msinaisuhtlaM

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Mo » 19 Mar 2012, 11:33

Jennifer wrote:This is true. And according to wealthy proponents of the continuously expanding population, this is a feature rather than a bug. The woman who was shocked when her maid quit would've been ever-so-much happier if she'd had the ability to pick and choose from among candidates desperate enough to sleep on the floor next to the dog. (The servants wouldn't have been happy, but they don't matter to such people.)
And people want cheaper food, cheaper gas, cheaper TVs, etc. Your point is?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 11:53

Mo wrote:
Jennifer wrote:This is true. And according to wealthy proponents of the continuously expanding population, this is a feature rather than a bug. The woman who was shocked when her maid quit would've been ever-so-much happier if she'd had the ability to pick and choose from among candidates desperate enough to sleep on the floor next to the dog. (The servants wouldn't have been happy, but they don't matter to such people.)
And people want cheaper food, cheaper gas, cheaper TVs, etc. Your point is?
Food, gas and TVs do not have wants or needs of their own, and cannot suffer; I can in good conscience run my TV for hours at a time without a single break, but I could not in good conscience do that to a person. So, while I am very happy to have an automatic dishwashing machine that will clean several days' worth of my dirty dishes in an hour, for a cost of about 25 cents, I also think it would be terrible if a person in modern America were poor and desperate enough to wash my dishes for 25 cents an hour, even if I also magnanimously let my dishwasher sleep on the floor in the laundry room.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Mo » 19 Mar 2012, 12:00

Jennifer wrote:Food, gas and TVs do not have wants or needs of their own; I can in good conscience run my TV for hours at a time without a single break, but I could not in good conscience do that to a person. So, while I am very happy to have an automatic dishwashing machine that will clean several days' worth of my dirty dishes in an hour, for a cost of about 25 cents, I also think it would be terrible if a person in modern America were poor and desperate enough to wash my dishes for 25 cents an hour, even if I also magnanimously let my dishwasher sleep on the floor in the laundry room.
Just because you can't see the people behind the work doesn't mean that there aren't people behind their production. There's a human price to everything and not every country has the same work conditions as the US. Oil production and rare earth metal mining in Africa makes coal mining in the US look like a cushy county job by comparison. But it's easier to feel morally superior about it because there are agents between the output and the people.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Mar 2012, 12:07

I see two different dynamics in play here, Jennifer. All human beings should be treated with dignity regardless of their economic condition. But there is a market clearing price, as the economists would say, where the supply for what we would deem servile labor meets its demand. I don't pay more for services than the market requires, whether those services are basically unskilled or highly skilled. I doubt you do, either. As it happens, we live in an overwhelmingly affluent society, a fact that influences wage rates too. So, for example, while there is a virtually unlimited supply of illegal immigrant laborers available in Texas, there is a price point below which one still cannot hire laborers. But in a third world economy where people would be willing to do the same work for a vastly lower price, I would (1) pay that price or only marginally more to ensure quality but (2) treat such employees with dignity. I think it is violation of the latter that outrages, not the former.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 12:15

Mo wrote: Just because you can't see the people behind the work doesn't mean that there aren't people behind their production. There's a human price to everything and not every country has the same work conditions as the US.
Yes, but should we posit that it will always be this way, and furthermore that it must always be this way? I'm not buying that; I think it's possible -- and worth striving for -- that someday (though probably not in any of our lifetimes), the increased living standards of the past century or so will apply to everyone in the world, not just a relative handful in the industrialized countries.

There probably will always be inherently unpleasant jobs that need to be done. Sometimes, you get people to take these sucky jobs by paying them high enough to make up for the suckitude; other times, you get people to take these sucky jobs by finding people desperate enough to do anything. I don't think increasing the former at the expense of the latter is necessarily a bad thing.

Irony: I'm usually the one criticized here for allegedly being too much of a pessimist, but here, regarding the long-term implications of America's below-replacement birth rate, I'm not pessimistic enough because I believe it can lead to good outcomes rather than poverty and DOOOOOOM.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Mo » 19 Mar 2012, 12:23

D.A. Ridgely wrote:As it happens, we live in an overwhelmingly affluent society, a fact that influences wage rates too. So, for example, while there is a virtually unlimited supply of illegal immigrant laborers available in Texas, there is a price point below which one still cannot hire laborers. But in a third world economy where people would be willing to do the same work for a vastly lower price, I would (1) pay that price or only marginally more to ensure quality but (2) treat such employees with dignity. I think it is violation of the latter that outrages, not the former.
^This.

