ADVERTISEMENT

JD Vance deserves his own thread

Infant car seats partially to blame for declining birth rates?

Have you gone over to East Walnut Hills and knocked on his door, to let him know he owes you rent for living in your head all the time?

Let it go. Let it go. Concentrate on that great Notre Dame score of, what was it, oh, 66-7.
 
Infant car seats partially to blame for declining birth rates?

Behind that comment is some truth. Why do women get abortions? Do they hate children? There are lots of things they say is the reason. But if you think about it, it usually boils down to inconvenience. "I can't have a baby now because I am going to school, I am too young etc etc". So it is not beyond comprehension that young couples who have a small car would think that baby seats are going to take up too much space. They probably at least think about it. The bottom line for young couples to decide to not have children is inconvenience too. If you have children you can't just go out and do what you want. I remember when we had our first child a son, I said to my wife, "Hey, why don't we go and do this?" Then I thought about it and looked at my son and said, "Oh, yeah he is too young to go there". Now we must be been crazy because we had 3 more kids. What were we thinking? The inconvenience is beyond measure.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Noodle
Behind that comment is some truth. Why do women get abortions? Do they hate children? There are lots of things they say is the reason. But if you think about it, it usually boils down to inconvenience. "I can't have a baby now because I am going to school, I am too young etc etc". So it is not beyond comprehension that young couples who have a small car would think that baby seats are going to take up too much space. They probably at least think about it. The bottom line for young couples to decide to not have children is inconvenience too. If you have children you can't just go out and do what you want. I remember when we had our first child a son, I said to my wife, "Hey, why don't we go and do this?" Then I thought about it and looked at my son and said, "Oh, yeah he is too young to go there". Now we must be been crazy because we had 3 more kids. What were we thinking? The inconvenience is beyond measure.
They are incredibly lazy people. It’s shocking that it’s even an issue today. Abstinence until you want kids. Pull out. Require a condom. Get on birth control. Buy plan B. The amount of laziness that has to be overcome to get to an abortion is incredible
 
Last edited:
They are incredibly lazy people. It’s shocking that it’s even an issue today. Abstinence until you want kids. Pull out. Require a condom. Get on birth control. Buy plan B. The amount of laziness that has to be overcome to get to an abortion is incredible

It being lazy presupposes they don’t want to have to go to a doctor tor for an hour. That sounds lazy.
 
Infant car seats partially to blame for declining birth rates?


Come on Noodle, context matters.


I'm not a JD Vance fan boi, but his commentary was around how increased regulations and restrictions create more stress on parents and reduce the likelihood of people wanting more children.

American families aren't having enough children. I think there's evidence that some of the things that we're doing to parents is driving down the number of children that American families are having. In particular, there's evidence that the car seat rules that we've imposed, which of course I want kids to drive in car seats, have driven down the number of babies born in this country by over 100,000. So as we think about how to make kids safe here, I think we should do it in a way that's accommodating to American families, and I encourage your organization to do that.
 
Infant car seats partially to blame for declining birth rates?

One of the reasons that I'm a big JD Vance guy is that he isn't in the pocket of Big Car Seat. He's already been so brave with how he takes on the pack-n-play industrial complex.
 
With the advent of the seat belt, there was a surge in auto-accidents, while traffic fatalities held about steady.

Why? People drive faster and more recklessly due to the false sense of security. This is an example of unintended consequences and externalities.
 
With the advent of the seat belt, there was a surge in auto-accidents, while traffic fatalities held about steady.

Why? People drive faster and more recklessly due to the false sense of security. This is an example of unintended consequences and externalities.
Same with airplanes.
 
With the advent of the seat belt, there was a surge in auto-accidents, while traffic fatalities held about steady.

Why? People drive faster and more recklessly due to the false sense of security. This is an example of unintended consequences and externalities.
Get rid of those pesky open container laws. Everyone drives better drunk
 
Come on Noodle, context matters.


I'm not a JD Vance fan boi, but his commentary was around how increased regulations and restrictions create more stress on parents and reduce the likelihood of people wanting more children.
"In particular, there's evidence that the car seat rules that we've imposed, which of course I want kids to drive in car seats, have driven down the number of babies born in this country by over 100,000."

But JDB, he literally said that.

1. Let's see the "evidence" (which I suspect is just feelings)
2. It's a silly argument or at least inelegant in execution. He could have said "regulations which force parents through 100 hoops" are cauing the number of babies to go down. And then he could have outlined some of those regulations. But he literally said that.

I'll chalk it up to him being a shitty speaker, or at least not a very good one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie
Or turn signals that roll inside to out when turned on.
In Ohio it seems that turn signals are optional equipment on the cars and most seem to opt out. Drives me crazy that people don't use them. Two other very annoying and dangerous habits of too many in Ohio is driving slow in the left (passing) lane, and tail gating. Driver's Ed is not part of the high school curriculum like it was when I was in HS in Indiana (probably isn't there now either) and it's obvious by the bad car operators here. Only those that know and follow the rules of the road get to be called car drivers.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: UncleMark
Come on Noodle, context matters.


I'm not a JD Vance fan boi, but his commentary was around how increased regulations and restrictions create more stress on parents and reduce the likelihood of people wanting more children.
Definitely justified to cite with 83 surveyed participants in their qualitative sample and only 20-38% saying car seat purchase and size had an impact.

Also, "We estimate that these laws are currently preventing approximately 8,000 annual births..."

Context.

 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU and sobester
This study misses the variable that vehicles are now safer. With no increases in vehicle design safety fatalities stay the same regardless of seat belt adherence. This is taught in every good economics class in the world

While Peltzman’s paper was controversial at the time—unsurprisingly, it was politicized by pro- and anti-regulation advocates—much research in the intervening years has borne out similar conclusions in other domains. It turns out people have a tendency to engage in riskier behaviors when measures are imposed to keep them safer. Give a biker a safety helmet and he rides more recklessly—and, even worse, cars around him drive more haphazardly. And a 2009 study directly following the line of research pioneered by Peltzman found that NASCAR drivers who used a new head and neck restraint system experienced fewer serious injuries but saw a rise in accidents and car damage. In short, safety measures have the potential to undermine their own purpose.
Nothing makes spillovers more likely and visible than scaling an endeavor to a wide swath of people.

This phenomenon—which came to be known as the Peltzman effect—is often used as a lens for studying risk compensation, the theory that we make different choices depending on how secure we feel in any given situation (i.e., we take more risk when we feel more protected and less when we perceive that we are vulnerable). This is why, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the rise in fear of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons, Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan argued that increasing security forces to guard nuclear facilities might actually make them less secure. The Peltzman effect also reaches into insurance markets, whereby people who have coverage engage in riskier behavior than those without coverage, a phenomenon known as moral hazard. Clearly, this pattern of human behavior has potentially huge implications when taken to scale.
 

While Peltzman’s paper was controversial at the time—unsurprisingly, it was politicized by pro- and anti-regulation advocates—much research in the intervening years has borne out similar conclusions in other domains. It turns out people have a tendency to engage in riskier behaviors when measures are imposed to keep them safer. Give a biker a safety helmet and he rides more recklessly—and, even worse, cars around him drive more haphazardly. And a 2009 study directly following the line of research pioneered by Peltzman found that NASCAR drivers who used a new head and neck restraint system experienced fewer serious injuries but saw a rise in accidents and car damage. In short, safety measures have the potential to undermine their own purpose.
Nothing makes spillovers more likely and visible than scaling an endeavor to a wide swath of people.

This phenomenon—which came to be known as the Peltzman effect—is often used as a lens for studying risk compensation, the theory that we make different choices depending on how secure we feel in any given situation (i.e., we take more risk when we feel more protected and less when we perceive that we are vulnerable). This is why, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the rise in fear of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons, Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan argued that increasing security forces to guard nuclear facilities might actually make them less secure. The Peltzman effect also reaches into insurance markets, whereby people who have coverage engage in riskier behavior than those without coverage, a phenomenon known as moral hazard. Clearly, this pattern of human behavior has potentially huge implications when taken to scale.
And for the record. You should wear a seatbelt and drive safely. I just think it's interesting.
 
Definitely justified to cite with 83 surveyed participants in their qualitative sample and only 20-38% saying car seat purchase and size had an impact.

Also, "We estimate that these laws are currently preventing approximately 8,000 annual births..."

Context.


Here you go @larsIU - from Clover's link

Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000.
 
"In particular, there's evidence that the car seat rules that we've imposed, which of course I want kids to drive in car seats, have driven down the number of babies born in this country by over 100,000."

But JDB, he literally said that.

1. Let's see the "evidence" (which I suspect is just feelings)
2. It's a silly argument or at least inelegant in execution. He could have said "regulations which force parents through 100 hoops" are cauing the number of babies to go down. And then he could have outlined some of those regulations. But he literally said that.

I'll chalk it up to him being a shitty speaker, or at least not a very good one.

I agree, he's not a great speaker and probably not that good at laying out his logic. I'm chalking it up to that, but who knows, the guy is weird af.
 
Definitely justified to cite with 83 surveyed participants in their qualitative sample and only 20-38% saying car seat purchase and size had an impact.

Also, "We estimate that these laws are currently preventing approximately 8,000 annual births..."

Context.


Was it peer reviewed? What are typical criteria for scientific method experiments?
 
With the advent of the seat belt, there was a surge in auto-accidents, while traffic fatalities held about steady.

Why? People drive faster and more recklessly due to the false sense of security. This is an example of unintended consequences and externalities.
Car ownership surged dramatically. That would also cause more accidents.
 
I fondly remember my old man and I installing our first car seat...figuring out where to latch everything.

"This thing's got more belts than my F4 in 'Nam." 😄
628ypn8b94nb1.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT