Based Camp - The Truth About Falling Fertility Rates and Misleading Statistics

00:00:00.000 hello simone today we are going to do a very very very statistics heavy episode on fertility rates

00:00:07.360 and it's going to be a collection of statistics to focus on just how bad the situation has gotten

00:00:14.480 with a lot from zvi's fertility roundup number four i love his fertility roundups yes

00:00:21.120 fantastic stuff and a lot coming from random graphs and stuff like that they didn't find a

00:00:28.360 fit into another episode what we're going to find as we go through this is two overarching

00:00:35.000 theses one is the people who thought that this was going to level off this year or we were going to

00:00:41.040 begin to see signs of it slowing this year we're wrong there is very little evidence that that is

00:00:47.000 happening uh but this is what the un and the urban monoculture claims every year here i'll put a graph

00:00:51.620 on a screen of the un's yearly predicted fertility rates in which you'll see as it's like going off

00:00:57.540 a cliff in every country and every year the un's like this is the year it's just going to stabilize

00:01:01.120 out of nowhere so i think that we're seeing that narrative is being broken and then the other big

00:01:07.340 thing that we're seeing is a reinforcement of what we have said from the beginning is that culture is

00:01:14.700 the only realistic way to fix this and every solution that you attempt that is not cultural

00:01:21.060 whether it is making houses cheaper or making people earn more or even forcing one partner to

00:01:27.740 live at home is not going to resolve this issue it's just going to make things worse

00:01:32.860 right which seen in the statistics but what we'll see as you hear is we'll continue to see this in the

00:01:37.720 statistics so the first errant tweet here that i wanted to go over that i thought was really

00:01:42.500 interesting as he was commenting the culture is all too eager to tell us that children or even

00:01:47.560 marriage will make us miserable when it is not even true if you discount the long term the latest

00:01:52.820 example of this where there was a widely distributed claim in a new book that said married women are

00:01:58.080 miserable because they report being unhappy when their spouse isn't around but what the study actually

00:02:04.620 meant by quote-unquote spouse absent was no longer living with them not stepped out of the room

00:02:12.220 which is the way he implied it he's like when a spouse isn't looking over their shoulders they say

00:02:17.060 that they're less happy but what it really meant when the spouse is dead they're less happy

00:02:21.560 yeah missing presumed dead yeah i'm probably less happy goodness gracious wow but i love that a lot

00:02:29.880 of people like i actually remember when that stat was going around and i was like that's pretty wild

00:02:35.060 that seems really out of line with what i've seen in my i don't know but i think what made it actually

00:02:39.600 work and what made so many people misunderstand it is this implication that when the husband's back

00:02:46.200 is turned when he's out of earshot suddenly people say other you know wives say different things 0.99

00:02:51.080 it's exactly the trope that was pulled in that ballerina farms article that they that that they

00:02:57.240 later categorized as a hit piece implying that when hannah's husband left the room wait sorry is her name

00:03:04.360 hannah when when the husband left the room that she then talked about getting an epidural and then 0.60

00:03:11.580 talked about how it was kind of awesome and it was just great and then that there's this understanding

00:03:17.120 that spouses will say very different things about their partners when their partners are not present

00:03:22.200 so yeah i don't know i i can understand how people definitely believed that and were very very

00:03:28.220 credulous but it's so man it's a case study and how this stuff can be used to mislead people i hate it 0.69

00:03:35.220 yeah so you are happy you're married by the way you know these these people are lying to you but

00:03:41.080 they need to have you believe so much of this movement is just cope around when i say this

00:03:46.120 movement i mean the parts of the urban monoculture which glorify a single lifestyle cope around failing

00:03:50.940 to secure a partner just as much as a lot of the incel movement is when they act like women are evil or 1.00

00:03:56.820 like these demonic creatures destroying society when if you look at voting patterns that just isn't true

00:04:02.980 of married women it might be single women are evil and destroying society but married women are on 1.00

00:04:09.160 team civilization okay so but actually do you have any thoughts on that point simone on sorry on which

00:04:16.180 which point that this view that sort of the incel migtau parts of it movement have of women that they are 0.84

00:04:25.760 the force of evil that has created the urban monoculture and all these forces destroying society

00:04:30.280 and i just if you look at statistics around married women that's just not true it's it's really this

00:04:36.140 single woman urban monoculture mind minded person i just see these things as more systemic issues

00:04:44.260 and you know there there are many elements of society that feel more feminized now but that's not

00:04:49.520 inherently the problem it's just a symptom of a larger systemic problem that can't really be characterized

00:04:54.900 by tropes yeah all right so here is an interesting one this is a tweet by melissa carney she says

00:05:02.260 the social security's actuaries are still bullish on the idea that u.s women are going to start having 1.00

00:05:07.220 more babies than they're have than they've been having quote birth rates are assumed to increase from

00:05:13.960 recent very low levels to an ultimate level of 1.9 children per woman for 2040 and thereafter

00:05:21.020 why she says the trustee continue to assume that recent low birth rates of period fertility are in

00:05:29.240 part indicative of a gradual shift towards older ages of childbearing for younger birth cohorts quote

00:05:35.500 marco jurek when we say our core societal institutions are fragile and dysfunctional because they no longer

00:05:42.960 suit the circumstances to which they were designed but cannot change this is what we mean and so here what

00:05:50.100 she's talking about is other people have pointed out that like institutions like the social

00:05:55.760 securities actuaries were created during a time of stable fertility rates and they just can't make the

00:06:01.160 math work if they actually show what's really happening so they keep saying oh women are just choosing to have 1.00

00:06:07.020 kids later which we know from the data isn't true and i'm going to put some graphs on screen here that show

00:06:12.600 both what they're the what we're seeing right and so you can see the the birth rates going down per

00:06:18.540 generation but here if you look at the age of birth by the various age groups which now i'm putting on stage

00:06:26.100 here what you're seeing is it is not moving later yeah no and this is such a simple thing to think through

00:06:32.220 someone sitting there looking at a massive spreadsheet or whatever and trying to model out

00:06:37.520 things and needing to make the numbers work because if you can't make the numbers work people are going to get

00:06:42.120 really mad and make a big fuss and it's going to ruin your entire week because you just don't want to think

00:06:46.380 about it that much so you find a way to make the numbers work and then you find a narrative to

00:06:49.880 justify that many anyone basically anyone who's been involved in any kind of modeling has probably

00:06:55.380 gone through that at some point which makes me very dubious of almost all modeling because just

00:07:00.760 i think it gives people this really false sense of security like oh in the models it all works out

00:07:06.240 can't you see this is the predicted trajectory of of this company's performance or social security

00:07:11.500 and oh my gosh it's so people don't realize what thin ice we're on right yeah and i think that say

00:07:19.400 it's not just about modeling it's about who has was in the urban cultural ecosystem permission to like

00:07:26.140 blow the whistle on this right so like you work at the so you're a social security actuary right

00:07:31.320 and you're doing your report for the year and you could project what any rational person would 0.97

00:07:37.420 project and then basically just submit a report that says you know we're fucked right like this 0.90

00:07:43.460 isn't going to stay solvent do you culturally have permission to do something like that like

00:07:48.920 as a social security actuary do you have the permission to be the one to sort of wake up society and be

00:07:55.620 like but you know we're really screwed and i don't feel like they feel like they actually have permission

00:08:02.500 to be that person that's something that needs to sort of be said from a position higher or within

00:08:08.700 an administration that is going to be more favorable to that like if i was a social security

