Do We Need To Have More Children?

Подписаться 2,6 млн

Просмотров 475 тыс.

50% 1

This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
Economists can't seem to decide if we need more or fewer children? Does overpopulation drain Earth's resources too much or does an ageing population threaten economies? What challenges does either option present and can we solve this paradox?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Economic Explained team uses Statista for conducting our research. Check out their RU-vid channel: / @statistaofficial
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
Check out our second channel Economics Explained Essentials → / @economicsexplainedess...
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
🎧 Listen to EE on Spotify! 👉 open.spotify.com/show/5TFVUEJ...
Also on Apple Podcasts or anywhere else you listen!
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsexplained
TikTok → / economicsexplained
#EconomicsExplained #Overpopulation #PopulationCollapse
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Andrew, Petronio, Istvan, Donald, David, Patrick, Demo, Arjan, Andrey, Ash, Jim, Michael, Shane, Eric, Simon, Stefano, Marton, Tahsin Likes Chips, Alex, Elisabeth, Empyre18, Seth, Dragan, Tenebrion, Jason, Aimee, Jamie, Rick, John, Leah, Bacongravy, Klaus, Ps0Fa, Abel, Adam, Brian, Johann, Leonid, Thomas, Nicholas, TParkin, Kim, Ted, Joshua, John, Joe, Wees, Justin, Karan, Alex, roGER, Marton, Randy, Liubov, Jeff, Michael, Long, hunter, Craig, Kent, Stefan, ZETTAwith3TEEES, Zac, Jacqueline, Roman~1, Chris, Wesley, Robert, David, Anthony, Arend Peter, Daniel, Kamil, Dodd, Leo, How long can a profile name be... this long... Wow, this is longer than I would have expected. Good lord, the letters! Secunda!, Hugh, David, Will, Kheng Lai, Scott, Jane, Zachary, Michael, Steffen, skuerzo, Siegfried, PM, Jack, michael, Jonathan, Franklin, Trevor, Marcel, Daniel, Bradley, Connor, John, Kevin, Travis, Matthew, Andrew, Zachary, AZbytes, Johannes, Reuben, Nigel, Jacob, AB3, Sridev, Matt, Norrawed, Victor, Pedro, Michael, John, Rimvydas, George, John, Shivan, Caleb, Brenton, Hayden.
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS PATRONS
Anthony, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Stephanie, JKH, Grégoire, Mikhail1, Laor, Maximiliano, Pineapples&bricks, Peter, std__mpa, Bac, Michael, Bob, Frank, David, Jay, Ryan, Sophie, Brett, Jill, Nathan, Post Apocalyptic In Missouri, Constanza, Kib, Forodon, Daniel, Paul, Igor, Mcfeld, Wendover Productions, Andrew, Morgon, Igor.
UPPER CLASS PATRONS
Jeromy Johnson, Juan Benet

Опубликовано:

16 май 2023

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 2,5 тыс.

@WanderingCoyoteXVII Год назад

I was kinda looking forward to seeing children on the EE leaderboard...

@davidbrayshaw3529 Год назад

GDP: 0, GDP per capita: O Stability and confidence: Depends on parenting and genetics: 5 Growth: 10 Industry: Yes, they keep adults very busy: 10 That puts them just above Australia on the EE leaderboard.

@preston1382 Год назад

🏆 comment of the day

@kolonarulez5222 Год назад

Nearly nonexistent GDP due to largely unskilled and demanding workforce

@jorge-lp2xi Год назад

😂

@420StonerComedy Год назад

@@davidbrayshaw3529 their gdp per Capita is slightly above zero in the global south

@liamtahaney713 Год назад

The Working class cant afford kids and the system cant afford us not having kids. Amazing system weve inherited

@rundown132 Год назад

Fantastic comment.

@Random17Game Год назад

unpopular opinion: people can afford children, people just don't want to sacrifice their hobbies and luxuries and time and also they have very high standards for their children comfort, the proof is the poorer people on society have more children, and the poorer the country the more children they WANT

@Sparticulous Год назад

@@Random17Game standards are different from poor nations. And it is also difficult for people to have kids with the current rent prices. If people cannot give their kids a quality of life that the state demands, the state will take their kids. So those who dont have the ability to comfortably meet those standards, just usually not have kids

@bestmoviesclips7869 Год назад

Amazing indeed. Working class is wealthier than ever before in human history, but worthless eaters pretend otherwise.

@DEPR188 Год назад

@@Random17Game It’s also about risk and options. Having kids increases financial risks and decreases mobility. Also, some of us think we wouldn’t be good parents.

@Draxynnic Год назад

I'd put a big question mark over the "more people means more chance of an Einstein" assertion. It does mean that there is more chance of someone being born who has the genetic potential to achieve that, but actually having a chance to realise that potential relies heavily on having the right life circumstances. We've probably lost a LOT of potential Einsteins to poverty, lack of education, or lack of opportunity to use that education (the last is probably less common since once you get into meritocratic academia a potential Einstein is more likely to be recognised, but even then, circumstances might still conspire to deny them that opportunity). You'd probably have a better chance of generating Einsteins by investing more into the people you already have to make sure that the potential Einsteins can realise that potential.

@yuki-sakurakawa Год назад

You also have more potentials for Maos and H-tlers. 😂 Gotta take the good with the bad.

@falconJB Год назад

Yea, most of the time Einsteins aren't really born they are raised. Put more into raising better children and you get more Einsteins.

@newagain9964 Год назад

1st we dont really need an Einstein. 2nd for every Einstein born there are at least one million douche tools born too. and all they do is take/consume.

@benjamintaheny450 Год назад

@@yuki-sakurakawa If you examined the facts rather than REGURGITATING propaganda, you would be further ahead.

@benjamintaheny450 Год назад

@@falconJB Have you gone through the biographies of the Teslas, Fords, and Jobs? Edison was an AUTODICTAT. He was able to harness the brainpower of his workforce to extend his effort.

@vb2050 Год назад

I think the growth of population is a double edged sword. More people is great if everyone is productive. More people is bad if a large portion of them are not productive (unemployed/uneducated). I think its best to think about population as a resource with certain quirks at different stages of life. It is also a resource that can be mismanaged and wasted.

@eksbocks9438 Год назад

Not just unproductive. But antagonistic as well. Folks in the West can't accept the fact that there are people out there who don't care about others. That weighs down on civilization like a boat anchor. And our enemies use that to their advantage. (Troll Farms, supporting Fringe Groups, etc.)

@420StonerComedy Год назад

So basically babies get a 7.2 on the economics chart, putting them slightly above old people and well under middle aged people

@harrycornelius373 Год назад

Hilarious but sad

@Ghost-wm1db Год назад

😂 🔥

@garethbaus5471 Год назад

By net economic value wouldn't people in their mid 20s be most valuable, their childcare and education is already a sunk cost and they pretty much have as much future potential as infants on average.

@yuriguedesneiva Год назад

don't do that, my Brazil got 4.0, it's a lot worse than babies

@420StonerComedy Год назад

@@graemeking7336 father time

@chapelknight951 Год назад

Like he was getting at, one of the biggest hurdles of advancing a nation is the growing need of a highly educated workforce. This postpones parenthood later in life. Add in internships, low entry pay, and loan debts and parenthood is a major hurdle for the needed workers.

@robertagren9360 Год назад

The school was made to ensure they stay working in what the school teaches

@parksoo-kim6908 Год назад

Don't forgot outrageous home prices and high cost of day care and education.

@alex29443 Год назад

Nah, most people are over-educated. I think we need to substantially restrict the number of people who qualify for university (to the number of people who need it) and normalise returning to uni for older people in the aim of learning for their work.

@drmadjdsadjadi Год назад

@@parksoo-kim6908 One of the problems we have is the entire concept of retirement. With an aging population, all of those retired individuals (at least until their last three or four years of life for the most part) can watch over kids and teach them just like we used to do in multigenerational housing for most of human existence. That also helps solve the cost of housing issue because that aging population will soon lead to population decline, so you really do not need additional housing stock. Indeed, slow and steady managed population decline could be the best thing that ever happened to our species because it solves so many issues all at once.

@chapelknight951 Год назад

@@parksoo-kim6908 That's a major factor for sure. The few co-workers I have that have kids are in double income, double full-time households. When both parents have to work a minimum of 40 hours a week, you have to pay for daycare. They work to pay for the house and work more to pay for the daycare and don't spend much time in the house or with the kids.

@itsame8057 Год назад

I think it would be more accurate to think about whether or not an economic system that makes it impossible to have kids is an economic system worth having.

@Homer-OJ-Simpson Год назад

Very bad take. People can actually afford far more kids than before. The difference is people greatly raised their standards on what they want for their kids while also no longer wanting to make as much of a sacrifice to have kids.

@HelloWorld-cq1sq Год назад

@Jack Jones Indeed. And actual inflation (in terms of rent and groceries) is far higher than reported inflation. The days are long gone when someone could drop out of high school and proceed to raise an entire family off that one salary, having a house and some holidays in the process. Try doing that today.

@yuki-sakurakawa Год назад

Always wondered why the left in some countries (the right secretly supports to lower wages domestically) wants more immigration. The left once supported stronger unions, higher pay, and nationalised social services; now they are silent or just give lip service to unions. The left (labour parties) have become the conservative parties of yesteryear.

@kenim Год назад

Economics is becoming more and more anti human as it develops. And I say that as a capitalist.

@kenim Год назад

Since birthrates are dropping, the system is already developing ways to eliminate the need for human consumption altogether.

@GabrielCarvalho-gd8op Год назад

Problem with GDP is that it only affect the top level. Companies and few individuals got richer, the other 80-90% got poorer. I'm not old by any means and I remember I could buy many things with $1 (unit of money. Interpret it to whatever currency you want) and now that same amount gets me basically nothing. My salary is really good, but I still feel the weight of all that is needed for me to survive every month, whereas if it was 10-15y ago, I would be living a king's life. I understand we are moving forward and getting lots of advancements, but where is all that money going to? I don't feel we are getting a good return from all that investment. Progress feel way slower for more money. Look at computers for example. We went from KiloBytes in the 70's to GigaBytes in the late 2000's and we are still kinda stuck on it now. Of course I'm simplifying it a lot and I understand things get more difficult to innovate.

@quickstart90909 Год назад

Progress isn't slower, the benefits are more concentrated (in the US). The US went neo-liberal in the 70s (and accelerated in the 80s). We are simply living with the effects of those policy decisions now.

@teaadvice4996 Год назад

The great stagnation

@alastairstaunton7081 10 месяцев назад

The ultra rich have climbed the ladder and pulled it up after them.

@buddermonger2000 10 месяцев назад

Part of this is that in the same time, the explosive rise of bureaucratic institutions which increase costs on EVERYONE. For example, one of the biggest factors in Healthcare inflation has been that administrators outpace physicians by roughly 100x. It's just really not feasible overall, but it's something that we've gained culturally as something of a necessity for reasons which I'm not entirely sure of. Whether it be fear of conflict or people refusing to be told no. I can't really figure it out. It's a symptom of the managerial revolution where middle managers have most control and the organizations are more complex and impersonal ruling most people's lives.

@odonnelly46 7 месяцев назад

That is why GDP is NOT a good measure of how rich a country is, compared to GDP per capita. The US is actually the 10th richest country, not the 1st, when using GDP per capita, which is a more honest comparison of wealth between countries.

@masterchinese28 Год назад

Prior to the COVID outbreak, I remember reading an article that said in 2020 it was predicted that the world's population, for the first time in history, would be over 50% "middle class" meaning having extra income after paying for living expenses. Where are we now? What kinds of trends moving forward vis-a-vis poverty levels? Whether more or less of us, I'm concerned about quality of life rather than quantity.

@ziruiwang4806 Год назад

Tell them

@darth3911 Год назад

Thing is you need lots of people to create a high quality of life. The biggest issue is how long life lasts as if people live to long they become an economic burden to the nation. Historically this was not a problem because cures to most illnesses had not yet been made, and wars had also been the common occurrence for all peoples. That said the solution to fix this modern problem is to simply colonize worlds outside of earth such as the moon or mars. This fixes the problem as it allows for younger people to have more job opportunities and gives access to more resources to help refill the nation’s economies with valuable goods. The profits and goods from those resources is what currently allows us to keep our elderly populations going so you can imagine how colonizing new worlds can help with the current issues we face.

@davidbrayshaw3529 Год назад

@@darth3911 The term "quality of life" is highly subjective. Arguably, so is the term "job opportunity". As far as colonising new worlds is concerned, it's science fiction, nothing more.

@dieptrieu6564 Год назад

@@darth3911 The problem is that we are nowhere near the level to colonize new planets. Even if we could, it would be a very long and tedious process. Meaning we still have to fix all the problems we are currently facing without such resources

@ctg4818 Год назад

Middle class (caste) is having a salary of over $100k

@kingofhearts3185 Год назад

With where I live I probably couldn't buy a house if I saved for 20 years, let alone with kids. At this point I'm content to live my life alone and stay with my parents until they're gone and the house passes to me.

@blazer9547 Год назад

Where you at?

@saagisharon8595 Год назад

I knew that was my fate since 12th grade

@clairaragon2881 Год назад

Same here

@grimmlinn Год назад

People, it’s not as hard as you think. Buy a house on loan/mortgage either with an accessory dwelling unit or build one yourself. Live in the adu and rent out the entire house. The renters will pay your mortgage. Use your own money to pay off your mortgage faster. After 20 to 30 years, you own the house outright and can start on another house. When you want to retire, use your rental income and live somewhere that is cheaper, like Mexico or Philippines, etc and live comfortably with the passive income from your houses.

@kingofhearts3185 Год назад

@@grimmlinn you sound like my grandfather. I can't tell if you're being serious.

@reivelt3715 Год назад

This is a never ending loop. People want to advance in life, whether it is about status, financial, education, etc. The more people advance/level up, the less people are willing to do hard physical labour. What this has to do with children? A more advanced society demans more from its population to contribute on every aspect including population grow. But, contributing in other aspects make people less inclined to have many children or having a child at all.

@EconomicsExplained Год назад

We couldn't have made this video without the support of our Patreon community. Join here ➡ www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained

@noel7777noel Год назад

Do a video about the TV show Bridgeton. While the oligarchy deal with their narcissism issues; the workers have no workers' union representation. The worker's have no credit union banking, no Glass-Steagall Act and no American dream. Where the narcissists oligarchy think the workers are worshippers of narcissism, when in reality the oligarchy are holding thier real estate and their currency hostage. AKA trickle-down economics. Using the worker's currency to make them slaves. Although this slavery does make for great eye candy for a TV show; it doesn't make for a great economy. The oligarchy take all the worker's property and treat them like mindless slaves. And how the TV show has a hypocrisy. The show's lovable characters are acting as if they are free from narcissism. Who have actually in slaved the working-class because of their narcissism. But in real life; castles were built by the peasants, for the peasants as a military retreat from the investors looking for slaves. [I mean invaders]. Did I say investors? I'm sorry, that slipped out. The peasants built themselves castles as a military retreat from invading enemies looking for slavery. But in real life, the working-class don't build castles to stop invading investors. They build workers' unions, credit union banking, the Glass-Steagall Act, and build the American dream to stop investors making them slaves.

@wawagabriel Год назад

I liked your GDP to ressource use growth comparisons. I'm not to sure it's only because of technological improvments improving their usage efficiency but also due to the increase of services in the global economy, which would be less ressource using?. on a similar topic I would very much like to see your take on the direct correlation between GDP and our Energy use from Jancovici

@bphoxx Год назад

Honest question. Are the Global GDP data at 8:30 already counted with inflation considered? Because I think without considering inflation, the comparison may become skewed.

@noel7777noel Год назад

Do a video how much of the GDP is passive income? How much GDP is for-profit banking. How much GDP is people avoiding work being predatory lenders to the working-class. A ratio of passive Income GDP and active income GDP. What is the GDP of money making money vs people making money. How much GDP is for-profit banking. Vs people actually making stuff. The ratio the worker's are paying their predatory lenders.

@Random17Game Год назад

Please do Portugal

@JeffCrowl Год назад

Good video, overall. And it doesn't factor in inequality in consumption patterns. A family in rural Somalia having another child puts far less strain on global resources than if a Kardashian decided to.

