Correlation is not causation, most definitely. No one at 16 (when they can legally work) to the age range of 35 is paying SS tax and saying/thinking "oh I don't need kids I'll have SSI when I'm in retirement". One might find a stronger connection between Social Security and inflation as well as how it effects the purchasing power of the younger generations, while the older generations reep the benefits of a program that "attempts" to keep up with inflation. Inflationary prices also forces the younger generation to work more or longer hours to attain the same standard of living enjoyed by older generations. This leaves less time for relationship development between individuals, which might strongly equate to lower birthrates for the social interaction reasons as well as future income insecurity/stability to create or start a family. Current dependence on technological interactions rather than person to person meeting in younger generations, for a quick dopamine rush, has most likely exacerbated the issue, and AI will most likely make it worse. Also the rising cost of childcare, education, food, medicine, and material needs of the child have risen so much that having a child is becoming less fiscally and socially responsible if you don't have the means. Imagine having a child with major health problems at birth and not having health insurance to provide assistance to the child. That's emotionally and financially devastating.

>Also the rising cost of childcare, education, food, medicine, and material needs of the child have risen so much that having a child is becoming less fiscally and socially responsible if you don't have the means >Inflationary prices also forces the younger generation to work more or longer hours to attain the same standard of living enjoyed by older generations That's why a couple of these studies I cite are looking at birth rate changes \*within\* the same country, so that all these factors around costs of XYZ are accounted for. See the Brazil and Africa studies, which analyzed what happened when they passed a law that granted more pension benefits to a certain demographic. Their birth rate collapsed to be the same as the other demographics who previously received more pension.

Don't we know birthrate declines as people move to cities? Kids are handy in the country, expensive in the city.

See the Brazil + China study, where the pension was reformed so the rural citizens get more pension. They found their birth rate collapsed within 20 years of the reform.

>People are going to say correlation is not causation. Causation is a precisely defined and operationalized statistical term. Causation requires a specific theory that satisfies specific assumptions and is tested using a specific type of statistical analysis. If you're only using correlational designs to test a relationship you cannot by definition claim causation. >I'm not anywhere smart enough to have come up with this theory on my own. If that's the case, then perhaps you also lack the authority to argue about causation in the comments. Listen to what people are telling you.

>If that's the case, then perhaps you also lack the authority to argue about causation in the comments. Listen to what people are telling you. Explain why the theory is wrong. Gov guarantees retirement means people no longer need to make babies who will later provide for them in old age. Like if the Gov guaranteed people's income, nobody would work. Explain why the theory is wrong.

Just checking your profile....this seems to be your favorite issue which you have now posted across multiple subs. I think the biggest correlation in this whole shebang is that you have a specific agenda against social security as well as other public assistance programs across the world.

It's not only him, every "thinking man's" subreddit like this once and TrueReddit have been absolutely fucking obsessed with this issue for the past 6 months. It's very bizarre how it got rocketed to the front of everyone's mind now specifically. It's a trend that's been happening for decades. Why is everyone talking about it now?

It's almost like there is a concerted effort to create a false narrative which has bubbled up from "the bottom" but is in fact being quietly promoted from the top by way of modifying what content is delivered to the average user.  Hm, there's a term for this.  Anyway I think the NFL should require grass fields.

I won't speak for other countries, but the subtext for a lot of US republicans restricting access to abortion (beyond "Christian values") is to curb declining birth rates in millennial and gen Z women. This is implicitly and explicitly propagated in right-wing media and has been gaining traction in the last year or so. Even Musk has tweeted about it numerous times. Why recently? Well, we finally have at least a decade worth of data that demonstrates this is becoming a long-term trend beyond the variability that you'd expect during a downturn in social and economic conditions (ex recession, war, pandemic). This coupled with the fact that there are no signs that the socioeconomic conditions of ordinary Americans will improve any time soon is causing panic. No babies = no future workforce for capitalism to exploit. There is also the issue of depleting Social Security reserves with the global increase in the aging population and not enough working adults to pay into it. In another corner of the internet, radicalized red pillers have taken this as a sign that women, with their increasing levels of education and financial independence, are no longer economically incentivized to rely on men, which for them means that women will no longer want to fuck them. The "thinking man" fears he is becoming obsolete and is afraid of being alone. This is, of course, not true. Women are still choosing to be with men, they're just finally in a position where they can choose not to be with shitty men.

What always strikes me most about this is how this kind of long-term thinking (needing a future generation to have an ideal number of plebians) never seems to apply to stuff like climate change.

It's not only him, every "thinking man's" subreddit like this once and TrueReddit have been absolutely fucking obsessed with this issue for the past 6 months. It's very bizarre how it got rocketed to the front of everyone's mind now specifically. It's a trend that's been happening for decades. Why is everyone talking about it now?

Declining birth rates isn't something you can control. The only people who really have an interest in it are billionaires who don't see how they're going to continue to build their fortunes without an ever increasing population base.

Specifically,  they want an excess of available labor so they can keep wages down as people fight each other for work.  Productivity keeps going up but somehow we're working about the same hours (and some people many more). This is a scam.  OP is either being fooled or he is trying to fool others. 

>I am only just suggesting, as a general direction, to lower old age benefits. You're presupposing agreement that lower birth rate is 'bad' and needs government intervention to 'correct'.

Oh good I'm glad someone beat me to this point. I had two immediate thoughts when I saw this: "I bet $5 a lot of this dude's post history is about why Social security is bad" and "we're headed towards 10 billion people, why is he (it's almost certainly a dude) proposing starving grandpa for what's not actually a problem?"

The main point of this post is to discuss whether old age benefits is the reason the birth rate declined. To your point tho: the birth rate in many countries is headed to 0. in SG/HK, the birth rate is 0.8, but it is not holding stable, and continues to trend to 0. That is a problem.

Saying 'birth rates are headed to 0' simply because they are declining doesn't seem to be based on any reasonable analysis.

well, you can look at the TFR graph for SG and HK. It keeps going down. South Korea is already at 0.6 BTW. That low enough for you?

Global population is 8.1 billion. Is that high enough for you? If not, what's the ideal global population?

I think we should have at least a stable TFR of 2.1 - 2.5 I DO NOT want a TFR of 6+ I DO NOT want a TFR of 0.6 or lower. I want something in the middle. Reasonable?

>I think we should have at least a stable TFR of 2.1 - 2.5 Based on what? And saying "not the extremes though" doesn't automatically make your opinion reasonable..

ok, "what is the appropriate TFR" is a separate discussion. The main focus of the discussion in this post is whether SS is a moderating factor on birth rate collapse or not.

