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

We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 461 posts

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#31

Post by xwdv »

jasode wrote: post #17
Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

>Couples are spending a lot of time together [...], so I'd expected that to result in more baby making But a counteracting force is that some couples think 9 months ahead and are afraid of delivering their baby in a COVID-overloaded hospital. COVID makes the opportunities for conception easier but adds to the stress and uncertainties of delivery and postnatal care. (So maybe more sex activity but also more contra cep…

I’d do the opposite. The pandemic is the perfect time to have a kid if you were thinking ahead. Sure, in the short term it might suck, but in the long term, your kid will be amongst a smaller generation. That means more resources can be diverted to them in schools and other activities. Daycares pressed for money because of a sudden drop in the supply chain may start lowering fees a bit for a while. Colleges receive less applicants, mortgage lending, etc... And since a lot of the families that can afford to have kids in a pandemic are probably more affluent, that means a better selection of romantic partners close to the same birth year with better than average socioeconomic status.

It’s a great time. You don’t want to have your kid during a massive boom. They’ll just be a mini boomer.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#32

Post by francisofascii »

Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

It is a reasonable expectation. There have been studies linking high birth rates to blizzards. "blizzard babies" But of course, this was not a blizzard. Increased anxiety and depression can be a libido crusher.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#33

Post by coldpie »

tzs wrote: post #14
that_guy_iain wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people stopped dating, bars are closed, etc. I suspect the decrease in drunken sex is probably a large reason for the decrease.

That reminds me of something I’ve occasionally wondered about. Just in terms of total population and ignoring all else such as quality of life and economic impacts, is alcohol’s net effect to lower population growth (drunk driving deaths and such) or to raise population growth (drunk sex or other related poor decisions)?

It doesn't answer the question you posed, but I read a study[1] just yesterday that estimated that the largest factor of young people having less casual sex now than they did ten years ago is a reduction in drinking rates. It was still a minor factor (explains about 25% of the drop, by their estimation), but it seems less alcohol use does correlate with less casual sex.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023121996854

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#34

Post by everdrive »

Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

> there home without much entertainment

They were pumped to the brim with entertainment. Passive, internet-based entertainment.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#35

Post by neogodless »

andi999 wrote: post #19
Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

Actually how does one actually do that 'check your privilege'? Is it like a checklist for takeoff:'privilege on? check!'

Become aware of it and acknowledge it.

Consider ways to improve your perspective around those without the same privilege, and adjust your communication so that it isn't incorporating arcane assumptions.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#36

Post by chrisseaton »

Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

But it's the worst possible time to have a baby. Healthcare is all round degraded, hospitals are risky places to be, new parent services are degraded, socialising with other parents is limited. Why would you risk doing it now rather than waiting if you had a choice? Most people have a choice, so are choosing to wait.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#37

Post by ploika »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #29

I wonder if there's a good way to model the cost of children over the last 100 years? My guess is fewer people are having children due to the financial costs rising considerably.

Much more of the decrease in the past century is due to increased access to education and full time employment for women, increased availability of contraception, and decreasing child mortality.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#38

Post by leesalminen »

kmlx wrote: post #30
chriskanan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend David Attenborough's 2020 Netflix documentary "A Life on Our Planet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_ ... https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world. He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth wo…

on the other hand our planet has seen 5 mass extinction events. at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet. things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.

> things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.

I’ve been wondering lately what happened to the documentary genre. When was the turning point where they started becoming political in nature, driving an ideology based off FUD and pseudo-science? Or have they always been this way and I’m just realizing it now?

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#39

Post by curiousgal »

ploika wrote: post #37
SamuelAdams wrote: post #29

I wonder if there's a good way to model the cost of children over the last 100 years? My guess is fewer people are having children due to the financial costs rising considerably.

Much more of the decrease in the past century is due to increased access to education and full time employment for women, increased availability of contraception, and decreasing child mortality.

I wonder when will the hostile immigration policies kick in and accentuate that.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#40

Post by neogodless »

chriskanan wrote: post #18
HenryKissinger wrote: post #7

This is a good thing. The carrying capacity of the planet is finite, and our large global population is largely responsible for the destruction of the environment and climate change. Further, the high standard of living of Americans places a significant burden on the resources used to sustain this lifestyle. 300k fewer Americans will have a much greater impact on the environment than 300k fewer people of any other co…

I highly recommend David Attenborough's 2020 Netflix documentary "A Life on Our Planet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_ ... https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world. He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth wo…

It's really odd to me. 200 years ago, the population was about one billion. Now it approaches eight billion. If the trend really is lower over the next 100 years and it drops... don't we think it would eventually reverse again? Why do we want the population to be stable or always growing? Why would it be bad for it to be going down for a while?
Post reply on HN