Maternity leave

[notyoueither]

Not particularly.

Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Currently with the way our economy is structured, there are lots of factors to discourage population growth among the wealthy....

In any economy, there are a lot of factors to discourage population growth among the wealthy. The key point is that having kids takes time away from work and for wealthy people their time is worth more than less wealthy people. Therefore, it's a higher cost to have a child because of the relative costs of their time.

This would be the case in any economy/society that has people who are wealthier than others (which is also necessary if you want your economy to be successful, you know incentives and all).

[KrazyHorse]

Currently with the way our economy is structured, there are lots of factors to discourage population growth among the wealthy....

Yeah, they're called "costs". And I'm in favour of letting people decide for themselves whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

How is that a good thing? As long as inheritance is allowed, it will jsut focus % wealth in a smaller and smaller group of people.

So now we should encourage the wealthy to breed so that they're forced to share their estates among more people? What is this, bizarro feudal society?

There are still plenty of people having children, just it is the people who it makes economic sense for... the poor/etc.

So? I thought you didn't care whether it was poor or rich people having kids.

The economy doesn't do things that is the wisest for the nation/economy as a whole. Rather, it is whatever is for the best self interest of that particular element.

My contention is that it's extraordinary arrogance for one individual to sit down, wave his hands and decide what IS best for everybody. THIS is the reason that socialist societies don't work. Central planning is BUNK. It's hard enough for individuals to decide what's in their own best interest. The thought that ANYBODY is smart enough to decide what's in EVERYBODY's best interest is ridiculous to me.

In such case, it is best for the wealthy to have no kids (The fact they do is due to cultural/biological reasons) for that particular wealth person.

WTF are you on about? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. Wealthy people have children for non-monetary reasons. So do poor people.

But it isn't best for the economy as a whole, or for the nation as a whole.

How do you know?

[KrazyHorse]

Why?

Why would I be in favour of paying for somebody else's brats?

[Jon Miller]

I already put forward why I think it is best for society as a whole.

You haven't presented any reason why it being the best for the individual means it is best for society.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A huge disparity in inherited wealth is inherently bad for society, it discourages opportunity and equality and means that it is more and more just luck based for a smart person with the tools for success who was born to poor parents to raise to the top in society.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

You put forward a reason that larger societies produce more. I have no interest in maximizing GDP. I'm interested in maximizing human welfare. That's measured per individual. I explained why it's ridiculous to simply state that more people leads inevitably to higher welfare. Knowledge provides economies of scale. Natural resources provide DISeconomies of scale.

Might there be some positive net externality to having more children? Sure, possibly. But the main benefit to having children goes to the parents. And the main cost should fall upon them as well. Currently in the US the average parent is GIVEN ~9000$ per child from the age of 5 to the age of 18 in the form of education spending. Add to that tax credits and exemptions and you'll see that society ALREADY subsidizes half or more of the monetary cost of raising children.

I see no reason to increase that figure. And a lot of reasons to reduce it.

[KrazyHorse]

A huge disparity in inherited wealth is inherently bad for society, it discourages opportunity and equality

Opportunity AND equality? Those are two conflicting goals.

and means that it is more and more just luck based for a smart person with the tools for success who was born to poor parents to raise to the top in society.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Heraclitus]

And what makes you think that they'll stop?

This seems to be a trend to be honest. Look at Europe and Japan, if every country on the planet had Germany's fertility rate the human race would be extinct by 3000 AD.


Also to be honest I have no concern for human welfare as such, I am primarily concerned only with humanity as a whole gaining as much knowledge about our universe as possible and developing as much tech as possible. This coincidentally also happens to improve human welfare but this is not always so.

If having 10 billion more people will give us a theory of everything in the next 10 years then I am all for it. Actually I wouldn't mind sacrificing several million human lives to get it right now (I'm off course talking about people who would be unlikely to contribute to the sum total of human knowledge, killing off millions of university educated or possibly even literate people would just slow down progress).

[Jon Miller]

Currently, to become very wealthy you have to be a bit lucky. You can't make over 10m without luck.

With being careful, you can have 4m or so by the end of your life, with a lot of hard work.

However, what would happen when people with 4 million were no longer wealthy? Then the elite group would never be able to be joined except by luck or being born into it. This isn't a state of affairs I would like happen.

If you have enough equality so that any person can become a capitalist and take advantage of their skills/intelligence/etc, then every person has the opportunity. If things are so unequal so that people born in the poor class can never enter the capitalist class without a lot of luck, that means they don't have the opportunity to do their best. Society has overall lost by not allowing them this opportunity. Being born to wealthy parents does not mean that the child is the only one who has the other needed things (besides inherited wealth) to achieve great results.

The thousands of years of recorded history before the 20th century has proven this.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You put forward a reason that larger societies produce more. I have no interest in maximizing GDP. I'm interested in maximizing human welfare. That's measured per individual. I explained why it's ridiculous to simply state that more people leads inevitably to higher welfare. Knowledge provides economies of scale. Natural resources provide DISeconomies of scale.

Human wellfare is maximized when the fewest number possible are in poverty or poor. This is not going to happen when wealth becomes the domain of the few inherited, or the few very lucky people who have everything else align their way.

