The Great Class Swap (Introduction)

Matt Yglesias endorses the Great Class Swap

Radically Unconventional Solutions to Inequality (including Universal Orphanhood)

What would the Great Class Swap look like if implemented

The Great Class Swap is more of a thought experiment, philosophical outlook, and metric to judge a society by rather than a concrete political agenda. However, the Great Class Swap could have both leftwing and rightwing versions, as well as those that are harsher or friendlier to both the poor or the wealthy.

A version of the Class Swap favoring the wealthy might include generous natalist tax breaks and full subsidies for private schooling, as well as extracurricular activities, while protecting the wealthy’s assets. I basically support breaking up public schools, as well as no strings attached vouchers for private schools and homeschooling, which would obviously benefit the Middle Class.

Inheritance taxation might incentivize more offspring while still allowing heirs to hold onto their wealth, which I am generally sympathetic to, except for the ultra-wealthy. On the other hand, the Class Swap could be very harsh on the wealthy, including seizing wealth and assets, plus a 100% inheritance tax on the rich. Basically the rich are coercively responsible for all the work and reproduction, while the poor work and reproduce less, but just relax off a UBI. Regardless, high fertility among the wealthy is good for reducing the concentration of wealth.

Source: @JayMan471 on X

As for the poor, different versions could range from harsh negative eugenics to more programs to help the poor, such as healthcare and UBI, just favoring single adults rather than childcare. Even leftwing Indira Gandhi, made the sterilization of poor Indian men a condition for receiving government services like healthcare, which is much further than I would go. Not to mention all the pro-eugenics Progressives in early 20^th Century America. Also Scandinavia’s childcare programs are slightly eugenic, under the guise of Social Democracy. If we are going to have high taxes on the wealthy to fund more social programs, there needs to be some mechanisms to offset dysgenics.

There are a lot of practical policy proposals, as well as existing policies, that meet objectives of a Class Swap. While raising taxes on the upper middle class to moderately wealthy is dysgenic, there must be very high taxes on the ultra-wealthy, say over 100 million in assets. Though I am not a fan of the asset tax, because it sets a precedent for the government to seize property. However, I support a Tobin tax on financial transactions and speculation, plus eliminating the carried interest loophole on capital gains. Stocks and 401ks of the wealthy should be taxed more. I also support a progressive corporate tax rate, though the tradeoff is that corporations would reduce the number of low wage jobs, as well as make-work mid-level positions.

Source: @AJiazhang on X

Long working hours tend to suppress fertility, as is the case in hyper-capitalist, South Korea. Lower working hours for high paying jobs would be eugenic, even if it might slow economic growth. This seems to be the trade-off in Scandinavia, where high paying jobs with paid time off assist middle to upper middle class native fertility, at the expensive of both corporate profits and creating low wage jobs.

Source: brookings.edu

Trump’s proposed reforms to the capital gains tax, while ending the SALT deduction, tax credit for the wealthy in blue states, combined would have been slightly dysgenic, even if it’s understandable to want to punish annoying strivers in coastal urban areas. Combined it would have shifted the tax burden from the ultra-wealthy, as well as benefiting the 401ks of wealthy retires, to upper middle class families. This is because the upper middle class and moderately wealthy have greater potential for family formation than the ultra-wealthy and wealthy seniors. The ultra-wealthy (top 0.1%) are way to small to have a demographic impact, so why not soak them?

Regardless, conservatives’ argument that leftwing economics destroys wealth has some truth to it, especially in California with the exodus. The worst case scenario for California is high taxes pushing out upper middle class and moderately wealthy White families while allowing oligarchs, plus woke striver DINKs and upwardly mobile immigrants to stay.

Source: @lymanstoneky on X

A French study on reforms to France’s childcare allowances found that among middle-income couples, cutting the early childhood benefits by half did not have a significant impact on fertility. However, among the wealthiest households, the complete removal of the benefits lead to a decline in fertility. Coercing the upper class to have more children would end up having a much greater demographic impact than populist, pro-family policies, like Hungary enacted in 2015, which have fallen short. The post pandemic corruption, favoring the wealthy, ironically had a eugenic impact on fertility. However, making earlier marriage and having kids culturally high status would probably have a greater impact on fertility than policy.

