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

France's baby bust

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 263 posts

Re: France's baby bust

#131

Post by ookdatnog »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #90
epups wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not by the global standards of the 1960s.

I think we need an objective rather than a relative definition if we're going to do anything other than move goalposts.

Your statement makes no sense.

To begin with, the terms "objective" and "relative" are not antonyms. A definition can be both, neither, or either one of the two.

And the terms "progressive" and "conservative" in particular describe attitudes towards the status quo and traditional institutions, which means that whatever exact position a progressive or conservative person takes on an issue will depend on context. By their very definition, the meaning of these words is bound to a particular point in time.

As an example: anyone not on the extreme fringes of the political spectrum will agree with at least the broad strokes of the universal declaration of human rights today, but the adoption of a similar document [1] in revolutionary France was a highly contentious act that directly attacked millennia of institutional power (that is, the divine right of kings).

Conservatives at the time fought this tooth and nail and sought to restore the old institutional power. But most conservatives today would for the most part support this text. In the short term, the Revolution didn't succeed, but on the long term they "won", their ideology largely got adopted and supplanted the old feudal ideology: the Revolutionary ideals are now the status quo in many countries, which many conservatives will defend (support for absolute monarchy is thinly spread even among conservatives today). Nevertheless, it would be deeply absurd to call the French revolutionaries conservatives. In fact, the usage of the terms "left" (supporters of the revolution) and "right" (loyalists to the monarchy) to denote political positions originates from this time.

So yes, at the time, the positions of the French Revolution were progressive, even though the Revolutionaries weren't progressive by today's standards (in particular with regards to women). These terms are fundamentally relative, to try to give them an absolute meaning is simply to not understand them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M...

Re: France's baby bust

#132

Post by rayiner »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #124
rayiner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those political parties in France talk about “western culture” instead of “Christianity,” but western culture is fundamentally an outgrowth of Christianity. Even if you strip out the supernatural parts, a religion provides all sorts of notions about fairness, justice, forgiveness, family life, the rules and order, etc. People in Europe are still socialized into all that, even if they stop going to church. This is app…

No one in France talks about western culture. The main parties which have made Islam a theme are staunchly anti-American. France has had a strong separation between the state and religion for a century. It’s one of the less religious country in the world and a significant part of the population is still strongly against any kind of religion especially the Catholic Church.

Remind me which country is the one with the hijab ban in schools? Is it america or is it France? And you want to tell me you’re not having a religious conflict over there?

Re: France's baby bust

#133

Post by medvezhenok »

kasey_junk wrote: post #99
hinata08 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's pretty easy to have children in France, like you have typically 25 + 9 paid days off per year (I personally can't use so many, being a company drone. So I have to take days off to see friends and family) And it's ok to leave work on time to take care of your children _your coworkers understand that they are more important to you, and they make you happy. You get a lot of assistance and encouragement from both th…

In the US (and probably the rest of the world) number of children per household is inversely correlated with income[1]. Every time a discussion of birthdates comes up people claim it’s too expensive to have children, but the actual evidence suggests that isn’t a factor. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

It's the opportunity cost (how much income are you giving up by having kids), not the absolute income. Also, people at lower incomes have subsidies, so cost of children can be different. For example - in VT, if your income $2000/month in places like NY)

https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/Bene...

If you calculate opportunity cost, the cost of a child increases dramatically as you go up the income ladder. From tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds (in income missed) or even millions (if you take time off + pay for your kid's schooling in private academies)

Re: France's baby bust

#134

Post by etothepii »

ciphol wrote: post #112
etothepii wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the view of the article that you get both? The areas where the counter reformation was strongest had the biggest drop in fertility.

The areas where the counter-reformation (i.e. theocracy) was strongest had the most secular populations. Do you call that religion or not-religion?

The article claimed that it was a response to the counter reformation based on the decreased likelihood of the opening paragraphs of wills to refer to god. The claim being that people rebelled against the counter reformation.

