Women and free market

[JoelKatz]

Now could it be this is because people actually demand a government? Could it have to do something with this topic? Could it be that they do see the need for more balance and social equity?

I think that's certainly a significant factor. People absolutely do believe that if you use other people's resources to do something, it's "free". And there definitely are a lot of people who believe that society must encourage raising children often accompanied by some silly apocalyptic vision of what would happen if that wasn't done.

Personally, I think people who are sufficiently close to the edge that a social incentive will make the difference of whether they have children or not probably shouldn't have children. I don't see any need for social incentives until there's some kind of population shortage.

[myrkul]

Personally, I think people who are sufficiently close to the edge that a social incentive will make the difference of whether they have children or not probably shouldn't have children. I don't see any need for social incentives until there's some kind of population shortage.

This. And there is decidedly not a population shortage. So... how is a market incentive to not have kids a problem, again?

[Richy_T]

And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.

[herzmeister]

Yeah, that only the wealthy can and should have children is of course a point that is hard to sell and not quite politically correct.

As I don't like labels like "political correctness" either, I'm going to try for a more rational argumentation:

Some say a radical free market would result in slums on the one side, and gated communities and glassy skyscrapers on the other side of the city.

If there is some truth to this or not, I believe a society with insufficient equality will not reach and realize its full potential. Obviously, if children in the slums never get proper education, they won't be able to properly contribute to the society or economy later, even if they wanted. Hence there is a loss of resources.

If there was an experiment of setting up city states, some radical libertarian, some with a social tax (also compensating for maternity), I'd predict the latter will therefore create a higher standard of living, a better social climate, less crime, and more wealth.

What does it mean? There's a saying that people get the government they deserve. Maybe we still have to mature a bit before we deserve to get rid of it. 

[myrkul]

If there was an experiment of setting up city states, some radical libertarian, some with a social tax (also compensating for maternity), I'd predict the latter will therefore create a higher standard of living, a better social climate, less crime, and more wealth.

And I would predict the opposite. C'est la vie.

[muyuu]

And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.

Fortunately, a couple generations cannot significantly change the DNA pool forged during hundreds of thousands of years of strong competition in hostile environments.

[JoelKatz]

And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.

Fortunately, a couple generations cannot significantly change the DNA pool forged during hundreds of thousands of years of strong competition in hostile environments.

The issue has nothing much to do with DNA but much more to do with learned behavior and the effect the circumstances in which children are raised have on the adults they turn into.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I'm really surprised by such a dramatic difference.. what's the sample size?

[muyuu]

And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.

Fortunately, a couple generations cannot significantly change the DNA pool forged during hundreds of thousands of years of strong competition in hostile environments.

The issue has nothing much to do with DNA but much more to do with learned behavior and the effect the circumstances in which children are raised have on the adults they turn into.

It's still debatable how much exactly and in which respect does DNA matter in the success of current humans in society, compared to environment.