Car Seats as Contraception (2020)(papers.ssrn.com)
papers.ssrn.com
Car Seats as Contraception (2020)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046
28 comments
> So I think it might be okay for these births to be avoided to save these lives?
The deaths are involuntary. The choice not to have another birth is voluntary. This matters rather a lot, since a lot of the 20th century was spent arguing that contraception should be allowed at all on this basis. Maximising for number of people without considering their crowding leads to squalor, and legalizing and promulgating contracaption across the world has been one of the great liberating stories of the past 100 years.
Now that women have choice, the situation becomes an economic one. If having more people around matters to you economically: you have to make it economically sensible for people to have children. Increasingly there's a cost of living crisis for everyone, and children are a subset of "everyone" that can't make their own income.
Russia hands you a medal if you have lots of children; the UK cuts off child benefit after the second child, as part of an explicit "people shouldn't have children they can't afford" policy. I wonder if anyone added up the "births avoided" of the latter.
The deaths are involuntary. The choice not to have another birth is voluntary. This matters rather a lot, since a lot of the 20th century was spent arguing that contraception should be allowed at all on this basis. Maximising for number of people without considering their crowding leads to squalor, and legalizing and promulgating contracaption across the world has been one of the great liberating stories of the past 100 years.
Now that women have choice, the situation becomes an economic one. If having more people around matters to you economically: you have to make it economically sensible for people to have children. Increasingly there's a cost of living crisis for everyone, and children are a subset of "everyone" that can't make their own income.
Russia hands you a medal if you have lots of children; the UK cuts off child benefit after the second child, as part of an explicit "people shouldn't have children they can't afford" policy. I wonder if anyone added up the "births avoided" of the latter.
I found their dissimilar wording peculiar the 8k gets the qualifier “permanent” but the 57 deaths do not. Glad to hear they would have been temporary deaths, perhaps similar to witches turning people in newts.
I get they are talking about in particular year and perhaps want to emphasize the births aren’t simply delayed but the way it’s phrased is off putting
I get they are talking about in particular year and perhaps want to emphasize the births aren’t simply delayed but the way it’s phrased is off putting
I think “permanent” just means they were not deferred, in this context.
If the births happened next year it would still be an 8k reduction in this year, but not a permanent one.
If the births happened next year it would still be an 8k reduction in this year, but not a permanent one.
Yes that’s what I said… “ I get they are talking about in [a] particular year and perhaps want to emphasize the births aren’t simply delayed but the way it’s phrased is off putting”
>The authors say this like it's a bad thing.
Children have become so expensive to raise in the west that there is _no_ country which is not in demographic collapse. This is being offset by mass immigration which only works so long as the developing world is producing a surplus of people. Something that is no longer happening.
Because of laws like this we have set up a demographics time bomb where in any country richer than India there aren't enough women under 40 to give birth to a generation of the same size as the previous one.
It's rather bizarre listening to people praise a model which is so unsustainable it produces more 80+ year olds than >30 year olds.
Children have become so expensive to raise in the west that there is _no_ country which is not in demographic collapse. This is being offset by mass immigration which only works so long as the developing world is producing a surplus of people. Something that is no longer happening.
Because of laws like this we have set up a demographics time bomb where in any country richer than India there aren't enough women under 40 to give birth to a generation of the same size as the previous one.
It's rather bizarre listening to people praise a model which is so unsustainable it produces more 80+ year olds than >30 year olds.
i don't think it is these laws that reduce the birthrate. as far as i can see the birthrate correlates with living standards and education levels. higher education, access to and knowledge about contraception, more opportunity for alternative entertainment, not needing kids to take care of you in old age, are all factors that lower the birthrate. cost may be a factor too, but i believe that the cost of raising kids in 3rd word countries is still takes a greater part of their income than it is in 1st world countries.
france has the highest birthrate in europe, followed by ireland and sweden. i don't know what ireland and sweden are doing, but i understand that france offers infant daycare, allowing more parents to work.
as for this article, it specifically talks about families getting a third child when they already have two in car-seat age. it looks to me that the problem is not cost, but possibly the fact that many cars can't fit three car seats in the back.
this comment from the original discussion, and the study authors response also seem to support that idea:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24648548
france has the highest birthrate in europe, followed by ireland and sweden. i don't know what ireland and sweden are doing, but i understand that france offers infant daycare, allowing more parents to work.
as for this article, it specifically talks about families getting a third child when they already have two in car-seat age. it looks to me that the problem is not cost, but possibly the fact that many cars can't fit three car seats in the back.
this comment from the original discussion, and the study authors response also seem to support that idea:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24648548
But correlation is not the same as causation. In the past those of means and education continued to raise large families, and in the present exceptions abound. Israel: 3rd most educated country in the world, strong economy, fertility rate of 3. Thailand: about 50% do not even complete high school, relatively poor country, fertility rate of 1.5 - even lower than the US (1.8).
European numbers are largely controlled by Islamic populations. Pew carried out an interesting study [1] on the numbers. The Islamic fertility rate in France is 2.9, the non-Islamic fertility rate is 1.9. In Sweden it's 2.8 vs 1.8. There is no European country with a non-Islamic fertility rate over 2. Ireland is the highest at exactly 2.0.
The fact that these extreme trends exist even within Western countries, emphasize that it's primarily a cultural issue. I am not implying the West should adopt Islamic social views, but the irony is that we will end doing exactly that if nothing changes simply because they are reproducing in healthy numbers while non-Islamic groups are not.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...
European numbers are largely controlled by Islamic populations. Pew carried out an interesting study [1] on the numbers. The Islamic fertility rate in France is 2.9, the non-Islamic fertility rate is 1.9. In Sweden it's 2.8 vs 1.8. There is no European country with a non-Islamic fertility rate over 2. Ireland is the highest at exactly 2.0.
The fact that these extreme trends exist even within Western countries, emphasize that it's primarily a cultural issue. I am not implying the West should adopt Islamic social views, but the irony is that we will end doing exactly that if nothing changes simply because they are reproducing in healthy numbers while non-Islamic groups are not.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...
those are good points, but they don't contradict livingstandards as a cause.
what caused the culture in europe to change?
the islamic population in europe is very young. first and second generation mostly. if living standards and education are the cause it's going to take a few more generations before the effect of that set in.
what caused the culture in europe to change?
the islamic population in europe is very young. first and second generation mostly. if living standards and education are the cause it's going to take a few more generations before the effect of that set in.
Perhaps so, it'll be interesting to see. As for my opinion of what caused culture to change, I think there's a nice way to reshape the question in an identical way. There's the interesting issue of how a middle class individual may state that they can't have kids right now because of the cost. Yet a lower class individual will happily do so and make things work, one way or the other.
Obviously the middle class individuals could afford to have children and make it work if they genuinely wanted to do so, but it might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice. So it all comes down to priorities. So the question isn't why people stopped having children, but why priorities shifted so radically away from what is ultimately the most fundamentally important responsibility of humanity?
In the US from 1960-1980 many things happened. And one of these was a precipitous decline in fertility rates, plummeting by about 50% to where it would roughly stay to present day. It's quite unfortunate so many things happened in such a short time frame, because it enables one to create a reasonably compelling case for nearly any argument, including the common economic and educational (though those have many issues outside of this time frame).
One thing that also happened during that period was a dramatic decline in religiosity. And IMO that left a vacuum for meaning in society. And that vacuum seems to have been filled, for most, by indulgent hedonism that would gradually transition into consumerism. Drugs, the "sexual revolution", and various other issues skyrocketed during this period. This would further transition into the endless pursuit of the ever more expensive next shiny thing, be those Jordans, iThing, or exotic/expensive selfies for social media image crafting.
And what could be more antithetical to this shift in values and priorities than doing something that "might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice"? There's certainly nothing more rewarding or fulfilling than raising a family, but that reward comes at immense cost and time.
---
Ok, I wanted to hit more on how this hypothesis can also work as a casual explanation for the commonly observed correlations (education, income, etc) related to lower birth rates, but this post is already getting far longer than intended.
Obviously the middle class individuals could afford to have children and make it work if they genuinely wanted to do so, but it might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice. So it all comes down to priorities. So the question isn't why people stopped having children, but why priorities shifted so radically away from what is ultimately the most fundamentally important responsibility of humanity?
In the US from 1960-1980 many things happened. And one of these was a precipitous decline in fertility rates, plummeting by about 50% to where it would roughly stay to present day. It's quite unfortunate so many things happened in such a short time frame, because it enables one to create a reasonably compelling case for nearly any argument, including the common economic and educational (though those have many issues outside of this time frame).
