I am inclined to agree, but sometimes the way to make something affordable is by subsidising and correcting for negative externalities. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and thanks for watching!
@@withShanto Both yes and no. Subsidises are normally a good way to expand the supply. But in the situation were currently in there is no gurrentee that the companies receiving the subsidised will expand the supply, as the people in charge of those companies are a huge part of the reason why the supply is gone. Think of the USA like a defenseless organism that a bunch of ticks are feeding off and providing little to no benefit back to its host. The only way to make a subsidise plan work without screwing it up in the current situation we are stuck in. Would be if the government artificially created temporary institution to oversea the development of new industry to make up for the ones that have been lost. And then when the crisis is over. You'd have to break it up in multiable different companies, and reinstate anti corporation laws from the founding. That way you don't run into the same problems again. Its the only way to avoid a total economic implosion at this rate in time. If the crisis is not resolved by 2030. We are looking at fall of yugosalvia esk problem across the national scale, and the USA will be no more. And there is no guarantee that the government will be able to get prexisting companies to expand by just giving them money to expand the supply. When they already spent 75+ years purposely downsizing, causing the 33 million net loss in the founding stock (native) workforce to get peak profits. Importing (as in already imported) a population on mass to take over after the crash is going to result in the people in charge losing authority and influence over the population which may result in a public which already feels betrayed behaving more uncooperatively with the state (the government). If the population crashed and if there wasn't mass immigration into the country. The result would have been a more cooperative population, and the authority of the state being preserved throughout the crisis.
There's a classic line from Bill Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes when Calvin exclaims, "If I don't get paid, how do I know it's important?!?" "You can trust a mother on that." his mom replies.
This is what happens in developing countries with little safety nets. However, it also results in low aggregate consumption because people save more, which can drag on economic growth. Thank you for watching and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
What if you treat children as investment project, where they are going to take care of your old age, pay mortgage on your house which they will inherit? If your children will make it to a higher salary gap they are going to share better lifestyle with you. Of course for all this to happen you have to give your children all the love and care, raise them to be dutiful and decent human beings, and that you can’t do if you look at them from asset/ liability angle
Thank you, I like your perspective. This is how the older generations, particularly in developing countries, thought about this and with good reason. Unfortunately this type of family configuration (multi generational household) is not prevalent in the west. With declining social mobility children are not financially better off than their parents, and often the parents are the ones helping children well into their 20s. And we also see lots of old people in old age/senior homes because the children are busy raising their own families.
Why does it have to be a problem? Less people supplies cheaper housing, maybe it’s a healthy natural thing for society that’s grown too large for it’s current capabilities.
I take your point, but unfortunately, our economic system is designed for perpetual growth. Fewer people means less demand, less innovation, lower quality of life. Furthermore, a decreasing population doesn't just mean that our population will simply scale down; the composition will change. There will be more older people and fewer younger people, higher dependency ratios, and more burden of care being placed on the younger generations. In practical terms, this may mean pension systems collapsing, and potentially higher taxes. Thanks for watching and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
@@withShanto Perpetual growth doesn’t seem realistic without having occasional sharp declines, better to minimise the crashes maybe by managed declines? As for less innovation a smaller population would need to overcome its problems to survive and since human wants are endless I’m not sure about there being less demand.
That's only a small part of the answer. Contraceptives and the internet play a much larger role. Before internet lowered the general desire for sex and before contraceptives made it possible to have sex without children, the children weren't really a choice, no matter how poor you were. You could live in a clay hut with ten of them.
Thank you for sharing. I am of the opinion that kids should be born to parents who make a conscious choice to have them rather than to parents who had no choice in having them. I think the question now is: how can we as a society make having children more desirable? Appreciate you watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@withShanto I agree, from a certain point of view as old Ben Kenobi would say. From the point of view of the quality of an individual's life. But it is not a winning strategy for the human animal as a species and our society might very well collapse because of this choice we gave ourselves.
@@withShanto They need to be made immune from a system that intentially tries to squeeze every little bit of energy out of people. That energy space is a requirement for the species. Even if some people just do nothing with it.
Why would you willingly bring children into this twisted world. We are creating a worse future for everyone do your future kids a favor by not having them. No point making them suffer this madness
I appreciate your POV. I have a lot of friends who have expressed this exact sentiment. But sometimes I think back to darker times, such as the world wars, when people still had children. Sure, birth rates were significantly depressed in Europe during wartime years, but I think people still had a hope for a better future. I am optimistic that despite setbacks, humanity will find a way out of whatever political, social, and environmental quagmire we are in. Thank you so much for watching and sharing your thoughts.
