoluted. If people really want to reform the system, they should start with price transparency first. It would be much better than socialized healthcare and people would actually understand what a baby costs. My friend used to work for a health insurance company and before he had his first child, he called in to get the estimated cost. They still billed him for a bunch of items he did not know about and it took 6 months after the child was born to figure out and fix the bill. It was a mess. Health care billing can be much more transparent and it will greatly bring the cost down along with helping people actually figure out what certain procedures truly cost
February 20, 20232 yr The Party of Family Values ("the woman's place is in the home") generally, and Manly Men in particular, appear to be a major drag on birth rates. Quote Our results suggest that to solve the European fertility crisis, policy will have to address the fact that it is predominantly women who are opposed to having more children in low-fertility countries. Fertility is low in large part because women continue to bear the majority of the burden of childcare, and as long as this is the case, general subsidies for childbearing are unlikely to be effective. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-european-women-are-saying-no-having-more-babies
February 21, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, Lazarus said: I absolutely never heard of a nanny as a real, going concern, until recently. It was something from a bygone era, like a chimney sweep. Chimney sweeps are less needed now because more residential fireplaces use gas, which does not produce soot. Babies, however, still produce as much of a different four-letter word that starts with s and ends with t as ever. Our family was definitely not the only one hiring them during the pandemic. I know multiple other DIWK families, both here in Akron and among my law school classmates, who did likewise. Daycares shut down. For some families, that was a moment of reconsideration if one spouse or the other only ever barely made enough to make daycare worth it in the first place; some families had one spouse leave the labor force permanently to raise the children, and I don't even consider that a bad thing. But there were plenty of us who had both spouses making too much to really even consider quitting. 9 hours ago, Foraker said: Why are you such an outlier among American conservatives and libertarians and what would convince them to get rid of expensive for-profit insurance middlemen? Everyone who is concerned about barriers to people having kids should want to make it as easy as possible. Free healthcare for kids (other countries do it)? Paid maternity and paternity to cover the first two years (other countries do it)? Free childcare and preschool? Free after-school care? Housing and food assistance for low-income families? Some people do not make great parents, so we'll also need to adequately fund things like foster care programs and provide better parent education and support. On your first question (forum software makes this formatting awkward by snipping the quote in between your paragraphs): I've seen a conservative described as a liberal who has been mugged by reality. Well, what about a conservative who's been mugged by a health insurance company? As for your second question/point about barriers to having kids and making it easier: I'm less enthused about childcare and preschool because studies have generally shown those benefits to be "better than ephemeral but worse than durable" (typically vanishing in ~3-4 years). But with respect to healthcare for kids (and mothers): you say "other countries do it," but of more direct interest, we used to have a form of such benefits here, too. 6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: The thing that I hate is that what gets thrown around in the media is all about "sticker price" Nobody pays that in health care, even those without insurance. The problem with health care is nobody has any clue what anything costs because the billing system is so convoluted. If people really want to reform the system, they should start with price transparency first. It would be much better than socialized healthcare and people would actually understand what a baby costs. My friend used to work for a health insurance company and before he had his first child, he called in to get the estimated cost. They still billed him for a bunch of items he did not know about and it took 6 months after the child was born to figure out and fix the bill. It was a mess. Health care billing can be much more transparent and it will greatly bring the cost down along with helping people actually figure out what certain procedures truly cost I'm a bankruptcy attorney. While maybe not everyone pays sticker price, there are definitely people who see sticker price--and that will be the amount claimed by the provider if the patient files bankruptcy when confronted with the bills. They might of course get pennies on the dollar, and at that point, well, they're mostly competing with other unsecured creditors (credit cards, etc., and one might not necessarily shed a tear for credit card companies). The "nobody pays sticker price" is an artifact of the fact that basically anyone rich enough to pay sticker price also has at least some kind of health insurance. So you either don't pay sticker price because you have insurance, or you don't pay sticker price because you're broke and simply can't. But the latter situation might also dissuade people from having children, particularly at the biological ages that give the highest chances for healthy pregnancies and healthy births (which, unfortunately, are basically late teens/early 20s).
