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

51–60 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#51

Post by antiverse »

dfxm12 wrote: post #18
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? It's mostly seen as a bad thing in the lens of ethnic nationalist ideology that low fertility rates will change the demographics of a country (see Great Replacement [0]). After all, if Musk (and other capitalists) needed, they can get labor from other countries south of America's borders, but there is a push to not make these workers Americans! This isn't an issue only i…

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

>[...] is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory [...]

Native Americans would disagree.

Re: Basement Fertility

#52

Post by Jolter »

These two maps, taken in conjunction, do not provide a good argument for housing deregulation. Even if we accept that the maps correlate quite well (and ignore whether there is any causal link), there is an assumption that the author is not stating plainly: that housing deregulation leads to young people being able to move out of their parent’s basement.

Look at the Scandinavian, very deep green countries at the top of the map. They all have strictly regulated construction processes, with political involvement in city planning. It takes many long years of project planning before you can put a spade in the ground in Stockholm. What’s more, there is government meddling in rent setting - they are not free markets. Still, they seem to do OK?

I don’t know what the author has against housing regulations but this argument is missing some part.

Re: Basement Fertility

#53

Post by ozim »

ozim wrote: post #31
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 are…

To complete comment I have to add one more thought.

Infinite growth is also required for high quality of life unfortunately.

Once there is no promise of future earnings by spending now - we start going into zero sum game. Living in a society where every day you have to worry about not loosing piece of pie is really a bad life to live.

Less people means lower pressure to find new ways of getting resources - if there is enough people on earth we might have enough money to get resources from astro-mining if needed.

Re: Basement Fertility

#54

Post by foogazi »

terminalcommand wrote: post #45
mordae wrote: post #30

As was said by rossdavidh in the comments, "eyeballing the maps, I don't see a great correlation". I suspect this might have something to do with perception of supportive community rather than actual numbers. When to-be parents feel like they are on their own and neither $jobPeople, $friendlyPeople nor $familyPeople are actually going to help, they might be inclined to postpone. Living with parents in a sane multi-ge…

I want to add a personal anecdote. I recently moved out at 26. Before moving out I couldn't imagine bringing a girl home. You need space and privacy to mate. I certainly want to live closer to my parents but the multi-generational arrangement needs to provide space to live in, I can't share the same flat my parents are living in, come on it's too small. The problem is having a private space, not living with parents.…

> If parents can provide a flat

Woah, why can’t you, or you + 1, chip in here?

Re: Basement Fertility

#55

Post by lotsofpulp »

jimbob45 wrote: post #48
tony_cannistra wrote: post #44

It feels like there's an implicit "More Kids Good" tone that pervades this. What's the "right" value for TFR? Why does it have to be higher? Why is it bad that it is lower in some places? The ecosystem we exist in / that sustains us surely has a carrying capacity.

2.1 is the right value. That's replacement rate. Anything above is subject to healthy debate.

Replacement rate and “right” are not necessarily congruous.

If you have the opinion that there are insufficient resources in the world to live the lifestyle you want for yourself or those you care about, you may think a lower fertility rate is more “right”. And if you think your tribe is in a competition for resources with all the other tribes, then you may want a higher fertility rate for your tribe and a lower one for the others.

Re: Basement Fertility

#56

Post by xyzzyz »

ismail wrote: post #41

A Typical WEIRD (western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic) finding. For much of human history children have been raised in multi-generational homes. Just being raised by parents is relatively new. I recall reading in a book [0] that proposes this as one of the reasons we have such an issue with mental health etc. with our children. This also seriously hampers learning as wisdom is not passed down. [0] free…

In fact, Caplan discovered the so-called Hajnal line, and when it was first suggested by Hajnal, being to its south and east was associated with high fertility, not low, like today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

There is a lot of evidence that high rates of living with parents south of Hajnal line is largely about sociocultural practices instead of economic conditions, and it goes back centuries, see eg. Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, by Kevin MacDonald.

Re: Basement Fertility

#57

Post by entropi »

moonchrome wrote: post #40
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 we…

Ok, but you realize this requires indefinite exponential growth, right?

Re: Basement Fertility

#58

Post by watwut »

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.

How did all those whole generations of parents and grandparents lost their houses and who took those houses?

Re: Basement Fertility

#59

Post by finiteseries »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #44

It feels like there's an implicit "More Kids Good" tone that pervades this. What's the "right" value for TFR? Why does it have to be higher? Why is it bad that it is lower in some places? The ecosystem we exist in / that sustains us surely has a carrying capacity.

China will depopulate >50% by 2100 (conservatively) and we’re still worrying about mid 20th century concepts like carrying capacities as if we aren’t a highly advanced (and depopulating) tool making species entirely capable of creating ecosystems wholesale and affecting said capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Re: Basement Fertility

#60

Post by antiverse »

helen___keller wrote: post #46
antiverse wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this comment downvoted? It's literally what goes through the minds of parents of newly weds and weds-to-be. Let's not beat around the bush and be upfront about it.

Off topic. GP and the response from female POV are regarding living in the elders’ house, not the husbands house.

That distinction is not worth burying the comment. It was an earnest response, and a valid one at that.
Post reply on HN