00:08:12.920 actuary in the trump administration i'd be much more likely to be like okay fertility rates are actually 1.00

00:08:17.500 a massive issue without worrying about my job if you wrote that i mean they'd be fired right yeah i don't

00:08:24.460 in the government though i can't imagine people getting fired for things like this

00:08:31.340 it's just you're not is is what would it happen okay so imagine you do the actual social securities

00:08:37.300 math and a u.s branch of the government a fairly boring one puts out a report that basically says 0.65

00:08:43.640 we're fucked due to falling fertility rates that then becomes a media storm yeah because all the 0.91

00:08:49.480 right-wing media is going to jump on it and how is the left-wing media going to reflexively react to that 0.99

00:08:54.000 they're going to reflexively say it's not true or they did the math wrong they're they never yeah

00:08:59.880 i guess they're going to maybe scapegoat that person to say this person intentionally was negligent

00:09:07.840 and don't they realize of course then someone's going to retroactively figure out how to fudge the

00:09:12.060 numbers to make them work and retroactively build a narrative as to why that's obviously true

00:09:15.960 there's going to be a rebound this person didn't count for that in cnn there's going to be all of

00:09:22.860 these phds who come in and the phd is going to go up and say well this is how they did it wrong and

00:09:28.780 then they'll have a panel of phds all arguing they all agree that that one actually is of course yeah

00:09:34.200 but but like maybe this is an issue we should at least have on the discussion board which is so

00:09:40.080 interesting to me that now that the issue is becoming more public one of the things i always hear

00:09:45.260 is well malcolm and simone were right about the whole fertility rate thing but they're wrong in

00:09:52.820 the way they've been presenting it you know they've been going out there saying that only people like

00:09:57.340 them should have kids only tech elite should have kids you know what we really need is a more like

00:10:02.700 communitarian form of prenatalism that like it involves everybody who's willing to participate in

00:10:07.780 it and it's like that's what we've been doing from the beginning you just don't want to admit that

00:10:13.120 we were right from the very beginning about not just the message but the way it was presented

00:10:19.000 yeah and to keep going i thought this was an interesting point that was made

00:10:25.480 your periodic reminder that we tax marriage which also means we tax fertility we do it less than we

00:10:31.680 used to but we still very much do it when you tax something you get less of it niskanen center

00:10:37.900 the u.s tax code disproportionately discourages marriage among middle and low income we need to

00:10:44.240 fix this they offer a variety of proposals at the core of this is a basic set of arithmetic problems

00:10:50.400 it is not difficult to adjust the numbers such that it almost always is beneficial or at least

00:10:56.540 neutral to be married especially when there are children involved so right now it is not for middle

00:11:02.760 and lower class individuals indeed if we cannot do better there is a very obvious solution raised

00:11:08.940 based rates as needed to compensate and then allow married couples to file as if they were unmarried

00:11:14.460 if they calculate that it is cheaper end of penalty and i i really like that like that's an easy quick

00:11:20.120 fix married couples should be able to file as if they are unmarried there is no logical reason in america 0.87

00:11:26.520 why we should be taxing married couples more especially low income married couples more well

00:11:33.120 no this this specifically disproportionately affects middle income so low income you get a benefit from

00:11:38.240 marrying and then a high high income you get a benefit from marrying but middle you get the penalty but 0.98

00:11:43.160 again that it doesn't matter you should get no penalty for marrying because marrying in general seems to

00:11:48.080 benefit society well in middle income is where we have the big fertility crash in america especially 1.00

00:11:53.720 among the american white population yeah yeah there's the very inverted curve when it comes to

00:11:59.780 income and fertility and i i cannot imagine like if you want to talk about like the rot of the urban

00:12:07.180 monoculture that anyone isn't just like this isn't a bipartisan issue to just get this off the books

00:12:11.880 i think shows often i hear progressives and they're like well our party isn't actually doing the evil stuff

00:12:18.140 like that's just like what a few extremists are saying online and i'm like your party has literally

00:12:23.460 made it so that married middle income people are taxed more than single ones they really are 0.59

00:12:28.900 pushing the urban monoculture in a way that's destructive to the individual and that no logical

00:12:33.720 argument other than distribution of the urban monoculture could yeah also funny here you could

00:12:43.960 argue that this is a line you know we pointed out in our why the racist left trump video that

00:12:50.240 a lot of the traditionalist right who had like racialist or anti-gay marriage or anti-women

00:12:57.900 messages like oh you shouldn't you know women are the cause of all evil you shouldn't get married 1.00

00:13:02.420 anything like that a lot of them turned against trump right before he the election and were like

00:13:06.920 everybody needs to not vote for him or vote against him and that they have mostly been pushed out of

00:13:13.580 the right coalition and that they should be leftist now because the left is structuring it in a way

00:13:23.320 where no logical person would want to get married so being so anti-marriage seeing marriage as a trap

00:13:29.680 that women have laid for men should they not be supporting the democrats at this point

00:13:34.140 i mean with the four b's you even have the celibate women and everything now it's a it's a perfect 0.95

00:13:40.740 match i can't hear you by the way sorry and he was making noises i totally okay here i'm going to be

00:13:49.620 reading an abstract from a paper which i thought was pretty interesting children require care the

00:13:54.400 market for child care has received much attention in recent years as many countries considering subsidizing

00:13:59.760 or supplying child care as a response to dropping birth rates however the relationship between

00:14:04.220 child care markets and the fertility gap the difference between the desired and achieved

00:14:07.640 fertility is yet to be explored we build upon previous work by investigating the regulation

00:14:12.500 of child care and fertility gaps across the u.s states our results consistently show fewer child

00:14:19.840 care regulations are associated with smaller fertility gaps this suggests that women are better able to 1.00

00:14:25.240 achieve their fertility goals in policy environments that allow for more flexibility in child

00:14:29.600 care options and lower costs your child care regulations must be really harmful if parents are

00:14:35.720 responding by having noticeably fewer children this is as clear a message as you can get listen the

00:14:42.220 potential changes are big and this isn't the abstract this is v extrapolating from the data in the

00:14:47.800 abstract they estimate that if you shifted from the highest level of regulation connecticut to the lowest

00:14:53.820 of the lowest level of regulation in the lowest level of regulation in the lowest level of regulation

00:14:55.780 the total fertility rate tfr would rise from 1.51 to 1.7 or 13 percent if every state moved to

00:15:05.140 Louisiana's level we would see a roughly 38 percent improvement or a 5 percent increase in fertility well and

00:15:12.940 probably the economy would be better off people would be happier and better off to regulatory bloat this isn't it

00:15:20.300 amazing how regulatory bloat suppresses not just economic growth and and building and infrastructure

00:15:28.180 development and fixing things but also literally human life that it is it is suppressing

00:15:33.780 like the uk right like i i do love what you're saying here right like this idea that regulatory bloat

00:15:41.120 and bureaucracy is smothering of human potentiality not just in our inventiveness but in the very birth of

00:15:47.180 more humans so sad oh gosh it's it's it's sad and damning but i do think it is the inverse of

00:15:54.760 vitalism the vitalism that we need and that's why it's so important the job of institutions like doge

00:16:00.420 and stuff like that yeah oh i'd note how bad things probably are in the uk in regards to this they have

00:16:06.100 some of the worst child care regulation in the world with you essentially needing like a call

00:16:11.220 multiple people it was like college type degrees overseeing children in daycare centers

00:16:17.180 because well you can't even have for example your neighbor watch your kids in the uk because of

00:16:22.600 regulation you have to have some kind of certified professional watch your kids which that imagine how