February 21, 20232 yr 7 hours ago, Gramarye said: … Well, what about a conservative who's been mugged by a health insurance company? … But with respect to healthcare for kids (and mothers): you say "other countries do it," but of more direct interest, we used to have a form of such benefits here, too. … I'm a bankruptcy attorney. While maybe not everyone pays sticker price, there are definitely people who see sticker price--and that will be the amount claimed by the provider if the patient files bankruptcy when confronted with the bills. They might of course get pennies on the dollar, and at that point, well, they're mostly competing with other unsecured creditors (credit cards, etc., and one might not necessarily shed a tear for credit card companies). The "nobody pays sticker price" is an artifact of the fact that basically anyone rich enough to pay sticker price also has at least some kind of health insurance. So you either don't pay sticker price because you have insurance, or you don't pay sticker price because you're broke and simply can't. But the latter situation might also dissuade people from having children, particularly at the biological ages that give the highest chances for healthy pregnancies and healthy births (which, unfortunately, are basically late teens/early 20s). That link piqued my curiosity: ”The Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy Act, more commonly known as the Sheppard–Towner Act, was a 1921 U.S. Act of Congress that provided federal funding for maternity and childcare.” That looks awesome - bring it back! I do think an important next step would be to put all children, anyone who is pregnant, and those giving birth and postpartum on Medicare. The cost of people having children is too great for the individual while the cost of people not having children is too great for society. So it should be collectively funded. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 21, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, Gramarye said: The "nobody pays sticker price" is an artifact of the fact that basically anyone rich enough to pay sticker price also has at least some kind of health insurance. So you either don't pay sticker price because you have insurance, or you don't pay sticker price because you're broke and simply can't. But the latter situation might also dissuade people from having children, particularly at the biological ages that give the highest chances for healthy pregnancies and healthy births (which, unfortunately, are basically late teens/early 20s). Hospitals have groups set up to manage receivables to make sure they get paid "something" vs 'nothing". Even going through the bankruptcy process to get their $.15 on the dollar is not very palatable to hospitals. They would rather take the $.15-.20 on the dollar today than try and fight for it later. The dirty secret about hospitals is that they eat through a ton of cash each month so they need to insure that they are getting enough payments in "Now" vs trying to collect later. Whether you are uninsured or simply do not wish to use your insurance, you can save a ton of money by calling and negotiating using the uninsured rates. Furthermore, if you are working with non-profit health systems, they have rates for those who are not insured which are 80% or more off the sticker price depending on your income. I have a couple of employees who have had to have some elective surgeries and do not have insurance and have been able to negotiate with the various health systems significant discounts based on their income and ability to pay. Now, I do not recommend trying to do this with Team Health (because they are a bunch of A holes) but most hospitals and health groups do work with you because they need to get the cash in today.
February 21, 20232 yr One of the key challenges often cited to having families is the lack of quality childcare options available. Even if the government came in and starting offering free childcare and opening up childcare centers, this problem would still persist. After all, the issue with the low birth rate primarily stems from the middle class and upper middle class (poor people are still having babies and the rich tend to be doing their part with 2-4 kids). The thing I find disingenuous about the childcare argument is that if the government offered free childcare you have the situation where many families (justifiably so) feel the government childcare is inadequate and do not want to put their child in such a facility. If they have kids they will want to pay a premium to have a better experience than the "free" government experience. It will drive up prices for that care (just like college is arbitrarily inflated). It will create the same self perpetuating cycle where a lot of people will continue to think/feel that having kids is unaffordable because of the cost of "good" childcare. There are better ways to accomplish this then by offering "free childcare" Certainly private sector flexible workplace policies play an important role there, but those tend to be available to more upper middle class families as their jobs better allow for such flexibility.
February 21, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, Gramarye said: But the latter situation might also dissuade people from having children, particularly at the biological ages that give the highest chances for healthy pregnancies and healthy births (which, unfortunately, are basically late teens/early 20s). Yeah, most people in human history had a teenage or at least under-25 mother. My mom was 20 when she had me. I now know many people who waited until their 30s to have kids who have been unable to conceive. In one case, it's the oldest of three sisters, and the younger sisters each have multiple kids, creating a humiliating situation for the oldest.
February 21, 20232 yr 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: Quote In the United States, among heterosexual women aged 15 to 49 years with no prior births, about 1 in 5 (19%) are unable to get pregnant after one year of trying (infertility). Also, about 1 in 4 (26%) women in this group have difficulty getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term (impaired fecundity). (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.
February 21, 20232 yr 7 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: One of the key challenges often cited to having families is the lack of quality childcare options available. . . . . . . [If] the government offered free childcare you have the situation where many families (justifiably so) feel the government childcare is inadequate and do not want to put their child in such a facility. . . . It will create the same self perpetuating cycle where a lot of people will continue to think/feel that having kids is unaffordable because of the cost of "good" childcare. There are better ways to accomplish this then by offering "free childcare" . . . . As someone who was fairly well off, but without family living nearby, and with a working spouse, I can say that my experience was that finding quality childcare was very very difficult, but necessary for both of us to keep working. The available childcare facilities had long wait lists, and if a kid was sick, you had to pull your kid out for 24 hours (at a minimum). Even in-home childcare was challenging (but more affordable than outside childcare when we had multiple children at home). The costs of childcare made us question the value of my spouse continuing to work -- and we were both professionals with advanced degrees! I don't know how the "average" family can afford childcare. Admittedly, this is only one anecdote of my own experience some time ago. But after having gone through it, I can see how that struggle might cause anyone to think long and hard about having more than one kid. In a world of limited childcare options and high rates, capitalism is creating a barrier to having kids. The market does not seem to be working well -- which suggests that we need government intervention in the market to increase supply. That doesn't have to mean introducing government-run childcare to the market. It could mean government subsidies for training and hiring childcare workers or establishing childcare facilities in areas where needed (opportunity zones, perhaps). If childcare was easier to find and more affordable, it would make it easier to have kids. That probably would not make a dramatic difference by itself, but it would at least remove one struggle that new parents now have (which may discourage them from having another kid, and may discourage their friends from having a first kid). @Brutus_buckeye-- you've raised a lot of concerns about the US birth rate as a problem, and you've said that there are better ways to increase the birth rate -- what are your better solutions? 50 minutes ago, atothek said: 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. Well said. We'll never get to 100% of women wanting children (and we shouldn't expect that to be a goal anyway), and we may never get to 100% of women wanting children to be able to give birth, and we shouldn't judge women for those decisions or physical limitations. I still say if we are concerned about birthrates, we should make childbirth -- including fertility medical care -- and childcare easier and less expensive so that we take concerns about those factors out of the equation for people trying to make that decision about whether and how many kids to have.
