HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 6:43 PM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,161
France was able to increase its fertility rate by offering free day care. That alone should increase the fertility rate.

I sure would hate to open up a business in Japan with 1.2 applicants per job. You may as well label that Hobson's Choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 7:29 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,793
For Canada, Lancet says the population will rise from 35.98 million in 2017, peak at 45.17 million in 2078, and then fall to 44.09 million by 2100. So a slight rise followed by small declines.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 7:35 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
It is concerning to me that a seemingly inevitable result of greater development is ever-declining fertility rates. It doesn't matter how much maternity leave you provide, or how generous the social safety net is - women will average out less than two kids per household - often far, far less. It seems an inevitable side-effect of providing women with high levels of education is many decide they just don't want to have kids - or if they do, they don't want to have them until late in life, and have very few. The only groups resistant to falling birth rates in industrialized countries are those like the old-order Amish and Hasidim who cloister their women and refuse to give them opportunities outside the household.

While it may take generations, I think the ultimate policy conclusion - as horrifying as it is - will be for the state to just conceive embryos and have the children raised by paid staff. If no one is willing to do the job for free any longer, might as well make it compensated work after all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 10:53 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,838
Lower population is a great thing. The world is severely over populated right now, let alone in the next few decades with our pollution and housing issues as well as automation coming in
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2020, 11:21 PM
James Bond Agent 007's Avatar
James Bond Agent 007 James Bond Agent 007 is offline
Posh
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 21,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It is concerning to me that a seemingly inevitable result of greater development is ever-declining fertility rates. It doesn't matter how much maternity leave you provide, or how generous the social safety net is - women will average out less than two kids per household - often far, far less. It seems an inevitable side-effect of providing women with high levels of education is many decide they just don't want to have kids - or if they do, they don't want to have them until late in life, and have very few. The only groups resistant to falling birth rates in industrialized countries are those like the old-order Amish and Hasidim who cloister their women and refuse to give them opportunities outside the household.

While it may take generations, I think the ultimate policy conclusion - as horrifying as it is - will be for the state to just conceive embryos and have the children raised by paid staff. If no one is willing to do the job for free any longer, might as well make it compensated work after all.
I think the major problem here is that, in developed countries, it basically takes longer to "grow up." In less developed societies, kids are mature and ready to go out on their own at, like, 16 or 18. As that society develops it takes longer and longer to reach that stage as people get more education and so on. For guys this isn't too much a big deal, but since women's reproductive age ends at around 40, if you haven't finished "growing up" until you're 27 or 30 that gives you less time to have kids.

If we ever get to the point where people are regularly living to 120 and women can still easily bear kids at 50 or 60 the trend might reverse. And that would happen first in the most developed nations, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 1:32 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Lower population is a great thing. The world is severely over populated right now, let alone in the next few decades with our pollution and housing issues as well as automation coming in
If you could just do a "Thanos snap" and wipe out half the Earth's population, it would be good for the planet, and the economy would fairly quickly recover from the initial dislocation. Similar to how there was a rapid economic expansion following the end of the Black Plague in Europe.

The problem is population decline doesn't work that way. Instead we'll have generation after generation which is smaller than the one which came before, which means large numbers of feeble, frail old people being supported by relatively few working-age adults. In addition, capitalism basically doesn't work in a world with a shrinking population. If population is shrinking, the overall size of the economy probably is too, which means that most investments do not get a positive return, as the market for almost any product you can imagine is shrinking rather than growing with time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007 View Post
I think the major problem here is that, in developed countries, it basically takes longer to "grow up." In less developed societies, kids are mature and ready to go out on their own at, like, 16 or 18. As that society develops it takes longer and longer to reach that stage as people get more education and so on. For guys this isn't too much a big deal, but since women's reproductive age ends at around 40, if you haven't finished "growing up" until you're 27 or 30 that gives you less time to have kids.

If we ever get to the point where people are regularly living to 120 and women can still easily bear kids at 50 or 60 the trend might reverse. And that would happen first in the most developed nations, of course.
I think there are several different things which contribute, to be honest.