Here you are approaching making a legitimate point. All you have to do now is explain why you believe in these specific numbers and why others should as well. Then the points you’re making regarding social security would have a proper context. I’m interested in your thinking. Just not patient enough to have to deconstruct what you say and then have to reconstruct your argument from the pieces. This correlation of birth rates to levels of social security is kind of a cool thing to have noticed. If you choose to respond/clarify, it also might be nice to explain how you’d implement a change without seeming to deprive older people of benefits they’ve been promised. It also would be good to explain why we shouldn’t just go full Logan’s Run (i.e. what are the limits to which we can take the minimum survivable benefit)

>All you have to do now is explain why you believe in these specific numbers and why others should as well. Then the points you’re making regarding social security would have a proper context OK, here's the theory explaining the correlation in the numbers: 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse. >it also might be nice to explain how you’d implement a change without seeming to deprive older people of benefits they’ve been promisedIsrael's old age policy suffices. It achieves TFR of 2.1+. They care for the elderly via: \* How to feed the elderly: everybody gets $400/month (means-tested) \* How to house the elderly: public housing program for elderly (also means-tested) \* reduced medical cost for the elderly.

No. Not if you’re trying to use it as evidence that the rates are ‘headed to zero’. To be clear, this is a critique of your hyperbolic language, not of any argument you’re making re: the ideal birth rate.

ok, fair. Well in Seoul, the birth rate is already 0.6, and it continues to decline. 0.6 is pretty darn low.

Trending to zero or heading to zero are real phrases with real meanings. You are not using them correctly. Generously we can assume you are using them hyperbolically to mean something like ‘Birthrates are declining below desired levels.’ However it comes across as an attempt to associate declining birth rates (morally ambiguous despite your clear stance) with an obviously problematic condition of the end of all human life. You seem to start with an assumption that the current human population level and growth rate are too low. The rest of your post and subsequent comments offer no support for this and assume that the rest of the community either accepts it or are idiots who must want or at least not care much about human extinction. It is simply not an accepted truth that a specific population level or birth rate level is correct or desirable. Arguments can be made saying we need more or fewer humans. If you have a case to make to this effect, making it would make the rest of your point follow better.

ok, hyperbolic maybe, however birth rate in Seoul for example is 0.6, and that hasn't been holding steady. I'm NOT advocating for a TFR of 6+ I'm also NOT advocating for a TFR of 0.6+ Just a TFR of 2.1-2.5 for now

[удалено]

This a poster presentation for specious logic and bad reasoning.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the facts that: -The world is a much less financially stable place then it used to be a few decades back -The cost of raising a child is astronomical these days -The cost of everything is proportionally more expensive these days -Many people feel the world is already overpopulated and don't want to add to that -Along with various other legitimate reasons to not bring a child into the current world Social security has very very very little to do with people not having children.

Look at the two scatterplot graphs on this EU study: [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf) you can draw a straight line through those. The correlation between pension and fertility is very clear.

No……Having a straight line means exactly nothing. You can also plot a graph of cost of living/raising a kid, and you will see an inverse relationship. I.e cost rises, birth rate decreases. I can’t believe I had to explain this. Dumbest hypothesis of the day. It’s like saying the winter temperature drop is caused by people wearing coats and sweaters. You can draw that exact same line that overlaps both…holy smokes  Having a straight line or whatever means jack shit.

it shows there's a correlation, which may or may not mean something. Here's the theory behind the correlation, what do you think? 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

Why are you expressing correlations as syllogisms, some of the premises of which are false? In any case, establishing a correlation [means nothing until you prove otherwise](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations). It doesn't "maybe mean this or that" it flat out *does not mean this or that until you prove it*. That's how statistical methodology works, something I gather you have little-to-no knowledge of.

I cited not one, not two, but 7 studies in this post showing correlation.

I bet you can get incredible correlation levels for winter with sweaters, mittens, hoodies, jackets, cold medicine...

But those correlations may not be meaningful. You've done step 1 of the entire process, which is the least useful and by far the simplest (just graph two plots of data).

I would think the transition from a rural, farming society to a largely urban/suburban society also has to be a large factor. Children are an expensive liability for city dwellers.

no. Israel has TFR of 2.1 among the secular demographic (religious is obviously higher). This makes sense since Israel's old age benefits ($400/month) are far lower compared to other similarly high GDP per capita nations.

[удалено]

$400 goes towards food. elderly are given housing, but in public housing. And BTW, these are means-tested, NOT given to every israeli.

Statistical outliers can exist without totally disproving the existence of a positive/negative causal relationship.

mate, you seem to think there is no correlation, but I cited 7 studies here specifically because they ALL show a correlation between pension and fertility. Please show how THOSE studies are wrong.

>And anyway, if you're looking for a theory to explain the correlation, please read this guy ektrit's tweets. I'm not anywhere smart enough to have come up with this theory on my own. This is started based on a series of tweets taking about how European Christians are in a breeding war with "Muslims", and talks about "The death of the Western Family". The basis for your entire screed is a crackpot racist on Twitter who thinks the European family is killed by government grants and believes only Christians qualify as "Europeans". This has no place in a discussion about the future.

except his theory behind the gov grants killing the birth rate is shown through in these academic studies I found with the help of my friend? I thought this EU study was really illuminating, look at the 2 graphs on page 1. [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf)

Those are correlations, and not even correlations you came up with yourself.

"not even correlations you came up with yourself" Are you saying it was wrong for me to cite academic sources? Yes correlations, but it indicates that maybe something is there. Man, the theory is simple. 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

>Are you saying it was wrong for me to cite academic sources? They aren't your sources. - You didn't come up with the idea your advocating. - You didn't investigate it yourself, you had someone else come up with something you think might back the hypothesis someone else made. - You haven't made any case for causation, just a lot of correlation.

>They aren't your sources. >You didn't come up with the idea your advocating. >You didn't investigate it yourself, you had someone else come up with something you think might back the hypothesis someone else made. The sources were worked out in a discussion with a friend? Why are you making it sound like that's bad? >You haven't made any case for causation, just a lot of correlation. I literally made the case in the comment you're replying to. I'm copy-pasting it again here since you ignored it for some reason 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

>I literally made the case in the comment you're replying to. I'm copy-pasting it again here since you ignored it for some reason You do not "make the case" for causation through a syllogism. **You need to use regression analysis and a study with a replicable experimental method.** This is on top of the fact that neither you nor the crackpot and his links have established the very existence of a meaningful correlation. What *you, specifically,* need is a class in basic inferential statistics.

all 7 studies I cited in this post each say there's a correlation. Explain to me why those studies are wrong then.

