Real estate bubbles lower the birth-rate


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/05/19/malthus-vs-money-launderers.html


#2

We’ve got our second little one well on her way, and still haven’t found a suitable 2 bedroom we can afford…Eh, fuck it, living rooms are for the bourgeoisie anyhow…


#3

i only have 1 son. I would love to have another, but I cannot afford it.

I’d love to live off the dole, in an apartment, and have 2 or 3 kids, but? I was not raised that way.

So yes… less and less population… - just like in Idiocracy


#4

My Euro friends go crazy with all the children they see here in the US. Europeans aren’t procreating anymore it seems.


#5

“a long-fused reverse population bomb: in 20 years, we’ll all be living under Chinese circumstances, with huge cohorts of aging people beyond working years dependent on much smaller numbers of working-aged people to pay into the social security system.”

Wait a minute… from what I heard from Bernie Sanders

and a lot of boingers, all we have to to is raise the annual SocSec tax cap and the system will be rolling in dough.

And for about three quarters of my life, I have been listening to Malthusian hysterics about overpopulation. Now it’s not a problem any more? Did I miss the memo??


#6

How about a lot of us are thinking that there are enough people in the world, or we are waiting… My brother got a head start and being an uncle made me think no that shit can wait… So I was 34 when I finally became a dad and well I love being a parent even with all the frustration it brings, but nope one is enough thanks not again.


#7

The West’s largest import will become families. Western couples having children would put them in a worse financial position with a lower quality of life. The Australian study shows that to this generation, that’s not worthwhile. Meanwhile, encouraging immigration of families from poorer, destabilized countries will be a step up for them even though it means cramming everyone into some slum-lord’s dilapidated 1-bed rental. The Middle-class is gone, and so is the Nuclear Family.


#8

in 20 years, we’ll all be living under Chinese circumstances, with huge cohorts of aging people beyond working years dependent on much smaller numbers of working-aged people to pay into the social security system

Thanks for not claiming SSI will “go broke,” which is a long disproved claim. The more likely outcome in 20 years is that the payouts will be lower (about 77% of what was expected) – not a surprise to any Gen Xer who knew we’d be screwed over one way or another the minute the Boomers stopped collecting.

The X-er cohort, however, isn’t huge in generational terms compared to those preceding and following it and many see SSI as what it’s intended to be: supplemental insurance rather than a retirement package. Also, as long as the U.S. remains a desirable immigrant nation there will be plenty of young and hard-working entrants into our workforce.

By the time the SSI dilution comes home to roost, I expect that Social Security insurance (along with disability, Medicare, and all other social programmes) will be eliminated to help pay for a nasty neoliberal version of UBI to keep the unnecessariat and the precariat from rioting while helping the rich get richer.

Otherwise, if one genuinely wants most of the planet to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle a lower birth-rate is generally a good thing. Unless, of course, one’s real concern is “there ain’t enough white babies bein’ born!”, which is the real worry of the Know-Nothing conservative bases in America and Europe.

Shelter is a human necessity second only to food on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; but it’s also an asset-class that is increasingly relied upon by the world’s super-rich for money-laundering, rent-extraction and simple investment

Come on now, Cory, those Millenials would be able to afford housing if they’d just cut back on the avocado toast (or so says an Australian real estate magnate who inherited his starting stake).


#9

I don’t suppose mining other countries for their young hardworking adults has a negative effect on those countries does It?


#10

I’d assume it does – brain drain is a real phenomenon, for example. Since the American right seems hell-bent not only on discouraging immigration but also on destroying the democratic institutions and economic mobility that keep the U.S. from turning into the kind of authoritarian banana republic/kleptocracy most immigrants try to escape from, that may not be a problem for much longer. If their agenda succeeds, a young and hard-working Russian or Chinese person might decide to lump it with Putin or Xi Jinping rather than spend time and money moving to a country ruled by their American equivalent.


#11

There is another solution to the Social Security demographic crisis of course:


#12

House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!


#13

There are too damned many humans. I celebrate the falling birth rate.


#14

I never understood this, why is it the future peoples fault? Maybe we are living too long…


#15

Governments should not subsidize or insure mortgages for a single cent more than they recommend a median wage spends on shelter.

This false prosperity has made people much to complacent. And it has not done a single thing for wealth inequity but make it worse.


#16

I see somebody already got a leaked copy of the new Deadpool.

:stuck_out_tongue:


#17

How did I imply that it [whatever “it” is] is “the future people’s fault”? Obviously if there are “too damned many humans” that would be the ones existing right now. And those current people not having more than two offspring per couple will help with the “too damned many” aspect.

I admit some part of me wishes we’d stop curing our natural predators, but I don’t really want people dying of now-preventable diseases. Do you?


#18

A person living till 120 and retiring at 65 is < many new lives and new potential. Is all I am saying.


#19

Still opaque though. “Less than” by what criterion? What context?
Or are you just saying that one is fewer than many? In which case, why bother?


#20

I heard 76%. That’s what I used to adjust what the Social Security told me my payments would be when I plugged SS income into the retirement finances simulator my 401(k) offers. (I also set the “market performance” slider to “Significantly Below Average”)