00:16:30.000 unsustainable child care is now and this is i think a relatively new rule since the 90s because there was

00:16:36.600 some tragic and genuinely sad incident of a child being watched by a neighbor or something or children

00:16:42.900 being watched by a neighbor and one of them died but think of just the number of children now who will

00:16:49.220 never exist because it is so unsustainably difficult to raise kids in the uk now and this

00:16:55.680 brings me to something that uh we've said before but i really need to pound home and make sure this isn't

00:17:01.320 our policy doc by the way simone is that any policy that is meant to protect children's lives

00:17:07.220 need to weigh how many children don't exist because it was implemented so a policy doc that says

00:17:14.640 something like you know child seat certification like x many children's lives will be saved by this

00:17:20.720 also needs to calculate the number of children who are functionally going to be killed because

00:17:24.700 they don't come into existence

00:17:26.120 that kid but why they are replacements of people who had their existence consumed

00:17:37.560 by denizens of the crimson world it's the same with uh regulation around caring for children it's the same

00:17:44.760 with any of that can you actually make a note to add that to our policy doc yeah because that's really 0.94

00:17:51.120 powerful and under one of our videos the if you have under three kids you are definitionally a cuck

00:17:56.860 because you're below replacement rate video the top comment for a while i don't know if it still is

00:18:01.820 but i found it really powerful and it argued that we should see having two kids as having zero kids

00:18:10.260 because that's slightly below replacement rate like having two kids in our society should be considered 0.99

00:18:15.580 having slightly fewer than zero kids having one kid is having negative one kid and having

00:18:21.100 zero kids is having negative two kids it's burdening society with your existence and that you really

00:18:27.260 only get to you know one kid or two kids once you are above the two kid mark you know so when you have

00:18:35.020 three kids you have slightly less than one kid when you have two kids you have slightly less sorry when

00:18:39.860 you have four kids you have slightly less than two kids um and i think that that conceptual framing

00:18:44.540 difference is the way we will raise our children to think about kids

00:18:48.120 all right now i'm going to read a tweet by more births you can see it pulling from a huge diversity

00:18:57.240 of sources here today in this tweet he says did you think fertility couldn't get any lower than south

00:19:02.680 korea's seemingly impossible 0.72 births per woman in 2023 macau is trending towards

00:19:08.280 0.49 births per woman in 2024 lesson number one don't build like macau if you want your country to

00:19:18.380 have a future by the way more birth thing really like the guy we were actually had him over at our

00:19:23.360 place just last weekend him and and robin hansen and the woman who wrote hannah's children we had them

00:19:29.520 together and we we chatted a lot about fertility rates catherine and they his core bugaboo in the

00:19:36.740 same way that ours is culture is property prices and the way that you build he really thinks that

00:19:42.620 like tall buildings are suppressive of fertility i just do not agree at all like it clearly has an

00:19:49.120 impact but as for example israel became more dense their fertility rate also increased like

00:19:54.080 where you see high fertility cultures they are just completely immune to this so like why are we

00:19:59.520 pretending that this is an issue i don't know that's my take on this well it's the bigger thing

00:20:04.800 we've discussed as well is solving housing policy is one of those things of like yeah and you know

00:20:11.700 while we're at it let's you know make nuclear energy pervasive but it's not you know this isn't an

00:20:18.140 easy to solve problem whereas producing regulatory bloat is within our reach it's a stretch goal but

00:20:24.020 it's feasible well same with cultural change like cultural change at the family level at the

00:20:29.240 individual level at the level of our listeners our people that's possible and yeah and then i'd also

00:20:36.640 he at birth gauge had tweeted and this was in a retweet new update i guess we can forget any recovery

00:20:43.920 this year for now and it was a fertility rates by country and you just see red across the board i'll put

00:20:49.840 it on screen here but basically just across the board

00:20:53.100 all right now we're going to look at some things from lyman stone that zvi uh brought up which i

00:21:01.500 thought were pretty interesting so he says i looked at the nl sy 1979 cohort the housing data

00:21:09.400 that's readily coded kind of sucks it's basically metro versus non-metro to homeowner versus not live

00:21:16.680 with parents live on own or gqb but gq but we can untangle some major indigeneity because nlsy gives 1.00

00:21:28.800 us one fertility preferences surveyed before exit from parental household or adulthood two sibling

00:21:35.940 numbers three childhood religious environment all potentially huge confounds driving endogenous

00:21:42.960 selection so if we start with just housing related variables this is what we get turns out more

00:21:49.840 years in metro areas maybe boost fertility and more years as a homeowner reduces fertility this is bizarre

00:21:58.180 for me but look at the effect of living with parents note this graph is for men not women but they look

00:22:04.880 similar so really bizarrely here what this shows is living in metros when you control for other things

00:22:13.860 actually increases not decreases fertility for a period of your life and you and i lived in a metro

00:22:21.160 for a period and then left and i assume that that's what we're seeing here as to why it would increase

00:22:25.960 fertility a lot of people can be like how could that possibly make sense in the day i have a really

00:22:29.900 instant intuition what's yours it's very hard to find a partner outside of a city exactly yeah you

00:22:36.260 find your partner in the city and then you get out as soon as you're ready to have kids so it may turn

00:22:41.460 out money find a partner the cities are actually critical to getting fertility rates back up because 1.00

00:22:49.120 they're the only environment where there are lots of single young people around and if you try to date in

00:22:54.860 a rural area you're just not going to find a partner well even keep in mind like we talk about

00:22:59.100 bringing back the london season it was the london season it existed because it was a time when parliament

00:23:04.960 was in session the house of lords was in session and all these families happened to be in london at the

00:23:10.320 same time even though they typically lived in really dispersed rural manor houses and estates so

00:23:16.740 even in the past cities really mattered when it came to matchmaking and a transient time in a city

00:23:24.340 was important for matchmaking so that is really enlightening and helpful well yeah and if a

00:23:30.080 young person came to me and they're like i have decided to avoid cities because you know urban

00:23:36.480 monoculture hellholes how do i find a partner i'd say well you're not going to you need to go to a city

00:23:41.680 like that would be my advice not even partner at university or college you have to find them

00:23:46.960 at a city yeah i'd say basically if you're not if you haven't found the person you plan to marry by the 0.95

00:23:52.720 age of 25 you should be in oh shit territory and you should be grinding for it at that point

00:23:57.860 like that's like the point of a video game when you get stomped by a boss and you need to go in the 0.88

00:24:02.360 woods and start grinding to get your level up you are under leveled for life if you do not have the

00:24:08.540 person who you are going to marry in front of you around the age of 25 and i think that our society

00:24:13.420 right now the the heuristic that i would use for most young people is if you don't know who you're

00:24:18.360 going to marry by the time you graduate college you should be panicked yep wait by the time you

00:24:24.780 by the time you graduate from college graduate from college like if you leave a college environment

00:24:30.160 where you had tons of single people around your age similar socioeconomic income similar education

00:24:36.640 level uh and you were unable to secure a partner you immediately need to be panicking at that point

00:24:43.300 you you need to say because it's going to get infinitely harder in the real world and so if

00:24:48.460 you weren't able to find one in that environment it means that there was something systemically wrong

00:24:52.940 with you or how you were trying to secure a partner yeah and people can be like but it's just so hard

00:24:59.680 these days it's like it doesn't matter that it's hard these days right like it's like somebody comes

00:25:05.120 to me and they're like i'm a discriminated minority in my country and they really are a discriminated