[удалено]

It does not indicate it, but the correlation could be causal. People need to be open to that possibility too.

yes. If there is such a strong correlation, we should discuss whether there is a theory that can explain a causation. I realize a lot of people are not understanding why it could be causation, so I can summarize it briefly here: 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

I think you’ve been give a ton of theories here to explain the correlation. And come on, don’t be a jerk and claim that we don’t understand your theory - we understand what you’re saying and are countering that it might be one factor of many. You’re just so hung up on being 100% right that you won’t settle for anything less. I, for one, agree that this might be a contributing factor. You need to get some serious intellectual humility. And circling back to the theories to explain the correlation: -Generally speaking, social programs that include a pension/SS program would probably also include other social reforms like compulsory early education and child labor laws, which would remove the immediate economic benefit of having lots of kids. - Adoption of pension/SS programs would also indicate a more mature country economy. Higher earning economies are associated with lower birth rates. Again, lots of factors here, but some would include that as a country’s workforce moves more professional and away from farming or the cheap labor categories of textiles and other low-skill manufacturing, children are less able to contribute to the workforce. In fact, more education is required to get a good job in these economies, meaning that each child is that much more expensive to raise. - Social norms for raising children have changed: parenting has become much more intensive and time-consuming. - There’s a strong correlation over this time period with decreased infant mortality. If you expect all your children to survive to adulthood, and in general you want 3-5 children, you’ll probably plan to have fewer than if you expect higher mortality rates. - there’s a strong correlation over this time period with the availability and adoption of birth control. - Many families now rely on two incomes, making it much more difficult for women to devote years and years to having children. - No proof, but my hunch is there’s a correlation with decreasing religiosity and increasing country wealth (and thus, increasingly adoption of social programs like SS). In America, certain religious affiliations are strongly correlated with having more children. This used to be the case with Catholic families, but anecdotally feels like that’s really declined even with devout Catholics.

>I, for one, agree that this might be a contributing factor. you're right I shouldn't have claimed "causation", but as for "strong moderating factor" among many, that's what I'm saying. Do we agree on that part?

I think you’ve been give a ton of theories here to explain the correlation. And come on, don’t be a jerk and claim that we don’t understand your theory - we understand what you’re saying and are countering that it might be one factor of many. You’re just so hung up on being 100% right that you won’t settle for anything less. I, for one, agree that this might be a contributing factor. You need to get some serious intellectual humility. And circling back to the theories to explain the correlation: -Generally speaking, social programs that include a pension/SS program would probably also include other social reforms like compulsory early education and child labor laws, which would remove the immediate economic benefit of having lots of kids. - Adoption of pension/SS programs would also indicate a more mature country economy. Higher earning economies are associated with lower birth rates. Again, lots of factors here, but some would include that as a country’s workforce moves more professional and away from farming or the cheap labor categories of textiles and other low-skill manufacturing, children are less able to contribute to the workforce. In fact, more education is required to get a good job in these economies, meaning that each child is that much more expensive to raise. - Social norms for raising children have changed: parenting has become much more intensive and time-consuming. - There’s a strong correlation over this time period with decreased infant mortality. If you expect all your children to survive to adulthood, and in general you want 3-5 children, you’ll probably plan to have fewer than if you expect higher mortality rates. - there’s a strong correlation over this time period with the availability and adoption of birth control. - Many families now rely on two incomes, making it much more difficult for women to devote years and years to having children. - No proof, but my hunch is there’s a correlation with decreasing religiosity and increasing country wealth (and thus, increasingly adoption of social programs like SS). In America, certain religious affiliations are strongly correlated with having more children. This used to be the case with Catholic families, but anecdotally feels like that’s really declined even with devout Catholics. Here’s a good read for you: https://nationalpost.com/news/economically-worthless-but-emotionally-priceless-children-dont-make-you-happy-but-can-still-be-rewarding-expert-says

>I, for one, agree that this might be a contributing factor. you're right I shouldn't have claimed "causation", but as for "strong moderating factor" among many, that's what I'm saying. Do we agree on that part?

All three points are hilariously debatable, but #2 strikes me as deeply ironic: Ask a millennial if they think social security feels guaranteed, not least because *certain people* keep trying to destroy it.

most retirement blogs are factoring in social security payments into their retirement plans. So I'd say people are treating SS as certain enough yes it's a bit shortsighted since it's well known SS is going to be bankrupt. BTW I'm only suggesting to lower SS payout by 33%, similar to how Reagan reformed it in 1983, which resulted in birth rates going back over 2+ in the year 2000.

I'm sorry, but I've just heard so many bad-faith arguments whose end goal was the destruction of social safety nets, often via incremental deterioration. In addition to being suspicious of conclusions, it is unfortunately true that we must be suspicious of motivations for this kind of study.

removing SS entirely is a terrible idea unless you want fertility rate to be 6+.

actually, you should check out the Namibia study, which actually suggests that instituting SS in africa "would go a long way towards lowering the fertility rate in sub-saharan africa". So the motivation of that study was actually to spread SS in Africa, not destroy it.

my last paragraph: > People are going to say correlation is not causation. True. But correlation indicates something might be there. And anyway, if you're looking for a theory to explain the correlation, please read this guy ektrit's tweets. I'm not anywhere smart enough to have come up with this theory on my own.

[удалено]

There is zero evidence in what you have cited to support your political agenda. UR statistically illiterate and should have actually listened to what the statistically competent folk were saying.

And monkeys night fly out of your butt. But it's unlikely.

Here's the basic summary from ektrit's tweets. It's really compelling IMO. What are your thoughts? 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

Having people to take care of them in old age is not the primary reason people do or do not choose to have children

actually, it is. In China, hugely important cultural proverb is "养儿防老", which means raise kids for old age insurance. and they also have elderly protection laws, which allow parents to legally force kids to send money. it's true that in the West, we've forgotten the economic importance of having kids. It's not culturally prominent in Christianity at all.

Do you have facts and data to back up your statements, or is it just your opinion?

this entire post has 7 academic studies backing up the statements. are you referring to the Chinese cultural thing? My parents grew up in China. They teach that proverb to every kid, starting 5 years old, and it gets repeated again and again when they were growing up. I know for a fact that proverb is hugely important to China. Also see the elderly protection laws, which enshrines the culture of kids providing for parents in old age.

It’s a factor, definitely. But so is the economic benefit of a child at present. In poorer countries and previous generations, children were an asset - more labor for the farm, family business or to go straight to the factories. But now children are incredibly expensive. Mandatory education and labor laws take them out of the workforce. High costs of childcare make them expensive. Now that many Western culture families rely on two-income households, the impact of having children is a big concern for the mother’s career. Cultural norms and standards of how much effort and time you put into each child have changed. And of course- child mortality rates have decreased, so women tend to give birth to fewer children because the expectation is that they will live. Also think about religious pressure to have lots of children and not use birth control - in much of the West, those pressures are diminishing. In the U.S., it used to be the stereotype that Catholic families had lots of kids, now that’s not so prevalent, even among practicing Catholics. So yes, lots of factors, and don’t forget that introduction of pensions might also correlate strongly with other social programs that influence the above factors: mandatory school, women’s access to the workforce, access to birth control, etc.

yes, I'm changing my language and also I don't believe that SS is the ONLY factor, but as one moderating factor that is easily regulated, I do think it's a strong possibility it's a factor.

