The traditional inverse relationship between wealth and fertility is reversing in developed countries, with wealthier individuals now having more children, while lower-income individuals have fewer. This shift is linked to the increasing cost of raising children and the nature of social services provided by governments.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Hello, Malcolm. I'm excited to be
speaking with you today because there's
this thing I've really been stuck on
recently and I think I'm realizing that
what it means to be rich and what we
thought it means to be poor is is
fundamentally changing and actually
inverting and not the way you'd think.
So, so specifically rich people are
starting to live like poor people used
to live and and poor people are
increasingly living like rich people
used to live. You know, you just say
this upfront and I'm like, "Oh my god,
this actually checks out when I look at
our friends."
>> Yeah. And and you can see this coming in
all sorts of places which we'll talk
about, but most notably, and I want to
couch this in in this larger context,
you can see this most notably in in
recent shifts in fertility. Uh, and this
this actually is a big deal. It has
pretty significant implications, and I
want us to explore it. So, let's just
dive right in. And and I'll start with
on the fertility front, a sort of like
premise setting thing to sort of get us
into this thought experiment and like
whoa, what's going on here? This doesn't
make sense. In September, New Mexico's
governor announced that New Mexico will
be the first US state to offer universal
free child care regardless of income,
which is that's huge. Average household
savings are estimated to be around $12,000
$12,000
per child, which checks out, per year.
Uh, and I I actually think that's a
major understatement because when we had
just three kids, we were spending around
4,000 a month, so around 50,000 a year.
So, we had obviously stopped because it
burned through our savings. And and that
was for the daycare with a terrible
reputation. The daycare that
>> Yeah. This is a daycare that a bunch of
kids died at.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Not not the location our
kids were at, but you know,
>> in New York,
>> a very close location. Yeah. And and
this this comes at a time also and we've
reported on this separately when polling
indicates that Americans want the US to
focus on measures like this to combat
declining fragility rates and not other
things. They're just like I just pay for
my childare like stay out of my life but
like make it easier. So what you would
expect from things like free child care
I is I mean at least what I would
intuitively expect is if the the state
covers major basic costs of having kids
>> then rich people
>> are going to have fewer kids as as their
standards for raising kids are higher
and then and and poor people of modest
means for who this daycare expensive is
it's it's huge right like it's
devastating they would have more kids so
like middle class and lowerass people
would have more kids and rich rich
people would have still fewer kids like
it wouldn't affect them because do you
remember what your mom said about how
much money we needed like per kid?
>> It was a million dollars per kid, right?
>> Yeah. She's like, "Well, you need a
million dollars in income per year per kid."
kid."
>> Per kid.
>> Because she's unhinged, but that that is
a rich person norm around kids, right?
So, you just think that like, well, but
rich people have really unsustainable
standards around how much kids cost. you
know, they have all these nannies and
all the clothes and all the activities
and like they want to fly around the
world with them and so they're too
expensive. They wouldn't have more kids
just because child care is paid for. But
no, no. And this is what's so crazy.
Starting in 2017, we've seen a shift in
wealthy countries that largely cover
things like child care and education and
healthcare in which wealthier and more
educated families are having more
children than poorer and less educated families.
families.
>> I don't BELIEVE IT.
>> NO, IT'S TRUE. It's true.
>> I don't believe it. This is
>> I will show you the data. No, man. This
is insane. So the key question is why
does giving resources to poor people not
increase their fertility proportionally
to rich people because that is a that is
a like this is so perplexing and what
people are arguing. So it it when you go
into this and even when you go into like
the academic research covering this
inversion and this strange trend they're
like oh well
when when the state doesn't offer
generous social services wealthy
families aren't willing to pay for
having kids but somehow poor families
are they're like they're literally
arguing this and and they're basically
arguing that basically having to work at
all as poor people do competes with
family demands.
But I I hesitate to buy that at all
because wealthy people still work and
have aggressive schedules. Like we know
this. We have a lot of wealthy friends
and they are extremely busy.
>> I don't know.
