patrick.net

jessica says

Reality says

The guy should not be able to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Women know how to use birth control, it is readily available and it is free. I think we've made a lot of great strides in its accessibility and removing stigma from single mother and certainly from the bastard children days!

Jess, please do not take this as a criticism of you personally. IMHO, you are writing from the perspective of a woman who has never been pregnant. In my experience (admitted as a man engaged in serial monogamy with women, often in their early to mid-20's), the fetus often works like a alien body snatcher, turning a woman previously rational about abortion etc. into a fool-hardy protector of "the baby," risking her entire future well being and even her own life to keep "the baby."

It's about as irrational as a man wanting to have sex, which serves nearly no purpose for the individual himself (at least nothing more than what a 2hr workout plus masturbation can provide at much lower risk and cost), yet men (and women) love having sex.

There is not a rational basis to explain what a woman (or sometimes a man) does often times.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!

NY Post

Yikes! That IS silly!

It sounds like there was some community pushback. Good!

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

New Renter says

Aren't there already laws excluding convicted sex offenders from parks?

I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that "sex offenders" including 12-year-old girls taking self-portraits of their own breasts are prohibited at punishment of prison for being within so many yards of any place children congregate, such as the 12-year-old's school.

That's how fucked up our laws are.

Dan8267 says

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people,

It doesn't even take a STEM worker to recommend mosquito netting and water filters made from sand and charcoal.

Dan8267 says

Unless, of course, everyone has more than two children.

Which I'm not saying they should. Limiting the number of children is different discussion. I didn't bring this up.

Dan8267 says

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise.

I'm not saying our species would go extinct. Because of course some people will have kids and shoulder the costs.

I'm saying childless people are counting on that and at the same time evading the costs.

Over-population is a made-up concern. Africa has lower population density than Europe, East Asia or North America. Poverty and hunger in Africa illustrate the point that societies fail usually due to top-down government mismanagement presenting wrong incentives to the individuals:

If property rights are not secure, one can not be sure to be the one harvesting and keeping the crop he/she plants, yet one can get food either by looting or stretching out hands to aid groups . . . well, you are not going to see many workers in the field doing the planting. Our tax-welfare treatment on making the next generation is coming close to that.

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Yes, technology produced by STEM workers will eventually enable this world to support 10.1 billion people,

It doesn't even take a STEM worker to recommend mosquito netting and water filters made from sand and charcoal.

True, there are many things individuals can do.

However, I am a firm believer in the power of engineering to solve the really big problems. That said, all resources are finite and the Earth can physically only support so many people at such and such quality of life. We have to learn to live within our means or there will be a mass death event as the result of depleting our natural resources.

Right now, our population is only being supported because we are accruing massive amounts of ecological debt that must be repaid or we risk ecological bankruptcy -- read ecological collapse and mass death. Such debt includes draining fresh water resources, polluting, driving species to extinctions (which causes complex ecological consequences that will inevitably harm us). This is not a subject matter to take lightly.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

What is ridiculous is the argument that it is a person's duty to have children because our species would go extinct otherwise.

I'm not saying our species would go extinct. Because of course some people will have kids and shoulder the costs.

True, you haven't. But a lot of people on this site have made that argument.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm saying childless people are counting on that and at the same time evading the costs.

Your children are not my assets. I do not benefit from them. If anything, they are a cost to me in terms of
- taxes (for parks, schools, food programs, etc.)
- crime
- traffic
- noise
- severe restriction of my liberty (see the arrest of chess players and countless other examples)
- job competition in the future

If a person wants to have a child for his or her own personal fulfillment then fine. I don't have any problem with that. But don't give me the crap that I should be grateful that someone else had a child. My life isn't better because other people reproduce. The Octomom isn't paying my rent.

Or to put it this way. Let's accept the premise that children overall produce more than they consume and thus it's imperative that we crank out as many kids as possible. OK, I'll do my part. Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy. If you don't think that's a good deal, you don't buy the premise that other people's kids make your life better and you wealthier.

robertoaribas says

Yeah, I really want to take advice from you

Bob, like I said, guys like you are a dime a dozen. You watch the news, and made purchases based on the 1% drop in interest rates.

We'll see.

These past five years was the time to settle debt, that's what we are doing, Bob.

I'd rather have cash than debt.

Reality says

Over-population is a made-up concern. Africa has lower population density than Europe, East Asia or North America.

Population is not uniformly distributed. Most parts of Africa are empty and the slums are densely populated. More importantly, it is the renewability of natural resources, not the available surface area, that is the limiting factor on population. Please note that I said renewability not availability. A society can have plenty of resources, but still be doomed if that society consumes those resources much faster than replacing them. See the history of Easter Island and its forests for the textbook example.