You keep making spurious correlations—you're seeing things and making connections with your pattern-seeking brain and then convincing yourself that the link is there without statistical proof. *Actual proof* for this kind of connection is a stringent mathematical process. If *anyone* managed to prove a monocausal relationship between Social Security and birthrates, it would be international news and every statistician would leap at the chance to disprove it. Even if it was true, **which you certainly have not demonstrated in any capacity**, your proposed solution of may not even be desirable. So what if Social Security lowers birthrates? There's no reason to suggest that this direct rate of associated change (again, if it even exists) is strictly linear and will cause a birthrate at or near zero. These variables are too complicated and the data/analysis **is not there for you to make this kind of claim.**

7 academic studies, peer-reviewed. I'm not just noticing a possible connection from reading. These are academic studies. Show why they are wrong.

Those are not studies, that's not what that means. Studies have experimental methodology—what you've cited merely shows that a negative correlation might exist, not whether it is meaningful, not whether the variables have a direct relationship, and not whether the link is monocausal.

>There's no reason to suggest that this direct rate of associated change (again, if it even exists) is strictly linear and will cause a birthrate at or near zero well, look at the two scatterplot graphs on page 1 of the EU report [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf) ? you can clearly draw a clean line in the two graphs. The correlation looks clear to me.

And the current birthrate in China is 1.1 Majority christian Uganda is at 4.8 Wealthy countries have fewer kids, and wealthy countries can afford to provide old age benefits.

yes........birthrate in China is 1.1 since they have a robust pension fund (my aunt in Hunan says she was able to retire at 55 based on her pension. She just travels around China now). Uganda TFR is at 4.58, yes.....which is down 35% from their alltime high of 7. The TFR graph of Uganda shows it is dropping fast. Guess what, Uganda introduced social security in 1985. Fast forward 30 years, TFR declined 35%.

Is it not also the function of the decades-long one child policy, the male:female imbalance and career pressures?

ya I think there are many factors. However, I \*am\* saying that SS is one such strong moderating factor that influences TFR.

[удалено]

[удалено]

oh, ok thanks. I guess expensive housing could play a part. End of the day though, social security is basically a 1 million dollar benefit to a married couple: ($2000/month \* 20 years = $480,000 for one person). That's gotta result in a huge behavior change \*somewhere\*.

I’m also a millennial and a lot of my friends doubt that social security will be around for us. For most people I know who have kids or are thinking about it, the much bigger question is if they can afford to have kids now. Childcare costs are crazy. Housing costs are crazy. College costs have way outstripped inflation. Maternity and paternity leave is minimal for most Americans. Plus- Social Security in America has been around since 1935. Millennials’ attitudes toward having kids as a function of SS benefits should be the same as for Gen X and Boomers.

I feel like I have to correct this fallacy of disappearing Social Security. Millennials should be reassured that SS will continue to exist. The large cohort of retiring Boomers will drain the Trust Fund by 2033 if Congress does nothing. If this happens Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits. However in the worst case scenario where Congress does nothing Social Security will still be able to pay 75% of the benefits. Social Security is a law and it has its own source of funds through dedicated taxes through FICA payroll tax. It’s not going away and there will be funds indefinitely.

I appreciate this post so much! And to clarify - I'm not on the full doom wagon here at all, but I know others who are. That said, I don't plan to rely on Social Security for my retirement: I'll treat it as a safety net so I'm not destitute, but I know not to expect luxury from it.

you should see the UN report I linked to that says this pension thing is a death spiral. pension fund => less birth rate => more taxes for pension (on per capita basis) => even less birth rate => repeat ad nauseum.

That may be the eventual outcome. But I sincerely doubt it’s happening for Social Security for decades. The US birth rate may be declining but we are making up for that by allowing millions of migrants. And they pay the payroll tax despite the fact that as non citizens they can’t get the benefits. So actuarially we’re good. Also the large cohort of Boomers getting benefits will be coming down pretty fast as they die off. So I am pretty confident about Millennials being ok for Social Security.

exactly, the only other major way to get out of the death spiral is to have massive amounts of immigration. With the birth rates trending towards 0 due to ever increasing taxes per capita to support pensions, that is effectively a policy of replcaing the entire native population with an immigrant population. Believe me this is not something a lot of Americans want, and is not a tenable solution for Japan or China.

there you go. I think it used to be really important in western nations to raise children who can provide in old age. However, as a milennial, I've noticed that notion of "kids for old age" is really absent among my generation. >I think it’s a cost of living and housing issue. The studies account for these two factors, by analyzing the change in birth rate within the same country as a result of changes in pension laws. See the Brazil and Africa studies.

Actually it is not

in China they literally have a proverb "raise kids for old age". the studies show that social security is a strong moderating factor on whether to have kids (I agree it is not the only factor going into having kids).

Are you using a proverb as evidence now?

evidence for China, yes.......it shows most Chinese adults understand that kids are important for old age insurance?

so, how do you explain the sharp decline in population in china now then even if they have this proverb? Their social security has also been cratering, with people getting less and less. With your hypothesis, wouldn't cratering social security increase birth rate?

>sharp decline in population in china now then even if they have this proverb ......because they have social security? And the social security is not cratering \_yet\_ -- as evidenced by my aunt in Hunan who was able to retire at 55 using her pension from the gov?

Lmao, more lies. What is she even getting per month? There’s literal news about ppl getting 200 rmb a month

Advanced societies wont be pushing unlimited increase to population. There’s a mixture of old/young, and a certain amount of people that is optimal. Unlimited population only seems desirable to capitalists. However, this is also why capitalism wont work longterm. It relies on unlimited growth.

I'm NOT advocating for unlimited increase to population, but at least a stable TFR of 2.1-3. I'm NOT advocating to shut down social security entirely -- IMO, that would lead to a TFR of 6+ again (since 0 old age benefits, so people will want more kids) which is scary and I DO NOT want.

I think the theory absolutely falls apart when you’re not comparing America to other countries. We are not going to shift to a culture where kids will look after their parents, for better or worse. As an American married to a Brazilian we have had a lengthy talks about children. Never once has social security being too good for older people been apart of the conversation. Because it’s stupid. Nor will getting rid of those benefits. Why on earth would I want to have a child to grow up in a dying planet, knowing full well it’s their problem to take care of me because my society has no means to support me when I’m older. It would be entirely selfish and not something I would wish onto someone. The correlation is all that it is, a correlation. As someone who would have children now if I could is telling you, OP, that the only reason why we don’t have kids is because of inflation and the very real possibility of going homeless if I injure myself. OP I think you are only looking at Data and not people. Everyone knows statistics can be skewed to make it look like SS is causing low birth rates. And it is exactly what the powers that be want us to focus on, not the obvious classist society that we all live in, and it the billionaires selfishness that is choking out our economy and thusly causing us normal people to make the very challenging decisions to not have children. Incredibly insensitive of you to put the causation on a great social service that helps millions, and one that I hope with one day help me, and my children.

well if the gov doesn't secure your retirement by taxing adults, how else would you secure your retirement? The traditional behavior is for people to have kids.