>> Well, no, that's we're going to get to
that. That is true because maybe that's
not so true. Also though,
>> here's what I don't understand. Why are
they giving money to poor people?
>> These are also legit questions. But also
like wealthy people have kids in more
expensive ways. Not just in that like
they want to get them the nannies and
the fancy clothes and the fancy toys and
they want to fly them everywhere and do
things like that, but like they're
they're typically waiting to have kids
and then until they're older and more
infertile. So they're more likely to
need fertility treatments and need IVF
and have more complicated pregnancies or
even use surrogates. You know, that's
really common, right? So like that would
also make me think that they're going to
have fewer kids. In fact, IVF is so
expensive, people are increasingly
traveling abroad to get it and to to the
extent that we're seeing major
mainstream news outlets covering it recently.
recently.
>> IVF clinic is going to open the
Philippines and do like embryo testing.
Is that happening still?
>> It's still happening. Yeah. Do
>> you have any on that for like our fans?
>> We're under an NDA, so I can't say
anything, but once once we have an
update, we can share information. But
like CBS News recently did an article
about it. They talked about one couple
that found a clinic in Bogotaa that they
were going to that offered a package of
four IVF rounds for $11,000,
which, you know, compared to like the
$60,000 it would cost to do four rounds.
Then that's on the lower end in the
United States, that's like really good.
So my hypothesis here is that the issue
is more that governments and societies
are turning poor people into wealthy
people or at least people who live like
wealthy people historically lived and
turning wealthy people into poor people
or at least the way that poor people
used to live and and and and we'll we'll
explore that in greater detail. But
first, I just want to give a caveat and
and this can be really summed up well by
a a thread that that more births did
when covering this. Yeah,
>> this research.
>> You know who's gonna love this data,
right, is Lyman Stone.
>> Actually, I'm also going to cover
Limestone had actually he didn't chime
in about this just as it came out
because this was a 2025 thing. I'm going
to I'm going to look at Limestone as a
take on this. He published in April of
last year though or like spring of last year.
year.
>> But in this thread, more births explains
lower income has been associated with
higher fertility, but now the
relationship is completely flipped. He
writes in many developed countries.
Higher incomes are now associated with
higher fertility almost everywhere in
Europe, both for men and women at 2025
paper shows. And we're going to look at
that paper. His second tweet though, and
this is important, but this is only
within countries across countries. The
correlation between income and
infertility remains very negative.
Wealthy countries continue to have far
lower birth rates than poor countries.
Also, fertility tends to go down for
countries as a whole as they get richer.
Also, I kind of just wanted to to show
you this thread just because one of the
animations that shows basically the
fertility of countries going down as
they get wealthier literally looks like
sperm. Look at look at look at the link
I just said.
>> What is wrong with you? Come on. Go juvenile.
juvenile.
>> It's theatic. It's theatic. Okay. I just
find that extremely amusing.
>> Swimming downhill. Yeah.
>> Yeah. There's there's little sperm
swimming downhill. As they get, you
know, wealthier, their fertility goes
down along with their sperm motility as
their testosterone levels plummet. But
obviously wealthy countries, fertility
rates being low, it is important to be
looking at
what we can do to increase fertility in
these countries. And it's pretty wild
that now the wealthier peopleoverty.
Yeah. Outside of Yeah. Outside of that.
So let's let's look at this wealthy
country shift that we need to
investigate. So for most of the 20th
century, there was a negative
relationship between wealth and
fertility in Europe. Wealthier
individuals typically had fewer children
while poorer families had more. Everyone
knows this. We talk about this a lot.
However, starting around 2017, this
pattern weakened and it's been even
reversed in several prosperous, and this
is the important thing, prosperous
European countries in by 2021. In some
places, the association is now neutral
or even slightly positive. And similar
patterns hold when using education as a
proxy for income. So low educated Nordic
women and men now have the lowest
fertility and highest childlessness 15
to 36% in recent cohorts while higher
educated groups have stabilized near
replacement levels around 1.8 to 2.0 children.
children.
>> Which countries is this in?
>> The Nordic countries.
