Even a brutal natural disaster doesn't diminish our appetite for procreating. This surely means we're heading toward massive overpopulation, right? Probably not.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This podcast dynamically inserts audio advertisements of varying lengths for each download. As a result, the transcription time indexes may be inaccurate.
If you'd like to listen to free economic radio without ads the place to do that is sticker premium five dollars a month and you can get a free month trial by going to stick your premium dot com and use a promo code freak. You also get access to all our bonus. Episodes and you'll be supporting our show to that sticker premium, dot, com, promo code, greek banks, pay packets, listeners question for you today. Why do people keep having children? Is it because we, like the idea of building a family, is essentially a vote in favour of the future civilization impotent true mystic impulse to give some one else a shot at living in this wonderful or perhaps not so wonderful world is strictly a biological imperative or even further down the ladder is a baby.
Thing more than a very substantial by product of the sexual urge to hard question to answer: men, the Sir surely varies a lot from parent apparent. As for me personally answers pretty easy. I had kids just so. I'd have matured, for the spot gas salmon that allow I'm on your profession, sportswriter and I'm thirteen years old, federalist- Ok, very good, so yeah I told him I kind of like an unwritten wrong or so may differ variables. I guess he answer Hoot Bawler football soccer. It just depends on so many thank them. Well, I would probably be the ones to crack if a man excuse and if you guys, but you see today, we're bring you never showed from our archives. It's called. Why do people keep having children
killing, claims Emily Astor, I'm an economist. I work at Brown, university, Let me ask you this easy question will start: why do people have kids Emily? I mean biological imperative. our unless it's all the biological imperative. I think this is probably an open question for debate. I think many people would tell you that it's the biological imperative? I think that some people would tell you you know. Kids are enjoyable. I think that's People will tell you, particularly in developing countries. People have kids is an investment in their old age or even to work on their farms. when the kids are young, so I think those are probably the leading candidate explanations.
and those are all good and believable in theory, do we have any data that suggests that we actually know anything about? This question are not really some data, and I think that probably you'd see all of those things show up as explanations and we certainly see people having really this is from their kids and telling us that remains is from their kids. Are an important reason to have children, and certainly many What are you I enjoy? Having my kids, maybe not at every single moment, but that broadly I like them. and that that was a reason to do it. But I think it's hard to separate the biological imperative, because of course your biology is telling you that that's on the you want to do and once you ve done it, if we want to say actually that was It was all biology biology and in Algeria I'm happy
from W and Y see studios? This is for economics, radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your house Stephen Dogma, we're talking today about fertility and then mortality, and then how fertility is affected by mortality. We might even get to overpopulation the economist Emily Auster has done. A lot of research on fertility is also the author of a book called expecting better. Why conventional pregnancy, wisdom is wrong and what you really need to know,
Let me ask you this: when you bring up, you know the different economic parts of the reason why people have kids were maybe explain after the fact why they ve had kids. What do we know generally about the factors that make given person or family more or less likely to have kids, let's say so, should we can status, maybe the political environment, the place you live. Personal floss fear, religion, access technology, I mean there's, those are just a few of the ones we can think of you. I think many of us things are going to matter? I think, certainly you know what kind of birth control you have access to is getting influence, how many kids you have because your ability to- control? It is influenced by birth control. I think income is an important component of this one of the most striking facts about fertility overlap. several decades is it, as many countries have gotten richer fertility has gone down really dramatically, even in places that used to be very poor, and I think many people interpret that as ineffective
of income that, as you get richer, you want fewer children for various reasons. So I think that looks like a very strong driver of this effect, you wrote paper that I love about India and the introduction of tv in different areas? in India, which allowed you to measure well the the changes that tv broken. You talk about that in terms of fertility So in that paper we look at what happens when people get access to a cable television and we find something which actually has also been echoed in a study in Brazil, which is that when people get access to cable tv which really let someone soap opera. Is it actually decreases there? fertility and one interpretation of that is that peoples you know that the people on tv, they have fewer kids and they have this fancy life, presumably because our on television but you know, maybe if I had fewer kids, I could have that also- and I think that sort of one interpretation of that I get some other interpretation- might be that the papers are not a sexy, as previously thought,
True and also people are too busy watching tv to have sex is another reputation. We have heard what do we know anything about. I'm not quite what to call, I guess mood or affect you know whether let's say someone who is optimistic about their own future. Maybe their country's own future is more or less like to have children. I think the best evidence we have from that is about what happens in recessions, which the fertility goes down so, even though, broadly as countries get richer over periods of DEC, its fertility goes down as money goes up in the short term. When we see a recession, we tend to see declines, infertility and that sort of suggests, People are less optimistic and you know maybe things are more complicated economically
