Economic growth and population size both seem to have persisting effects.
Could you elaborate? Are you saying that increasing the economy or population size today will make the economy and population size larger for at least centuries? Would you consider a decreasing effect size of fertility- and income-boosting interventions evidence against that?
Right, I take this to be an implication of our best economic and demographic models (respectively).
I donāt know what you mean by āa decreasing effect size of fertility- and income-boosting interventionsā. Whether an intervention has a noticeable short-term effect on these targets? That would seem to address a different question.
I wouldnāt expect to be able to identify the particular ripple that occurred in any given case, if thatās what you mean. So I wouldnāt take the failure to identify a particular ripple as evidence that there are no ripple effects. If there are good reasons to reject the standard models, Iād expect that to emerge in the debates over those macro models, not through micro evidence from RCTs or the like.
Right, I take this to be an implication of our best economic and demographic models (respectively).
Do you think we can trust the predictions of such models over more than a few decades? It looks like increasing population increases longterm income per capita, but not even this is clear (the conclusion relies on extrapolating historical trends, but it is unclear these will hold over long timeframes).
I donāt know what you mean by āa decreasing effect size of fertility- and income-boosting interventionsā. Whether an intervention has a noticeable short-term effect on these targets? That would seem to address a different question.
Yes. I see it is a different question. No difference between the treatment and control group after a few decades could be explained by the benefits spilling over to people outside those groups. However, an increasing population or income gap between the treatment and control group would still be evidence for increasing effects, so a decreasing population or income gap is also evidence againt increasing effects.
Could you elaborate? Are you saying that increasing the economy or population size today will make the economy and population size larger for at least centuries? Would you consider a decreasing effect size of fertility- and income-boosting interventions evidence against that?
Right, I take this to be an implication of our best economic and demographic models (respectively).
I donāt know what you mean by āa decreasing effect size of fertility- and income-boosting interventionsā. Whether an intervention has a noticeable short-term effect on these targets? That would seem to address a different question.
I wouldnāt expect to be able to identify the particular ripple that occurred in any given case, if thatās what you mean. So I wouldnāt take the failure to identify a particular ripple as evidence that there are no ripple effects. If there are good reasons to reject the standard models, Iād expect that to emerge in the debates over those macro models, not through micro evidence from RCTs or the like.
Do you think we can trust the predictions of such models over more than a few decades? It looks like increasing population increases longterm income per capita, but not even this is clear (the conclusion relies on extrapolating historical trends, but it is unclear these will hold over long timeframes).
Yes. I see it is a different question. No difference between the treatment and control group after a few decades could be explained by the benefits spilling over to people outside those groups. However, an increasing population or income gap between the treatment and control group would still be evidence for increasing effects, so a decreasing population or income gap is also evidence againt increasing effects.