>> The Nordic countries. So the Nordic
countries is now the lower income and
lower education you are as a man, the
lower your fragility rate
>> and and woman and woman
>> and woman.
>> But here's no there there are different
there are different regional and gender
variations that I I'm glad you're you're
pointing to this. So in Nordic countries
such as Sweden, studies show a clear
positive connection between high
lifetime earnings and having more
children, especially among men. But for
women, the relationship shifted from
women having more kids up to women born
around the 1940s to positive or flat in
the 70s cohorts with the poorest women
now having the fewest children due to
higher childlessness rates. In southern
Europe, however, prenatal wealth or
sorry, parental wealth is still related
to to to lower fertility.
>> In poorer countries, the poorer you are,
the higher your fertility rate is. Yeah.
>> But in wealthier countries, the poorer
you are, the lower their fertility rate
is. And it seems to be correlated with
the amount of social services that poor
people are getting. To sterilize the
poor is to give them money. So that's
why WE'RE GIVING POOR PEOPLE MONEY.
>> YEAH. YEAH, they're they're trying to st
No, but seriously, in European countries
with limited social welfare support,
like if they don't have free child care
or if they don't have universal health
care, fertility rates among wealthier
citizens generally show only a weak
positive association or sometimes remain
lower, especially in southern and
eastern Europe. So in southern Europe
and some conservative welfare states
like Greece and Italy with weak higher
parental wealth does not strongly
correlate or compensate for limited
public support. In contrast, Nordic
countries and regions with extensive
social support show a clearer trend.
High-income individuals, especially men
tend to have more children. And so what
what spurred this discourse about this
and the paper that more birth cited that
just came out this year? Oh my god. Can
you hear tech snoring?
>> No. Sound ever. Oh god.
>> You you put the microphone up for all
No, no. I think I've woken him up.
>> Oh, dear. Oh, you woke him up. >> Crumbs.
>> Crumbs.
>> Oh, God. I I I just when he snores, it's
the cutest end ever. But whatever. I The
moment is passed. I ruined it. But so,
right. So, there there was a paper that
came out that that discussed this trend
that is that is the whole spark of all
this. And it's called let's see it is
the it is the sexiest and most catchy
title of all research papers a research
note on the increasing income prerequis
parenthood country specific or universal
in western Europe that is that is the
title not exactly the best but the TLDDR
is they're trying to argue that wealth
is beginning to correlate with having
more kids because having kids is so
expensive. They're they're they're
trying to say we need to give people
more money for kids. Like that that is
literally their takeaway in this whole thing.
thing.
>> But here's just like the key question
they wanted to ask is has the role of
income in enabling parenthood
strengthened in Western Europe from 2006
to 2020? And are increasing fertility
inequalities present between higher and
lower income groups for both men and
women? And their main findings were that
higher individual income strongly
increases the likelihood of having a
first child both for men and women
across 16 Western European countries
that they studied. The effect is
stronger and more widespread in women,
especially in countries with robust
welfare systems. The role of income as a
prerequisite for parenthood has
increased over time. Incomebased
fertility gaps have widened primarily
due to declining birth rates among
lowincome men and women not just rising
births among higher income groups. So
this is important as you said right the
way to sterilize poor people is to give
them resour UBI would do so much harm to
fertility rates from what we've seen in
the data.
>> Well, but especially among poor people
and that's the really crazy thing
because you think like oh well this is
all and that that that is what is
constantly being argued, right? It's
like well we're we're not the rich
people in this country. we can afford to
have kids. But what's clearly shown in
this data is that's totally the opp like
that is not at all how this is going to
work. Which is is it just so surprises
me. And but what what also really
surprises me is that the researchers are
trying to argue
that this is just because it's so
expensive to have kids.
>> Well, that actually isn't a terrible
argument. So if you're thinking about
explain to me amount of aid in the
United States that poor people get
around kids, it's just comical compared
to middle class people.
>> That's true. That's true.
>> And in middle class people can actually
be priced out of having kids whereas
it's very hard to price a poor person
out of having kids in the United States.
