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

Baby Boom or Bust?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#71

Post by xnyan »

monkeybutton wrote: post #26
sokoloff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the solution though? If Canadians don’t want to have more children, you can’t force them and you probably can’t influence them much, so your other choice is to close down the immigration, which seems like it’s less ethical than the present condition.

I don't know! The cost of living and high cost of raising children here are popular scape goats for why Canadians are having less children. There's already baby bonuses, nationalized child care (in QC) but they do not have enough effect? One thing that isn't addressed is housing. Couples aren't going to want to have kids when all they can afford in a major city is a shoebox condo.

>One thing that isn't addressed is housing

Yeah, I'm not from Canada so you obviously know a lot more about this than me, but essentially 100% of my Canadian friends and family cite this as their top or near top concern right now. Toronto in particular seems wild, though Vancouver may be worse.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#72

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

yourapostasy wrote: post #38
stephc_int13 wrote: post #16

Declining birth rate was already an issue in large cities during antiquity. I even suspect that the pro-family policies we can observe in the religions that were created afterwards were a tentative to fix this problem. In my opinion, our species population is big enough already, and this is the main driving factor of ongoing ecological problems. I think we can adapt to a differently shaped age structure, we don't nee…

> ...we don't need a pyramid. The core financial architecture of the world is pinned upon an assumption of monotonically-increasing global population on a 3-7 generation moving average. So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. We're into generation one or two depending upon your definition of a generation, so we have some time b…

Just in case: to maintain the population we need about 2.3 kids per woman.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#73

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

pengaru wrote: post #55
chrisseaton wrote: post #25

Children are astronomically expensive. Most working class and middle class parents cannot envision affording a second child so they have just one.

I watch low-income multi-child parents pay for groceries and formula w/EBT and WIC vouchers on the daily. Children are subsidized by the government, it's definitely not cost-prohibitive.

Formula?

These parents definitely have too much money to spend.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#74

Post by pyuser583 »

Animats wrote: post #5
chronogram wrote: post #2

While the article mainly focuses on France, the world is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. France is a good example for other things though. Its extremely pro-pension policies makes it very hostile against the young. Both countries at either end of the world were spending their time breeding babies to try to feed them 50 years later.

World is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. China's one-child policy was a success. They were able to put on the brakes during the period between health care getting good and standard of living going up, which is when population goes way up. India didn't do that, and their population shot up beyond the country's water supply. France is just leveling off. Japan is in actual dec…

At the time it was enacted, the one-child’s policy’s goal was to conserve resources. It was also intended to prevent pollution and the spread of disease.

It was a direct response to overpopulation concerns (Club of Rome, Limits of Growth, etc).

Not only did it horribly failed, it did the exact opposite.

By encouraging industrialization, it resulted in more resource consumption, more pollution, and more disease.

It created an immense amount of wealth, and increased standards of living. But those weren’t the goals.

It was intended to avoid an apocalypse, not create a utopia.

If a time traveler went back in time and told Chinese leaders the effects of the their policy, they might very well outlaw contraception.

Edit: earlier family planning policies were focused on maternal health.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#75

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #67
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both parents typically need to work I think that's the key. I'm still trying to figure out for myself if it has something to do with "we need more women in workforce"

I would say declining worker power drove women to the workplace, and elite strains of feminism were the cover not cause. If it was just feminism we should have seen a 20 hour work week to compensate.

Not an expert here, but from my Soviet background I remember workers rights to go hand in hand with women emancipation.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#76

Post by boomboomsubban »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #73
pengaru wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watch low-income multi-child parents pay for groceries and formula w/EBT and WIC vouchers on the daily. Children are subsidized by the government, it's definitely not cost-prohibitive.

Formula? These parents definitely have too much money to spend.

With a working mother, going 100% breast milk can be a very difficult task. And that's not even considering the scenarios where breast milk may not be an option.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#77

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #76
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Formula? These parents definitely have too much money to spend.

With a working mother, going 100% breast milk can be a very difficult task. And that's not even considering the scenarios where breast milk may not be an option.

Scenarios when breast milk is not an option do exist, but they're extremely rare.

Story time: when we were expecting our first one, me and my wife went to the hospital for their maternity facilities tour. Hospitals have these monthly, so that expecting mothers know what to expect (a pun?).

In the end of the tour the nurse asked who's gonna breastfeed and who's using formula. 7 out of 10 went with formula. FUCKIN 7 OUT OF 10. All were first time mothers, so no, it's not that they knew something was wrong with their tits.

So unless you gonna tell me something is in the air of Alabama [1], no, I'm not buying your argument.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/facts.html

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#78

Post by rayiner »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #46
lalaland1125 wrote: post #42

Economic incentives are never going to really work well in improving fertility rates. If you look at the data in the US, the biggest predictor of fertility is religion, with religious people in the US having 2-3x more kids than non religious people. Most of the decline in birthrate within both western Europe and the US can be traced to increasing drops in religion.

From what I've read, the biggest predictor is girls education, but this is not incompatible.

It depends on what you mean by “education.” In the US, the high school graduation rate of women has exceeded that of men since at least 1940. The 20th century fertility rate peak happened in 1965, which also coincided with peak religiosity. During the first part of the 20th century, fertility rates, high school graduation rates, and church attendance all went up at the same time.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#79

Post by jjeaff »

ant6n wrote: post #27
chrisseaton wrote: post #25

Children are astronomically expensive. Most working class and middle class parents cannot envision affording a second child so they have just one.

In the US it really seems to be. I don’t even understand how my American friends can have kids - daycare is so expensive it makes more sense for one parent to just stay home. In Canada, children are already much more affordable (esp. in Quebec). In Europe even more so. Once education, health care and day care are affordable (or free), children are not astronomically exoensive.

It is definitely a heavy burden for low income families. But I don't think it is as expensive as some people make it out to be. I just checked at the daycare we send our kid to part time. And it looks like all day, 5 days a week, including breakfast, lunch, and afternoon snack is $875/mo. And I live in an expensive California suburb.

Now, that will certainly get expensive if you have multiple kids under 5 all going at once. But it turned out to be a lot cheaper than I thought.

I think some of the parents complaining are the same ones that are "applying" to these fancy, artisanal day cares that will teach your toddler how to do algebra in French.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#80

Post by lotsofpulp »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #46
lalaland1125 wrote: post #42

Economic incentives are never going to really work well in improving fertility rates. If you look at the data in the US, the biggest predictor of fertility is religion, with religious people in the US having 2-3x more kids than non religious people. Most of the decline in birthrate within both western Europe and the US can be traced to increasing drops in religion.

From what I've read, the biggest predictor is girls education, but this is not incompatible.

I think the biggest predictor will be women’s financial independence, as well as cheap or free effective birth controls.

I suspect the vast majority of women in the past were “coerced” into having the number of children they did, to put it in most charitable terms. If they had the same freedom and access to birth control that women had today, I doubt we would have seen all the 3+ children families we did.

Post reply on HN