Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric's avatar
Mar 20Edited

I've mentioned in other replies that I feel the post-war American emphasis on the nuclear family specifically (as opposed to the extended family) was a mistake. Obviously the nuclear family is important, but throughout history most people in most cultures haven't tried raising young children either as solo parents (hardest of all) or just as a married couple without support nearby. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, or if you go back farther even tribes and clans etc played meaningful roles in child rearing. Not only does this distribute the burden better, but it helps children learn to socialize and understand a wider range of personalities and perspectives from a younger age. Now, I don't think the modern "poly" movement is the way to recreate this, as you need strong ties and long-term community continuity with members feeling real investment in the children. Blood relatives have obvious investment in children on average. And even tightly knit tribes and clans, while the children may not have been blood relations, they were still future members of the group who everyone would depend on so there was real incentive to see them grow up and succeed.

Spouting Thomas's avatar

I still don't think emigration is much of a bearish indicator on the US as it stands today. On one level, it is a social trend enabled by technology (both as a consumer and a producer), and perhaps also by the fertility collapse: easier to take your laptop job to Thailand when you don't have kids.

On the other, as economic indicators go, it's actually a bullish one to the extent we're just seeing people arbitrage high US incomes against the low COL of a growing basket of countries that have ceased converging towards US median incomes (and in many cases actively lost ground against higher-end US incomes.)

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?