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

The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

sas.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 409 posts

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#231

Post by anonym29 »

bombcar wrote: post #223
anonym29 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal observation / hypothesis: - there's an inverse relationship between quality of life and density, even within individual households - there's a higher premium on space in urbanized areas than in rural areas - there's been a move towards urbanization across the world, high HDI, low HDI, high religion, low religion I propose something similar to Parkinson's Law: Average family size expands (or contracts) to fi…

I think it matters in how you define quality of life, for one. Take a family of five kids and give them a bedroom for each kid when young and they’ll end up clustering in one or two. I think space and other pressures may have their place as causes, but are mostly downstream from whatever the root issues are.

>Take a family of five kids and give them a bedroom for each kid when young and they’ll end up clustering in one or two.

Do you have anecdata on this? I grew up with a single sibling, and we had to share a room as young children due to economic circumstances, but we were both very excited to get our own rooms when our parents bought a larger house.

I have no kids of my own and don't plan on having any, but I'm fascinated by this perspective.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#232

Post by bombcar »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #123
ars wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just rent, it's also transportation. Transporting young kids with a car is easy, public transportation is much harder until they are 10 or so. For example try transporting a sleepy kid, or more than 1 young kid at the same time. Cities are cars don't get along very well, which makes them less friendly to kids. Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go…

Transportation can be a challenge, but I don’t agree that a car is a requirement. When I’m in Japan it’s common to see parents carting around a kid or two on an appropriately kitted out bike for example. That wouldn’t be as practical in a sprawling suburb, but it can work in denser cities. > Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the pare…

Fertility rates can be wildly swung by outliers, and while it is possible to walk with five kids under the age of six, it is a maneuver that requires substantial logistical support or specialized equipment (which can be as hard or harder to store than a car).

https://www.communityplaythings.com/products/outdoor/kinderv... Things like this are 1% or so of the cost of a suburban house! That’s noticeable!

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#233

Post by lucketone »

rayiner wrote: post #195
stego-tech wrote: post #86

Funny, I just wrapped a blog post about this: https://green.spacedino.net/i-dont-worry-about-population-de... Good presentation by the author that reaffirms my own opinions about the topic, specifically that while it sucks and cripples the social welfare programs our (deceased) elders built on the theory of continued population and productivity growth, it's also an issue we can fix with coordination between powers an…

Humans all across the developed world work 40% fewer hours than in 1900: https://ourworldindata.org/working-more-than-ever . Yet, in the U.S., TFR has consistently been dropping since 1800 : https://ourworldindata.org/working-more-than-ever .

> Working hours for the average worker have decreased dramatically over the last 150 years.

note the “average worker”.

If women were staying at home with children, they were not counted as workers.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#234

Post by bombcar »

api wrote: post #9
Arainach wrote: post #7

The complaining about fertility rates, mostly done by the chunk of the population hoarding more and more of the wealth, will continue until people's ability to afford rent and children improves.

The thing that collapses in a negative population growth environment is passive earnings from interest and asset appreciation, retirement, and to some extent social welfare states. The whole idea of things like social security is predicated on a growing population paying for the elderly. It's also very, very bearish for things like real estate long term. We are probably still in a real estate bubble. I suppose I've n…

You can retire the other way around - since you need roughly $20 saved for every dollar you need in retirement, reducing expenses by a dollar is as good as saving $20.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#235

Post by nradov »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #156
WalterBright wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fact, not a theory. The wealth in the economy did not exist 100 years ago. Therefore it must have been created. And where did Musk's money come from? Who did he transfer it from?

If I cut down trees to build a house, then I may have created "wealth" but I've also destroyed trees. Now the net affect may be that wealth has increased, but it may also have an effect which actually destroys wealth like for instance if those trees existed on a hill, and the roots were holding the soil in place, the act of cutting down "Free market" economics does not capture this destruction of value. It only cares…

Your first example is completely wrong. Trees are a renewable resource. In North America, most of the trees that are cut down to build houses were intentionally grown for that purpose and are selectively harvested in a way that preserves the long-term value of the land.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#236

Post by bombcar »

WalterBright wrote: post #149
ok_dad wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice assertions, but where’s the content of your post? What’s your opinion here based on those two things? Those are just two statements, but do you believe things are different now than historically or are you arguing it’s the same as it ever was, or something else? I’m probably not old enough yet to share my opinion on societal change across generations, I was a kid until recently.

Do you think the population of the US is all from immigration and rich people? (A relative worked out our family tree. Lots of families with 8 kids in them.)

What amuses me is that once you’ve worked out the function to have a kid, it’s easy to have another.

In theory there should be tons of childless people and some balancing number of 10+ kid families. Then the average numbers work out, everyone is from a large family, but the means of production are centralized and efficient.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#238

Post by thisisthenewme »

WalterBright wrote: post #209
thisisthenewme wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an upper bound to the creation of wealth? Is it infinite? Are there any limits to its creation? Is there any inherent value to it without being able to "transfer"?

> Is there an upper bound to the creation of wealth? No > Is it infinite? Yes > Are there any limits to its creation? Government trying to crush it. > Is there any inherent value to it without being able to "transfer"? The only value it has is what someone else is freely willing to pay for it. There is no such thing as "inherent" value.

I find the belief that government is the only limit to wealth creation very intriguing. I also find it interesting that the talking points usually contrast "free markets", which I assume represents the best case, with just "government". Markets can be limited or impacted by forces outside of government (price fixing, monopolies, manipulation). Is there an equivalent best-case scenario for "governments" that we can use as a reference when discussing how they impact free markets?

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#239

Post by bombcar »

lynx97 wrote: post #47
baron816 wrote: post #22

The mid-century Baby Boom occurred after a surge in affordable home keeping technologies (vacuum cleaners, washing machines, refrigerators, etc). I think a rebound in fertility will have to come from technology. Specifically, robots to help with child care and new fertility treatments to allow women to have children later in their lives.

Late child birth is not about fertility but about risks for the child. The only woman I know (yeah, anecdotes) who attempted to delay getting a child until after her 40th birthday got a baby with down syndrome. I know what living with a disability in our world means, from personal experience. And given that experience, I have a hard time giving these women some slack. I think they are risking the well being of their…

Late first child seems to have some substantial risks, though (what they call) geriatric pregnancies in general may not be as risky.

But even starting in your 30s gives you a big disadvantage, toddlers are fast (the fastest land mammal is a toddler who’s just been asked what he has in his mouth!).

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#240

Post by 1212312523 »

lucketone wrote: post #227
xp84 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shrug I don't have personal friends on a different continent, but I read what they write all the time on HN and say on YouTube. Feel free to illuminate us with your first-hand counterpoints instead of a contentless ad-hominem attack.

You make lot of claims, I will address only one of them. > Europe is post-religion Some anecdata for illustration: - Pope is based in Italy. - my nice went to the first grade in Germany last year, that is a big deal there. Part of celebration was going to local church. - it feels that US population is a lot more zealous with religion - I’m not religious, but on average I do go inside of some church several times a ye…

I supposed it's hard to measure but going to church doesn't mean a person or a social group is religious. People go to buddist temples but at best are just superstsitous.
Post reply on HN