Source: ifstudies.org

Giving baby bonuses to the poor is dysgenic while ineffective for the middle class, though I support paid maternity leave for all. There should be a carrot and stick incentive structure with overall higher income taxes for the top bracket but with natalist offsets. Whether this increases or decreases tax revenue depends upon how it is set up. Ivanka Trump’s initial childcare tax credit proposal could have been eugenic, but she got flak for favoring the wealthy. Trump agreed to a childcare tax credit for the poor and middle classes, on top of his generous tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. Regardless, a lot of lower middle class, White conservatives benefit from the child tax credits.

Welfare is a distraction from economic elites, and leftists are right that the trope of the Black welfare queen with ten kids was exploited by Republicans to get the White Middle Class to serve the oligarchy. Even the dysgenic angle is exaggerated somewhat by the Right, though fertility for low income people of color is significantly higher than for middle class Whites. Regardless, Bill Clinton’s welfare reform, easier access to abortion, and the high cost of rent in urban areas have reduced fertility among low income people of color.

Source: @eyeslasho on X

The underclass is growing tremendously due to foreign migration, which throws a wrench in the Class Swap. This is on top of low birth rates for the White middle class. However, to conservatives, it is more about a moralistic narrative about being a moocher, with a poor work ethic than about dysgenics or hereditarianism. Not to mention all the middle class managerial, make-work jobs for women and people of color, which have a much greater impact than welfare. If anything, it has gotten stricter to apply for welfare, with the amount of money that people get from EBT/food stamps being measly.

Source: @ajlamesa on X

I am fine with reforming welfare to minimize dysgenics, and UBI mostly solves the dysgenic issue, as long as it is just for adult citizens. Overall, UBI is probably neutral on eugenics vs dysgenics. I am in favor of scraping means testing burecracy and replacing it with UBI. Besides being less dysgenic than welfare, UBI has the potential to empower struggling White males while disempowering affirmative action bureaucrats. Not to mention that means testing is much more expensive than just giving people direct cash payouts.

@RobertKennedyJr on X

In regards to the debt ceiling deal, Republicans went out of their way to scrap food stamps for childless adults, but not single moms. This is the worst of both worlds, bootstrap Reaganism with a contempt for single NEETs, but also more dysgenic. There is this moralism about putting children and women first, on top of a Protestant work ethic, that influences policy on the Right. However, conservatives have also opposed school lunch programs, which just makes them come across as assholes.

The end to sibling discounts for financial aid, seems like a direct attempt by the Department of Education to economically and demographically wipe out the White middle class. Basically make college unaffordable and incentivize smaller families for the White middle class, with minimal impact on the wealthy, poor, and affirmative action applicants. When it comes to college loan forgiveness, Republicans would rather talk about lazy mooches with degrees in basket weaving than propose reforms that actually could incentive family formation. Say forgive college loans by half for having one child and in full for having two.

Source: @SawyerHackett on X

A Texas Republican legislator, introduced a bill that would grant massive property tax cuts to couples with children, with a 40% tax cut for having four children and a 100% cut for having ten children. Democrats compared this proposed legislation to the Handmaids Tale, though it looks like it doesn’t have enough support to go through. If this law were enacted in Texas, it probably would boost fertility among wealthy conservatives, and perhaps the religious middle class, with little impact on the working class and more hedonistic rich.

@IdoTheThinking Twitter

California would never come close to approving a reform like this due to equity reasons, and that California Democrats are antagonistic to White family formation. However, since California already gives seniors massive property tax breaks, affluent families also getting these tax breaks, would dramatically reduce the State’s coffers. Since California’s wealthy are heavily White, while the middle class and poor are much more diverse, it would be interesting to see what impact this kind of legislation would have on California’s politics and demographics.

