Moving from Positions to Interests on “MORE BABIES!” (Part 2)

Let’s start by agreeing on what matters—always a good place to start. We hopefully agree that retirees’ needs should be met without them excessively burdening others. I think we can agree that a strong economy is a good thing, and that an effective, adequately funded government is important (regardless of whether we think that government should be big or small). Thankfully, there are lots of different strategies to achieve those goals. Let’s look at the MORE BABIES! camp’s concerns with fresh eyes.

First, we need to reframe their goals away from an intractable position to more flexible interests. We can flip the simple “more workers” and “more consumers” paradigms and reframe those interests as: we want a productive economy that generates enough goods, services, money, and taxes to support retirees, businesses, and the government. When you state it like that, you immediately see that there are plenty of productive paths to pursue besides procreation—endless possibilities!

Then we need to closely examine their assumptions because unexamined assumptions are where innovation goes to die! Assumption Land is that seemingly unremarkable crevice between our interests and positions where magical thinking, faulty reasoning, cognitive biases, and false beliefs live. As we leap to a position, it’s Assumption Land that takes us off course.

Let’s see what these MORE BABIES! rascals are assuming when they conclude that fertility rate is the answer to so many different types of problems.

ASSUMPTION: To maintain or increase our productivity, we need the same number of workers (or more).

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: Automation has been replacing menial jobs for centuries. Improved technology will help us get rid of the mind-numbing, back-breaking jobs that we don’t really want to do in the first place—rendering the need for more bodies unnecessary. Heck, when Andrew Yang ran for president in 2020, his entire platform was based on the idea that automation and artificial intelligence are going to eliminate a substantial number of jobs in the coming decades. Should we be concerned about the number of fancy monkeys doing work?

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Let’s expand each person’s capacity for contribution! Delegate low-skill jobs to robots and invest in training and education for the remaining workforce so they can do meaningful work—increasing overall productivity.

ASSUMPTION: We need to birth more babies to have more workers.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: Immigrants. Automation. AI.

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Allowing skilled immigrants to enter the economy is a surefire way to prevent worker shortages. And going back to the last counterargument, technology can also eliminate the need for more monkeys to perform work.

ASSUMPTION: We have to keep growing our big, throbbing GDP to keep the old ladies happy.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: It’s true that sheer market size makes you a sexy, influential trading partner, and it funds things like a big military to keep you feeling manly and powerful. (Politicians loves swinging their giant GDP around on the world stage!) But is bigger always better? As the ladies can attest, it’s how you use your economy that counts, not the size. There are many prosperous small countries that keep their old ladies happy, and lots of big countries where I would NEVER want to live. In fact, I would only be willing to live in TWO out of the ten most populous countries. (I’ll let you guess which.)

Isn’t GDP per person—how much pie each of us gets—more important than how giant the pie is? The U.S. does not have the highest GDP per capita. That goes to teensy-weensy Qatar, Macao, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Ireland, UAB, Kuwait, Switzerland and other members of the Itty Bitty Country Committee. The 12 countries ahead of the U.S. in GDP per capita all have fewer than 10 million people total, and are much nicer than most of the 10 biggest countries. But is GDP—no mater how you slice it—even what matters?

Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden—more teensy weensy countries—keep topping the charts for happiest people. And isn’t everything we do ultimately in service of happiness? If GDP doesn’t drive that, then what’s the point? Would you rather live in China, instead of those cheerful countries, just because China is big enough to make Hollywood re-write World War Z?

Will myopically pursuing being big endow our citizens with a good life?

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Let’s focus on the things that demonstrably improve quality of life—good jobs, clean/safe communities, health/wellbeing, low corruption—rather than fixating on the Dow Jones, companies’ earnings reports, and other economic metrics that don’t measure what matters. Sometimes downsizing, reorganizing, and using your resources more wisely leaves you better off.

ASSUMPTION: We need the same tax revenue or more to have an effective government and fund things like social security, Medicare, and other basic services.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: I don’t know whether I want to walk through this minefield, with so many people waiting to catch even the faintest whiff of the Other Party’s political views so they can promptly hit the abort button on valuing the speaker’s ideas. Geez Louise. I will say that I think the government is overly bloated and can cut back quite a bit without hurting our country.

