politics

I don't want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.

Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also "sea cabbage".

Depending on area there'd also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you're used to, though about USA I've read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.

So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.

If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don't have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.

Notice that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.

There's a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it'd be cheaper probably.

That's because value is created by labor, if your labor isn't needed and you don't have a job, then you'd still produce value if you had one. And when you can't afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I'm a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there's a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.

I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there’s a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a “support”, providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.

It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I'm not an economist, that's just how I see it.