From my understanding, state subsidies for child rearing have been shown to increase fertility, countering the “liberal mindset” attributed to declining birthrates.
The concerns you raised with an aging population (reduced productivity, less great minds, foreign competition) would seem to support not only subsidizing child rearing, but targeting this subsidy for higher-productivity groups (measured by say, income or IQ). In which case, increasing the population through immigration wouldn’t be sufficient to address those concerns. Rather, such a child rearing subsidy would be targeted to people in higher classes to increase “their” fertility. Thoughts on an elite-targeting child welfare program?
That's a bold proposal, undoubtedly. Without taking any explicit stance on this myself, I think that such a program would hardly pass any test of "public justification" and maybe would even be deemed anti constitutional in some countries. Interestingly, I have not seen this idea promoted by pro-natality libertarians who tend to emphasize the social relevance of IQ (eg. Caplan).
Of course it wouldn’t be sold that way. In the US, the child subsidy can be taken in the form of a deduction, which would be worth more to wealthier people and worth little/nothing for people with little/no federal income tax liability.
I think the public justification for such a proposal would depend on its results (does it help address the issues you raised with a lower birth rate). It may be acceptable for someone with the same concerns about fertility but who doesn’t want a child subsidy that acts as a sneaky form of welfare. I don’t have an opinion myself on it, but it doesn’t seem so unjustified on its face.
Notable fact (based on Australian data) There are currently about two people aged under twenty or over seventy for every three people in between. This ratio will barely change between now and 2063.
Most of the demographic panic is based on mental categories inherited from a century ago, when men worked from 15-64 and didn't live long after 65
These are indeed important points. In a way (as I implicity suggest in the text), contemporary concerns about demography say more about the fact that the view that Western civilization is in decline is increasingly shared than they reflect a real decline (for the moment, at least).
From my understanding, state subsidies for child rearing have been shown to increase fertility, countering the “liberal mindset” attributed to declining birthrates.
The concerns you raised with an aging population (reduced productivity, less great minds, foreign competition) would seem to support not only subsidizing child rearing, but targeting this subsidy for higher-productivity groups (measured by say, income or IQ). In which case, increasing the population through immigration wouldn’t be sufficient to address those concerns. Rather, such a child rearing subsidy would be targeted to people in higher classes to increase “their” fertility. Thoughts on an elite-targeting child welfare program?
That's a bold proposal, undoubtedly. Without taking any explicit stance on this myself, I think that such a program would hardly pass any test of "public justification" and maybe would even be deemed anti constitutional in some countries. Interestingly, I have not seen this idea promoted by pro-natality libertarians who tend to emphasize the social relevance of IQ (eg. Caplan).
Of course it wouldn’t be sold that way. In the US, the child subsidy can be taken in the form of a deduction, which would be worth more to wealthier people and worth little/nothing for people with little/no federal income tax liability.
I think the public justification for such a proposal would depend on its results (does it help address the issues you raised with a lower birth rate). It may be acceptable for someone with the same concerns about fertility but who doesn’t want a child subsidy that acts as a sneaky form of welfare. I don’t have an opinion myself on it, but it doesn’t seem so unjustified on its face.
Notable fact (based on Australian data) There are currently about two people aged under twenty or over seventy for every three people in between. This ratio will barely change between now and 2063.
Most of the demographic panic is based on mental categories inherited from a century ago, when men worked from 15-64 and didn't live long after 65
These are indeed important points. In a way (as I implicity suggest in the text), contemporary concerns about demography say more about the fact that the view that Western civilization is in decline is increasingly shared than they reflect a real decline (for the moment, at least).
To start with an obvious problems, while there are externalities from raising children, there also exist externalities from volunteering in aged care facilities. https://crookedtimber.org/2024/01/17/wont-somebody-think-of-the-old-people/
I've written lots against the claims made here, starting with this.
https://insidestory.org.au/the-ageing-alarmists-wont-let-go/