@TheBKnight3 Год назад

A Somali child exists in quite less a timespan as well. Much less strain on global resources when you don't exist.

@ronald3836 Год назад

If the Somali kid consumes few resources, it is because he/she will not have a high standard of living. What the video is trying to address is: how are we going to preserve living standards in the future. Lowering living standards to Somali levels is not a solution.

@tjones44236 Год назад

Yes but Somalians are black, whereas Kardashians only sleep with blacks.

@sebsebski2829 Год назад

You can live voluntarily like a Somali child being an equal strain on global resources. For some reason, you choose not to.

@HelloWorld-cq1sq Год назад

@@ronald3836 Well, if we educate people better, they typically have fewer children. So if Africans become better educated, they'll choose from their own volition (no coercion or force required) to have fewer children. So that's probably one part of the solution.

@sarahroberts7499 Год назад

I have a problem with more kids, higher population, more geniuses theory. I’ve heard it quite a few times now and it’s never challenged. No one ever mentions that tackling inequality may lead to the same result of producing geniuses. There are so many people in the world who don’t have much chance of ever realising their potential. Due to this, it’s hard to take this argument seriously.

@davidmichels5295 Год назад

It’s hard to take this argument seriously when we have enough resources for everyone on our planet. The resources just have to be distributed in fairer ways.

@thomasr6732 Год назад

I think what you’re suggesting is eating from a higher proportion of a pie rather than eating the same percentage of a bigger pie. Maybe this can work, but it comes with resource problems too like creating needed capital in other countries (and fighting corruption). Both options could work, but then it’s asking which is most efficient, likely, and perhaps even which fits the best desired time horizon

@1tsyabo170 Год назад

You say that as if we cant do both. We can have more geniuses and make poor people richer at the same time. Thats both possible and happening…

@jacobjones630 Год назад

@@1tsyabo170 We're going to run out of oil under current consumption by 2080. There are 170 million children working in low skill professions instead of going to school. That's a Russia's worth of children this isn't working for. Is it really worth it to continue on when we could help so many more people by making bold changes now?

@HungerSTR1KE Год назад

I read there is so much prenatal malnutrition in parts of India today that no matter how many children they have, they cannot develop to their full mental capacity. I also read a study that demonstrated we have so many people now and there is so little variation in the human genome that there are literally unrelated copies of people in the world today. Based on these studies, I think the argument of quality over quantity is a very real issue that analysts tend to ignore.

@krampus3814 Год назад

Probably in a couple of years on EE: "Can we still afford to eat? - Becoming plants"

@nebojsag.5871 Год назад

Human labor is becoming increasingly obsolete, so we need as few workers as possible, while making sure everyone is as highly skilled as possible.

@nan6239 Год назад

I know hundreds of young adults that would have chosen to have a family if they had a place of their own and job security. It`s absurd how they intentionally limit house supply so that young people wont be able to afford a place of their own. A place to live is a basic necessity!

@extremosaur Год назад

Then they claim we don't have enough people to fill the job market, so they invite millions of foreigners whoch depress wages and inflate property values, making things worse. There is no political solution.

@m1k3y48 Год назад

Who is “they” in this?

@KhushbuMel Год назад

@@m1k3y48 "They" = Capitalism doing what it normally does.

@JWelsh07 Год назад

@@m1k3y48 Current homeowners, property developers, real estate investment companies, and government officials are the "they".

@haruhirogrimgar6047 Год назад

@@JWelsh07 property developers are still building housing out the whazoo in places like Japan. The issue is zoning laws and in the u.s. our obsession with inefficient housing that will be the death of us (suburbs/single family housing). Across the world they have gotten more strict over time and multiple organizations that have researched it found it was just dumb regulations that have been leading to less housing development (sh"t like "minimum parking requirements".) It would also be nice if we developed a lot more public housing as well. But I seriously doubt you know "hundreds" of any group of people, much less young adults eager to have kids. And if so they are immoral fools.

@action4newsinligme803 Год назад

Advanced machinery is often more difficult to maintain than you might think. Often for very advanced systems only a single person really understands how a part of it works with all the technical detail required to make it work as anything more than just magic. No one knows the whole of how it works. Maybe AI could help with this and act as an authoritative source, but it seems we're a ways out from that now. Depopulation would mean we could loose people vital to machines with little hope of replacing them.

@JamielDeAbrew Год назад

Perhaps as simpler tasks are automated, those workers seek new employment (and further education).

@neocortex8198 Год назад

abolish child labor laws, ban retirement for those capable of working problem solved

@interstellarsurfer Год назад

Solve the free rider problem, you say? Easy as.. 😆

@Luredreier Год назад

@@neocortex8198ot really... In both of those cases you'd get a drop in productivity and people falling into poverty because a lot of those people genuinely can't work even if governments and sometimes other people *think* that they can... And more desperate people would also lead to more crime... As for the kids... Well, if they work they don't do other things vital for their future capabilities as people, be that education or development as individuals... And their future productivity will suffer as a result... Essentially your "solution" is at best just a attempt at kicking the box forwards... Also, it causes legitimacy issues for taxes and retirement funds etc... Essentially, if people expect to get certain benefits from paying for something and they don't get that then I'd the government or whoever is paying for the pensions isn't holding their end of the deal then why should we? And people start trying to avoid taxes etc.... (Already a problem, but it gets worse if your suggestion is followed, and there's always migration to countries with better terms, with the resulting loss of taxes on inheritance etc)

@andoli1646 Год назад

@@neocortex8198 if they spend all their time getting chewed up by machinery they cant spend time getting an education to operate the more advanced bits of the economy leading to further slowdown.

@PrinceofPwnage Год назад

Absolutely cannot afford kids. I went from being comfortable middle class to about to be homeless. AI will destroy white collar jobs, and automation will destroy blue collar jobs. Houses are becoming more and more unaffordable, pollution worse and worse, corporations keep merging, more monopolies, geopolitical turmoil, cost of healthcare is ridiculous, cost of childcare is ridiculous. And if both parents are working, school schedules don't match work schedules, and what if child gets sick, which parent has to risk their job to take care of child?. Words can't describe how miserable I am and how close I am to loosing it.

@herp_derpingson Год назад

#mood

@RyonBeachner Год назад

If I don’t have children, I don’t need to worry about the financial burden, or worry about my would be children growing up in a veritable dumpster fire due to… everything.

@SC-gw8np Год назад

Yup

@evilds3261 Год назад

It also ensures that there is more to go around because other people's children will not have to compete against your hypothetical children for resources and opportunities.

@carlospulpo4205 Год назад

Children in advanced economies are for the poorest people because of the social programs and payouts will sustain you if you choose this path. However , it's the middle class that the costs hit, they are making too much for the free social money but not enough to pay for expensive childcare and expenses out of picket all while paying elevated taxes to prop up the ever expanding social systems. Rich people are the opposite side, they can afford children and send them off to private schools and not face the "work" of raising them.

@evanthesquirrel Год назад

My wife and I are in this exact situation. We're reverting back to multi- generation family structure because we are NOT going to pay somebody else to raise our children.

@cmath4871 Год назад

That's alot of word salad victim porn

@Gaspardrow Год назад

We are in a economics channel so I understand, but to reduce family only to the economic factor may be a mistake. It's a commitment of life time, it's more important to some that just it's cost, and less or none at all for others. I believe it depends on what you are ready to sacrifice, it's more important a big house or a good car or the education and well being of your son or daughter? The taxes we pay, I pray reach who needs them truly, it's the price to pay for social peace, we all have to remember that people too poor to live decently are dangerous people to everyone else, including themselves.

@shawn57187 Год назад

@@Gaspardrow Where I live, child care can cost as much or more than rent/mortgage. This often leads people to choose between home ownership or retirement savings vs having a family. This is a huge factor why many don’t have children and is ultimately corrosive to the middle class.

@seansmodernlife9823 Год назад

Definitely has nothing to do with stagnant wages, higher costs of education, higher costs of owning property, higher costs of childcare, widening wealth inequality, monopolization accross industries, access to easy and predatory credit lines, or anything else. It's those always those f'n poor people!

@Ryan-cz8uo Год назад

My fellow Australians have an aversion to using "fewer" rather than "less" 😅 "fewer children"

@JordanNeenan Год назад

Unlike other children, Australians are spawned as a liquid making the term "less children" correct.