>> That's true. And for context in the
United States um because we we did
really extensive research on this to try
to create like sort of an index of
resources for parents because we thought
there would be more for just like your
average normal parent. But basically, if
you're at or below the poverty line,
health care is taken care of for for
kids and typically their parents, too,
or at least their mothers. Food
assistance, child care assistance, often
housing assistance, often heat and
electricity assistance. So, you really
get levels of subsidies that you you
would otherwise just expect in like the
wealthy Gulf States for all citizens,
which is insane. Like, just be
impoverished. And and there are many
families in the United States who
actively game the system to create the
appearance of poverty just to get access
to these resources because they're so
compelling which is not the best but go on.
on.
>> No, I mean you're right and I was also
telling you about this earlier today
which I didn't know about but like true
poverty doesn't really exist in the
United States and I know that this is an
offensive thing to say. I was pointing
out too that for example starvation in
the United States it's virtually just
doesn't happen to like 150 people a year
or something and almost all of them are
elderly people or people who can't move
in some way like
>> right like if it wasn't the starvation
it would be bed sores or like literally
their like their dogs eating them alive
or something because they can't move.
>> Yeah. Yeah. They're stuck at home and
nobody's bringing them food. Like if you
can go out and get food, you're you're
going to be okay in the United States.
>> Well, I want to show you actually. So
the the the research study that that did
these graphs and correlations of between
like being more wealthy and having more
kids, I was like just how generous are
all these countries that we're looking
at. So first I just looked at all the
graphs and then I sorted the European
countries that they looked at in this research
research
>> by just how generous they were in terms
of their social services. And I I I
color coded them. So red is most
generous and orange is is a slightly
middle like mid-tier generous like they
don't support as much of health care and
education and and childare and then
yellow is least generous and pretty much
the vast majority of the countries that
they looked at here were all extremely
generous countries. Even in the ones
that are yellow circled like the UK I
circled in yellow because it is it is
generally considered to be a little bit
weaker on social services. Keep in mind
the UK still has the NHS. It has
nationalized healthcare. And the caveat
with the UK too is that the social
services in the UK skew toward children
really heavily. So the emphasis is more
on like giving people citizens a really
strong start. And like
>> so yellow means a lot of social
>> is the weakest social services. Red is
the strongest.
>> So the vast majority of the countries
that this study looked at are extremely
generous in their services. meaning that
this really does this is about countries
providing very very very generous social
services basically just like free
childcare free good health care and free
education among other things so that's
that's that's I just it needs to be
emphasized that the countries
investigated in this academic paper
already do a lot to support parents and
I can go into it like some some examples
Luxembourg has the highest per capita
spending on family benefits. It has
extensive free education and health
care, substantial child care support.
The Nordic countries like Norway and
Denmark and Iceland and Sweden and and
Finland, they have a really really high
expenditure per person, universal health
care, free or highly subsidized
education and robust child care systems.
Denmark, for example, is noted for the
most generous overall welfare package.
France leads in overall social spending.
Nearly a third of their GDP is devoted
to social services.
Free healthcare, subsidized child care
and free free higher education. In
Germany and Austria and Switzerland and
Ireland all spend above €1,000 per
person yearly on family benefits,
maintain generous health care and
education systems and support families
and have very substantial social
programs. So again, like this is we're
talking very generous. This is this is
an American's dream in terms of what we
keep asking for. I just want to
emphasize again that this is just it's
just ridiculous.
>> Although are you saying we need to be
socialists now?
>> I'm not. And and speaking of socialists,
did someone say socialists? I I want to
bring Lyman Stone to the chat. So Lyman
Stone actually. So one thing that we've
we've talked about in the past and that
anyone who discusses fertility talks
about is this U-shaped curve in
fertility that's very often discussed,
right? Which has to do with income. And
it's this the famous U-shaped graph that
that shows fertility levels being really
high among those who are impoverished.
