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

231–240 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#231

Post by lotsofpulp »

airgapstopgap wrote: post #230
lotsofpulp wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What motivates people to provide sources that refute their own argument? I do not see how the data I offered does. This quote specifically seems to support my claim that tribes that "restrict" or maintain certain "expectations" of women are disproportionately responsible for pulling the fertility rate up (which is 3 compared to other countries of being less than 2). >Though Haredim are just 13% of the population, th…

> note that it is not much higher 1,5 (or 1,2) vs 2 is a lot. It is close to 3 so confidently above replacement for the whole secular+non-Haredim religious group (reminder that nominally the US is nearly completely "religious") and very close to replacement rate for secular Jews only; they will not experience significant population contraction in the next 100 years even if left on their own. This is important in that…

>We are doing everyone and especially women a disservice by suggesting that this decision is most wise to postpone.

Absolutely! Another component of all of this is before the costs of pregnancy and birth and raising the kid, which is matching up two people to procreate and create a life together.

I have numerous cousins and friends who would rather be single than commingle their life with a partner who they think would make their life worse, a phenomenon with many causes, but one particular one that sticks out to me is the lack of social pressure to pair up, and especially on women's side, a safe society with the ability for them to live alone without needing a man makes the compromise not make sense.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#232

Post by speby »

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…

Affordability is a factor, but also one of several. Affordability, among other issues, certainly would lead some couples to decide to have fewer children than they otherwise might (1 instead of 2, or 2 instead of 3).

Besides affordability, more recent generations focusing more on career, quality of life, freedom, overall thrill- and experience-seeking, has led people to make lifestyle choices that do not involve children, as children can be a hindrance to some of those lifestyle choices. Because of those choices, many of these same people simply don't value children [of their own] as much and thus have fewer or none at all. Career aspirations, increasing wealth/income, and keeping a majority control over one's time and obligations has become more important than accepting the stresses and challenges of raising one's own family, even when considering the special kind of joy that also arises from pursuing that endeavor.

Adding onto that, say what you will about organized religions, but the increasing level of secularism is perhaps also a factor in leading to a declining birthrate, as most organized religions tend to "bake in" a kind of enthusiasm and social "nudging" to have more children.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#233

Post by tasuki »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #214
tasuki wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Your aunt’s quality of life probably depended on the labor supplied by a large working age population. Assuming the pace of automation cannot keep up with proportion of working age population declines (i.e. total supply of labor), then it makes sense to predict higher competition for labor, via higher labor AND higher taxes/lower benefits and the political fight for those.

Yes of course. I was not talking society-scale but individual-scale.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#234

Post by snowwrestler »

Also in the news: AI is going to take everyone’s jobs, with profound economic consequences.

All we need to do is merge these two storylines and watch the consequences cancel out as AI productivity compensates for population decline.

Voila: narrative renormalization.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#235

Post by snowwrestler »

mlsu wrote: post #54
throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

I've seen this take before, especially around climate and the environment. It's correct that having 20,000 humans on Earth would be more (actually indefinitely) sustainable. These "degrowth" strategies mean tremendous suffering. People have to die to make degrowth possible. Those who stick around have to suffer of curable medical complications. They have to live hard lives without the comforts of modern life. Why do…

This entire comment is a complete non-sequitur. There is nothing in the parent comment advocating for suffering, and zero evidence that the voluntary individual choices about reproduction we see in free societies today would lead to that.

This is just straight-up substance-free fear-mongering.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#236

Post by feoren »

snowwrestler wrote: post #234

Also in the news: AI is going to take everyone’s jobs, with profound economic consequences. All we need to do is merge these two storylines and watch the consequences cancel out as AI productivity compensates for population decline. Voila: narrative renormalization.

Yes, the two problems really can solve each other. Or should I say: they could solve each other. But they won't, will they? Because the positives all happen to a small group of people (those who already own everything) and the negatives all happen to a different, much larger group of people (those now-worthless poorsies). Our problem is what it has always been: asshole human psychopaths that hoard orders of magnitude more wealth than they could ever spend at the expense of everyone else.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#237

Post by softsound »

ChatGTP wrote: post #128
kajaktum wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the world can sustain the lifestyle of the average American if the whole of Africa and China have it too? We need to change, and frankly those with privileges need to. Otherwise they would rightly claim that it is unfair.

I think what is more likely to happen is, as China and India become the worlds largest economic powers, and it will happen, it's just a matter of time, they will basically make the west poorer, that's how that issue will be solved. We just won't be able to afford the things we used to have. Americans will mostly be jobless and replaced by automation, many goods will be exported and China will likely fair a lot better…

A lot of Americans would actually like free healthcare and UBI was actually had been around in America for 100's of years since the beginning, it's not new as an idea. China has a whole host of problems they too can't grow forever with ghost cities, etc but they like America have a political need to always be growing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_in_th....

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#240

Post by peteradio »

rideg wrote: post #121

I think there is an interesting aspect of the depopulation that I haven't seen discussed yet: the scientific progress. If we have less and less people, there will be less brain power to innovate while as far as I can tell the innovation is getting more and more difficult as we moving forward. Just imagine inventing the wheel was probably easier than inventing the combustion engine. I have a feeling that the huge tech…

Building a useful wheel isn't chipping it from stone. There is a lot of materials science and engineering evolved to make one, I wouldn't short change the effort in it. Anyway who cares if tech stagnates? I'd be more worried about a backslide where we lose hard won knowledge.
Post reply on HN