The Population Problem | Page 11 | Vital Football

The Population Problem

BodyButter said:
I feel that incentives for people to have more kids just won't be enough to incentivise people to have kids (like a free nanny) so they end up being giveaways to people who would be having those kids either way.
Click to expand...

Do you think incentivising people to have kids is a good thing? Apologies if this sounds elitist, but it’s a great ideology to think all these middle class, educated families will churn out another kid but would it encourage say women or couples who are drug addicts to churn out more kids who (unfortunately) probably won’t contribute as much to society in the future.

Childcare costs are without doubt the biggest financial barrier in the first few years, so by subsidising more of that would be a big help to help (personally). A lot of people without kids would respond with cost being a barrier - now you always figure it out, but when you’re asking people to pay north of £500 up to £1k per month in some cases, it’s a hell of a lot of money.
 
BodyButter said:
I feel that incentives for people to have more kids just won't be enough to incentivise people to have kids (like a free nanny) so they end up being giveaways to people who would be having those kids either way.
Click to expand...

You're probably spot on. What they won't do because they never think this way is to look at something like after your 2nd child we'll give you a free nanny or they get free education up to 22 or something.

Or what's probably even better is looking at the age gap between the last child and any new kid born after the date of the new policy. They could have a range of incentives for people having a new child 5, 8, 10 years after their last. I am going to call a spade a spade here. I was a mistake, I was born 7 years after my middle bro and 10 years after my oldest bro. My mom had to work after I was born, so I was probably a tiny bit of burden until I was old enough for school and even beyond that. Now that would probably cripple some families. My feeling is if you havent had a child 5+ years after the first its probably likely you dont want another.

For us we definitely would like more than 2 and you're probably right, realistically we'll probably end up having another without any assistance anyway. Logically I'll sit here and tell you we'll have two and stop, theres no way we'll afford a 3rd or 4th. From an emotional point of view we'd love a 3rd.
 
danvilla2 said:
Do you think incentivising people to have kids is a good thing? Apologies if this sounds elitist, but it’s a great ideology to think all these middle class, educated families will churn out another kid but would it encourage say women or couples who are drug addicts to churn out more kids who (unfortunately) probably won’t contribute as much to society in the future.

Childcare costs are without doubt the biggest financial barrier in the first few years, so by subsidising more of that would be a big help to help (personally). A lot of people without kids would respond with cost being a barrier - now you always figure it out, but when you’re asking people to pay north of £500 up to £1k per month in some cases, it’s a hell of a lot of money.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I think the incentives are ineffective and only benefit those who are having kids anyway.

I think the real issue going forward is going to be managing immigration.
 
danvilla2 said:
Do you think incentivising people to have kids is a good thing? Apologies if this sounds elitist, but it’s a great ideology to think all these middle class, educated families will churn out another kid but would it encourage say women or couples who are drug addicts to churn out more kids who (unfortunately) probably won’t contribute as much to society in the future.

Childcare costs are without doubt the biggest financial barrier in the first few years, so by subsidising more of that would be a big help to help (personally). A lot of people without kids would respond with cost being a barrier - now you always figure it out, but when you’re asking people to pay north of £500 up to £1k per month in some cases, it’s a hell of a lot of money.
Click to expand...
Sorry to have to inform you Dan but the middle classes don't have a monopoly on having kids that benefit the country.
 
wittonite said:
Sorry to have to inform you Dan but the middle classes don't have a monopoly on having kids that benefit the country.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree, the working and upper classes are entitled to the same benefits (if there are). The hypothesis might be an ideology where it is that, and that I guess is what I was testing. Everyone would be entitled to the same benefit so that’s what you have to consider.
 
I think Covid is thinning out the population worldwide.

Just like The Plague, The Black Death, Spanish Flu and Ebola etc have in the past.
 
Pride of Lions said:
I think Covid is thinning out the population worldwide.

Just like The Plague, The Black Death, Spanish Flu and Ebola etc have in the past.
Click to expand...

Its barely making a dent tbf, when you look at COVID as a proportion of deaths vs. the current total population of the world its nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish Flu. I think they anticipate 2.2B new people to join us in the next 10-15 years as well so this is not thinning us out or stopping us. I am pretty sure even at its height it wasnt killing enough people to equalize the rate of births.

TBH we as a species are so aggressive and adaptable I think only a global cataclysm will stop us. I think you have to sever supply chains and the electrical grid to take us out and it has to happen fast and last more than 28 days. It probably also needs to happen on a somewhat global scale too because we're able to mobilize so well to respond to things like this you'd need to happen on a vast scale.
 
CDX_EIRE said:
Its barely making a dent tbf, when you look at COVID as a proportion of deaths vs. the current total population of the world its nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish Flu. I think they anticipate 2.2B new people to join us in the next 10-15 years as well so this is not thinning us out or stopping us. I am pretty sure even at its height it wasnt killing enough people to equalize the rate of births.