February 22, 20232 yr Here's a thought: any company that mandates return-to-work MUST provide full free childcare on location. I don't give a flying fart if it's retail, medical, corporate, sewage, Jacob's Field, Independence brothel, Apple's spaceship, Soldier Field's spaceship, Government, Area 51, Xavier's Mansion, hollowed moon, Cardassian military, Bajor, Oz, Narnia, planet on Expanse season 3, etc. We have all these half-full buildings in cities. Fast track child care licenses/training, impose draconinan sanctions on abusive employees/admin but otherwise pay them damn well. David Solomon can find some extra nightly gigs to pay for it -- so can other business "leaders". And boom: at least we've mitigated one of the many issues of 2023. Frankly, I think social media/texting/Internet/obesity are far bigger reasons for slowing birth rates. But one mitigating solution at a time. Edited February 22, 20232 yr by TBideon
February 22, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, TBideon said: Here's a thought: any company that mandates return-to-work MUST provide full free childcare on location. I don't give a flying fart if it's retail, medical, corporate, sewage, Jacob's Field, Independence brothel, Apple's spaceship, Soldier Field's spaceship, Government, Area 51, Xavier's Mansion, hollowed moon, Cardassian military, Bajor, Oz, Narnia, planet on Expanse season 3, etc. So you want government to mandate how a private company chooses to run their business? Essentially, all employees have an absolute right to work remote unless the employer offers expensive benefits like child care? That is a horrible idea. If companies want to offer an employee benefit of free childcare to attract and retain talent, that is their prerogative. It is not government's place to mandate this. Free childcare is not an employee right. It is not the McDonald's franchisee's responsibility to provide free childcare to the teenager who gets knocked up and cant come into her minimum wage job anymore. For one, these small employers could not afford this cost (given that it would probably cost more than the employee earns on the hour) and there could be issues if the employer chose not to retain the worker due to the family situation. This would just be ripe for abuse and trouble and horrible for small employers. 21 minutes ago, TBideon said: We have all these half-full buildings in cities. Fast track child care licenses/training, impose draconinan sanctions on abusive employees/admin but otherwise pay them damn well. David Solomon can find some extra nightly gigs to pay for it -- so can other business "leaders". They will earn what the market will bear. Also, what about landlords of these office spaces that do not wish to rent to day care facilities? Do these facilities have an absolute right to this space? What about when they don't pay their rent? SOme building owners may decide that daycare does not fit the space they want to rent and may choose to leave it vacant instead of renting it. There are certainly a lot of hurdles to overcome. One thing that would be beneficial as you point out is to make the licensing process a lot easier and smoother for daycares. Allow people to get licensed to host small day care centers out of their houses so they do it properly (a lot of people just do it anyway without getting licensed so to cut down the red tape would be beneficial to create some oversight). Also, it would be beneficial to allow in hoe nannies to be paid as 1099 workers instead of W2. For the average person who has a nanny, it is a pain in the butt to have to set up payroll withholding and file the tax forms just to have someone watch the kids during the day. Remove this tax burden. Even if unreported, this in-home staff is not really costing the treasury much anyway. Again it is the administrative burden.