And then for the middle class, it just
plummets. And then when you see incomes
above $500,000 per household or
whatever, then it it goes up again. And
so like, oh well, having a big family is
just a super rich person thing and a
super poor person thing. and Lyman Stone
in an article that he published in April
24 called fertility and income some
notes he argues that income reporting in
surveys is unreliable
um for very small subgroups that that is
to say like 1 million plus households
and so he wants to say that that the
findings about ultra high earners can be
artifacts and not robust trends
>> so he doesn't think that high earners
actually have a very good fertility
>> yeah he thinks that like because so few
people are in that income bracket and
also responding to surveys that like
probably what we're seeing is like
someone accidentally filling in the
wrong like thing on a survey like just
the error and that's it's it's it is a
legitimate concern. But he nevertheless
does make some concessions. He he says
there's some evidence on on causal ties
between income and fertility. At least
one study shows exogenous positive
shocks to to male income boost fertility
and there are many others using quasi
experimental variation from sectoral or
occupational exposures. But he also
argues male income is an income. The the
figure the U-shape
advocates essentially he says rely on
for is for family household income. It
it includes male income and female
income. So that he he thinks that's not
the thing. Like really the thing he
would encourage people to look at and I
don't think he's wrong is mel relative
male income that meant men men doing
disproportionately better seems to
correlate more and that even shows up in
a lot of this more re recent research
that I can't remember who it was when I
was going into some more of the the
ephemerra of this discourse people were
pointing out that
when you look at when you break out
female male fertility in these
countries. Women with higher wealth had
higher fertility, but if they had just
higher income, they didn't. It was sort
of like a neutral thing. So,
essentially, like if you're working,
>> your your your fertility is not going to
be higher if you're a woman. And that
makes sense because if you're working
and you're a woman, it's it's kind of
harder to have a ton of kids. And and
we're going to get to that. So, so the
what the public is arguing in terms of
what's going on here, because that's
what we really want to talk about here.
They the public argues that poorer
families are less healthy. Poorer
families are too busy to trying to make
ends meet to start new families. Poorer
families have less flexible schedules
and they have less work life balance and
so it's harder to have kids or more
kids. Poorer families have less stable
marriages and partnerships. So they're
they're maybe less likely to even have a
partner with whom they can have kids
consistently and that wealthier families
have stronger social networks. So they
have, you know, maybe, you know,
grandparents that are wealthy and
available that can take care of kids.
They're more comfortable having more
kids. Yeah. And and they also frame
children as luxury goods and and society
has largely framed children as luxury.
>> Well, I also think there's been a
cultural shift among some wealthy groups
like especially you're talking about
ultra wealthy groups which we hang out
with. Having a lot of kids has become
quite the flex.
>> No, but even I would say among all
levels of society, except for like some
religious communities, kids are kind of
seen as this thing that you do if you
can afford them and they're a luxury
product, but they're not something
there. So, you don't have them unless
you can afford them. You don't have them
unless you have your stable career and
your house and everything else. you
know, walking through a grocery store
with five kids. I feel like Prince Ali like
like
>> and they're all dressed the same as me
and they're and they're marching in line
and I'm like >> seeing
>> seeing
our parade.
>> It so feels like that. It really does.
No, there's
>> everybody turns to look at us and you're
like, "Yeah, I got I got five kids money."
money."
>> Yeah. No, it really it really does feel
that way. But but I mean so I I think
those are legitimate things. But what I
think is much more interesting here is
that poor people are becoming like
wealthy people in in these countries
used to live. Kids are being cared for
by staff. They're being cared for by by
by these child care facilities. They're
being cared for by paid people. and and
and and there there's more work outside
the home. People are leaving the home to
go do things just like lords used to go
to Parliament or like go out on their
trading ships or something. And and
there's more there's more focus on
material wealth on conspicuous
consumption on on on showing other
people how fancy you are. Whereas the
wealthy people we know are really
starting to behave a lot more like surfs
did in the past where like there's less
focus on work and there's more focus on
really like focusing in on industry of
the home. There's more work from home
and within the home and there's less
focus on material wealth and conspicuous
material consumption and more stealth
wealth. Like look at look at the rise of
stealth wealth. Look at the rise of of
of influencers like Ballerina Farms
where like they're very very wealthy,
but they they're living on their like
homestead farm and they're living like a
corporate family and the kids are
shoveling manure and you know they're
they're they're harvesting their own
food and pumpkins and making meals from
scratch. You know, they're living life
like surfs and like the whole Maha
movement is like that too. you know,
it's very much like back to the land,
back to the homestead, you know, very
very crunchy, very like no brand names
on anything. And there's a lot more
focus on autonomy and separation from
society. There's this retreat from
society. We're not there's no balls.