that's a time if you will choose to delay, but how can you tease out the new, no economic optimism versus the economic reality? In other words, maybe I wanna have kids right now, but I or a partner just lost a job or just got downgraded. Somehow, how do you tease out the mental effect that is a very hard thing to tease out. I think you could do it by looking and do it by looking at people who have lost their job. On the other hand, those people made- more at risk of losing their jobs or separating those things out is hard and looking at people's act by asking them like. How do you feel about this, and so on is where's confounded by a lot of other things. You want find something that changes people's mood about, say their economic circumstances or something else, without actually changing those circumstances and that thought exe. It is very hard, and
so to me one of the most interesting, if not necessarily broadly compelling arguments for the relationship between what say you know optimism and fertility containing paper euro that so fast we talk to you about it earlier about Huntington's Disease and whether people who are genetically predisposed towards carrying it will want to get the test and if they do or don't how their lives may change or are not change and lay that so one surprising, finally surprising music, People who know that they may be genetically predisposed to Huntington's disease aren't less likely to have kids, yes, why? Why is that? Why in your view and from the data do you believe that struck so, I think you when we looked at the data on this and again, this is something where we can see the the fact, but it's hard to see the interpretation. Our view is that for not interested in facing the possible negative reality and they would like to take actions which make them feel like things
going to be ok, and if you want to have kids, you wanna have kids, and that is you know something. You're gonna do anyway, and better to do it tuner, so you're you're healthy for longer, but these kids, then you would be otherwise, and so I think that was our interpretation in that. So, if I'm in each you carrier or I may be- and I dont know yet- there are two potential consequences to consider something, but having kids one is I as a parent may die relatively early relatively young, and I have the parent made the queef to my offspring on the same genetic predisposition to this disease. Do you have any idea how two potentialities are weighed in the minds of people with hd. I think we don't, although You know from some anecdotal stuff. I think one of the pictures you get is that many people are optimistic and I think we can all be hopeful that this that there may be
better treatment or a cure for hunting disease in the future? And when you think about a disease like this, which is has onset in adulthood like that, Forty or fifty fifties you think about having a child. Now it's easy to imagine maybe something will be different about treatment or cures later on, and so I think that this sort of thing killing of salience about passing on the gene, is perhaps less strong than it would be. there were something which you knew would manifest right away like tastes acts. It strikes me as we're talking about this that optimism or pessimism are almost impossible really to measure. Aren't they I mean you, can ask people, but that doesn't really get very far doesn't yeah. I agree. I don't think he gets you very far and I think people will tell you things which are right or a very person specific, I mean my impression from some of the psychology of this- is that you know peoples Full of optimism is pretty similar within a person, no matter what's going on
you're. Something really good happens, you're happy for like a few days, but you know, then you go Acta, baseline and sort of. Similarly, if something really bad happens, you're unhappy for a while, but you go back to baseline, I think that sort of something that let me it's hard. A lot of what you're gonna pick up is sort of constant differences across people rather than changes over time that might affect their behaviour Ok, so considering that and concern everything that you Emily know about fertility in pregnancy in mortality, let's say that there is a terrible, terrible natural disaster that kills hundreds of thousands people, including many many many many children who are very vulnerable to natural disaster. What would you expect to happen in that kind of circumstance of people would hurry to repopulating that they'd be so stricken that they'd, not one have kids aids just in question. It feels like a question for the data. I think both of those things. What happened my instinct peace,
What we know about fertility and high mortality environments is that people would try to replace lost children because one of the explanations for why there such high fertility in the developing world, many decades ago is that child mortality was so high. You want to have a lot of kids to replace the children that do not survive. and so an extension of that would be a few short of lost, a child or, or God forbid. Children in a disaster that you would want to have more children to replace them, but, as you say, on the other side, there sort of this terrible thing has happened and their sort of incredible passive amen to that might affect fertility. In the other direction, but it's not like you can come up with an experiment to answer question right: he's not like you'd want to randomly kill a thousand children in one state and not kill any children in the next or Saint see what fertility looks like in those two states I agree
does that sound like a great idea- and I think this is a hard thing to imagine- it's a hard thing to imagine testing. For that reason, Sometimes, nature provides a tragedy that, on top of being a tragedy, is also an opportunity to answer this, kind of question. In this case it happened on December twenty six thousand for good evening The aims of the indian Ocean of spawned a natural disaster enormous in scale the devil, powerful earthquake in forty years hit Asia overnight. The epicenter forty miles off the coast of the northern indonesian Island of Sumatra, but it triggered massive, soon armies, tidal waves raised family in Band J watch from the second floor of their home as water engulfs, the town devouring, almost everything in its power.