February 22, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, atothek said: 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. I agree that the population here (like almost all of UO) skews towards men, but for the rest, I feel like you've been reading a completely different thread. The article @Lazarus posted was expressly about people remaining childless by choice; it made no assumption that the article's subjects did not openly proclaim about themselves. I don't see any basis for expanding from that to see "an underlying assumption" that any woman who remains silent on the topic is deliberately opting out. We were specifically talking about that subset of people who directly said so and defended that as a good thing. I didn't see anyone broaden that assumption to talking about those who didn't so self-identify. I also don't think anyone in this thread gave any hint of unawareness of how many women struggle with fertility, and in fact, quite the opposite--there was a direct mention of the fact that many do in fact face that struggle, particularly those who start in their 30s. (Aside: the one quibble I have from the stats you quoted is that it grouped together women ages 15 to 49, which really ought to be subdivided. In support, I cite my wife's reaction when she was 35 and pregnant and her OB/GYN told her that her pregnancy would be classified as "geriatric.") That describes, among other things, my own marriage, not to mention those of many other women professionals whom I number among my friends and who have opened up on this topic, sometimes privately to me, sometimes on social media. My wife and I at this point have had more miscarriages than healthy births, and we're not alone even among the parent group at my kids' school, let alone in this country. I'm particularly curious where you see the basis for your comment "Don't take someone not talking to you about pregnancy as that person not trying or not wanting children." Who have you seen even mention anyone's silence or refusal to talk about this issue as conveying a message of any kind, let alone that one? I'm scrolling back over all the activity in this thread from January and I don't see anything like what you're describing. I can appreciate your comment as a precautionary warning not to make such assumptions going forward--a warning with which I fully concur--but I don't see evidence of it in what we've been talking about here so far this year.
February 22, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, Foraker said: The costs of childcare made us question the value of my spouse continuing to work -- and we were both professionals with advanced degrees! I don't know how the "average" family can afford childcare. The whole dilemma of feminism is that creates a hierarchy - the professional class must earn enough to justify the payment of a lower class woman to watch their kids. It's creating an inflection not unlike the trades on the male side of the universe, with many tradesman earning more than men with college degrees. The going rate for watching kids in homes is so high that no doubt many women could earn *far* more staying at home and watching two kids in addition to their own as opposed to working. My mom watched many neighborhood kids, meaning our house was a circus pretty much every day, all day. I don't know how much she was paid but I'm sure it was a decent amount - no doubt she netted much more than working a professional job and paying some other woman to watch her own kids.
February 22, 20232 yr If a business won't offer appropriate wages or benefits, including childcare, to support families, then let them close shop. We limited child labor, created labor protections, imposed minimum wages - all the while the usual supsects screamed about Jesus and how big Government is ruining everything - yet somehow the economy and country survived for generations. I doubt the Googles, Ernst & Youngs and Wal-Marts would rather close operations rather than incur compulsory additional cost for childcare. I think it's worth taking that risk. Edited February 22, 20232 yr by TBideon
February 22, 20232 yr I remember Giant Eagles had childcare in them but now they don't. I think it was around 2010 when they stopped.
February 22, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, TBideon said: I doubt the Googles, Ernst & Youngs and Wal-Marts would rather close operations rather than incur compulsory additional cost for childcare. I think it's worth taking that risk. So small family-owned businesses are going to have to provide childcare for employees with kids but not those who don't? Guess who they're going to avoid hiring.
February 22, 20232 yr It was a bit later, 2014-2017, when they closed most of their Eagle's Nest centers. Wegman's did the same a few years later, 2019 I believe, with Wkids. Their announced reasons: more people were gravitating to Instacart and curbside pickups. My thoughts: they could make more money with those systems, and no one was compelling them to have childcare. So an employee and her average $30,000 pre-tax salary, plus customers who used the service, were on their own.
February 22, 20232 yr Just now, Lazarus said: So small family-owned businesses are going to have to provide childcare for employees with kids but not those who don't? Guess who they're going to avoid hiring. Well, I'm sure businesses didn't want to hire Jews, women, black or gay people for a very long time: it's a good thing laws and regs evolve. As for small companies, who knows. Obamacare exempts small businesses -- perhaps something similar for mom & pops? Or not, and all businesses must have the infrastructure for childcare even if unused. These are all details, and there is middle ground beyond no no no no no no no.
February 22, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, TBideon said: I doubt the Googles, Ernst & Youngs and Wal-Marts would rather close operations rather than incur compulsory additional cost for childcare. I think it's worth taking that risk. This shows that you have a very limited understanding of labor and labor markets. Google, E&Y, Amazon, etc are Fortune 100 firms. Many of the employees they hire are high earners and the companies earn billions of dollars a year. That is not the reality for the vast majority of the economy and employers. To treat them the same way and impose the same burden that a huge company paying their employees six figures would choose to offer would stifle the economy and innovation. You cite the minimum wage laws, as your prime example, but most economists would agree that minimum wage laws really do not work at actually increasing real wages for any sustainable period. If you notice, minimum wage laws are fairly pyrrhic in what they accomplish. Go to California or states like Illinois that set high minimum wage rates (and a long runway to achieve it), you see that given the current inflation, wages are naturally rising to above the minimum wage floor set by government to compensate employees for the additional cost burden created by the inflation. When the Federal government raises the minimum wage, have you ever noticed that it is still below what the average entry level fast food worker is currently earning? Minimum wage is a joke and has always been.