@jefftyler9361 Год назад

Maybe it's an economist thing.

@mikfax Год назад

Or is it 'Fuhrer children' you grammar natzee

@charlesbridgford254 Год назад

I thought he was talking about smaller children.

@DoriZuza Год назад

Stannis Baratheon has entered the chat

@forestreee Год назад

Unrelated but I just wanted to say thanks! I had my Economics exam yesterday and I have to say that if I hadn't been casually watching your videos, it wouldn't have went as well as it did! Your videos gave me an intuitive understanding of basic economics which made studying other stuff a breeze as I could logically understand the concepts. I was able to write much more clear answers, as I didn't understand economics very well before watching your videos. So thank you EE team for making nice videos!

@Eric-Marsh Год назад

An excellent video. My wife pointed out that there are many people in the third world who are being poorly utilized as contributors to the economy.

@louisjohnson3888 Год назад

*fewer as children are a discrete variable rather than continuous

@TaksobieDan Год назад

Putting that in terms of production we always need more of those that have better quality and less of those with worse quality, but we always end with way more of those with the worst quality possible.

@user-zb2st6zi6j Год назад

Most economists work for the rich. The rich want cheap labor and they get it by rapid population growth. That is why most economists support rapid population growth.

@MintyJazz3 Год назад

Exactly

@bernl178 Год назад

I love that word consumption as I am in my 60s I realize that a lot of the stuff that we call consumerism is actually just plain old junk and just not needed. It’s a junk economy.

@jong2359 Год назад

Junk loves junk.

@elizabethdavis1696 Год назад

Please consider making a playlist of your videos that address population issues!

@Random17Game Год назад

@christopherg2347 Год назад

@@Random17Game Proorer people need 50-600% redundancy children, because of higher child mortality. It is not that people want more children. It is that they want to have the same amount of children survive until adulthood.

@dyse13 Год назад

@@Random17Game There is this stray cat in that lives in compound of my apartment block (does that even make sense). It survives on scraps. It did give birth to a kitten maybe 9 months ago which is kinda mature right now. The stray cat did kind of become somewhat emaciated. 2 months ago it gave birth to a second kitten (look cats give birth to a litter but I don't want to type out a horror story) and it's even more emaciated. My country has a fertility rate of 4.69. I never want to have kids. Every time I wake up in the morning and give this cat whatever scraps I have, I keep thinking, this right here is why I never want to have kids. I've seen people raise 16 children in a space smaller than my living room (my apartment is half the size of what you'd get in Chicago at $2500, well at least it's half my sister's apartment). I dunno how they do it and I'll never understand why they keep doing it but unless you have seen what the poor in a 3rd world country look like you cannot fathom the sacrifice it would take to live like them

@ElectrostatiCrow Год назад

@@Random17Game That really isn't an unpopular opinion. But honestly I do think the world needs less people through negative population growth or at least we should find ways to produce more.

@Random17Game Год назад

@@ElectrostatiCrow it is because a lot of people say economic difficulties, if we compare the way kids today are raised with how our grandparents were raised (I'm talking 1st and 2nd world countries) we can see how standards have massively risen by the parents, but economies are now stagnant and cannot grow with the too high expectations of the 1st world. And for those who want population decrease you should still want a 1.8/1.9 fertility rate otherwise social securities Will colapse if the drop is too hard, otherwise the elder, handicaped, mentally ill, orfans etc will have SERIOUS trouble getting by (more than they do)

@subashchandra9557 Год назад

Hey Economics Explained. You seem to think that the housing crisis is a fundamental issue with lack of resources. It is not. It is almost entirely zoning related and almost entirely caused by rich people not willing to allow high density housing near where they live. We could carry well above 20B people comfortably if we just got rid of all the NIMBY's.

@zoeytank2921 Год назад

As an elder millennial, one of the few advantages is having lived through the Great Recession. My advice. Reduce unnecessary expenses, increase your savings by investing in financial markets and do not sell. One thing I know for sure is that diversifying your income can help insulate you from much of the craziness going on in the world.

@trazzpalmer3199 Год назад

That's true, I'm thinking of investing in stocks or digital assets to grow my money for the first time, but I lack the in-depth knowledge and mental toughness to deal with these recurring market conditions. please any advice or pointer on how to outperform the market producing good returns.

@hannahdonald9071 Год назад

“There’s more and more of a concern that incoming data is revealing that the Fed might be a little bit behind the curve than maybe they expected heading into this year,” said Bipan Rai, North America head of FX strategy at CIBC Capital Markets.

@mcginnnavraj4201 Год назад

@@hannahdonald9071 You will need a strong FA to help you through the current market turmoil. I've been talking to an advisor for a while now, mostly because I lack the knowledge and energy to deal with these ongoing market conditions. I made more than $220K during this slump, demonstrating that there are more aspects of the market than the average individual is aware of. Having an investing counselor is now the best line of action, especially for those who are close to retiring.

@graceocean8323 Год назад

@@mcginnnavraj4201 We’re only just an information away from amassing wealth, I know a lot of folks that made fortunes from the Dotcom crash as well as the 08’ crash and I’ve been looking into similar opportunities in this present market, could this coach that guides you help?

@mcginnnavraj4201 Год назад

My Financial Advisor is JEANNE LYNN WOLF. I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and reached out to her afterwards. She has since provide entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can run a quick online research with her name if you care for supervision. I basically follow her market moves and haven’t regretted doing so.

@FernandoPerez3h Год назад

No, But people from economically disadvantaged countries tend to have more children despite lacking financial resources.

@saagisharon8595 Год назад

It's by design, a western kid won't grow up to do the jobs that migrants happily take

@vulture46 Год назад

Cheap/free labour + insurance against higher infant mortality + little/no access to family planning resources makes it a no brainer

@spelunkerd Год назад

In the early 70's the media were completely focused on the ballooning population crisis, and lack of oil. All were doomsday stories, experts said there was no way out. Despite advances in efficiency of food and oil production, I think many of our current problems can indeed be traced back to overpopulation.

@brunods4560 11 месяцев назад

Overpopulation is a malthusian myth. At worst, we have an overcrowding problem in some geographical locations.

@buddermonger2000 10 месяцев назад

Yeah the book "the population bomb" was silly because it was written basically 2 years after we saw industrialized birth rates fall off a cliff. I don't think most of our problems can be traced to overpopulation. You have local overcrowding which can cause social tensions, but that's an administrative or social issue primarily rather than an economic one. The biggest problem economically is that people make up the economy. And socially, there has never been a period of population decline which hasn't had immense social issues. Not to mention, most periods suffer economic collapse. If you take Japan as an example, its economically all but died and has now been on 30 years of life support. What do you think happens when they slowly lose even more people overall? I don't think it'll end well. Overall, while growing populations have their issues, they're far less than losing people.

@the_expidition427 7 месяцев назад

@@brunods4560 Having an abundance mindset is bad for the war machine

@brunods4560 7 месяцев назад

@@the_expidition427 hear hear

@highlyillogical9399 Год назад

It's gonna be tough for a young person to be productive when they need a masters degree or 15 years of experience to land a good job. We've made entry-level positions almost obsolete except in sales careers. I'm not advocating for children to join the labor force before they're ready, but what are we doing to ensure young people have somewhere to work once they finish their education?

@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy 8 месяцев назад

Don't worry. AI will make that concern irrelevant when all jobs are wiped out and everyone goes on basic income.

@highlyillogical9399 8 месяцев назад

@@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy I'm not sure if I like that idea either 😢

@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy 8 месяцев назад

@@highlyillogical9399 AI will radically change everything. AI could also solve the primary problem of economics. Amazon is probably pretty good at resource allocation already.

@alphadraconis9898 Год назад

One critical factor you’ve overlooked is that as the baby boomer generation retires they will shift their pension funds out of higher risk stocks into bonds, this will limit the availability of venture capital for higher risk funding which is commonly in the tech sectors, so it’s hard to see how a disproportionately older society maintains the same level of tech innovation we’ve seen in the last 30 or so years since the Cold War ended.

