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

151–160 of 434 posts

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

#151

Post by robotrout »

drak0n1c wrote: post #122
cheeseomlit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that birth rates have gone down though? Many factors, mostly economic, which should be addressed instead of importing millions of people who will soon be replaced by automation anyways.

People used to have many more kids regardless of whether they were facing good or bad times. I'd say the change is less economic and more due to culture - both men and women want less kids. There is economics in the cultural change - as people get wealthier and government welfare becomes more reliable the forces behind maintaining and growing the family decreases. Wealthy people in the past still had many more kids t…

The idea that a population must expand in perpetuity is an idea that is obviously flawed to apply to any finite nation. Given the oncoming tide of automation, it seems doubly flawed.

It should be acceptable for any population to ebb and flow, as changes in internal and external forces occur. Deciding to import warm bodies because your economic ponzi appears to require it seems like short term thinking. It would be better if the ponzi itself was addressed and the population allowed to ebb for awhile.

People are easy to attract to your country when you really need them ... unless you've managed to make that country undesirable.

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

#152

Post by toomuchtodo »

magic_beans wrote: post #139
nostromo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap produce is awesome. :) But working people not being able to find jobs because they're competing with dirt-cheap no-benefit laborers is not. :(

These working people who can't find jobs are addicted to opiates or refuse to educate themselves. Dirt cheap illegal laborers slave over jobs a white American would never, ever do.

They’re just terrible jobs people who aren’t desperate wouldn’t do.

If you don’t believe me, go clean a slaughterhouse one night, or pick strawberries in the hot sun for a day.

Edit: Automate these jobs.

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

#153

Post by nadezhda18 »

maxk42 wrote: post #102
Karishma1234 wrote: post #36

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.

I wonder if the poor are having more children because they feel like they have less to lose? I desperately want to have kids and my girlfriend is on board, but she makes next to nothing and I make quite a lot of money. I tried an online calculator and if things go awry between us, I'll be paying her roughly a quarter of my post-tax income for the next two decades here in California. That's just too big a gamble for m…

feels to me like you do not want children bad enough... there are infertile couples out there who have to pay quite a lot of money to get to the position where you are now (I assume you both guys are fertile) [0]

Apart from the examples in the article, I am also judging from my own experience and I personally reached the point where the money simply does not matter compared to the possibility of being a parent.

0 - https://www.self.com/story/the-cost-of-infertility

Edit: Also agree with others about potential relationship problems you guys may be experiencing

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

#154

Post by losteric »

nostromo wrote: post #35
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.

Employing immigrants in unskilled labor is a good thing if we're on the cusp of an automation revolution. Immigrants are not citizens - these are employable people who invested in traveling to America because we pay more for their skills. They go home when the market becomes unfavorable.

California has never been "straddled" with unemployable farm workers over winter...

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

#155

Post by jaredklewis »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #98
dv_dt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America integrated large immigrant waves in it's past, and I doubt anyone would say the Italians, or Irish, or other minorities were not integrated today. Time bridges cultures, and we're the better for it.

Italians, Irish, and most of the other immigrants from that time were Europeans who had a lot in common with Americans culturally.

The Chinese immigrated to the US at a similar time as the Irish and Italians. The more than 3 million Chinese living in the US today seem plenty well integrated and I don’t think China and America are particular close in terms of culture.

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

#156

Post by stevenwoo »

vibrant wrote: post #58

This is driven by a very simple thing - pension funds and insurance. Back in the day (and in poor countries with no pension funds) people knew that they had to have children because otherwise nobody would support them when they were old and they'd die. Right now people are confident that they will get a pension when they are old, so there is no reason for them to have kids. They consider children as an inconvenience,…

What workers are you thinking of that have a pension besides certain federal/state/municipal employees.

The average or median worker in the United States cannot depend on a pension, it is impractical for the vast majority of Americans to consider what we commonly think of as retirement and stopping work. http://time.com/money/4258451/retirement-savings-survey/

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

#157

Post by trophycase »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #85
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…

Why is it that birth rates have gone down though? Many factors, mostly economic, which should be addressed instead of importing millions of people who will soon be replaced by automation anyways.

Depression, obesity, and kids are soooooo uncool. Just get, like, a dog or something. #blessed

It's pretty easy to read this thread and see how much dislike there is toward children.

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

#158

Post by jessaustin »

rubicon33 wrote: post #95
mieseratte wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope we can move to a much more sensible immigration system, similar to Canada's, for example. We have a decent immigration system in terms of getting the right kinds of advanced folks. The problem is we are also unwilling to do what needs to be done to stem the tide of unskilled illegal labor that flows into the nation.

The biggest counter argument I hear, regularly, is that the "tide" of illegal labor you speak of is NECESSARY. Who will pick strawberries? Who will clean your hotel room? Etc. It's the classic who will do "X" dirty job argument.

Pretty soon, it will be the robots. That could be bad from a humanitarian perspective, but they won't defecate on the lettuce fields.

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

#159

Post by Teknoman117 »

jacquesm wrote: post #105
wetpaws wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going from expensive area with good job market to slightly less expensive area with little to no job market. Rrright.

You could move to a much less expensive area with a reasonable job market. It's not all black-and-white, people stare themselves blind on what their take home pay is but quality of life is at least as important. I would not move to the valley for any kind of money given that it would stop me from having the life that I would like to live. It's not as if SV is the only place in the world with a job market. Though if y…

This is what I did (as far as a job goes). While southern California is still really expensive by national standards, the cost of living is half that of the bay area while the pay isn't that much less.

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

#160

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

jacquesm wrote: post #93
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is a prosperous high HDI nation. They have clearly decided that making bankers happy is not worth sacrificing their national identity by inviting mass immigration. They may not appear to be "winning" to those who measure civilizational success by the quarter but I bet their way wins out in the long run.

> They may not appear to be "winning" to those who measure civilizational success by the quarter but I bet their way wins out in the long run. I'll bet the opposite. The long run is really long and if your population is in decline then you either up the numbers or sooner or later it will be game over for your branch of the tree.

Populations can grow geometrically at any time. What matters to a particular "branch" is that it remains a cohesive and clearly demarcated appendage while it weathers hostile conditions. Grafting on another branch is what ensures its demise as a distinct entity.
Post reply on HN