Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

151–160 of 461 posts

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

#151
While the demographics are interesting, the forecasts of doom are overwrought. These authors should be celebrating a future of increased prosperity with lower resource contention.

Population, especially in a country like the US, can easily be augmented through immigration, as it has been in the past. If that even matters.

But does it? A top heavy aging population does need an improved “GDP production” base (the article calls it “tax base” as most policy people think of it, but retirees are supported by a combination of tax funds, retirement funds, family support, and other sources). But working against this requirement is a long term secular decline in commodity and goods prices due to increased automation, increased productivity, increased resource efficiency (e.g. see the decreasing energy intensity in GDP), shift of energy production from op ex to cap ex, et al.

And there’s clear economic ignorance in the article’s claim that “a smaller work force… portends lower economic productivity”. The very definition of productivity is the same or greater economic output per unit labor.

The next wave of automation boom is like the computing boom of the 80s and 90s, which was famously “visible everywhere but the statistics.”

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

#152
post #17

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…

> adds to the stress and uncertainties of delivery and postnatal care

Another lurking factor is the availability of grandparents to assume some of the early child care. Movement restrictions can remove this assistance entirely from new parents.

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

#153

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.

The exact house or equivalent in a similarly populated area as the one your parents bought in? If the former, I imagine it's because the area has developed significantly since.

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

#154
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I had our first son at the end of 2019, right before the outbreak. We’ve heard from friends that women are delivering wearing a mask now. My wife thinks that she wouldn’t be able to do that and that she would pass out. The level of breathing required to deliver a baby is intense. She has basically threatened the livelihood of my genitalia if I impregnate her during the pandemic. She’s kidding, right? ;)

The level of breathing needed to deliver a baby is intense, sure, but the impeding of breathing from wearing a mask is minimal. Early on when I was wearing homemade masks made with shop towels, rubber bands and staples, mask wearing was uncomfortable, but with masks that aren't made out of random elements are fine. My first-grade kids have no problem running, jumping and climbing with their masks on.

> but the impeding of breathing from wearing a mask is minimal.

If I inhale hard on a surgical mask, it collapses and seals against my mouth. I have to either use a brand new, very stiff, mask. Or adjust the mask not to seal well against the sides to add some more space between my mouth and the mask.

It doesn't happen during normal breathing, but I could easily see it happening during labor - the sweat would soften the mask, and the level of breathing needed would easily do it.

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

#155
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.

Makes sense. Time are certainly filled with more strife and struggle than the Great Depression, Dust Bowl, polio epidemics and two World Wars.

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

#156
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is the same phenomenon in India as well - the salary is "high", so you can splurge on furniture, buy reasonably priced cars etc. much easier than earlier generations. But we cannot afford to buy the same house my parents lived in at our income level.

This always feels like a weird argument. In the part of Maryland (USA) that I live in, quite a few areas are named after families who lived here in colonial times, and they were granted huge swaths of land. But a descendant from one of those families today can't reasonably expect an estate of hundreds of acres. There's just not enough land to go around with the size of today's population. Obviously, that's taking it…

This mostly makes sense if real estate is already fully utilised, but it isn't.

I can't speak to India, but there's a feeling broadly in North America of having "new development" and "expansion" over time. Cities are much, much larger now than they were 40 years ago, and people imagine that the new farm land subsumed and developed should be available for a similar price relative to income to what it was 'back then'.

The XXX-acre rural farmland wasn't as valuable as the same space in town when purchased as a lot, but now it holds as many homes as that downtown space used to. Is it worth the same today, relatively, as that space was then? No, they're both worth comparatively way, way more than they were.

I don't mean to suggest that scarcity isn't a part of the equation here, more that there are a lot complex factors involved, e.g. wage levels relative to inflation over time.

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

#157
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is that, at least in the US, the post World War II economy was unusual and the factors that lead to it are unlikely to ever be repeated.

We are reverting to the status quo ante about what middle class means.

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

#158
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is the same phenomenon in India as well - the salary is "high", so you can splurge on furniture, buy reasonably priced cars etc. much easier than earlier generations. But we cannot afford to buy the same house my parents lived in at our income level.

Have you accounted for development induced appreciation? Perhaps a similar home further from the city center would be a more suiting comparison? Anecdotally, in central New York housing prices have gained only modestly. The 2008 financial crisis didn't have a large effect on prices here either. But... development in central New York is near zero.

Given that good jobs remained in the city center, and commutes are not faster than they used to be, the point is not very relevant.

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

#159

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…

> when birthrates are low we use immigration

This is why I don’t believe in ecology. Every 5% we save on water, is being used by our leaders to stuff more population on the same land.

It defeats the purpose of saving: Public policies cancel individual efforts, such as my friends who chose to have no kids for ecology.

Capitalism is a way of forwarding global constraints to individuals, and exponential house prices communicates that the territory cannot survive with more people. Yet, not only do we increase population (so all those “no kids” friends are up for disappointment), but we bring those newcomers to the levels of consumption of middle classes, using lowered prices so they can afford 70% of mid-class consumption levels.

Since our leaders break the relationship between environmental constraints and costs, by offering free housing, food and subsidized public services, people believe it is ok to be 120 people per square kilometer, and we can afford to love and welcome more people. No! Each additional individual emits greenhouse gases! We’re already emitting ~3x the affordable rate! We should have taken the naturally decreasing population to smoothly become more sustainable, but our government decided to add 0,5-1% population per year, artificially! Our land can’t afford more people!

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

#160
Birth rates have a much larger effect on society than I think people realize. I recently read Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? by Eric Kaufmann. It makes a pretty strong argument that contrary to the widespread assumption that everyone will just become an atheist, the world will actually become more religious, almost entirely because of birth rates.

In this 2010 book, Kaufmann argued that the answer to the question raised in the title is in the affirmative because demographic realities pose real challenges to the assumption of the inevitability of secular and liberal progress. He observed that devout factions tend to have a significant fertility advantage over their more moderate counterparts and the non-religious. For instance, white Catholic women in France have on average half a child more than their white secular counterparts while the Amish in the United States have three to four times more children than their fellow Christians on average. Highly religious groups tend to isolate themselves from the secularizing effects of modern mainstream Western society, making it more likely that the children will retain their parents' faiths. At the same time, secular people generally have rather low fertility rates by comparison for a variety of reasons, such as materialism, individualism, the preference for the here and now, feminism, environmentalism, or general pessimism. Kaufmann projected that secularism will have a mixed future in Europe. It will remain strong in most Catholic countries, notably Ireland and Spain, but has essentially ground to a halt in Protestant Europe and in France, and will falter in Northwestern Europe by mid-century. He told Mercator Net that the only way to buckle the trend involves "a creed that touches the emotional registers", which "can lure away the children of fundamentalists" and "a repudiation of multiculturalism." He suggested that "secular nationalism" and moderate religion associated with the nation-state could be part of the mix, but these traditions have been losing support at a considerable rate.

He observed that moderate faith of the Abrahamic variety is under pressure from both secularists and fundamentalists as they find themselves living in the secularizing societies of the West.[13] If it were only true that the religious were having more children than secular people, Kaufmann argues that the effects of the incoming demographic transformation would only be national, but because those who are having the most children tend to be intensely religious, he predicted that there would also be ramifications for international relations. However, Kaufmann rejected the increasingly popular notion that Islam will become the dominant religion in Europe by the end of the twenty-first century. Rather, Muslims would stabilize at around a fifth of the European population by 2100.

Post reply on HN