Soon. Army waves made no distinction between rich and poor foreigners legally children suffered, particularly because they couldn't run away. This was an awesome, appalling and extraordinary events, the power of nature, against the flimsy will of man. The sooner we killed more than two hundred thousand people, the vast majority of them in Indonesia, one of the things that the cinema dead in terms of its impact on mortality was create large gaps in the population. women were more vulnerable to being killed in the soon army. and young children and older people as well, and so in the communities that were very badly damaged. You can actually see gaps in the aged
and the sex composition of the population, but Elizabeth Frankenberg, a demographer anesthesiologist, Duke University. I teach in the Sanford School public policy and further twenty years or so I ve been studying Its facets of demography and economics, particularly in Indonesia, but in developing countries and most Certainly, my colleagues and I ve been working on a project to understand how the tsunami that occurred in two thousand for affected well, being both in the show term. In the longer term, Frankenberg has been going to Indonesia for many years, while the beginning was way back in nineteen. Eighty five, I was an undergraduate at University of North Carolina, and I know my dad was curious. What I do when I graduated and that's why I really want to work on issues in developing countries and give his advice, which is Nice was for you, probably artist
some time in one first before you commit it too much to that end really love Indonesia. I love travelling there. I've made probably one for a year or says in many years two or three or four trip. So I've got a lot I go regularly. I have great colleagues, there are a lot of my work as with Duncan Thomas, an economist here. Do we worked with our millions of marrying him a little bit the new I do Merriam hundred percent married after the tsunami, Frankenberg and her colleagues had a specific set of issues. What we wanted to look at two questions, really what happened to women's fertility, in the aftermath of a shock of this nature that has several different components to it. One is mortality, mortality in communities, but also mortality within families another is the trauma that
were exposed to as a result of what had happened on because the people it survive. I have too many of them- are caught up in the water experienced other traumatic experiences, and comparing at an aggregate level fertility for what and from two different types of communities, here, is where the mortality impact had been very large relative to communities that had no sooner army mortality and then within those communities fertility of women who had lost a child relative to fertility, women who had not lost any children. Had this kind of idea link mortality, kind of immortality shock and the resultant fertility been studied before or was a sort of the first of its kind. This It is fairly unusual quite unusual, so people have certainly an interested in how fertility changes in the aftermath of large scale social upheavals, so war
hers and things like that, but there have been relatively fewer efforts to look at fertility, directly in relationship to levels of mortality. So would you find so? We found a couple things. One is that if you start from the perspective of commute it. Is we compared for Letty before the soon army in community that would later be strongly affected by the tsunami mortality to fertility before this unity communities that did not later experiences high death rates and before but he soon Army fertility was a little bit lower in the communities
would later experience such high mortality, which we should draw any conclusions from. That's just random, I assume. Well, yes, I mean that's, if not random, maybe have, is it a socio economic and in a more yeah? It's more of this economic thing. So then we look at what happened after the tsunami and what we find is it. Fertility rose in the places that had very high levels of community mortality from the soon army, but fell for women from communities that had not had high levels of soon army mortality and so they really respond in different ways with respect to fertility and that introduces So we see this big fertility increase in the places where, mortality from the scene, army was very high, and can you just specify little bit here we're talking about mortality of any and every one or mortality, particularly of children,