Everyone is always talking about money and how much everything costs. Dont get me wrong, understanding financial systems so you can navigate them like a ship through an archipelago is important. But when you take a big step back and look at how those systems run at a large scale, money is a trick, and that trick is based on promises and trust. For example, that inflation will be normal. That there is no end to the exponential potential gains graph (In our reality, there is). Who knows what your money will actually be worth down the line. The highest returns on investment you can make is taking steps to avoid the need to use money. I dont mean homesteading. I mean building yourself up to escape the need. The cost of everything dratically drops when you do that math with that idea in mind, and so does the uncertainty.
I think as long as we choose to participate in society we will always need money, but I agree with the idea that we can deliberately lower our need for it. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts!
It requires no calculation to understand that when people can barely get by, they don’t want their children to have to go through that. Children are financially burdensome, even if they are going to provide a lot for society in the long run. People just don’t want to have kids and live in abject poverty at the same time.
@@farfetchedfarade3197 You do have a point, people that are poor should not make themselves even poorer by having children. But everyone knows the vast majority of people live way beyond their means, it's not because they're actually poor.
@@withShanto yeah.. i definitely agree with what you’re saying in the video i just also think the fact that you have to consider the financial losses you’re risking in order to have kids speaks to a much wider issue. i think the idea that people should be financially compensated for having children is horrifying- not in a practical sense but at the idea that something so fundamental like having kids is transactional in that way. hmm
This is a dumb video. You don’t have children to better yourself. That’s very selfish thinking. I have not once considered “what’s in it for me?” With any of my children.
Here is my working hypothesis. People don't want subsidies. People want things to be affordable.
I am inclined to agree, but sometimes the way to make something affordable is by subsidising and correcting for negative externalities. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and thanks for watching!
@@withShanto Both yes and no. Subsidises are normally a good way to expand the supply. But in the situation were currently in there is no gurrentee that the companies receiving the subsidised will expand the supply, as the people in charge of those companies are a huge part of the reason why the supply is gone.
Think of the USA like a defenseless organism that a bunch of ticks are feeding off and providing little to no benefit back to its host.
The only way to make a subsidise plan work without screwing it up in the current situation we are stuck in. Would be if the government artificially created temporary institution to oversea the development of new industry to make up for the ones that have been lost. And then when the crisis is over. You'd have to break it up in multiable different companies, and reinstate anti corporation laws from the founding. That way you don't run into the same problems again. Its the only way to avoid a total economic implosion at this rate in time.
If the crisis is not resolved by 2030. We are looking at fall of yugosalvia esk problem across the national scale, and the USA will be no more. And there is no guarantee that the government will be able to get prexisting companies to expand by just giving them money to expand the supply. When they already spent 75+ years purposely downsizing, causing the 33 million net loss in the founding stock (native) workforce to get peak profits.
Importing (as in already imported) a population on mass to take over after the crash is going to result in the people in charge losing authority and influence over the population which may result in a public which already feels betrayed behaving more uncooperatively with the state (the government).
If the population crashed and if there wasn't mass immigration into the country. The result would have been a more cooperative population, and the authority of the state being preserved throughout the crisis.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. Certainly a lot to think about.
There's a classic line from Bill Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes when Calvin exclaims, "If I don't get paid, how do I know it's important?!?"
"You can trust a mother on that." his mom replies.
I appreciate your comment and thanks for watching:)
Great video!
Thank you so much for watching!
Remove the safety net in the end of life and then people will have more children.
This is what happens in developing countries with little safety nets. However, it also results in low aggregate consumption because people save more, which can drag on economic growth.
Thank you for watching and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
Seems like going backwards. What if they werent just tools.
What if you treat children as investment project, where they are going to take care of your old age, pay mortgage on your house which they will inherit? If your children will make it to a higher salary gap they are going to share better lifestyle with you. Of course for all this to happen you have to give your children all the love and care, raise them to be dutiful and decent human beings, and that you can’t do if you look at them from asset/ liability angle
Thank you, I like your perspective.
This is how the older generations, particularly in developing countries, thought about this and with good reason. Unfortunately this type of family configuration (multi generational household) is not prevalent in the west. With declining social mobility children are not financially better off than their parents, and often the parents are the ones helping children well into their 20s. And we also see lots of old people in old age/senior homes because the children are busy raising their own families.
Why does it have to be a problem? Less people supplies cheaper housing, maybe it’s a healthy natural thing for society that’s grown too large for it’s current capabilities.
