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

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#91

Post by mensetmanusman »

peterburkimsher wrote: post #17
klipt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think about it this suggests a strong selective pressure for religious communities that consider birth control sinful.

It's a little more complicated than that: not all religious groups consider all forms of birth control to be sinful, and these trends don't apply in all countries. Increased religiosity won't necessarily increase the birth rate. Disclosure: my mum, Marion Burkimsher, is a demographic researcher specialising in this area. She's also studied fertility of migrants (the TFR statistics are skewed). https://www.researchgat…

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-...

People who identify as secular have about 1 fewer child per couple when compared to the same local averages.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#92

Post by mensetmanusman »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #69
toomuchtodo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/t... (Elizabeth Warren’s book, The Two-Income Trap, explained) > Warren’s central argument in the book is that this rise in household income was almost entirely driven by the increase in the number of two-earner families. And adding income by adding a second worker, she argues, has very different economic implications than rising pay for a single worker. In p…

Sounds almost like that if we (putting the hard hat on and hiding under the table) find a way to exclude one parent from workforce, things will get back to normal.

I’m not sure this is necessary.

I wonder if a future advanced society will support women who want to have large families during their college/educational years.

Our family had 2 children in the dorms while I was getting my doctorate, and they were a joy for the floor (e.g. we didn’t require the emotional support animals they were sending to every floor). Also, having the communal environment was ideal for finding child care here and there.

A situation like this would help such women reach their (per Pew research) goal of ~3.

Imagine if you had free tuition if you had a child while in college? Raising children while young is also super helpful activity wise…

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#93

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

Based on the health differentials between formula/natural, I wonder if actuaries have calculated the effective cost burden of the different methods. E.g. are the health externalities of formula such that one should pay women not to use it?

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#94

Post by mensetmanusman »

ant6n wrote: post #63
toomuchtodo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare the total fertility rates in Canada and Europe (~1.5), even with their pro natalist policies, America still has a higher fertility rate (~1.7) with abysmal support for parents. Likely attributable to families that opt out of paid formal child care, and Medicaid picks up the slack for those below middle class means.

I’d say the higher birth rates in US are due to religion and poverty. I also wonder how many immigrants continue living like in 2nd/3rd world country.

From our experience religion seems more important. There is some support for this observation: https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-income-affects-fertility

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#95

Post by mensetmanusman »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #80
stephc_int13 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s an interesting question.

It seems higher incomes can increase fertility: https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-income-affects-fertility

Also note that women’s subjective well being has only decreased over the last century: https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-income-affects-fertility

Also note that women’s average goal for number of children is ~ 3. The differential between what they want and what they are getting may be contributing to the centuries long decline in life satisfaction among women.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#96

Post by mensetmanusman »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #31
TacticalCoder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion, our species population is big enough already, and this is the main driving factor of ongoing ecological problems. That's the reason my wife and I decided to only have one kid. It's a statement. I don't care that future politicians shall have less future taxpayers. I don't believe eternal growth is the only model: I actually think it's unsustainable.

It's not only about gathering taxes. It's also about having someone to wipe your ass once you're too frail to do it yourself.

The japanese have power washers for this.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#97

Post by mensetmanusman »

monkeybutton wrote: post #15

My country (Canada) is intent on making up for falling birth rates by increasing immigration. Sometimes I wonder if it is unethical for a rich country like Canada to effectively outsource (offload?) child rearing costs and to some extent education costs to the poorer countries that we are taking immigrants from.

Glad you brought up the ethics, because it is definitely interesting.

E.g. if Canada only searches out the best and brightest from struggling countries, that delays the success of those countries be decreasing the average capability level of improving conditions. This of course works in Canada’s favor, because it needs poor countries with conditions that facilitate child rearing.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#98

Post by mensetmanusman »

diveanon wrote: post #59

The world doesn't need more people. People will talk all day about adopting a pet, but adopting a child is off the table. There are already millions of children on this planet that desperately need parents, your biological desire to procreate shouldn't supersede that.

There are about 60,000,000 pets in the U.S.

I don’t think you can blame people for wanting pets over kids though, because pets are easy-mode in comparison. E.g. If you want to go on vacation, you can put them in a kennel somewhere.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#99

Post by handrous »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #45
handrous wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that and health care (in the US). And housing. And those two don't go away until they're out of the house. But yes, next to those three things most other expenses aren't that bad, or are avoidable with little down-side. Only other notable one's probably consumables (diapers, food, that sort of thing) which doesn't come close to any of the other three. Toys and clothes are practically free, if you're not picky.…

Healthcare - yes. Housing - we lived with the kids in a 2-bedroom for three years. One room for kids, one for us. Not super pleasant, but overall acceptable.

Housing's technically an avoidable expense, but in most parts of the country one pays for school quality either directly (private school, in which case that expense replaces [and exceeds] most of the extra housing cost, if one wants it to) or by paying a premium for housing in a decent-or-better public school district (some of this may end up paid in extra transportation time & expense, as well—the accounting gets complicated, when a commute is part of the picture).

One with the means to avoid it could send one's kids to bad schools and save money, but not many people who can avoid bad schools take that option, for obvious reasons. And I assume in a few small, fortunate areas, or if one gets very lucky when house/apartment shopping, it's possible for this to end up not being that large an expense, but it's atypical.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#100

Post by stephc_int13 »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #86
yourapostasy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

> So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. And yet Japan has some of the highest quality of life, a huge economy despite very few natural resources, some of the most innovative companies in the world and the longest lived people on the planet. It's been the poster-child for westerners as a failed economy with a lost decade and y…

Japan is very nice example, even if some would probably argue that 30 years is not enough to observe the real consequences of demographic changes.
Post reply on HN