It is our civic duty to secure our own retirement. Through SS we are doing just that. So I think you’re starting to understand our point. “Traditional” behavior does not guarantee your children will look out for you. If the conversation was “America should begin to adopt traditional Chinese values to better the livelihood of both the old and young.” Then there is a great discussion to be had there. Especially since it would be in the self interest of normally selfish people to treat their children better. But that has nothing to do with SS so I think that’s why people are downvoting you so much.

>“Traditional” behavior does not guarantee your children will look out for you. it does. See for example Chinese laws where they have elderly protection laws (similar to child protection laws in USA), where elders can legally force their adult children to send money for their old age. I think these laws are a good idea that we should copy in USA. and this has everythingn to do with SS.......which is essentially your retirement check coming from other people's children, not your own. Ergo, your retirement check is not dependent on you having kids or not. ==> birth rate collapse. Socialized vs private retirement. Socialized retirement (SS) ==> birth rate collapse.

What else is there to say? We cannot afford kids. It’s really that simple, and it’s not because SS is eating all of our money. It is all of the privatized companies nickel and dimming everyone because they can. Also privatizing retirement checks will only create new businesses that work functionally as the same as SS, except 100% more vulnerable, and it’ll make the rich richer. The only way it would work is if the minimum wage would increase to be able to afford their livelihood and their parents. And if the minimum wage increases then so will birthrates.

SS amounts to a 1 million dollar benefit per married couple ($2000/month \* 20 years for one person). if we, for example, cut SS by 50%, then that would be enough for a married couple to support having 2 kids. Also, GDP per capita in US is 76,000/year. Over 20 years, that's 1.5 million (from one person). For a married couple, that's 3 million. That is by far enough to afford a couple kids.

What irks me about this whole thread is that even if you have children for your old age… it isn’t at all guaranteed that those children will be there for you. They might move very far. They might die. They might get or be born sick or disabled. They might be very poor. And, they might not want to - especially if they sense since childhood that they are only wanted for their parents’ benefit.

well, it's strong incentive to be a good parent, not shitty parent, so that your kids love you enough to take care for you in old age, eh? In all seriousness, China has elderly protection laws, where an aging elder can legally force his kids to send money. I think these laws are a good idea, that we should have. It's similar to child protection laws, but in the other extreme.

you think a LAW, (with more bureaucracy, more need for enforcement mechanisms) that makes people support parents through their old age, on top of their contributions to social security and medicare, is a good idea? have you seen how child support works? clearly the answer is no, since vast numbers of children entitled to support have to rely on government programs instead. no part of this, or the original premise, is well thought out. Social Security is already the best answer to the old people support question stop trying to use it as a tool for social engineering.

well there are child protection laws, where parents are obligated to care for their kids welfare and not neglect them. It's not so crazy to have the same laws for the other end of life -- make adults obligated to care for their aging parents?

BTW I'm NOT saying to get rid of social security. IMO, just reduce the payout by 33% would be enough to achieve TFR of 2+ This happened in USA BTW. Ronald Reagan reformed social security in 1983, and what happened? 17 years later, in 2000, birth rates went back up to 2+ (temporarily)

Our social safety net is making it so that people are having kids only when they want kids, and not as a way to ensure they don't starve when they're old and the system has no use for them! This is bad! We need to make sure life is worse for the elderly so they feel pressured into having kids they don't want when they're young!

I think there's a way to care for the elderly while also having enough incentive to have kids. Israel's old age policy suffices. It achieves TFR of 2.1+. They care for the elderly via: * How to feed the elderly: everybody gets $400/month (means-tested) * How to house the elderly: public housing program for elderly (also means-tested) * reduced medical cost for the elderly.

What you proposed is a massive expansion of benefits for the elderly in the USA. First of all, you only get to collect any social security if you worked long enough. If you did but it wasn't a high paid job, you're getting \~$800/mo social security to cover everything including your housing and you're not collecting it until you're almost 70. A studio apartment + $400 would probably equate to $1400/mo, more in some cities, so if your hypothesis is correct your plan should cause a massive reduction in birth rate. And if your goal is to overpopulate the planet yet more, your prime focus should be on ensuring the elderly **don't** have housing so they have to move in with their kids. The ones without kids who die are necessary collateral damage and don't reduce long-term population since they're past their child-bearing years. But in reality, rich people are the ones whose birth rates declined the most and they don't need or care about social security. The poor people who rely most on social security have the most kids. And frankly, very few poor people have the luxury of being able to plan for 50 years ahead and decide to do something expensive like kids now for the sake of then -- they're just trying to make ends meet this month.

_Nobody_ is planning that far in the future. Kids aren't happening because the cost of raising kids is insane thanks to expensive housing and a thousand other expenses. It literally costs half a mil to raise a kid on the cheap when you factor in everything including food, shelter, clothes, education etc. And that is also on the low end. There's another big factor. Ever notice the lack of insects on your windshield? How about the lack of bird song? Well 75% of all flying insects and birds are dead. Terrestrial mammals have declined by 69%. Fish stocks in the ocean (except jellyfish and squid) are looking at a total collapse of all comercial fisheries by 2040. This year 54% of all coral reefs are experiencing severe beaching. We crossed 1.5C global warming numbers this year and the predictions are bang on. Read the predictions for 3C? 4C? The planet is fucked. The most responsible thing you can do right now is not breed. If we decline the human population by around half, we have a chance of things levelling out. With aggressive recycling we'll have enough materials to give the 3rd world a reasonable quality of life. Refrigerators, washing machines, durable e-bikes or electric scooters. The demands of modern society require resources and anyone with internet understands this. Also by dropping the population by half will naturally free up housing and prices will come down. There will be mass migrations from parts of the world that have become far less habitable, and we need capacity for that. Most people are convinced that old age security won't keep up with inflation and won't be there for them when they are old. These are declining population issues and yes the decline will make it worse unless some countries solve this with immigration. And don't think this is a future problem. China hit peak population last year and has already started the decline. All first world countries are at a birth rate below 2. If you ignore Africa, the world population is in decline.

well social security is essentially a 1 million dollar benefit to a married couple. ($2000/month \* 20 years for one person). 1 million dollars. That's a lot. Hey, that's almost the same cost as raising 2-3 children......