There are no galas. There's no like, you
know, going out and fronting to people.
It it's very it it's very isolationist.
>> There are some balls and galas. Like
when we go to Austin, we often go to
like a a gala or something
>> sometimes. Yeah, but it's I would say
it's pretty unusual. It's mostly people
retreating to their if they're really
wealthy. I mean, sure, like Peter Teal
may show up at Heredicon, but then he
goes off to his like New Zealand
compound or, you know, like these other
people and then they disappear to some,
you know, to Prospera, to their charter
city or to their like homesteading
permaculture farm thing, you know, like
in short, I I I think in the end that so
much of fertility again, as you've
always said,
>> it's about how your household is
composed and where you get your
services. You keep saying fertility
started to drop with the industrial
revolution. First when men left the home
and then when women left the home and
children left the home and every all the
services left the home and because now
what being wealthy is is it's more about
everything is coming back into the home.
You are able to see this rise of
fertility again within the home because
there's there's value in it and there's
the time for it and the resources for
it. Whereas for the for those who are
poor now who are now living more like
wealthy people are getting door dashed
and delivery and they you basically have
your servants and your livery and and
your conspicuous consumption and and you
know the all this staff that serves you
much of it government subsidized now. It
doesn't matter though. It doesn't matter
if it's your own wealth or the
government's wealth. When you have the
staff, when things are provided from
without the home, when when there isn't
this beating heart of your hearth and
your family,
your fertility drops. And because we're
seeing this inversion,
>> best way to fertipize the poor is to
give them money.
>> That that works for both parties.
>> Everyone wins. I mean, this I think this
this does have interesting implications
when it comes to fertility ratio
cascades because as we point out, this
is not a warm bodies problem. This is a
taxpayer problem. Um and and so what you
really want what if if you're a country
that's really concerned about not being
able to pay for really essential social
services for all these lifesaving food
programs and and even the childare and
the healthcare and all this. You need
people who are going to generate a lot
of tax revenue to pay for it. And the
fact that the people who generate a lot
of tax revenue are now the ones having
more kids. Power to the people.
Literally power to like money to the
people. Like that that is a a good
thing. So could this be the solution?
like are we already seeing like a
because we I I I don't think we expected
this, right? We didn't expect that like
paying for people's lives
would would actually solve fertility
cascade problems. Is this kind of like I
mean on one hand it doesn't solve the
problem because poor people aren't
having more kids, but does it solve the
problem because rich people are having
more kids? I mean it kind of you're
doing two things, right? like you're
you're you're you're reducing the
population that is most dependent on
these services thereby maybe reducing
the financial load while increasing the
population that that subsidizes these
services therefore increasing revenue.
Like is this actually a subversion of
trends that means the problem is going
>> You don't know.
>> So my question for you
is does this make you more socialist in
your politics? You know, my views are
evolving on this actually because I
what we found and this this has been
confirmed also like Scott Alexander I
think mentioned this recently too. So
I'm like okay this isn't just us.
Basically while cash transfers seem to
do a lot of good in really impoverished
countries it's pretty clear that things
like universal basic income and cash
transfers cause harm in developed
countries. Right? They're not good.