February 22, 20232 yr I certainly agree with your last sentence. Either we're a first world country or we're not, and that means minimum wage must be enough to account for a reasonable living standard. It sure as hell isn't $7.25 national.
February 22, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I also don't think anyone in this thread gave any hint of unawareness of how many women struggle with fertility, and in fact, quite the opposite--there was a direct mention of the fact that many do in fact face that struggle, particularly those who start in their 30s. (Aside: the one quibble I have from the stats you quoted is that it grouped together women ages 15 to 49, which really ought to be subdivided. In support, I cite my wife's reaction when she was 35 and pregnant and her OB/GYN told her that her pregnancy would be classified as "geriatric.") That describes, among other things, my own marriage, not to mention those of many other women professionals whom I number among my friends and who have opened up on this topic, sometimes privately to me, sometimes on social media. My wife and I at this point have had more miscarriages than healthy births, and we're not alone even among the parent group at my kids' school, let alone in this country. to your point, part of the fertility problem is that women are choosing to have children later in life than in the past. It is a lot easier for a woman to get pregnant (statistically speaking) at 25 vs 35. When you have people delaying starting a family until their mid 30s now instead of mid 20s like is was 30 years ago it also will add to fewer children, more difficulty having kids and more costs associated with trying to have a child. At the same time, it is the responsible decision of many women to delay childbirth until they are in a stable relationship and in a position where they have stability in their career or personal life. Anecdotally speaking, my wife had our youngest daughter in her late 30s after suffering 4-5 miscarriages along the way. Getting pregnant with our other kids when she was younger was much easier in that regard. Growing up, my mother had a miscarriage as she got older in her late 30s. So it is certainly more common that as women age, it is certainly more difficult to have children than it would have been if they were younger.
February 22, 20232 yr Just now, TBideon said: I certainly agree with your last sentence. Either we're a first world country or we're not, and that means minimum wage must be enough to account for a reasonable living standard. It sure as hell isn't $7.25 national. Nobody earns $7.25 anyway. the market determines the wage not the government. It is much more efficient that way and also leads to much better outcomes.
February 22, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Nobody earns $7.25 anyway. the market determines the wage not the government. It is much more efficient that way and also leads to much better outcomes. Ohio is at $10.10. It just auto-adjusted almost $1. The only people actually earning minimum wage in Ohio tend to be tipped employees like valet guys or delivery guys. I just had a conversation this morning with a guy who operates a fulfillment operation (simple assembly) and they're having to pay way over Ohio's minimum to get people.
February 22, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Ohio is at $10.10. It just auto-adjusted almost $1. The only people actually earning minimum wage in Ohio tend to be tipped employees like valet guys or delivery guys. I just had a conversation this morning with a guy who operates a fulfillment operation (simple assembly) and they're having to pay way over Ohio's minimum to get people. exactly. A lot of McDonalds and Wendy's and other fast food workers in Ohio are starting out at $12-$13/hr.
February 22, 20232 yr Make the job suck less and you don't have to pay as much. Don't make people work at night and on the weekends. Let people sit even if it's on a stool (I hate stools). Keep it from being 140 degrees in there.
February 22, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: to your point, part of the fertility problem is that women are choosing to have children later in life than in the past. It . . . . is the responsible decision of many women to delay childbirth until they are in a stable relationship and in a position where they have stability in their career or personal life. Student loan debt. Housing affordability. Healthcare affordability. Childcare affordability. Etc. (All the things that liberals are pushing for solutions for, while conservatives say "can't be done!" -- apparently meaning that there are no solutions to these problems, "deal with it.") Yet what you seem to be saying is that reducing those problems that delay couples' stability would encourage childbirth sooner and more frequently, boosting the birthrate. But that just circles us back to the issued mentioned above -- foreign countries have those things and also struggle with birthrates. So is this another "there is no solution to low birthrates - deal with it?" Maybe there is little that government can do to boost birthrates. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for population stability, like immigration.
February 22, 20232 yr 35 minutes ago, Foraker said: Yet what you seem to be saying is that reducing those problems that delay couples' stability would encourage childbirth sooner and more frequently, boosting the birthrate. What I am saying, good, bad or indifferent, is that the biological clock is real. As people delay starting families until they are in their 30's or later, it is more difficult to have children, they often has less children due to age, and oftentimes, it is more expensive to conceive as many couples need to resort to fertility treatments and other methods to conceive. If more women were conceiving in their 20s it would allow more time to have more children, it would reduce the cost of having a child as the need for fertility treatments would likely be in less demand when the mother is younger. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but it should be recognized as a societal tradeoff that has occurred as fewer young adults are coupling up in their 20's and starting families. It is just one thing that is ignored in the equation. 40 minutes ago, Foraker said: But that just circles us back to the issued mentioned above -- foreign countries have those things and also struggle with birthrates. So is this another "there is no solution to low birthrates - deal with it?" So, who is having children? to your point, It generally is the 1) poor have the most, 2) Rich will often have 3 it seems (but they are by far the smallest group) and middle class (the largest group) have the fewest if any. So how do you grow your population? Well, you don't look to Europe as they clearly don't have it figured out. China screwed that pooch a long time ago and is going to be paying the price for their idiotic policies for the last 50 years. The only easy answer is immigration. Despite what Donald Trump may say, immigration is the only way out of this. Expanding legal immigration to allow more immigrants opportunities in the US will ultimately solve a lot of the problems (including decreasing inflation). Immigration will be the fastest and easiest way to at least keep up population growth in countries. If you are looking for policies that can help. Promoting opportunities for mothers to stay home with their kids would be beneficial (for those who desire it). Promoting policiies that encourage people to have multiple children would also be beneficial. However, these are very long term plays and would often take a generation to bear much fruit. In the short term, immigration is the best way.