Re: France's baby bust

#135

Post by thriftwy »

maelito wrote: post #22

> she declined over the next 250 years to be just another European power. Why would we want 300 millions inhabitants in France ? That's what we would have with the density of the Netherlands. Why couldn't France be on top of leisure, urban transports, ecology, natural ecosystems, technology, political innovation, and even military defense, with 70 million inhabitants ? Worlwide politics are biased, always considering…

The USA or Brazil could have been speaking French today if France had higher fertility rate and thus could export its culture via people.

That would obviously benefit its reach.

Re: France's baby bust

#136

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

rayiner wrote: post #132
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one in France talks about western culture. The main parties which have made Islam a theme are staunchly anti-American. France has had a strong separation between the state and religion for a century. It’s one of the less religious country in the world and a significant part of the population is still strongly against any kind of religion especially the Catholic Church.

Remind me which country is the one with the hijab ban in schools? Is it america or is it France? And you want to tell me you’re not having a religious conflict over there?

I have issue making sense of your reply to my comment. I don’t see how it’s against anything I said.

As I wrote: "a significant part of the population is still strongly against any kind of religion".

All religious signs are banned in schools not only the hijab. France views religion as strictly a private matter which has no place at all in the public sphere. That’s not a religious conflict just widely incompatible with the American view on the subjects.

Re: France's baby bust

#137

Post by Agingcoder »

kasey_junk wrote: post #99
hinata08 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's pretty easy to have children in France, like you have typically 25 + 9 paid days off per year (I personally can't use so many, being a company drone. So I have to take days off to see friends and family) And it's ok to leave work on time to take care of your children _your coworkers understand that they are more important to you, and they make you happy. You get a lot of assistance and encouragement from both th…

In the US (and probably the rest of the world) number of children per household is inversely correlated with income[1]. Every time a discussion of birthdates comes up people claim it’s too expensive to have children, but the actual evidence suggests that isn’t a factor. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

Inverse correlation in the US doesn't necessarily mean it's not a factor. You could say for example, that less educated people and therefore statistically poorer have more children because less access to contraception/abortion, and richer people want to be sure they can afford to send their kids to university (all of this needs to be backed by actual figures, I'm just making random claims) so will have fewer kids. I'd say you need a different kind of measure to say this, at least by comparing people within the same social and economic strata.

Re: France's baby bust

#138

Post by thriftwy »

no1groyp wrote: post #126

No worries. Plenty of North Africans to fill the dearth

That's the problem with demographic transitions colliding with modern political culture.

You're not getting an 50 million European country out of 80 million contry: instead, you will be getting a 80 million African country occupying the same place.

Re: France's baby bust

#139

Post by nebula8804 »

nwatson wrote: post #118
zwirbl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With so many orthodox jews there will also be barely any workforce left

There will be plenty of anti-semitic pro-Israel-for-the-purpose-of-bringing-on-the-apocalypse USA pseudo-evangelicals to support them. (I'm a USA evangelical.)

What the take up rate among Millennials and Gen-Z? I thought Evangelicals are declining with each new generation?

Re: France's baby bust

#140

Post by blululu »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #101
barry-cotter wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Industrial Revolution was why they were able to colonise the world. Being much, much more productive means you can afford a lot more bullets/cannon/artillery/small arms and you need less of your population as a share growing food. Europeans were better at war than anyone else because Europe was always at war somewhere. It was geographically fragmented enough that any one power becoming hegemonic never happened ag…

The timing is wrong though. Industrial Revolution started in 1760. By that time the British had already laid the foundation for their rule of India, and the other powers also were well on their way to colonization. In fact, looking at the timing, one could almost make the argument that the Industrial Revolution was the effect of colonization and exploitation of the rest of the world and not the cause.

The Watt steam engine is roughly contemporaneous with the Battle of Plassey and the British ascendency over Bengal, but the Watt steam engine is not the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It built upon cultural and technical innovations from 50 years prior. The British had been engaged in a radical period of industrialization since the start of the 16th century.
Post reply on HN