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

Basement Fertility

betonit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#31

Post by ozim »

mikkergp wrote: post #11

Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…

Problem is that our whole economic system is basically a Ponzi scheme. You get your payoff when you are selling stocks on your retirement to "next fool in chain" so 20-30 year olds.

Land, houses will not go up in value if there would be not enough people to buy them. While yes people migrate to the cities or to areas like Randstad and while yes there is housing shortage in such areas but if immigration from rural areas drops a lot there is going to be drop in housing prices.

More people have more diverse needs which creates demand - more people more demand - easier to have higher quality of life if it is easier to find 100 customers to come to your shop than 10 customers.

People are not starting new grocery shops in rural areas because it is good investment - mostly it is that they already live there and have possibility to make additional income on property they own.

People are starting new grocery shops in big cities even if they have to lease property to do so, because they still can profit on top of that.

Re: Basement Fertility

#33

Post by thefz »

mikkergp wrote: post #11

Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…

Because we need to rely on new people financing the economy with money we don't have yet because it is all gone up in smoke.

Re: Basement Fertility

#35

Post by ayngg »

hunglee2 wrote: post #2

I believe OP is making the general case that our commitment to nuclear family living raises the cost of raising a family as there are no economies of scale compared to multi-generational living. A moments thought about it, and he's clearly correct

I'm not sure if it is the case that there is a commitment to nuclear family structure as it seems things are trending even further towards the atomized scale with more single parent households and many people delaying marriage and a family or even going child free.

I can't speak for elsewhere, but American society seems to incentivize against the factors that allow for high fertility. I think it is also apparent in Asia with the Sampo/ Satori generation phenomenon in Korea and Japan respectively.

Re: Basement Fertility

#36

Post by antisthenes »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #4
bombcar wrote: post #3

A huge difference is even a few generations ago, the "growing family" would be the one owning the house, and grandparents (their parents) would move in with them - now it's inverted; only the grandparents have a house or can afford one, and so the "growing" or potentially growing family is living with them. It doesn't seem as much a difference but it is a really big one.

If I were a woman, there is no way I would entertain the idea of having kids without my name on the title or lease of the house.

And if I were a man, there's no way I would just let a house become marital property if I owned it outright before the marriage, especially considering how family courts screw men over.

That's a surefire way to homelessness, unless you are very (SV engineer or doctor) rich.

Re: Basement Fertility

#37

Post by mikkergp »

olegious wrote: post #28
mikkergp wrote: post #11

Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…

Less people isn't a bad thing as long as the demographic distribution within the smaller population is healthy- meaning it is shaped like a pyramid, a wide base of young and working age people and smaller numbers of old people non-working people on the top. The problem for many first world countries today is that their populations are shaped like upside down pyramids- many old people and people nearing retirement age…

Part of my question would be how to deal with the pyramid. The pyramid should get less pronounced as time goes on as birth rates normalize. Basic human needs industries like clothing, food and shelter should't need that many people to support the retired. Health care may need some intervention.

I guess part of the problem is maybe some of this is too much like socialism and/or being able to give non-working persons actual dollars.

Re: Basement Fertility

#38

Post by _armchair »

rossdavidh wrote: post #7

It would have been good to see an x-y plot of living with parents vs. fertility. Eyeballing the maps he showed, I don't see a great correlation. Scandinavia has mediocre fertility compared to the rest of Europe, but the lowest percentage living with their parents. Other nations like Greece do satisfy his hypothesis, but a real test would be to plot those two percentages on an x-y plot and see how well they correlate…

I took down the data manually and got a correlation coefficient of -0.28. I'm not sure whether it's even reasonable to expect the relationship to be linear but IIRC that level of correlation is about as high as you get in the social sciences.

Re: Basement Fertility

#39

Post by hunglee2 »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #24
hunglee2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, this is absolutely true. Hans Rosling did one his most well know presentations on the the impact of female education to the eradication of poverty via two mechanism - female entry into the market economy + reduction in the number of births. That said though, all developed economies are now so far down this road that we are below the replacement rate and will die out in a few generations without a course correcti…

What is that course correction going to be? Unfortunately, it seems like the US is choosing to reduce opportunities for women, rather that reducing the economic burden of raising a family.

no idea, there have been no examples of any country successfully reversing declining fertility rate. In fact, it seems only massive unplanned societal disruption - famine, war, invasion - increases the rate. Iraq for instance has had a population boom since the two US led invasions, 50% of its population are now under the age of 15.

Re: Basement Fertility

#40

Post by moonchrome »

mikkergp wrote: post #11

Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…

>Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing?

Because you'll live way past your productive years and the things you will consume (services, goods, medical, etc.) still need to be produced/done by someone.

The automation aspect in economy has been way overestimated - truck drivers were supposed to be automated 5 years ago, meanwhile we are facing real world issues because of truck driver shortages.

Even jobs that were considered trivial to automate like cashers are still performed by humans - after decades of self checkout tech.

Unless your retirement plan is a shotgun barrell - you need the next generation to both live their lives comfortably and provide for you.

Post reply on HN