we looked at it from both perspectives, but I've been talking about mortality of any and every one, but the results are the same. If you limit it to mortality of children, ok, so so far, the baseline. What you have established in and told us is that in the areas where the mortality from Tommy was higher for fertility rates went up. Yes, exactly are ain't. Tell me more, so then we also wanted to know, for is it your women, whether their characteristic were linked to their fertility behaviors after the tsunami answer. Demographers have long wondered about whether, when women lose a child, a child dies whether they become pregnant again, her too, place that child effectively having a birth it would not have otherwise occurred, so we looked at whether losing a child in the soon Army predicted a birth after the tsunami and the answer to that question was yes: women who had lost a child in the salami were about ten percentage points more likely to have another birth
to the tsunami than women. His children had survived ten percentage points in that. How many percent would that be that I assume it's quite a big rise yet about a thirty seven percent increase, and did that surprise, you were no Let's say that it did not we didn't know what we would find, but you know we thought that it could have. Perhaps gone either way I mean. Perhaps women would be stressed and sad and grieving, and not ready to do this again, but are they also it might also be natural to another child, so we thought go either way. I would not. I was surprised by the finding, but I didn't have a strong prior, that it would turn out that way. that was one piece of it was that women who had lost a child to death in the soon Army were considerably likely to have a baby again after the tsunami, and then the the question was whether women
who had not yet had children after the tsunami had children What we find, then, is that is there, quality rate rises in the community women who had not yet had children were more likely to become mothers, so there's an interaction between the amount of mortality in the community and women having their first birth. It that's a tie. in question, meaning that woman, a and in province A where there is high mortality, is going to have a first birth sooner than a woman in Province B, where there is low mortality or would have more children over time or do not know that yet that's agree. question. We don't know that yet what we know well, we know that they had the children earlier than right would have otherwise been the case, but either they will ultimately go on. To have more is a question we can only answer when we have data from later waves and we have a tenure survey
field right now and that will help us answer that question, but that's absolutely an important question to know the answer to that. We don't know yet right. So let me ask you this obvious and may be the hardest question, and maybe there's no answer for this, or maybe you don't have to answer this. But why? So? If you observed a strong boost, infertility among communities where there was a lot of death from the tuna me- and you make a point of noting that or two kinds is women who lost children who are quote replacing and when you haven't yet had children who are having them sooner? Is there any you can say about the. Why other than typical human speculation, so's that speculation and some but we know a little bit about, and so we did ask people after the tsunami whether they wanted to have more children, and the women we observe having more children, indeed articulated desire to have children after the tsunami, so is it it doesn't seem to have been an accidental result or result of poor access to come
such a right, it could be that the tsunami wiped out all access to contraception, but then on Other handers available meets two. How does that factor into it? So merry in childbearing are certainly tightly linked, but because so many more women were killed in the soon army than men more than men in our study lost spouses, then women lost spouses, so marriage is certainly a part of it and it's your part of that fertility increase is younger women marrying and going ahead and having children. You know asked Why so we do ask people whether they want more children, we don't ask them why they want more children and You know, then, you start to be more speculative, but I have to say, as I have travelled in Indonesia and watch the recovery and Archie unfold in one of them things that strikes me about arches its appeal. with such a strong sense of of a dignity of ethnic identity is an easy, and so I do think that there was,
a tremendous will to rebuild- and that's in a part of that is rebuilding families and population, but its also free. Building homes and livelihoods and the province overall- and you know- I think, that's really important theme of you know, if the fertility results, but also in some of the other work we ve done. Recovery More generally, coming up and economics, radio people dont have children. Today for the same reasons that you still don't child, that used to be like by a time your sex Europe at four thirty evoking the cows, And now it's like you know, I'm taking you to soccer practice at fourteen different locations. So you can, you know, get into the right college.
whatever it is one more thing, if you have about a hundred fifty hours with absolutely nothing to do check out our back catalogue of Economics, radio broadcasts on Itunes were frequent that calm and if you subscribe on Itunes or using another podcast at you always get the next episode automatically deliver. In your sleep so Elizabeth Frankenberg, demographer and sociologist at Duke found that women who lost children in the two thousand for Indian Ocean soon Army were much more likely to get pregnant again so. I have to say. I guess one way to interpret this finding one way that I
sprang, to my mind, at least for whatever that's worth is, at its very know, bout inspiring, but hopeful, finding that here's a terrible tragedy that affects a lot people, and rather than swear off community and in our country and family. The opposite happened. Yeah, I'm curious what you think may have driven this on a bus, Her scale do think religion plays a role. Do you think the region, cultural attitudes attitudes player or in other words, if a astronomy hit, you know the southeast. United States do you have any idea whether the findings might be remotely similar or south America? Well, let me come back to South EAST United States and and South America, so I definitely think that the four but your spot- and I agree with you that there is strong sportive signal about her in seeing this impact was fertility impact and travelling to these villages and why
Jeanne these new homes be built and go from empty to inhabited to places where families live and families with little kids live in? These kids are out there playing and helping their parents do various things here. Really does create this? save renewal and await its very, very fundamental. So I think you're right about this sense of hope. Coming out of these results. And you know, I suspect that religion is involved in an archway- is very, very strongly religious place on an Addition thought in these people are very proud and independent people, and so I think it's both faith and religion and also faith in identity in some sense, do you know I should say in addition to the family. Rebuilding. There was all this rebuilding of housing and infrastructure and roads and schools, and that was a function on both of our Chinese per se.
Parents, but also of an incredible outpouring of funding for recovery effort from all around the world and a very strong effort by the indonesian government to China? that money into effective reconstruction policies and assistance? And so I think you know unimportant backdrop of rebuilding families is the fact that assets were also getting replaced. People were working. Those sort of economic aspects of recovery is well ok and answer. If you feel like If you feel you have an answer to the second half of that very long question about whether the same event not a different event but whether the same event, it happened elsewhere in the world. If you, any knowledge at all into whether we see a similar effect. While I do think that there We would see this effect. Fertility rise in places where children. old, suddenly and unexpectedly as a result of natural disasters, and so there has been a little work on other earthquakes. It shows something similar for
ample in IRAN, then, when the China Earthquake heads in to them an aid. I guess you know schools we're very, very badly damaged and many children were killed and many of his children were only children and chinese government actually put in place a policy to try to help people who wanted to have an additional child at that point. Get access to reproductive assisted reproductive technology, if they wanted to try to have children again, so I dont think that fertility response, is unique to J or to Indonesia, so we ve learned fertility tends to rise after a natural disaster which might easily be interpreted as purely good news as a triumph of the human spirit. On the other hand, what about overpopulation for much of the past century, one of humankind's most pressing fears,
is it worth putting way too many people on the planet? Now among population scholars, there's a famous saying development is the best contraceptive that is, as countries get richer, their population growth tends to sleep. I asked the economist, Emily Astor, how well the saying is supported by the data. I think the data suggest that's very true, Some of the changes infertility over time. In countries that are relatively poor have been incredibly striking example than eighteen sixties. India, fertility rate was it six? It is now at two point: five, in that period, Singapore's fertility rate was five point. Six is now at one point three, which is far far below replacement and even in Kenya, which is in a particularly rich country, the fertility rate now is about four point: four down from eight or nine in an eighteen sixties and those Changes have been achieved. Yes, there,
been some increase in birth control, access which we don't want to dismiss? But I think it's pretty clear from that I mean that the development of facts are just incredibly incredibly important in driving this, so this leads us to a future that doesn't resemble at all the future that was predicted by demographers, not even that long ago, twenty years ago. So let me ask you this Well, if you and I went out into the survey right now- we're on the streets of New York on the streets of Providence and asked a hundred people, the following question: the World population today is ex. What would you expect the world population by the turn of the next century to be in relationship to ex? What do you think would be the media in the average respond, sir, you, I think, p Oh, I would think that number is to exercise thing, but I think you have raised is not to x, I mean there's four actually increasingly few countries whose fertility rate is above replacement at many
