Having 10 children increases humanity earnings but no one does it. Between ( and including) zero and infinity everything is a legiitimate free choice
Not having children lowers humanity's lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the "extinction penalty." But no worries, anti-natalism solves itself via brutal negative feedback on its meme-holders & genetic correlates. #PraiseMolochhttps://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1006997584513306624 …
-
-
-
Of course I don't want to force children on anyone. Just pointing out that humanity's net income for a child is cost (decrease in parents' lifetime earnings) + revenue (everything the child earns). Everything today exists because that net income has averaged positive.
-
Aggreed. That´s mathematically correct.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I suppose they aren't including 50% of husband's earnings in "women's lifetime earnings."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
As a father of 3 small children and the primary caregiver in our family I've found the opposite to be true. Not surprised. It's choices people. At least for women it's a socially acceptable choice.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The economist is very concerned about the remaining differences between men and women. A tedious uniformity has not yet been reached; thus our purpose in the universe is in jeopardy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, my wife makes less money than she would have if we hadn't had kids. ... and?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Savage!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.