The inverse relationship between production and fertility is probably underrated. Kids make families consume more, but they definitely inhibit production for 13+ years. How much historic GDP increase has been due to declining % of children?
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx
In the last few decades, I'd say all of it and then some. Putting women into the work force moved a lot of work onto the GDP balance sheet.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PoisonAero @HbdNrx
But GDP doesn't measure anything meaningful anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PoisonAero
Oh I know it isn't perfect, but still I'm sure actual production is reduced by kids no matter how you measure it. (kids simply take a lot of time)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HbdNrx
Yes, I think low fertility causes increased wealth, not vice-versa. China, for example, had a boom following its fertility decline.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @PoisonAero @HbdNrx
Globally, I think most of the real economic growth of the past few decades was due to declining fertility. Production vs. reproduction.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
Right, this is what I'm getting at. Not that there haven't also been other production improvements of course (mostly tech, and there have also been some increasing drags on production...)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.