@ommin202 Год назад

Is there any branch of economics that accounts for the fact that a high-end watch is Expensive, but not Useful? Producing watches inflates your countries GDP but should they really be worth more than a vehicle, which can transport people and goods, when a watch can only tell time?

@themrmarshallmathers Год назад

Behavioural economics looks at what gives luxury goods their value. A luxury watches primary usefulness is as a symbol of social status, that value could be worth more than the physical utility given by a vehicle.

@RobinMeineke Год назад

A car can be classified as capital, while a luxury watch would be classified as a consumer good.

@ArawnOfAnnwn Год назад

@@RobinMeineke It'd be classified as a Veblen Good, which is a category of things that violate the general law of demand and supply - as their price goes up, their demand does too. There are consequences to that insofar as their equilibrium price goes..

@ArawnOfAnnwn Год назад

@@themrmarshallmathers That 'value' is nothing more than conjecture. In accounting terms it'd be classified alongside 'goodwill', which should tell you a lot about what the computation of their 'value' is i.e. there is none, 'goodwill' is just a catch-all accounting term used to balance the books. There's no way to determine the real 'value' of social status, so they're just 'valued' at the price itself. The luxury watch is basically valued the same way art is 'valued' - it's worth whatever the price paid was. Good luck showing how art sitting in a storage vault somewhere has much 'utility'. The watch is little different, we just assume the price is its 'value'.

@crash.override Год назад

Probably some section of Marxist economics. We could theoretically only make and all drive Ford Fiestas, and spend the savings on healthcare. But, to the extent that democracies function in practice, our revealed preference is for more aesthetically-pleasing cars and more illness/death among proles...

@Kemit10 Год назад

In my honest point of view, i think that the true problem is not related to the subject "have more children or not", but with our bad consumption habits, our consumption efficiency etc. I always give a like before watching the content. Thx !😊

@sarahrosen4985 Год назад

Yes! How about we stop being heedless wankers with our resources? Stop letting predatory capitalism r@pe the Commons? Stop the fast fashion / disposable society / shopping to fill a void behaviours?

@loowyatt6463 Год назад

Our bad consumption as far as modern economics is a good thing, the quicker you spend, the quicker it can be used again. GDP is a measurement of how many times money changes hands, not how much money there is.

@joe42m13 Год назад

@@loowyatt6463 you don't want to artificially pump up the numbers at the expense of building real wealth. you can still spend, but be more judicious when doing so.

@yuriel6691 Год назад

It's not Our habits it's the company's in the United States that made people assume these habits are normal

@Daniel-Davies-Gonstead-Student Год назад

@@joe42m13 This comment applies to "liking a video before you watch it" aswell. Hard to explain so I'm not even going to try but I can see a connection.

@DanRichter Год назад

An increasing population benefits those that are already here like getting into a pyramid-scheme early. But if you’re at the wide end of the pyramid, or get in late, you’re going to have a far worse experience, on average, compared to those that got in early (the generations before you.)

@newagain9964 Год назад

finally someone informed. Modern (western) economies operate as one big pyramid scheme. With savvy grifters to drain the treasury (socialize losses, privatize gains).

@briankier2189 Год назад

This is part of the problem in America. For younger generations it is impossible to have the minimum needed to start a family successfully compared to older generations that had better opportunities

@TheCredibleHulk Год назад

10:00 I don’t really agree that simply having more people will lead to more “geniuses”. Those people are typically “born” out of necessity - they do what is necessary at the time. On top of that, they could only work on all of those amazing things because they have the time & resources available - meaning they were usually already rich “elites”, very much well-off with lots of spare time. So, in my opinion, a smaller, more prosperous, less stressed out population will lead to many more meaningful scientific breakthroughs, compared to a society that’s stuck in a “rat race to the bottom” with completely broken incentive structures (i.e. “survive the overpopulation & lack of resources by any means necessary” which will most likely just lead to an new innovative way to get rid of a lot of people “by force”).

@doctorx1924 Год назад

Agreed I thought that was stupid reasoning at 10:00. Also, those people were born when the population is a lot smaller with a lot more resources available which gave them a better chance to nurture their talents. A larger population with less resources actually shrinks the talent pool.

@Tenebracas 11 месяцев назад

This so much. We already have a giant amount of humans on this planet and so many of them are potentially super smart geniuses. But it's not about the number of people at all, it's about incentive structures and opportunities. If those potentially smart geniuses die off in wars and conflicts around resources or are caught up in drug addiction due to poverty, or simply are burned out by a hyper-capitalist system, guess what, they won't do any genius work. This more people = more geniuses to solve social ills argument is so freaking dumb seriously.

@CadaverCo Год назад

Man, well put together video as always EE You provide us with the essential service of collecting all the data, projections, speculations, and scenarios that pertain to a certain topic, and boiling it all down into a 10 minute video that’s easy to digest and understand Keep on providing us that service my friend :)

@nathaniellong4281 Год назад

Oddly enough, one potential answer may be to become more rural and spread out our population density. I read a story from CNN from Japan, featuring the first baby born in a village in at least 25 years. The parents were a couple that moved from one of the major population centers of Japan--I think it was Tokyo--for a more quiet life, as well as more affordable life, outside of Japan's cities. Much like many other industrialized nations, the majority economic activity, but also very high cost of living, is in the cities of Japan. However, moving outside of the city to more affordable living could have been why this couple could have a child. They are actually not alone. Almost half of young Japanese want to move outside of the cities to more affordable living in the country. In another article, I think from the Guardian, a large share of Millennials and Generation Z in the United States, when interviewed, said the cost of living was what was causing them to not have children, and if the cost of living went down, they would be more likely to have children. But since the majority economic activity, and therefore jobs, are in the cities in industrialized nations, people are more likely to live in the cities, but since the cost of living is high in the cities, they are not likely to have children in the cities. Unless jobs somehow become more plentiful in rural areas, this possible answer to having more children may not ever become viable.

@Lightscribe225 Год назад

Yeah that might be the solution for the next generation. It's not attractive, and it certainly promises they'll get a harder life, but at least it's not impossible...

@siliconhawk9293 Год назад

work from home

@bikangangarwama3115 Год назад

Exactly,we need to simplify our lives. Urbanisation at any cost is not leading us to anywhere.

@MoniiChanTheUnicorn Год назад

China did very well on this issue by having high speed rail access between smaller towns and the big city areas where the jobs are at. If there was good, reliable, fast and efficient transportation between these destinations people would be willing to live further out. I'm in North West Yorkshire and know people who commute to London to work from here, yet people struggle getting from Manchester to Leeds

@WeekzGod Год назад

I kindve disagree with this. When people put a priority on having children, they have them. Even if it means in the short run life gets a bit harder. If children are nice to have but not seen as a necessity, you will not have them unless conditions are good in your opinion. I find those with a more religious or long term (meaning multigenerational) outlook tend to have children and more of them.

@lugaritzbrown2250 Год назад

Actually thinking that population growth will increase breakthroughs fails to take into account the embarrassing inefficiency and wastefulness of our education system poised to create the kind of people who can create these breakthroughs in the first place.

@ronald3836 Год назад

Are you writing this on a stone tablet or a carving it into a cave?

@Wilhelmofdeseret Год назад

Bad take. Smarter people than you have gone through education systems worse than the US and yet they’re leading world leaders all around us today. This is a cope. That doesn’t stop genius.

@aerotheepic Год назад

“Nobody can predict the future..” Me, in unison: *least of all economists*

@SC-gw8np Год назад

Hahaha - thank you. I laughed after ages. 😅

@newagain9964 Год назад

yeah. but economists spend of a lot of time economic planning and trying to bring the economy back in line w/established plans...for the benefit of a very small group of ppl (ie the social & economic elites). so they dont have to predict, only need 2 know how to manipulate variables.

@WanderingExistence Год назад

"I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating.“ - Slavoj Žižek

@dariusaudryc9958 Год назад

I think just having more population will not guarantee the existence of all the geniuses mentioned. I mean, yes, the probability is higher, but these future geniuses must also have the right access to learn. It will be interesting to address the barriers to economic access to economic success.

@japanisch508 Год назад

Its all about probability: more children mean a higher probability even with other variables unconsidered.

