Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate • Hacker News Board

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#231

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:55 AM UTC

Forbo wrote: post #219

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, elderly people have Medicare, so why is this happening?

I vouched for your comment, because I'm also curious. What healthcare costs is Medicare not covering?

There are parts A-D. They can vary by part and by state, other factors too.

I think you generally pay about $1k-$2k per year in premiums in total for all parts. There are also deductibles and copays. For example, the deductible is about $1500 for hospital stays and copays for doctors visits is 20% of the medicare approved costs.

So it's lower than private insurance, but not negligible. It can get pretty expensive if you require lots of procedures or medications, as many people do at that age.

Here is an article claiming the average cost for A and B parts is almost $8k per year.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average...

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#232

Post by eptcyka » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #123

nsxwolf wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got the Pacifica a few years ago, never looked back. Probably will buy a new one in a few years.

How are they on road trips? Instead of a luxury SUV, my main concern is comfort.

If you want comfort, get an E-class wagon or similar. SUVs are not built for comfort.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#233

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #224

bobthepanda wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone lives in an area where that is true, nor can everyone just afford to replace $20 helmets on a regular basis. Compulsory helmets just for cyclists is a bit arbitrary too, since pedestrians and car occupants would also benefit from helmets, and at least pedestrians are likely to encounter the same exact crash scenarios which cyclists encounter where helmets are necessary (e.g. pedestrians can also get hit…

I realize I'm privileged in that I live in a low-crime city, but seriously, who is going to steal a $20 helmet which will have a broken strap? It looks like new straps cost ~$8 on Amazon, so the helmet is worth at most $12. Which isn't nothing, but... unless you happen to need a helmet and the helmet just so happens to be the right size for your body, you'd need to sell it, and no one is going to pay full price for a…

In the summer every morning I would see a bike locked up outside that had been they over night. One morning I saw the bike and all that was left of it was the frame. The saddle, handlebars, and wheels were all gone.

I agree that it's odd that people would steal these individual pieces, but it does happen. It reminds me of people only stealing 2 rims from a car.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#234

Post by megablast » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #188

svachalek wrote: post #7

This reads like a textbook example of "correlation is not causation". You think there'd be ...some? people talking about how they decided not to have a child because she/he wouldn't fit in the car if it's going to have a measurable effect on birth rates but at least personally I have never, ever heard this one.

> You think there'd be ...some? people talking about how they decided not to have a child because she/he wouldn't fit in the car if it's going to have a measurable effect on birth rates but at least personally I have never, ever heard this one. We have 3 kids. When talking to friends with only 2 kids, this comes up all the time and is a non-trivial concern in having a third child. You need a bigger car, a bigger hous…

This is good news then. We should be thinking hard about having more kids. 2 is more than enough. The damage each extra child does, especially in the west is insane.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#235

Post by dmurray » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:03 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #44

irateswami wrote: post #15

This is an actual conversation I had to have with my wife, having a third kid definitely requires a larger vehicle as the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five. Child car seats are too wide and the backseats of most cars are too narrow, and the price jump to a vehicle that would be able to handle three child car seats at once is enormous. Throw in some dogs, a couple pieces of luggage tha…

We ended up buying Diono Radian carseats [1], which are marketed as "the 3-across car seat" We can fit our three kids in the back of our Honda Civic perfectly well. But we've had exactly the same conversation. In order to have a fourth kid, we'd need to swap out our vehicles. House is fine, insurance is fine, income is fine, but we'd need to upgrade vehicles, and that seems to be just enough friction to make the idea…

Let's say it costs you $200k to raise a kid to adulthood [0]. A Honda Civic costs $25k new [1], an 8-seater Honda Odyssey costs $31k new [2]. A car lasts 10+ years so conservatively that's $12k extra in transportation costs for your fourth child. Maybe you can argue it's $20k with fuel.

That...doesn't seem unreasonable? As a society, we like people to start families and continue the human race, but we know overpopulation is a thing and we don't want everyone to have huge families. 10% extra marginal cost is small, and offset by other economies of scale.

[0] I don't have a better estimate for this than Bill Waterson putting it at $100k. In 1987. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/07/24

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/

[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/odyssey/

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#236

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #174

giantg2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this downvoted?

For one, the word "above" is unfounded. At or slightly below works too. You can have a consumption-based economy where the population drops 1% per decade just fine. But more than that, even the least capitalist economy is going to have trouble if the ratio of young healthy workers drops too low.

I agree it's mostly about the ratio of workers. It can be below for relatively short periods (a few generations maybe). But if it stays below for long periods of time, you will run into some structural issues. Like the young workers you mentioned, tax burdens, some consumer durable industries, and possibly housing/real estate.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#237

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:16 AM UTC

aklemm wrote: post #151

giantg2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this downvoted?

Good question. The root of all of this is human population. Let's get real and talk about it.

Human population would be why we don't want a high birth rate.

The parent comment was asking why we do want a high birth rate. Increase in economic output from population growth in a consumer based economy is a reason that economists would give and that politicians would use to support the policies promoting a higher birth rate.

I think we probably could eliminate most policies promoting population growth. Of course some of those could meet some ethical concerns. If we start talking about policies to limit population growth, that could get even trickier.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#238

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:16 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #96

blang wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

King county Washington[1]. [1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev... !

It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.

It's like the law where if you ride your bike on the road or sidewalk. It's 100% up to how busy the cop is that day and if he REALLY wants to write you a ticket.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#239

Post by nethunters » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

safetyengineer wrote: post #191

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five I recently visited Pakistan for the first time, and was amazed to see a family of five riding around on a small Honda motorbike. The father was driving, a small child sat in front of the father, the was mother hanging on behind the father, and the oldest daughter sitting on the far back with both legs hanging off to the left while holding an inf…

Helmets work but after working in automotive safety, motorcycles are death traps. I can't emphasize this enough. They are no automobile, and are not comparable.

What other precautionary methods could help reduce mortality rates of motorcycles?

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#240

Post by renata » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 2:23 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #78

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately in a democracy it also demonstrates how large a percentage of likely voters are elderly, which also seems like it could cause serious problems during that sort of demographic shift. (Notice that almost everywhere, people over 65 get a vote but people under ~18 don't.)

Who was that Scottish economist that had a famous quote about something like once the citizens in a democracy realize they have the keys to the treasury they grant themselves services/money?

Alexander Tytler, although apparently it may be misattributed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_....