Brain Drain Across the United States • Hacker News Board

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#181

Post by blub » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 10:49 AM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #151

blub wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biologically, 40 is a bad age to have kids at. The risk of Down syndrome and other diseases increases by a lot with each passing year in the 30s and it's anyways harder to conceive. Pregnancies over 35 are considered risky and are monitored much more closely. Having kids early is problematic because of the changing economic factors: job uncertainty combined with families moving for jobs and not being able to rely on…

The thing they don’t talk about much is that age isn’t so much the factor as overall health. The two correlate pretty well, so it’s more polite to talk in terms of age, but we could watch the way my fit, active, wife was treated compared to a more sedentary, overweight, woman 10 years younger, and it was clear which one people were more concerned about. Beyond that, even assuming the official numbers are right, I was…

Like you said, economically it makes sense, but I have to emphasise that biologically it's risky(er) to wait. Risk doesn't imply a negative outcome, as you have discovered for yourself, but each would-be parent should at least know what the pros and cons are.

According to Uhl's Obstetrics and Gynaecology for example, fertility is impacted negatively for females of age > 35 and a first pregnancy over 35 or under 19 is considered a risky pregnancy. Same goes for subsequent pregnancies over 40, which have a higher risk of genetic defect, placenta insufficiency, etc.

It's perhaps interesting to note that a genetic consultation is offered to women over 35, but only to men over 50. The risk of a trisomy over 35 is 1 : 370, whereas earlier it's in the thousands and can be shrunk further through non-invasive diagnosis. There are many more things which become problematic over 35 (thrombosis, diabetes, hypertensive disorders), I don't have time to list them all, but any good book on obstetrics will have the details.

Weight issues (BMI > 25, < 19) and a sedentary lifestyle increase the risk for pre-eclampsia, pre-term birth, pregnancy diabetes or spontaneous abortion. This would explain why the lady you mentioned was likely closely monitored. It seems that some attributes of the mother (e.g. being overweight, diabetes) are also reflected in the later predisposition to disease of the child. This can include even things like natural vs. C-section birth.

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#182

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #171

vkou wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that doesn't mean there are not great opportunities in Michigan. Just because there are some great opportunities in Michigan does not mean there are enough great opportunities in Michigan for everyone who could find one in Chicago, SF, or Seattle, or NYC.

Again, for most people, life is not about some 'job opportunity'.

[deleted]

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#183

Post by jeffbax » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:15 PM UTC

ccffph wrote: post #155

kgarten wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so change the public education system that more people get a better education? Look at Sweden/Norway etc., or do you argue that their genes are different ;) I mean education in the US sucks ... you need to be rich to give your kids a good one (comparable to what’s free in Europe)

My mother, a poor immigrant, managed to provide me with education just fine in the US. Nothing to do with the funding or programs or systems - its just willpower.

The alleged "socialist" success stories tend to have strong labor laws, but also much less business regulation and be much more free market than the typical American has been led to believe.

Sweden for example has no minimum wage and fully voucher-ized education which are anathema to the US left.

So I'd disagree there aren't things holding students in the US back, they just hold the entire DNC captive.

Sweden also has a flat tax. They depend on high income tax across the board unlike the US, but also have higher institutional trust/social cohesion (easier with a low pop) and frankly better governance overall.

Culture matters. It's why southern Europe is not like northern.

There's no quick fix that can be cherry picked to make the US like Nordic nations.

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#184

Post by jeffbax » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:36 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #154

There's a related drain on big university cities/towns. I stayed in Boston after CS-ish grad school, but pretty much all the other students left immediately/shortly after finishing. If they didn't go to professorships (the minority), it was usually SF or NYC. The reasons, besides job opportunities, were young nightlife (e.g., dating pool are frumpy nerds, bars/clubs/restaurants close up early by big city standards, s…

I don't see how moving from Boston to NYC or SF solves anything you're referring to. Boston is younger than both and while expensive to live still cheaper.

NYC is full of tinder box apartments. The dating pool in SF is way more lopsided than the east coast. Uber made the subway thing less relevant (though as someone who moved here and got older, the late hours also mean less to me now than earlier)

Also MA is allegedly top ranked for millennials https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennia...

Homes are expensive in MA but not cheaper in either SF or NY.

Boston also one of three US cities outside SV expected to be top 10 globally in tech for the foreseeable future https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technolo...

As for families, I don't see how either NY or CA is better off for education.

There's plenty of reasons to leave Boston for either of those cities, but the ones you cite really don't make a whole lot of sense.

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#185

Post by jeffbax » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:38 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #68

sonnyblarney wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, we should all be aspiring to live in Upper E. side Manhatten, because, 'why stay anywhere else'. Education is only one factor, there are many others. FYI - 'Worker mobility' in the US is actually declining, and has been for some time. This could possibly mean that regular workers are moving around less, relative to educated one's. It also could mean as communications and transportation become easier, t…

I was surprised to see Illinois still look like it's attracting people from the graph (I'm not entirely sure, it's a little hard to understand which direction it's going from their visual and labeling choices). Illinois has more people leaving the state than coming into the state since at least 2014, and our tax burden is the highest in the country. https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/population-loss-in-illi... http…

Not to mention the pension bomb waiting to go off. That's one big thing that'll help reverse brain drain in most blue states at some point.

