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

What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 927 posts

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#61

Post by jandrese »

LiquidSky wrote: post #17
haunter wrote: post #5

>What Caused the 'Baby Boom'? WW2 >What Would It Take to Have Another? WW3

It only happened after WW2 because the US came out of that war as the only untouched developed economy. A WW3 isn't going to leave anyone unscathed and would probably mean all-out nuclear war.

I think a bigger factor is how the war broke up a lot of the old power structures and for a couple of decades it was really possible to get ahead even if you started off poor. There was an abundance of need for labor rebuilding the world and servicing the sudden boom in consumer goods that arose from all of the technologies being developed. Those power structures have reformed and now we are back in the neofeudalism model that arises when power is allowed to ossify.

There is no guarantee that a WW3 would even repeat this phenomenon.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#62

Post by missedthecue »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #53
missedthecue wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take a TFR of 2.1, so depending where you live, a 40-250% increase in fertility. There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. Not even hunter gatherers could function like that

You’re answering the wrong question. That’s the answer to “how do we maintain the status quo?” We can absolutely exist in a world where growth does not exist from ever increasing population, but profits will evaporate as inflation increases and labor supply contracts. As a sibling comment mentions, automation will be a component. Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the c…

I'm pointing out that even in a profitless world, a dependency ratio of 2:1 is not workable. It literally does not matter how you distribute resources.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#63

Post by toomuchtodo »

missedthecue wrote: post #62
toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re answering the wrong question. That’s the answer to “how do we maintain the status quo?” We can absolutely exist in a world where growth does not exist from ever increasing population, but profits will evaporate as inflation increases and labor supply contracts. As a sibling comment mentions, automation will be a component. Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the c…

I'm pointing out that even in a profitless world, a dependency ratio of 2:1 is not workable. It literally does not matter how you distribute resources.

This is an opportunity to see how to make it work. If it doesn’t, we’re all dead eventually. I find the idea of creating new life to keep a poorly functioning pyramid scheme going grotesque, ymmv.

Edit: If you want to have kids in this macro, good luck, you’re on your own (based on the evidence). And it’s only going to keep getting more expensive to exist in our lifetimes (shrinking labor supply, climate change, sovereign debt, etc).

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#64

Post by ceejayoz »

missedthecue wrote: post #62
toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re answering the wrong question. That’s the answer to “how do we maintain the status quo?” We can absolutely exist in a world where growth does not exist from ever increasing population, but profits will evaporate as inflation increases and labor supply contracts. As a sibling comment mentions, automation will be a component. Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the c…

I'm pointing out that even in a profitless world, a dependency ratio of 2:1 is not workable. It literally does not matter how you distribute resources.

Sure, at a certain point, not replacing enough people means the species goes extinct over time.

That doesn't mean humanity going down to (random number) 1B people via gradual birthrate declines is automatically (nor rapidly) going to lead to that, if we have enough automation to handle it, and if we have a plan to stop the process at some point.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#65

Post by Aurornis »

nilamo wrote: post #40
Aurornis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A stable population requires a fertility rate of about 2.1. It’s not about growth, it’s about stability of population at this point.

There's over 8 billion people, the population is exceptionally stable my friend.

The article (which you read, right?) is specifically about developed countries and cites examples like France with fertility rates below 2.1

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#66

Post by [deleted] »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #55

As a new parent, it’s money. Daycare costs $400 USD per week in my area, from 7am-6pm, 5 days a week. So for one child that is roughly 20,000 USD annually. Once you hit the 3-5 kid mark, it usually does not make sense for the spouse to work, unless they are earning well above 6 figures. So then you’re going down to one income supporting a family of 3-5. That’s risky for a variety of reasons. If you want actual action…

[deleted]

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#67

Post by Aurornis »

0_____0 wrote: post #29
bdavbdav wrote: post #19

(Purely anecdotally, my own and my peers experience) We’re seeing educated people waiting longer in life to have children. Fertility drops, assistance from older generations drops, the village has gone, nursery and care prices are ridiculously high, support from the government (UK) is a bit of a farce if you’re earning anything more than a living wage in cities, the opportunity cost of a parent putting a (more develo…

Costs $2500-4000/mo for infant care where I am. On top of a $3000/mo mortgage. NE USA. When I see a family of 5 my first thought is "holy fuck they must be loaded." Either that or they have one parent who cannot be employed outside the home.

> When I see a family of 5 my first thought is "holy fuck they must be loaded.

This is an interesting divide between social media reality of children and the real world.

Any parent will recognize that having 5 kids does not mean paying 5X the cost of infant daycare, which is obvious when you think about it. Infant daycare is expensive but it's also temporary.

It's also fascinating that so many people assume daycare is the only option. With 5 kids, having a parent stay home or work part time is fine. You can also hire a nanny. Many of my friends do a nanny share where two families split the cost of a nanny to watch both of their kids together. I have friends who took jobs working offset schedules for a while. Many people move closer to parents who are able to help (not an option for everyone, obviously).

It's also not the end of the world to take a couple years off work. It's a hurdle, but not the end of the road. Many people do it.

I think many childless people who don't spend a lot of time with parents or families become fixated on the infant phase. They see high infant care costs, sleepless nights, changing diapers, and imagine that's what parenting is like. In reality, it's a very short phase of your life.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#68

Post by bitshiftfaced »

missedthecue wrote: post #37
phkahler wrote: post #6

What will it take to have a stable society that doesn't depend on indefinite economic/population growth?

It would take a TFR of 2.1, so depending where you live, a 40-250% increase in fertility. There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. Not even hunter gatherers could function like that

We currently have about 800 times the population as we did during the time of hunter gatherers, so we can lose quite a large portion of our population while still greatly exceeding the previous levels. It could be that we are seeing the end game of logistic growth. A decline in population would mean that resources would become cheaper, which in turn could stimulate population growth again.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#70

Post by rangerelf »

plantwallshoe wrote: post #22

Was it a side effect of the war ending or a side effect of having a generation of financially stable young men via the GI bill?

I think it was having a government having an active hand in guiding society: housing, education, childcare, stable government jobs, high enough taxes at the top end to finance all of that.
Post reply on HN