You know, there's probably fewer perverse incentives with a government run dating service. Obviously I can imagine ways it could suck, but when I compare them to how commercial dating services are run it's hard to see how they could do a _worse_ job.
If people are oriented towards traditional relationships, then pairing people up younger probably leads to higher overall fertility rate in the population, so I could see governments with existentially declining fertility rates (read: almost all of them) taking an interest in actually providing a successful service here (unlike the commercial dating apps).
Of course, a lack of a match is not the only thing that prevents people from having kids, but I'm curious what the impact of an optimal matching service would be on fertility rates.
edit: I think governments might do well to provide funding for dating apps (whether privately or publicly owned) based on how many matches from the app actually lead to children. Completely flip the classical incentives on their head. Should be easy enough to ask if newborns were a product of a participating app as part of the birth certification process.
The modern trend of most families with 0-2 kids isn’t sustainable. We don’t need to go back to 5+ being the norm but a self stable society needs to be able to offset non parents thus requiring 3+ children families to be quite common.
Maybe we can also go back to the "traditional relationship" where a single person's income can pay for a house, a car, and support 7+ people.
For a time, everywhere people typically had homes and cars and families it was required that they could afford it all on a single person's income because women were property, and not allowed to work outside the home (at least after marriage), or get an education, or own anything.
Exact times do vary by country, but female 'emancipation' is largely starting around WWI, whereas the middle class lifestyle you're suggesting doesn't arise until after WWII.
In the early 20th century, most women in the United States did not work outside the home, and those who did were primarily young and unmarried. In that era, just 20 percent of all women were “gainful workers,” as the Census Bureau then categorized labor force participation outside the home, and only 5 percent of those married were categorized as such. (<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-work-and-wages-and-how-it-has-created-success-for-us-all/" rel="nofollow">https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor...)
A marriage bar is the practice of restricting the employment of married women. Common in English-speaking countries from the late 19th century to the 1970s, the practice often called for the termination of the employment of a woman on her marriage, especially in teaching and clerical occupations. Further, widowed women with children were still considered to be married at times, preventing them from being hired, as well. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar)
> the middle class lifestyle you're suggesting doesn't arise until after WWII.
Most US families owned a car before WWII. 60% in 1929.
Around half of the people in the US owned their home in 1890. They actually owned the homes too. Before 1934 Americans typically paid off their homes in just 3-5 years. After that the 15 and 30 year mortgage had a strong majority of Americans in houses, but they were actually owned by the bank for decades.
That was never traditional anywhere. It was possible in the 1950s in a few places. Anyone thinking it was traditional is seriously undervaluing women's work.
water-data-dude · · focus · HN ↗
pcthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
Of course, a lack of a match is not the only thing that prevents people from having kids, but I'm curious what the impact of an optimal matching service would be on fertility rates.
edit: I think governments might do well to provide funding for dating apps (whether privately or publicly owned) based on how many matches from the app actually lead to children. Completely flip the classical incentives on their head. Should be easy enough to ask if newborns were a product of a participating app as part of the birth certification process.
expedition32 · · focus · HN ↗
Retric · · focus · HN ↗
The modern trend of most families with 0-2 kids isn’t sustainable. We don’t need to go back to 5+ being the norm but a self stable society needs to be able to offset non parents thus requiring 3+ children families to be quite common.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
That's a lot of bodies.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
jcranmer · · focus · HN ↗
Exact times do vary by country, but female 'emancipation' is largely starting around WWI, whereas the middle class lifestyle you're suggesting doesn't arise until after WWII.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
A marriage bar is the practice of restricting the employment of married women. Common in English-speaking countries from the late 19th century to the 1970s, the practice often called for the termination of the employment of a woman on her marriage, especially in teaching and clerical occupations. Further, widowed women with children were still considered to be married at times, preventing them from being hired, as well. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar)
> the middle class lifestyle you're suggesting doesn't arise until after WWII.
Most US families owned a car before WWII. 60% in 1929. Around half of the people in the US owned their home in 1890. They actually owned the homes too. Before 1934 Americans typically paid off their homes in just 3-5 years. After that the 15 and 30 year mortgage had a strong majority of Americans in houses, but they were actually owned by the bank for decades.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
bluGill · · focus · HN ↗