countries where the fertility rate is substantially below replacement? so the? U N is currently projecting that the global population will peek at around eight point three billion in twenty fifty and then fall to less than the current seven point: two billion population by twenty one hundred. So keeping in mind how terrible most predictions are just let's take that protection on its face value, at least when factored into everything that you ve been telling us about fertility and development so on what is the kind of headline for? set of. Statistics were how would you describe where we're heading globally in terms of population and how we got there and what it means, and I think that two factors that these changes are likely to produce is one. The population is they much older. So for most of human history, the kind of population pyramid has been more people or young fewer people or old. That still going to be true to some extent you're not gonna, have the population per annum
they made up of people who are a hundred and twenty, but the balance between, say, sixty five or Odin twenty five year old, and it s very different and that something that's gonna. You drive a lot of policy in the way that demographics work, I think The other thing is going to happen is for a while least relatively poor. countries are going to continue to have fertility above replace. Well relatively rich countries, do not and ask it to change that balance of of population counter crossing. places even more so than now. So is that the driving factor in lower fertility rates as income? When you look at the countries with the lowest fertility rates? world is that what they primarily have in common when start trying to distinguish among fertility rates of which are below replacement. The links with income become more machines, are the places with the lowest fertility rates are like Singapore and Hong Kong,
In Taiwan, though it meals are rich countries, but they're, not his riches, safe handling right, but there are other parts of Asia where the fertility rate is still relatively low way way way lower than similarly poorer parts of Africa. Let's say right: yes, I agree, Yo Income, sort of operates and like the places, the highest fragility are very poor. Niger Molly, but the income for chile relationship does seem to break down a little bit when you get into the very low fertility rates. The? U S has higher fertility, then say most of even though the this is relatively richer. That said, fertility is falling pretty much everywhere around them old, correct. I mean yes pretty much so why Have we seen such sharp declines infertility? even in so many developing countries, where kind of the promise of the economic future isn't there yet, I think the point so the exam in future is there more than than we think and even places, which our view
poor, where things do not seem to be going that great, I think if you look sort of broadly since in the last fifty years, actually the economic climate has improved. The health climate has improved One of the reasons that you were kids is because fewer of them die in childhood. Once we are activating people, which we actually getting very good at even import places. Then you don't need to have as many kids to achieve the number you want to end up with. Something called the demographic transition, which I think has sort of started happening basically everywhere. So I who think actually many many many places in the world. Things are getting better, not worse
you talk me for one SEC about how the reason for having children has changed over the centuries and obviously there still variants around the world. But you know from sort of captive workforce and insurance policies to in many countries at least almost consumer durables, or luxury goods. Jan, if you think about it, a place like that you asked there were certainly a time wasn't thou long ago, two hundred years, maybe when a lot of the reason kids was you out of farm is allowed to do people that work on it. You know that was a major source of motivation for child, bearing that really isn't true anymore over time. We sort of move to a place where children have gotten to be more of an inch men and consumption good, and even if you expect to get something out of them, it's kind of like a very far enough sure, and it's more of an enjoyment
Actually, this person is going to pay for me to live on If of luxury to, I think that has really changing to change the way we approach childhood. I mean, I think, there's a lot of discussion of childhood used to be like by the time you're six Europe at four. Thirty, evoking the cows and now it's it's like you know, I'm taking you to soccer practice at fourteen different locations. You can, you know, get into the right college. whatever it is. You know when people listen to economists, they hear too things it to merely sound contradictory. One. if you don't have enough people being born in a given place, you're in economic trouble, because there will be enough young workers too short,