One thing that also happened during that period was a dramatic decline in religiosity. And IMO that left a vacuum for meaning in society. And that vacuum seems to have been filled, for most, by indulgent hedonism that would gradually transition into consumerism. Drugs, the "sexual revolution", and various other issues skyrocketed during this period. This would further transition into the endless pursuit of the ever more expensive next shiny thing, be those Jordans, iThing, or exotic/expensive selfies for social media image crafting.
And what could be more antithetical to this shift in values and priorities than doing something that "might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice"? There's certainly nothing more rewarding or fulfilling than raising a family, but that reward comes at immense cost and time.
---
Ok, I wanted to hit more on how this hypothesis can also work as a casual explanation for the commonly observed correlations (education, income, etc) related to lower birth rates, but this post is already getting far longer than intended.
thinking about this some more, i realized there might be a correlation between birthrate and the emancipation of women. that would explain the islamic birthrate, and i also found a paper that argues this for israel. only ireland is a bit more difficult to explain.
Child birth is a traumatic event which has negative impacts on your body for the rest of your life in a large minority of cases. That women choose not to is not a surprise. That a minority choose to is.
The question is do we think that individual decisions should be allowed to kill our society?
If you think it's acceptable to let women do so then do you think men ought to be able to refuse conscription without any consequence in a time of war?
The question is do we think that individual decisions should be allowed to kill our society?
If you think it's acceptable to let women do so then do you think men ought to be able to refuse conscription without any consequence in a time of war?
that is a very strange conclusion. there are way more factors than just the pain of childbirth. if that pain were really an issue, this should be a well known discussion point. since this is not commonly discussed, i very much doubt that it has any influence in the majority of women who decide not to have children.
what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
that's not the kind of world i want to live in.
i think there are a few tv series that show where that leads to.
no, the solution is to help families with children, so that the children are not a burden, but something to enjoy and look forward to.
the USA especially is famously failing at that. european countries are doing better, but obviously way more needs to be done.
as for conscription. we should aim to stop all wars. there should be no tolerance for any aggression today. any aggression should be stopped by a global, neutral police force without exception.
what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
that's not the kind of world i want to live in.
i think there are a few tv series that show where that leads to.
no, the solution is to help families with children, so that the children are not a burden, but something to enjoy and look forward to.
the USA especially is famously failing at that. european countries are doing better, but obviously way more needs to be done.
as for conscription. we should aim to stop all wars. there should be no tolerance for any aggression today. any aggression should be stopped by a global, neutral police force without exception.
> that is a very strange conclusion. there are way more factors than just the pain of childbirth. if that pain were really an issue, this should be a well known discussion point. since this is not commonly discussed, i very much doubt that it has any influence in the majority of women who decide not to have children.
Pain is the least problem of child birth. If you want to realize what childbirth can do to a womans body look up what a prolapsed uterus is. That women aren't having that discussion with you probably means that women just don't want to have children with you.
>what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
If a society has conscription for men yes. Alternatively you can have both men and women reject the social contract and only use society as a way to make money before it collapses. We don't live in a fairy tale, we don't all get to ride off into the sunset.
Pain is the least problem of child birth. If you want to realize what childbirth can do to a womans body look up what a prolapsed uterus is. That women aren't having that discussion with you probably means that women just don't want to have children with you.
>what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
If a society has conscription for men yes. Alternatively you can have both men and women reject the social contract and only use society as a way to make money before it collapses. We don't live in a fairy tale, we don't all get to ride off into the sunset.
there are all kinds of reasons why people don't want children. and these reasons are discussed in many places. pain of childbirth is not often a topic, which suggests that it is not a common reason, so it can hardly be the cause for the birthrate to drop
>pain of childbirth
Are you being purposefully obtuse? The pain of giving birth is the least damaging long term effect of getting pregnant.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? The pain of giving birth is the least damaging long term effect of getting pregnant.
sorry, i thought it would be clear what i meant:
pain of childbirth and any of the negative after effects are not often a topic, which suggests that they are not a common reason for not wanting children, and so that can hardly be the cause for the birthrate to drop
pain of childbirth and any of the negative after effects are not often a topic, which suggests that they are not a common reason for not wanting children, and so that can hardly be the cause for the birthrate to drop
> It's rather bizarre listening to people praise a model which is so unsustainable it produces more 80+ year olds than >30 year olds.
Expecting a temporary transient condition to be sustained seems incredibly misguided.
Expecting a temporary transient condition to be sustained seems incredibly misguided.
The exact scale might be transitory, but the issue won't be. Any society with a fertility rate below replacement will trend towards producing a larger elderly than youthful population. The lower the fertility rate, the higher this disproportion will be. Imagine you start with a population of 100 who were just born, and a fertility rate of 1. For simplicity, we'll assume everybody gives birth at 20 years old, and dies at 80:
Year 0: 100 newborns
Year 20: 100 twenties, 50 newborns
Year 40: 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
There's always the same ratio people above a given age as there are below, for a given fertility rate, once an equilibrium is established. In cases where your fertility rate is above 2, this ratio will be below 1 (more young than elderly). In cases where your fertility rate is below 2, it will be above 1. Both relationships are exponential, not linear.
I think another interesting issue that demonstrates is the sort of exponential snap, the "demographic bomb", in fertility related issues. In spite of an extinction level fertility rate, the population nearly doubles to 187 by year 60, before suddenly collapsing down to 22 over the next 60 years.
And these are numbers that are not entirely out of question anymore in many places. South Korea's fertility rate has dropped to 0.84.
Year 0: 100 newborns
Year 20: 100 twenties, 50 newborns
Year 40: 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
There's always the same ratio people above a given age as there are below, for a given fertility rate, once an equilibrium is established. In cases where your fertility rate is above 2, this ratio will be below 1 (more young than elderly). In cases where your fertility rate is below 2, it will be above 1. Both relationships are exponential, not linear.
I think another interesting issue that demonstrates is the sort of exponential snap, the "demographic bomb", in fertility related issues. In spite of an extinction level fertility rate, the population nearly doubles to 187 by year 60, before suddenly collapsing down to 22 over the next 60 years.
And these are numbers that are not entirely out of question anymore in many places. South Korea's fertility rate has dropped to 0.84.
The non-transient condition is extinction of all western societies. That the same model is being exported to the developing world just means that the extinction will be general rather than localized.
Meanwhile, Earth population has reached 8 billion people in 2022.
The current average population increase is estimated at 81 million people per year.
The current average population increase is estimated at 81 million people per year.
Yes, that's what happens when people don't die in their 40s.
Now what happens when the median age is over 50?
Now what happens when the median age is over 50?
Then we get eventually get a population reduction. If you're an economist this is bad. If you're old, this ain't great. If you're interested in preserving at least a little bit of nature and the environment on this planet though, it's likely a good thing.
At some point you need birth rates to stabilize for a population to survive. This is not something that _any_ country with a GDP over $5,000 PPP is currently managing.
The result isn't a population reduction, it is a population extinction. Too few births is just as bad as too many. It's just that you don't notice you've decided to go extinct until 30 years after the point of no return.
The result isn't a population reduction, it is a population extinction. Too few births is just as bad as too many. It's just that you don't notice you've decided to go extinct until 30 years after the point of no return.
> produces more 80+ year olds than >30 year olds.
In the US less than 5% of the population is over 80 whereas around 30% is below thirty.
In the US less than 5% of the population is over 80 whereas around 30% is below thirty.
Yes, because of immigrants.
They first show up sometime in their 20s or 30s, have more children than the average for the country, then their children have more children than the average too.
When you look at the demographics of people who are third or later generation immigrants the demographics look apocalyptic.
The west is the first fully parasitic society which can't survive without constant colonialism of human capital from the rest of the world.
They first show up sometime in their 20s or 30s, have more children than the average for the country, then their children have more children than the average too.
When you look at the demographics of people who are third or later generation immigrants the demographics look apocalyptic.
The west is the first fully parasitic society which can't survive without constant colonialism of human capital from the rest of the world.
> It's rather bizarre listening to people praise a model which is so unsustainable it produces more 80+ year olds than >30 year olds.
What's more bizarre is thinking this model can change. Despite financial incentives and many other measures short of coercion, it hasn't.
What's more bizarre is thinking this model can change. Despite financial incentives and many other measures short of coercion, it hasn't.
The writers are from UW Economics and BC business school. Smaller future labor pools make economists sad.
It's almost as thought economists have never heard of immigration. The world wide population continues to grow.
I take it these economists don't believe in negative externalities.
Not regulating something is not the same thing as murder. We could do all kinds of regulation that would save lives but not doing those things doesn't mean we should think about it as murder.
You're not wrong. My language here was hyperbolic.
Weird how many real life scenarios end up as variations of the trolley problem
You know what got me thinking about it from that perspective was that absurd trolley problem website that was making the rounds a few weeks back. https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ in case you're one of the five living humans who hasn't seen it.