It is also important to understand the severe effects of overpopulation on the environment in Africa and all other places as quoted below.

“In 1900, Ethiopia had 5 million, in 1950 it had 18.4 million, in 2010 it had 85 million and is projected to reach 173 million by 2050,” said Campbell. “Their rapid population growth figures in the decimation of nearly all of Ethiopia’s forests and consequently climate change.”

Overpopulation can cause the depletion of natural resources to a point where a previously easily sustained population is suddenly not sustainable. This causes a mass death event and history is full of such events both in our species and others.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

Following that philosophy, a woman should not be allowed to have a child she cannot support.

Agree. I expressed the same earlier.

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

Or simply not having government pay people to have children (which is a form of adverse self-selection: the least competent are most incentivized by such programs), thereby forcing the would-be incompetent parent make the rational decision, either aborting or giving up the child for adoption.

That will prevent childhood poverty and ensure that the tax payers don't have to bear the burden of raising the children of irresponsible parents. However, it also has the consequence of changing reproduction from being a right to being a privilege. Are you willing to accept that trade-off?

No such trade-off necessary. Don't try to work enforcement against "pre-crime." Post-facto incentives can work effectively. Some non-mandatory guideline (such as "it's a good idea to have at least $30k (1/5 the cost of raising a child) saved up before giving birth) combined with benign neglect from the government would quickly eliminate the wrong incentives that are leading to a huge proportion of kids being born into wrong environment like we have now.

New Renter says

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

You ARE kidding right?

Ha. My brother says his taxes are going to support single welfare moms and he would appreciate a Father's Day card once in a while.

Urban slums in the 3rd world are due to their government handouts (to the local poor and the rich alike, the latter trickles down in the form of jobs) near the capital. The farther away rural farmers have to pay for those handouts via taxes (which is little different from looting in those countries, and in other countries).

Easter Island was not an over-population story. The islanders did not cut down all the trees in order to make farm land. They cut down all the trees in order to erect giant stone statues. They thought they needed the statues to protect them from natural disasters; they blamed all natural disasters on themselves for not building even bigger statues! It was a classic case of government/politics/blind-faith destroying a closed theocratic society.

Dan8267 says

Your children are not my assets. I do not benefit from them. If anything, they are a cost to me in terms of

- taxes (for parks, schools, food programs, etc.)

- crime

- traffic

- noise

- severe restriction of my liberty (see the arrest of chess players and countless other examples)

- job competition in the future

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.
And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.
When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

I agree with you on all these points under normal circumstances, where kids are raised by self-reliant parents. Children born into generational poverty enabled by government subsidies, to parents with brain rotted by years of substances abuse (including during pregnancy and nursing) are far more likely to be burdens to society (disability and criminality) instead of becoming productive members of society like you and I normally would assume for children born into healthy environment.

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

tatupu70 says

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

I'd rather have some of both :)

Dan8267 says

Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy. If you don't think that's a good deal, you don't buy the premise that other people's kids make your life better and you wealthier.

Dan! Don't forget the child support waiver! If you do even that six figure income won't be near enough!

David Losh says

robertoaribas says

Yeah, I really want to take advice from you

Bob, like I said, guys like you are a dime a dozen. You watch the news, and made purchases based on the 1% drop in interest rates.

We'll see.

These past five years was the time to settle debt, that's what we are doing, Bob.

I'd rather have cash than debt.

And I suspect others would rather have the debt Roberto incurred to purchase his very well priced properties and be making the kind of money he is getting a month.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

All 100% sustainable with immigration, not domestic propagation.

When you think of it immigration is far superior! Immigration policy can be tuned to only legally admit independent and well educated adults. They can even be admitted on a temporary basis, exploited to their full potential and deported as soon as their used up. Heck the policy can even require immigrants to be temporarily sterilized unless 1) they emigrate from the country or 2) they are granted full citizenship. That should eliminate the anchor babies.

And don't worry, there's plenty more immigrants willing to submit to such draconain measures thanks to people in their home countries who use more emotion than logic in family planning.

Reality says

Easter Island was not an over-population story. The islanders did not cut down all the trees in order to make farm land. They cut down all the trees in order to erect giant stone statues.

Yes, but you missed the point of
A society can have plenty of resources, but still be doomed if that society consumes those resources much faster than replacing them. See the history of Easter Island and its forests for the textbook example.

The fundamental problem that Easter Island experienced was that it cut down its forest faster than it replenished them. When they were out of trees, they could not even make boats to leave the island and were stuck on an island whose ecosystem had been destroyed.

The moral of the story is that natural resources must be wisely managed and a society must avoid depleting resources faster than it can renew them whether through overpopulation or unrestrained consumerism.

Dan8267 says

Let's accept the premise that children overall produce more than they consume and thus it's imperative that we crank out as many kids as possible. OK, I'll do my part. Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy.

Of course I'd still count you as childless unless you accept to support them and that limits how much you can have. Or there is a limit on how many women you can seduce and convince to have children for you without support. In any case you couldn't go very far.

But let's admit your opposite premise that children are a danger to the earth and let's all stop to have children...The population will contract, the economy crater, people will have to work literally until they drop for lack of retirement, and we would all have wonderful technologies we will take to our graves in case we fail to upload ourselves into computers maintained by robots first.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing.

This is nothing disingenuous or untrue about what I said.

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous. The Earth cannot support an unlimited and ever-expanding human population. Period.

2. An economy that grows in absolute terms but shrinks in per capita terms is a very bad thing. It is not absolute GDP that matters, but GDP per capita.

3. Economic growth per capita, by definition, does not come from population increase. Rather it comes from the average individual becoming more productive, which is caused by advancements in science and technology.

4. Ultimately, there is a maximum beneficial population for a given planet and technological level. Once that population is reached, whatever it is, additional population is counter-productive. So even if the ideal population of the Earth is greater than the current population, there would be a point were good social policy entails discouraging population growth.

To argue otherwise is to argue that it is better to have an infinite number of human beings on Earth than a finite number. Such a ridiculous argument is proof enough that there is a maximum beneficial population and that population controls are necessary.

At best, you might try to argue that we haven't reached that maximum beneficial population. But with a third of the world lacking safe drinking water, it's pretty hard to make that case.

5. I never argued that "other people are just a cost to me". What I argue is that additional population growth is a net cost. I have shown numerous economic and ecological reasons why this is true for our particular planet and our particular technological level. You have yet to show me why it isn't so.

Of course, if we had terraformed other planets, were living on a super-Earth planet, or had much more advanced technology, it could be the case that 10.1 billion humans are below the optimal population level. But we don't.

6. Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children and as such the childless should not be fiscally punished or turned into second-class citizens for not having children. If anything, society should be grateful that some people work and pay taxes all their lives without sucking up all the government services. If anything, the childless should be taxed less, not more.

Dan8267 says

The fundamental problem that Easter Island experienced was that it cut down its forest faster than it replenished them. When they were out of trees, they could not even make boats to leave the island and were stuck on an island whose ecosystem had been destroyed.

Easter Islanders could leave the island (as anyone living on an island surrounded by an ocean) . . . they just couldn't return! The reason had little to do with trees but their boat building technology: the Polynesians used catamarans, not keel-weighted sailboats like in the North Atlantic. While cats are much faster boats than "traditional" sailboats of the North Atlantic and well suited to the mid-Pacific near the equator, they could not tach directly/closely into the wind. The Polynesians followed wind east-ward all the way from today's Indonesia near the equator, and had reached the end of their several hundred year old genetic journey at Easter Island, which was far south enough to reach the West Wind zone. There simply wasn't any island nearby that Polynesian catamaran could make round trip to and from. Any trip to Easter Island was a one-way trip, and any trip off the island was a one-way trip, never to be heard from again, until the European explorers arrived with heavily-keeled sail ships.

The moral of the story is that natural resources must be wisely managed and a society must avoid depleting resources faster than it can renew them whether through overpopulation or unrestrained consumerism.

They thought they were wisely managing their natural resources by cutting down the trees to help erect bigger and bigger Moai's (statues) so that sailors going off the island could return . . . like Polynesian sailors had always done on previous islands. The priests putting forth the Moai Protection Theory all came with credentials and proper peer-reviews of the day! So it was only logical they cut down all their trees in order to build bigger and bigger statues! The process was very well funded with tax money, and properly supervised by the high priest class.

Heraclitusstudent says

there is a limit on how many women you can seduce

http://www.youtube.com/embed/c7k2y08dSV4

This obviously is not an organic recovery.

Reality says

Easter Islanders could leave the island (as anyone living on an island surrounded by an ocean) . . . they just couldn't return! The reason had little to do with trees but their boat building technology

I have read otherwise as well as heard differently on a History Channel special.

The number of people became too large to be supported by the island’s limited resources, and by the 17th century the land had been deforested, the soil eroded, and many native plants and animals driven to extinction. The islanders no longer had sufficiently large trees with which to build sturdy boats, giving them no way to leave the island and limiting their fishing abilities.

And yes, stupid superstition and status seeking caused the islanders to chop down so many trees. But regardless of the cause or the intent of the the deforestation, the most important lesson and most relevant to this thread is that any finite renewable resource must be managed so that it is not depleted faster than it can be renewed or it will be lost. Easter Island was a microcosm of what is happening right now to the entire planet due to over-exploitation of resources by every nation.

