Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by andrepd on Monday May 18, 2020 @03:10PM
(#23227045)
The curve has beyond been flattened already. It's nosediving. We're below replacement fertility and falling. I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist". And mind, this is coming from someone very much opposed to unrestrained growth capitalism. A proponent of "degrowth" if you will.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by godelski on Monday May 18, 2020 @07:19PM
(#23229529)
I'm not sure why you have negative points. Maybe because you meant in first world countries[0][1] and didn't state it explicitly? The world is barely above replacement rate (i.e. there is population growth) and OECD members are below (population decline).
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by dominotw on Monday May 18, 2020 @09:24PM
(#23230368)
These are the best graphs I saw all day. Thank you.
Pro-natalist, as in promoting births just for the sake of it.
> . I don't think incenctivising >2.1 fertility is being "protonatalist".
Yes it is, because you are incentivising births just to float above an arbitrary level.