Humans have long respected a reciprocity norm: after A does something nice for B, then B is expected to do something nice for A. Yes, how nice a response, and how strongly or visibly we expect this, varies with context. For example, it depends on the prior relation between A and B, on who is aware of these nice things, on the relative costs to A and B of their nice things, on the kinds of nice things done, on if A was authorized to do their nice thing, on if A did their thing hoping for a reciprocal response, on if A could have or did propose an explicit trade, and on if B accepted such a proposal.
No. Most people are completely incompetent when it comes to parenting. The average person will be neglectful or just completely ignorant if they try to be parents.
While we tolerate the concept of unconsented "reciprocal obligations" for practical reasons, because they either foster social harmony at little cost, or have an overwhelming social advantage, or simply prove too practical to do otherwise, we are generally careful to enforce them as little as possible, and to formalize what we intend to enforce as weakly as possible.
There is also at least one fundamental difference between the usual reciprocal "obligations" and having been created. While you often could reasonably choose to live elsewhere, not participate in events with disagreeable expectations, lobby to change trade law or even not own a house... there is nothing one can conceivably even attempt to do to prevent or alter their birth. Nor is there any possibility to foresee and prepare for any of the attending "obligations".
"You owe your parents grandkids" is more akin to walking into a store only to see a post-it note in the back saying "if you are in this store, you must now buy everything in it at the prices I set", except someone also moved you into the store while you were sleeping.
As far as I am concerned, Parents unilaterally take a big chance with somebody's life when creating a new person, and if any burden should be placed upon the parties, it should lie almost exclusively on the parents, within the bounds of practicality.
Parents should be expected to reasonably and temporarily assume the role of caretakers, maximizing their offspring's well being for they caused its existence. This responsibility should not be viewed as unlimited and may offer them incidental benefits, but none should be required by them. Benefits to parents are not owed. They are freely consented or fortuitously accrued.
Jesus Christ dude. I've read your book The Elephant In The Brain so I know you're capable of writing great things. But this is frankly insane and incredibly stupid.
The biggest problem with what you've said is that most people simply aren't qualified to be parents. Being a parent is a very serious job with a lot of moral responsibility that most people aren't suited for. It's like being a pilot. You wouldn't tell random strangers off the street who would probably crash a plane if they were in charge of one that they're being bad by not flying planes. So why say the same thing about parenthood?
The best I can come up with is “he takes umbrage with currently-accepted calculations of real income”, but his unwillingness to be explicit about this makes it very hard to engage properly. FWIW, I don't think you were condescending—your efforts to engage were very charitable. Better risk feeding a few trolls than bite someone's hand off for naive honest curiosity.
No problem, but perhaps I can leave you with this: you wrote “real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much”. In economics, that statement is self-contradictory. “Real income rising” means that it can buy more stuff - by definition. What you were complaining about can’t possibly happen.
You said: "real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much". You're still confused. What you probably meant was "nominal income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much". We all agree with that! Nominal income has risen hugely - but that hardly matters. What matters, as you say, is real purchasing power. That's why the important data reported is real income, not nominal income. That is already corrected for inflation, and reflects actual purchasing power. Please read the data I quoted again, from your very own link! "Inflation-adjusted" income has risen from $70K to $85K. "Real income rising" already takes into account actual purchasing power. Your concern is correct, but everybody already agrees. You are still radically misunderstanding the true state of economic history. Real wealth has increased tremendously - not just nominal wages.
To be specific: you can afford "a home ... and college" today ... if you're willing to accept the level of quality for home & college that previous generations endured. You could not improve your actual experience of home & college by travelling back in time. (Similarly, you have access to some expensive medical treatments today that were not available at any price a generation or two ago.)
[epistemic status: meh... would like to see more data for my claims, but cannot be bothered to prove what I already think I know]Yes, I agree that we are richer in monetary terms.
But the current generation is continuing the longstanding trend of being physically weaker than the previous one. So the physical toll of bearing children is far harder to bear. Today's generation is physically and mentally stunted by an enforced sedentary lifestyle and associated obesity.
If you model the cost of childraising to be mainly a physical and mental toll, having an absolutely larger amount of purchasing power would not be relevant to offset the modern loss of function in physical and mental capabilities. You cannot make up for those deficits by throwing more money at the problem.
I didn't write the article, so if someone made (what you think are) errors it was not me. Anyway, real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much.
What I do think matters: health care affordability, college affordability, childcare affordability, housing affordability, income inequality.
And I don't agree with your "actual question" re what matters. I don't care if I have less money in my pocket; if I can actually afford a home and medical care and college for my (nonexistent) kids, it would be a better situation for me. (not saying I want to go back in time; women's rights were far worse)
And I don't measure lifestyle value in terms of iPhone availability. (I don't have an iPhone anyway). We clearly value different things about life so it doesn't make much sense to go back and forth about it.
You're really just making some fundamental economic errors here. Even your own link says: "inflation-adjusted median household income data ... millennial households at age 40 ... are earning $85,000. That's more than Gen X earned at that age, $77,000, as well as boomers, who earned $70,000." So real incomes have risen significantly.
Your quote about the fraction "of America's wealth" is irrelevant. That's data about relative wealth at a single point in time, but we're instead discussing changes in absolute wealth across generations.
The actual question is: if you could time-travel 25 or 50 or 100 years into the past, would you be able to earn more material wealth at that time than you can today? The answer is clearly "no". (Do you have an iPhone today? Good luck getting equivalent value in your lifestyle 25 years ago!)
Have you read this? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0423-7_6
No. Most people are completely incompetent when it comes to parenting. The average person will be neglectful or just completely ignorant if they try to be parents.
