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

141–150 of 461 posts

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

#141

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #114
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…

> An (increasingly rare) person from a single-kid middle class home is not only a social minority, but has to create more of their own opportunities because they are an outsider to both societies. I don't follow: is a single kid from a middle class family an outsider to kids from other middle class families where they have 2 or 3 kids? I mean, I understand that middle class is neither rich nor poor, but what's the di…

I'm also not sure what they're getting at but here's my anecdote FWIW.

I never fit in well with the other welfare kids that came from families with many kids. Nor did I fit in with the middle class and up kids always flexing their Nikes, vacations, cars, and other vapid things I could never dream of getting.

My circumstance did allow me to mingle with the various classes and see how they live and succeed. The poor families rapidly introduce the kids to low pay manual labor jobs in grocery stores, farms and the like. The better off families got their kids fun summer jobs near their summer homes working banana stands or giving guided tours.

The differences become even more stark in college, for those who went that is. The relationships gained from introductions made by the well offs family and friends pay massive dividends immediately if you speak the right language. By which I mean one doesn't speak like a poor person. Between private job offers, highly paid internships, and favor trading the poor kids don't just have the deck stacked against them, they're playing with the cards and chips that've fallen off the table, but only against the other poors.

The one constant between classes is drug use. There's a lot of drug use in all these groups, even the DARE/ROTC/AP kids. The difference is that the poor kids self medicating away their shit hand, while the rich kids are rebelling against their parents, self medicating their home problems like abuse and emotional neglect, or trying to get an edge in classes/work. Rarely do well off kids fall into hardcore addiction. I've seen a lot of kids taken to very expensive rehab clinics multiple times. Poor kids don't get these vacations and access to world class shrinks.

Siblings tend to follow the familial mean. Sure sometimes a rich family has a complete failure of a child, but most of the time they're mediocre middle management coasting through life on their laurels continuing the time honored tradition of trading favors with and smoothing over the rough patches for their kids and siblings. Siblings in poor families do the same things, but with limited means comes limited success.

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

#142

Post by boh »

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…

Unfortunately much of the financial system (in the US anyway) is highly dependent on population growth. Many existing entitlements were created during periods of uncommon birth-rates with the expectation that the babies being born will grow and reproduce at the same rate as their parents. This growth hasn't materialized, and much of the existing growth can be attributed to immigrant inflows. Regardless of the environmental arguments against overpopulation, we are living in a competitive world, and historically, declining birth-rates have often not been favorable for sustaining sociopolitical influence and relevance or economic growth and stability. We are however, living in a unique time were robots and AI can potentially pick up the slack for whatever losses of productivity a lower population may cause. We will however still have to operate in a period of growing stagnation and inequality. Wealth will be less available through incomes (as it already is), and inequality, without the proper counter measures, can inflate to the levels more familiar in Jane Austen's time. You have more economic growth if you give 1 million people $100 dollars (since they are more likely to spend it on goods/services) vs giving $100 million to one person (who will likely spend the bulk of their money on financial instruments). An economy needs many people to spend money to grow, we’re now expected to have less people with less money to spend.

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

#143

Post by wcarss »

bradleyjg wrote: post #135
yortpyperty wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a new father, I share this perspective. To get an anecdotal sense of our financial struggle, we have 2-4x the net worth that my parents when they were our age, but cannot afford the same house that I grew up in and doubt we ever will.

Is is it you that are the outlier or your dad? What kind of housing did your grandfathers and great-grandfathers have?

The point is precisely that neither of them is an outlier within their respective time -- they are normal people who want "normal" housing: i.e. just enough to raise a family in.

The parents born in the 30s-50s could largely afford to purchase homes large enough to raise a family in, but far fewer people born in the 70s-90s will be able to do the same.

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

#144

Post by josephorjoe »

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…

So, maybe off topic, maybe not.

i have a cat. She's a good cat, mostly. We get along pretty well, mostly.

Before the pandemic, there were large parts of the day when we didn't see each other.

Because we knew we would be separated much of the day, we found time to play around when we were together. I'd throw a toy and she would squawk and chase after it then look at me excitedly until I walked down the hall, picked it up, and threw it back the other way. Then when she was tired it would be time for treats and petting. Good times.

Play time was a valued time for both of us, as we knew that soon we would be separated for many hours, possibly days. Time together was special.