TBH we as a species are so aggressive and adaptable I think only a global cataclysm will stop us. I think you have to sever supply chains and the electrical grid to take us out and it has to happen fast and last more than 28 days. It probably also needs to happen on a somewhat global scale too because we're able to mobilize so well to respond to things like this you'd need to happen on a vast scale.
Click to expand...

That's sort of the point of this thread, that the global population is only growing because of sub-Saharan Africa and even there, birth rates are falling.

In the rest of the world, birth rates are below the replacement rate and it's going to cause issues that we are not prepared for because the general perception is that populations are growing.

The developed world is sucking up young people from the rest of the world which is helping their economies to grow. Germany's population would have peaked in the 1970s if it wasn't for immigration.

The US has this enormous gift of young people desperate to go there to work but it seems keen to shoot itself in the foot.
 
BodyButter said:
That's sort of the point of this thread, that the global population is only growing because of sub-Saharan Africa and even there, birth rates are falling.

In the rest of the world, birth rates are below the replacement rate and it's going to cause issues that we are not prepared for because the general perception is that populations are growing.

The developed world is sucking up young people from the rest of the world which is helping their economies to grow. Germany's population would have peaked in the 1970s if it wasn't for immigration.

The US has this enormous gift of young people desperate to go there to work but it seems keen to shoot itself in the foot.
Click to expand...
Tax incentives for people to have more kids maybe? Completely filling the gap with immigration isn't desirable IMO.
 
Pangloss said:
Tax incentives for people to have more kids maybe? Completely filling the gap with immigration isn't desirable IMO.
Click to expand...

No, it causes all kinds of social issues but tax incentives don't seem to have any effect. They end up as bonuses for people who were already planning on having kids.

I guess automation can fill some of the gap. We'll need higher taxes on profits to fill the shortfall in income tax though. That's going to be politically difficult to achieve.
 
BodyButter said:
No, it causes all kinds of social issues but tax incentives don't seem to have any effect. They end up as bonuses for people who were already planning on having kids.

I guess automation can fill some of the gap. We'll need higher taxes on profits to fill the shortfall in income tax though. That's going to be politically difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...

I think all roads point to some sort of minimum income guarantee. All automation achieves is a strong underclass of people who have no fucking chance of ever getting a job,
 
Pangloss said:
I think all roads point to some sort of minimum income guarantee. All automation achieves is a strong underclass of people who have no fucking chance of ever getting a job,
Click to expand...

That's the big fear and there is likely to be some transitionary unemployment as jobs move but historically, better technology creates more jobs instead of fewer.
 
BodyButter said:
That's the big fear and there is likely to be some transitionary unemployment as jobs move but historically, better technology creates more jobs instead of fewer.
Click to expand...
My wager is that this time it's different. AI is a very different beast. I think it leaves people with very low quality job options where they do arise. The gig-economy jobs that have exploded is indicative of this.

Many people will ultimately not be in a position to make a proper living and have a decent life and so income will have to be permanently augmented by the state. That's my view anyway but I am a negative person.
 
I watched a doc on Japan where they have serious problem. The younger generation are so busy working they dont have the time to meet people of the opposite sex and therefore fewer and fewer are getting married. With the cost of living so high them that do marry are putting off starting a family. People are living that much longer and not enough people to care for them. Although they have been against immigration they now realise they have no choice but to accept it.
 
Pangloss said:
My wager is that this time it's different. AI is a very different beast. I think it leaves people with very low quality job options where they do arise. The gig-economy jobs that have exploded is indicative of this.

Many people will ultimately not be in a position to make a proper living and have a decent life and so income will have to be permanently augmented by the state. That's my view anyway but I am a negative person.
Click to expand...

Do you work in IT?
 
Pangloss said:
Software Engineering/ Data Science. I've helped automate people out of jobs in various roles I've had.
Click to expand...

You could be right about AI. I've grown sceptical of Silicon Valley's claims. They always seem to hysterical about some new technology that makes marginal differences.
 
BodyButter said:
You could be right about AI. I've grown sceptical of Silicon Valley's claims. They always seem to hysterical about some new technology that makes marginal differences.
Click to expand...

I think any industry where fewer people do the work of many, those jobs aren't coming back in any way shape or form. I've been learning to code to try build estimating software, unfortunately, someone has built something with AI that works so I am way behind.

Took us something like 3 weeks and 12 people to measure the plans of 2M Square Foot Tower. You're talking anywhere from 15-45 minutes to measure a single drawing. AI can even complex ones in 5-10 mins max. So then all you need is 2 or 3 people and a week to validate the measurements.

For a company like ours, I think we end up with the same amount of people across the company but we're just doing more projects. When you take that concept and marry it to other things we do, you end up with a situation where we probably wouldn't need to hire anyone for 2 or 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.