Thread by @paulcrider

This Krugman thread reminded me of a thread on natalism and liberalism I did not too long ago, riffing on a @JillFilipovic piece.

https://twitter.com/paulcrider/status/1409632490000502787

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1419376063227088898

Well here's the thread again so there's a preview.

https://twitter.com/paulcrider/status/1409632490000502787

Here's @mattyglesias with an economic case for natalism. I like the Romer innovation argument and in general natalism as "saying yes to people" and making it easier to have more babies is great. But natalism irrespective of women's interests is not great.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1419979690178224140

Am I just swinging at a strawman? Does natalism assume we're only talking about making it easier (for women) to choose to have more babies? Yglesias even mentions the religious angle, that making people more religious would be pro-natalist, but there's no policy lever for that.

But that gets to what I'm talking about. For many varieties of religiosity, increasing religiosity is going to be in some tension with the empowerment of women that I talk about in my thread.

But anyway this is largely academic. I like all the policies Yglesias talks about.