Also, for some, board may be seen as a perq of the job. Though sleeping next to the dog is disrespectful.
Jennifer wrote:Irony: I'm usually the one criticized here for allegedly being too much of a pessimist, but here, regarding the long-term implications of America's below-replacement birth rate, I'm not pessimistic enough because I believe it can lead to good outcomes rather than poverty and DOOOOOOM.
Actually, it seems to come from the same place. You think the current DOOOOM is the new normal, so losing much of our population won't change anything Jason and I (among others) see the current DOOOOM as a hangover as the economy adjusts from a credit crunch and deals with new industrialization. Once the hangover is over, many of the people not working will be back on a job and being productive. As long as people are more productive than their inputs, it's a net loss to take people out of the population.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 12:39

D.A. Ridgely wrote:(2) treat such employees with dignity. I think it is violation of the latter that outrages, not the former.
Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who treat others like shit just because they can. The more empowered the shat-upon are to find better conditions, the better. Even in rich countries, there have always been people poor and desperate enough to take crappy jobs -- the reason Wal-Mart got away with treating low-ranking workers like shit for so long is because there were always more low-ranking workers ready to replace them -- and I am saying I don't believe we need a constant pool of desperate low-wage workers to keep the economy healthy.

Basically, I don't believe either of the "America's low birth rate is bad" arguments: I don't believe "we must maintain the Social Security pyramid scheme at all costs, and therefore must continue making ever-wider bases each generation to support the rest of the pyramid"; neither do I believe "there has to be a large supply of desperate-and-disposable low-wage workers." Had I lived in the antebellum South, I hope I wouldn't have believed the conventional wisdom "there has to be slave labor if we're to have a viable economy."

In China (I've read in the Economist), it looks like the days of "endless cheap labor" are coming to an end, and wages and working conditions are still abysmal by American standards but starting to maybe-rise by Chinese standards. If this is true I think it's great -- yes, even if it means the price of Chinese exports goes up. If individual Chinese bottom-of-the-payscale workers become more valuable and more powerful, good for them. If American and other first-world bottom-of-the-payscale workers become more valuable and therefore more powerful, also good for them. For us, I should say.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28177
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by thoreau » 19 Mar 2012, 12:47

I'm kind of dubious on claims that the days of cheap labor are over in China, given how large of a rural unemployed/under-employed population they have, but I haven't looked at the statistics on that in a while, so maybe it's true.

If so, it will somewhat suck for highly-educated Americans to have yet another large cohort of competitors, but only a bit; we've already been competing on a global stage for a while. OTOH, for a lot of American workers, it will be a boon that China can no longer under-cut their wages quite as substantially. I'm sure that average wages in China will continue to be lower than in the US for some time, but if the margin narrows that helps American workers.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Mo » 19 Mar 2012, 12:56

From what I've read, Wal-Mart treats their employees a lot better than the mom and pop stores they replace. The fact that Wal-Mart has a glut of applicants during economic expansions indicates to me that they are afflicted with Monsantoitis*. It may not be great to work at Wal-Mart, but it appears that it's better than the alternatives.

Though I will note that rising wages and below replacement growth rates are not correlated. In Europe, there's a negative correlation with birth rate and wage growth. The US is one of the only industrialized countries with a birth rate above replacement and we're doing better than the vast majority of the industrialized world.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 13:00

Mo wrote: It may not be great to work at Wal-Mart, but it appears that it's better than the alternatives.
And for some Brazilians -- at least in the old days -- sleeping on the laundry room floor next to the dog was better than the alternatives. Now that this is ceasing to be the case, I don't think it's a bad thing for Brazil or Brazil's economy (though it's undeniably a bad thing for Brazilian employers who enjoy power trips).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Mo » 19 Mar 2012, 13:02

Jennifer wrote:And for some Brazilians -- at least in the old days -- sleeping on the laundry room floor next to the dog was better than the alternatives. Now that this is ceasing to be the case, I don't think it's a bad thing for Brazil or Brazil's economy (though it's undeniably a bad thing for Brazilian employers who enjoy power trips).
Neither do I. But I also don't cast moral aspersions at people bitching about things being more expensive than they used to be.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7635
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Shem » 19 Mar 2012, 13:08

Mo wrote:The fact that Wal-Mart has a glut of applicants during economic expansions indicates to me that they are afflicted with Monsantoitis*
You say that as if economic expansions are uniform across geography and class. Even in the really good bubble times at the end of the Clinton years, there were still groups of people on the downslide due to changes in the economy who were more than willing to line up for Wal-Mart because their other options were severely limited.
It may not be great to work at Wal-Mart, but it appears that it's better than the alternatives.
Especially when the alternative is "not working," which was and is the case in various areas and for various groups all over the country.
Last edited by Shem on 19 Mar 2012, 13:10, edited 1 time in total.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13275
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Highway » 19 Mar 2012, 13:09

I continually hear conflicting stories about Wal-Mart and their employee treatment. On the one hand, there's lots of complaining because Jane Checkout Girl doesn't get tons of benefits (health, pension), and that's a position that unionized employees at the local grocery store can directly compare work. So that's a bludgeon for the unions to beat Wal-Mart with. Of course, the non-union five and dime or general interest store, or even the specialty small store, didn't have those benefits either, and probably paid less than Wal-mart, and probably had comparable working conditions. On the other hand, it's *very* possible to move up with conscientious work in a Wal-Mart (like, for instance, my brother), and then you move into positions that *do* have benefits.