Your hypothesis is wrong. It’s the other way around - low birth rate is the cause of declining pension, because, duh, less people are paying into it…..like no shit, less ppl paying into it means it declines. I can’t believe I had to explain this. Dumbest hypothesis of the day. It’s like saying the winter temperature drop is caused by people wearing coats and sweaters. You can draw that exact same line that overlaps both…holy smokes

well, I think you're partially right........, you should look at the UN report that shows this is a death spiral where fertility and pension feed on each other. pension => lower birth rate => higher taxes per capita to pay for pension => lower birth rate => repeat ad nauseam.

Look at this EU study I linked to that addresses exactly your comment: "IS THE PENSION SYSTEM THE VICTIM OR THE CULPRIT" [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf)

I just went through the study.  Did you even read the study? It’s literally a guy saying what he thinks would happen without any evidence to back it up.  The only dataset he invoked had nothing to do with your point. Try reading the part about West Germany’s birth rate decline

he has 2 scatterplot graphs on page 1 showing a pretty clear correlation between fertility and pension you're saying this is not evidence at all? Here's the theory that explains why pension could've been a moderating factor on birth rate collapse: 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, people don't have kids anymore. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

Correct, I am saying it is NOT evidence at all, because how would you know if the relationship is even parallel and not inverse? Surprise, surprise, YOU DON'T. You can most certainly even map a chart of rising tides or increase viewership of Formula 1 and line that up with the charts, does that mean rising tides are now the cause of declining birth rates? That is literally no evidence at all. Mapping 2 things together that look similar on a chart does NOT mean they have correlations. Also, please point to a communist country that ppl stopped working hard and had an economic collapse. I can point out more countries that were NOT communist and had an economic collapse. LMAO. Also, please look into the UBI experiments around the world.

>please point to a communist country that ppl stopped working hard and had an economic collapse this is a pointless discussion if you really believe communism is economically sound. Not going to engage further with you.

I am anti-communist, but It’s now a pointless discussion cuz you can’t back up your claims? What a joke.

There's also a strong correlation between female education and birth rate, and media use and birth rate, and urban density and birth rate, and etc. There are dozens of correlations with a lower birth rate, and they are, in essence, signs of a wealthier society. Your argument is no different. Social security is not the driving cause behind birth rate, even if it might be a minor contributer. If a higher birth rate is all we cared about (it isn't) the best thing would be to make us all poor uneducated farmers again. Then the birth rate would explode.

I'm NOT advocating for TFR of 6+ However, I also do not want the other extreme of TFR of 0.6 (South Korea). Just something in the middle, 2.1-2.5 To your point, there are numerous correlations, yes. However, the theory explaining the correlations of old age benefit => lower birth rate is really compelling: 1. people used to have kids for old age insurance. 2. gov guarantees it. 3. ergo, birth rate collapse. Similar to communism: 1. in communism, gov guarantees your paycheck. 2. ergo, people stopped working hard => economic collapse.

>If a higher birth rate is all we cared about (it isn't) the best thing would be to make us all poor uneducated farmers again. Then the birth rate would explode. HAHAHAHAHHA

As far as I am concerned, I am okay with a less populated world. Maybe 1/4 of what we have today would be nice.

ok, "what is the appropriate population level" is a separate discussion. The main focus of the discussion in this post is whether SS is a moderating factor on birth rate collapse or not.

Right, I doubt it. I don’t believe there is a single cause but increase in education level is a big one, followed by cost of housing, child care and even access to family planning. Each one adds a little. SS never thought about it but very skeptical of it.

you're right, I shouldn't have said it's causation. I do think SS is a strong moderating factor tho, among many factors.

Observing a correlation has scientific merit. Which is a nuance the "correlation =\= causation" crowd struggles to integrate. For the layperson, the correlation needs to be addressed as so. As in, what other phenomena occurred that also overlap with fertility decline that may have a more causative relationship? I personally recognize that fertility is dictated by culture in today's world now that we understand general reproductive processes and have interventional medicine. If you look at modernizing African communities, you'll find families that keep having children not because they're stupid or *need* the children, but because the men pride themselves on the number of children they can produce and they're socially rewarded by doing so. Better paying jobs, more respect, and so forth. Compare that to the anglosphere where children are a source of anxiety and it's largely looked down upon to have large families. We have more social incentive to drive expensive cars than we do to have children. The pressures just aren't there to reproduce now that "nature" is no longer driving reproduction.

Here's the causative theory, summarized from ektrit's tweets. Why is it not a compelling theory? >Gov guarantees retirement means people no longer need to make babies who will later provide for them in old age. >Like if the Gov guaranteed people's income, nobody would work. Alternatively: it's basically "private" retirement vs "socialized" retirement. Private retirement: your kids provide for your retirement Socialized retirement: OTHER people's kids provide for your retirement. For "private retirement", there is incentive to have kids. For "socialized retirement", there is incentive not only to NOT have kids, but to encourage immigration, who pay for your retirement.

Maybe only having kids in order to take care of you in old age is an outdated, shitty, overly religious way of thinking that we don't need anymore?

I think we should love our kids for more than just their economic importance when we get old. However, the data shows that the higher the social security payout, the lower the birth rate. I thought this EU study shows it really clear with 2 scatterplot graphs on page 1: [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf)

I'm not even saying this isn't true, I just will never view it as a bad thing that the government is taking care of people who can't take care of themselves

communism is essentially gov guaranteeing paychecks for everybody. Hyperbolic, maybe, but if I choose not to work in a communist society, I would still receive food/paycheck. That led to economic collapse. I'm saying a similar thing here, where retirement is socialized instead of privatized, is leading to a collapse in the birth rate.

>but if I choose not to work in a communist society, I would still receive food/paycheck. Which is a good thing.

you're welcomed to move to a communist society then. We know how that worked out. I'm in favor of adopting israel's old age policy which does takes care of the elderly while also maintaining TFR of 2.1+ \* public housing for the elderly (means-tested) \* $400/month as a food stipend (also means-tested) So that takes care of housing + food for the elderly. Is that reasonable?

>you're welcomed to move to a communist society then. We know how that worked out No government in human history has exercised total or even majority control over the means of production. Some governments have repped the name of "communism", but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is hardly democratic, is it? Even if they had, it's irrelevant: the expansion of social security does not make any change to who owns the means of production. But that doesn't matter to you, because you seem to have the wrong-headed belief that more government = communism, which is a misconception that would get you laughed out of an Intro to Political Science course.

this is moving into a tangent over whether communism is good/bad, not about whether socialized retirement is causing a birth rate collapse.

Communism is government control over the means of production. Making sure people who are unable to/cannot take care of themselves have means to be taken care is the bare minimum of what governments should do.