I missed that one and I like trolley problems—so thank you :-)
In the US, every 8000 births leads to a lot more than 57 infant deaths. So how far would you go with that trade?
Are you referring to the infant death rate? According to Google it's only 5.4/1000, so it would only be 43.2/8000, not 57. But those deaths are contingent on the births happening in the first place, so the comparison is not apt.
(That is, you as an infant being born pay the risk of infant death in order for the opportunity to be born -- the shot at existence. On the other hand, asking carseated children to stochastically pay with their lives for the opportunity of a sibling to exist is a different matter morally.)
(That is, you as an infant being born pay the risk of infant death in order for the opportunity to be born -- the shot at existence. On the other hand, asking carseated children to stochastically pay with their lives for the opportunity of a sibling to exist is a different matter morally.)
It looks like I read too quickly and got the world numbers instead.
[deleted]
Some people think life begins at conception, some people believe that life starts when two people who love each other very much, decide they have room in their car for one.
Different strokes....
Different strokes....
View it like this: 8000 happy parents vs 57 grieving ones.
As a parent to two small children, I'm not sure adding a third would increase my happiness.
Why stop there? If you mandate baby seats to all seats in the car for life you can reduce child deaths from car accidents by 100%!
There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment, namely that no one ever stop to ask if the cost to benefit ratio is reasonable. There are a bunch of regulatory inspired costs - backup cameras, mandatory stability control, airbags and ABS, each of these come with costs - the disproportionate burden of which, falls on the poor.
While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but not every preventable death or injury is worth the economic costs (opportunity, regulatory, whatever) that we spend to prevent them.
While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but not every preventable death or injury is worth the economic costs (opportunity, regulatory, whatever) that we spend to prevent them.
I want to agree with your main point but I disagree with your reasoning. Regulations exist to to increase safety. Regulatory capture already exists.
Yes, it does disproportionately effect the poor, but that isn’t the fault of safety regulations, it is the fault of societal issues w.r.t wealth inequality, social mobility, etc. California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example.
Yes, it does disproportionately effect the poor, but that isn’t the fault of safety regulations, it is the fault of societal issues w.r.t wealth inequality, social mobility, etc. California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example.
>California’s housing crisis isn’t caused because new houses need solar panels, for example.
Not sure where you're getting that, it sure as hell contributes. Several thousand dollars extra to every house is just another cost on the pile. It's death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
Not sure where you're getting that, it sure as hell contributes. Several thousand dollars extra to every house is just another cost on the pile. It's death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
I'm in CA, and I know that in my city (Mountain View), the permit costs on new construction, single family home, exceed $100k and in multi-apartment complexes, it's still near $80k per unit. That's permits alone, and a big chunk is the park impact fee.
Solar is mandated on roofs, and you still need a permit for it, neat, eh?
It is death by a thousand cuts.
Solar is mandated on roofs, and you still need a permit for it, neat, eh?
It is death by a thousand cuts.
The cost is still dominated by zoning/nimbyism. Yes it's a cut, but when the land alone costs more than any possible house built on it, and and non-single-family-residences are harshly restricted, well, guess what there's more demand than there is supply, and no way to increase the supply, so the prices go up.
Way up.
Way up.
But land doesn't cost that much. Approved plots of land with an existing structure cost that much. Land itself is relatively cheap. There's a LOT of empty space in California. When you say land is expensive you're really saying that regulation is expensive.
The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development.
The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.
The regulatory hurdles others have mentioned are why having a zoned and permitted structure is so valuable. Having a home so you can do a single wall teardown is worth hundreds of thousands at least - maybe more because it can clear existential regulatory hurdles that block development.
The nimbyism you mention is possible because of these bad regulations, which in theory exist for the greater good -- but which in practice do not provide for it.
> There's a LOT of empty space in California.
I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically the east bay, back in the 70’s and 80’s when there was actually empty land to be had. I was driving through there a couple weeks ago and it’s all gone, one big metro all the way down past San Jose.
All this land you speak of is far from where the jobs are so there’s no incentive to live there without a three hour commute each way. The Bay Area is restricted by the bay (obviously) and the coastal range which isn’t all that wide. They haven’t really let people develop on the hills (except the rich people building mansions) in my lifetime at the very least which is why they don’t all look like the Oakland hills these days.
I grew up in the Bay Area, specifically the east bay, back in the 70’s and 80’s when there was actually empty land to be had. I was driving through there a couple weeks ago and it’s all gone, one big metro all the way down past San Jose.
All this land you speak of is far from where the jobs are so there’s no incentive to live there without a three hour commute each way. The Bay Area is restricted by the bay (obviously) and the coastal range which isn’t all that wide. They haven’t really let people develop on the hills (except the rich people building mansions) in my lifetime at the very least which is why they don’t all look like the Oakland hills these days.
It's not. I also grew up here during the same time period. There's been a lot of building, but it's nowhere near full.
Far less than half the available valley areas are developed along the 680 corridor between 580/24. The commute to Oakland is 25 minutes and to SF by BART is one hour.
Even on the bay side there are large empty spaces which aren't being developed, often because development is tied up in decades of litigation -- litigation which is based around these onerous regulatory laws.
I'm sure the change you're seeing during a casual visit is striking. But, have you stopped to look at the empty lots which still remain? Have you researched why they're still empty? I have - and this is why.
There's room for entire new cities to be built along 580, between Castro Valley and Dublin. There are vast tracks of empty land along 24, in the lamorinda areas, just minutes away from Oakland.
Far less than half the available valley areas are developed along the 680 corridor between 580/24. The commute to Oakland is 25 minutes and to SF by BART is one hour.
Even on the bay side there are large empty spaces which aren't being developed, often because development is tied up in decades of litigation -- litigation which is based around these onerous regulatory laws.
I'm sure the change you're seeing during a casual visit is striking. But, have you stopped to look at the empty lots which still remain? Have you researched why they're still empty? I have - and this is why.
There's room for entire new cities to be built along 580, between Castro Valley and Dublin. There are vast tracks of empty land along 24, in the lamorinda areas, just minutes away from Oakland.
Infrastructure is expensive. Unless you want people crapping in a pot and pouring it out their back door or living without water than some method of deciding where and in what density people can live will always be present. This method may be laws and governments of varying qualities. Or it may be fires and plagues turning the cities population to bones. Self regulating systems ain't great either.
"Infrastructure is expensive"
It's not, relative to other costs. Septic costs around $10k and trenching sewer to lots in urban areas is relatively cheap. Homes on septic are very common and are already regulated. There are also many plots of relatively cheap land with sewer access. I can think of about 20+ buildable acres in my city, for example. The only thing holding back construction is an onerous and expensive permitting process which mostly focuses on visual aspects of the potential development.
Sewer hookups for dense living isn't the part of the permitting process that's the problem.
"This method may be laws and governments of varying qualities."
We are discussing situations where the aggregate impact of these laws becomes a net negative.
It's not, relative to other costs. Septic costs around $10k and trenching sewer to lots in urban areas is relatively cheap. Homes on septic are very common and are already regulated. There are also many plots of relatively cheap land with sewer access. I can think of about 20+ buildable acres in my city, for example. The only thing holding back construction is an onerous and expensive permitting process which mostly focuses on visual aspects of the potential development.
Sewer hookups for dense living isn't the part of the permitting process that's the problem.
"This method may be laws and governments of varying qualities."
We are discussing situations where the aggregate impact of these laws becomes a net negative.
That would increase the costs, but so long as the demand (at that cost) outweighs the supply, there will be an incentive to keep building. If there currently aren't enough homes to satisfy the demand, then the reason why there aren't enough homes isn't that the costs are too high.
Another way to say this is that supply for housing is currently consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar panels. Until the supply is high enough to where buyers who can't afford the extra $Xk for solar panels are needed to buy the available new housing, the cost of solar isn't a major factor in the housing crisis.
It could eventually be a major factor, but until more housing is built, there are other factors in play that impact the lack of housing more.
If it is death by a thousand cuts, the problem is the thousand cuts, not any single cut in particular.
Another way to say this is that supply for housing is currently consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar panels. Until the supply is high enough to where buyers who can't afford the extra $Xk for solar panels are needed to buy the available new housing, the cost of solar isn't a major factor in the housing crisis.
It could eventually be a major factor, but until more housing is built, there are other factors in play that impact the lack of housing more.
If it is death by a thousand cuts, the problem is the thousand cuts, not any single cut in particular.
> Another way to say this is that supply for housing is currently consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar panels. Until the supply is high enough to where buyers who can't afford the extra $Xk for solar panels are needed to buy the available new housing, the cost of solar isn't a major factor in the housing crisis.
You're presuming there's no elasticity in supply. That even if pricing goes up there's not any additional units built.
You're presuming there's no elasticity in supply. That even if pricing goes up there's not any additional units built.
> You're presuming there's no elasticity in supply. That even if pricing goes up there's not any additional units built.
Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I’m not making any assumptions about elasticity. If supply increases, I’m saying that the extra cost of solar doesn’t matter (yet) so long as the pool of buyers is large enough that the supply can be consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar.
It isn’t until either the supply gets bigger or the buyer pool gets smaller that the cost of solar would have an impact (when the entire supply couldn’t be bought by people with the means to afford the extra cost of solar). At that point you’ll see more pricing pressure to finally drive prices downwards (if that ever happens).
Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I’m not making any assumptions about elasticity. If supply increases, I’m saying that the extra cost of solar doesn’t matter (yet) so long as the pool of buyers is large enough that the supply can be consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar.
It isn’t until either the supply gets bigger or the buyer pool gets smaller that the cost of solar would have an impact (when the entire supply couldn’t be bought by people with the means to afford the extra cost of solar). At that point you’ll see more pricing pressure to finally drive prices downwards (if that ever happens).
> Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I’m not making any assumptions about elasticity. If supply increases, I’m saying that the extra cost of solar doesn’t matter (yet) so long as the pool of buyers is large enough that the supply can be consumed by buyers who can afford the extra cost for solar.
Simple econ stuff: add a $10k per-unit "tax" to producers; the cost is borne by the suppliers and consumers according to the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, and quantity decreases.
https://www.reviewecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/excise...
The shaded regions are, of course, slightly different when you're imposing a cost on suppliers that results in some value to the buyer. But the intersection of the supply and demand curves moves left, which means quantity falls.
The only case that quantity doesn't change is if there's no elasticity.
https://www.reviewecon.com/excise-taxes
Simple econ stuff: add a $10k per-unit "tax" to producers; the cost is borne by the suppliers and consumers according to the elasticity of the supply and demand curves, and quantity decreases.
https://www.reviewecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/excise...
The shaded regions are, of course, slightly different when you're imposing a cost on suppliers that results in some value to the buyer. But the intersection of the supply and demand curves moves left, which means quantity falls.
The only case that quantity doesn't change is if there's no elasticity.
https://www.reviewecon.com/excise-taxes
I’m not very well versed in econ, so thanks for the links and help.
Wouldn’t this all assume balanced supply/demand? Which isn’t what we have in CA. I guess you’re saying that demand isn’t elastic? It seems like an odd term to use to describe a situation where demand >>> supply. It’s not like demand is fixed, but it is so far beyond supply on the curve that it acts as a constant?
Wouldn’t this all assume balanced supply/demand? Which isn’t what we have in CA. I guess you’re saying that demand isn’t elastic? It seems like an odd term to use to describe a situation where demand >>> supply. It’s not like demand is fixed, but it is so far beyond supply on the curve that it acts as a constant?
> It seems like an odd term to use to describe a situation where demand >>> supply. It’s not like demand is fixed, but it is so far beyond supply on the curve that it acts as a constant?
Demand equals supply at the price in a market economy (in the long run). If the demand is high and there's an absolute shortage, sellers are incentivized to raise prices. Then the intersection between the supply curve and demand curve set the price and quantity.
The slopes of the two curves may be shallow, though. There may be a large demand for housing at nearly any price (inelastic demand), and supply may not react too much to price (inelastic supply).
How elastic the curves are sets what happens if you add a fixed cost in: who bears the cost, and how much the quantity changes.
Demand equals supply at the price in a market economy (in the long run). If the demand is high and there's an absolute shortage, sellers are incentivized to raise prices. Then the intersection between the supply curve and demand curve set the price and quantity.
The slopes of the two curves may be shallow, though. There may be a large demand for housing at nearly any price (inelastic demand), and supply may not react too much to price (inelastic supply).
How elastic the curves are sets what happens if you add a fixed cost in: who bears the cost, and how much the quantity changes.
What's the profit margin on a newly built house in California? I can't imagine that construction costs are close to selling price anywhere in commuting distance from a city.
How much money are you willing to pay to prevent a death?
There is no upper bound on how safe we can make cars which is why they now cost more than a house did in 1950.
We are essentially stopping the poor from reproducing because we've decided that their lives aren't worth living. Which is fine, until you realize that to billionaires neither are ours.
There is no upper bound on how safe we can make cars which is why they now cost more than a house did in 1950.
We are essentially stopping the poor from reproducing because we've decided that their lives aren't worth living. Which is fine, until you realize that to billionaires neither are ours.
That's only one side of the argument, which is disingenuous hgetoric. TFA is about, instead, what seemingly subtle effects can we apply which prevent a life unless it's parent(s) pass a wealth test.
I don't agree with this argument.
Yes, because of safety mandates the price of a new car has gone up. I bought a brand new base model Toyota for $11k in 2001, and the cheapest brand new cars now are closer to $20k.
BUT, cars now also last far, far longer. There is still a massive market for cars under $10k that will run for many 10s of thousands, if not 100 thousand more miles with minimal maintenance.
20 years ago cars wouldn't start. Or, you'd need to know just how to turn the key or finesse the clutch. None of that is a thing any more.
Yes, safety makes cars more expensive. It definitely saves lives. But, I'd need evidence that there are not cars available for the poor. It's only NEW cars that are unavailable, but you can find plenty of cars with backup cameras and a lot of life left in them for cheap in the used car market.
Yes, because of safety mandates the price of a new car has gone up. I bought a brand new base model Toyota for $11k in 2001, and the cheapest brand new cars now are closer to $20k.
BUT, cars now also last far, far longer. There is still a massive market for cars under $10k that will run for many 10s of thousands, if not 100 thousand more miles with minimal maintenance.
20 years ago cars wouldn't start. Or, you'd need to know just how to turn the key or finesse the clutch. None of that is a thing any more.
Yes, safety makes cars more expensive. It definitely saves lives. But, I'd need evidence that there are not cars available for the poor. It's only NEW cars that are unavailable, but you can find plenty of cars with backup cameras and a lot of life left in them for cheap in the used car market.
To add: it’s hard to imagine but 2001 was over 20 years ago. Inflation is something you must consider, and wow, $11k in 2001 is $18,400 in 2022. Even if you exclude our recent inflation crisis, in 2021 it’s still $16,800.
You both are missing the demand side of the picture. From 2001 to 2020, Real median household income has risen by 9%. Automobile prices have risen by 21%.
Median income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
CPI - New Vehicles: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01
Median income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
CPI - New Vehicles: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA01
The comparison of real household income to vehicle CPI doesn't really make sense. The "Real" in the first stat refers to the fact that it's CPI-adjusted, while the latter can be thought of as being in nominal (unadjusted) terms, as it is itself the adjustment factor. This means the first number is already lowered to account for the second.
Put another way, if "CPI - New Vehicles" accounted for all of CPI, the comparison you give would mean that people get 9% more car for their income than they did in 2001.
To do this right you'd need to compare nominal median household income, which has gone from ~42k to ~67k over the period in question, an increase of ~60%. This leads me to believe that the ability of the typical household to afford a car increased 2001-2020
Nominal median household income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
Put another way, if "CPI - New Vehicles" accounted for all of CPI, the comparison you give would mean that people get 9% more car for their income than they did in 2001.
To do this right you'd need to compare nominal median household income, which has gone from ~42k to ~67k over the period in question, an increase of ~60%. This leads me to believe that the ability of the typical household to afford a car increased 2001-2020
Nominal median household income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
I haven't missed the point.
NEW car prices may have grown faster than income, BUT cars last far longer, so there's more market availability at the lower price point. There are more used cars that are reliable for sale.
Covid has us in a weird used car bubble, but generally, once that blip is over we're in an era where reliable cheap cars have far less issues than any time in the past.
NEW car prices may have grown faster than income, BUT cars last far longer, so there's more market availability at the lower price point. There are more used cars that are reliable for sale.
Covid has us in a weird used car bubble, but generally, once that blip is over we're in an era where reliable cheap cars have far less issues than any time in the past.
The average age of cars have risen from 9 to 11 years [0], you are correct. However, though the vehicle depreciates at a lower rate, the cash paid doesnt change as financing periods are not linked to the usable life of the vehicle.
Your mental framework of greater reliability leading to a glut of used cars is still theoretical at this point. Used car prices are up 33% from 2001-2022. I don't think it's a sound assumption to believe the rise in car prices is a "blip". The supply chain is as fragile as it ever was. With a move to onshoring (e.g. the chips act), a war with Russia and much-worsening Chinese tensions, I don't see anything but a secular shift in how cars are manufactured.
[0] https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA02
Your mental framework of greater reliability leading to a glut of used cars is still theoretical at this point. Used car prices are up 33% from 2001-2022. I don't think it's a sound assumption to believe the rise in car prices is a "blip". The supply chain is as fragile as it ever was. With a move to onshoring (e.g. the chips act), a war with Russia and much-worsening Chinese tensions, I don't see anything but a secular shift in how cars are manufactured.
[0] https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA02
> cars last far longer
In terms of mechanical reliability and longevity, this is certainly correct. But I'm really curious what the software side is going to be like, with cars being more and more dependent on the Cloud or other online services. At some point, older APIs and services will be deprecated, effectively disabling the cars. This will be quite extreme with Teslas, of course, but other cars are catching up in terms of requiring a more or less constant Internet connection.
In terms of mechanical reliability and longevity, this is certainly correct. But I'm really curious what the software side is going to be like, with cars being more and more dependent on the Cloud or other online services. At some point, older APIs and services will be deprecated, effectively disabling the cars. This will be quite extreme with Teslas, of course, but other cars are catching up in terms of requiring a more or less constant Internet connection.
Worldwide vehicle production is down significantly, which will shortly increase used car prices significantly.
> There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment
It feels this way, though I haven't studied it.
> While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted.
I somewhat agree, but this raises the next question: what is the value of a human life?
It is one thing for a healthcare system or insurance group to try to maximize something (quality of life? remaining life expectancy?) for a particular budget. It is another to tradeoff saving lives against lowering vehicle costs.
It feels this way, though I haven't studied it.
> While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted.
I somewhat agree, but this raises the next question: what is the value of a human life?
It is one thing for a healthcare system or insurance group to try to maximize something (quality of life? remaining life expectancy?) for a particular budget. It is another to tradeoff saving lives against lowering vehicle costs.
Government agencies already have a dollar amount for the value of a human life that they are supposed to use when considering safety regulations:
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...
The US is a car based society, there is trillions of dollars of concrete and steel in the ground making it so, we can change if we want that but it'll take decades and trillions more to replace/overlay the infrastructure we already have.
Pricing people out of vehicles prices them out of access to affordable housing, decent paying jobs and a whole bunch of other things that are important to not living in poverty, by putting vehicles and access to reliable transportation out of reach for the poor, we're effective condemning them to whatever their status quo is.
Pricing people out of vehicles prices them out of access to affordable housing, decent paying jobs and a whole bunch of other things that are important to not living in poverty, by putting vehicles and access to reliable transportation out of reach for the poor, we're effective condemning them to whatever their status quo is.
No one needs a new car. There is a huge used car market with a lot of accessible financing. Isn’t there a trope of the millionaire driving a 15yo sedan?
Not having access to reliable transportation is not the significant factor w.r.t social mobility you are making it out to be.
Not having access to reliable transportation is not the significant factor w.r.t social mobility you are making it out to be.
it used to be you could find a 20 year old, serviceable used car for sub 2500 dollars, now get something serviceable and running, it's closer to double that.
Even when you adjust for inflation, the price for a cheap used car is 30-40% higher than it was a decade ago.
Even when you adjust for inflation, the price for a cheap used car is 30-40% higher than it was a decade ago.
wyre, how would you characterize the effects of reliable transportation towards social mobility?
It seems you only discuss the rich frugal segment. What about the rest? Middle class folks in the suburbs? Poor urban people who drive to work? Etc...
I'm asking in this way because saying "... you are making it out to be" is based on some comparison between your assessment and your perception of another person's writing. That has several layers of indirection. So I would prefer to just ask you directly.
It seems you only discuss the rich frugal segment. What about the rest? Middle class folks in the suburbs? Poor urban people who drive to work? Etc...
I'm asking in this way because saying "... you are making it out to be" is based on some comparison between your assessment and your perception of another person's writing. That has several layers of indirection. So I would prefer to just ask you directly.
I’ve been car free my entire adult life, I’ve also been broke my entire adult life too. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in places with good cycling infrastructure and public transit; I know that isn’t the case in most places.
That said, I wouldn’t attribute my lack of social mobility to my decision to not own a car/lack of money to own a car.
Automobile financing can absolutely be predatory to low income workers and to a degree it might prohibit some mobility when a large portion of income goes to maintaining a vehicle just to maintain an income. Maybe there should be regulation on predatory financing?
Someone making $20k a year is going to be poor regardless if they own a car or not. Economic mobility comes from having marketable skills that provide value to others and the ability to acquire those skills. A college education is not particularly accessible to low-income folks that need to also work to pay rent and food.
That said, I wouldn’t attribute my lack of social mobility to my decision to not own a car/lack of money to own a car.
Automobile financing can absolutely be predatory to low income workers and to a degree it might prohibit some mobility when a large portion of income goes to maintaining a vehicle just to maintain an income. Maybe there should be regulation on predatory financing?
Someone making $20k a year is going to be poor regardless if they own a car or not. Economic mobility comes from having marketable skills that provide value to others and the ability to acquire those skills. A college education is not particularly accessible to low-income folks that need to also work to pay rent and food.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The overall dynamic is much broader of course.
Have you studied statistics? Conducted an analysis? Read a statistical study? Designed an experiment?
This (statistical analysis) is where I'd like to take the conversation, but I wanted to pause and see if that would be mutually interesting.
I'm been "done" with non-systematic understandings for a long time. Typical opinion / "analysis" (as seen even in decent newspapers) is good practice for trotting out arguments, but it rarely synthesizes information broadly and convincingly.
Have you studied statistics? Conducted an analysis? Read a statistical study? Designed an experiment?
This (statistical analysis) is where I'd like to take the conversation, but I wanted to pause and see if that would be mutually interesting.
I'm been "done" with non-systematic understandings for a long time. Typical opinion / "analysis" (as seen even in decent newspapers) is good practice for trotting out arguments, but it rarely synthesizes information broadly and convincingly.
This reminds me of the "If it saves just one life" fallacy...
Even the most ardent believer of this fallacy will often break when confronted with real costs to their own life.
For example:
Cruel Capitalist: If lowering the highway speed limit to 40 miles per hour (64km/hr) would save 20,000 lives per year on US roads, should we do it?
Bleeding Heart: It would be inconvenient, but yes, it would save lives!
Cruel Capitalist: And if lowering the highway speed limit to 20 miles per hour (32km/hr) would save 40,000 lives per year?
Bleeding Heart: You know, maybe some people just aren't meant to live that long. Isn't the planet getting overpopulated anyway?
Even the most ardent believer of this fallacy will often break when confronted with real costs to their own life.
For example:
Cruel Capitalist: If lowering the highway speed limit to 40 miles per hour (64km/hr) would save 20,000 lives per year on US roads, should we do it?
Bleeding Heart: It would be inconvenient, but yes, it would save lives!
Cruel Capitalist: And if lowering the highway speed limit to 20 miles per hour (32km/hr) would save 40,000 lives per year?
Bleeding Heart: You know, maybe some people just aren't meant to live that long. Isn't the planet getting overpopulated anyway?
then we'd all use public transport. do it!
But then we need to limit the speed of public transport.
in a world where cars are not allowed to go fast, public transport would get dedicated tracks where it can go faster. even with busses there would be less traffic because a bus can carry a lot more people than many cars. therefore it would be much safer for pedestrians and the goal of reducing accidents would certainly be achieved.
There are also social costs.
The car seat requirement limits the extended family who can take kids off your hands for a few hours.
Aunts and uncles used to pop over and take us out for an afternoon at the zoo or to get ice cream. Nowadays I can't take my nieces and nephews out like that until they're practically teenagers because I don't have car seats.
The car seat requirement limits the extended family who can take kids off your hands for a few hours.
Aunts and uncles used to pop over and take us out for an afternoon at the zoo or to get ice cream. Nowadays I can't take my nieces and nephews out like that until they're practically teenagers because I don't have car seats.
It is really easy to move a car seat from the parent's car to your car. They aren't welded in or anything. After 4 years old they only need a booster seat, which is even easier.
It's only easy to do so if you're transferring them on an infant seat. It's a huge pain in the butt to move a convertible car seat. You'd have to uninstall and rei-install the isofix base each time. The most convenient thing you can do is to install those isofix bases in both cars, which is not going to happen.
Those are LATCH - it really shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.
You and I must have very different ideas of what pain in the butt is. I consider a 5-min install for a handoff a long time. With for non isofixed infant seats, you could replace a seat in less than 30 seconds. Regardless, I love my babies so no amount of time spent on them is too high a cost to bear.
It takes minutes to transfer a car seat. LATCH especially makes it incredibly easy.
"I'm stuck at the office. Can you pick up little Johnny?"
"Sorry no, I don't have a car seat. And I can't get it from you today because it's with you at the office."