00:25:09.700 minority in their country and so i'm like okay well then you have to work twice as hard you have to work 0.94

00:25:12.880 three times as hard you have to work four times as hard for the same it takes a while we had a friend

00:25:16.840 who maybe one or two years maybe even two years back moved to austin and was looking really really

00:25:23.660 hard for a partner and now we just got word of the engagement and that's great and it's perfect

00:25:29.700 she was grinding for it though yes and that's an attractive popular semi-famous woman who has been 1.00

00:25:36.940 grinding for a potential husband for years at this point and i think that the young men who are like

00:25:44.480 oh the women just aren't considering me they're being delusional that they are being absolutely 1.00

00:25:50.400 delusional actually brett cooper did a thing on this recently where she's like yeah i know a lot of young 0.66

00:25:55.680 women who are like i want a male who's good to marry and i can't think of a single young male that i 0.87

00:26:02.320 would introduce them to and brett cooper's a fairly based person right like you know she's not like

00:26:08.320 simping here for males and it's the same with us we know more females looking for husbands that we 0.99

00:26:16.640 struggle to match than we know young men looking for wives that we struggle to match um i don't know

00:26:23.640 you see it about equal or i think it's equal yeah and i think that for the most part

00:26:28.840 the biggest problem is a mixture of not trying hard enough and having unrealistic expectations

00:26:35.840 which is the worst combination you could possibly imagine to both have incredibly high standards and

00:26:40.820 not really be doing a high throughput i mean it's one thing if they're like yeah i'm dating at least

00:26:45.760 one person one new person every single night of every single day of the year doubling up on weekends

00:26:51.240 but i also have very high standards i'd be i would say that they have a long battle to fight but

00:26:57.260 they can probably get something because they're being so prolific in their attempts what i'm hearing

00:27:02.560 from people now though is oh i have incredibly high expectations and oh maybe three dates a month

00:27:09.540 a month i mean you're not even going to find a two at that rate true and i also go on to say here

00:27:16.100 i would say of the young males we know at least so of the males of this young generation right now

00:27:23.280 um i don't know any that have made it to 30 and we're seriously looking for someone to marry who

00:27:29.500 haven't secured a partner typically what i i am finding is that young men that are serious about 0.67

00:27:34.460 working to improve themselves have a life plan have their shit together they're typically finding

00:27:40.320 marriage partners that are really solid i won't say that's true for every young woman i know but i 0.98

00:27:44.240 will say that's true for most young men i know who have their shit together the ones who who don't 0.99

00:27:49.040 i'm often embarrassed to tell them like you really don't have your shit together you just are 0.99

00:27:53.220 pretending like you have your shit together aren't we all though not really anyway so then he goes on 0.99

00:28:01.060 to say i have told you people repeatedly this is the problem and it remains today in fact the problem 0.97

00:28:07.420 the young people must have their own houses so he's really against because if you correct for things

00:28:14.180 here people living at home right like it what's interesting though is if you correct for religion

00:28:21.300 and siblings and everything like that uh living with your parents is not that big an effect

00:28:26.060 isn't that interesting yeah but i i think that this is not about getting young people houses

00:28:34.020 i think this is about changing cultural norms about having uh finding a partner when you're living with

00:28:39.600 your parents like for our daughters i would not hugely well i don't know what i say like a guy

00:28:46.120 basically doesn't have his shit together if he's still living with his parents depends on how rich

00:28:50.000 the parents are depends on what he's doing with life yeah i i guess i'm kind of okay with the people 0.75

00:28:57.600 still living with their parents being removed from the gene pool even if it causes a major fertility crash

00:29:01.580 it depends on the circumstances in my opinion but yeah i think if if one is if someone is living with

00:29:10.620 their parents but could immediately move out and live on their own then it's a very different thing

00:29:18.480 some people live with their parents just to really quickly pay off student debt for example or save up a

00:29:25.220 lot of money to get a down payment on a house because it just makes more sense and that makes sense for

00:29:30.000 example if you have a job in the bay area and your parents live there i could see and i didn't do this

00:29:36.740 right i got my own apartment in the bay area regardless but i could see a lot of value in continuing to

00:29:42.720 live with your parents so that you don't have to pay rent for an apartment in the bay area to bide your

00:29:47.400 time to either get something really good maybe buy property or just get a different job and leave

00:29:53.120 california entirely right so there there are there are reasons why i would be okay with it but i would

00:29:59.600 want to know that that person was capable of moving out immediately if they wanted to and they were only

00:30:04.960 living at home with their parents because it was financially responsible for some reason does that

00:30:08.880 make sense so to continue okay but these are kind of dumb controls to be really savvy we don't just

00:30:16.620 want a control variable we want an interaction say does the effect of home ownership vary based on

00:30:23.620 preferences yes it does this is for women with all other controls entered for women who desire zero or

00:30:31.220 one child so women with quite low preferences one extra year of home ownership is associated with a 1.00

00:30:37.060 considerable decline in fertility but as desires rise so does the effect this kind of looks like home

00:30:44.160 ownership is associated with a modest improvement in correspondence between desires and outcomes at

00:30:50.140 least for people at the extremes i can tell you the same effect appears if i use metro status more

00:30:56.460 years spent in metro equals lower fertility for women with zero to one desires higher fertility to women

00:31:02.020 with three plus desires on the whole the results are a lot more favorable to density than i expected

00:31:07.820 them to be cc more bursts that said the measure here really are oblique quote

00:31:13.940 do you own a home in quote quote are you in a metro area in quote in quote do you live with your

00:31:19.280 parents in quote none of these are quote unquote high density so what you can see here is that owning

00:31:26.540 your own home and the number of years you own your own home actually increasingly suppresses fertility

00:31:32.740 for low fertility preference individuals likely because it's increasing stability um but increases

00:31:39.000 fertility for high fertility individuals and it's the same with living in a metro area

00:31:43.740 living in a metro area it decreases fertility of your low fertility preference but increases fertility

00:31:49.400 of your high fertility preference which again would ally with what we're saying like people who have 0.99

00:31:53.840 shit together it's just a higher standard of having your shit together is expected for this generation 0.99

00:31:59.640 than previous generations i think that's really what's going on here yeah well and i think i'm living in 0.99

00:32:05.260 a city with intention is like using psychedelics with intention right like a lot of people can

00:32:13.100 take psychedelics and have a weird trip and nothing really changes with their lives and then other

00:32:18.260 people can go into psychedelics with severe ptsd or other serious problems and come in with a really

00:32:23.760 good plan and then really good therapy afterward and like come at a way completely changed better person

00:32:28.580 with a more functional life and i think cities are like that you can just be in a city and kind of

00:32:33.200 sit in rotten one and it's a it's an experience it's the urban experience or you can go in with a

00:32:37.860 plan and follow up and follow through and change and then then you get out and you're good you're

00:32:44.620 changed forever you have your partner you have your life together you have your family but you have

00:32:48.460 to go into an urban area with intention and not just hedonism and a broad interest in maximizing

00:32:55.900 your financial gain which seems to be the default reason for entering a city i agree with that yeah

00:33:02.360 so to continue here other times it's easier to identify alex curtis i just met a 72 year old

00:33:10.920 woman who's been telling me about her life best quote she said you can either have a house and kids or 0.99

00:33:17.480 you can fly first class i want to fly first class i find her inspiring oh well you want to fly first

00:33:26.820 class the moon but we never do you take that as that's what we do for kids well what i what i i

00:33:33.340 understand that reasoning and i completely understand that mindset but then when i think about it and i