Housing costs obviously have a huge impact on fertility and family formation. YIMBY policies are generally natalist but whether they are eugenic or dysgenic depends upon the specific housing policy, as well as the housing costs and demographics of a specific location. A hypothetical Class Swap influenced zoning policy would propose dividing up large estates to build more multi-bedroom, family oriented condos or townhomes in wealthy ageing communities. On the other hand, large numbers of affordable micro apartments would be built in urban cores and low income communities, that cater to single adults.

Source: @PhilWalkable on X

While I dislike sprawl for ecological and aesthetic reasons, building more suburban subdivisions is positive for middle class family formation. Family oriented urbanism/infill development is possible but requires access to good schools, public safety, and mandating that more new units have extra bedrooms and space. Conservatives have this notion that families cannot live in cities while the Left have made cities uninhabitable for families.

Source: @MoreBirths on X

While gentrification is nuanced from a perspective of income inequality, gentrification can also be positive from a Class Swap perspective. This is because having a city taken up by large swaths of blight means little space for middle to upper class family formation. For instance, there was a baby boom amongst affluent New Yorkers during the Bloomberg era, coinciding hyper-gentrification. Leftwing urban policies, like rent control, are dysgenic without increasing the housing supply. Not to mention Section 8 Housing in the suburbs.

Source: @ProducerCities on X

Empty Nesters now own twice as many large homes as millennials with kids. The elderly occupying vast amounts of prime real estate has a dysgenic impact on family formation. While the younger affluent are generally doing well, the shortage of larger homes has a negative impact on their fertility, especially somewhere like California. While I am not calling for raising property taxes to kick the elderly out of their homes, and having grandparents live near their families is beneficial, the scarcity of adequately sized housing in desirable areas must be addressed.

Source: @Porkchop_EXP on X

Neoliberals like to point out that people are technically richer today, but then why does everyone feel poorer? Avoiding the underclass, which can have a racial component, is a tax. One must strive to stay in the class that they were born into, as there is cutthroat competition over access to a limited number of desirable people, as well as a limited number of spots at elite institutions. It also doesn’t help that the wealthy and financial institutions drive up the cost of real estate and other commodities.

Source: @L0m3z on X

You cannot expect the American upper middle class to avoid South Korean tier birth rates when they fret over private school tuition or having to pay a million dollars for a home, in order to get into one of the top school districts. I suspect that the DINK phenomenon is being promoted as a way to deal with elite overproduction. People are either going to have to get over that striver mindset and just live and start families without worrying about the costs, or embrace some form of segregation or identitarianism that is separate from economic elitism.

While there can be some common ground with a pro-middle class populism, a class swap might be more compatible with a Lee Kuan Yew type technocrat than populism. The question is whether a Class Swap would requite top down central planning or would it work better under radical decentralization, which could ease elite overproduction, income inequality, and dysgenic selection pressures.

Source: @HenryMorgan3721 on X

Since much of the wealthy are financiers, speculators, lawyers, and upper corporate management, it is fair is ask whether we really need to propagate more of them. A Class Swap could push out a lot of hyper individualistic liberals from the elite but replace them with a boring mercantile, conservative, but family oriented elite. Think the Romneys. Any positive eugenics favoring the wealthy must be countered by an aggressive push for higher caliber traits in elites. For instance, penalizing economic parasitism, dismantling managerial institutions, incentivizing innovation, as well as more patronage for the most creative. Regardless, beauty being correlated with wealth is probably the best reason to support class based eugenics.

Source: @L0m3z on X

There is a dichotomy where leftists hate the rich but want their wealth while much of the dissident right also hates the elites but has a eugenic preference for the genes of the top. The Great Class Swap could create a bizarre realignment where there is an alliance between NEETS and affluent families on one side, and poor families and single moms, with affluent urban DINKS, and childless Girl Bosses on the other. As the latter demographics are core Democratic constituencies, I think Class Swap based politics are more palatable to the Right, even if they might include quasi socialist policies. However, because of leftwing and rightwing versions, Class Swap ideology must infiltrate the left, right, and center, as well as be flexible enough to adapt to different circumstances.