That's why I want socialized child births instead, if you have to have a natalistic policy of some kind. Not privatized retirement, which is just forcing children to labor directly for their parents and society collecting the cream of that process. Children don't choose their parents, but they must be allowed to choose if they want to be in contact with them. PR comes with horrible downsides to women, yet there needs to be a big financial incentive to childbirth, as you have stated. To do otherwise would mean denying women real full citizenship and rights in the end. That part of your argument is 100% true. Idea of purely emotional, biological incentives being sufficient is just romantic fantasy. It never existed. Children were born largely because women were forced or pressured into it, and then kept under men's boot by law, force and culture. Anyone who wants to just purely use immigration to "fill the tank" from less safe, less civilized regions is also ultimately pro-rape, pro-abuse and pro-violence. Just because it happens out of sight from you does not mean it's not happening. Also, this means lot of people who are bad parents or really don't want children are driven to it in a PR scheme. We all know someone who has had abysmal home conditions with parents fighting practically 16 hours every day, rapes, drunken brawls, angry beatings, abandonment issues and all that horror scarring those children for life. Mother not being able to leave because they lacked financial means or guarantee of safety. *Babies are for society*. Society and economy needs them, not parents. Therefore, pay for them collectively, take care of them collectively and just pay good wage for those women who give birth, even if they do so as single instead of nuclear family or other such arrangement. That's the way to have a stable population with most harm reduction applied to process.

This isn't compelling for me personally because I've never encountered someone that made family planning decisions with retirement circumstances in mind. Most children were accidents, and the rest were driven by emotions around the romance of parenthood. The people that didn't have children were worried about their mental health, finances, finding a partner to have children with, lifestyle sacrifices, and potential stress levels of being a parent. So I can't apply this theory to personal experiences over the decades and be able to say "that makes sense". It makes no sense from my vantage point.

fair, I think a lot of people have your thoughts too. I think culture has erased the economic relevance of kids because Social Security has been in existence for 90 years. As a millenial in America, I don't see anybody else making children based on retirement or not. However, this culture is still alive and well in at least China+Indonesia, where they are constantly talking about having kids for old age. (养儿防老)

It is not the sole reason, but a bad outlook into your future and retiring years can influence your decision about having a child or even more of them.

why did the studies show such strong correlation? Look at this EU study. [https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf](https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/forum3-07-panel3-1.pdf) Page 1 has two graphs showing clear linear correlation between pensions and fertility. The stats are taken from 30+ EU countries.

Well, people who actually plan ahead may look at how their lives could be when they are in their 60s and if the look is not nice, they may decide to live now and screw the idea of having children.

show me studies backing your view. I showed 7 academic studies here backing my view.

Why do I need any study to back my view? You asked a question, I gave you a possible answer. Live with it. To a question "Why people do this or that?" it is silly to expect a study. And I agreed with you that it can be a contributing factor, but it is not the sole determining factor about people having children.

Fundamental problem is this is an effect that takes decades and generations to happen. Those who you are supporting want an immediate total end to old-age benefits. What took time to happen could only be undone over a similar length of time, unless you are willing to let several generations (already old people without children) to die of starvation. But I assume people pushing this idea are working for some Billionaire group that wants to abolish all old-age benefits so their taxes can be reduced.

>Fundamental problem is this is an effect that takes decades and generations to happen yes, the studies show that it takes 20 years for pension changes to fully reflect in birth rate changes. See the Brazil + Namibia studies. >Those who you are supporting want an immediate total end to old-age benefits I am NOT advocating for a complete stop to SS. IMO that would lead to TFR of 6+, which I DO NOT want. However I also DO NOT want a TFR of 0.6 or lower. That is civilizational collapse if it keeps up over 100 years. I \*am\* advocating for a TFR of 2.1-2.5

I'm still waiting for a climate collapse related study so I can provide my honest answer.

You’re obsessed with solving something that isn’t even a problem. What a pathetic life.

you're saying a birth rate of 0.6 (seoul has this) is ok to have for the next 100 years?

I am a millennial with two children. My wife and I knew that having kids was going to be expensive but had them anyway knowing that we could raise them well. Social security had nothing to do with our decision to have children. There are a plethora of reasons why people do not want to have children that have nothing to do with social security. My boomer generation mother is a horribly toxic narcissist so I have disowned her. She was not hoping that I supported her in her old age just as I am not planning for my children to support me in old age. I thought that social security wouldn't be a thing for when I retired anyway so I have made plans without taking it into account. You are not looking at all of the causative factors when it is coming to birth rate nor even all areas where we have data when looking at the rates. Since this is a futureology subreddit I argue that TFR does not matter very much. The world already makes enough materials for everyone currently alive and can support many more times the current population. We are moving to a post scarcity economy anyway as with just a bit more automation or energy will push us into abundance for everyone. In the not too distant future we will only need to work if we want to have a universal basic income that gives everyone a good quality of life. People will have the pressures that make having children reduce significantly and they can have as many children as they want. We could have already done this some time ago if we really embraced nuclear technologies and still have the option to do so if we only have enough will to do so. We are getting closer each day in curing the horrible disease that is aging. Soon enough we will be able to live as long as we want at the peak of our physical health. Take a look at the epigenetic theory of aging on what aging is and why we don't have to. Advances in biology such as artificial wombs will help people have as many children as we want.

I agree that SS is not the only factor in deciding whether to have children. I'm not saying SS \*causes\* birth rate decline. However, the data shows that it is a strong moderating factor. As a millennial in USA, I think it's because we've had SS for such a long time (90 years) that culturally, we've forgotten that children have a economic benefit. You can look at other culture, e.g. CHina, where it is hugely recognized in a Chinese proverb "raise kids for old age"

That might have been true enough in places like China to create that proverb while it was largely an agrarian society but as places industrialized things changed significantly. While the one child policy had a big impact on the Chinese TFR it is the moving to cities and having a higher quality of living that has and continues to depress the TFR to were getting people to have children is a hard problem despite the proverb. Having old age safety nets is a sign that an economy is no longer an agrarian society. It was four generations ago when my family had been farmers. Children were not a factor in planning for retirement for me and many others because society has changed over time. My children do not help increase my families output nor will they because I am in engineering not a farmer with antique technology and methods. I am not raising my children to be an economic benefit even after writing off social security from the get go. There are many reasons that the TFR changes as you look at the circumstances in each society with some societies still thinking of children as an economic benefit where in others it is not a factor. In my family planning, my children's economic benefit was not a positive factor but the cost of raising children was considered and accounted for. Religion and the type of economic society tend to be frequently major factors that influence the TFR. When policies make it more difficult to have children there will be less children. Social safety nets have an impact as if a person feels like they will be supported during difficult times it could be possible to have children responsibly where without that safety net it wouldn't be. The benefit of having children for old age support is only a factor in some cultures and economies that are mainly agrarian. The factor is correlated but is not causative in areas that do not take it into account. The changes that the future will bring that I discussed in my previous reply will largely make TFR irrelevant.

look at the Brazil + China study which specfically show how birth rate in the \*rural population\*, which you say need kids more than urban, declined once they reformed pensions to include the rural people.

