LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

In maths mechanics, which I did do at uni, you look at what your maths tells you and you look at the real world and check it makes sense.

In economic history you learn statistical tools to evaluate complicated data on human behaviour which has multiple inputs into complicated systems; many many more than you experience in the rarified world of science where the environments are much more controllable.

We have here both logic, common sense, and understanding of human decision making and a lecturer providing actual data from multiple sources and drawing conclusions.

But mr engineering who spends 10 minutes looking at it doesn’t think it’s right so boom that’s it.

I don’t think you have the faintest clue on how to draw conclusions from humanities data and you should stick to the uncomplicated world of engineering if this is how you want to argue.

And yes, “rising cost of living” is absolutely different to “less income” and I think you need to draw a distinction between world wise rising incomes, which is a longer term trend, and rising costs in the context of high incomes, which is a more short and medium term issue.

I suspect it is to do with the aspiration and expectation of investment and cost of bringing up children in a high income world and how that conflicts with the realities of less disposable income, but that nuance might be beyond you?

I have figured all of this out now.

RC is a psychohistorian

I am going to call you Harry from now on.

rick_chasey

I won’t repeat as I explained it in the last long post I did. Toward the end i explain the logic.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there is a correlation between being well off and house size.

I know it's anecdotal, but I'm moving house at the moment amd it does tend to be the case that bigger houses are more expensive.

I don't think RC meant space in a literal sense. I think he was including things like provision of affordable childcare and opportunities to take a career break without it having a significant impact on career progression.

I'm not sure those things have ever been that widely available, but I think there's also the point that the impact of starting a family on career progression is less of an issue in non-professional roles.

I suspect it is more basic than that. Generally, the more precarious one's existence, the higher the birth rate - to increase the odds of your family not dying out.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

How can if not affect it? It’s just common sense. It is literally the thinking in my own family planning and my peers and friends who are that age.

You're not on a low income. There's probably quite a bit of overlap between your and my clientele - all earning a lot more than me. It's fairly apparent that they are nearly all starting families 5-10 years later than me in their late 30s/early 40s.

I think people's view of how well off they are is often far removed from reality.

It’s not about being well off it’s about the cost of space to have your career and a family.

Of course higher income reduces fertility. But the Uk is high income and that won’t change.
That is a constant. That is s given.

In addition to that, I think the way any young person has to live makes it even harder to have children *because of the cost of living*

I think you lot are confusing “higher cost of living” with “less income” which is different.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there is a correlation between being well off and house size.

I know it's anecdotal, but I'm moving house at the moment amd it does tend to be the case that bigger houses are more expensive.

I don't think RC meant space in a literal sense. I think he was including things like provision of affordable childcare and opportunities to take a career break without it having a significant impact on career progression.

I'm not sure those things have ever been that widely available, but I think there's also the point that the impact of starting a family on career progression is less of an issue in non-professional roles

Yeah, I know. So he's basically just saying that in order for his bubble to have their cake and eat it, they need more money and/or lower expenses.

I'm just enjoying watching him wriggle on the hook. Some of the arguments are fantastic.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I won’t repeat it for a ninth time as I explained it in the last eight long post I did. Toward the end i lost all capacity for logic.

ftfy Harry.

rick_chasey

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

pblakeney

Here's an interesting thought. In 2022 the birthrate for women between 15 and 44 was 54.1 per 1000. In 2002 it was 54.6. What was so bad about 2002? Maybe it's not a single point answer.
PS - We are discussing birthrates rather than fertility as they are different things.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

Here's an interesting thought. In 2022 the birthrate for women between 15 and 44 was 54.1 per 1000. In 2002 it was 54.6. What was so bad about 2002? Maybe it's not a single point answer.
PS - We are discussing birthrates rather than fertility as they are different things.

World Cup was a huge let down. Less celebratory shagging.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Here's an interesting thought. In 2022 the birthrate for women between 15 and 44 was 54.1 per 1000. In 2002 it was 54.6. What was so bad about 2002? Maybe it's not a single point answer.
PS - We are discussing birthrates rather than fertility as they are different things.

World Cup was a huge let down. Less celebratory shagging.

Most conclusive point made for a few pages.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

God almighty, you really do think you are the smartest guy in the room don't you. If you actually - duh - read - duh - what other people post you'd see that they - duh - literally - duh said that. (If you read that out in your own voice it'll make sense)

Well not quite, but it is unambiguously implied by all the references to your bubble.

On a population level, rather than select groups of upper middle class intelligencia in university towns, people don't eschew having kids based on fiscal projections. They just have kids, or don't.

And you are still talking about birth rate, not fertility.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

Mmm, didn't you try?

Can we not go back there please.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

**KLAXON** - non-economic factors. Error. Delete. Remove contamination. Error.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

**WARNING WARNING WARNING** - literal reference to wanting more space.

First.Aspect

I am afraid to inform you all that RC has accidentally collided with himself and exploded. The warnings came too late.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Pross

secretsqirrel said:

focuszing723 said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol i didn’t realise you did economic history as part of your course.

When you confuse income with cost of living it’s hard to take the argument seriously. You’ve not provided anything about cost of living versus fertility. Zero.

Usual STEM arrogance.

If cost of living or income is such an issue, how come India's and China's populations are so large? Surely it's a lifestyle choice too?

Well this is what is confusing me. Fertility is biology, which can be affected by lifestyle choices where lifestyle choice affects health. However, fertile people can chose not to reproduce.
So leaving the biology out of it, we are talking about birthrate not fertility.

Glad someone made the point, it’s been getting on my nerves.

focuszing723

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s about level of expected investment into child (grows with income, but I’d argue doesn’t fall with higher living costs) and the means to make that investment.

When your generation doesn’t earn as much as your parents, it’s harder to achieve said investment in the children.

What are you on about now?

Is this something to do with birth rates? Or worse. God don't tell me your bubble decided they weren't going to get a return on their investment and sold some children at a loss?

The main reason for reduced fertility when income rises is about the increase expected investment in children. Go look it up.

More time, attention, space (separate rooms), holidays abroad etc. They want to proportionally more per child, even accounting for higher incomes.

This seems to be another way of saying that people with more disposable income just convince themselves that a greater level of optional spending is the essential minimum.

Correct.

The argument is that because richer people decide not to have as many kids (that's in the data), and assumes this is because they consider the financial implications. That's assumption 1. The argument goes further that if over time rich people are less rich, this tendency to fewer children will increase. That's assumptions 2-10. (It is not several assumptions, but it's such a big leap it may as well be).

I've already said upthread that assumption 1 would be idiotic based on, for example the ONS data. But, ta da.

And the only things consistent with assumptions 2-10 is that the birth rate has fallen and cost of living has risen, with no particular connection between them. Thus, the only thing supporting the conclusion is the conclusion itself.

Another great and cavernous flaw in all of this gibber, is that actually disposable incomes in the UK have risen in comparison to cost of living over time, except for the last year or so.

It is almost, and far be it for me to suggest, that Harry is feeling the pinch because or the recent cost of living crisis.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

focuszing723

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

So are there like millions of kids running feral around the Sandbanks?

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

So are there like millions of kids running feral around the Sandbanks?

Thats why rich people have had to buy Salcome.

focuszing723

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

So are there like millions of kids running feral around the Sandbanks?

Thats why rich people have had to buy Salcome.

Ah.

Elon Musk has loads of kids.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

So are there like millions of kids running feral around the Sandbanks?

Thats why rich people have had to buy Salcome.

Ah.

Elon Musk has loads of kids.

So does Eddie Murphy. 80s A lister, must have invested wisely.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

So are there like millions of kids running feral around the Sandbanks?

Thats why rich people have had to buy Salcome.

Ah.

Elon Musk has loads of kids.

Yeah, he seems to have fallen for the same guff as that weird eugenicist couple that were all over the media a while back.t5 red

focuszing723

ddraver

focuszing723 said:

If Rick's right the only answer is to go on a no excuses mass homes to live in initiative. That would drive the cost of living down and give younger families some hope.

As another millennial, yes that would work very well actually.

The council could provide it perhaps. We could call it council housing.

What would be really stupid though is if we let people buy them afterwards without building any more...

Bootiful Bwitish babies from bootiful white... Bwitish mothers

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

I mean, I’ve literally said the opposite.

The whole shtick is more convincing if you engage with the nuance of the argument.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

focuszing723 said:

Look at India and China compared to blighty.

Stop posting data. If the UK gets richer, we will make more babies. I've told you that.

I mean, I’ve literally said the opposite.

The whole shtick is more convincing if you engage with the nuance of the argument.

Ah, so the poor will boost the nation's birth rate.
Keeping rent high to keep people poor to boost the birth rate. Seems a strange strategy.