Government can also benefit from automation and AI to eventually reduce the number of workers it needs. And if we have fewer people, it stands to reason that we need fewer dollars to support services for that smaller population (granted, we would lose out on some economies of scale).

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Have the government start planning for reduced future revenue, prioritizing spending that has a meaningful impact for the greatest number of people (e.g., infrastructure, schools) and for those most in need (e.g., disaster relief, social services). Or, if increased productivity from AI and automation work out as expected, we don’t need to worry about our GDP shrinking along with body count. But if the government strives to maximize efficiency regardless, then that’s still a win.

ASSUMPTION: Social security payments are a good way to ensure retirees have enough money.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: Oh boy. Another tricky one. I’m not going to knock social security for being a Ponzi scheme—because if anyone can keep a Ponzi scheme strong it’s the government. The real problem is that it’s very hard to get us fancy monkeys to make short-term sacrifices to have a better future. In other words, it’s hard to motivate us to save for retirement. Social security is a forced savings of sorts, which could work in theory, except that the math isn’t working out. Its funding is based on assumptions that don’t hold true: how long people will live, how many workers there are relative to retirees, and economic trends. Let’s think about this entirely differently. Why do so many people want to retire as soon as possible? Why is it the ideal to stop working in your 60’s? Because lots of jobs suck!

Hark back to my earlier position that we need to automate crappy jobs and enrich the remaining jobs that humans do so they are meaningful and fulfilling. Better jobs mean not only that we make more money—no longer relying on social security payments as heavily—but also that we will work longer because we want to! (If you hate your job, this might sound like a horrible solution—to work longer. But there is good evidence that many people’s physical and mental health goes downhill after leaving the workplace, as they struggle to find meaning or feel useful. So keeping us productive and contributing to society in some shape or form is beneficial for all.)

But—good news—we don’t need to work longer OR rely on some paltry social security check! A little financial literacy goes a long way, and beginning a saving habit early can add up to a sizable nest egg—even if you aren’t a high-income earner. According to Ric Edelman, a personal finance expert, “The vast majority of Americans know very little about investing or the value of compounding. They don’t realize how long they’re going to live or how much money they’re going to need in retirement and, as a result, they’re not saving toward it. You can’t solve a problem you don’t know exists, and many people just don’t see it as an issue. Instead, they may think that their work pension or Social Security or owning a house will be enough. And when we’re younger, and maybe raising a family or taking on a mortgage, we’re thinking: ‘I can start saving for retirement later – I have too many expenses right now.’ But the most important lesson people need to learn is that saving money early is the key to wealth creation. It’s not only the amount of money you save, but it’s also the length of time the money is saved.” Having more babies will not fix the lives of retirees if, in lieu of saving, they spend every dollar they have on clothes, cars, vacations, restaurants, and keeping up with the Joneses during their working years.

People get super annoyed with the “just stop buying $5 lattes and avocado toast” advice because saving small amounts feel pointless in the face of student debt and unaffordable housing. But it’s not pointless. It adds up BIG TIME. I know many people at all income levels who claim they don’t have enough to save, while frittering away their money left and right. It’s silly. And many people have come to this conclusion, fueling the popularity of the FIRE movement.

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Let’s design our education system, jobs, and workplaces so that people can remain engaged and productive well into older age. Structure jobs so people can work part-time. We could also explore alternative savings plans, similar to other countries who aren’t in this mess. More employers could offer 401K matching as a standard benefit, which is proven to increase retirement savings. My favorite solution though is to improve our financial literacy and habits around savings and investing. Start saving in your 20s and allow compound interest to do its magic.

ASSUMPTION: Progress = more stuff for everyone.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: As I said earlier, I’m not here to knock capitalism. And the drive for MORE MORE MORE stuff is wired deep in our biology. But I think there are some merits to scaling back our consumption—rich and poor alike. (Yes, even many extremely low-income people in the U.S. waste a tremendous amount of money on non-essentials that don’t improve their lives meaningfully.) Mr. Money Mustaches has a great article about this: What If Everyone Became Frugal.

Quote from a different Mr. Money Mustache article: “Every financial adviser, and newspaper journalist, and even these softie liberals who are supposed to be working to make sure the common person gets a fair share. They’re all still stuck in this basic assumption that luxury products are part of the recipe for human happiness. ‘Well, the rich people can all afford cars and suburban houses and Starbucks, so we need to make sure the poor people can afford this stuff too, to ensure a fair society!’ They never even think to question it. Which means most of their advice is useless at best.”

After your basic needs are met, more stuff does not equal a better or happier life.

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: A simple life with simple pleasures can be lived very inexpensively if we don’t waste our money/time/resources chasing stuff that doesn’t meaningfully increase wellbeing. Work fewer hours, have less stuff, enjoy the small things, appreciate what you already have. Spend more time with your loved ones, sleep more, exercise more, realize that owning a bunch of stuff and taking fancy trips aren’t a prerequisite for happiness (and can, ironically, derail it). Most people don’t like their jobs, but they will have to be in those jobs even longer if they spend their discretionary income wastefully. It’s tragic.

ASSUMPTION: Older people can’t work past their late 60s and then they need a lot of medical care, so we need a ton of healthcare workers and medical funding to support these defunct members of society.

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: This topic gets my panties in a bunch—the way that we assume terrible health is just an inevitability! Hogwash! Our paradigm on physical health is totally broken in the United States (and many Western countries). Our medical system is great for treating acute medical conditions (e.g., broken bones, bacterial infections), but it is TERRIBLE at addressing the chronic illnesses plaguing developed nations. If we shift away from our current diet, of calorie-dense, hyperpalatable, processed foods laden with sugar, oil, flour, and salt, toward a diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, pasture-raised meat, and plain water, the effects would be nothing short of a public health miracle! We could cut down on strokes, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s, depression, cancer, and countless other maladies practically overnight if we overhaul our diets. We could have healthy minds and bodies well into old age (and fewer healthcare workers).

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: Relieve the burden on our medical system AND give older people more healthy, happy, productive years filled with vitality by prioritizing sleep, exercise, and a healthier diet. This goes back to how we design our workplaces and schools: we need enough time in the day to sleep, prepare healthy meals, decompress, and exercise. The idea of a 40-hour workweek (+ commute!) becomes quite silly as we shift to more creative knowledge work and automate menial tasks. Most people are only productive like 4-6 hours (max!) per day anyway, making shorter workdays a no-brainer.

ASSUMPTION: You need kids and grandkids to take care of you when you’re old, and to stave off loneliness.

This is probably the most common thing people say to those who don’t want children, “But who will take care of you when you’re old?”

PESKY COUNTERARGUMENT: I won’t deny that, for a lot of people, having kids is a profoundly meaningful experience that brings them a special connection unlike any other. Family helps fill many important needs. But your kids filling that hole is not even close to a sure thing these days. It’s common for children to not live in the same city as their parents. Or they have kids themselves that they are focused on raising—the sandwich generation—making it burdensome to take care of someone else. There’s no guarantee that your child will be healthy or well-off enough to lend you a hand; potentially even requiring care themselves as adults. And the recent rise in estrangement between parents and adult children means even a periodic phone call or birthday card isn’t a guarantee.

ALTERNATIVE POSITION: I think it’s beautiful when people can make multigenerational households work or when the child-caregiver role is mutually satisfying. But let’s not put all our eggs in one basket. Just like you shouldn’t expect your spouse to meet your every need, neither should you expect children to become indentured servants because you changed their diapers. Long term care insurance, saving for retirement, and nurturing a community of close relationships with neighbors, friends, and relatives bolsters you against the risk of your kid dropping the ball.

After reading all that, if you’re feeling a little frustrated or confused—good. That means you’re now disabused of the notion that nice, clean, bumper-stickeresque solutions can solve complex, multi-faceted problems. (Should solving hard problems feel easy?) Embracing the messy stuff and digging into specific interests and needs is the only path to meaningful progress.

I’m not taking a stance on whether you should or shouldn’t have more babies—I don’t really care either way. What I hope you take away is that it is silly to rely on an ever-increasing population to support our systems and that there is tons of room for improvement in how we design society in general.

For our Part 2 experiment, we will practice using our creativity to find new solutions to existing problems.