However, it does appear to be that
providing inind services like free child
care, education, sometimes housing can
actually cause pretty beneficial effects
or at least neutral effects in developed
countries. We looked at this in the Gulf
States like well it didn't seem to
necessarily it didn't it didn't create
thriving societies like the Gulf States
aren't exactly known for their
innovation and and their you know
>> thriving whatever like they're doing all
right like right like there's some based
cool people their fertility rates are
decent in some cases not not in all but like
like
>> in some cases
>> it could be worse right but like it's
not terrible so
>> I'm kind of warming up to the idea of
providing inind kind services, not
money. People don't get to choose like
you don't just get your cash transfer,
but inind services. And this is also
something I was just talking with you
about this today because right now SNAP
is being discussed a lot. It's it's a
form of food assistance in the United
States where you get basically a debit
card. Like money is loaded to your card
and you get to use that on a bunch of
foods and a lot of people are just
spending it on junk food. There's this
other program in at least a lot of
states called WICK, women, infant and
infants and children. It's for pregnant
women, infants and children under five
years old that meet certain
requirements. And instead of providing
money, it will cover very specific
healthy foods. Like it will buy you a
gallon of milk and a dozen eggs and a
whole grain and $26 worth of vegetables
per child and like some cheese like like
the whole food. This has also made me
realize there's another solution to
fertility collapse that I had never
considered before that
>> which is you can fix the problem of a
dependency ratio cascade uh within a country.
country.
So obviously you can do it by keeping
the population stable as it exists right now.
now. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> But you could also do it just by
stopping poor people from having kids.
>> Well, and but these do that but in like
a very kind way.
Oh, God. No, we're not talking about
sterilization. No sterilized. No, this
is getting way too close to eugenics and
I don't like
>> I didn't say this is a good I'm I'm not
saying it's a good idea. I'm just saying
it would solve the problem because what
you're dealing with in a society is, you
know, the the the elderly are almost
always on the government dole, right?
You know, so that's why you get the
fertility ratio cascade because too big
a proportion of society is elderly.
Yeah. But you have poor people who are
also on the government dole. And if you
could remove them as a segment of the
population, then pretty much no matter
how many elderly people you got, it
would be a lot more to tip the scales of
the system.
>> Yeah. No, I mean anyway, this has just
been very thoughtprovoking for me and
text now needs to eat so I got to go
run. But like
>> I love you so much.
>> Thank you for humoring me on this.
>> I'm very excited for my cod prowl or
whatever it's called. The Kapow, >> whatever.
>> whatever.
>> I don't know, man. It's tasty.
>> Oil again. That was really good. We'll
>> do the fried egg.
>> I might use a little bit more oil and
then scoop some chili flakes in when you
cook cook it as well.
>> Oh, yeah. Chili flakes. Yeah,
absolutely. Yeah, I think it could use
some chili flakes
>> and then no other notes. Really good. I
might do two eggs today. Actually,
>> I asked you about two eggs, but you said
the serving was fine, but two eggs.
>> Yeah, the serving was fine. I'd be more
greedy with the eggs if I had two of
them. And they were so
>> Let's just try two eggs. It's from our
coupe, man. And I'm so glad you're like
actually enjoying some of our coupe
eggs. Okay. I love you. And I'll see you.
you.
>> You're amazing.
>> You're amazing. Gorgeous. And so pretty.
>> I know what you're doing. You're just
going to set up your Korean romance
manga right to the side of the screen.
>> I actually don't even have my I need to
get my phone,
>> you nerd. But hurry up,
>> Simone. I have to know what happens.
>> Pull it up. Pull up web tunes. Don't
worry about it.
>> I have to know what happens to the the empress.
empress. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> I have to know if
>> we really need on like
>> premium Patreon and Substack that you're
your secret list of amazing romance mangas.
mangas.
>> We are the biggest nerds in the world.
And I think that when people first came
to our podcast, they were like, "Wait,
you guys can't be like at first they
were confused because they're like, "You
look too nerdy to be Republican." Like,
and and then it was like, "You got to
fashion yourself as like a non- nerd.
Like, get buff and like look a lot
nerdy." And it's like,
>> you got a lift, bro.
>> It's like I But this is this is I am
nerd from front to back. That's my
>> This is base camp. Like, can do you guys
understand what camp is? Is this an old
person thing? Like are is everyone too
young to understand what camp is anymore?
anymore?