Hey, Three recessions!:1) Dot-Com (2001)2) GFC (2008)3) Current New Recession--Not Yet Named (2022)
It doesn't matter if you think the moral value of life is finite, since the moral value of death is 0. Therefore, the difference is infinite.
No, life is finite so the difference can't be infinite, unless you make other weird assumptions.
BTW, I wrote a long nuanced comment a week back and it's been deleted. Not sure why. Disqus seems to swallow comments.
The moral harm of not existing is infinitely higher than the moral harm of existing but having irresponsible parents.
While we tolerate the concept of unconsented "reciprocal obligations" for practical reasons, because they either foster social harmony at little cost, or have an overwhelming social advantage, or simply prove too practical to do otherwise, we are generally careful to enforce them as little as possible, and to formalize what we intend to enforce as weakly as possible.
There is also at least one fundamental difference between the usual reciprocal "obligations" and having been created. While you often could reasonably choose to live elsewhere, not participate in events with disagreeable expectations, lobby to change trade law or even not own a house... there is nothing one can conceivably even attempt to do to prevent or alter their birth. Nor is there any possibility to foresee and prepare for any of the attending "obligations".
"You owe your parents grandkids" is more akin to walking into a store only to see a post-it note in the back saying "if you are in this store, you must now buy everything in it at the prices I set", except someone also moved you into the store while you were sleeping.
As far as I am concerned, Parents unilaterally take a big chance with somebody's life when creating a new person, and if any burden should be placed upon the parties, it should lie almost exclusively on the parents, within the bounds of practicality.
Parents should be expected to reasonably and temporarily assume the role of caretakers, maximizing their offspring's well being for they caused its existence. This responsibility should not be viewed as unlimited and may offer them incidental benefits, but none should be required by them. Benefits to parents are not owed. They are freely consented or fortuitously accrued.
Most humans in history tried to be parents, and would have done a decent job had they been allowed to.
Jesus Christ dude. I've read your book The Elephant In The Brain so I know you're capable of writing great things. But this is frankly insane and incredibly stupid.
The biggest problem with what you've said is that most people simply aren't qualified to be parents. Being a parent is a very serious job with a lot of moral responsibility that most people aren't suited for. It's like being a pilot. You wouldn't tell random strangers off the street who would probably crash a plane if they were in charge of one that they're being bad by not flying planes. So why say the same thing about parenthood?
The best I can come up with is “he takes umbrage with currently-accepted calculations of real income”, but his unwillingness to be explicit about this makes it very hard to engage properly. FWIW, I don't think you were condescending—your efforts to engage were very charitable. Better risk feeding a few trolls than bite someone's hand off for naive honest curiosity.
No problem, but perhaps I can leave you with this: you wrote “real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much”. In economics, that statement is self-contradictory. “Real income rising” means that it can buy more stuff - by definition. What you were complaining about can’t possibly happen.
I'm wasting my time here, and you seem to be a very condescending person.
You said: "real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much". You're still confused. What you probably meant was "nominal income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much". We all agree with that! Nominal income has risen hugely - but that hardly matters. What matters, as you say, is real purchasing power. That's why the important data reported is real income, not nominal income. That is already corrected for inflation, and reflects actual purchasing power. Please read the data I quoted again, from your very own link! "Inflation-adjusted" income has risen from $70K to $85K. "Real income rising" already takes into account actual purchasing power. Your concern is correct, but everybody already agrees. You are still radically misunderstanding the true state of economic history. Real wealth has increased tremendously - not just nominal wages.
To be specific: you can afford "a home ... and college" today ... if you're willing to accept the level of quality for home & college that previous generations endured. You could not improve your actual experience of home & college by travelling back in time. (Similarly, you have access to some expensive medical treatments today that were not available at any price a generation or two ago.)
[epistemic status: meh... would like to see more data for my claims, but cannot be bothered to prove what I already think I know]Yes, I agree that we are richer in monetary terms.
But the current generation is continuing the longstanding trend of being physically weaker than the previous one. So the physical toll of bearing children is far harder to bear. Today's generation is physically and mentally stunted by an enforced sedentary lifestyle and associated obesity.
If you model the cost of childraising to be mainly a physical and mental toll, having an absolutely larger amount of purchasing power would not be relevant to offset the modern loss of function in physical and mental capabilities. You cannot make up for those deficits by throwing more money at the problem.
I didn't write the article, so if someone made (what you think are) errors it was not me. Anyway, real income rising doesn't mean much if it can't buy as much.
What I do think matters: health care affordability, college affordability, childcare affordability, housing affordability, income inequality.
And I don't agree with your "actual question" re what matters. I don't care if I have less money in my pocket; if I can actually afford a home and medical care and college for my (nonexistent) kids, it would be a better situation for me. (not saying I want to go back in time; women's rights were far worse)
And I don't measure lifestyle value in terms of iPhone availability. (I don't have an iPhone anyway). We clearly value different things about life so it doesn't make much sense to go back and forth about it.
You're really just making some fundamental economic errors here. Even your own link says: "inflation-adjusted median household income data ... millennial households at age 40 ... are earning $85,000. That's more than Gen X earned at that age, $77,000, as well as boomers, who earned $70,000." So real incomes have risen significantly.
<img src="https://fred.stlouisfed.org...">
Your quote about the fraction "of America's wealth" is irrelevant. That's data about relative wealth at a single point in time, but we're instead discussing changes in absolute wealth across generations.
The actual question is: if you could time-travel 25 or 50 or 100 years into the past, would you be able to earn more material wealth at that time than you can today? The answer is clearly "no". (Do you have an iPhone today? Good luck getting equivalent value in your lifestyle 25 years ago!)