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

91–100 of 927 posts

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

#91

Post by spwa4 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #64
missedthecue wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the more important point is that at a 2:1 dependency ratio everyone would be expected to take care of half another person, either directly or through payments, and be required do whatever labor is required to do that.

In other words, there is a point, quite likely less dramatic than 2:1 where "allowing" people to be unemployed becomes economically absurd.

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

#92

Post by korse »

Aurornis wrote: post #45
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…

> this, however people know what the sacrifices are, and very understandably don’t want to make them. My anecdote: As a parent, when I talk to people my same age or younger without children they often greatly overestimate the sacrifices necessary to have children. I can’t tell you how many times I've heard people (who don’t have children) make wild claims like having children means you won’t have good sleep for the n…

Well said. This all tracks strongly with my experience.

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

#93

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Demoder wrote: post #58
thrance wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doom and gloom that is somewhat substantiated by material reality. The world is getting warmer and nothing is done about it. Far right populism is getting more and more popular, with no end in sight. No way am I bringing kids in this environment.

I have a feeling that far right populism was worse in 1930s

I've found a lot of parallels between now and 1910s-1930.

Thru genealogy I see how families and extended families lived together to afford living expenses. MultiFamily housing was common and jobs were within walking distance. The automobile dispersed jobs and families, taking all the above away.

The needs we have now are no longer possible to fill.

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

#95

Post by bdavbdav »

Aurornis wrote: post #45
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…

> this, however people know what the sacrifices are, and very understandably don’t want to make them. My anecdote: As a parent, when I talk to people my same age or younger without children they often greatly overestimate the sacrifices necessary to have children. I can’t tell you how many times I've heard people (who don’t have children) make wild claims like having children means you won’t have good sleep for the n…

I’ve got one fantastic child, the relief of starting to get my time and freedom back is still enough to remind me I don’t what to loose that again, even temporarily.

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

#97

Post by IAmBroom »

Aurornis wrote: post #67
0_____0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> You can also hire a nanny.

Yes, or just have your servants watch them.

Most families in the US can't afford a nanny. Daycare is already stretching it.

> 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.

Mostly women, and that helps keep the gender pay gap going.

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

#98

Post by ceejayoz »

spwa4 wrote: post #91
ceejayoz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the more important point is that at a 2:1 dependency ratio everyone would be expected to take care of half another person, either directly or through payments, and be required do whatever labor is required to do that. In other words, there is a point, quite likely less dramatic than 2:1 where "allowing" people to be unemployed becomes economically absurd.

My McDonalds order is already taken by a robot. Perhaps a significant part of my aged care will be as well.

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

#99

Post by ceejayoz »

spwa4 wrote: post #87
ceejayoz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're asking the uncomfortable but important question.

Really? Because one obvious thing it'll require is about a doubling of the birth rate ... it's not about growth , it's about stability. At least at first.

Population stability and economic/societal stability don't have to be the same thing.

If someone cracks the "robots that can do human-like things" boundaries in the real world versus just text - and there are enormous efforts in this regard going on - I'd fully expect some tasks to be handled by non-human workers.

It seems a lot more likely than "number goes up" next-quarterism driven economies are to survive a thousand years.

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

#100

Post by IAmBroom »

spwa4 wrote: post #88
missedthecue wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people live forever? Population growth or shrinkage is fundamentally exponential.

In other words: it's quite famous for how absurdly enormous swings in birth rate can be. It's famous for how critical it is for a species to have a stable birth rate.

I don't know where you got that idea. Some species critically depend on wildly unstable birth rates (grasshoppers and cicadas, but probably also deer and many other prey populations).

Stable populations are completely irrelevant at the microscopic levels; InBev would fold within a week if yeast populations were stable.

Post reply on HN