>> No, but imagine I come on and I'm like
really trying to look like but like like
like cool and stuff like
>> cringe. It I'd be so cringe. It'd be
like Asmigold doing that or something.
Asthma Gold recently went viral. I don't
know if you saw for showing that he eats
just junk food all day and like sodas.
>> He's always shown that he eats just junk
food all day. I think the secret is that
he walks to the 7-Eleven to buy the junk
food and it's all
>> No, it's he eats it in moderation.
>> And and that's the thing, you can eat
whatever you want, you know.
>> Yeah. Like that famous Twinkie diet guy.
Well, the professor who showed that like
on like pure junk food, you could lose a
ton of weight. I think actually multiple
people did because after also Superiz me
came out,
>> I think a high school teacher
demonstrated that you can lose a lot of
weight eating only McDonald's. Something
like that. Like I can't I can't
>> If you are struggling with weight loss,
my suggestion would be as is my
suggestion for everything is get an
Nrexone. Look up the Sinclair method.
>> It's Yeah, it's less expensive than
GLP's. So
>> yeah, it's less expensive than the other
things and it's way healthier for you
than like
>> Oh yeah, that's true. I mean like as as
much as it can be, Nrexone can and we're
not giving medical advice by the way. As
much as nrexone can be hard on the
kidneys, GLP-1 inhibitors are which is
what they are right is that they they
are very hard on your digestive system.
The the side effects are really intense for
for
>> Yeah. Now trexone is a little bad on the
liver but every all the other things
that it cures like alcoholism and obesity.
obesity.
>> Yeah, dude. Even gambling. Gambling's
hard on everything, man. And gambling
really big problem.
>> Well, and and if you if you have a
problem with with being too sexual like
>> Yeah. sex addiction, food addiction,
gambling, porn addiction, like all these
things can be
>> incredibly effective. And I just hate
that it's not more known about.
>> Yeah. Seriously,
>> it's it's it's one of
>> y'all can read Katie Herszog's book. I
think it's called Drink Yourself Sober.
No, that's not what it is. I can't
remember what it is, but check out Katie
Herszog's book. She read about it in
depth and she's really unhappy with the
amount of book sales.
>> Yeah, it's really sad. What? She had
like 12,000 of sales or something.
>> Yeah. Like just Yeah. Abysmal. and she
put a lot of work into the launch and
interviewed with all the best platforms.
Yeah. I mean, but on on background and
she didn't want to name you because
you're too polarizing.
Oh, but whatever. By by Katie Herszog's
book. We we like it. We like Blocked and Reported.
Reported.
>> I bet Katie Herszog and Well, I think I
think Jesse Single just
>> really doesn't like us now. He stopped.
>> He used to come to our parties and now he's
he's
>> but also I think he's he's a little a
little Trump derangement. Yeah. I mean,
Katie Herszog is too, but she responded
to us at least. I think she cares less.
Anyway, we'll get into it. I love you.
Here we go. Ready? >> Okay.
>> Wait, did you say this was the best
Christmas ever?
>> Yeah, you think so?
>> I want to go in my bed and put this in
my bed.
>> I want to put this in my ass one, too.
>> Well, we'll go up and put them in your
bed for future day decorations.
You like them, guys?
>> Yeah. Let's go. Let's go, Mommy. Let's go.
go.
>> Yeah. You're super excited. You want to
install it right now? How about we open?
>> Let's open up your presents so you can
play with those and then tonight we'll
put them in to start future day. Okay.
>> Does that sound good? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Keep them safe right here for now.
>> My T-Rex is
>> here, Tam. You hand it to me and I'll
make sure it goes to your bed.
>> My T-Rex is Honey.
>> Honey. Your T-Rex's name is Honey. It's
going to be the best day.
>> What are the colors for?
>> Oh, do you want milk and cheese?
>> What are the colors for fer day? >> No.
>> No.
>> No. What does T-Rex want?
>> WHAT ARE THE COLORS FOR fer day?
>> He wants to eat sandwiches.
>> He wants to eat sandwiches. I'm doing it.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