"Sorry no, I don't have a car seat. And I can't get it from you today because it's with you at the office."
In the Netherlands it is allowed for emergency transportation not to use a car seat but just the seat belt. Obviously this doesn’t work for baby carriers. This is the reason why the baby carrier is left with the child, eg at daycare, so that the child can always be transported safely.
husband stuck at work is not an emergency though.
You’re wrong. If you want to properly install the seat, it’s going to take at least 10 minutes for someone with practice, and a very frustrating half hour for someone without practice. Latch or no latch.
The permissible lateral movement specs can be hard to hit even if you know the tricks.
The permissible lateral movement specs can be hard to hit even if you know the tricks.
I’ve watched easily a few hundred people install car seats in the back of a Prius and it probably isn’t as hard as you make it out to be.
I had this one single mother I’d take all the time and she’d have that seat in under two minutes, just clip the little hooks and strap in the kid.
Don’t know how properly the seats were installed because I honestly didn’t care and I never touched the things because then I’d be liable in the case of an accident.
Never once had someone take half an hour because I’d have been pissed for them wasting my time.
I had this one single mother I’d take all the time and she’d have that seat in under two minutes, just clip the little hooks and strap in the kid.
Don’t know how properly the seats were installed because I honestly didn’t care and I never touched the things because then I’d be liable in the case of an accident.
Never once had someone take half an hour because I’d have been pissed for them wasting my time.
What? Seriously you just clip it and yank on the straps.
I do it frequently.
Maybe the first time ever, with safety anxiety it could take half an hour, but also any police or fire department will just do it for you.
"permissible lateral movement specs"? What manual are you reading?
Maybe the first time ever, with safety anxiety it could take half an hour, but also any police or fire department will just do it for you.
"permissible lateral movement specs"? What manual are you reading?
The NHTSA observed a 46.7% "loose installation rate" among experienced caregivers, and higher still (85%) among novices. [1]
So I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound - and I might even go so far as to suggest you check the lateral movement specs on your child car seat to make sure you are within tolerance. The rule of thumb seems to be no more than 1-inch side-to-side movement at the belt path [2].
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811234.pdf
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yver-l1IwpA
So I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound - and I might even go so far as to suggest you check the lateral movement specs on your child car seat to make sure you are within tolerance. The rule of thumb seems to be no more than 1-inch side-to-side movement at the belt path [2].
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811234.pdf
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yver-l1IwpA
It’s interesting that you focus on the cars safety systems instead of the automotive industries generational destruction of robust public transit that would be incalculably (n order effects are impossible to calculate and all) better than multi ton personal vehicles, gas or ice.
There’s a big divide between state laws (this article) and federal regulations (backup cameras, for instance). The NHTSA chooses which vehicle technologies to mandate based on a cost/benefit analysis with the value of a human life set at about $11 million.
We're at the point now that in the EU cars are now required to carry cellular radio transcievers (each with a unique identifier in the form of an IMEI) from the factory.
It has gone a long way from mandating seatbelts.
It has gone a long way from mandating seatbelts.
As far as I know you can still buy an old car without any of these features, either pass or be exempt from any of emissions standards, and more or less drive that car wherever the heck you want it. So, I’m not sure how any of the regulations you cite affect the poor. Unless of course the poor are attempting to purchase or finance new cars, which even I as someone who makes well into six figures without any debt except my mortgage, won’t do.
There is a reason the average vehicle age in the US keeps going up, also all of those do-dads and addons at least marginally increase repair costs.
The reason the average age goes up is because it's far easier to maintain a car well past 100k miles now than it ever has been before.
https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-mil...
https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-mil...
Any change's effect is relative. If new cars become more expensive because of regulation then used cars become slightly more expensive because the market as a whole shifts. So the poor end up driving just as unsafe a vehicle but pay a bit more.
Of course the poor, like everyone else, in theory benefits from the positive externality of other people having backup cameras and other safety features.
Of course the poor, like everyone else, in theory benefits from the positive externality of other people having backup cameras and other safety features.
Cars are extremely dangerous to those outside them, so I'm more than ok with making them more expensive for even a little bit of safety.
If they're too expensive, people should take transit.
Cars should be safe, legal, and rare.
If they're too expensive, people should take transit.
Cars should be safe, legal, and rare.
Mass transit is great unless your a shift worker. I start work at 4 am, my wife gets off her shift at the hospital at 10 pm neither of us can use it as the bus doesn't run when we need it. even if it did run 24-7 the nearest stop is about a mile away.
People have also switched to larger and more expensive vehicles in addition to these mandatory costs, so I'd say the mandatory costs are mostly a non-issue, otherwise we'd be seeing people cut costs elsewhere.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200101-jato.html
I’ve thought about this a lot when it comes to car seats. The paper implies 57 deaths prevented, but I see these stats often turned to a percentage reduction(53% reduction in deaths for example). Then when debated the change in the death as a percentage seems large, and folks automatically vote for these laws. We continue to chase small improvements because we aren’t looking at the actual numbers.
Also note this paper does not seem to take in lifelong injury rates. We believe this has prevented 57 deaths, but we don't ask the question of how many injuries has this prevented. It may be easy for some people to point out the death number is very small, but living, not the non-existent should be the primary concern here.
There are over 4 million vehicle related injuries per year. How many of those are in the 0-13 year old range, and how many of them are life long?
There are over 4 million vehicle related injuries per year. How many of those are in the 0-13 year old range, and how many of them are life long?
How do you know there is no cost/benefit analysis?
Having to own a car in the first place is an imposition, I’d prefer to not own or maintain one but in the US it’s pretty necessary.
> cum molotov cocktail
What?
What?
preposition: cum
combined with; also used as (used to describe things with a dual nature or function).
"a study-cum-bedroom"
So in this case "rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail" means a rolling death trap that becomes moltov cocktail, in a rather unpleasant explodey fiery fashion.
So in this case "rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail" means a rolling death trap that becomes moltov cocktail, in a rather unpleasant explodey fiery fashion.
Exactly.
Ala the ford pinto or GM pickups with the gas tanks outside the frame rails.
Which were the two I was thinking of when I wrote that phrase.
Ala the ford pinto or GM pickups with the gas tanks outside the frame rails.
Which were the two I was thinking of when I wrote that phrase.
Think "magna cum laude"
The number of lives saved by car seats sounded very low, but the paper compares reduced childbirths to the saved lives because of the law (mandating the use of car seats), not to the saved lives because of car seats themselves.
https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/sites/default/files/c...
https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/sites/default/files/c...
The stated history is interesting.
> While initial laws typically applied to children ages one to three, since the mid-1990s mandated age limits have seen a huge ratcheting upwards. The median age at which children are allowed to ride in just a seat belt in U.S. states is now eight, and every single law change has increased the age, not reduced it (with the average state making 3.2 such age changes). Enthusiasm for these laws has not been curbed by studies showing that child car seats are no more effective than seat belts in preventing death or serious injury for children above age two (e.g. Levitt 2008, Doyle and Levitt 2010). This may be due to the perception that such mandates are virtually costless, beyond that of the car seats themselves.
My take? Yes on the above. Also, (a) parents are very risk averse w.r.t. their kids and (b) few lawmakers would vote against even marginal or non-existent safety benefits regarding children -- as long as the mandate makes intuitive sense to most voters.
> While initial laws typically applied to children ages one to three, since the mid-1990s mandated age limits have seen a huge ratcheting upwards. The median age at which children are allowed to ride in just a seat belt in U.S. states is now eight, and every single law change has increased the age, not reduced it (with the average state making 3.2 such age changes). Enthusiasm for these laws has not been curbed by studies showing that child car seats are no more effective than seat belts in preventing death or serious injury for children above age two (e.g. Levitt 2008, Doyle and Levitt 2010). This may be due to the perception that such mandates are virtually costless, beyond that of the car seats themselves.
My take? Yes on the above. Also, (a) parents are very risk averse w.r.t. their kids and (b) few lawmakers would vote against even marginal or non-existent safety benefits regarding children -- as long as the mandate makes intuitive sense to most voters.
Car seats are now designed for children up to 120 lbs. I was blown away when I saw that rating. An adult woman may very well be less than that. I'm an adult male of average height and I only exceed that limit by twenty pounds!
That might have more to do with the rather high rate of obesity in children in America
And according to a study by Steven Levitt back in 2005, the evidence suggests that seat belts are just about as effective as car seats as preventing deaths in children over the age of two:
https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/levitt_carsea...
https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/levitt_carsea...
I have repeated this often in the last few years, but it applies here as well. While death may be the worst possible outcome here, there are certainly many more potential negative outcomes that don't show up in the data quite as easily.