February 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: Student loan debt. Housing affordability. Healthcare affordability. Childcare affordability. Etc. (All the things that liberals are pushing for solutions for, while conservatives say "can't be done!" -- apparently meaning that there are no solutions to these problems, "deal with it.") Yet what you seem to be saying is that reducing those problems that delay couples' stability would encourage childbirth sooner and more frequently, boosting the birthrate. But that just circles us back to the issued mentioned above -- foreign countries have those things and also struggle with birthrates. So is this another "there is no solution to low birthrates - deal with it?" Maybe there is little that government can do to boost birthrates. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for population stability, like immigration. I agree. And we are at an advantage compared to many other nations suffering from declining birthrates because we are used to immigration, are a nation of immigrants, and have had waves of immigration all throughout are history. Not so much for Japan, China, Russia, etc. These societies may have a much harder time accepting people that are different than the majority. I don't think Japan even wants immigrants and would rather just accept the consequences. Not so sure about South Korea. How willing would some of these Asian nations be to accept immigrants from other Asian nations? We are lucky in that we can attract a wide range of immigrants from many different continents. When it becomes a crisis maybe the anti-immigration crowd will simmer down a bit. And I am talking about controlled and legal immigration as, in any nation, we do need to be able to control our own borders.
February 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: Student loan debt. Housing affordability. Healthcare affordability. Childcare affordability. Etc. (All the things that liberals are pushing for solutions for, while conservatives say "can't be done!" -- apparently meaning that there are no solutions to these problems, "deal with it.") Yet what you seem to be saying is that reducing those problems that delay couples' stability would encourage childbirth sooner and more frequently, boosting the birthrate. But that just circles us back to the issued mentioned above -- foreign countries have those things and also struggle with birthrates. So is this another "there is no solution to low birthrates - deal with it?" Maybe there is little that government can do to boost birthrates. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for population stability, like immigration. This is one of the fronts on which the underlying facts of this discussion have shifted in the past 10-15 years, though honestly it's been shifting for a while. The fact is that there in only one region on Earth remaining that has above-replacement fertility: Africa (and not even all of Africa). To come full circle, remember that the news story that brought this thread back from the dead was China's impending demographic collapse. My wife is from India, and of course many more Indians would want to immigrate here than immigration rules currently allow; she was one of the lucky ones. But India's own fertility is below replacement now (2.05); two generations ago, in 1960, it was 5.92. Indonesia (4th-most-populous country in the world) is now at 2.19; they were at 5.55 as of 1960. While we can say that we don't care what happens to them as long as we're OK, there are limits to that. In the past, immigration could be conceived of as bring people from places with many children to places with fewer; now basically nowhere has many, and while Africa is quite populous, it's nowhere near big enough to cover the shortfall of the entire rest of the planet. About 1/3 of the entire human population lives in just two countries; their dips below replacement level are seismic. (And, of course, similarly, even getting the USA back up to 2.1-2.5 would not make a huge impact globally by itself, but we're still #3 even if we're well behind the top two.)
February 22, 20232 yr This new article blames everything (of course) on men: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
February 22, 20232 yr A declining human population is the best thing possible for the future of the planet. Maybe instead of trying to coax people to have more children, we should be putting our biggest, juiciest brains to the task of figuring out the economic challenges that a declining population, nationally and globally, is going to bring. Bring on the robot caretakers!