economy in the older retiring workers and so on, but also here, if you have too many people born in a given place, you know there won't be enough jobs in funds for those people. Everyone that place will suffer. So tell me Emily are these two arguments is contradictory as they seem to me and if not, maybe, even if so, is there some perfect magic fertility rate that makes an Mummy hum it's two point: do ok see louder than having so much now so I mean, I think that these are both of these things are true. They are true for different reasons. It is true that if you have a very old population, there are not many people to support them, it's not that you couldn't design policies that would allow that to work. Fine, it's just that the current policies most places have in place are not designed for that. If you think of social security, it relies on people paying in so it can pay out
If you don't have enough people paying out you're in a struggle to pay out, you could design a different system where people pay in and they get out what they put in that would be sustainable no matter what your fertility rate is. It just isn't the system we have set up now on the other On the sort of population growth side, I think it is true that, as places grow very quickly in terms of population that can be problematic for finding jobs. But again it's a question of how you set up the incentives and that can also be good for places because they get a lot of workers and new people to do stuff, and that is an important aspect of economic growth as well
So tell me if the following statements are true. You Emily Austria, along with your husband, Jesse Shapiro, is also an economist. Currently have one child named Penelope Use, roughly three years old ashes three and a half more you Emily. After presumably, along with your hasn't Jesse Shapiro, once more are expecting a second child ass. They are so in summary, why why haven't a second the first one is so great. Now I mean I really I'd like I love have you know my they're having a kitten? but the greatest thing that ever happened- and I think you know we are- we- would. occur to have his Eveline Enzo were
like us next week? I'm on economics, radio, we speak with the man who was handed the keys to the global economy, just as it started heading off a cliff. Looked from policy point of view- I mean you have bigger probability of a second depression- do need in order to act. I think twenty five I would be enough, but, in my view, was probably by ninety percent that if the panic had not arrested, that's the depression we had would have been much much worse. Former FED chair Ben Bernanke in its next time and Economics
FR economics, radio is produced by W and my c studios end up near productions. This episode was produced by David Herman threat, a cone, Caroline English Susie Lichtenberg increase band with help from droll Werner. Our staff also includes Burma, Gunjay Jake, how it merit Jacob Christopher Worth: Gregg results, geek cash, him a high living and Allison Hockenberry. If you want more for economics Radium, you can subscribe to our podcast on Itunes or wherever you podcast, and we will deliver another episode every Wednesday,
at eleven p M eastern time, thanks for listening hither, Stephen Double again, one more thing, if you like for economics, radio, I think you'll also like the latest episode of people, I mostly admire the pod cast hosted by my friend, I'm expanding co, author, Steve Levin. Here's what it sounds like a guest today, Sue bird. She collects championships she's for W Nba championships, five euro, the best about championships to end she ate championships for International Basketball Federation
world cups in four limpid gold medals. I'd like to talk about the economics of professional basketball, so the average player in the NBA made eight point three million dollars into that nineteen and in the W Nba the average with eighty thousand, is frustrating just now. I think, actually, if you look at twenty twenty our minimum is now higher, but we all put in the same amount of work. So is it hard to swallow, knowing that somebody else's work is being rewarded at times by I live in reality. I understand business and economics. Some people look at us as like charity they go will will help them out like an it in a terrible what sense not unlike this business.
Vestment way, and we think do look at us as an investment immediately. Its talked about how we don't make money- and it's like fifty years ago in the nba- did either, but people are willing to make that investment get behind it and growing people. I mostly admire you can find. on your favorite podcast up either Stephen dubbing again one more thing: if you liked the episode you just heard, we think you like something else in the friggin hammocks radio network. Look for this interview on the new podcast people. I mostly admire with host Steve, let my guest today Sue bird. She collects championships she's for W Nba championships, five euro, the best while championships to end she ate championships for
international Basketball Federation World CUPS in four Olympic Gold medal. I would think that, in order to be the player you are, you would have to be a person who actually gets better under pressure rather than worth. Well. Obviously, there are people who are known for heading big. Shots are known for playing while in big gains that exists for sure, but I think we kind of frame it the wrong way. It's not that you're gonna make nine at it. it's that you might make three at a ten but somebody else's making zero it's on, whose most, successful, it's like who's the most successful, The least successful that is people mostly admire. You can find it on your favorite podcast app subscribe now, so that you don't miss single episode.
Transcript generated on 2021-01-30.