If car seats significantly decreased the likelihood of serious injury, I would expect that to result in a reduced likelihood of death. E.g. if car seats reduced the chances of head trauma, that would almost certainly translate into a reduced number of deaths as well.
Conversely, I think the fact that we don't see a reduction in the number of deaths is pretty good evidence that car seats also don't significantly reduce the likelihood of serious injury. Perhaps there are certain types of injuries that car seats are more effective than seat belts at preventing - but I would like to see some strong evidence first to justify making car seats mandatory.
Conversely, I think the fact that we don't see a reduction in the number of deaths is pretty good evidence that car seats also don't significantly reduce the likelihood of serious injury. Perhaps there are certain types of injuries that car seats are more effective than seat belts at preventing - but I would like to see some strong evidence first to justify making car seats mandatory.
I may get my wish if this leads to automakers bringing back front bench seats in most of their product lines and doing away with those stupid bucket seats that deprive car owners of the opportunity to sit next to their sweethearts and open up a third child car seat position up front.
That would be a welcome change as far as I am concerned. Front bench seats!
That would be a welcome change as far as I am concerned. Front bench seats!
you could get a truck, but it’s not an old school bench (like my ‘79 Le Mans I drove in high school).
The 7-seater Tiguan which is just big enough to squeeze the parents in when they visit and compact enough for 5 in the city otherwise. Not quite big enough for a road trip for 6 though.
I personally would rather get a 6 seater truck than a bigger SUV for the most part, but I don’t have to haul around 6 or 7 on a regular basis.
The 7-seater Tiguan which is just big enough to squeeze the parents in when they visit and compact enough for 5 in the city otherwise. Not quite big enough for a road trip for 6 though.
I personally would rather get a 6 seater truck than a bigger SUV for the most part, but I don’t have to haul around 6 or 7 on a regular basis.
My family was 7 people growing up, my parents and 5 of us kids. A four door car with bench seats gave everyone a place to sit. A station wagon was better since we could spread out.
There is a British company called multimac that provides an 3 or 4 child multi seat. It is pretty much a bench you can install in your car and it fits in nearly all small cars as well. This way one does not need a bigger car when having three kids.
Nonidentity problems are quite something, philosophically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonidentity_problem
For our German readers, their Wikipedia article is much more extensive: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicht-Identit%C3%A4tsproblem
That said, thank you, I wasn't aware of the concept before!
That said, thank you, I wasn't aware of the concept before!
I tend to enjoy a lot of philosophy; however, reading [1] is having a soporific effect. Might anyone recommend something more detailed than the Wikipedia article but less inscrutable than [1] (more scrutable?)
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/
This is such an excellent rabbithole, thank you!
Only 57 fatalities, but how many injuries? Including severe and debilitating injuries, which can have gigantic economic consequences - not only direct (healthcare + disability care), but also indirect (one of the 2 parents needing to quit the workforce to take care of a disabled child for instance).
So it is the same effect as with mandatory bicycle helmets, where the main contribution to decreased trauma rates seems to come from many people refusing to ride the bicycle at all, missing on all the goodness it brings. I even wonder if most mandates' (helmets, face masks, seatbelts, all kinds of licensing, etc.) effect is confounded primarily by them serving as "red tape". I'm guessing no one is really interested in finding this out.
I think we'll all nod knowingly when billionaires who want cheap labor start railing against child car seats.
From the abstract:
> Women with two children younger than their state’s age mandate have a lower annual birth probability of 0.73 percentage points.
0.73% less than what?
On page 2:
> We find that a woman’s annual probability of giving birth declines by 0.73 percentage points when a she has two children below the car seat age, a 7.8% relative drop for women with two children.
> Women with two children younger than their state’s age mandate have a lower annual birth probability of 0.73 percentage points.
0.73% less than what?
On page 2:
> We find that a woman’s annual probability of giving birth declines by 0.73 percentage points when a she has two children below the car seat age, a 7.8% relative drop for women with two children.
0.73 percentage point reduction in the probability of being pregnant -- which makes them 7.8% less likely to be pregnant in any given year than a woman with two children generally.
As in, for women in the cohort they're using, in any given year 10.65% of them will become pregnant. But if you consider only women with two car-seat-age kids, this falls by 0.73 points to 9.92%.
As in, for women in the cohort they're using, in any given year 10.65% of them will become pregnant. But if you consider only women with two car-seat-age kids, this falls by 0.73 points to 9.92%.
Modern car seat layout is anti-contraceptive!
I'd be happy with that-which-could-be-performed if only that modern huge console wasn't a barrier between the two front seats, and all with no risk of pregnancy; but if we have to go to the trouble to climb into the back seat babymaker, well, all bets are off.
I'd be happy with that-which-could-be-performed if only that modern huge console wasn't a barrier between the two front seats, and all with no risk of pregnancy; but if we have to go to the trouble to climb into the back seat babymaker, well, all bets are off.
[deleted]
Nifty accidental benefit of a harmless public safety policy!
I can see it. I bought a $90K SUV when we went to three kids. I know I didn’t need to spend that much but I did, and it felt like a cost of the kid.
I've seen several people say this. Given that SUVs kill more pedestrians and cyclists I wonder if makes the policy even worse than the article states.
First principles thinking. For those who’ve raised kids, car seats and the number of seats in your car can very well be a reason to limit family size.
Definitely, any more than 3 kids and you need to buy a van (or 4WD aka SUV for americans). Or so we thought... turns out that once they grow bigger, you need a 3-rows car anyway because if you jam 3 kids next to each other they fight like rabid cats.
At least in Europe the car seats are so wide and the benches so narrow that you can forget having 3 children in the back row. Also isofix is usually missing in the center “seat” which is typically smaller or even raised.
The only case that I have seen work is with two rear facing seats on the outer seats and a small/narrow front facing seat in the middle.
I wish manufacturers hadn’t killed off MPVs. Now we are stuck with older models with less to no hybrid/electric drivetrains at higher than new cost. Or getting a huge (for Europe standards) car or an gas guzzling van.
Edit: turns out that, in the Netherlands, a car seat in the center seat isn’t required if it doesn’t fit in your car. Only a raised seat is allowed if the kids are smaller than 135cm. But what about safety? Then the middle one won’t have a car seat.
The only case that I have seen work is with two rear facing seats on the outer seats and a small/narrow front facing seat in the middle.
I wish manufacturers hadn’t killed off MPVs. Now we are stuck with older models with less to no hybrid/electric drivetrains at higher than new cost. Or getting a huge (for Europe standards) car or an gas guzzling van.
Edit: turns out that, in the Netherlands, a car seat in the center seat isn’t required if it doesn’t fit in your car. Only a raised seat is allowed if the kids are smaller than 135cm. But what about safety? Then the middle one won’t have a car seat.
My brother, sister and I rode in the back seat over a two week (one way) road trip halfway across the country.
It's surprising what you don't "need" when you can't have it.
It's surprising what you don't "need" when you can't have it.
Even with just two kids we'll often ride with one parent in the back and one kid up front, which we have found to greatly reduce fighting.
Has anybody replicated this study? I admit my first gut reaction to the abstract was: There's no way in hell anybody could have pulled that kind of signal out of the noise, in the midst of systematic effects, and produced a believable result.
Discussed at the time:
Car seats as contraception - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24647487 - Oct 2020 (329 comments)
Car seats as contraception - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24647487 - Oct 2020 (329 comments)
You can put three kids in the back seat of almost any car. We do this in both of our cars. You just need to get narrow car seats. Two good ones are the Diono Radian and the Cosco Scenera.
A good read. Thoughtful and generally well-reasoned. Also, there is some interesting methodology in the paper. (A nice refreshing break from the mind-numbing oversimplifications I see too much of.)
The title made my mind jump immediately to heated seating. I was pleasantly surprised it was something more hidden than that.
Children are also a good contraception by themselves. Two+ kids is just a lot of work no matter what car you drive
I disagree, you can fit 3 carseats in the back of a car (it isn't pretty, but it works, and is legal).
My father claimed that's why I needed bucket seats. So far . . . not a breeder.
Here's some Cake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW9mZLnQ7Yc
Here's some Cake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW9mZLnQ7Yc
This is wild.
As America’s GDP falls from population and immigration decline, I think things like this and especially Roe v Wade overturn, which I believe will have the complete opposite effect that the GOP desires, will become more important.
If you want ever increasing growth you have to have ever increasing population. The alternative is aging debt-ridden Japan.
As America’s GDP falls from population and immigration decline, I think things like this and especially Roe v Wade overturn, which I believe will have the complete opposite effect that the GOP desires, will become more important.
If you want ever increasing growth you have to have ever increasing population. The alternative is aging debt-ridden Japan.
