Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

[Manteiga]

And International Trade Secretary. I'd have preferred to see her as Secretary of State for Education in addition to Minister for Women and Equalities, but this is good news.

twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1584957913059454976

What rate of growth would you like in the U.K.?

Maybe it’s a matter of fluidity of language and meaning. A figure might help.

Also the point about being forced to be more local is a good one. Things are in flux all the time, it’s life. We move forwards, get pulled in another direction, restabilise.. stability sounds pleasant but life is about change.

I’m also pretty sure there’s a direction most people would like to head for - Iran is a good example atm people have access to information on personal devices now and it leads to change

I'd love recs on good overviews/books of this type of thing.

I don't see that economic growth is necessarily completely tied to social or scientific progress, though? Why can't we maintain a steady economy, while also pursuing scientific research and continuing to refine and adapt and hopefully improve existing laws?

Yes sure, purpose, but I would question that 'job' (to me that implies working for someone else, too) is necessarily that thing. Maybe the word 'job' is causing the issue in my head. If we can expand 'job' to mean vocation or occupation or care or employment I'd feel happier about it.

I don’t think everyone needs a job to be happy.

But I do think communities need jobs to be happier overall - it’s the plural and broad view rather than the individual.

I'd prefer it if growth in GDP per capita was measured, instead of just growth in GDP. The latter just incentivises politicians to grow the population to make the figures look good without improving the lives of citizens.

"Occupation" would be a better fit.

You know those inflammatory headlines in the red top tabloids "The council won't move us and our six kids into a bigger house"? The question the comments always ask (not unreasonably) is "why did you keep having more kids when you've not got the room. In many cases the answer is that childrearing has become the mother's occupation. The father goes out to work (usually fairly low skilled, low paid work) and the mother brings up the kids. As each kid in turn grows older and less dependent, the mother finds herself unoccupied and the solution becomes "let's have another child". Having an occupation keeps the mother happy. A person without an occupation lacks purpose in life and will become unhappy.

For many reasons, it can be argued that endlessly having kids like that is not beneficial to the children - living in an overcrowded home with no privacy is no fun to grow up in. Therefore as a society, we need to look at how the desire for purpose can be satisfied in a different way. Traditionally that has been through the education system leading to fulfilling paid employment - there is a reason why birth rates fall in countries where women have been liberated from the homemaker role. Is there a better way of achieving this aim?

I like Isobel Crawley's approach in Downton Abbey: “If I am to live in this village, I must have an occupation. Please, let me be useful.”

We need distraction to avoid staring down the howling existential void?

Puts me in mind of the zen (ish) exhortation:

'Don't just do something, sit there!'

That makes sense

But I’m wondering what people would like to see if they don’t like growth - what’s the figure we’re talking about

Weirdly it’s 50 something men who seem to have a problem with the existential void, rather than 50 something women!

Therefore as a society, we need to look at how the desire for purpose can be satisfied in a different way

the average number of kids per family is less than 2. Nowhere near 6. So the story isn’t very representative of most mothers, is it. We aren’t, in the main, having more and more kids for something to do.

It’s lovely to choose whether to work or not to look after dc but I’m under no illusion I don’t benefit from having another earner in the household that enables the choice.

Growth in the economy helps the other person find secure work, it would be really self defeating to imagine ‘growth’ is bad, and a bit rose tinted to think something else will be lovelier. Humans are a messy, striving bunch, but good things come out of that that too.

If someone could tell me some numbers for what growth they want instead I’d be interested

Given our falling birthrate in teh UK and the ageing population maybe we shoudl actually be encouraging women to start having more babies?

The fertility rate has indeed dropped in the UK because of female emancipation. That doesn't mean that there aren't families of eight living in two-bedroom terraces. It's not good for the kids to grow up in those conditions. Education and raising aspirations is one way to avoid this circumstance in future generations.

I just don’t see it as an issue that needs addressing because it’s currently not very common at all. Seems like we have been educated on it!

I think we should. Actually I think we are already in big trouble in this respect and we should be urgently trying to fix this situation. We are going to be so fucked if people don't start having more babies, and fast!

But when some politician mooted the idea of a tax holiday for women having more than two babies, MN exploded with rage! There was a whole thread about how it was fascist to have babies.

@beastlyslumber youvbe demonstrated a really poor understanding of the issues around population growth AND the implications of child bearing and rearing for children.

implications for women!

but it’s not a cracking outcome for children to be born to support a greedy elderly population who can’t bear the notion of well managed immigration

Really? How have I demonstrated that? By having a different view than you do?

@beastlyslumber no not all - but someone who understands the implications of an aging population with a longer life expectancy due to medical interventions and an understanding of the environmental and infrastructure implications of an in increased population and an understanding of the real financial, physical and social implications of having children in the currentl social structure would not be dumb enough to think the solution is as simple as that women should have more babies.

That sounds a bit ageist.

@Signalbox the primary argument to support population growth is to support the excising aging population?

im the uk specifically the main issue with the fact that population replacement is low is that it reduces the workforce to care for the elderly population

there are very few - if any? - people arguing for women to have more babies just because

Jesus, @Cavviesarethebest can you not just put your point of view without using a term of abuse? I'm not dumb, not even a little bit.

the implications of an aging population with a longer life expectancy due to medical interventions

Well one of the implications is that there is a diminishing work force, and not enough people to look after and provide services for the elderly. Too many people not able to contribute to the economy is going to be a huge problem.

an understanding of the environmental and infrastructure implications of an in increased population

What about the implications of a decreased population? You only have to look at what's happening in China to see the huge problems that could be in store.

an understanding of the real financial, physical and social implications of having children in the currentl social structure

What do you mean by that? You don't think people should have children because... ?

it’s not a cracking outcome for children to be born to support a greedy elderly population who can’t bear the notion of well managed immigration

Woah. So the elderly are "greedy"? And they don't want immigration? Have you actually taken a breath and asked yourself what you mean by this?

So people should stop having babies and instead we should encourage more immigration, in your view? This seems like a plan with an awful lot of flaws.

the primary argument to support population growth is to support the excising aging population?

No, it's not.

wtf? A greedy elderly population, are you serious?

@beastlyslumber so what is the primary argument?