We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by HelloMcFly » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #42

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.

Yes, I agree with you. People are overall better off because of technological improvement, but making a living is harder (wages didn't grow with prices, modern life has more costs attached to it). Also families are much more unstable nowadays, with divorces being common. Children growing up in stable families do better in several parameters, therefore instability has a ripple effect on society.

Divorces aren't rare, but they also hit a 50-year low last year. This wasn't a COVID outlier, it's the continuation of a trend. Lots of reasons for this that don't necessarily undercut your argument though (e.g., fewer people getting married in the first place).

https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces

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

#82

Post by jfk13 » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #46

neogodless wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Many parts of our economy assume perpetual growth. The easiest way to ensure growth is to increase the number of humans. Look at countries with shrinking birth rates for a glimpse of the problems an aging population can cause.

Perpetual growth based on an ever-increasing population is a recipe for eventual disaster.

The earth's resources are not infinite. We may not be able to say precisely what its carrying capacity for humans is (and the answer would depend to some extent on the conditions in which the humans are prepared to live), but I am entirely confident that there is a limit.

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

#83

Post by swiley » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

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.

Housing and Education are probably the biggest costs. Maybe healthcare too.

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

#84

Post by yesenadam » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #68

pjc50 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Privilege" is a terrible word to have become entrenched for such a useful concept, because many people instinctively get their backs up about being told they're privileged when they don't have to face a challenge that someone else faces. And it's not just a question of generalization, but a question of whose stories get told through the media. Whose lifestyles make it into the "lifestyle" section.

> Privilege" is a terrible word to have become entrenched for such a useful concept, because many people instinctively get their backs up about being told they're privileged when they don't have to face a challenge that someone else faces. I think people get their backs up because privilege checks as a concept are based largely on stereotypes/generalisations and confrontational behaviour, not empathic individual rela…

"the mainstream media is, by definition, normative"

ELI5 please? or, you know, 10ish.

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

#85

Post by jnwatson » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

kmlx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...

700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).

Practically speaking, we make enough food for all the humans on this planet, and we'll likely be able to until at least 10 billion people exist.

The reason that folks face food scarcity is a distribution problem, not a production problem. We don't do a good job at making sure people don't go hungry, even in the US.

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

#86

Post by tibbydudeza » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

NDizzle wrote: post #4

Sorry for letting you down, everyone. Three is our limit!

Most middle class homes in our suburbs only have 3 bedrooms so that sort of caps kids to 2 or less.

While we have a public schooling system if you want you kid into the "better" schools you need to pay extra for additional teachers to reduce the classroom ratio and facilities.

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

#87

Post by HelloMcFly » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #65

Scandiravian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this type of misunderstanding is something every human experiences. Those assumptions will however impact my decisions - who I vote for, what charity I donate to, how I approach other people in life, etc My current situation is very safe and secure, so if I'm not aware that this is a privilege that is only enjoyed by a small subset of the population, my assumptions could lead me to making decisions that…

Maybe rather than expanding your assumptions one checked privilege at a time, just drop your assumptions altogether? You simply can't know the experiences of others; even direct communication only transfers a very loose approximation of experience, and that's if both sides are both communicating earnestly and are skilled communicators. So if you can't know the experience of just one person then you certainly can't gr…

The entire point is that people are inherently unaware of many of assumptions or personal "theories of the world" they are applying to their evaluations of people, places, and things. Asking people to "drop their assumptions altogether" is like asking people "just don't behavior with any cognitive biases." You may as well punch the ocean for all the good it will do. People, like the OP, just will not be self-aware enough across contexts and moments, especially when thinking and reacting in real-time.

And I do not degree, nor do I really understand (which is likely the issue) the idea that trying to become aware of your own privileges that you take for granted others don't have is somehow tied to a moral judgment of others.

EDIT: But I do think in support of your point that all of us could do with more intentional mindfulness in how we see and react to the world. I don't want my comment to be a signal that efforts to have fewer pre-baked assumptions or biases are futile. But saying "drop your assumptions" is like telling someone upset to "just calm down."

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

#88

Post by gwbas1c » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

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…

> But a counteracting force is that some couples think 9 months ahead and are afraid of delivering their baby in a COVID-overloaded hospital.

My wife works in a maternity ward.

Babies are a high priority. They're fully prepared to deliver babies from covid-positive mothers. (And, yes, there's been plenty of covid-positive mothers.)

And, because visitors are strictly limited, it's actually quite easy in the maternity ward.

I went in because we got pregnant thanks to being stuck at home. It's much more peaceful without a parade of visitors, but super-scary because some of the delivery rooms have negative pressure machines in case there's a covid-positive mother.

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

#89

Post by theNJR » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

Important to note the 300k is a hypothesis

> Official birth data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics will not be available for many more months, but some states have already released provisional birth data. In January 2021, which would be the first month in which all full-term babies born were conceived after the lockdown began, births fell by 7.2 percent in Florida and 10.5 percent in California, after adjusting for secular trends, seasonal variation and the use of provisional birth data.

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

#90

Post by logshipper » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #64

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

I could not agree more.

Whereas historically having kids used to be a "social" decision in various respects, it has now become a socio-economic decision for the reasons you point out.

If anything, I would argue that the economic shock of the pandemic (aside from the horror stories you hear from WFH parents who have kids) and the inequality it has exposed in our financial systems has cemented the idea for a lot of middle class millenials to have no kids/fewer kids.