I don't want to sound melodramatic, but when humanity on average produces less than 2 children per woman, it is heading for extinction. I keep hearing all sorts of counter-arguments, such as:
Bottom line is: we desperately need more children born, and at the same time we are doing everything to discourage potential parents from producing any. Car seats are just a tip of an iceberg. Schools, police, social services, nosy neighbors, political activists are all actively making life of parents living hell. This must stop. Society must help parents. Couple thousand bucks a year in tax deductions is not help, it's a pittance. Do you know how much daycare costs? Add on top of it sleepless nights; add occasional child sickness meaning you can't go work and have a career, god forbid some mental illness or other disability. Parents are literally sacrificing their lives for future generations, as the rest of you a$$holes travel, drink, go clubs, go concerts, have sex, and not only care less about what happens to humanity tomorrow, but work on actively discouraging people from giving life to someone else. This is a f#ing disgrace.
Sorry for rant.
* there is too many people
* people are destroying earth
* fewer people are born, but more people live longer, so we are fine
Bottom line is: we desperately need more children born, and at the same time we are doing everything to discourage potential parents from producing any. Car seats are just a tip of an iceberg. Schools, police, social services, nosy neighbors, political activists are all actively making life of parents living hell. This must stop. Society must help parents. Couple thousand bucks a year in tax deductions is not help, it's a pittance. Do you know how much daycare costs? Add on top of it sleepless nights; add occasional child sickness meaning you can't go work and have a career, god forbid some mental illness or other disability. Parents are literally sacrificing their lives for future generations, as the rest of you a$$holes travel, drink, go clubs, go concerts, have sex, and not only care less about what happens to humanity tomorrow, but work on actively discouraging people from giving life to someone else. This is a f#ing disgrace.
Sorry for rant.
You're assuming the trend of <2 children per woman would continue forever with the thought of "heading toward extinction". Its as silly at saying having >2 births per woman is "heading towards an infinite population".
Should we be immediately worried that our population is infinity while our resources are finite? If not, why are we worried about extinction from basically the same point?
Should we be immediately worried that our population is infinity while our resources are finite? If not, why are we worried about extinction from basically the same point?
> I don't want to sound melodramatic, but when humanity on average produces less than 2 children per woman, it is heading for extinction. I keep hearing all sorts of counter-arguments, such as:
> * there is too many people
If there's any negative feedback effect, like, "holy shit, we have no space-- let's breed less!" then it's all just fine if you have a ton of people around.
Population contracts; there's more resources available per person; population increases. It seeks equilibrium.
If there's even any subgroups breeding above replacement stably, this all works out: the subgroups that breed above replacement replace the groups that breed below replacement.
> we desperately need more children born
Human population isn't contracting.
Even if it starts contracting 10% per generation (call that 25 years), we'll still be over a billion people 475 years from now. Population is increasing; we're not about to start shrinking by 10% per generation anytime soon. There's nothing "desperate" about this.
On the other hand, if we wreck the whole planet and 90% of us die off, we'll reach a billion people in the relatively short term.
> * there is too many people
If there's any negative feedback effect, like, "holy shit, we have no space-- let's breed less!" then it's all just fine if you have a ton of people around.
Population contracts; there's more resources available per person; population increases. It seeks equilibrium.
If there's even any subgroups breeding above replacement stably, this all works out: the subgroups that breed above replacement replace the groups that breed below replacement.
> we desperately need more children born
Human population isn't contracting.
Even if it starts contracting 10% per generation (call that 25 years), we'll still be over a billion people 475 years from now. Population is increasing; we're not about to start shrinking by 10% per generation anytime soon. There's nothing "desperate" about this.
On the other hand, if we wreck the whole planet and 90% of us die off, we'll reach a billion people in the relatively short term.
Desperately need more children?
Have you forgotten that the world population is still rapidly rising?
If the population drops to 5 billion, we can start talking about needing more children. Maybe.
We had plenty of people a hundred years ago, and that was only 2 billion.
I agree that parents should be supported more, but your premise is really off.
Have you forgotten that the world population is still rapidly rising?
If the population drops to 5 billion, we can start talking about needing more children. Maybe.
We had plenty of people a hundred years ago, and that was only 2 billion.
I agree that parents should be supported more, but your premise is really off.
I don't think you understand what is going on. It's not the quantity, but the quality. Whatever numbers you quoted, (and I'm sure you haven't just made them up) would only make sense if there is a healthy ratio of young vs old. If your population growth is fuelled by increasing life expectancy, it's not a healthy growth
Here is a thought experiment: imagine nobody dies and nobody gets born for 50 years. Population not changed. Is humanity in the same position? No, because by now everyone is 50+ years old and physically incapable of reproducing, and now mankind is as good as extinct.
Here is a thought experiment: imagine nobody dies and nobody gets born for 50 years. Population not changed. Is humanity in the same position? No, because by now everyone is 50+ years old and physically incapable of reproducing, and now mankind is as good as extinct.
Nice experiment, but that's it.
One of the worse population pyramids in the world, Japan, is only slowly shrinking on the base. They are not inverting, but squaring, like Finland, turning a pyramid into a column. Which is good: newborn has almost a guarantee of living at least 60-70 years.
Here's another thought experiment: assets are currently in the hands of the baby boomers. Young people don't have access to those assets, and there are a lot of boomers. Once the boomers get cleared from the population, a lot of those assets get transferred to the younger people, which now have all the incentives to have kids.
So plenty of hypothesis there. Are we in an Universe 25, headed towards complete collapse? Or just purging the boomer generation? Time will tell.
One of the worse population pyramids in the world, Japan, is only slowly shrinking on the base. They are not inverting, but squaring, like Finland, turning a pyramid into a column. Which is good: newborn has almost a guarantee of living at least 60-70 years.
Here's another thought experiment: assets are currently in the hands of the baby boomers. Young people don't have access to those assets, and there are a lot of boomers. Once the boomers get cleared from the population, a lot of those assets get transferred to the younger people, which now have all the incentives to have kids.
So plenty of hypothesis there. Are we in an Universe 25, headed towards complete collapse? Or just purging the boomer generation? Time will tell.
> Once the boomers get cleared from the population, a lot of those assets get transferred to the younger people, which now have all the incentives to have kids.
Do you really believe what you are saying? Because recent pandemic was your chance. I presume you were not wearing masks and never got vaccinated, right?
Do you really believe what you are saying? Because recent pandemic was your chance. I presume you were not wearing masks and never got vaccinated, right?
Why do you assume those two things are connected?
Extinction?
>between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals. (This is disputed but for the purpose of a thought experiment, good enough.)
If over the next couple generations the population of the Earth dropped 90% it would bring us back to the year 1760. If robots are doing all the work, and good stewards of humans, who is to say the population couldnt reduce drastically over centuries and also not collapse into chaos and anarchy and apocalypse?
>between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals. (This is disputed but for the purpose of a thought experiment, good enough.)
If over the next couple generations the population of the Earth dropped 90% it would bring us back to the year 1760. If robots are doing all the work, and good stewards of humans, who is to say the population couldnt reduce drastically over centuries and also not collapse into chaos and anarchy and apocalypse?
You're extrapolating from (hypothetical! population is still growing!) current birth rates to extinction at least a dozen generations in the future. That's probably not a good model: https://xkcd.com/605/
Malthusian thinking is rampant in public policy discourse. Many people will become intent on stopping planning for growth when they buy a home.
We do not need to increase the birth rate. Doing so would lead to a faster exhaustion of resources. We are already 8 billion and counting.
By the same logic, shouldn’t we increase the birth rate to grow the renewables market? That would eliminate the problem of resource exhaustion.
The birth rate is sub replacement in all developed countries. That’s a huge deal.
It doesn't make any sense to only look at the birth rate in a geographically constrained area. Of course you can cherry pick a place and say the birth rate is sub-replacement. But the world wide population has more than doubled in the last 50 years. These 'developed' countries are shooting themselves in the foot with their immigration policies, not their birth rates. Over the next 50 years, the countries with the most open borders will be the countries with the strongest economies.
Why do we need replacement?
Should automation not allow less people to acomplish and care for more?
Should automation not allow less people to acomplish and care for more?
Overshooting into rapid contraction in developed countries sucks.
Better to reach equilibrium or very slow contraction. Give social and economic systems time to adapt.
Better to reach equilibrium or very slow contraction. Give social and economic systems time to adapt.
That is fine. Developed countries consume a disproportionate amount of resources.
This is an interesting sentence. The authors say this like it's a bad thing. And I recognize there are economic risks to decreasing the birth rate. But I would not murder 57 children to cause 8,000 to be born. So I think it might be okay for these births to be avoided to save these lives? I mean it definitely should be considered in the tradeoffs but facially this seems like a reasonable trade to me.