Might there be some positive net externality to having more children? Sure, possibly. But the main benefit to having children goes to the parents. And the main cost should fall upon them as well. Currently in the US the average parent is GIVEN ~9000$ per child from the age of 5 to the age of 18 in the form of education spending. Add to that tax credits and exemptions and you'll see that society ALREADY subsidizes half or more of the monetary cost of raising children.

The main benefit does not go to the parents. Often the kids do nothing for the parents, even when the parents are old (in our current society). Additionally, the parents generally die when the kids reach middle age (before they are at their wealthy stage if they follow the DanS method to becoming rich.

It is the children that provide future workers, tax earners, employers, scientists, problem solvers, etc. It is entirely in the states interest to have well educated children that have the opportunity to become productive citizens.

I and most of the people I know who are scientists, engineers, etc.. are so because they had government subsidies helping parents educate us. I can tell you that I am a terrible cannery worker, a terrible restaurant worker. But if I didn't have the education subsidies and my family didn't have the other subsidies... I would have to be working such jobs to be able to survive. And then I wouldn't have been able to acquire the education to become a physicist (or an engineer/etc, if you argue that physicists aren't useful... you will note that currently I am thinking of switching to something that is more applied, although I am not yet sure).

And I know many others like me.

In India, where my roommate is from, and were people don't have as many opportunities (provided by the state), things are much worse. My roommate is obviously a bright guy, but he says that he knows many people who are smarter than him who didn't have the opportunities (They had to work to provide for their families) and so are not able to become physicists/etc.

I see no reason to increase that figure. And a lot of reasons to reduce it.

Why is China and India always discussed as being the future? When it comes down to it, it is because they have the population resources so that if they don't screw up... that they will dominate all the positions which can be achieved without inherited wealth.

And they have their capitalist class as well, which is better situated to take advantage of this and become the leading capitalist group as well.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

This seems to be a trend to be honest. Look at [..] Japan, if every country on the planet had Germany's fertility rate the human race would be extinct by 3000 AD.

Lesson: don't try to make war on Canada. We WILL destroy you. Even if it takes 40 generations.

Also to be honest I have no concern for human welfare as such, I am primarily concerned only with humanity as a whole gaining as much knowledge about our universe as possible and developing as much tech as possible.

That's a pathetic goal.

[KrazyHorse]

Human wellfare is maximized when the fewest number possible are in poverty or poor.

Then we should kill everybody

This is not going to happen when wealth becomes the domain of the few inherited, or the few very lucky people who have everything else align their way.

So by spreading wealth out among the children of the rich we somehow make other people richer? Don't be ridiculous. If we want to raise the average starting wealth of the next generation then we should just sterilize the poor.

But wait; I thought you didn't care whether the children were born rich or poor?

The main benefit does not go to the parents. Often the kids do nothing for the parents, even when the parents are old (in our current society). Additionally, the parents generally die when the kids reach middle age (before they are at their wealthy stage if they follow the DanS method to becoming rich.

Are you being deliberately dense? The main benefit to having children is non-monetary in nature, of course. I've already said this a number of times.

It is the children that provide future workers, tax earners, employers, scientists, problem solvers, etc. It is entirely in the states interest to have well educated children that have the opportunity to become productive citizens.

Look, I'll try to put this as simply as possible, because you're obviously not interested in thinking deeply about this issue:

Perhaps you've heard the old saying: "for every mouth that God sends he also sends a pair of hands". Well the converse is also true. It is not AT ALL obvious to me that the net benefit to society of a marginal child is positive. Certainly not large and positive.

I and most of the people I know who are scientists, engineers, etc.. are so because they had government subsidies helping parents educate us.

Really? If the government stopped paying to educate people then nobody would get educated? Don't be ridiculous.

But if I didn't have the education subsidies and my family didn't have the other subsidies... I would have to be working such jobs to be able to survive. And then I wouldn't have been able to acquire the education to become a physicist (or an engineer/etc, if you argue that physicists aren't useful... you will note that currently I am thinking of switching to something that is more applied, although I am not yet sure).

So your education cost more than the discounted value of your lifetime earnings (above that of a cannery worker)?



call it 8000$ for 13 years + 20k for 4 years at 5% real return (gets you to grad school where you start to get paid) in constant dollars adds up to 280k after college. By the way, the lifetime returns to a PhD over a high school graduate is ~2 million.

In India, where my roommate is from, and were people don't have as many opportunities (provided by the state), things are much worse.

In India the GDP per capita is 2600$ per annum. So no **** things are worse.

Why is China and India always discussed as being the future? When it comes down to it, it is because they have the population resources so that if they don't screw up... that they will dominate all the positions which can be achieved without inherited wealth.

Jon, what exactly is the argument you're making here? That India and China will be important countries because they have a lot of people living in them? Sure, why not. But HOW DOES IT RAISE THE HUMAN WELFARE OF CHINA OR INDIA TO HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE?

[KrazyHorse]

China is more important than Luxembourg because there are more Chinese people than Luxembourgers. Therefore Chinese human welfare is higher than Luxembourgian human welfare.

[Heraclitus]

That's a pathetic goal.

You are welcome to come up with a better one.