First, there is no instinctive human drive to reproduce. This may seem weird to say right - of course we would feel a desire to reproduce. Except we never really needed to - we just needed to have a desire to have sex, and in a world without birth control children would usually be the result (presuming opposite-sex relations). Unfortunately, if you were a woman in many cultures, your personal desire to have sex might not even enter into it. I think there probably is an instinctive maternal bond once a kid is born, but the desire to actually have kids in the first place is culturally mediated - and cultures change over time. It will be interesting to see the long-term result of birth control on human evolution, because if there are personality traits that lead someone to not want kids at all, they should be bred out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations.

For those who do want kids...eventually...I think expectations have been raised inordinately high due to false assumptions about parenting. Basically parents have this ideal today that they can "supercharge" their children by giving them enriching experiences, top-notch schooling, etc. Study after study has found this isn't the case, that child outcome is mostly based upon a mix of genetics and random chance, with minimal parental input. Honestly the strategy of generations back - have a lot of kids and hope one of them gets brains and moxie and can take care of you in your old age - was the more nakedly rational one.

We had another thread recently about people having kids later. Personally I was 30 when our first was born, which seems on the younger side compared to my peers, and 34 with the second. I'm going to be happy to have them both likely out of the house at least some of the time by the time I'm 55, getting to enjoy some time as an empty nester prior to retirement, and hopefully seeing grandchildren before I'm ancient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 2:54 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,589
there are 331+M in the usa in 2020. and many more if you could count the uncounted. i would not bet against 350M in actuality. so i would doubt it takes 42yrs to get to 364M. who knows tho.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 3:21 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
If you could just do a "Thanos snap" and wipe out half the Earth's population, it would be good for the planet, and the economy would fairly quickly recover from the initial dislocation. Similar to how there was a rapid economic expansion following the end of the Black Plague in Europe.

The problem is population decline doesn't work that way. Instead we'll have generation after generation which is smaller than the one which came before, which means large numbers of feeble, frail old people being supported by relatively few working-age adults.
Hold on, as someone with an expertise in wildlife populations, you actually have this backwards.

I'll grant that humans will be a different case in some measure........

But in fact the way population normally cycles in a species is that if the prey is decimated by disease/drought etc. then the predator also suffers for lack of food. (ie. population is resource limited)

Following logically, the predator species decreases in number, by way of death and lower rates of reproduction; as well it permits more growth of food stocks for the prey, which then allow the prey species to multiply.

As humans, this applies in the following ways. Fewer people makes labour more scarce; it therefore forces wages up.

But it also means real estate and food prices decline as demand wanes from population decrease.

The result creates a balance in which supporting a family is easier; on fewer working hours, or a single-income, etc etc.

This nihilist notion that if we don't have eternal population growth the species will spontaneous die out is not born out by any evidence at all.

*****

Quote:
In addition, capitalism basically doesn't work in a world with a shrinking population. If population is shrinking, the overall size of the economy probably is too, which means that most investments do not get a positive return, as the market for almost any product you can imagine is shrinking rather than growing with time.
Again, not correct. I don't mean this unkindly. But you misunderstand how capitalism works.

All value is not lost.

Value is transferred.

In a shrinking population, people are the asset, goods are not.

You invest in people, not goods.

You get a positive R.O.I.

Its a shift, not an end.

****

Quote:
First, there is no instinctive human drive to reproduce.
Uh...have you met many straight women, especially over the age of 30?

The biological desire to have children is there, quite distinct from having sex.

The issue for women or men on an individual basis is setting up the incentive and disincentive structure in a way that promotes a status-quo population size; once we reach an optimal level.

Something I would argue is a lower number than we are at today as a species.

Given than in countries with family-friendly, progressive policies we are only slightly below replacement rate (1.9'ish); I expect that is achievable with a shorter work week.

Something that should be taking shape now w/automation.

But which as been delayed by artificially cheap labour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 4:36 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Uh...have you met many straight women, especially over the age of 30?
QFT.

A shit-ton of women have an "instinctive human drive to reproduce". But there are certainly also some that do not.

For most men, the main instinctual drive is to fuck, but even there, mother nature is a bit of a trickster.

As I've mentioned many times before, I had no fucking idea how deeply I wanted to be a father until I actually became one.