00:33:38.840 think about the number the percentage of my life that i spend on a plane every year versus the percentage

00:33:44.620 of my life that i spend living every day day to day the typical routine

00:33:49.380 the percentage of time i spend on flights is not worth an entire like forgoing

00:33:55.760 the most powerful thing yeah i mean i think this is a really great framework because of what could be

00:34:02.700 more indolent millennial urban monoculture than wasting money on first class it's such a transient 0.98

00:34:09.380 pointless selfish thing very similar to claiming everest right we have our video on that that that it is

00:34:16.380 i think indicative of to say i cannot make indulgent pointless expenditures if other people are relying

00:34:25.160 on me so i will choose here's my thing i really okay my argument for business class it's a little

00:34:32.680 different from everest some people do just fly business class to flex but i see it as akin to getting

00:34:40.200 anesthesia during a medical procedure or maybe maybe more similarly getting nitrous oxide during

00:34:49.240 like a dental procedure right you you can you can get through it fine uncomfortably but fine without

00:34:57.880 nitrous oxide but with it man like it would you don't even remember it it was it's just fine i mean it's

00:35:05.000 it's what you're saying is i would pay anything i would deny anyone in life to have the right to

00:35:09.960 their life to avoid discomfort yeah and which of course isn't justified but i'm just saying it's

00:35:15.620 different from everest you're saying it was no it's not it's not an everest thing it's a it's a

00:35:19.960 it's it's a hedonistic avoidance of discomfort and pain issue for many people which i respect but

00:35:26.720 also if you're a little bit less myopic about your pain which is difficult i think when you're in the

00:35:34.080 urban monoculture because it's all about avoiding pain you'll realize that the upside potential

00:35:40.480 of the the joy that family and children give to you and the meaning that your life gets and the

00:35:45.760 the extent to which actually on aggregate your pain and suffering and anxiety especially with a larger

00:35:53.120 family just becomes such a small percentage of your mindscape because it's so full of everything else

00:36:00.040 with your family that there's no room for the anxiety there's no room for the discomfort

00:36:03.720 that it's it's a silly trade-off to even think about making of course it's better to have a

00:36:08.640 family well it's something that you've talked about which i i find really interesting here is

00:36:12.500 also you would just not want to travel anymore because you've entered a state of your life where

00:36:17.520 our home and our life is so high quality that you view leaving it even for vacation and i feel the same

00:36:25.220 way is nothing but work and a burden but i think that that shows how our life is different from the

00:36:31.600 life of the person who opts into the urban monoculture belief system they find pleasure in taking a break

00:36:39.100 from their lives from getting in a plane going somewhere else and doing something other than what

00:36:44.660 they built for themselves whereas we would always take more pleasure from our day-to-day lives than we

00:36:52.020 would from leaving them hmm yeah anyway back to the stats here i'm going to put a graph on screen

00:36:59.720 and this is lyman stone here talking owd heads this section by saying quote fertility first falls

00:37:07.640 within development and then rises with development building on this uva student maxwell trabrock

00:37:14.120 argues that quote maximum progress can prevent declining fertility if society advances enough

00:37:21.880 fertility will rise again i mentioned maxwell because i did a twitter thread recently rebutting this

00:37:27.080 piece i did so because i was asked to do so by others but ultimately maxwell did an impressively good

00:37:33.140 job of putting together the u-shaped argument in one specific place since writing the thread i've had

00:37:39.940 requests to formalize the argument a bit more this that's what this is lyman stone my basic thesis is this

00:37:48.200 the view that more growth will boost fertility again is wrong it is based on seriously outdated

00:37:54.680 underlying research doesn't fit the actual empirical facts of the case well and it leads to theoretical

00:38:00.680 confusion which inhibits clear understanding of how fertility actually works and i agree with that

00:38:07.160 you just don't see this you cannot develop your way out of this issue unless you have ais creating and

00:38:14.920 raising kids any sane person would know that like if you look at your ultra developed ultra urban

00:38:20.900 monoculture friends these groups fertility rates is like 0.2 like it's so astonishingly low having even

00:38:27.740 two kids is considered quite a lot by some of these groups um so then he goes on to say so do we have

00:38:36.180 evidence on lifetime disposable income yes we do from sweden fertility rises with men's income and has

00:38:43.720 basically forever meanwhile women's incomes are pretty much totally unrelated to fertility whoopsie 1.00

00:38:49.700 and women's earnings are negatively related to fertility and i'll put some graphs on screen here

00:38:53.360 by the way this is lyman stone so just so people know and we've pointed this out before lyman stone

00:38:58.180 heavily biases anything he's looking at to try to argue that it's a really weird thing it's like being a

00:39:04.960 flat earther of the pro natalist movement that low income doesn't lead to higher fertility and that high

00:39:10.280 income generally doesn't lead to lower fertility and if you look here he had to find like one

00:39:15.260 obscure country where this is the case sweden to make this point but he's about to pull out some 0.88

00:39:20.380 data which makes our point which is that culture is everything which i'll get to in a second

00:39:23.500 so every kind of income is pro natal except for women's wages women's interest income business income 0.71

00:39:31.380 and rental income welfare income support from husband or family all probably pro natal earnings

00:39:38.320 no that's really interesting so women getting income from nothing or from not working he argues 0.96

00:39:46.520 is increasing fertility rate i think that's because he likes the idea of women living at home he really

00:39:51.760 likes this oh for sure yeah and that's what he's trying to argue even though he doesn't have any data

00:39:56.320 that supports this actually the data supports the opposite when women win the lottery their fertility

00:40:00.360 went down and this would be uh equivalent to you know like rental income business income welfare

00:40:05.880 income like it's a random cash deposit we also know from the big study on cash handouts that was done

00:40:12.940 on universal basic income didn't increase female fertility so he's just making something up here i guess

00:40:18.420 uh earnings no on the other hand you might look at the nearly universal rule of species that status

00:40:25.760 predicts reproductive success you might look at the stable male earnings fertility gradient

00:40:30.480 and suppose that high income will usually predict high fertility this is my view high income will

00:40:36.140 usually predict high fertility uh except it like doesn't in most countries in like that he had to

00:40:42.220 choose sweden to make this work is really i i think sort of the exception that proves the rule

00:40:46.520 so just so people understand how insane the statement you might look at stable male earning fertility

00:40:52.420 gradient and suppose that high income would usually support high fertility this is my view high

00:40:57.100 income will usually predict high fertility is just look at these charts here right this is between

00:41:03.560 country fertility rates this is with in-country fertility rates almost no matter how you slice it

00:41:08.500 lower income and this is between and within countries is predictive of higher fertility rate but then he goes

00:41:14.760 on to say which i think is interesting here is the relation between income and fertility is culturally

00:41:20.540 determined income has a relation with fertility but it's not income to fertility either up or down it's

00:41:28.960 income times culture to fertility okay i do agree with this the problem is is that the dominant

00:41:35.120 culture on earth the urban monoculture has a negative number attached to that culture times income to

00:41:43.180 fertility outcome which means that the only way to fight it is with cultures other than the dominant 1.00

00:41:49.260 culture which means it's culture silly any thoughts before i move forward there no the answer here is 1.00

00:41:59.520 it's the culture stupid it's the culture stupid yeah and so here we're back to zvi again 1.00

00:42:05.740 perhaps one could say that income relative to expectations or societal positions predict 1.00

00:42:10.600 individual fertility that seems like an actual mechanism as you get higher income perhaps excluding female

00:42:16.820 labor income because of the substitution problem relative to the perceived financial cost of children you get more

