K is physical capital (e.g. infrastructure, machinery)
L is labor
The political and economic system is irrelevant. You can grow an economy by increasing productivity, or by increasing physical capital and/or the endowment of labor. An example of labor endowment increasing was when women entered the workforce in larger numbers.
Tax credits to incentivize a lack of kids means the government would be incentivizing a future decline in economic output - unless that labor endowment were replaced with immigration.
And again, (it seems you missed it), it is not total economic output that matters with regards to the economic well-being of people. It is the economic output per capita that matters. Understanding this simple concept makes your entire post irrelevant.
Y/P = A f(K,L)/P
P = total population.
Maybe you could decrease the population and still achieve a higher output per Capita, but that comes with a host of political and economic problems such as providing for an elder population with a smaller Labor endowment. Shrink P and you are also decreasing K. Possibly, A decreases too as the population can't achieve all the productivity gains that come from specialization.
And again, (it seems you missed it), it is not total economic output that matters with regards to the economic well-being of people. It is the economic output per capita that matters. Understanding this simple concept makes your entire post irrelevant.
Y/P = A f(K,L)/P
P = total population.
Maybe you could decrease the population and still achieve a higher output per Capita, but that comes with a host of political and economic problems such as providing for an elder population with a smaller Labor endowment. Shrink P and you are also decreasing K. Possibly, A decreases too as the population can't achieve all the productivity gains that come from specialization.
All roads have problems. There is no reason to believe that the problems associated with a gradually shrinking population would be worse than those associated with a static population. And they are certainly more solvable than those associated with endless population growth.
Libs: we have a carbon crisis! Lets issue tax credits for EVs
Jamb innn: why don't we address the root cause and produce less people
Libs: oh wait not like that...
It's comparable to "cancelling" student loan debt. You didn't solve to root cause (greedy unis that the gov't enabled in the first place), you just cleared the deck to begin the next debt cycle.
It would be hard to imagine how you could be more out of touch with reality.
Here, since you seem to have missed it: Libs, in general, are in favor of slowing down population growth and even bringing down the planet's population in a gradual, non-catastophic way. It is Conservatives who are, by and large, in favor of endless population growth and argue constantly against the notion that there might be too many people or that we could ever have too many people.
Perhaps this could be a learning moment for you. When you ascribe beliefs/positions that are the exact opposite of those that people actually hold, based upon nothing more than your apparent hatred for "the libs" perhaps it is time to slow down, drop the hatred, and begin the long journey back into the real world.
Who mentioned hate for anyone. Take a deep breath. All that is being illustrated is the nebulous, arbitrary and counterintuitive policy positions taken by the left.
In industrialized and even developing nations, the average couple has less than 2 kids. That means there aren't even enough kids to maintain current population levels. Ironically, it's the socialist system that will collapse when there aren't enough people to pay for your SS. Our only hope is the capitalist system will automate enough stuff that we can get by with fewer people.
"Pay for your SS"
Another gov't propagated social program that should'nt exist. I'd have opted out long ago if I had the decision.
You’ll get the chance to opt out when you reach eligibility age by refusing to apply for SS and Medicare.
Break the cycle of stealing from the younger generations.
Not how the math works. Imagine dropping 100 people off on a planet. 10 years from now they are paired up and have 2 children which makes 200 people on the planet. 20 years later thise 100 children mate and have children so there are now 300 people on the planet and none are elderly.
By your logic, the children are getting pregnant at the age of 10 😳
i live in a city and work from home most days. when i go out to dinner, i walk to the restaurant or bar. do i get a tax credit for having a lower carbon footprint than most of the suburban people who will be claiming the $7500 credit for their EV?
I can't believe how many smart people are on this thread. Impressive. Ten years ago I produced a public-television special, "Population Disaster." Fertility declines have only accelerated since then, with sluggish economic growth (in real dollars) the inevitable result. The dependency ratio is terrifying, and the U.S. has $160 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Do I have your attention yet? Birth rates are crashing world-wide, so immigration is no solution in the long-run.
Yet no decline in fertility or good environmental news is enough for the anti-fertility zealots, who still spout Paul Ehrlich's "population bomb" nonsense from 1968. Babies are not pollution.
Sluggish economic growth is irrelevant. For quality of living concerns, what matters is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
And as far as "good environmental news", where is this "good environmental news?" With close to 8 billion people on the planet, no population is ever enough for the population explosion zealots.
Plenty of good environmental news: we use less land for agriculture than we did 30 years ago despite a lot more people eating and fewer starving (due to better farming methods). Greenhouse gas emissions have declined in most industrialized nations despite greater energy consumption. (Developing nations will follow the same curve in 10-20 years.) Land covered by forests has steadily increased in developed nations for 100 years or so, since we plant more than we cut down. We use less raw of most raw materials, by doing things like replacing heavy copper wires with lightweight fiber optic cables. In other words, people keep inventing ways to do more using less resources, at a faster rate than population growth. Paul Erlich famously saw none of this coming and thought everything would just become scarce and super expensive.
And yes, yes I do. At very minimum remove the tax credit for EV purchases.
Low birthrate isn't my issue to solve.
Good thing, since you're hardly up to the job.
I've seen some getting laid references lol. Can assure you that isn't the issue.
My issue is the tax breaks for EVs, writeoffs for having kids, tax vouchers for people who live in districts and want to apply the $ to a private school. Why cant I take a voucher to reclaim my property tax $?
The differing world views are represented this post are in Mann's "The Wizard and the Prophet."