I don't know why it works that way, but it does seem kinda dumb.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 4:51 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
France was able to increase its fertility rate by offering free day care. That alone should increase the fertility rate.
France also offers 4 months maternity leave (post natal), rising to 6 months if having a third child, and a playground on every other street. They also get mandatory 5 weeks holiday, on top of 11 days national holidays, and the official working week is set at 35 hrs, with anything on top accruing extra pay (the result is the French are some of the most productive workforces in the world).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:00 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Also,

One of the reasons we balked at having more than two kids was the fact that we didn't wanna have to buy a bigger car.

I know, it sounds dumb, but it really was one of the reasons (along with more daycare, more food, more clothes, more college, more all of it).

Nobody ever got rich by having a lot of kids.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:36 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post

As I've mentioned many times before, I had no fucking idea how deeply I wanted to be a father until I actually became one.

I don't know why it works that way, but it does seem kinda dumb.
I think it might be because you.... as a person... as a mind... had a rebirth. A form of enlightenment. An event so profound to your ego and mind that it rewired your brain, your hormone levels, the linkage between the neurons... to cause your perception and feelings to be different.

The moment of birth of a child is portal towards a rebirth of the man. And the woman, but also the man.

Tapping into your instincts, embedded in your DNA via history, and manifested by the electrical and biochemical balance of key hormones/neurotransmitters in your brain.

That's what I think happened Steely.

I don't have kids, but that's my theory on what happens. A form ego death, and rebirth from a profound event.

Also a massive increase in oxytocin (the bond hormone)... can't forget that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:58 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
^ a type of liberating ego death, for sure: "I'm not living for me anymore!"

But also a type of ego reinforcement: "I'm now living for this utterly helpless and ridiculously adorable little cutie pie!"


I accomplished most of my neccessary ego-killing in my teens/20s with copious amounts of LSD.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 12:47 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Hold on, as someone with an expertise in wildlife populations, you actually have this backwards.

I'll grant that humans will be a different case in some measure........

But in fact the way population normally cycles in a species is that if the prey is decimated by disease/drought etc. then the predator also suffers for lack of food. (ie. population is resource limited)

Following logically, the predator species decreases in number, by way of death and lower rates of reproduction; as well it permits more growth of food stocks for the prey, which then allow the prey species to multiply.

As humans, this applies in the following ways. Fewer people makes labour more scarce; it therefore forces wages up.

But it also means real estate and food prices decline as demand wanes from population decrease.

The result creates a balance in which supporting a family is easier; on fewer working hours, or a single-income, etc etc.

This nihilist notion that if we don't have eternal population growth the species will spontaneous die out is not born out by any evidence at all.
I did not say humans would die out, I said that the type of population decline we will have - which will result in lots of elderly people - will not be healthy for society or the economy. Barring of course heavy automation or life-extension.

It is true a shrinking population should - in theory - result in a lower cost-of-living. And this should in turn result in a higher birthrate, provided that high COL is the reason for a lower birthrate.

The thing is, if you look at areas of the world with shrinking population now, this isn't borne out at all. Rural backwater parts of the U.S., Europe, and Japan are very cheap to live in, but continue to hemorrhage population as young people move away to higher-cost major metropolitan areas, meaning the number of deaths generally far outpaces births.


I do agree that in the longer run natural selection should operate on humans just as it has on other animals however, which will result in a more stable population. Since people have eliminated most causes of death which wipe out humans before reproductive age, the strongest selection we are facing now as a species is due to differential fertility, and the biggest component of that is who chooses to have kids and who do not. Thus the predominant number of people say 300 years from now will be descended from either those who didn't use birth control properly (due to being too impulsive, disorganized, stupid, etc) or people who had religious objections to birth control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Again, not correct. I don't mean this unkindly. But you misunderstand how capitalism works.

All value is not lost.

Value is transferred.

In a shrinking population, people are the asset, goods are not.

You invest in people, not goods.

You get a positive R.O.I.