00:42:22.840 children the problem is that if rising income also raises perceived costs more you go backwards as it does in the

00:42:29.940 urban monoculture this is really interesting because the urban monoculture is at its core like a consumerist culture

00:42:34.260 as you get more income it's always going to say that the first thing that you should be spending it on is signaling

00:42:41.120 class status instead of anything like genuinely meaningful and so it's going to lower the fertility 0.91

00:42:47.760 rate because you're going to be more interested in signaling class status her core argument is that

00:42:54.240 what we actually have here is simpson's paradox that what's going on is the compositional changes in

00:43:02.000 income cohorts are creating a u-shaped curve that isn't a good way of understanding the situation and here i am

00:43:08.560 putting some graphs on screen here where i think what we can really see the answer from this final

00:43:15.840 graph which is like a graph i always wish it existed and i'm glad we have it here what this graph shows

00:43:20.800 is the u-shaped curve of fertility rates where you see them going up again at high levels of income

00:43:26.320 but it shows the population size of each one of these incomes as well and you see that basically no one exists

00:43:34.160 within the level of wealth you need for that to increase fertility rate and that is above half a 0.97

00:43:40.160 million to a million a year in household income now here's something that's really interesting if

00:43:45.680 we're talking about korea that i didn't know korea is very low fertility and we often talk about saving

00:43:51.840 korean culture and everything like that it's that korean culture for whatever reason makes large businesses 1.00

00:43:58.640 more productive than they should be and small businesses less productive than they should be

00:44:03.520 they are a chibol culture chibols are these giant mega corpse that are in korea where like you'll live 1.00

00:44:08.720 in like a samson apartment with a samson fridge and a samson computer and a samson internet connection

00:44:13.040 that makes samson boats it's it's weird and dystopian if you've ever lived there from the oh it's kind of

00:44:18.400 cool but yeah sure it is kind of cool i feel very much like i'm in like akira or something whenever i'm

00:44:24.240 there i'm like oh so i have to put my samson card to open the door for my samson building and yeah

00:44:30.400 they're tracking me all the time so great but anyway so so here it says while small to medium

00:44:36.400 sized businesses are rarely as productive as large ones it's striking how unproductive south korea's

00:44:42.240 small businesses are compared to those in western nations the oecd for example found small

00:44:48.160 service sector firms in korea are 30 as productive as larger firms with over 250 workers in the

00:44:56.480 netherlands and germany it is 84 to 90 respectively similarly the asian development bank found that in

00:45:04.640 2010 small korean firms with 5 to 49 workers were 22 as productive as firms with over 200 workers so in

00:45:14.160 most countries it's like a 20 or 10 hit in productivity in korea it's like an 80 or 90

00:45:20.480 hit to to productivity and i think this culturally shows how much korea is optimized for both collectivism

00:45:27.360 and to work in these giant giant giant firms which is interesting to me and i i think that there's

00:45:34.480 probably something to that that we'll probably dig deeper in the next time we look at korean fertility

00:45:38.480 statistics yeah that's interesting okay so next here we are looking at a list of wealthy people's

00:45:47.280 names and this person matthew iglesias is saying small sample but at the top end but larry ellison

00:45:54.400 and larry page each have two kids zuckerberg gates buffett volmer and brin each have three bezos has four

00:46:00.960 arnold has five and musk has seven when they're talking about the wealthiest people in the world right

00:46:05.360 in the us i suppose i would see this is really bad you should not live in a society where a number of

00:46:11.760 the wealthiest people only have two children that basically means they're aiming for what's normative

00:46:17.840 i would go so far as to say that if you are at the level of hundreds of billions of dollars

00:46:22.880 wealth that you should probably have multiple wives well one that's not legal in the united states 0.63

00:46:30.720 i think it would be very functionally does he does and there are other people in society who are

00:46:39.200 proudly advertising the fact that they have multiple wife not wives women who are pregnant 0.98

00:46:46.640 with their children just sent us that tweet from what was this tweet some rapper who is very proud

00:46:54.880 about the fact that he has like six women concurrently pregnant i i wouldn't imagine the the effect of

00:47:00.880 that are going to be entirely genetically positive it's just not sustainable in the same way like i i get

00:47:07.920 it i historically yes very resourced men have typically had a lot of children either very publicly or 0.65

00:47:17.920 privately you know kings of england and france had all these bastard children for example who were

00:47:23.040 recognized with varying degrees but they weren't they they were not they had no genetic advantage

00:47:29.200 over there like they may have from some sort of historical reason but it's not like they competed

00:47:33.680 in a meritocracy and ended up on top yeah i just yeah i is gonna happen okay i suspect that the moment we

00:47:44.880 get artificial wombs working really well we will have some billionaires begin to just mass produce 0.99

00:47:52.640 children yeah mass educate them mass give them nurturing so you'll have some that's producing

00:47:58.880 like 20 kids per year or something like that this is something where if somebody did that and they

00:48:03.440 were looking for somebody to run this facility that is my dream job so let me know i will make sure

00:48:10.640 very few of these kids end up totally messed up oh my god

00:48:14.160 i i i don't know i think that there are some people who just from an ideological perspective

00:48:23.840 want to spam children but that most of the billionaires who have larger families and i even

00:48:30.800 like anyone people of any level of wealth do it because they love their children and they

00:48:36.880 want to give their children a good life and they like spending time with their kids and when you change

00:48:41.200 it to this horrible reason to have kids oh horror you you don't kids aren't pets you don't have them

00:48:48.320 because of how they yeah they're not pets they're they're humans they're people you're bringing full

00:48:52.960 people into the world i may deserve you shouldn't have kids because of the emotional states they generate

00:48:58.560 in yourself no but you should be because you're willing to commit to raising and bringing a new person

00:49:04.000 into the world and yes very very well resourced people can do that by bringing in a ton of staff and

00:49:09.920 stuff it's just that after a while it becomes so abstracted from you personally that i kind of

00:49:15.600 feel like you're missing the point i think that there's a sweet spot so consider my childhood right

00:49:20.560 i spent very little time with my parents i spent a lot of time being raised by maids and stuff like

00:49:25.360 that you still spent a lot of very formative experiences with them and if you had 50 siblings

00:49:31.440 you would not have had that no you have been very shaped by formative experiences you have been gaslit

00:49:37.840 by my parents a little bit here who have not presented an entirely i've seen your home videos

00:49:42.160 i mean you've had enough to have formative experience this is exactly what i'm talking

00:49:45.520 about gaslighting simone home videos can be chosen for the maybe a few hours a year i would have spent

00:49:52.800 around my parents i have read about the amount of time that elon spends with his kids i absolutely guarantee

00:49:59.120 guarantee you that on average elon is spending twice as much time with any of his kids as my

00:50:05.280 parents spent with me and my child and my point is that he has about the right number of kids i think

00:50:08.880 he's 11 kids right and i think that's about the right number i think that no the point i'm making

00:50:13.840 which i don't think you're okay if if he spends twice the amount of time with his kids as my parents

00:50:18.240 spent with me right and i grew up very much seeing my parents as my parents my parents is the culture that

00:50:26.000 that i'm taking myself my life from i don't even remember the names of some of the maids who spent

00:50:32.080 years you're saying what you're missing is that the kids brains are biologically coded to know who

00:50:40.240 their parents are among the caregivers and culturally code to them

00:50:47.360 yeah i agree with you so you're indicating that a number between 10 and 30 is is optimal no i mean you're

00:50:55.760 you're really no i'm not arguing you think it's like 100 you think it's 200 that just doesn't

