But think of the children!

[rah]

Yeah, my average TOTAL book bill for a semester was probably closer to 100 bucks back then.

 

[uppi]

Yeah, my average TOTAL book bill for a semester was probably closer to 100 bucks back then.

My total book bill for my university studies was probably below that, but I did make extensive use of libraries (which is not completely scalable) and was never forced to use a specific book.

 

[rah]

When it's that cheap, there's less incentive to use alternative methods.
One of the few features that Frats did well, passing down books to the next class.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

When it's that cheap, there's less incentive to use alternative methods.
One of the few features that Frats did well, passing down books to the next class.

I loathe fraternities but man did they have excellent private libraries and lots of files with all the homework and test answers. The latter was such a massive academic advantage that there was a big push from the student body to force professors to change out their tests/homework sets regularly and to take other steps to level the playing field. There was even a name for it at my school: 'the file system'.

Professors were by and large receptive of this push even though it ultimately increased their workload. They didn't think the file system was fair though probably less than half of them actually did change their practices in the end.

Edit: Why should we encourage 'alternative methods' through high prices? I could say that lack of proper sidewalk lightening encourages alternative methods to combat crimes and injuries but that is not the kind of society I aspire to. I would rather books be cheap as the benefit to society for that far outweighs the marginal growth that niche market servicers (book resellers, etc) create in the economy.

 

[rah]

I wasn't proposing to encourage it, just stating the natural response.

I never joined a frat, but yeah, their files were quite an advantage. But thanks, also to the internet, the incentive for teachers to shake it up has risen.

 

[uppi]

with all the homework and test answers.

In my times, most of those were to be found somewhere on the internet, anyway.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You are both right; there was a lot of content being uploaded to the internet when I was in school and this surely is even more true today. Even still, the frat files were more complete than the internet databases and went back decades in some cases. At some point, those decades of files become a good learning/practice resource even as they stop being relevant for cheating - and that resource isn't shared so it remains an unfair advantage for them even as online databases are built. Because of the hap-hazard way open source websites are maintained, I don't think they'll ever fully replicate old frat libraries of files.

Also, websites are much easier to target and take down for various reasons than frat libraries.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You mean like survey data showing this is a top self-reported reason why young people aren't having kids?* You also realize making comparisons across countries like this is facile, right?

*And you can google just as well as I can; to head off the 'sources please!' that's coming.

It's not just single country comparisons, however. You can see consistent trends between "places where people have a lot of kids" and "places where people don't have a lot of kids".

Speaking of googling stuff:

Birth rate in the United States in 2015, by household income
Annual Household Income in U.S. dollars Number of births per 1,000 women
25,000-34,999 59.52
35,000-49,999 55.04
50,000-74,999 52
75,000-99,999 49.9

Forgive me for not trusting self-reported survey data when reality doesn't match with it in either in the US or elsewhere. If income were the primary driver for a decline in birthrate, we would anticipate the opposite of this statistic unless having more money makes people think they're poor.

 

[Cheetah]

The city council of Irvine just voted to make it illegal to rent an apartment with someone else that is not family.

lol what!?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@TheMeInTeam
Statistics for overall household income doesn't tell you what's going on with young people.

No one is denying the US is getting richer. The problem is that this growth is not broadly shared and in fact has slid backwards in real terms for the average person and has been especially regressive for young people. Not only are entry-level jobs worse paying than they used to be, they cost a lot more to access in the form of debt and spiraling housing costs in areas with strong job growth. And because entry-level jobs are worse compensating, this also means that spiraling health costs are being pushed especially hard on the young as they will have access to worse (and more expensive) health care options due to those same crappier-compensating jobs.

We also have to factor in the effect that immigrants will have in the statistics as they tend to have more kids than non-immigrants all other things being equal.

lol what!?

Yup. The rich people here have decided they've had enough of students moving into their neighborhoods so they pushed the council to pass this bill. It's going to cause some massive artificial distortions of the housing market here which is going to hurt everyone that doesn't already own property. But at the end of the day, the rich will get that much richer and that's as much a feature as a bug to this solution of rowdy neighbors.

 

[rah]

I have this sneaking suspicion that more parents will buy houses for when their kids are going to school in an attempt to get around this. This has happened on other campuses when housing was spiraling out of control.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I have this sneaking suspicion that more parents will buy houses for when their kids are going to school in an attempt to get around this. This has happened on other campuses when housing was spiraling out of control.

Yes but I know a lot of those parents recoup costs by renting spare rooms to their kid's friends and classmates while they're at school - this law would stop that. But if families can afford a few years of negative returns for the years their kid uses the house alone, it would be a lucrative investment over the long run as housing prices are going to continue climbing due to this new artificial supply restriction. As soon as the kid graduates and moves out of the second house, they can go back to renting it on the private market to other families.

