Love the creativity and bullishness! Ultimately would like to see a version of the plan that will also work for historical market returns of roughly 10%. I'm hopeful for the bullish case, but I think for this to actually be embraced, it needs to work based on people's existing expectations. Otherwise it seems too optimistic for most people to take seriously. But this is the type of creativity and innovation we need!
I really enjoyed the well-thought-out explanation presented in the video! The breakdown of the baby crisis and the proposed financial solutions were clearly articulated, making complex ideas more accessible. The effort put into the spreadsheet and financial modelling was impressive and added a valuable layer of depth to the discussion. While I didn't fully grasp all the intricate details, I definitely got the gist of the overall message and found it both enlightening and engaging. Definitely food for thought here. Great work Jo! However, it will take approx 20 years to get the child into work and contributing to society and we can't circumvent that. I ask myself, is there where Optimus comes into play? IF so, then that's the manual work taken care of. Then this exercise is purely for humanity's survival. 🤔👍
This entire model is based on the assumption that women WANT/DESIRE to stay home and raise children. In an upcoming video, could you please share the basis for this vital assumption? Many of my female friends (much more than your referenced 10-20%) say they would rather have a career. This problem is massively important and I too am interested in approaches to solve it. Assuming that "most" women wpuld prefer being stay-at-home moms seams a risky assumption imo. Would love to hear your perspective on this.
That’s a great point and goes into the question what “want” means , how “wants” are being defined by our minds, and how a lot of implicit assumptions are factored into them. It is quite obvious to me that the vast majority of women doesn’t truly “want” a career, but instead have concluded that a career offers the highest benefits to them given the circumstances. When the circumstances change, the “wants” change. But you are right that this is a crucial topic and needs more videos - I am also working on getting experts into the discussion as interviews
In Austria, it takes aprox 2200 € per year to keep your kid in school (not my numbers, but the ones published) ,so, this said , how do you expect the usual workers to provide that? When I started working in 1980 at Daimler Benz , a worker could support wife, 2 kids easily. That don't work out now.
My masterplan is a bit bigger than babies. You first start by giving the top 10% a much better pathway to families and more babies. Then, you use that blueprint to expand downwards the financial ladder. Once you hit top 20%, you have to also start innovating the three main cost drivers for families: education, health and housing. Fortunately, these three are also ripe for disruption and offer enormous business opportunities and cost reductions. But starting with families and babies is key, because that creates a forcing and demand function for the rest. This whole model is probably going to get implemented first in the US, because Austria, Germany , Scandinavia etc have special circumstances (but are still compatible). In the US, the pain points are enormous across dating , health, education and the money flows faster, so it’s best to blueprint it there. In Austria, at least you get some quality for your 2200 ;) the key to solving this is to think pragmatically and entrepreneurially. Everything that ends up as “culture has to change” or “the government has to do ABC” is a dead end
@@jobhakdi one of my ex-girlfriends has two kids , is earning good and her ex pays all his dues. So she is somewhat privileged . But today in Austria you have to send your kids to private school to learn german as a native language (actually even the not -so-good earners try to do that) so, kindergarten and school ad up to 800€ per month. wo. cost for clothing and frrding etc. etc.
When you said you were going to get people 15% consistent returns I thought how unrealistic that is and decided to comment on it. Then you said your plan relies on consistent 30% returns indefinitely? My head exploded. If you invest $1 at 30% consistent return in 53 years you have a million dollars. There is absolutely no way you can make that sort of money consistently. I also don't really understand what happens if the man runs off or stops paying or loses their job or dies? Are the women paid out of a communal pool so that the failure of one man doesn't hurt them that much? Or are they connected to an individual in which case aren't they still taking all the risk of choosing a man but rather than getting all his income as joint income in a marriage they're only getting a small fraction as their pay? Isn't that less? It's only the ludicrously high 30% returns that paper over how expensive this would all be.
I like your way of thinking and explaining, thank you for your videos! This baby problem needs a completely different mindset and change is normally very scary for people. Plus: how will feminism be convinced of this problem, but more important: with the solution? Very intriguing this matter, more people should think about it. It's very difficult to convince people of an disruptive future like tesla is building, which you need to get the 30% returns for your model. I have 3 kids and invested in tsla since jan 2023 for my family as I am convinced of at least an 50% yearly return for the coming 10 years. But if I try to explain it to friends and family, nobody believes these kinds of returns and only buy a few tsla stock to sell it later when they got some gains...