00:51:00.240 easily get to 100 or 500 in the age of ai there are various reasons why i don't like that i don't

00:51:06.720 like the lack of genetic diversity in that i i think that we're better off in society if if if one

00:51:15.200 billionaire had literally 10 000 kids it would do nothing to earth genetic diversity literally zero he 0.93

00:51:24.880 wouldn't even be 0.0000001 percent of earth's population right but we're not talking about

00:51:32.720 that we're talking about ultimately if if artificial booms became widely available there would be

00:51:40.240 you know 250 billionaires who are doing that and then suddenly there's this non-trivial percentage of

00:51:46.240 the future population that no it is a trivial do the math this is something that people don't do when

00:51:51.360 they make this genetics argument is they literally like they're like hypothetically that means 50

00:51:57.360 of the next population could all be a handful of people's kids and i'm like no even if every

00:52:03.280 billionaire on earth was doing this it would still be under 0.01 of earth's future population

00:52:10.400 like you're not running the actual numbers in your head here simone it would be completely trivial

00:52:17.280 and keep in mind that by the time it became an issue we would have genetic engineering to fix any

00:52:25.040 potential issues that this was causing even if it became an issue which it very is unlikely to become

00:52:31.520 an issue and in addition to that we this next generation like when this is happening this is when

00:52:38.160 they'll be able to train ais on uh books like if somebody wanted to train an ai on you and me for

00:52:44.320 example given the amount of content we put out there that ai would probably be within like 10 to

00:52:49.760 5 percent of uh being able to replicate our answers our parenting style in terms of how it interacted

00:52:57.440 with a kid just due to the sheer volume of information on us the idea that you cannot clone a parent

00:53:03.920 anymore is just factually wrong please can't you just leave the child with huggy stop calling him the 0.94

00:53:11.840 child richard his name is rocket and i'm not leaving him with your crappy robot sally why that's almost 0.67

00:53:19.280 churlish you can't replace family with a robot richard we need real human affection that's why huggy's 0.84

00:53:26.960 programmed to simulate its sweetness oh yes yes perhaps the fresh air will uh calm the female 1.00

00:53:37.200 uh hmm real human affection perhaps a pill or a burst of gamma radiation yeah i mean maybe this is just

00:53:47.280 you know intuitively not what feels right for me and i respect that sometimes logic is just

00:53:58.960 not in concordance with someone's intuition and feelings and i feel like if one of our kids ended

00:54:06.560 up doing this and one of our kids ended up i would talk with them about it i would you would try to

00:54:16.080 dissuade them from having more kids the same way my mom did with me no no because your mom was all about 0.99

00:54:24.160 putting in resources that i don't think really matter i mean i really this this is so against

00:54:29.680 everything that i stand for aesthetically so i think you can understand that i'm not fronting here

00:54:35.120 but i really think that children deserve a lot of very warm love and care and unique mental space of a

00:54:44.160 parent and when you have 50 plus children the fraction of them like you're gonna start having trouble

00:54:51.760 keeping track of who's who and what their names are and what their favorite colors are and i just feel

00:54:57.280 like if you're gonna bring someone into the world they are entitled to a certain proportion not just of

00:55:04.160 your wealth not just of your resources but also of your mindscape and maybe this is the difference

00:55:10.240 between men and women i mean obviously you evolutionarily as a male have been programmed on a

00:55:16.320 very deep level to spam and to just not give a like you can like you are just designed to have

00:55:24.240 as many kids as possible and genuinely not care whereas i have been you know evolved to be very

00:55:31.040 careful about the the quality and resources that each kid can can be given because typically it's the

00:55:40.080 women who are left with the kids and it's the men who walk away so i understand why you have the

00:55:43.520 mindset that you do and why none of this is what you're saying i might have a genetic predilection

00:55:48.320 to this mindset but i think that you're being overly sentimental and mythologizing the role of the

00:55:55.040 parent when a lot of this parental love can be simulated you can't replace family with a robot richard

00:56:02.640 we need real human affection that's why huggies program to simulate it sweetness this one is from

00:56:10.640 laura left finir well i have to ask you like would you be willing to i don't know like look one of

00:56:18.560 our kids are our living kids now in the face and say like hey i'm now going to send you to a facility 0.85

00:56:24.800 and you're largely going to be raised by other people and you know we're not going to live our

00:56:28.960 life together anymore and you know you're gonna have do you have any idea what my childhood was like

00:56:35.840 i was taken away from my parents at around the age of 12 stopped living with them after that i

00:56:42.080 never lived with them again i first lived in a prison system complex saying yes i lived at a

00:56:48.240 pre-preparatory boarding school for middle school and you're saying that was ideal yes it was better than

00:56:54.480 i know i literally i know all the other kids of rich people in my neighborhood all of them are drug

00:57:01.840 addicts they're od'd they're waste yeah as are many of the kids that you went to all these facilities

00:57:07.680 and schools with so fewer of them really yes how many of your classmates are thriving right now

00:57:17.920 well not many people are like me simone what i will say is my genetics does well in hardship environments

00:57:25.920 and i'd point out here that this childhood that she is terrified of one of our kids potentially

00:57:30.480 facing is the childhood that created me the person who presumably like i love who i am and she seems

00:57:38.480 to like who i am i would be really happy if my kids ended up like me and even if all of the hardship

00:57:46.400 was a negative even if i maybe could have been a better person without it i still would choose

00:57:54.640 existence plus hardship over non-existence and if through sending kids to a facility i was able to

00:58:00.880 bring more humans into existence of course are you willing to look at those additional kids in the

00:58:06.400 face and say sorry i wasn't willing to bring you into existence because your brother's at a facility

00:58:12.960 functionally those kids are up in heaven waiting on us to have them and you're just leaving them hanging

00:58:19.520 no this isn't cosmologically how i think things work but functionally it's how things work because

00:58:24.560 you're denying a human a right to exist what kind of dance should i do first for mom and dad

00:58:28.800 something classical or cha-cha

00:58:35.600 from what i've heard it's gonna take a while to even learn how to walk so maybe just a twist then

00:58:40.960 and i would be very and keep in mind when i was told this to the kid i wasn't told this like a bad

00:58:51.360 thing it's like oh you get to go to an environment where things are harder and you have more self

00:58:55.600 determination a kid especially one of our kids would love that if you don't frame it as some like

00:59:02.560 negative oh you were going to be away from mommy's hugs and you're like all right buddy now you're turning

00:59:08.240 eight the game gets harder like kids are like oh yeah let's do it like i i you're gonna have to

00:59:16.800 fend for yourself oh when i'm fending for myself i'm gonna do 10 times as good as when mommy and daddy

00:59:22.240 are fending for me you know that is the mindset i went into all this with and i look at our kids and

00:59:28.400 i know our kids like if you're saying our actual kids they'd effing love this in fact i remember like

00:59:36.240 just the other day our kids were playing and octavian took me aside and he goes daddy i need

00:59:41.200 you to go in the other room and look at the computer i was like what and he goes the little

00:59:46.960 ones are playing i need you to go look at a computer um because he knows what's up he he they were having

00:59:57.040 fun and me being around was was was lowering their ability to play so i disagree you make valid

01:00:06.000 arguments i just maybe it's just inbuilt to my biological right so you're like hyper on this side

01:00:18.320 i was an only child yeah and i loved being an only child and i loved having a close relationship with

01:00:22.960 my parents and i i love my parents and i also just have this deep inbuilt intuition and maybe this this

