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

61–70 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#61

Post by moonchrome »

entropi wrote: post #57
moonchrome wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Why ? You're not living forever - and nobody is arguing for high fertility rates. Having 2-3 kids per generation sounds perfectly sustainable. 0 or 1 does not.

Re: Basement Fertility

#62

Post by Jolter »

foogazi wrote: post #54
terminalcommand wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

GP states they have no ability to get a +1 while living with parents.

I assume that if GP had a well paid job, they would move out to separate flat, rather than move parents into bigger flat. Wouldn’t you?

Re: Basement Fertility

#63

Post by w______roy »

So many things wrong with this. First, making all your policy decisions around maximizing reproduction seems really myopic. Many places are overpopulated and straining global infrastructure. And regulations keep people safe—what does it matter if I have four kids if two of them die from lead poisoning?

Re: Basement Fertility

#64

Post by watwut »

antisthenes wrote: post #36
lotsofpulp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The property acquired before marriage is yours after divorce. The split part are properties acquired during marriage, unless you have prenup that says otherwise for some reason.

That has zero to do with whether it is safe to move into in-laws house when you are entering vulnerable period of pregnancy and being primary caregiver for small kids. Because both severely limit your economic options even in best conditions.

Re: Basement Fertility

#65

Post by BirAdam »

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…

It's not just a Ponzi scheme due to population growth pressure and the old cashing out. It's also a Ponzi scheme because younger folks are literally paying for the older folks through taxation. Low interest rates also disincentivize saving while subsidizing the accumulation of debt, and spurring more investment into asset classes (land and stocks mostly). This creates a Ponzi like effect where in as long as people keep responding to the incentives, number goes up.

A population drop implodes all of it. Of course, presently, it may already be collapsing. When it does, I don't think that the Fed is going to respond by tightening and letting things correct to a healthier slow growth sustainable economy funded through real savings and value production. They will most likely immediately attempt to reinflate the bubbles with negative rates (0.00% FOMC, < 10% reserve requirement, and purchase operations on the open market).

Re: Basement Fertility

#66

Post by fleddr »

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…

The wide base of young people in the healthy pyramid will eventually grow old. Since it was wide, it means to keep the pyramid healthy, multiples of young people would need to be added. Whom will also grow old, needing even more young people.

Re: Basement Fertility

#67

Post by dybber »

Jolter wrote: post #52

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…

Exactly living with your parents has more to do about culture and local customs.

Re: Basement Fertility

#68

Post by watwut »

hunglee2 wrote: post #39
yoyohello13 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Iraq is country where women don't get to say how many children they have. Husband decides that and has power to force what he wants.

Re: Basement Fertility

#69

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Basement Fertility

#70

Post by mellavora »

gruez wrote: post #43
bombcar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen arguments that almost all of the economic growth over the last 100+ years is directly attributable to population growth and very little else.

Source? That would imply total factor productivity didn't grow at all "over the last 100+ years", which seems doubtful given all the innovations brought about during that time period.

I don't have a source, nor do I fully believe the original poster, but do consider:

7x population growth, shift from 80% rural to 90% urban. Where "rural" is low economic engagement and "urban" is a job-holder. shift from single-earning families to dual-earner, where again a stay-at-home mom does not increase the size of the economy while a working one does (and please, I know this is unfair and the tremendous value a full time Mom provides).

Multiple these three shifts and you get a pretty big increase in the economy, with zero increase in productivity.

Post reply on HN