HydroCabron says

A sure sign of the imminent skyrocketing of real estate prices.

A better class of buyers is entering the market, well-heeled and with the resources to outbid those without the cash reserves. Soon they will drive the prices far higher than anyone can afford, and everyone will be priced out forever.

One thing never considered in economics 101 is the case where the supply and demand curves no longer intersect. Demand vanishes, yet price becomes effectively infinite.

Those holding real property will soon own the universe: the money supply will be inadequate to purchase a single home in Stockton, and all real estate transactions will be in kind. Literally everyone will be priced out forever.

Recently I noticed Wall Street investors buying property in the area where I have my rentals. They not only pushing property prices higher but also they asking rent are much higher as well. Soon we going to be just servants of the aristocracy.

Homeboy says

This obviously is not an organic recovery.

Dont worry the organic recovery is still to come.

Heraclitusstudent says

The population will contract, the economy crater, people will have to work literally until they drop for lack of retirement, and we would all have wonderful technologies we will take to our graves in case we fail to upload ourselves into computers maintained by robots first.

Well that's what you get for having a Ponzi based economy.

Still you dismiss immigration. Adult immigrants don't take 18+ years to mature and don't take as many resources. The USA could do quite well with a zero birthrate and immigration.

Dan8267 says

And yes, stupid superstition and status seeking caused the islanders to chop down so many trees. But regardless of the cause or the intent of the the deforestation, the most important lesson and most relevant to this thread is that any finite renewable resource must be managed so that it is not depleted faster than it can be renewed or it will be lost. Easter Island was a microcosm of what is happening right now to the entire planet due to over-exploitation of resources by every nation.

Do you not realize that Easter Island exemplifies what happens in a finite society/environment managed by a government? We are talking about a relatively small island here closed off due to limitations of navigation technology. Polynesians had always filled up one island, then moved "excess" population off to the horizon on a different island, then various islands traded with each other and developed specialization thereby enabling even higher population on the original islands. A process that's not very dissimilar to London being proclaimed as "over-populated" in the 17th century with a population measured in the 100k's . . . whereas today, after three centuries of trade with the rest of the world, London has a population measured in the millions!

The problem with Easter Island was that it could not trade with anyone off the island due to the catamaran boat building technology running smack up against one-directional wind all year-round and geographical isolation. It fell upon the government to manage the finite resources, and the government promptly proceeded to exacerbate the problem by chopping down all the trees in accordance with their peer-reviewed religion, just like almost all government management/solutions do!

Without war or epdemic, such a tiny island was bound to be filled up beyond carry capacity in the absence of trade and rapid technological improvement resulting from trade. Government management of the finite resources only made the situation worse by creating a ecological disaster even more rapidly before any technological solution could give them a way out.

don't get married. can't lose if you don't play. the game is rigged just like the housing market.

I'd rather have the opportunity.

There are a lot of other price appreciation vehicles.

David Losh says

I'd rather have the opportunity.

There are a lot of other price appreciation vehicles.

Not many with the upside that the person you always argue with got.

bgamall4 says

REpro says

Recently I noticed Wall Street investors buying property in the area where I have my rentals. They not only pushing property prices higher but also they asking rent are much higher as well. Soon we going to be just servants of the aristocracy.

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

By bombarding homeowners with ads; “We buy your house 10% above market price, all cash” may convince many to sell.

What happened did he walk away from his house?

bgamall4 says

Totally manufactured. Question is, where does it go from here?

Good question. Affordability is down, but is still pretty good compared to overall average. I think that's mainly due to interest rates that are still near historic lows. I don't think housing will go down now, but it does seem overheated in some markets, like California.

Reality says

Do you not realize that Easter Island exemplifies what happens in a finite society/environment managed by a government?

I'm not arguing with anything you are saying, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion that I was having. Even if everything you said is 100% true, it does not contradict any of my points and is a complete tangent to the conversation.

Dan8267 says

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous.

Yep it's a dangerous idea, yet one that is widely relied upon, including in the US. There is a reason immigration is needed, and social sec calculations are directly based on population growth. Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Dan8267 says

Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children

Yeah they are not inflicting harm, just are just relying on other people having children, and dumping their costs on them.
($240K by child http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/child-born-in-2012-seen-by-u-s-costing-241-080-to-raise.html)

bgamall4 says

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

multigenerational living doesn't really matter as long as population is growing the excess inventory will be absorbed.

What they cannot control is people moving to cheaper area and building houses that they can afford. People complaining about high costs should do that.