Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 434 posts

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#31

Post by vkou »

coldtea wrote: post #24
0xB31B1B wrote: post #5

Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. We as a society need to re-examine the causes of rising costs of essentials so reproduction is no longer financially infeasible.

> Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. Well, people in the US made way more children when they made very few money, and lived 10 together in tiny houses and apartments. And they still do in the developing world. So it can't be just costs.

They also did so in an environment where childcare was free (Because grandma was doing it for you.)

Most people don't live with grandma anymore, and the government will happily take your children away if you don't keep every second of their lives supervised by an adult, prior to the age of 13.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#32

Post by reb »

confuseddesi wrote: post #22
0xB31B1B wrote: post #5

Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. We as a society need to re-examine the causes of rising costs of essentials so reproduction is no longer financially infeasible.

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 .

Doesn’t that still track? Having children makes it harder to get/stay rich, not having children makes it easier.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#33

Post by mhneu »

lisper wrote: post #13
nostromo wrote: post #9

This makes me super happy and super scared. Happy because we have plenty of people on Earth and in the US. We don't need more people. Scared because so many of our economic structures assume infinite population growth.

We can change our economic structures. We can't change the fact that exponential growth is unsustainable. So this way at least there is hope.

Replacement level fertility is by definition non-exponential (or if you prefer, has an exponent of 1.) A reasonable number of macroeconomists would be ok with replacement-level fertility. The economics get really bad when the birth rate falls below replacement though - you get fewer workers supporting more retirees, which has the bad consequences you can see now in Japan.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#34

Post by Symmetry »

Huh, I did a blog post about this just last night. Basically, people's personality has an impact on whether they have kids, personality is heritable, fertility won't be low forever given current conditions but who knows how conditions will change.

http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2018/05/falling-fert...

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#35

Post by nostromo »

mhneu wrote: post #8

For decades, the US birth rate has been held up by immigration. American values have been to regard the country as a nation of immigrants, who not only act as a source of youthful workers, but also have more kids than Americans who have been here longer. So the US has avoided workforce aging, as has happened in parts of Europe and especially Japan, through immigration. With the recent reduction in immigration, accele…

I don't see the value in large numbers of unskilled workers entering the US every year.

With a potentially large wave of automation coming, the US shouldn't straddled itself with lots of unemployable drivers, farm workers, etc.

I hope we can move to a much more sensible immigration system, similar to Canada's, for example.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#36

Post by Karishma1234 »

Not true at all. Turns out that the poor people who actually cant afford to have kids are having more kids. Hispanic and Black growth is much higher than whites and asians.

Asians with the highest income level have lowest birth rate.

Given that it is mostly whites who have been leading in STEM there is a high chance that US will lose its competitive advantage in these fields.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#37

Post by always_good »

lisper wrote: post #13
nostromo wrote: post #9

This makes me super happy and super scared. Happy because we have plenty of people on Earth and in the US. We don't need more people. Scared because so many of our economic structures assume infinite population growth.

We can change our economic structures. We can't change the fact that exponential growth is unsustainable. So this way at least there is hope.

I read the article title and I think "good."

I would love for governments all over the world to finally reach a scarcity mindset. Unfortunately, the earliest governments to try that were pwned by imperialists.

But these days power dynamics aren't so linear anymore due to WMDs.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#38

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

OmarIsmail wrote: post #20
enraged_camel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If you think about it, most species reproduce when resources are abundant, and stop reproducing when resources become scarce. That's basically what is happening to young people here.

It's the opposite with humans. 3rd world/developing countries have extremely high birth rates. The best mechanism for "population control" in people is to improve a population's standard of living.

I don't think that it's a matter of worldwide standard of living. I wonder if developing nations have an easier time with a young person reaching a comparable standard of living with their parents, and the developed ones have a much larger discrepancy. In a developing nation success might be somewhere to live, and a job. Before someone from north america is "doing well" you need a partner, a 5 bedroom house, two cars, two jobs, and a university education. We can't meet our "needs" until much later in our life.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#39

Post by mhneu »

zerostar07 wrote: post #14
0xB31B1B wrote: post #5

Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. We as a society need to re-examine the causes of rising costs of essentials so reproduction is no longer financially infeasible.

Then why is Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Finland etc significantly below the US?

Fewer low-skilled immigrants in those countries compared to the US, is the usual explanation given. The Economist loves to talk about this topic. One recent example: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/30/immigran...

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#40

Post by btcbfg »

zerostar07 wrote: post #14
0xB31B1B wrote: post #5

Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. We as a society need to re-examine the causes of rising costs of essentials so reproduction is no longer financially infeasible.

Then why is Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Finland etc significantly below the US?

This. The real answer isn't as simple as not having enough money.
Post reply on HN