Its a shift, not an end.
One could of course argue that if you eliminate half of the population, you essentially double the GDP per capita. But half as much people means half as much demand, and half as many jobs. Again, look at how local economies work anywhere population is shrinking now. It's hard to actually build economic growth, because as the population declines, demand for everything from doctors to teachers to bartenders also declines, which in turn means less job opportunities. This is the main reason why established companies in areas like the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan move into emerging markets. Either the population and/or the overall wealth level is increasing more rapidly, which means you're competing for a growing, rather than shrinking pie, and making a decent profit is easier. In a "full-world" scenario everything other than new technology will essentially be zero-sum competition between firms, with the gain of one due to the loss of another, and little in the way of real wealth generated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Uh...have you met many straight women, especially over the age of 30?

The biological desire to have children is there, quite distinct from having sex.

The issue for women or men on an individual basis is setting up the incentive and disincentive structure in a way that promotes a status-quo population size; once we reach an optimal level.

Something I would argue is a lower number than we are at today as a species.

Given than in countries with family-friendly, progressive policies we are only slightly below replacement rate (1.9'ish); I expect that is achievable with a shorter work week.

Something that should be taking shape now w/automation.

But which as been delayed by artificially cheap labour.
I know women in my 30s. My wife was in her 30s when we got married. Actually she's older than me - she was 38 when our first kid was born. Part of the reason I decided to get married and have kids after a relatively short time dating was due to her age - I knew I might have been her "last chance" and didn't want to waste her biological clock spending 5 years being a DINK couple or something.

But I'm 41 now, and I would say that out of the social group of women I know - most of whom are within a few years of me, and nearing the end of the period they could have children unassisted - less than half of them probably have had children. Though I admittedly ran in a more educated/artsy/countercultural crew in my young adulthood than most. It seems like the rando "normies" who have friended me on Facebook are much more likely to be moms now.

I do think there is a strong cultural norm to want children. But I think this depends upon your peer group. If you are a woman who sees all of your friends start breeding at 35, you may feel pressure to do so. In contrast, if you are a professor and everyone tells you to put off having kids until you achieve tenure, you're going to do that, even if it means you might forestall the ability to have kids at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 12:53 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Also, while it is true that some European nations appear to have slightly raised their birth rate through pro-natal policies, my understanding is in almost all cases this is really attributable to large family sizes among first-generation immigrants. The first-generation caveat is important, because later generations tend to converge on normal national fertility rates. So really they are still either directly or indirectly relying upon immigration to stop a decrease in population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 1:00 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Nobody ever got rich by having a lot of kids.
Historically speaking, yes, yes they did.

I remember a few years ago listening to this piece on NPR about the history of adoption. It made the point that adoption had a sudden shift 100 or so years ago. Before that, kids that were in the highest demand were older children and teens, who could be used as household labor, or just apprenticed off somewhere. In contrast, babies were worthless, and no one wanted to adopt them. They typically went to orphanages and died due to neglect after only six months. Then western culture's idea of children shifted dramatically away from a unit of consumption to what amounts to a luxury consumption good - something we "waste" a lot of money on and get little reward from.

Similarly, academics have studied obituary records from England in the early modern period. People from wealthier backgrounds almost always had more surviving children at the time of death. The ultimate conclusion was even the working class of England today is probably predominantly descended from people who would have been minor nobility 500 years ago, but were continually downwardly mobile as they kept "replacing" the previous class of peasants.

Also as I noted, if you lived in an era prior to a social safety net, and you were struggling, the best thing you could do is have lots of kids, because it upped the chance that one of them would "make it" and be able to support you in old age.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 1:28 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Just adding to this eschaton Northern Light's discussions, even though theoretically things would become cheaper for the younger while their wages could arguably rise, on the other hand, production of goods and services would decrease or be eliminated altogether, global trade networks would shrink, resulting either in higher prices or a poorer life without all the conforts of today's society.

This alone will not be the end of the world, but it's hard to imagine a positive scenario. And things could become even uglier, as the worldwide economic shrinking might cause violence, social unrest, totalitarian governments, etc.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 3:09 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
OTOH, if the inverted demographic pyramid era coincides with an automation revolution, then it could be highly convenient. The larger population of old people will temporarily demand services that are labor intensive and hard for machines to perform, creating opportunity for the shrinking number of young people during that time. This could enable a smoother transition into an era where the nature of employment is different from now.