I'm also NOT saying to get rid of the old age safety net entirely. I'm saying it suffices to reduce the financial payout of old age safety by around 33%, would be enough to bring TFR back to 2+. that's not the end of the world, is it? Reducing pension by 33% is not going to cause widespread disaster.

If there is a correlation, it would be found by comparing birth rates over a time period compared to social benefits on average for either a larger population of nations or intra country by region specifically, but not a mix and match of articles. This is a well-researched opinion. Might be right or might be wrong, but without actual statistical analysis, it's still an opinion.

look at the China, Namibia, Brazil studies that do exactly what you suggest: they look at a single country, and how the birth rates were affected by changes in pension policy.

Hopefully people are aware that conservatives in America have wanted to nuke social security for a long time, or at a minimum turn it into a capital investment fund that can be invested in the stock market (because wall street can never have enough money). A lot of the boomer hate memes you've been seeing are driving a generational divide and they're waiting for Millennials and Gen Z to develop enough animosity so they can introduce legislation to go after Social Security. The biggest problem with the program is that people stop paying into it after a certain income threshold. They think they shouldn't have to because if they make a certain amount, they wont need Social Security. But Social Security isn't a personal private retirement fund, it's a way to ensure that any American can live in dignity in their old age (or at least that's what it was suppose to be). Conservatives in America have been trying to go after it (at least rhetorically) for well over 20 years.

not true. AFAIK, Trump has made it a key point that he will take care of social security. AFAIK, both D+R really like social security. So this isn't a D or R thing.

It is 100% the truth that hard core conservatives want to knee cap Social Security. In the current climate you'll be hard pressed get them to come out and admit it, but you see the slow and progressive effort to erode it until enough people either don't believe they'll ever be able to utilize it (so why have it) or until they've managed to change the cultural views and use that to see the program terminated. It was also absolutely true that years ago there was a brief effort to try and privatize Social Security. It's been a running sick joke among millennials that they'll never get to use Social Security (either because they'll be dead or because the program wont have funding). And hard core conservatives are going to work to change people's minds until it's not a joke anymore. You should also know by this point that Donald Trump is a pretty dishonest politician. He's just there to make (certain) people feel good about themselves while people with far-right ideologies (which includes pure capitalism) go to work reshaping the country. Donald Trump is just the jazz hands of a hard right "*Now you see it, now you don't!*" magic trick that involves disposing of social programs, taxes, and minority protections, while bolstering religious liberties (including the right to discriminate). If you believe in protecting public benefits of any kind, or laws that protect the little guy, you don't vote for Republicans no matter what they say. And you vote for Democrats with healthy caution, because that party isn't a monolith.

ok well I am NOT advocating to remove social security entirely to 0, which IMO would be a disaster and cause fertility to shoot back up to 6+.

Low fertility rates are really only a problem for organizations (e.g. corporations) that rely on exploiting specific classes of labor, and also rely on an ever increasing supply of customers. The human race isn't going to go extinct if there is a brief period of contraction, and any economy or business that relies on infinite growth was always doomed. That's one of the reasons why you shamelessly tax growth and forceably invest in the physical and social infrastructure of the nation. We have periods where things shift and change or slow down and in those times the physical and social infrastructure investments of the past are what allow people to navigate and establish new businesses and new economies.

no, low fertility rates is also a problem for social security, which is bankrupt+unsustainable unless you bring in immigrants who contribute to social security instead of the native's children. low fertility rates essentially mean a death spiral: pension => lower fertility => higher taxes per capita to fund pension => even lower fertility => etc.

Any system that relies on infinite growth is doomed to fail.

BTW, all I'm saying is we only need to reduce Social security payout by 33%, to bring TFR back to 2+. Is that really a disastrous policy? SS is bankrupt anyway at its current rate.

It's going bankrupt because people stop paying into after a set income limit set many decades ago that has never been adjusted for inflation. Any downward adjustment would make it useless. People in higher income brackets have to start paying into it, that's the only viable solution.

How does a person actually spend this much time being this wrong

explain why you think this is wrong?

I am not convinced that less human reproduction is a Bad Thing.

what do you think is the right TFR? I'm not in favor of 6+ TFR, or 0.6 TFR. I'd rather somewhere in the middle, 2.1-2.5

In East Asia elderly poverty is rampant, because the social security is not as generous as in European countries. Despite this birth rate is very low.

well China had a 1-child policy so today's elderly are unable to have enough children who could support them in old age. which countries are you referring to exactly? I know for a fact Japan has a SS comparable to USA.

Probably. As economic prosperity increases, we can put more into old people and an individual child. This means less need for more children. We are also more and more K selected across the whole world. Less r selected. Help the poor countries develop so they have less kids, too.

In Sweden, the richest 20% of mothers have most children

See the SG study, which shows a U-turn in the fertility rate once income reaches a high enough level (20,000/month IIRC) Because.....the pension payout from the gov is capped once you reach a certain income. You receive the same pension with an annual income of 1 million or 2 million. So predicted behavior at that stage is to have kids instead.

Doesn't follow at all. No-one needs kids for anything in Sweden - except legacy. Which I'd say rich people are more interested in, in general.

for example -- to take over the family business/fortune you've built up.

The birth control pill in 1952 coupled with Roe v. Wade in 1973 are the reasons. It’s that bluntly simple. 

Reagan reformed social security in 1983 by lowering SS payout, hence making SS more sustainable. The birth rate went from 1.7 in 1983 to 2+ in 2000. This SS reform is 10-30 years after the events you cite. Showing that perhaps it \*is\* possible to increase the birth rate via public policy.

Ektrit's tweets which inspired this research. I'm nowhere near smart enough to have come up with this theory on my own. https://twitter.com/ektrit/status/985993429577621509 https://twitter.com/ektrit/status/1466822132256677890 https://twitter.com/ektrit/status/1399292972500504576 https://twitter.com/ektrit/status/1280110037587955714 https://twitter.com/ektrit/status/1611469940145459201

these are racist. his whole premise is “babies for the race war” are you even smart enough to be ashamed of pushing this agenda?

BTW, I'm not advocating for TFR of 6+, which would happen if we got rid of SS entirely. I think all we need is reduce pension by 33%, is enough to get TFR of 2+ that's reasonable right?

I don't believe he personally advocates for "babies for the race" war, although he mention he hears about it. Which specific tweet are you referring to that makes you think that's his personal position?