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

Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#191

Post by aylmao »

mullingitover wrote: post #183
LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would also be an absolute horror from an ethical standpoint

Couldn’t be worse than the ethical horror show we’re have today. There are people in positions of power who have created laws with the aim of forcing millions of people to bear pregnancies to term, against their will. This is just taking the coercion out of the equation.

Where is this the case? I've only heard of incentive-driven programs to drive fertility (economic help, fertility-positive ad campaigns, etc). I haven't heard of countries forcing millions to bear pregnancies to term against their will.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#192

Post by aylmao »

bane wrote: post #133

There are quite a few comments here about "you need money to raise kids". There are similar statements made about housing size, cost, etc. and those end up on "but you don't need 8,000 sq ft to live!" These are, frankly IMHO, bizarre arguments that seem conditioned on socio-commercial training along the lines of "you need a diamond to propose!". Absolutely none of these are true: - People had sex and stable relations…

I don't think it's bizarre. I'd attribute it to a common and timeless sentiment applied to the modern age.

I have no reason to believe maternal/paternal love, expressed as the desire that your kids live a better life than you, is a particularly modern idea. IMO that's why its common to see declining fertility rate in countries with large economies and countries with declining economies.

It's heartbreaking to think your child will live a life that's worse than yours. In a poor country, even if you don't have much money, it's easy to think they could do better and live happier than you. In a rich country, even if you have all the means to give them a "good enough" life, it's not as easy to think this.

This is definitely a cultural issue. It happens to be the case rich countries got rich by placing a lot of value in "success", wealth, high achievement and individuality, not in meeting base necessities and being content/grateful with what one has. Which is exactly what you allude to:

> But the real reason is, it's expensive to train a child to get into a top-3 university. Raising a child to adulthood is possible even in abject poverty.

I'm not South Korean, but what I've gathered from friends and media is that it's a hyper-capitalist society that's very, very invested into certain ideals of "success" (academic, beauty, economic, etc). I'm thus not surprised that, if associate that with happiness, the idea of rising a child to be happy is daunting.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#193

Post by airgapstopgap »

aylmao wrote: post #177
airgapstopgap wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russian population decline has been compensated for with a great number of immigrants from Central Asia (plus occupied Crimea; that's not recognized internationally but is obviously a factor for their economy). It'd probably be more like 138 million modulo those and their children, perhaps less.

That's an interesting point; Crimea has about 2 million people. This doesn't seem to show on the charts though, when in theory it should look like a spike around 2014, no? [1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=R...

Well Russian charts do show it, because since 2015 Russia includes Crimea in internal stats. As you can see it's also growing in 2022, despite there being consistently more deaths than births for years on end. I suppose we can infer what this means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_W...

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#194

Post by nazgulnarsil »

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

the balance on this is pretty clear afaik, people are consistently undershooting their desired fertility outcomes.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#195

Post by prmoustache »

COGlory wrote: post #32

I've been wondering a lot about fertility lately. Almost every married woman that I know of my age group is seemingly unable to have children, despite, in most cases, wanting to. This is often accompanied by PCOS, thyroid problems, or other strange but undiagnosed illnesses. The one exception to this seems to be those of Italian American vintage. Having grown up in Rhode Island I know quite a lot of Italian Americans…

I blame stress and netflix/vod binge watching more than any chemical.

Go in some place where people live more outside, typically a city with warm climate close to the beach and you will see people spending less time in front of a screen, fucking all the tine and having lots of kids while being generally exposed to the same chemicals That is my experience having moved in different parts of europe.

You have to take into accounts that women are finally fertile a small amount of time in each cycle.

Having said that I don't think this need to be fixed. We are way too many trying to have such a wasteful standard of living for the planet to handle. I somehow regret having given birth to 2 kids in that regard.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#196

Post by defrost »

prmoustache wrote: post #195
COGlory wrote: post #32

I've been wondering a lot about fertility lately. Almost every married woman that I know of my age group is seemingly unable to have children, despite, in most cases, wanting to. This is often accompanied by PCOS, thyroid problems, or other strange but undiagnosed illnesses. The one exception to this seems to be those of Italian American vintage. Having grown up in Rhode Island I know quite a lot of Italian Americans…

I blame stress and netflix/vod binge watching more than any chemical. Go in some place where people live more outside, typically a city with warm climate close to the beach and you will see people spending less time in front of a screen, fucking all the tine and having lots of kids while being generally exposed to the same chemicals That is my experience having moved in different parts of europe. You have to take int…

In one of the world's sunniest and most remote cities, next to a gorgeous coastline with fabulous beaches, world class surf and a very outdoor culture . . .

> The total fertility rate in Greater Perth dipped from 1.76 in 2018 to 1.66 in 2021, spot on the national average.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/baby-d...

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#197

Post by frankreyes »

aylmao wrote: post #182
Clubber wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. That's the problem. Many countries are experiencing this problem. The US evaded it currently due to immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk

> There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. I don't think this is true. At the micro-economic level, it's not outlandish to see households where a working generation sustains not only their kids, but also their parents. At a macro-economic level, we'd certainly have to adjust our expectations of profits and…

You're going against the evidence present in front of you (eg, read the article). If the fertility is collapsing, people don't have children. In particular, elders don't have children. Elders don't have anyone to take care of them.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#198

Post by citrin_ru »

aylmao wrote: post #106
klipt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak. - 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia. - 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan. Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a…

> Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off

Like in many other countries Russia's population is sustained by migration from countries with higher birth rates (at least it was until recently).

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#199

Post by aposticknit »

bane wrote: post #133

There are quite a few comments here about "you need money to raise kids". There are similar statements made about housing size, cost, etc. and those end up on "but you don't need 8,000 sq ft to live!" These are, frankly IMHO, bizarre arguments that seem conditioned on socio-commercial training along the lines of "you need a diamond to propose!". Absolutely none of these are true: - People had sex and stable relations…

>You, strictly speaking, don't need any amount of square footage to live

I'd argue that you do, considering it's -4 to -22F outside for half of the year, and historically have gone as low as -58F

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#200

Post by tasuki »

Clubber wrote: post #123
echelon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% I think this popular narrative of "kids are too expensive" is mostly a media fiction. It's more about individual comfort. Money can be a factor in comfort, but it's hardly the only one. Poorer immigrants tend to have many children. Even today, poorer people in general have more kids than wealthy folks. Just look at the data - it contradicts the headlines. As Peter Zeihan likes to say, kids were free labor for th…

>It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children. Yes, people want to party and be free and not have to be tied down and spend money on raising kids. Having kids is a pretty fulfilling experience though. It's not something I understood until I had some. The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them.

> The people that don't have kids will really struggle when they get old and infirm with no one to take care of them.

I often hear this, but it sounds like nonsense? Why obsess about what happens when you're old and infirm? It's going to suck regardless.

One of my great aunts had no kids. She had a great life and lived to 95.

As for avoiding struggling, I have a small kid and struggle. If you want to avoid struggle, having kids is a terrible idea.

Post reply on HN