01:00:31.200 happened after i had kids we're just i really think kids deserve and i i am not someone to say

01:00:39.600 that anyone is entitled to anything right but i still think that if you're going to bring a person

01:00:44.080 into the world they are entitled to like a minimal percentage of your overall octavian think about

01:00:50.400 octavian our oldest kid our most cognitive kid if you asked him simone would you prefer more brothers

01:00:57.360 and sisters or more time with mommy and daddy what is he going to answer we can ask him tonight

01:01:06.720 i know i know it's more brothers and sisters you know it's more brothers and sisters you don't even

01:01:11.840 have to ask but we will we will all right so i'm gonna keep going so laura left fender says french

01:01:18.240 fertility rates top ratings in europe not for much for reasons of immigration but rather because

01:01:25.200 fertility among native born women is high and so here you can look at native born versus all women

01:01:30.800 in the country in what you see and what we've always said is that diversity in a country and

01:01:35.680 there's this one study that argues against this but it's like obviously not true if you look at the

01:01:39.600 data like it's so weird to me that people can't tell when people are lying to them with data i'm like

01:01:44.080 okay what countries have the highest fertility rates you're looking at like france and the united

01:01:47.840 states and israel fairly diverse countries which countries have the lowest fertility rates countries like

01:01:51.520 korea and china it's like okay well it's it's clearly diversity especially competitive diversity

01:01:57.840 is good for fertility rates which again we're finding in the data here now i thought this was

01:02:03.200 interesting to understand the cult of the host so this is talking about japan and host clubs

01:02:08.720 this was tweeted by jordan schneider we have to start with two statistics i'm sorry if you don't know what

01:02:13.920 a host club is it's a place where women in japan go to pretend to sort of date guys 1.00

01:02:20.000 like they buy pretty host clubs are basically bars or nightclubs in japan staffed by attractive

01:02:27.040 male boyfriend experience type people you select one when you get there and then one or two it's

01:02:33.200 you know like maybe one to a person and then sit there and drink with them and they make money from

01:02:37.840 the drinks that you purchase and then after that they may even like continue texting you and you know

01:02:42.320 asking you to come back and that's kind of how they make money and that they're a really interesting

01:02:47.760 phenomenon and you should definitely watch some youtube videos summarizing this this economy

01:02:52.000 because it's crazy some women even end up going into sex work because they are trying to support 1.00

01:02:58.320 the the addiction to their fake boyfriend yeah they'll quit their job and they'll go into sex

01:03:03.840 work to support their addiction to their fake boyfriend who works at basically also in sex work

01:03:08.560 which is basically the female equivalent of it which is more of a relationship style experience it's crazy 0.51

01:03:14.160 it is crazy and it is culturally normalized i think is really negative as well yes we can provide a 0.57

01:03:21.520 way to masturbate sort of the boyfriend desire that many japanese women have although i imagine 1.00

01:03:26.000 their host clubs are going to take a major hit as chat ais get more popular i could see that yes i 0.58

01:03:31.200 could also see the government banning them they probably should to be honest they should a lot of

01:03:36.720 women are going to be angry but they probably should yeah well i don't know i mean so this is something 1.00

01:03:40.880 would be like why would you not say that porn should be banned then because there's like no

01:03:44.240 statistics that shows that porn lowers birth rates actually anything if you look at the statistics in

01:03:48.640 the countries where porn is banned porn seems to a woman is very unlikely to be going through the

01:03:54.240 grind of dating and finding a husband if she's going to host clubs and this is not true of men in 0.70

01:03:59.520 porn and despite it's not true women in porn women can read romance novels and still actively be dating

01:04:05.120 but if you are investing in a host club relationship you do not have money or time to date you can only

01:04:10.400 spend your evenings and money on on supporting this this host club relationship which is just so

01:04:16.160 it's so toxic so i you know i typically am not for banning anything but i just i don't really see

01:04:21.040 anyone benefiting from this yeah even even though the the men who work in host clubs are paying huge

01:04:27.520 commissions to the club owner for you know all the all the alcohol purchase they're not being paid 1.00

01:04:32.880 directly they're being essentially paid a commission on drinks purchased at the bar it's it's stupid 0.99

01:04:38.320 yeah more than 60 percent of the japanese women in their late 20s are unmarried double the rate in 0.98

01:04:46.320 the mid-1980s a recent study found that more than a third of unmarried japanese adults 20 to 24 have

01:04:53.600 never dated oh yikes ouch that is wild so so when you consider that 60 are unmarried of of women at that age

01:05:03.760 range and a third of them more than a third of them have never even dated this makes a lot of

01:05:09.120 sense there's just not a cultural system that is pressuring them to go out and interact with guys

01:05:14.160 and they don't feel the need to do this they do not think guys have anything to offer right and i think

01:05:19.680 that this is something that a lot of guys in the west haven't gotten yet they if you increase this

01:05:26.080 narrative of women evil it can get to a point where women just decide in mass i'm not even going to try 0.98

01:05:32.160 anymore yeah because that's what happened in korea and japan yes well japan's doing relatively quite

01:05:39.280 well in east asia it's i don't think it's as bad in japan but in korea certainly it is and and this

01:05:48.000 people talk about the four bees move in and and misogyny being really stuff that is only very

01:05:54.640 serious among extremists but i do think that there is a trickle down effect that it sort of rubs off

01:06:00.240 and gives people general bad taste of the other sex because of these very high profile

01:06:08.320 battles taking place amongst extremists on each side so just because you yourself are not part of

01:06:14.000 the four bees movement if you're a woman in korea you might still be like like women and men hate each 0.67

01:06:18.800 other here right you know this isn't really a place for me to get married i shouldn't really be investing

01:06:23.520 in dating because it's not really great for women right it's not a good overall scheme 0.98

01:06:30.160 one note malcolm that in four minutes i have to jump on that call yeah i was actually thinking about

01:06:34.560 splitting this into two episodes so i am totally okay with that okay yes so people are commenting

01:06:40.720 on how like the conservatives now that they've won are beginning to split and fight amongst themselves

01:06:44.880 a bit more and one of the big areas which i think we've even seen is really the losers of the

01:06:49.840 conservative movement the traditionalists like that you know the the ones who really want to go back to

01:06:55.760 the old ways of doing things they've gotten quite mad about this stacy wojack meme who just acts like

01:07:01.920 a normal wife like you know demands things of her husband sometimes makes mistakes stuff like that 1.00

01:07:07.120 okay oh this is super relatable and they're like oh you guys are owning yourselves and women should 1.00

01:07:12.400 like always serve their husband and like not make any mistakes as a wife and like you're just looking

01:07:16.400 really cucked right here and all the normal like actually married men are like this is the way most 0.91

01:07:20.880 married women are like what are you doing um and it sort of devolved into this it was one faction 0.99

01:07:27.360 apparently sort of being led by nick fuentes which makes a lot of sense i mean you can talk a lot about

01:07:32.400 how a woman should act as a wife if you're not dating anyone you know because then you can say well 0.98

01:07:38.000 this is the ideal wife and i should only continue civilization if i can find this idealized wife 1.00

01:07:42.720 and it's created a huge problem for people i i think we should do an episode on it but it's a little

01:07:48.640 too similar to our don't trust influencers without parents episode which hasn't gone yeah or not

01:07:54.400 which hasn't gone live yet too too similar you can maybe add some annotation to it though about this

01:08:02.720 anyway

01:08:12.720 wow

Based Camp - January 20, 2025

The Truth About Falling Fertility Rates and Misleading Statistics

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript