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

391–400 of 434 posts

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

#391

Post by magduf »

bmj wrote: post #41
craftyguy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be a lot more older folks, who expected to retire and collect social security, still in the workforce as a result of diminishing payments by youngsters into that program. Demand for medical care will continue grow as the majority of the population gets older. I believe Japan is experiencing this right now at a large scale.

There are also ramifications with older people who have no one to care for them at the end of their lives. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/01/24/feat...

Yep, the Boomers are really going to suffer when they're elderly. But they kinda deserve it: they're the ones that screwed up this country so badly.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/17/generation-soc...

A generation full of sociopaths will be getting their just desserts when they're wasting away in poorly-run nursing homes with no one visiting them.

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

#392

Post by magduf »

cjbprime wrote: post #282
tzahola wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the masses of childless elders will happily vote into office anyone who promises to take care of them.

I wonder why this isn't causing a swing to the Dems in the US already. Republicans admit disliking both immigrants and entitlements.

Because these elders hate immigrants and foreigners. They'd rather starve to death in their trailers than have immigrants take care of them.

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

#393

Post by magduf »

tabtab wrote: post #19
gregorymichael wrote: post #2

What are the economic ramifications of fertility rate being below the replacement level?

There are also military ramifications. If we get into a big skirmish with China, they will overwhelm us with soldiers and high-volume weapon manufacturing capability.

Soldiers can't march across an ocean.

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

#394

Post by magduf »

iandanforth wrote: post #220
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a debt-based growth-dependent (to repay ever the increasing debts) economy, it crashes everything. Turns out assuming infinite growth does not produce a stable civilization. This is why there are concomitantly erstwhile calls for people to both reduce their "footprint" by not reproducing and also that immigration is crucial to every (western) society's survival.

Do you know of any good example steady state economies for contrast?

If there are any, they're probably in ancient societies, and as such are probably poorly understood now.

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

#395

Post by dionidium »

souprock wrote: post #370
dionidium wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, yes, obviously there are more jobs in the biggest cities. Why people insist on translating this into “there are no jobs anywhere else” is anybody’s guess. But it extends beyond preference or opinion and into objectively, verifiably, factually wrong territory with remarkable consistency. It makes the people who claim it look ridiculous, but they seem to think it makes them look — I don’t know what — something no…

Heh, the psychology underlying that opinion is fascinating. Part of this could be a need to feel that one's own choice was rational or ideal. People make decisions based on emotion, and then invent reasons to justify the decisions. A related factor could be the fact that a person could be compelled to move if they knew of a better place, but moving is a pain. Another possibility is being unreasonably picky. Maybe som…

I’ll humbly quote myself from an earlier comment:

If you accept that the South and the Midwest are legitimate places to live, then you're forced to really consider it, which is difficult -- moving long distances is hard! It's much easier to conclude that those places aren't real options.

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

#396

Post by magduf »

jacquesm wrote: post #364
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting that you listed a number of peoples who have at various times been subjected to genocide because of their initial accommodation of outside populations in your rebuttal of my affirmation that Japan refusing to compromise its stance on immigration is vital to its survival as a cohesive and distinct nation. >you use it or you lose it Please explain in direct language the point your deployment of this a…

> It is interesting that you listed a number of peoples who have at various times been subjected to genocide because of their initial accommodation of outside populations in your rebuttal of my affirmation that Japan refusing to compromise its stance on immigration is vital to its survival as a cohesive and distinct nation. Exactly for that reason. Note how the Japanese have had their various wars of conquest in the…

You're not answering the question at all. Being an imperialist power and oppressing other people is good for you as a society if you win (just ask the British; they're still enjoying the fruits of their imperial policy after all this time), even if other people find it morally reprehensible. This doesn't equate in any way to believing that accepting immigration is helpful to the society.

Just look at modern-day China: the Han Chinese ethnic group dominates, and oppresses all the minority groups. China is not a country with a lot of immigration either (nor do they have a shortage of people). So far, it seems to be working out for them, though admittedly it sucks for the minorities.