The Wizard in Norman Borlaug, who almost singlehandedly developed the green revolution that has allowed us to feed ourselves despite declining farm acreage. He did his initial work in Mexico, where three different climate zones allowed him to mix and match wildly different varieties (thus we have dwarf wheat with short, thick, stalks to hold a lot of grain). Along Borlaug lines, the book also describes a development of an enhanced photosynthesis, as the current process that is wildly inefficient. The Wizard is essentially optimistic in that technology (which may be linked to a younger society as 30-40 year olds are the key innovators) can solve our problems.
The Prophet is William Vogt, who first studied the decline of the guano islands off of Peru and noticed the environmental effects on birds in the first place to commercially develop, Long Island, New York. He solved the riddle of the missing guano birds-the El Niño warmed the water, killing off the uprising of cold water that produced fish that the birds ate. Vogt would go on to write a well-read anti-population book, the "Road to Survival. As you might guess, the Prophet is essentially dour and negative about our future. Vogt believes that technological progress is hard and no one really knows how to do it or transfer it across cultural norms.
Vogt's model is Lynn Margulies S curve. Put some protozoa in a Petri dish with food and it grows like an S curve, before reaching its end when the food runs out. We can only push so long against nature itself.
I have read the book several times. I can't decide if Borlaug or Vogt is right or if there is a mix of both.
i live in a city and work from home most days. when i go out to dinner, i walk to the restaurant or bar. do i get a tax credit for having a lower carbon footprint than most of the suburban people who will be claiming the $7500 credit for their EV?
You surely should be getting some type of break for proving you arent a piece of crap.
It would be hard to imagine how you could be more out of touch with reality.
Here, since you seem to have missed it: Libs, in general, are in favor of slowing down population growth and even bringing down the planet's population in a gradual, non-catastophic way. It is Conservatives who are, by and large, in favor of endless population growth and argue constantly against the notion that there might be too many people or that we could ever have too many people.
Perhaps this could be a learning moment for you. When you ascribe beliefs/positions that are the exact opposite of those that people actually hold, based upon nothing more than your apparent hatred for "the libs" perhaps it is time to slow down, drop the hatred, and begin the long journey back into the real world.
Who mentioned hate for anyone. Take a deep breath. All that is being illustrated is the nebulous, arbitrary and counterintuitive policy positions taken by the left.
Wow, you still don't get it. Holy shikes!
Your straw man "nebulous, arbitrary and counterintuitive policy positions taken by the left" is simply WRONG. Clear enough for you? What you posited as a position of the left was in fact 100% completely a position of the right.
Do I need to say that more slowly for you?
And if hatred is not responsible for you getting that so unbelievably WRONG, then what is the explanation? Why were you so magnificently clueless in your post and so eager to assign a mind-bogglingly stup!d position of the right to the left?
Imagine that global population declined by, say 20% every 33 1/3 years. So, from roughly 8 billion today, down to 6.4 billion by about the end of 2055 then 5.12 billion 33+ years later, 4.1 billion 100 years from now, etc.
It would take over 600 years to get down to 100 million people. Are you suggesting that a species with a global population of over 100 million is in imminent danger of extinction? Or are you suggesting that during those 600 years humans couldn't possibly adjust their governance and incentives to align to the emerging realities of the changing population?
Because the only other possibility is that your comment is id!otic and, well, absurdly alarmist.
I've seen some getting laid references lol. Can assure you that isn't the issue.
My issue is the tax breaks for EVs, writeoffs for having kids, tax vouchers for people who live in districts and want to apply the $ to a private school. Why cant I take a voucher to reclaim my property tax $?
Property taxes ARE deductible. And you get other tax breaks for being a homeowner whether you have kids or not.
Sluggish economic growth is irrelevant. For quality of living concerns, what matters is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
And as far as "good environmental news", where is this "good environmental news?" With close to 8 billion people on the planet, no population is ever enough for the population explosion zealots.
Plenty of good environmental news: we use less land for agriculture than we did 30 years ago despite a lot more people eating and fewer starving (due to better farming methods). Greenhouse gas emissions have declined in most industrialized nations despite greater energy consumption. (Developing nations will follow the same curve in 10-20 years.) Land covered by forests has steadily increased in developed nations for 100 years or so, since we plant more than we cut down. We use less raw of most raw materials, by doing things like replacing heavy copper wires with lightweight fiber optic cables. In other words, people keep inventing ways to do more using less resources, at a faster rate than population growth. Paul Erlich famously saw none of this coming and thought everything would just become scarce and super expensive.
I respect your posts, in general. So I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
But your claims appear to be false and/or misleading.
1) We (humans, worldwide) use MORE land for agriculture than we did 30 years ago, not less. (numbers I have seen from 1986 - 2016)
2) Overall greenhouse gas emissions have increased nearly every year for several decades. Claiming that "developing nations will follow the same curve" is not legitimate news. It is speculation.
3) Land covered by forests has decreased worldwide continuously for centuries. Again, narrowing the focus to developed nations does not present the global picture accurately and this whole discussion is regarding global population and related environmental issues - NOT local population and environmental issues.
Like I said, I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you really haven't shown much in the way of "good environmental news", looked at on a full global scale.
And mentioning Paul Erlich is a bit like mentioning Al Gore and saying that Al Gore making some claims that turned out to be false shows that global climate change is a hoax.
Who mentioned hate for anyone. Take a deep breath. All that is being illustrated is the nebulous, arbitrary and counterintuitive policy positions taken by the left.
Wow, you still don't get it. Holy shikes!
Your straw man "nebulous, arbitrary and counterintuitive policy positions taken by the left" is simply WRONG. Clear enough for you? What you posited as a position of the left was in fact 100% completely a position of the right.
Do I need to say that more slowly for you?
And if hatred is not responsible for you getting that so unbelievably WRONG, then what is the explanation? Why were you so magnificently clueless in your post and so eager to assign a mind-bogglingly stup!d position of the right to the left?
Resorting to insults. Thanks, you've shown your hand.