somebody who understands Korean culture better than me:
Is there any meaningful overlap between K-Pop and "6B4T"? Are K-Pop stars associated with the idea, or K-Pop fans? Or is there no association, or even opposition?
The last scene of the Netflix documentary about Blackpink was sort of demographically alarming and suggested a link between K-Pop-dom and major marriage/fertility delay, but they actually did *not* espouse a total "giving up."
But my entire exposure to K-Pop basically involves worrying about my goddaughters and what I see as their perhaps unwise career aspirations + American friends whose enthusiasm I simply cannot understand. So since I'm basically a grumpy uncle on this I need youths to explain it.
someone tell me
do the kpop stars hate the babies
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"If it's a tie, we do nothing. We only take measures we know have huge benefits. If it's not clear there are huge benefits, we will quite literally criminalize it."
In a just and rational world, the government needs to *definitively prove* giving the vaccine is *harmful* in order to *deny my right* to take a risk with my own body.
ESPECIALLY since it's increasingly apparent that these vaccines DO reduce transmission, we should be vaccinating even if individual-level risks are slightly against the vaccine, because vaccinating people may save lives beyond their own.
A good model of (intentional) fertility is: "People have children when they feel ready to take care of them, and readiness is primarily proxied by their assets and debts rather than their income."
Indeed, if a tight labor market boosts wages and labor demand and causes people to believe they can boost their net worth rapidly by working now and then having kids *later*, then tight labor markets could theoretically *reduce* fertility.
10/10 would do again, it worked very well and was highly effective and probably contributed meaningfully to the fall of communism, unlike like ya know the CIA's entire Latin American portfolio, which was probably worthless.
provide material support to actual live, existing "enemy of my enemy" folks who are willing to actually fight wars that serve our interests
things intelligence agencies should not do:
alienate millions of people in our backyard by toppling elected leaders simply because they advocate for bad policies despite the fact they pose zero strategic threat to the US
can we get an estimate of years of life lost to external causes, alcohol-related diseases, smoking-related diseases, STDs, and obesity-related diseases, by country? Like, "Years of life lost due to all causes of death which have extremely large non-healthcare-system components"
reasonably confident that this explains like 200% of the difference in life expectancy between the US and peer countries
In 2019, Americans were literally *twice* as likely to die of overdoses as virtually any European country. Same goes for road fatalities. Our overall "non-communicable diseases" death rate is like 70% higher.
The One, True, Correct way to assess public support for a policy is to ask, "Would you support X if it meant you had to pay Y higher in taxes?" where Y is simply the budgetary cost divided by the number of households in the country.
I will also accept actually doing a full willingness-to-pay framework as valid, however it's a massive pain to administer.
No, because peoples' income changes over their lifetime. Within-lifetime inequality is very large, and most peoples' average lifetime income will be closer to the national average than their year-specific income!
So first off, I don't have access to the full text, so I'm working from the very nice presentation that @florenciatorche gave here:
Midway through, a questioner asks if she has data on fathers who are absent. She says she does not have data about cohabitation, and shows a graph showing that the cohabiting share of births to single moms is probably more-or-less stable.