I take your point, but unfortunately, our economic system is designed for perpetual growth. Fewer people means less demand, less innovation, lower quality of life. Furthermore, a decreasing population doesn't just mean that our population will simply scale down; the composition will change. There will be more older people and fewer younger people, higher dependency ratios, and more burden of care being placed on the younger generations. In practical terms, this may mean pension systems collapsing, and potentially higher taxes.
Thanks for watching and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
@@withShanto Perpetual growth doesn’t seem realistic without having occasional sharp declines, better to minimise the crashes maybe by managed declines?
As for less innovation a smaller population would need to overcome its problems to survive and since human wants are endless I’m not sure about there being less demand.
That's only a small part of the answer. Contraceptives and the internet play a much larger role. Before internet lowered the general desire for sex and before contraceptives made it possible to have sex without children, the children weren't really a choice, no matter how poor you were. You could live in a clay hut with ten of them.
Thank you for sharing. I am of the opinion that kids should be born to parents who make a conscious choice to have them rather than to parents who had no choice in having them. I think the question now is: how can we as a society make having children more desirable?
Appreciate you watching and sharing your thoughts!
@@withShanto I agree, from a certain point of view as old Ben Kenobi would say. From the point of view of the quality of an individual's life. But it is not a winning strategy for the human animal as a species and our society might very well collapse because of this choice we gave ourselves.
@@withShanto They need to be made immune from a system that intentially tries to squeeze every little bit of energy out of people. That energy space is a requirement for the species. Even if some people just do nothing with it.
I think it’s less there’s less desire for sex and more it’s harder in the world of online dating
@@Adam-g01 Yes, but entire demographic (me partially included, lol) is now able to stay indoor without going completely mad instead of mingling.
Why would you willingly bring children into this twisted world. We are creating a worse future for everyone do your future kids a favor by not having them. No point making them suffer this madness
I appreciate your POV. I have a lot of friends who have expressed this exact sentiment. But sometimes I think back to darker times, such as the world wars, when people still had children. Sure, birth rates were significantly depressed in Europe during wartime years, but I think people still had a hope for a better future. I am optimistic that despite setbacks, humanity will find a way out of whatever political, social, and environmental quagmire we are in.
Thank you so much for watching and sharing your thoughts.
Everyone is always talking about money and how much everything costs. Dont get me wrong, understanding financial systems so you can navigate them like a ship through an archipelago is important. But when you take a big step back and look at how those systems run at a large scale, money is a trick, and that trick is based on promises and trust. For example, that inflation will be normal. That there is no end to the exponential potential gains graph (In our reality, there is). Who knows what your money will actually be worth down the line.
The highest returns on investment you can make is taking steps to avoid the need to use money. I dont mean homesteading. I mean building yourself up to escape the need. The cost of everything dratically drops when you do that math with that idea in mind, and so does the uncertainty.
I think as long as we choose to participate in society we will always need money, but I agree with the idea that we can deliberately lower our need for it. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts!
Can't calculate the ROI of creating a life
One can try...
Preach, a family is worth it
It requires no calculation to understand that when people can barely get by, they don’t want their children to have to go through that. Children are financially burdensome, even if they are going to provide a lot for society in the long run. People just don’t want to have kids and live in abject poverty at the same time.
Thank you very much.
@@farfetchedfarade3197 You do have a point, people that are poor should not make themselves even poorer by having children. But everyone knows the vast majority of people live way beyond their means, it's not because they're actually poor.
I like your background 😏 you have a nice studio
Thank you very much! 😊
Good one 👍
Thank you so much! 🙏🏽
You are robbing the world of a Shanto jr
Hahah yikes!
or in other words: capitalism sows the seeds for its own destruction and we’re reaping it
One could say this is an example of a "market failure" where a social good is not provided for by private capital. Thanks for watching!
@@withShanto yeah.. i definitely agree with what you’re saying in the video i just also think the fact that you have to consider the financial losses you’re risking in order to have kids speaks to a much wider issue. i think the idea that people should be financially compensated for having children is horrifying- not in a practical sense but at the idea that something so fundamental like having kids is transactional in that way. hmm
Interesting 😵💫😵💫
Thank you for watching!
Have some kids dude
Can you lend me $600k?
Coming from...an imigrant
This is a dumb video. You don’t have children to better yourself. That’s very selfish thinking. I have not once considered “what’s in it for me?” With any of my children.
Thanks for helping the algorithm with your comment!
No. It can't.
Lol, thanks for watching!