How does the model account for the 90% of women who cannot start families because their hubbies make $60k instead of $200k? We have a financial infrastructure. It's called a government. Take Norway's approach on that...
Norway is failing in a big way when it comes to babies - the government solution will always fall dramatically short of what is needed. My strategy would be to start with the top 10%, where the financials are easy and don’t require in-depth optimization. Then, we can scale it to the top 20% with more efficiencies and fine-tuning. I think that will be enough to change society very dramatically, including lifting people up financially (because now young men have very clear financial goals thanks to the system ; plus, this will clarify the economic dynamics of the new world , including robots , AI and capital ownership benefits and pathways. In short: we start where we CAN, set an example; then bring down the entry cost; then use the societal impact as a big carrot 🥕, combined with clearer pathways towards better financials for the broader population
Great point ! I think the US is the best place to start thanks to a co fluency of extreme pain points and more money (Europe is a bit less broken and demand is harder to activate), but we can definitely parallel path this.
The first missing concept in your model is love and affection. Without these, neither the mental health of parents nor that of children can be guaranteed, and thus the foundation for a successful working life will be lacking. This brings me to the next point. The top 10% of society, who are initially the target audience for your model (I understand), will not produce babies who are willing to take on the jobs of the bottom 10%. Neither the children themselves nor their parents will want this. Or does your model implicitly advocate for the use of robots for these tasks anyway? Greetings from Germany
Hree we at points and thank you for your feedback! 1) love and affection cannot be engineered , but financial frameworks can . We need to start solving the problems that can be engineered , so love and affection can become the central focus of the actual dating and family process. If we put insurmountable financial hurdles in front of couples, it’s not going to help with love and affection. 2) too 10%: we start where we get the easiest traction. Then, we go from there. This is a 5Y project - after that the mission is to scale this system to everyone but that’s more complex . We need to design for early wins ; the first 50 billion are the hardest (look at Tesla !)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the creativity and bullishness! Ultimately would like to see a version of the plan that will also work for historical market returns of roughly 10%. I'm hopeful for the bullish case, but I think for this to actually be embraced, it needs to work based on people's existing expectations. Otherwise it seems too optimistic for most people to take seriously. But this is the type of creativity and innovation we need!
I really enjoyed the well-thought-out explanation presented in the video! The breakdown of the baby crisis and the proposed financial solutions were clearly articulated, making complex ideas more accessible. The effort put into the spreadsheet and financial modelling was impressive and added a valuable layer of depth to the discussion. While I didn't fully grasp all the intricate details, I definitely got the gist of the overall message and found it both enlightening and engaging. Definitely food for thought here. Great work Jo!
However, it will take approx 20 years to get the child into work and contributing to society and we can't circumvent that. I ask myself, is there where Optimus comes into play? IF so, then that's the manual work taken care of. Then this exercise is purely for humanity's survival. 🤔👍
This entire model is based on the assumption that women WANT/DESIRE to stay home and raise children. In an upcoming video, could you please share the basis for this vital assumption? Many of my female friends (much more than your referenced 10-20%) say they would rather have a career.
This problem is massively important and I too am interested in approaches to solve it. Assuming that "most" women wpuld prefer being stay-at-home moms seams a risky assumption imo.
Would love to hear your perspective on this.
That’s a great point and goes into the question what “want” means , how “wants” are being defined by our minds, and how a lot of implicit assumptions are factored into them. It is quite obvious to me that the vast majority of women doesn’t truly “want” a career, but instead have concluded that a career offers the highest benefits to them given the circumstances. When the circumstances change, the “wants” change. But you are right that this is a crucial topic and needs more videos - I am also working on getting experts into the discussion as interviews
In Austria, it takes aprox 2200 € per year to keep your kid in school (not my numbers, but the ones published) ,so, this said , how do you expect the usual workers to provide that? When I started working in 1980 at Daimler Benz , a worker could support wife, 2 kids easily. That don't work out now.
My masterplan is a bit bigger than babies. You first start by giving the top 10% a much better pathway to families and more babies. Then, you use that blueprint to expand downwards the financial ladder. Once you hit top 20%, you have to also start innovating the three main cost drivers for families: education, health and housing. Fortunately, these three are also ripe for disruption and offer enormous business opportunities and cost reductions. But starting with families and babies is key, because that creates a forcing and demand function for the rest. This whole model is probably going to get implemented first in the US, because Austria, Germany , Scandinavia etc have special circumstances (but are still compatible). In the US, the pain points are enormous across dating , health, education and the money flows faster, so it’s best to blueprint it there. In Austria, at least you get some quality for your 2200 ;) the key to solving this is to think pragmatically and entrepreneurially. Everything that ends up as “culture has to change” or “the government has to do ABC” is a dead end
@@jobhakdi one of my ex-girlfriends has two kids , is earning good and her ex pays all his dues. So she is somewhat privileged . But today in Austria you have to send your kids to private school to learn german as a native language (actually even the not -so-good earners try to do that) so, kindergarten and school ad up to 800€ per month. wo. cost for clothing and frrding etc. etc.
When you said you were going to get people 15% consistent returns I thought how unrealistic that is and decided to comment on it.
Then you said your plan relies on consistent 30% returns indefinitely? My head exploded.
If you invest $1 at 30% consistent return in 53 years you have a million dollars. There is absolutely no way you can make that sort of money consistently.
I also don't really understand what happens if the man runs off or stops paying or loses their job or dies? Are the women paid out of a communal pool so that the failure of one man doesn't hurt them that much? Or are they connected to an individual in which case aren't they still taking all the risk of choosing a man but rather than getting all his income as joint income in a marriage they're only getting a small fraction as their pay? Isn't that less?
It's only the ludicrously high 30% returns that paper over how expensive this would all be.
I like your way of thinking and explaining, thank you for your videos!
This baby problem needs a completely different mindset and change is normally very scary for people. Plus: how will feminism be convinced of this problem, but more important: with the solution?
Very intriguing this matter, more people should think about it. It's very difficult to convince people of an disruptive future like tesla is building, which you need to get the 30% returns for your model. I have 3 kids and invested in tsla since jan 2023 for my family as I am convinced of at least an 50% yearly return for the coming 10 years. But if I try to explain it to friends and family, nobody believes these kinds of returns and only buy a few tsla stock to sell it later when they got some gains...
How does the model account for the 90% of women who cannot start families because their hubbies make $60k instead of $200k? We have a financial infrastructure. It's called a government. Take Norway's approach on that...
Norway is failing in a big way when it comes to babies - the government solution will always fall dramatically short of what is needed. My strategy would be to start with the top 10%, where the financials are easy and don’t require in-depth optimization. Then, we can scale it to the top 20% with more efficiencies and fine-tuning. I think that will be enough to change society very dramatically, including lifting people up financially (because now young men have very clear financial goals thanks to the system ; plus, this will clarify the economic dynamics of the new world , including robots , AI and capital ownership benefits and pathways. In short: we start where we CAN, set an example; then bring down the entry cost; then use the societal impact as a big carrot 🥕, combined with clearer pathways towards better financials for the broader population
Need an European Model as well!
Great point ! I think the US is the best place to start thanks to a co fluency of extreme pain points and more money (Europe is a bit less broken and demand is harder to activate), but we can definitely parallel path this.
Do you have a name for this endeavour yet?! :-)
The first missing concept in your model is love and affection. Without these, neither the mental health of parents nor that of children can be guaranteed, and thus the foundation for a successful working life will be lacking. This brings me to the next point. The top 10% of society, who are initially the target audience for your model (I understand), will not produce babies who are willing to take on the jobs of the bottom 10%. Neither the children themselves nor their parents will want this. Or does your model implicitly advocate for the use of robots for these tasks anyway?
Greetings from Germany
Hree we at points and thank you for your feedback! 1) love and affection cannot be engineered , but financial frameworks can . We need to start solving the problems that can be engineered , so love and affection can become the central focus of the actual dating and family process. If we put insurmountable financial hurdles in front of couples, it’s not going to help with love and affection. 2) too 10%: we start where we get the easiest traction. Then, we go from there. This is a 5Y project - after that the mission is to scale this system to everyone but that’s more complex . We need to design for early wins ; the first 50 billion are the hardest (look at Tesla !)