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

Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 411 posts

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#311

Post by mkhpalm »

anonAndOn wrote: post #42
kube-system wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young, this was what minivans were for: families with three kids.

Minivans are only un-cool until you are forced to appreciate their practicality. They can transport groups of kids and all their gear, a bunch of dogs, a surprising amount of furniture or even large sheets of lumber or drywall. I would only consider replacing my minivan with an electric minivan.

I hated minivans until we caved and got one. It is easily the most useful vehicle I have ever owned. Best "pickup" I've ever owned as well.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#312

Post by FullyFunctional »

nostrademons wrote: post #256
cbhl wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That definitely seems like an improvement over car seats from the 90s. As an adult I still remember hating full-day road trips in the hard-plastic-with-a-fabric-liner car seat my parents owned; my butt was always sore after sitting in it for too long.

Car seats are way better than they were when I was a kid in the 80s. I recall that my car seat as a kid was a hard vinyl upright contraption that made me carsick whenever I rode in it for a long time. My mom actually sewed fabric covers for it so it wouldn't burn me on hot summer days. My kid's infant car seat was a click 'n go bassinet with a soft fabric liner. His convertible car seat stays in the car, but it still…

You kids are funny - I remember sleeping in the back of our station wagon with my sister while we were flying down the autobahn. (Yes, it seems crazy today).

My main gripe about the car seat is all the damn waste. We have four of them and you can't sell them or even give them away. I'm not sure about the recycling situation yet, but even in the best case not much can be recycled.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#314

Post by nmridul »

grumple wrote: post #244
nethunters wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Build a car around them?

In India TATA tried that. Built $2000 car (tata nano). Target audience were the bike going families.

First , the motor bikes are cheap. So you need car matching that cost and you end up compromising a lot.

https://thewire.in/business/tata-nano-why-did-the-people-not...

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#315

Post by throwaway201103 »

iaw wrote: post #289
zetazzed wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my wife and I were discussing whether to have a third kid, the "we can justify a minivan now" argument was a big push in favor! If you think it's uncool, just remember -- if you buy a sports car, there is always someone out there with a cooler sports car. But you can buy THE BEST minivan in the world for ~$40k. Minivans also tend to go heavy on tech and comfort features relative to their price point. Yes, they s…

My problem with minivans (as opposed to good sports cars) is that they drive like crap. I have never encountered (or heard of) a van that drove well with one exception [1] [1] I remember reading about a volkswagen bus that had been modified heavily with Porsche components to the point it could drive and accelerate better than any van had a right to.

I had a VW Vanagon and thought it handled well. Nearly perfect 50:50 weight distribution on front and rear wheels and a super tight turning radius. That thing could do a U-turn on a two-lane road. Power was pretty pathetic though. It would do 70mph, maybe 72 on the highway.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#316

Post by sudo_bang_bang »

arcticbull wrote: post #27

In general there's a strong negative correlation between development of a society and birth rate. Also income. It's extremely powerful, and applies literally all over the world. I suspect that in America over the last few decades, development continued. Child-safety laws came along for the ride. [1, 2] Income is a less compelling argument in America as wages have remained totally constant on an inflation adjusted bas…

Important to note that real income per capita isn’t actually flat, only household income but that’s likely because of household size changes.

See here for disposable real income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#317

Post by throwaway201103 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #286
Forbo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Medicare pays primarily for emergency hospitalization scenarios (referred to as Part A). Anything that happens outside of a hospital stay (called outpatient services) and medications come from Parts B, C, and D. Coverage for parts B, C, and D is insanely complicated and involves some means testing and who knows what else. There’s private health insurers involved too, and if you can’t afford that, then you can go to t…

And "Medicare for all" is a serious proposal?

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#318

Post by throwaway201103 »

giantg2 wrote: post #231
Forbo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My plan is to beat the game by not playing.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#319

Post by Robotbeat »

megablast wrote: post #234
imron wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Speak for yourself! After past generations have screwed over the world, my kids are going to have to be the ones to fix it.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#320

Post by Robotbeat »

gwbas1c wrote: post #285

Child #3 is about to be born any day now. I was shocked to learn that we just can't get three car seats into the back of our Model 3. Fortunately the other vehicle is a minivan, but the rear row can seat 3 without car seats, or two with car seats. This means we can no longer fit grandparents with all kids.

You might want to double-check that. I was looking at a thread specifically about 3 carseats in the back of a Model 3. There are several options.

You might need new carseats.

But I managed to get our 3 kids in the back of my first generation Nissan Leaf, which I think is slightly smaller.

Post reply on HN