@stevesmith9447 Год назад

@@japanisch508 Children aren't born geniuses. Some have more potential, which must be identified and nurtured in order to develop. More children means fewer gifted children are ever given that chance. We can hope to win another Einstein lottery, but if we can't bring up the talent pool around them in order to make use of their singular genius, if we cannot apply their gifts, it's no different than never getting them.

@japanisch508 Год назад

@@stevesmith9447 if there are more intelligent people, the probability is still higher. Even if and especially when we have a fixed percentage of good enviremental factors and that the enviremental factors are getting better is first of all evident (Steven Pinker) and with more intelligent people the enviremental factors are getting even better.

@japanisch508 Год назад

And i would say that still with bad enviromental factors intelligent people are faster than not intelligent, so i dont get your point, it doesnt lessen the main point in reality or in theory.

@stevesmith9447 Год назад

@@japanisch508 Model it how you like. If your theory was correct, we'd have already solved these problems, or we'd have at least moved in the direction of solving them. In reality we've moved away from solutions. Your model doesn't hold up.

@aunoum Год назад

When looking at global GDP you forgot to check inflation, which between 1985 and 2010 was 102% or 2x. That means that real GDP growth was 2.5x not 5x. This is quite in line with 2x increase in resources used.

@gaslitworldf.melissab2897 Год назад

To me it comes down to the risk of falling into poverty and having children only exacerbates financial problems.

@RoastMePls Год назад

We have enough resources to meet the basic needs of everybody. Our problem is our current economic system that focuses a lot of wealth in the hands of the few.

@SamuraiPoohBear Год назад

False. It’s logistics not greed

@RoastMePls Год назад

@@SamuraiPoohBear Many people have to live off of 1 or 2 dollars a day while some other people have 30-40 million dollar private jets or yachts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nah, it's definitely greed.

@darwin6960 Год назад

You mean we need dictatorship, planned economy that do the logistics to distribute the resources evenly for everyone not just for a country but for the whole world. Yeah, goodluck with that. In a society which not everyone thinks the same. Someone wants more, someone want less and some who tries hard, some who didn't even try. Goodluck with your Utopia.

@evilds3261 Год назад

@@SamuraiPoohBear Sometimes. It may be illogical logistics under the guise of greed, or it may be greed under the guise of illogical logistics. Both cases likely exist to varying degrees.

@twerkingfish4029 Год назад

Ahh yes, the economist once again trying to analyze social issues without sounding too heartless.

@blazer9547 Год назад

😂

@scottgrindrod Год назад

Me thinking through the entire video "Oh look, more problems caused by the existence of billionaires", and then he gets to the "what sacrifices should we make first?" and I'm like "Gee, I wonder what he's SPECIFICALLY not going to mention, yeah, the existence of billionaires...." 1 billionaire consumes resources that emit 1 million times more carbon than the average person. After that it's just a math problem.

@Talonidas7403 Год назад

@@scottgrindrod Source for your 1 million times more carbon than the average person claim?

@Nope_handlesaretrash Год назад

@@Talonidas7403 Sounds hyperbolic, but $500 million dollar mansions, private jets every other day, vanity projects etc etc. The carbon argument is less compelling than how broken the system has to be to encourage both the accumulation and behaviors that it takes to become a billionaire.

@ronald3836 Год назад

@@scottgrindrod A billionaire's resource consumption per dollar is negligible. If you would spread out the billions that are just sitting somewhere over a million people, you will increase resource consumption massively.

@saimandebbarma Год назад

"Neither more neither less a perfect blend of balance !" Thankyou 🙏

@lukew5992 Год назад

Fantastic video. I think it’s one of your best yet. Keep up the good work. Your awesome.

@loowyatt6463 Год назад

The issue with minerals resources isn't that they're finite despite what a lot of people say. The issue is that we mine the easiest stuff first, so each time one mine runs out, we go to a less efficient one (obviously, this is oversimplified). Yes, technology improves and makes it easier to mine, but there's only so far technology can go in this industry. As the things we mine will become more difficult and we lose efficiency, then the price will rise. So the more people there are using these resources, the worse this situation gets. So, while I appreciate a lot of what you've said, you've ignored this one simple fact. Advancing technology means absolutely nothing if you can't get the minerals you need to build that technology.

@davidbrayshaw3529 Год назад

Supply does not meet demand when it comes to finite resources. Commodities either increase in price or are unavailable.

@alaunaenpunto3690 Год назад

Diminishing returns

@mattheww.6232 Год назад

That is a long, long, long way off considering there are viable mines sitting idle across the western world because the oil required to extract it from developing nations is cheap. Humanity, even as many as we are, is still just scratching at the surface of the earth.

@fgmods Год назад

I think because this problem is expected to be so far down the road for a lot of resources (hundreds of years at least), a lot of people hand wave it away by saying we'll just be mining space rocks, or drilling kilometers deep into the crust with ease by then.

@loowyatt6463 Год назад

@@mattheww.6232 did you read my comment at all? My entire point was that the cheaper and more efficient mines get used first. Which means growing cost and falling efficiency over time

@nunyabusiness3786 Год назад

Based on the current ruthless exploitation and crushing of the young people we have now I don't think more of them will solve anything.

@jirislavicek9954 Год назад

Do you think older people are not exploited?

@newagain9964 Год назад

@@jirislavicek9954 You're missing the point of the comment and the video. wake up.

@checkdarimz 11 месяцев назад

the problem is that average people in western economies struggle to afford housing/quality of life that would encourage settling down and having a couple of kids, base line costs of living compared to income is where the major issue is that needs to be addressed

@aaronbaker2186 Год назад

The real issue is that while a lower population is better for the bottom 99%, it is horrible for the top 1%'s numbers getting bigger! Since the most important part of a modern economy is the top 1% being richer than their parents, we need more workers to make stuff and buy stuff to increase the number of currency attached to their names.

@MuppetsSh0w Год назад

I can barely afford myself...

@tylerhackner9731 Год назад

Most can’t afford em now

@ctg4818 Год назад

Consistent inflation is helping lol

@alfredopampanga9356 Год назад

The sudden decline in population after the Black Death resulted in end of serfdom and wage increases for farm labour. Worth considering given how Bosses are not sharing the boom in productivity

@pete2786 Год назад

I kinda like these random question videos too.. I mean I love learning about specific country's economies and stuff but the "focus topic" videos are so interesting!!

@samiamgreeneggsandham7587 Год назад

I’m pretty disappointed in the quality of thinking in this EE video. Too much false dichotomising between declining fertility/populations, and high population growth. The latter is a straw man. High income countries’ TFR is well below replacement, and overall middle income TFR is just above replacement but soon to blow straight through 2.1, and likely before any of these countries join the high-income country club. There is zero prospect of even maintaining replacement fertility. Even in high-income countries, national pensions and private retirement savings are not going to support the elderly like in a past when economic expansion was supported by modest population growth. Middle-income countries are in much deeper trouble in this regard.

@ALYTALyrics Год назад

8:09 what about inflation tho? wouldn't that make the real economic growth smaller than the 5x shown in this graph?

@YooSoham305 Год назад

I think they are constant prices

@1contrarian Год назад

Not only that, goverments inflate their GDP figures as well.

@GeoFry3 Год назад

A major false assumption is that anyone without children will be taken care of long term. My own experience with elderly family members is without someone to look after them and be their advocate, they would rapidly succumb to predatory practices, bad finances, and negligent care resulting in earlier death.

@evilds3261 Год назад

That's why we need more communities rather than care homes. So that people are not limited to blood-related people for care and can receive it by contributing to other families and taking care of children that are not their own like an aunt or uncle without having to have children of their own.

@GeoFry3 Год назад

@Evilds You are talking about churches and mutual aid societies.....which have been actively attacked by collectivists and pro-government types for the past century. Public aid is big business, and they don't like the competition.

@homewall744 Год назад

The notion we need more people to advance faster is insane. Of course more people mean a higher chance of a brilliant person, but also a higher chance of another nasty criminal, and the largest number will be ordinary at best. There's no real need for progress to faster, since generally faster change isn't likely to be the best change.

@falconJB Год назад

Its not even an accurate assumption, more people doesn't lead to more geniuses, more educated people, who grow up without being poised by stuff like lead, leads to more geniuses and faster progress. Criminals also are not just randomly distributed throughout the population, they come out of specific circumstances as well.