Source: grew up in NJ and lives in MA

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#186

Post by jeffbax » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:40 PM UTC

Rafuino wrote: post #30

js2 wrote: post #2

Conclusion States which retain and attract highly-educated adults stand to reap substantial economic benefits. At the same time, those that bleed much of their homegrown talent will see their economic fortunes decline if they fail to replace the leavers with highly-educated out-of-staters. Yet even if they do manage to offset their losses, these states are still losing a vital source of social capital. What is more,…

"As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses." Huh... churches are the first thing that come to mind. Yep, this was definitely written by a Utah senate staff.

Churches provide a lot of charity and communal support in most places where they are still relevant.

Community masters, one of the reasons that SLC has the highest income mobility in the country

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#187

Post by ausbah » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:47 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #112

ausbah wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like the plot of "Idiocracy" - people who aren't 'smart' are having more children then those who are 'smart' so society is ruined. How about trying to make education and other opportunities more accessible to the less educated instead of bashing them for having a couple more kids?

> How about trying to make education and other opportunities more accessible to the less educated instead of bashing them for having a couple more kids? defen is (correctly) bashing the more educated for not having enough kids, exactly the opposite of the attitude you're imputing to him.

I attribute the view of "bashing the less educated for having more kids" because of what he says below:

>If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, this doesn't bode well for future generations.

I interpret what he was saying, taking in some of what he said earlier, as something along the lines of "less educated people are having more kids, so there are more and more less intelligent children around, so the future is screwed.

Whether or not what he was saying is correct isn't what I'm commenting on here, just clarifying my view.

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#188

Post by neilv » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:49 PM UTC

jeffbax wrote: post #184

neilv wrote: post #154

There's a related drain on big university cities/towns. I stayed in Boston after CS-ish grad school, but pretty much all the other students left immediately/shortly after finishing. If they didn't go to professorships (the minority), it was usually SF or NYC. The reasons, besides job opportunities, were young nightlife (e.g., dating pool are frumpy nerds, bars/clubs/restaurants close up early by big city standards, s…

I don't see how moving from Boston to NYC or SF solves anything you're referring to. Boston is younger than both and while expensive to live still cheaper. NYC is full of tinder box apartments. The dating pool in SF is way more lopsided than the east coast. Uber made the subway thing less relevant (though as someone who moved here and got older, the late hours also mean less to me now than earlier) Also MA is alleged…

You could be right; I'm saying what people said. Jobs seems to be valid to me (unless you're in biotech, rather than established dotcoms or doing a startup). No one I know thinks nightlife anywhere compares to NYC, and the people I know who moved from Boston to SF reported having a much better time (and weather). I actually liked the Boston dating scene, before Tinder, but I'm very much cafe and a walk.

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#189

Post by ausbah » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 12:51 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #83

ausbah wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like the plot of "Idiocracy" - people who aren't 'smart' are having more children then those who are 'smart' so society is ruined. How about trying to make education and other opportunities more accessible to the less educated instead of bashing them for having a couple more kids?

Because educating people doesn't change their genetics. If as a society you care about basketball playing ability. And you find tall people are having less kids than short people no amount of basketball camps are going to make the next generation taller. Also what we care about is societal contribution which primarily happens through work and we're terrible at making people better at their jobs through the education…

Education doesn't improve genetics, but it still improves a person's intelligence and overall abilities (reading, writing, arithmetic, critical thinking). There is value in providing education to everyone, regardless of their intelligence (however you wish to define that).

Re: Brain Drain Across the United States

#190

Post by simonsarris » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #77

shmageggy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like we as a society need to figure out a way to make "have children at a reasonable age" not be a low-status move for highly educated / driven / intelligent women. Isn't the obvious answer better maternity leave laws? Ambitious women in the US don't have kids because it fucks their career. The US is literally last among OECD countries, offering zero guaranteed maternity pay [1]. [1] https://money.cnn.com/…

That would be a good start, but overall I think access to high quality child care is more important than maternity leave.

Higher/highest quality child care is not putting your kid in child care at all. I don't know why rich parents would want to risk the long term welfare of their kids so they can work more. Kids that spend lots of time in child care are objectively worse off.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-o...

> Within 10 years, comprehensive analyses of the universal, “$5 per day childcare” program, including its impact on child care use, employment patterns, and children’s and parent outcomes, suggested cause for concern. Social development among children, as indicated by both emotional and behavioral measures, had significantly deteriorated in Quebec, relative to the rest of Canada (10% of a standard deviation lower). Comparisons between children ages 2 to 4 who had been exposed to the program, with older children (and siblings) who had not, revealed significant increases in anxiety, hyperactivity, and aggression in those exposed to the program. And the analyses found more hostile, inconsistent parenting, and lower-quality parental relationships among parents of children exposed to the program. But it was hard to predict whether the negative outcomes identified for 2- to 4-year-olds would persist across their development, or simply dissipate.

> Their research confirmed that the negative effects did continue, and in some cases became stronger across development. Among 5 to 9-year-olds, negative social-emotional outcomes not only persisted, but in some cases increased, as indicated by 24% of a standard deviation increase in anxiety, a 19% increase in aggression, and a 13% in hyperactivity. The impact on boys and children with the most elevated behavioral problems was stronger, especially in measures of hyperactivity and aggression.