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

171–180 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#171

Post by Cupertino95014 »

As someone below said, "correlation does not imply causation."

That. X being correlated with Y can mean that Z is causing both. "Fertility" and "living with parents" are each highly dependent variables, dependent on all sorts of things.

Let's remember "natural experiments." Aren't there any?

A country that suddenly deregulated housing? Where there were suddenly major tax incentives for having kids (looking at you, Hungary)? Two countries that are exactly the same except that one has dramatically different housing costs, or fertility?

Without some data like that, I'm not buying any causation arguments.

Re: Basement Fertility

#172

Post by saagarjha »

yucky wrote: post #154
phpisthebest wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

few things impact this 1. Force to sell due to medicare or other end of life expenses (you can not have any assets if you need full time nursing care paid for by medicare) 2. the "Reverse mortgage" people fall for. 3. Baby Boomers, a Single Asset split 5-8 ways does not go far 4. the houses owned really were not that good. My Grandparents owned their home, bought it right after WWII, the house was a small 2 bed 1 bat…

>the houses owned really were not that good. My Grandparents owned their home, bought it right after WWII, the house was a small 2 bed 1 bath they raised 4 kids in... It is still in the family but it is out-dated by modern standards. Young people complain how much more expensive homes are now, and then can't be bothered to accept a starter home.. "I just can't understand why I can't afford this 3,600 sq foot home nea…

> Young people complain how much more expensive homes are now

The rest of your sentence doesn’t change this bit.

Re: Basement Fertility

#173

Post by antisthenes »

watwut wrote: post #64
antisthenes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you add your spouse to the house title, it becomes marital property.

Re: Basement Fertility

#174

Post by seventhtiger »

fleddr wrote: post #80
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…

What is striking in this development is the destruction of our social fabric. From African village model to the nuclear family is a massive step, made possible by the nation state. Arguably this impoverishes community/extended family life. The most extreme form can regularly be read in the news: somebody found dead in their home, undetected for weeks or months. But not even that is enough. Even within the scope of th…

Individualism over prosperity is similar to entropy over time. It's the breaking down of social order to its most base component.

Technology has enabled governments to grow massively, and law and order and prosperity removed the natural forces that kept communities together. Why put up with any communal norms you don't agree with when the community doesn't provide any additional safety or stability.

The strongest forces that once stood up to governments and markets are no longer relevant, in the West at least. Religion and tribalism are viewed as relics of the past, while the modern individual is naked and unarmed in the face of behemoth governments larger than the largest empires in human history.

I see it in the overreach of law enforcement because they correctly assume they're dealing with isolated individuals. In tribal societies, the tribe itself can stand up to the law. A person in such a society wouldn't be worried about being beaten by police because his family would beat the police.

Re: Basement Fertility

#175

Post by bzbarsky »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #161

Fertility will improve when there is familial and community support. You don’t need a big house to increase fertility. families need reliable child care and that’s possible with multi generational families. Africa, China and Asia have healthy fertility because they have community and multigenerational family units. Not big homes.

Current TFR in China is around 1.7 according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033738/fertility-rate-c... it _has_ been climbing very slowly recently, but I'm not sure I would characterize that as "healthy".

"Asia" is pretty broad, but India was at 2.2 in 2020 and dropping pretty rapidly; as of earlier this spring it hit 2.0. Note that the Statista numbers are moving 5-year averages, so the "spot" number for India is lower than the number you see on that graph.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034075/fertility-rate-w... puts "Asia" as a whole at 2.15, which is indeed "healthy", but the slope is very much down.

Africa does have higher fertility, but from what I can tell the main reason is lack of access to birth control, not "community" or "big homes"...

Re: Basement Fertility

#176

Post by hoseja »

fleddr wrote: post #80
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…

What is striking in this development is the destruction of our social fabric. From African village model to the nuclear family is a massive step, made possible by the nation state. Arguably this impoverishes community/extended family life. The most extreme form can regularly be read in the news: somebody found dead in their home, undetected for weeks or months. But not even that is enough. Even within the scope of th…

I think it's intentional. Strong village weakens the state. Nuclear family has to depend on it.

Re: Basement Fertility

#177

Post by terminalcommand »

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?

The problem is it is substantially harder to purchase real estate than it was 10-20 years ago. If you are thinking of multi-generational housing, shouldn't the family wealth be stored somewhere.

You can of course chip in pay rent etc. But wouldn't it be nice to know that the flat is owned by your parents/family.

From where I come from, this is a normal arrangement.

Re: Basement Fertility

#178

Post by Elinvynia »

llanowarelves wrote: post #156
blep_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Only if you're the sort of person who cares about such things. I don't see any moral imperative to make sure any particular ethnicity or culture continues. Before someone calls me the usual assortment of bad things, please take a moment to consider (1) the difference between treating existing people…

Why is it racist to care if you're a minority? Current minorities care about it a quite a lot. Not only that -- they see a moral imperative that their particular ethnicities and culture exist. Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? Of course the term minority/majority is relative to the scope you're talking about, too. The "majority" of Americans are global minorities.

So if I understand correctly, you are afraid of becoming a minority because you don't want to be treated like the current minorities?

Mask off moment there.

Re: Basement Fertility

#179

Post by blep_ »

llanowarelves wrote: post #156
blep_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Only if you're the sort of person who cares about such things. I don't see any moral imperative to make sure any particular ethnicity or culture continues. Before someone calls me the usual assortment of bad things, please take a moment to consider (1) the difference between treating existing people…

Why is it racist to care if you're a minority? Current minorities care about it a quite a lot. Not only that -- they see a moral imperative that their particular ethnicities and culture exist. Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others? Of course the term minority/majority is relative to the scope you're talking about, too. The "majority" of Americans are global minorities.

(2) was intended to proactively dismiss one specific attempted "gotcha" that I hear often in response to this view: people think I'm saying that it's okay for minority cultures specifically to die out, and that I would feel differently if it was American culture being overtaken as a result of high birth rates in some other country and low birth rates in the US. This is not what I am saying. I don't think American culture is special.

> Are some groups "allowed" this, and not others?

So no, my position is that no groups are "allowed" this.

Another way I can express this, that may be more clear, is that a culture isn't a thing on its own. It's a description of the way its members live. Those members may be very attached to that way of life, and it is immoral to take it from them (see (1) above), but the question of whether new people start living in that way is morally neutral.

Re: Basement Fertility

#180

Post by imtringued »

sokoloff wrote: post #133
causasui wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you trace this thread backwards to its root (by essentially responding to every answer with "so what?"), you end up with the question "would it a 'bad thing' if humanity were to become extinct?" Anecdotally, the vast majority of people I've met - from all walks of life and religious/political leanings - will answer this question with an unthinking "yes, of course that's bad". I've been curious lately why this is.…

The end of human suffering also represents the end of the (IMO vastly greater) aggregated joy of being alive as a human.

What's the point of aggregated joy if only a few select elites have it?

Why even give birth to humans that are most likely not wanted in this world?

Post reply on HN