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

261–270 of 461 posts

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

#261

Post by bradleyjg »

ivanche wrote: post #242
wcarss wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is highly dependent on society/nation standards. I grew up in a 750 sqft apartment (family of 5). My wife grew up in a 440 sqft (family of 4). Now I consider 250 sqft/person to be a palace, but in the US it's probably considered unlivable.

Exactly. It’s not some fundamental biological fact that you can’t raise a family in fewer than 1500 sq. ft. of house and 1/4 an acre of property. That was just a cultural norm set in a particular time and place.

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

#262

Post by tenacious_tuna »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #217
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.

I did not want to have kids. Then one day I realized that for the past 3 billion years my ancestors had been passing the torch. I was not going to be the one to let down the team. I felt a duty to give my genes a chance to fight it out in darwin's cage match. I can not guarantee my genes will win, but if I fail to reproduce I guarantee they will lose. Looking back, I am not sure this justification makes any sense, bu…

I'm always suspicious of anecdotes that go "I never wanted to do [thing], and then I had a thought that changed my perspective on [thing] though it's not really logical up front, and then [thing] happened and now I love [thing]." I always suspect it's the psycological immune system [1] kicking in to alter your own perceptions of [thing] so you don't go crazy, because [thing] was originally something you Did Not Want and being stuck with the consequences otherwise would just drive you nuts.

Specifically with the biological imperative argument... I've always felt the opposite effect: being aware that my biology so wants me to have children makes me doubt whatever impulses I may have towards having children as being motivated by what I want, and instead being motivated by an evolutionary adaptation that doesn't take my psychology into account.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_the_surprising_science...

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

#265

Post by gruez »

carapace wrote: post #207
Dirlewanger wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, people need some fucking perspective. Yeah, things aren't too hot right now, but that's because all you do is consume the 24/7 newscycle and worry about what some nobody on Twitter is agonizing over about Disney's latest TV show. The world is the safest it's ever been. Aside from Covid, many massive killers of the past are no longer a problem. Our ancestors would be shaking their heads if they saw the pros…

I was reflecting just this morning how glad I am that I don't have children. (And I don't follow the 24/7 newscycle or use Twitter.) You want perspective? The Doomsday Clock is still set to 100 seconds before midnight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock > Aside from Covid ... Covid isn't the last virus. And the tools we use to fight it are also the tools we could use to make worse ones. (Every tool is also…

>The Doomsday Clock is still set to 100 seconds before midnight.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

The same article points out it's not exactly objective, and I'm inclined to agree. It's more of a political (ie. subjective) statement that the world is fucked rather than an objective measure.

>Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker harshly criticized the Doomsday Clock as a political stunt, pointing to the words of its founder that its purpose was "to preserve civilization by scaring men into rationality." He stated that it is inconsistent and not based on any objective indicators of security, using as an example its being farther from midnight in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis than in the "far calmer 2007". He argued it was another example of humanity's tendency toward historical pessimism, and compared it to other predictions of self-destruction that went unfulfilled.[24]

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

#266

Post by tenacious_tuna »

samr71 wrote: post #253
rimiform wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids might make your life better, but they probably would have been better off had you stuck to your plan of not having them.

Such doom and gloom! You really believe the future is gonna be so bad that children would be better off not existing at all? The world has huge issues, sure, but it's still far better to be alive now than any time in human history. The only way the future could be worse is if this idea becomes mainstream and the prophecy self-fulfilling.

I think this is a rather short-sighted view; The future is not guaranteed to be better, especially not when we have lots of evidence of impending (1) massive climate disruption (2) water shortage (3) political polarization (4) economic imbalance, the list goes on.

Saying "the only way" the world gets worse is if we don't have children is to ignore the potential for all of those effects to grow worse. It's certainly possible that we may overcome them and human life will continue on its merry way, but it's very unreasonable to ignore all these difficulties and the psychological effects they can have on new parents.... And on new children.

What would your response be to a 9 year old having an existential crisis about the polar bears starving to death because of climate change, and the implications for human civilization, and civilization's apparent apathy towards that? "Don't worry kid, just make sure you have children of your own and everything will work out"?

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

#268

Post by tomp »

brandmeyer wrote: post #215
agent008t wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Inflation can be easily created - just create more dollars and credit them to people's bank accounts; you will soon see all kinds of prices going up.

If this was true, then the monetary policies of the 2008 financial crash and the 2020 pandemic would both have created consumer price inflation. They haven't. We've seen some asset price inflation instead. In effect we did create a bunch of dollars and credited them to people's home equity and mutual funds... where it just sat there doing a whole bunch of nothing to consumer prices and wages.

> If this was true, then the monetary policies of the 2008 financial crash and the 2020 pandemic would both have created consumer price inflation.

Not really, as this post explains: https://www.lynalden.com/money-printing/

TL;DR: QE is mostly meant for banks, it was used to increase bank reserves (as banks were forced to do by the regulators), and didn't substantially increase the amount of money available in the economy. But this time (COVID-stimulus) might be different.

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

#269

Post by dantheman »

brandmeyer wrote: post #215
agent008t wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Inflation can be easily created - just create more dollars and credit them to people's bank accounts; you will soon see all kinds of prices going up.

If this was true, then the monetary policies of the 2008 financial crash and the 2020 pandemic would both have created consumer price inflation. They haven't. We've seen some asset price inflation instead. In effect we did create a bunch of dollars and credited them to people's home equity and mutual funds... where it just sat there doing a whole bunch of nothing to consumer prices and wages.

Have you seen the stock market, housing, and education -- there is a huge amount of inflation. Technology is keeping it in check for a lot of consumer goods but the dollar has lost a huge amount of its value.

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

#270

Post by conductr »

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.

> 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.

I’d boil it down to selfishness.

In the past, kids were productive assets as you mentioned. They were also your elder care and retirement plan. So having kids was a selfish act.

Now, kids are liabilities and things like elder care and retirement is a financial consideration and people don’t want their kids burdened by it (US culture). Also, you can freely live your life without kids (travel, career, etc). So, in that sense, not having kids is a selfish act.

I personally feel like many of the people who say they’re not having kids because overpopulation/fearsome of future/etc are just looking for a pat on the back while really their motivation is selfish.

Post reply on HN