@eksbocks9438 Год назад

@@falconJB No. Criminals are born the way they are. They come from both backgrounds. Rich or Poor. They are the reason why there's inequality. Because they can't empathize with others. But insist that everyone caters to them. That's a problem both economically. And for the general population. We have to stop wasting resources on pacifying them. Prioritize the people who want to respect others and do their part. The more we hesitate, the more leverage the bad guy has.

@raylevi5343 11 месяцев назад

@@falconJB More educated people (all things being equal) lead to less geniuses because they will simply be made to conform to everyone else. There are other factors that will need to go right for your opinion to be correct.

@falconJB 11 месяцев назад

@@raylevi5343 Less education leads to more conformity not less.

@raylevi5343 11 месяцев назад

@@falconJB true, but I think over education does that to a greater degree. Less education generally means lower economic achievement in individuals and country, which means the path to success is more straightforward if you're a genius....all things being equal. Corruption is worse, but I think it has more impact than conformity.

@telotawa Год назад

7:54 are these two sets of GDP data adjusted for inflation or not?

@davidbrayshaw3529 Год назад

No! Governments love inflation. Growth is growth and inflation prevents falling GDP which in turn prevents recession ( by definition only!) which keeps governments in office. In my personal opinion, the term GDP should be struck from all economic texts and measures. It's a number that only serves fools and frauds.

@piku5637 Год назад

Who can afford to have kids? Housing, a liveable wage, UBI, food, healthcare etc isn’t even treated as a guaranteed right.

@evilds3261 Год назад

People are not going to have kids if the costs outweigh the benefits to a significant degree.

@metropolitanpolice7334 Год назад

it's almost like an infinitely expanding economic system doesn't work on a finite planet

@evilds3261 Год назад

With every gain, there is also a loss. Everything has its price. Continual growth will be accompanied by a continual decline in something else. The price to be paid has largely been ignored by those distracted by the gains.

@markuskarlsson5617 Год назад

Norway was producing artificial fertilizer before Haber-Bosch. Thanks to Sam Eyde & Kristian Birkeland. The Haber-Bosch method prevailed due to it being vastly more energy efficient, but artificial fertilizers would have existed without them.

@jirislavicek9954 Год назад

Yes, the historic Birkeland Eyde furnace is on display in Rjukan. It used electric arc ionisation to fix atmospheric nitrogen. This process was very demanding on electricity, that's why it was built beside massive hydroelectric plant. Haber-Bosch process later made the production way cheaper.

@bonganiluthuli6864 Год назад

I absolutely love this channel. Very intriguing arguments.

@cutegirlsatwar2731 Год назад

The problem with the current degrowth is, that the world isnt just "global". Western countries are losing high skilled working forces, while afrika and india are growing with more tradiotional work forces. This will lead to a lot of tensions in the next 50 years: * Old people vs young people * Immigrants vs locals * authorian countries that feel like they have to react violently NOW, while they still have the numbers * Failing social security systems All this degrowth, in children or otherwise, packs way more dynamite, because people feel the are LOSING stuff. And if even one country decides to go the other route (like i.e. china), it will just outpace the degrowth countries in the long run.

@tnatstrat7495 Год назад

China is also experiencing degrowth.

@irondragonmaiden Год назад

Chinese citizens basically laughed at the CCP when it said they could have 3 children. Their response was "with what money?!"

@ThreeRunHomer Год назад

India and Africa are going to be depopulating before long. Several low income nations are have birth rates below replacement level. It’s the natural state of the modern world.

@KT-ey3lh Год назад

China's situation illustrates your last 2 points, very well.

@doctorx1924 Год назад

India is also having a problem. I saw a documentary the other day about how 41 percent of their population is below the age of 25 which makes it the largest young population in the world. This seems good at first, but the problem is a lot of young people are struggling to get jobs because the competition for any job even a bad job is too fierce, and it leads to unemployment. So even though they have a large young population it does them no good since these people can't make money and thus can't support government programs since they have no income to tax. This is the problem these clowns who keep stressing people need to have kids are not addressing. Having an increase population size does you no good in supporting government social programs if that increase population doesn't have employment and income. With the rise of AI you will have high unemployment rates that will affect everybody including young people. No income means no funding for government social programs. The real issue is the current capitalistic model cannot work if you don't tax the rich at a higher rate to support these programs. Of course, the rich will never agree to this and hence we are heading towards an eventual collapse of the system that cannot be saved.

@trafon31 Год назад

8:50 doesn't calculate the inflation of dollar. 100 dollars in 1914 is 3000 dollars in 2023. 30x the value. So we are using 10x more resources to produce same amount of dollars.

@andrewbobb3170 Год назад

Graphs of value over time always use constant dollars. Which year's dollars should be included on the graph (e.g., "2020 dollars"), which it wasn't, in this case.

@jirislavicek9954 Год назад

Yes and look at the value of British currency over centuries. One Pound Sterling in year 800 was one pound (that time about 340 grams) of Sterling silver. Today £1 doesn't buy you even a bottle of water.

@Memilish Год назад

Very interesting breakdown, thank you for putting it together!

@haxor98 Год назад

You had me at less screaming children coughing on everything

@loturzelrestaurant Год назад

Super-Important to this whole Children-Question: The Points made in 'Are Rich People Ok??' by 'Some More Nws'.

@Sir1ri Год назад

Answer to the title, yes we can have more kids even in rich countries if the country stops the growing GDP addiction and give every citizen basic rights even to stuff like house education and reproductive labor.

@GiorgosKoukoubagia Год назад

Insert Stannis Baratheon line: "...fewer*"...

@WhyIsTheMooseLoose Год назад

I really love your channel! Thank you for your content (:

@ChrisHaupt Год назад

The arguments for population increase is like standing on a cliff and saying "even though I can't think of anything that will save me, I'm sure something will come along" before jumping off. Gotta love the optimism 😂

@falconJB Год назад

More like walking up unfinished stairs with your eyes closed, assuming that someone will have fished each step before you get to it.

@SamSam-qk5zr Год назад

If you think about the benefits of having a specialised workforce, we need more people. These days research is extremely specialised and a single scientist basically works his entire life on an extremely narrow subject in his field. This also applies to movies, tv series and even youtube channels. With a population of 1 billion, most of the contents you enjoy (perhaps including this video) wouldn't be produced as the limited number of viewers would not pay off the costs.

@davidbrayshaw3529 Год назад

In other words, the conundrum of capitalism. Resources and markets are finite, despite will.

@loowyatt6463 Год назад

What throws a spanner in that idea is the fact that our minerals' resources are in the long run getting harder and harder to mine because economics dictates that the most efficient mines get used first. So the more people you have, the more of the minerals we use, the more complicated and expensive getting those minerals is. Frankly the more you understand about the geology and economics of the situation the more terrifying it is.

@agubata1 Год назад

But who says we have to watch this on RU-vid or at all? That's a rhetorical question. The quest for optimal production has led, for example, to food mountains and wine lakes. The waste that has occurred and still occurs in some parts of the world is truly mind boggling.

@SamSam-qk5zr Год назад

@@loowyatt6463 there are plenty of minerals, pretty much all of the minerals are recyclable, a lot of that is already being done today. We are digging through the first 1 km of the earth crust, that leaves us with about 100km left to mine, and there is the whole space above us. Talking about costs, if the economy and tecnology makes us 5 times as rich, i think that a doubling of the price of minerals isn't a problem at all.

@loowyatt6463 Год назад

@Sam Sam You seriously do not understand anything about geology, do you. Let's go from the start. Yes, most minerals are recyclable to a point, but a lot of them use insane amounts of energy to recycle, meaning recycling would still cause the price to sky rocket. The second problem is that we build things like batteries out of these minerals. Only a small fraction of a battery is recyclable the rest is pure waste. So no, we can't just recycle to solve this problem, it helps but doesn't solve this problem The biggest point is that rocks contain different levels of minerals depending on a lot of factors. Not any random chunk of rock will get you what you want. Mineral exploration (my job), is all about discovering places where there is enough concentration of a mineral in an area where it would be economical to mine. Do you realise how complicated it would be to mine and drag rock out from that far below. That's going to use stupid amount of energy, so again that's going to cause prices to rise. There we go we're at the same problem again. No matter what you do, you need more energy, which means higher prices

@MemoryMori Год назад

Elons wants to people have more children... Well will HE pay for my children school? Food? Clothes?... NO?!! HOW DARE YOU!!! :D

@jasonkoroma4323 Год назад

Yup, its all talk at the end if the day

@bluecedar7914 Год назад

A good discussion on this topic. Well done.