The worst thing to happen would be for a country to have a huge impoverished working age population that no longer has any jobs. The development model where rural workers displaced by changes in agriculture and formalized land ownership move to cities to take jobs in factories and then those factories create an industrial base for a more advanced economy that their children are educated to participate in stops working.

Imagine a far future vicious cycle. The poor and uneducated subsistence farmers of a less developed nation continue to have large numbers of children for the purpose of being unproductive menial labor. There are no opportunities for them outside of subsistence farming because there is barely any employment demand, even if they were sufficiently educated which they aren't. Then what is the outcome, the entire continent of Africa looks like northern India, a never ending carpet of 10 acre family farms and villages that expands over every last square meter of equatorial jungle. Or cities like Kabul having 50 million people and being a concrete block hell sprawling in all directions?

I know that "overpopulation" was "debunked" in the 1980s but was it? The rural-urban demographic transition model could falter if there are major economic or political changes. Also the shrinking demographics of developed countries can be adapted to or fixed with immigration.

Last edited by llamaorama; Jul 18, 2020 at 3:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:11 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I know that "overpopulation" was "debunked" in the 1980s but was it? The rural-urban demographic transition model could falter if there are major economic or political changes. Also the shrinking demographics of developed countries can be adapted to or fixed with immigration.
Birth rates are falling just about everywhere in the world now - even in Africa. It's just that total fertility is so high it's probably going to take more than a century for a demographic transition to take place, because even as the growth rate slows down the growth is from a higher base, meaning the numeric growth will be fairly steady.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2020, 5:27 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
For those who do want kids...eventually...I think expectations have been raised inordinately high due to false assumptions about parenting. Basically parents have this ideal today that they can "supercharge" their children by giving them enriching experiences, top-notch schooling, etc. Study after study has found this isn't the case, that child outcome is mostly based upon a mix of genetics and random chance, with minimal parental input. Honestly the strategy of generations back - have a lot of kids and hope one of them gets brains and moxie and can take care of you in your old age - was the more nakedly rational one.
Isn't that trading one extreme for another?

I don't think the approach of having a bunch of kids you can barely provide for and then don't extensively raise or supervise is a good one, because in today' society there are definitely segments of the population who do this. And its pretty obvious that it is a poverty trap and source of crime.

On the other hand, some highly-educated professional class couple fretting over whether they could guarantee their child would rise even more on the socioeconomic ladder by attending private schools, being perfect in everything, etc, while they still maintain inflated expectations of affluent lifestyle in an expensive city or suburb and continue to be able to travel abroad and do things like that, well that's not realistic either.

Maybe a more fair concern among middle class parents is that child care is expensive and unlike traditional societies there is no village who is going to help raise your child. And the medical care even just for the childbirth part is high. Never mind that people marry later and then there is no assurance your partner won't leave you a few years later and saddle you with child support, custody battles, so why bother with marriage and why risk having a family/

Finally, I think it is harder to find a place to live that wouldn't be a net negative influence on a child's upbringing. Suburban houses are expensive and apartment complexes or affordable older neighborhoods are shady and are zoned to worse schools. You would be living in the same environment as the people in the scenario I first mentioned who go around having 5 kids with 5 different fathers who may or may not be in prison now - do you let your kid hang out with those kids? And maybe the downstairs neighbors don't like kids, so they constantly complain about noise or the unauthorized presence of a pink tricycle on a balcony and you get piles of lease violations till you move.

I think in the end, something like public daycare and preschool and more social welfare would help, but also simultaneously the government would nudge people towards more traditional family values and men having more say. In the USA this will NEVER happen because of our political alignments - social conservatism and economic welfare state advocacy are like oil and water and don't mix.

However countries like China, South Korea, and perhaps a traditionalist, catholic country in Europe like France would do this and see more balanced domestic fertility rates.

OTOH, immigration might just be more efficient. You don't have to raise a new generation of workers if you can import one who someone else paid to produce for you. Even better, if that worker is highly educated you deprived a rival nation of an asset they put public funds into.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:57 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.