ETA: @DSeid 2 posts up …
That was not meant as a criticism.
This thread has been running for about 4 months now and what keeps happening is somebody discovers the thread, thinks, “too long; I won’t read”, skips to the bottom, and posts yet again the obvious uninformed opinion.
To which the people who’ve been playing along repeat, once again, the reality. Perhaps with new and different cites, but the same facts. Over and over. Sigh.
It is a long thread and probably the major points have been made a few times by now.
The problem is that, particularly for young children, that seldom works well.
There seems to be this notion that parents working at home have ample ability to multi-task work and childcare. Nope. A lot - most? - jobs are not compatible with an adult taking random bits of time off throughout the day to attend to a child.
IF you have a kid that is self-disciplined enough to attend to an assigned task (chore, school work, hobby) for 1-2 hours at a time yeah, maybe, but that usually doesn’t happen until tween/teen at earliest.
And after each interruption the adult has to re-find their place in their work to resume.
People working from home are WORKING. Just as much as they are in an office.
But then…
There’s no one magic bullet. I think that’s part of the problem when people try to come up with a solution. There isn’t just one solution. Or just two. Or four. There are a lot of factors affecting when and if people have kids these days.
I agree with this. Too many people seem to thinking working from home means you don’t have to actually devote time to work or can do work only in the bits of time that is convenient to you (no meetings, due dates for tasks, etc.). This does not work with most jobs. And sadly, many will expect the WFH person to do everything a non-working spouse would do, behaving as though they don’t have actual employer-based demands just like someone working in an office.
Once kids reach a certain age and only need someone to make lunch and there in case of emergencies, it’s likely to be different, but for a 2 year old, they generally need a lot of attention all day in a way that is not compatible with the worker paying sufficient attention to work if their caregiving and working hours overlap.
Agreed. I personally know a couple who would have had one more child if they had been in a better financial position. I don’t know of any country that gives parents anything close to the full cost of raising kids as a subsidy (including lost salary; opportunity cost is the biggest issue here), and cultural factors are probably the most important thing anyway.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of discussion about it. I should probably get a copy. From what I’ve seen, this is the kind of politics I would support; it’s optimistic about the future and believes we can make people’s lives better rather than reducing living standards, it aims to help everyone instead of only client groups, and it’s positive sum rather than zero sum. Unfortunately, no UK parties are within a million miles of being pro-growth. If you think you’ve got problems…
I don’t know how to promote ideas like this when it’s so far from where we are. There’s huge inertia against it.
Sadly accurate. 
Have you been reading Robin Hanson? He’s written about this.
I don’t think even that would work at this point. People just won’t have sex (IRL; they’ll do sexting and virtual sex instead).
100%. No way would I have been able to work with a 1 or 2 year old at home. Even now she’s 5, I’d have to let her watch hours of TV if I wanted to get any meaningful work done. Working from home does make school drop-offs and pick-ups easier, though.
People will still want to have physical sex. Don’t let the sci-fi bros and incels hoodwink you.
That sounds super interesting, thanks! I’ll have to look for that book.
I haven’t read it myself but I hear good things from credible people that I follow. Noah Smith, for instance:
I am not sure that transhumanism is the answer, but maybe?
Oh maybe he’s not talking about the Diamandis book.
The trends don’t support that statement:
I doubt the data looks any better for the last 5 years.
Hmmmmmmmm
That’s not quite as persuasive as you think it is, especially for the statement I made.
AFAIK quite a lot of young woman have already given up on dating. I think many more would if it meant risking pregnancy. Or they’d just stick to activities that don’t have that risk.
Oh, interesting - Ezra Klein is one of the authors? He’s someone who has been on the periphery of my awareness - he keeps coming up in different contexts but I don’t know too much about him. I started his appearance on Newsom’s podcast, but I didn’t have time to finish it this week.
I suspected I might find something like this
The YRBS only tracks frequency of “sexual intercourse” and does not ask about other sex-related but non-intercourse activities
and this
That’s reflected in grade-level data, which show the largest declines in ever having had sexual intercourse among ninth graders, down a full 20 percentage points since 1991. Twelfth graders, by contrast, have only fallen by 10 percentage points—a disparity that suggests that some rising high schoolers “catch up” to their '90s peers later on.
I’m actually kind of shocked that 40% of 9th graders had had “sexual intercourse” in 1991 - that’s quite a bit higher than I would have thought considering the age but I found the survey questions and they don’t actually define “sexual intercourse” so it’s entirely possible that the people answering the question in 1991 weren’t using the same definition as those answering in 2019.
Starting in 1998, kids started answering the question, “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”.
I had only half listened to the first few minutes earlier in the week, while doing a chore that ended up needing too much of my attention. I went back now, and this book is actually why Ezra is there. I’ll report back after I listen!
Maybe not quite that - but there was his other definition where receiving oral sex wasn’t having sexual relations.
I suspected as much. He’s been doing the media rounds to promote the book. I’ve only heard a few tidbits here and there. One that came up was the disaster that’s been the rural broadband fund. Basically designed from the beginning to make it impossible to carry through.
In Aus, there was an important study/enquiry, the result of which was interpreted by the press as a finding of significant stranger-danger. Far more people read or heard the press reports than ever actually read the 5-volume report. The press reports of “stranger-danger” got that number only by including everybody who wasn’t a [family member, scout master, or school teacher]. The report actually had real strangers as a tiny minority – between close family and strangers was that category of people you know by sight or to talk to, that aren’t including in typical “stranger-danger” programs for young children.
No. I picked up the phrase from a discussion on financial/socioeconomic matters (who’s likely to marry or not - not something to do with fertility rates, I don’t think) some years ago. Quite possibly he was the original source, though.