February 23, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Lazarus said: This new article blames everything (of course) on men: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/ For me that's not the takeaway. Right off the bat it acknowledges how stacked the odds are against single men statistically -- by a factor of two. There really is statistical basis in the stereotype that in the '50s every man was being chased by 3 women whereas today each single woman is being chased by 8 men. It states that 20 percent of Gen Z identifies as queer and that women are dating each other more. They date older men as is the custom. It reminds us that men are now optional. The only real time it does sort of blame men is in the section you highlighted even thought says right there that's what men are told to do by society. The fact that women are now able to do things like hold a race to determine which man is going to figure out (on his own) what her love languages are first then ditch all the others are indeed collateral damage to women in the past having to pick the one that beat them the least or only drank a 12-pack a day as opposed to being junkies. Women do have the advantage in dating today and the article makes that very clear. I think there was a balanced time for dating but it was a very short period in the mid-'90s after which it shifted to the womens' side for the first time ever. And shifted quite heavily. But we do have to address the elephant in the room and I will say that this is the men's (or some say boys') fault. And that's immersing themselves in things from geek or nerd culture. Everyone has always known that if you dedicate too much mental real estate to video games, MTG, anime, swords, even cars, you will have massive issues relating to society as a whole. Notice how when you go to gatherings for these things it's almost all dudes there? I swear a lot of men don't. They think that is society. At least with cars you can break it down like Jay Leno does where he makes it sound relatable to the general public. You have to learn about all of life, what other people like and why they like those things. I think another problem is lack of a mainstream. Men and women equally experienced Elvis, The Beatles, Motown, Van Halen, Def Leppard, and Michael Jackson then it trails off into guys seeking out '90s single-EP Norwegian Black Metal bands with grimy production and women liking obscure reality shows that are only shown on one platform. Listen to music on the radio sometimes, people. It will keep you "normal".
February 23, 20232 yr 50 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: There really is statistical basis in the stereotype that in the '50s every man was being chased by 3 women It's always the case that a lot of guys are serving in the military or locked up in prison, but several hundred thousand were killed during WWII and another 50,000 in Korea, which threw things off for people during those years. I work with a guy who was sentenced to four years but ended up doing five because he somehow smuggled a cell phone in. He nevertheless has SEVEN kids. 54 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: each single woman is being chased by 8 men We were assigned The Glass Menagerie in high school English; I think about it often.
February 23, 20232 yr Those prison guys that aren't in for weed or DUIs or some other little crap think about themselves and themselves only. F everyone else. F it all and F'n no regrets.
February 27, 20232 yr On 2/22/2023 at 5:29 PM, X said: A declining human population is the best thing possible for the future of the planet. And this is, as I believe the phrase goes, "saying the quiet part out loud." I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. A declining human population is a civilizational catastrophe.
February 27, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, Gramarye said: And this is, as I believe the phrase goes, "saying the quiet part out loud." I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. A declining human population is a civilizational catastrophe. What "quiet part"? I'm not suggesting anything coercive. I am suggesting that we shouldn't be creating policies encouraging people to have more children than they otherwise would. I do agree that a declining human population could become a civilizational catastrophe. I disagree that it is inevitable. Successfully navigating a declining human population will require rethinking the basis of many fundamental things about our society and economy, though.
February 27, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, X said: What "quiet part"? I'm not suggesting anything coercive. I am suggesting that we shouldn't be creating policies encouraging people to have more children than they otherwise would. I do agree that a declining human population could become a civilizational catastrophe. I disagree that it is inevitable. Successfully navigating a declining human population will require rethinking the basis of many fundamental things about our society and economy, though. "Rethinking" is too soft a term, though. It's too late, and too soft a term, to "rethink" dancing on the edge of cliffs when you're in the middle of falling, and likewise to expect that "rethinking" gravity will cause it to treat you any differently. Some things cannot be rethought.
February 27, 20232 yr So, should every country constantly seek to increase their population every year? Is that the only economically sustainable path for a country @Gramarye? I find that hard to believe, personally. There are certainly economic advantages to population growth. I do think western countries need to either accept way more economic immigrants to continue our growth economy, or learn to adapt to a declining or stagnant population and maintain economic prosperity. The 19th and 20th centuries were defined by our population growth. I think the 21st century is going to be either a return to 19th century immigration practices (or a variation of it, which comes with all sorts of issues since we now have things like labor laws) or we transition our economy. But we can't rely on building single family homes and expanding highways to provide all of the jobs like the middle of the 20th century.
February 27, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: So, should every country constantly seek to increase their population every year? Is that the only economically sustainable path for a country @Gramarye? I find that hard to believe, personally. There are certainly economic advantages to population growth. I do think western countries need to either accept way more economic immigrants to continue our growth economy, or learn to adapt to a declining or stagnant population and maintain economic prosperity. The 19th and 20th centuries were defined by our population growth. I think the 21st century is going to be either a return to 19th century immigration practices (or a variation of it, which comes with all sorts of issues since we now have things like labor laws) or we transition our economy. But we can't rely on building single family homes and expanding highways to provide all of the jobs like the middle of the 20th century. Taking the last point first: Completely agreed, especially when it comes to expanding highways. With respect to single-family homes, I agree in particular when it comes to what we've come to associate with single-family homes: large lots, winding streets leading to endless cul-de-sacs, etc. But many inner-ring suburbs did have higher density in the past simply because family sizes were larger. It's possible to have a largely bedroom community organized around maximizing the built footprint of small individual lots, with public parks as collective greenspace rather than everyone having (and maintaining) a large private yard. The neighborhood my father grew up in in inner-burb Philadelphia was like that: Duplex, one-car detached garage on a shared driveway with the next duplex over, tiny backyard, even tinier front yard. And there were kids in basically every house on the block, which meant a ready-made peer group that didn't require constant chauffeuring to reach even before the kids got old enough for bicycles (at which point literally hundreds of children were within easy biking distance without even crossing any major thoroughfares). So to go back to your first question: Yes, I think every country should continue to increase their population every year, and more specifically, increase their young population. And they should consider it a big flashing red light if they fail to do so. You can increase population simply by keeping people alive longer but that doesn't come with the same social and economic benefits, not unless we really succeed with some of the aging-reversal research that is getting more mainstream but is still a long way from success in human trials. My three should not be an above-median family size, and of the ten houses on my street, mine should not be the only one with children. We can talk about revitalizing neighborhoods with arts and culture and greenery and street beautification all we want, but ignoring increased family size as an obvious determinant of both density and vitality is an enormous urbanist blind spot.
February 27, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, Gramarye said: Taking the last point first: Completely agreed, especially when it comes to expanding highways. With respect to single-family homes, I agree in particular when it comes to what we've come to associate with single-family homes: large lots, winding streets leading to endless cul-de-sacs, etc. But many inner-ring suburbs did have higher density in the past simply because family sizes were larger. It's possible to have a largely bedroom community organized around maximizing the built footprint of small individual lots, with public parks as collective greenspace rather than everyone having (and maintaining) a large private yard. The neighborhood my father grew up in in inner-burb Philadelphia was like that: Duplex, one-car detached garage on a shared driveway with the next duplex over, tiny backyard, even tinier front yard. And there were kids in basically every house on the block, which meant a ready-made peer group that didn't require constant chauffeuring to reach even before the kids got old enough for bicycles (at which point literally hundreds of children were within easy biking distance without even crossing any major thoroughfares). So to go back to your first question: Yes, I think every country should continue to increase their population every year, and more specifically, increase their young population. And they should consider it a big flashing red light if they fail to do so. You can increase population simply by keeping people alive longer but that doesn't come with the same social and economic benefits, not unless we really succeed with some of the aging-reversal research that is getting more mainstream but is still a long way from success in human trials. My three should not be an above-median family size, and of the ten houses on my street, mine should not be the only one with children. We can talk about revitalizing neighborhoods with arts and culture and greenery and street beautification all we want, but ignoring increased family size as an obvious determinant of both density and vitality is an enormous urbanist blind spot. I agree with a lot of what you say here. A young population is way more beneficial for the economy than an elderly population. But I don't see a way we legislate people having more kids. We might be able to tick up the replacement rate by 0.1 or 0.2 people per couple with smart policies about healthcare, childcare, education, labor laws, etc, but we aren't going back to the 1950s any time soon. We can bring in tons of children by making immigration easier. Without that, we need to learn to live with a stagnant or declining population. I don't see a third option. And increasing population through immigration is not politically popular.
February 27, 20232 yr 55 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: I agree with a lot of what you say here. A young population is way more beneficial for the economy than an elderly population. But I don't see a way we legislate people having more kids. We might be able to tick up the replacement rate by 0.1 or 0.2 people per couple with smart policies about healthcare, childcare, education, labor laws, etc, but we aren't going back to the 1950s any time soon. We can bring in tons of children by making immigration easier. Without that, we need to learn to live with a stagnant or declining population. I don't see a third option. And increasing population through immigration is not politically popular. I think I also agreed earlier in the thread that you can't legislate this. There are some European countries that have tried and barely moved the needle at all, certainly nothing transformational. Not even close. This is more a cultural discussion than a legal or policy one, particularly when talking about fertility rates (a.k.a. the actual thread topic) rather than overall population growth rates (which will be birth plus immigration minus death). I'm not talking about legislating people having more kids any more than @X was talking about legislating people having fewer. Though I know I veered into the policy arena briefly talking about health care spending for maternity and infant care, so that's fair, I may have given the impression that I was more focused on policy here than I was. But for example, when my wife still worked at Bridgestone, they did some kind of survey of the working professional women there and basically asked something along the lines of "if we increased our paid maternity leave to six months [it was 8 weeks at the time], how many of you would have one more child than you're currently planning to?" I doubt you'll be shocked to learn that the answer was basically a rounding error, though of course maybe people didn't trust the anonymity of the survey and said what they thought the execs would want to hear. That's generally consistent with what other countries with more expansive family leave policies than the US have found, too. You need people to (1) want to have children and (2) not be prevented by circumstances from having children, in that order. Policy can address parts of (2) (paid family leave, paid maternity care, etc.) but that's irrelevant if no one's thoughts on the matter make it past (1).
Create an account or sign in to comment