So I think that Wal-Mart generally treats the people who are there because they're punching a clock and burning time to get paid at a job like they are replaceable cogs, because that's what those jobs are to both sides. But they also do a very good job at identifying the people who add value to the store, and helping them achieve better.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 13:10

Mo wrote:
Jennifer wrote:And for some Brazilians -- at least in the old days -- sleeping on the laundry room floor next to the dog was better than the alternatives. Now that this is ceasing to be the case, I don't think it's a bad thing for Brazil or Brazil's economy (though it's undeniably a bad thing for Brazilian employers who enjoy power trips).
Neither do I. But I also don't cast moral aspersions at people bitching about things being more expensive than they used to be.
Neither do I. But people bitching about labor being more expensive than it used to be -- especially people bitching about labor being arrogant enough to quit rather than sleep with the dog -- yeah, I do cast moral aspersions on such people. And -- going back to the original topic -- I don't believe that any modern economy needs a whole bunch of workers so poor and so desperate, they'll sleep with the dog because that's still the best option they have.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28177
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by thoreau » 19 Mar 2012, 13:11

Everything I need to know about Brazil's social and economic situation I learned from one anecdote in the Economist.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 13:15

thoreau wrote:Everything I need to know about Brazil's social and economic situation I learned from one anecdote in the Economist.
If you want to pretend I am presenting myself as some expert on the Brazilian economy, rather than sharing an anecdote I read about how Brazilian servants don't have to put up with the crap they used to, of course you can do that. Have you any opinion on the goodness or badness of the industrialized world's low birthrates, though?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7635
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Shem » 19 Mar 2012, 13:16

Highway wrote:I continually hear conflicting stories about Wal-Mart and their employee treatment. On the one hand, there's lots of complaining because Jane Checkout Girl doesn't get tons of benefits (health, pension), and that's a position that unionized employees at the local grocery store can directly compare work. So that's a bludgeon for the unions to beat Wal-Mart with. Of course, the non-union five and dime or general interest store, or even the specialty small store, didn't have those benefits either, and probably paid less than Wal-mart, and probably had comparable working conditions. On the other hand, it's *very* possible to move up with conscientious work in a Wal-Mart (like, for instance, my brother), and then you move into positions that *do* have benefits.

So I think that Wal-Mart generally treats the people who are there because they're punching a clock and burning time to get paid at a job like they are replaceable cogs, because that's what those jobs are to both sides. But they also do a very good job at identifying the people who add value to the store, and helping them achieve better.
The most troubling aspect of Wal-Mart for me had less to do with what Wal-Mart did or didn't do (I have misgivings, and they're why I don't shop there, but it's a complicated issue with points on both sides, so...) and more to do with the people who have been holding Wal-Mart and other low-training service-oriented jobs forward as the future of employment in the US for the past few decades. This just isn't a stable enough base to build an economy on long-term, and it's troubling that there's so much government and private action attempting to do just that. Not to go Full Warren here, but it's just not sustainable long-term.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28177
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by thoreau » 19 Mar 2012, 13:24

Jennifer wrote:Have you any opinion on the goodness or badness of the industrialized world's low birthrates, though?
I think that low birthrates are, for now, a good thing, because I worry about CO2 production. We don't need more births to expand the pool of innovators. We can do it by bringing more people into the formal economy, connecting more people to information technology, and putting more people in situations where survival is not quite as urgent of a concern and they have the luxury of space and time to think about new things and take risks. Yes, this also has CO2 implications, but it at least reduces the number of miserable people while expanding CO2 production less than if everybody everywhere has new babies.

Now, I grant that we might reach a time where further growth in innovation requires more population growth. We're a long way from such a world. I'll let the grylliaders of the 22nd century worry about that. Yes, yes, I know that people here have arguments for how birthrates can lead to more innovation, and they're probably right, but that's just one avenue to innovation, and right now I think that others are preferable. The grylliaders of the 22nd century can ponder the sorts of specialization and innovation that are only possible in a world of 20 billion people but not a world of 10 billion (or whatever), and they can argue over the moral significance of some anecdote of a rich Brazilian aghast that the Arizona immigrants won't agree to sleep next to their genetically engineered dog/sabertooth tiger hybrid pet.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Jennifer » 19 Mar 2012, 13:49

thoreau wrote:
Jennifer wrote:Have you any opinion on the goodness or badness of the industrialized world's low birthrates, though?
I think that low birthrates are, for now, a good thing, because I worry about CO2 production. We don't need more births to expand the pool of innovators. We can do it by bringing more people into the formal economy, connecting more people to information technology, and putting more people in situations where survival is not quite as urgent of a concern and they have the luxury of space and time to think about new things and take risks.
Interestingly enough, this week's Economist has another Brazil story, this time explaining how that's exactly what Brazil is doing -- some government scholarship program to send students to universities abroad (at least until Brazil can build its own science-and-engineering schools good enough to do that). The photo with the story showed a smiling young girl, presumably one of the students who will be helped by this new initiative.

I don't recall any Economist articles about Brazilian government initiatives to help solve the servant problem, though. If anything, the scholarship program will only make the servant problem worse.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Mar 2012, 14:38

As a basic law of economics, the marginal utility of any good or service decreases as its supply increases. There is no evidence, however, that human capital, properly invested, has reached anything near the point of disutility. Putting Malthusian frets (which originally focused on food and arguably still remains a possibility despite my friend, Mr. Bailey's unbridled optimism on that point) and environmental concerns aside, the whole point of production is consumption. The more consumers there are, the more production is demanded.

With Thoreau, I am happy to see low birthrates where they are, in fact, occurring as a positive for the present, but the reason for that is that the parts of the world not experiencing low birth rates can and should also alleviate their own poverty by sending us lots and lots of immigrants. Even if all borders were entirely open, however, an equilibrium point would eventually be reached. If I could be confident that the world could continue to produce enough food to feed a continually growing population and deal with legitimate ecological concerns, I'd say the Earth is plenty big enough for a much larger population and that, on balance, more people will result in greater wealth. Of course, how that wealth gets distributed is another matter, but I'm not sure distributive justice is the question here.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6859
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by fyodor » 19 Mar 2012, 15:20

D.A. Ridgely wrote: The more consumers there are, the more production is demanded.
Just a quibble, which is that that doesn't necessarily hold because rich consumers demand more than poor ones.

Now that may not necessarily apply to anything being quibbled about here as I'm not suggesting that population decline automatically (or necessarily ever) leads to a richer population, but I thought I'd point that out, to, I dunno, make myself feel smart or something....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Mar 2012, 15:50

fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote: The more consumers there are, the more production is demanded.
Just a quibble, which is that that doesn't necessarily hold because rich consumers demand more than poor ones.

Now that may not necessarily apply to anything being quibbled about here as I'm not suggesting that population decline automatically (or necessarily ever) leads to a richer population, but I thought I'd point that out, to, I dunno, make myself feel smart or something....
Sure (and we already knew you were smart!), but while "Our Good Friends" the House of Saud have tried their damnedest to prove otherwise, there is ultimately a limit to how much the wealthy can consume. Even Gates or Buffett couldn't consume more than a billion poor people, I dare say. But, yeah, point taken: the greater the aggregate demand (to be consumed), the greater the aggregate (wealth) produced.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6859
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by fyodor » 19 Mar 2012, 17:13

D.A. Ridgely wrote: (and we already knew you were smart!)
Well, I did go to UVa!! ;)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Mar 2012, 21:58

fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote: (and we already knew you were smart!)
Well, I did go to UVa!! ;)
[clears throat awkwardly]

*grin*

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17964
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: msinaisuhtlaM

Post by Hugh Akston » 06 Feb 2019, 17:37

The world might actually run out of people
DB: So, the UN forecasting model inputs three things: fertility rates, migration rates, and death rates. It doesn’t take into account the expansion of education for females or the speed of urbanization (which are in some ways linked). The UN says they’re already baked into the numbers. But when I went and interviewed [the demographer] Wolfgang Lutz in Vienna, which was one of the first things we did, he walked me through his projections, and I walked out of the room gobsmacked. All he was doing was adding one new variable to the forecast: the level of improvement in female education. And he comes up with a much lower number for global population in 2100, somewhere between 8 billion and 9 billion.

JI: Lutz has this saying that the most important reproductive organ for human beings is your mind. That if you change how someone thinks about reproduction, you change everything. Based on his analysis, the single biggest effect on fertility is the education of women. The UN has a grim view of Africa. It doesn’t predict much change in terms of fertility over the first quarter of the century. But large parts of African are urbanizing at two times the rate of the global average. If you go to Kenya today, women have the same elementary education levels as men. As many girls as boys are sitting for graduation exams. So we’re not prepared to predict that Africa will stagnate in rural poverty for the rest of the century.
JI: We polled 26 countries asking women how many kids they want, and no matter where you go the answer tends to be around two. The external forces that used to dictate people having bigger families are disappearing everywhere. And that's happening fastest in developing countries. In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018. That's a whole kid in 15 years. In the US, that change happened much more slowly, from about 1800 to the end of the Baby Boom. So that’s the scenario we’re asking people to contemplate.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests