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

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#181

Post by imtringued »

finiteseries wrote: post #59
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

>tool making species entirely capable of creating ecosystems wholesale and affecting said capacities.

We are literally unable to do that. The only thing we know how to do is burn more fossil fuels which has nothing to do with human effort.

Re: Basement Fertility

#182

Post by codeduck »

KMag wrote: post #129
sjburt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhDMqe8boEY... I don't see any correlation at all.

Optical regression score: "All over the place worse than my darts game after a few pints of gin" Though, often a rank vs. rank scatter plot is more enlightening than a scatter plot of the raw data.

pints of gin?!

Re: Basement Fertility

#183

Post by idlehand »

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…

Sounds like you might be out of touch, housing has become a lot less affordable in the last decades.

Re: Basement Fertility

#184

Post by namecheapTA »

saagarjha wrote: post #172
yucky wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

My parents moved to a country with zero support network and where they didn't speak the language, all so that they could soon afford to buy a home.

Tons of young people today won't even move to the valley or to another state.

I worked in car sales and basically every dealership mechanic over 28 owns a home. But tech people complain about how they can't buy one somehow.

Re: Basement Fertility

#185

Post by gamblor956 »

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.

You're being downvoted by people who aren't lawyers, but you're absolutely correct.

A house that was sole property before the marriage, remains sole property after the marriage, even if the other spouse is added to the deed. The other spouse only takes a "equitable interest" to the extent that marital resources, or their own separate resources, are invested in the house. This is the case in community property (like CA) and non-CP states (most of the rest).

The primary issue is that in some states the presumption changes when the spouse is added to the deed, so that the house is presumed to be marital property in the event of divorce until the pre-owning spouse shows that it is not. (But in most states, there is no presumption and the other spouse must show that they have an equitable interest in the house, generally by showing that marital resources were spent to pay the mortgage or make improvements.)

Re: Basement Fertility

#186

Post by gspr »

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.

> 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.

There's lots of prosperous countries where renting is very common, is well-regulated, and not some great risk (Germany and Switzerland spring to mind).

I, too, live in a country where owning is the norm. That turns the rental market into (mostly) shabby flats for the very lowest income brackets, for students, for migrant workers, or for short-term renting. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re: Basement Fertility

#187

Post by adrianN »

spullara wrote: post #107
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.

Less than replacement means we go extinct eventually and while that is happening we don't have enough people to support those that leave the workforce as they age.

Just like "more than replacement" doesn't necessarily lead to Malthusian apocalypse, "less than replacement" doesn't necessarily lead to extinction. We have a largish number of generations to change the birthrate before either happens.

Re: Basement Fertility

#188

Post by alkonaut »

It's not just housing. Subsidized daycare, cost of actually having the baby and so one also play into it. Effectively: if I were to have kids I know it's more or less a zero cost thing for me. Having the baby delivered, taking 6 months off work, then having the baby in day care from age 2 to 5 cost me almost nothing at all. I didn't have to consider my employment status before having a child, nor where I was in my career, or whether I could afford medical bills. Financially, it was a smaller "step" than e.g. buying a used car or moving. As it should be. It's a big enough step and responsibility without all the finance nonsense attached.

Re: Basement Fertility

#189

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

gspr wrote: post #186
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.

> 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. There's lots of prosperous countries where renting is very common, is well-regulated, and not some great risk (Germany and Switzerland spring to mind). I, too, live in a country where owning is the norm. That turns the rental market into (mostly) shabby flats for the very lowest income br…

Sorry, but no. The well regulated rental market in Germany has had the consequence of a housing unit shortage. Try renting anything in well regulated Berlin. It's like trying to find an PS5/ RTX 3080 during the scalpocalipse. Similar in well regulated Stockholm.

Renting is very popular in Germany because buying is out of reach for most due to how expensive it is, therefore those who aren't well off have no other choice but to rent, leading to old age poverty for those who don't own their own property by the time they retire.

That's why Italian pensioners are statistically better off than their German counterparts despite their country being poorer, because they own their own property at retirement, instead of paying market rent and having to search the city trash bins for empty bottles to make ends meet.

Most Germans with financial means or inheritance do own property since it's financially better than renting, especially when your old and living on a measly pension.

Not that I don't support rental regulations, I do, but the real estate market in Germany is broken and therefore is not what I consider a model to be followed by everyone.

Re: Basement Fertility

#190

Post by idlehand »

imtringued wrote: post #180
sokoloff wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would say most children in Western nations are wanted by their parents. They're mostly just a cost economically speaking, so no incentive to have more than you want.

I think most people can achieve happiness in their situation, even under bad conditions, if they have a sound mind. Those elites might have a better shot at accidental happiness, but being upset over that will do nothing good for your own state of mind, so why let it bring you down? You can't change how the world works.

Happiness comes from within, and from meaningful social connections.

Post reply on HN