Now, we have nearly unlimited time together, and when I want to play, kitty is tired or hungry or wants to stare out the window at the pretty birds and squirrels and swats at me and tries to bite me if I persist in trying to initiate play time.

Meanwhile, when kitty wants to play, I'm often at my desk trying to focus on my work and probably trying to understand why this awful corporate group has cut another ticket about outdated software to our team when I'm on call. So when kitty jumps on the back of my chair, climbs onto my shoulder, and then flops down on my keyboard with a 'come pet me' look, I pick her up and toss kitty on the floor and tell her to leave me alone.

There is no play time anymore.

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

#145

Post by beowulfey »

gwbas1c wrote: post #88
jasode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It's not the fact that hospitals cannot handle it.

It's when you consider the cost-benefit of the increased risk associated with being in the hospital during a pandemic and possibly experiencing stronger symptoms/complications because of the pregnancy if getting sick, the scale tips away from trying for kids.

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

#146

Post by refurb »

yortpyperty wrote: post #97
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…

As a new father, I share this perspective. To get an anecdotal sense of our financial struggle, we have 2-4x the net worth that my parents when they were our age, but cannot afford the same house that I grew up in and doubt we ever will.

But why would you expect to be able to afford the same house even with higher net worth?

I mean, my folks bought a house I can afford either but when they bought it, it was on the edge of the city, not a desirable area in a 2nd tier city. That’s why it was cheap. Now it’s in a historic neighborhood, highly desirable in a city where everyone wants live.

I could afford a house similar to the one they bought in terms of those qualities. In fact it would likely be cheaper compared to salary.

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

#147

Post by PragmaticPulp »

ianai wrote: post #41

This is probably mostly covid related. But I personally don’t even consider kids. Kids are a life long commitment. I’d only make that commitment if I felt long term stability or at least optimism. Austerity and cynicism dominate the US right now though. It’s a recipe for strife, struggle, and things that rip families and countries apart. It doesn’t have to be this way in the US.

> Austerity and cynicism dominate the US right now though.

This is greatly exaggerated by news media and social media, especially with everyone stuck at home. The contrast between what I read online and what I see in the real world has never felt larger.

Austerity refers to reduced government spending, which is the opposite of what we’re experiencing right now. We’re spending so much that my CPA friends are working overtime to help businesses figure out what to do with their stimulus money. Prices for goods like lumber are through the roof because construction demand is off the charts. My local construction companies don’t have any availability until Q4, if they’re taking bids at all.

Obviously we have problems that need to be addressed, but the combination of 24/7 news media and politicians competing for our attention has exaggerated these issues to the point that we’re losing our ability to put things in perspective or judge the absolute scale of social issues.

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

#148

Post by Peepootoler »

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…

It's a good thing, but I expect politicians to just use this as another excuse for more mass immigration. They've been using this narrative for decades now after all.

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

#149

Post by notsureaboutpg »

Teever wrote: post #76
gadders wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a valid perspective, but times have been a lot worse in the past. It's a good job our ancestors didn't think like this.

It's not that they didn't think like this but that they couldn't. Thanks to readily available and affordable birth control individuals have much more freedom to make reproductive choices that benefit themselves. What those individual freedoms do to society as a whole is another issue but it is entirely within the ability of western governments to increase birthrates through policy. The fact that they don't is most in…

This isn't true. There were ancient, relatively effective methods of birth control. And if you really couldn't care for kids they became orphans.

Also with larger extended families and closer knit societies many people would "gift" their kids to others who were barren.

5 out of my mother's 15 cousins were adopted (without their parents dying).

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

#150

Post by notsureaboutpg »

beaner wrote: post #98
Teever wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that they didn't think like this but that they couldn't. Thanks to readily available and affordable birth control individuals have much more freedom to make reproductive choices that benefit themselves. What those individual freedoms do to society as a whole is another issue but it is entirely within the ability of western governments to increase birthrates through policy. The fact that they don't is most in…

Ehh... I wouldn't assume that's the whole reason. It's been known for a pretty long time how to not have a baby if you don't want one, physically. Two other factors are religion, and the fact that children are now expenses into their mid-twenties rather than income-generating/household-contributing in their teens.

Yeah this is huge, just 100 years back kids got married and worked at like 13 years old.
Post reply on HN