 

[rah]

Joint ownership of houses has been used in other markets. Especially when you're dealing with upper middle class families with very little limits when attempting to acquire credit. So this may lessen their problem but I doubt it will totally eliminate it. I still thinks it's a pretty crappy move on the part of the city.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It certainly cedes a ton of control of your personal affairs to a petty government. I used this same law as an example in another thread about how the same small-government conservatives will decry federal overreach but will happily turn around and try and legislate the personal affairs of everyone on a local level. Choosing who you live with seems to me to be an even more fundamental right than who you marry but for some reason it's OK for government to regulate this. It's especially unfair considering it's so expensive in this town that you basically have to have two incomes to live here. If you work here and don't want a long commute, you either live with family or get a roommate.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Statistics for overall household income doesn't tell you what's going on with young people.

The statistics show that people with less money have more kids on average in the US. I'm not sure what nuanced minutiae you're invoking that gets to ignore this, but I'd say it really is your turn to show some evidence now.

If income were a barrier to having children in the US, households with more money should have more children than households with less money. That is what you claimed, but instead we see the opposite, which supports my assertion that for this particular issue we'd be better off looking elsewhere for cause.

Joint ownership of houses has been used in other markets. Especially when you're dealing with upper middle class families with very little limits when attempting to acquire credit. So this may lessen their problem but I doubt it will totally eliminate it. I still thinks it's a pretty crappy move on the part of the city.

It's a crappy move and I don't think a justifiable case can be made for it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If income were a barrier to having children in the US, households with more money should have more children than households with less money.

You're conflating two phenomenon -

There is a well documented tendency for higher incomes and standards of living to drive down birth rates.

It's still possible, plausible and likely that within that context you can have birth rates that decline further still due to lower income and economic opportunity. Young people in the states have access to education and birth control, which means they enjoy the same downward birth rate trend as past generations when everyone's income rose. The difference now is that there is a compounding trend where people not only avoid the oops babies and raising kids to put them to work on the farm but are also choosing to skip kids they would otherwise have because of the lack of economic opportunities. There's nothing inconsistent with what you've said, you're just dropping all of the nuances at play to shoe horn your argument to the data you've selected.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is a well documented tendency for higher incomes and standards of living to drive down birth rates.

It's still possible, plausible and likely that within that context you can have birth rates that decline further still due to lower income and economic opportunity.

It's not plausible because it isn't coherent. You're simultaneously stating that better standards of living drive down birth rates, then further claiming that in the context of this high standard a lower standard also drives down birth rates...despite that logically this should bump them back up in principle.

It would make more sense to blame education and birth control directly for instance, as both of these seem to consistently lower birth rates as they improve. The former is particularly egregious in the US and likely elsewhere, as it's entangled in predatory loan practices and inefficient to the degree of allowing price gouging. The latter is probably underrated as a significant society-changing factor in history, but I'm not convinced it's for the worse.

 

[uppi]

The statistics show that people with less money have more kids on average in the US. I'm not sure what nuanced minutiae you're invoking that gets to ignore this, but I'd say it really is your turn to show some evidence now.

Nuances like:
- People having kids tend to be early in their career, making not as much as they would later
- Having kids tends to reduce household income, especially on the woman's part.

It isn't exactly unexpected that the richest households are those without kids.

As for evidence:
birth rate of greece

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're simultaneously stating that better standards of living drive down birth rates, then further claiming that in the context of this high standard a lower standard also drives down birth rates...despite that logically this should bump them back up in principle.

I am but what comes after your ellipsis does not follow.

It would make more sense to blame education and birth control directly for instance, as both of these seem to consistently lower birth rates as they improve.

Yup, explains the primary drop. Those things are accessible enough for most people to have them in the US, allowing you to plan out having kids. If you don't have money for good housing, healthcare and your own tertiary education, it follows you're less likely to go on and have kids. If you do have those things, then you're more likely.

I am saying the overall birthrate trend is downward but less economic opportunities and all of the other issues mean the trend gets deflected further downward.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you don't have money for good housing, healthcare and your own tertiary education, it follows you're less likely to go on and have kids. If you do have those things, then you're more likely.

Apparently you're not more likely.

- People having kids tend to be early in their career, making not as much as they would later
- Having kids tends to reduce household income, especially on the woman's part.

The age range where having children is practical is pretty narrow, so I don't expect a massive difference in "average birth age of mother" between these income brackets. If you do have this info and it shows a big difference I'd accept that explanation though.

I'm not sure if this data is taking income before or after having children into account, but kids would reduce income somewhat regardless of income bracket if the mother is working previously.