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

The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 226 posts

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#71

Post by spicyusername »

gwd wrote: post #68
spicyusername wrote: post #59

Everyone is going to want to reach for their favorite modern problem, but every point in history is fraught with sociopolitical and economic challenges. Today is not special, in that regard. My personal favorite reason is just that this is the outcome of birth control. At no other point in history could people decide how many kids they want, and when you give people the choice, they just aren't going to choose very m…

Birth control was available to the Baby Boomers's parents, and the result was... a baby boom. My two grandmothers had 7 and 5 children respectively in spite of the availability of birth control.

The percentage of the population taking birth control has increased significantly since that time.

Cultural shifts, in this case due to the availability of birth control, take time to materialize.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#72

Post by pjc50 »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #61

Like any single-cause explanations of the fertility collapse, it's fairly easy to poke holes in it. Usually, you just name countries as a counter-argument. For example, North Korea. Better life now than in the 90s, lower fertility. What hope for the future was there in the 1930s Ukraine, in the middle of an artificial famine that killed millions? Higher fertility than mid-2010s Ukraine (nowadays you can blame the war…

The usual one is "availability of contraception and related education for women". I don't think even the fundamentalist states have chosen to and managed to reverse that. Least feminist most collapsed country Afghanistan is still falling: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AFG/afg...

We still don't know what a "modern depopulated country" might look like, that is a whole country where the population is more than 10% below its peak level by natural decline. It's visible in some areas and cities, but not the whole country level.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#73

Post by Ekaros »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
BLenkomo wrote: post #39

We are enough people on the planet. Why does this read like we have to have kids? I'm completly fine not having kids surprise \o/

It's how society will break down without a younger generation in quantity that is paying for social security, earning taxes for society, etc.

Oh well, just have to accept that there won't be retirement, only burning your savings and then euthanasia. Better have fun while you can afford it.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#75

Post by rdm_blackhole »

I think that the various studies on this subject do not take into account a simple explanation. Choice.

Women choose to no longer have children or to have a very limited amount of children because they don't see the point in it anymore.

Women who have kids lose the best years of their life and then on top of that have trouble getting back into the workforce once they are done raising the kids.

From their point of view, it means an overall loss of income and some may have to restart their careers from scratch because no employer wants to hire someone with a 5/10 year gap on their resume.

According to this study https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-..., only 18% of stay at home parents are dads, which means that in 80% of the cases, it's the woman who has to sacrifice their career to raise the kids.

If I put myself in the shoes of young ambitious woman today, would I give up my dreams of climbing the corporate ladder/opening my own business/traveling the world in order to have kids or would I delay/ opt out of motherhood?

As a guy I don't even have to ask myself this question, but a woman will and as we can see from all these studies, they have decided that it is not worth it.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#76

Post by Kivern7 »

le-mark wrote: post #56
steveBK123 wrote: post #18

I think we very rapidly went from a world with high child mortality rates, no access to birth control and children being at least moderately useful on the farm or doing some other work quite young to a world where having children is both a choice and very very expensive. This happened depending on where you live in the course of 1-3 generations. We are still grappling with how you incentivize and promote parenthood w…

> We are still grappling with how you incentivize and promote parenthood when the future costs of each child are 6 figues. Six figures? False because poor people have been having children forever and continue too.

Children are an asset for net tax-recipients, but a liability for net tax-payers. I grew up in a very poor area and heard firsthand teenage girls excited over how much welfare money they can receive for babies. It's an inversion of the natural order. It's state-manipulated breeding incentives between different classes of people. It's literally eugenics.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#77

Post by gwd »

pearlsontheroad wrote: post #48
maxglute wrote: post #26

Not having kids is too inexpensive.

I disagree. Even though I'm childless, taxes I've paid my whole life help finance public schools which I'll never use.

> which I'll never use.

Your younger co-workers will have been educated in public schools you paid for. If you're an employer, the people you hire will have been educated with public schools you paid for. When you retire, the people paying your retirement and running the country you live in will have been educated by the public schools you paid for. When you're sick, loads of the research on how to cure you and keep you in good health will have been done by researchers who went through public schools you helped fund.

Everyone benefits from an educated populace, which is why it makes sense for it to be paid for by everyone.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#78

Post by baxtr »

tw04 wrote: post #23
robertlagrant wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Did people do this in the midst of world war 2, for example?

Tough to say. It was difficult to have children in the middle of WW2 when all the men of appropriate age were fighting on the frontlines. The results would also likely be skewed by Germany quasi-forcing people to have children in support of the party.

Look up birth rates in Syria for the past 10 years.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#79

Post by owebmaster »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
BLenkomo wrote: post #39

We are enough people on the planet. Why does this read like we have to have kids? I'm completly fine not having kids surprise \o/

It's how society will break down without a younger generation in quantity that is paying for social security, earning taxes for society, etc.

Tax AI and we let the bullshit jobs die.

Re: The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates

#80

Post by spiffyk »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #55
BLenkomo wrote: post #39

We are enough people on the planet. Why does this read like we have to have kids? I'm completly fine not having kids surprise \o/

It's how society will break down without a younger generation in quantity that is paying for social security, earning taxes for society, etc.

If the society is built upon the assumption of its own infinite growth in terms of population—an assumption which is very blatantly nonsensical—then maybe it deserves to break down.
Post reply on HN