‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Singapore govt dating app uses Gale-Shapley stable marriage algorithm

466 points · 499 comments · rzk

  1. mlboss · · focus · HN ↗
    There is a very simple solution to the problem. Just add a tax to single people and childless couples or reverse give huge tax break to married and couple with kids.

    In past the motive for marriage was sex and companionship which was frowned in society if out of wedlock. Now it is not frowned upon. The old constraint is gone and we need to add new constraints if we want to solve the problem.

    1. Grombobulous · · focus · HN ↗
      A few things:

      First, I don’t think we can reduce past marriage motives in the way you describe as different cultures have had varying views of marriage and sex throughout human history.

      Next, has it been proven that monetary incentives increase childbirth? I thought I’ve read things showing that it doesn’t do a lot to influence birth rates. E.g., Sweden has some pretty generous time off and support policies for having kids and their birth rate is really not much higher than other less supportive countries of comparable status (wealthy, developed countries).

      Finally, I dispute the idea of a “problem” existing in the first place. I think the long-term survival of the human race is more likely with a smaller population than at present. When I see news about birth rates plummeting in third world countries as they develop, I feel relieved, not worried.

      I think it’s easier to deal with population loss than it is to deal with overpopulation, too much carbon emissions due to high population, habitat destruction due to continued human habitat expansion, etc.

      My mini-conspiracy theory would be that it’s mostly corporate interests that don’t want the population to go down. During the plague, the population was cut dramatically and as a result wages were higher for 100 years due to a labor shortage. Corporations just want more underpaid labor and more customers. I submit the idea that maybe individuals aren’t actually better off with a constantly increasing population.

      I’ve also noticed that, at least in the US, the political cohort most concerned about solving low childbirth is doing the least to support higher childbirth. They disinvest in education and are against no-tuition community college and university, they are against universal no-tuition childcare, they are against paid parental leave (the US mandates zero days of paid parental leave on a federal level), they are against medically necessary abortions in emergency situations during child-rearing, they are against immigration which also increases US population and birth rate, they are against universal healthcare, they’re against sustainable population growth through urbanism, public transit, and renewable energy, preferring single family home car-dependent and environmental destructive sprawl development.

      In other words, find your political representative in your jurisdiction that talks a lot about needing to have more babies and see if they’ve ever talked about raising the minimum wage or taxing billionaires to fund better access to education, nutrition, child care, time off, healthcare, public transit, etc.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.