Agreed. What can be worse than having a comment to the effect of "if x is -1, which is feasible, this will cause undefined behaviour resulting in a crash". For most people this stings more than enough.
Does anyone really care about the environment? It's in front of our eyes every day. Supermarkets have superfluous packaging. They have fridges without any doors on pumping out cold air constantly. We have advertisements sucking energy constantly. Bitcoin uses a significant chunk of the world electricity? It's "innovative"! Massive commutes to completely pointless jobs where companies compete to deliver the pointless service before employees travel 90 minutes back to their inadequately insulated home.
If someone came down from space to visit us and we said we are trying to fix the environment they'd laugh.
We are in this mess because our system inexorably leads to it. We've been in this mess since we adopted this system. We have to ditch it.
Nope this guy has a good job. Not about mobility. This is about rentiers. People need to read "Progress and poverty" by Henry George. Land prices are the issue.
Not having a job isn't the only way to move down a tier. I think what a lot of cohorts are feeling (the economy is broken) comes down to (1) middle class upbringing (2) did the things middle class kids are supposed to do, like college, "professional white collar job" (3) results are worse than expected.
People's expectations can be set all sorts of ways, but the most obvious is comparatively to the group they believe they are or shoybe part of. Ie, parents, friends...
This is all at the personal level. There are also macro trends and dynamics in the economy overall. Haven't read George, but Picketty (recent Nobel laureate) has a very good theory for this. I don't know how George uses "rentier" but "returns to capital" probably encompasses.
It depends how tight the rental market is, if there is a lot more demand than supply it is possible that the full increase would be absorbed in rental increases.
Caring for her own children, she would instill her values as they grow. Her children would most likely get a love of knowledge and a determination to accomplish long-term tasks. Since she can produce many children, the number of people with these values experiences exponential growth from generation to generation.
If she instead outsources love to an immigrant from the third world, that other person will instill third-world values in the children. The likelihood of the children taking after their mother is greatly reduced, down only to any influence of DNA. The culture is not passed on. When fewer than two of the children take after the mother, there is an exponential decline.
In general, your direct impact on the world in nothing compared to the impact that your children can have. This likely applies even to the greatest scientists, and without question it applies to a random ordinary PhD.
What does this even mean? Please elaborate your hierarchy of cultures and their “values.” What about all the wildly successful and educated children of immigrants from these countries who are in the US now?
Do you have anything to support any of these claims? And how does the number of children I choose to have impact my likelihood of being a "helicopter parent" or my ability to contribute to "more science"?
If you think nothing is more valuable than "raising happy kids", have you committed to that position? Do you have a job, or are you a full-time stay-at-home parent? If not, why?
Yes. I was a full-time-home-parent, and now I'm just remoting from home. That being said, there are many valuable things I'm not doing - they don't become less valuable by that, only I do. (for example, it would have been valuable to complete my code now instead of writing this reply)
It depends. As we know intelligence is highly heritable and an extremely large component of one's productivity, it may make more sense, in terms of having an impact, for extremely high-IQ people to focus on have a large number of children, especially considering how rare having a large number of children is among those with high IQs.
If intelligence is a mix between nature and nurture, why not support both? Good child care and good education...
Smart people having more kids is not the full solution, but it is a part of the solution, and a neglected one. People already talk about improving education a lot. But it seems that education can only go so far -- some children get better results unschooled than other children get in schools.
If the marginal income tax rates were lower sure, but once you add in how much gets taken off the top by the government and how much child care costs, it really doesn't justify most jobs that make less than 6 figures.
At the same time, they're not earning income. They're also losing out on experience in their field, putting them at a disadvantage when they do go back to the workforce.