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

#397

Post by magduf »

matte_black wrote: post #186
jotm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Durr Durr but the next Einstein

If we were serious about finding the next Einstein we would be attempting to maximize the pairing of individuals who could produce such a person. This may someday be feasible, as genetic testing and online dating begin to intersect, but the time is not yet.

AFAIK, Einstein was not the product of a pair of super-geniuses. It doesn't work that way.

Of course, you're not likely to get an Einstein if a bunch of uneducated idiots breed either, but most really remarkable people like that come from pretty "normal" parents, though admittedly usually from family backgrounds that are at least middle-class, and not impoverished, and where they had good opportunities and education.

If you want to increase your chances of making more Einsteins, there's two things you have to do as a society: 1) minimize poverty, illiteracy, poor education, etc., and 2) increase the birthrate (while making sure as many of those kids as possible grow up in economically and emotionally stable homes). You're not going to get Einsteins from a bunch of dirt-poor subsistence farmers, nor from a tiny cabal of wealthy people.

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

#398

Post by dsfyu404ed »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #38
OmarIsmail wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

If it's what your priorities are you can have a home, cars, max out your 401k and be paying back student loans on a single entry level tech salary.

This requires that you put up with a long commute, beater cars, an old house and DIYing a good chunk of skilled trade work that you could hire someone for. You'll be bringing your own lunch to work, drinking beer from a can and not building much cash savings at that stage. Nevertheless it's sustainable on a single entry level tech income in a major urban area and living a couple hours away.

I think that increased spending on luxury things has by implication de-prioritized the "life milestone" things.

Generations ago people bought a house and started a family first. Now people accumulate wealth first and settle down later (which is probably a reflection on the fact that the lifestyle needed to accumulate wealth is not very compatible with settling down).

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

#399

Post by magduf »

dionidium wrote: post #340
jacquesm wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tech jobs everywhere. From Toronto to Paraguay and from SF to NYC and everywhere in between. Technology is everywhere , it is almost impossible to find a place where there are no tech jobs. But the bigger cities tend to have more of them and for better pay and Silicon Valley, New York, DC, Amsterdam, Berlin, London, and so on will have the best paid jobs but also the highest cost of living. Silicon Valley i…

Look, yes, obviously there are more jobs in the biggest cities. Why people insist on translating this into “there are no jobs anywhere else” is anybody’s guess. But it extends beyond preference or opinion and into objectively, verifiably, factually wrong territory with remarkable consistency. It makes the people who claim it look ridiculous, but they seem to think it makes them look — I don’t know what — something no…

The problem here is the concentration of jobs.

For my specialty, there's lots of places where I could go to get a job. But it might be the only job there. I had some silly company try to recruit me to La Crosse, Wisconsin not long ago. The work sounded really interesting and was a good fit for me, but it's most likely the only company in that town that would have such a job for me. That town isn't near anything. So if I were to relocate there, and the job didn't work out, I'd be screwed: I'd be forced to relocate again (at my own expense most likely) to someplace else. I've seen quite a few jobs like this: these jobs try hard to recruit people like me, thinking that because I'm older and experienced that surely I have a family (nope) and want to "settle down" in some nice small town (nope) and will be happy to take a low salary because the cost of living is supposedly so low (it really isn't, only housing prices are low in places like that, and they're not that much lower).

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

#400

Post by magduf »

dionidium wrote: post #395
souprock wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, the psychology underlying that opinion is fascinating. Part of this could be a need to feel that one's own choice was rational or ideal. People make decisions based on emotion, and then invent reasons to justify the decisions. A related factor could be the fact that a person could be compelled to move if they knew of a better place, but moving is a pain. Another possibility is being unreasonably picky. Maybe som…

I’ll humbly quote myself from an earlier comment: If you accept that the South and the Midwest are legitimate places to live, then you're forced to really consider it, which is difficult -- moving long distances is hard! It's much easier to conclude that those places aren't real options.

The South is a legitimate place to live, just like Saudi Arabia is.

If you want to talk about quality of life, that's another issue.

If you're not a gun-loving church-going conservative, you're not going to be very happy relocating to the South. It's already horribly hard to make friends over the age of 30 (this comes up here on HN often), and moving someplace where the locals are diametrically opposed to your worldview is not going to help with that.

Post reply on HN