@walterkahn7698 Год назад

Great episode. Thanks!

@marcussver620 Год назад

Yesn't. Cuz it's so expensive to have kids but ppl from poor countries(Africán and asián nations) have more than 3 children.

@juanmartin1729 Год назад

True

@saagisharon8595 Год назад

because they're way of life isn't as expensive as ours

@MrAnediet Год назад

*fewer

@RJProbably Год назад

Wondering how it is that having a smaller population would solve the housing crisis when it seems like yet another opportunity for the owning class to leverage their existing wealth to extort the majority for a necessity…

@quickcube2834 Год назад

Less people means, every person has more say and has more voting power, also the importants of every one increases cause there are less people to replace them and also less supply of workers which caused higher wages for every one and creates lower inequality, not to forget that with less people there are less genius and therefore less people who can hook the system and change it for there profit or in other word less corruption and bribing.

@parsajanaki7203 Год назад

the dancing guy when hes talking about inheritance just did it for me lol

@Celis.C Год назад

Q: Do We Need More Or Less Children? A: We live in a society

@ctg4818 Год назад

Less people = shorter line at the food bank

@Celis.C Год назад

@@ctg4818 Better distribution - and reduced waste - of food would make a food bank obsolete. We have enough food to feed 10 billion people. It's just not distributed fairly.

@newagain9964 Год назад

@@Celis.C TY for that! I guess it turns out that capitalism isn't the super rational and efficient system its advertised to be after all. eh?

@Celis.C Год назад

@@newagain9964 Never has been :/ It's a quick-result, damned-be-all kind of system.

@newagain9964 Год назад

@@Celis.C yup. And don’t forget. Capitalism always been a race to the bottom. If not for govt intervention….

@cptrelentless80085 Год назад

Surely it’s fewer children, unless they have become easily divisible.

@falconJB Год назад

If you just have smaller children you are having less children without having fewer. So clearly the solution is to have very small children so you can have less children while having a greater number of them./s

@wwatse 10 месяцев назад

Growing up I was always excited about the idea of having kids of my own 3 at first but gradually after seeing the world for what it is I kept lowering and lowering the number of kids I wanted to have, right now I am in the university and I am not really sure if I want to have kids at all

@Sociedadematriarcal 8 месяцев назад

Me too

@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy 8 месяцев назад

Everyone in your generation will look at the situation and make the same rational decision to have no kids. You should look at market forces and do the opposite of what everyone else does. If you are one of the few people to do this, your kids will be the only game in town in the future. You will have kids to care for you when you are older. Good insurance. You should have ten kids and start your own empire. It will be a struggle, but your life will be filled with love and family. Everyone else will die alone.

@Sociedadematriarcal 8 месяцев назад

@@OKOKOKOKOKOKOK-zn2fy you’re delusional

@HazzyHere 7 месяцев назад

As a person with parents, I will not be taking care of them. They put me in this corrupt world. The point of having children is not for your children to work for you.

@AmirAM06 Год назад

Here's a thing: The ageing population is a mid term (20 years or so, after that having an equal birth to death rate will maintain the population) while the overpopulation is a long term, earth destroying problem and after seeing what happens when we're too much for the earth, we're gonna decide to have less population and we're gonna face a harder 20yr burden for looking after the elderly.

@mogznwaz Год назад

Replacement level is fine. We don’t need endless population growth and we don’t need endless immigration. A sustainable circular economy should be the aim and a coherent cultural identity.

@stevecooper7883 Год назад

Nope, WEF demands you be culturally enriched by third worlders while subsidizing their birth rates in your own country

@CMVBrielman Год назад

You missed several important details. Such as the fact that richer economies are much more resource efficient than poorer economies. Meanwhile, the idea that a managed decline is more predictable and therefore better does not follow. The range of possibilities are so much worse than the range of possibilities for increases. Finally, the idea of more capital being available for fewer people doesn’t follow, either. Our physical capital needs people to maintain. Say the population is cut in half. Great, twice as much housing for everyone! But also, half as many people to be plumbers and electricians and roofers to fix said housing. Repeat for every tangible piece of capital. Of course, what is more likely is a gradual decline will lead to a gradual increase in capital/person, making it easier to afford more children, increasing the birth rate. Finally (for real, this time): no country wants a declining population. Meaning every country will do their damnedest to prevent it. Eventually, some country is going to figure out how to do it, even if it means cutting old age pensions to zero and taking that surplus and giving it to parents instead. Or maybe it’ll be a non-monetary solution. Either way, once one society figures it out, everyone else will adapt.

@TheBKnight3 Год назад

Completely dependent upon the government. It seems that whoever holds the most power will try to make sure that they keep all the resources to themselves and let the rest of their population die. Every recent law seems to show this.

@lol007 Год назад

The resources are limited. With the rate of pollution and etc. We don't need more people, especially uneducated ones. We need a balanced number of people but it is for sure lower than human count now. The pensions is a problem because there was a baby boom after war and technologies evolved. If we don't give in and don't reproduce like rabbits after 40 years the baby boomers will all be dead and the graph will look equal with adequate number of pensioners made up from millennial and adequate number of zoomers and the next gen. More people is not an answer unless you send them too moon, we don't have enough even to feed ever growing population now and the biggest populations are in the worst countries ever, so they are very useless and uneducated.

@mskclasses8496 Год назад

An idea will be to tax those who don't have children and subsidize those who have children,many will not like it but we know"a child is raised by a village" so why not every member of village contribute 😁

@matm4413 Год назад

A youtube phd guy sitting his whole life behind desk is detached from the reality you described. In his eyes everyone should be a software engineer/academician in their 80s and the world(Australia) will be just fine

@AnkushOfficial4962 Год назад

Those "so called" Rich economies were poor too Infact they ruthlessly exploited other nations for their benefits keeping them underprivileged, and now instructing them on what to nd what not! What a hypocrites

@360Cruzerman Год назад

Endocrine disruption caused by pesticides in modern agriculture is in my opinion one of the largest contributing factors to population decline.

@jirislavicek9954 Год назад

Yes, chemicals in the environment are certainly not helping! But there are more important factors. Must see document on this topic: Birthgap - A Childless World It's a real eye opener!

@imrpovking845 Год назад

There's this thought that hasn't been addressed: On a global scale there's too many people but each nation says that there's too few and want to reverse declining populations. So one side can't be right without the other being wrong.

@FlintIronstag23 Год назад

It's because the total fertility rates are not evenly distributed. 2.1 kids per woman is considered replacement levels. Go to Wikipedia and search Total Fertility Rate. There is a map of the world showing what each country's rate is. Most of the world is near or below replacement level. Africa is the most glaring exception. Even formerly high population growth countries like India and Bangladesh have gotten to around replacement level. If Africa and few Middle Eastern countries can get to replacement levels, the global population will decline.

@shannonhooper7945 Год назад

Fewer. I honestly don’t know what they even teach in school anymore. “Less” applies to ONE thing. “Fewer” applies to multiple things. Less rain. Fewer raindrops.

@lostinbravado Год назад

Economists... They look at the way the world is, predict zero change, and then call that a science.

@evilds3261 Год назад

I would argue that quality of life is more important than GDP. Sure, a certain GDP is needed to provide a good quality of life, but it should not be prioritized above the quality of life.

@Articulate99 Год назад

Always interesting, thank you.

@collingreenfield7524 Год назад

One thing I’m worried about is specialization in reverse. Where I work we’ve had the same people doing certain tasks for a long tjme and we’ve all gotten used to it, then a few people left and we all have to take on different responsibilities now. Also as labor inflation increases we could see companies that produce elastic demand products go out of business as people diverge limited resources to more essential goods

@creatorsremose Год назад

The problem with people is that more ≠ more. Birthrate in 3rd world nations is 3-4 times higher than developed nations, which means that more people are born into poverty and lack of education. Decreasing the chance for technological advancement and breakthrough.