India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#121

Post by thrance » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

RickJWagner wrote: post #111

triceratops wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth Of workers. Because retirement funds take money from workers to pay for retirees. Assets and productivity, on the other hand, can grow a lot more than the population. Right now it's considered communism to tax assets. Once we get over that taboo things'll go a lot smoother.

That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Better to spend it while it’s whole. That changes future value calculations, too. These are things not to mess with lightly.

> Better to spend it while it’s whole.

Yes, that's the whole point. That's a good thing. Money is meant to be spent, not be hoarded and slept on forever. Money velocity is terrible right now, capital generates more income than wages, this is neither healthy nor sustainable, and certainly isn't fair to the ones actually doing the productive work.

In the ideal society there'd be no Epstein or Thiel, everyone would have a rewarding and productive economic activity.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#122

Post by Ajedi32 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #102

Ajedi32 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population is not "reaching equilibrium", it's shrinking. If it was reaching equilibrium you'd expect the births per women to be slowly reducing until it approaches 2.1 and then staying there. It's dropping substantially below that. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the contraction is temporary, the causal factors seem largely unrelated to the existing population size.

How can you say it’s not temporary if it’s just started?

Because all plausible theorized causes (birth control, global reduction in poverty enabled by technology, women's rights) are not temporary conditions. (Or at least we better hope they aren't.)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#123

Post by wg0 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

vachina wrote: post #107

wg0 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Immigrants are brave people. Whole of the human history is full of people leaving their known circumstances towards unknown circumstances with hopes for a better outcome.

[flagged]

Brave up, get skilled there's plenty of game out there.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#124

Post by MontyCarloHall » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #90

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd call it hedonism if a couple wants to be able to go out on a date on a whim, easily take a vacation, watch adult-appropriate movies on a big TV in the living room, maintain good sleep/health habits, keep a flexible schedule unconstrained by school pickups/staying home with a sick kid, etc. These are all real examples of why people I know delayed having kids, curtailed the number they had, or never had them altoge…

It's unclear what you're saying. Obviously it's not hedonistic to " want " those things, as you say. You might use the term if they try to have their cake and eat it too, irresponsibly. Hedonism has negative connotations, colloquially (and colloquially is how we are speaking).

As I wrote in another reply, I meant “hedonism” in its non-colloquial, neutral sense, i.e. the pursuit of individual pleasure and happiness above all else, which was a mistake on my part. My general point is that all the activities I listed (which only become abundantly available in rich, industrialized societies) yield more individual pleasure than having children.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#125

Post by kranke155 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #122

kranke155 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say it’s not temporary if it’s just started?

Because all plausible theorized causes (birth control, global reduction in poverty enabled by technology, women's rights) are not temporary conditions. (Or at least we better hope they aren't.)

Those are just hypothesis. Here’s ankther likely hypothesis - isn’t this is a mega fauna arriving at capacity?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#126

Post by boelboel » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

voxleone wrote: post #35

Other Global South countries show the same trend. At roughly 1.6, Brazil is now in a similar range to countries such as the United States (slightly below replacement).

Brazil is under 1.5 at this point and not nearly the worst off, thailand has a tfr of about 0.7 this year.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#127

Post by kranke155 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

phendrenad2 wrote: post #105

Ajedi32 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population is not "reaching equilibrium", it's shrinking. If it was reaching equilibrium you'd expect the births per women to be slowly reducing until it approaches 2.1 and then staying there. It's dropping substantially below that. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the contraction is temporary, the causal factors seem largely unrelated to the existing population size.

That's... not how equilibrium works. A self-balancing segway or robot doesn't reach the balance point and then freeze in place. There are oscillations. And it isn't a pretty sine wave either. Considering the massive number of factors that go into something like "global population growth", expect a VERY chaotic graph indeed, like the stock market, but worse.

Yeah fair so what.

The argument is - our current economic system can’t handle it.

Well then that’s an argument for changing it.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#128

Post by red-iron-pine » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

marcuskaz wrote: post #34

i_idiot wrote: post #8

What's the strong case against population dwindling other than supporting aging population? Given the AI armageddon, it just makes sense to reduce the population. If there's less population, we need less production and less workers. Of course, countries have to deal with oldest population for a brief period of time.

The basis of capitalism is on growth. How can you continue to grow revenue constantly if there aren't more people to buy products or use your services. Additionally tax revenue decreases as fewer people are working, so less government services and employment would be available. Schools is a good example, as there are less children, you need less schools and consolidate. So there are less jobs for teachers, now it loo…

e.g. how do you sell 100 million smartphones when the population is only 50 million, and can hardly afford to buy 1 (and certainly not more than 1)? this leads to layoffs

how do phone shops like verizon or t-mobile stay open if people aren't buying? same for phone repair places? more layoffs

more laid off people means less people going out to dinner, ordering pizza, taking trips, buying new cars. those businesses close, and layoff people.

less workers means less tax revinue, either income tax, payroll tax, or sales tax (cuz people ain't buying shit). government offices cut bodies (layoffs) and reduce services. there are now less cops and more potholes.

how do billionaires, whose wealth depends on publicly traded companies and their stocks, keep making money when no one can buy anything? spacex and tesla can make up numbers and stay afloat, somehow, but most stocks will tank.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#129

Post by red-iron-pine » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

RickJWagner wrote: post #111

triceratops wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> retirement funds are built with the assumption of infinite growth Of workers. Because retirement funds take money from workers to pay for retirees. Assets and productivity, on the other hand, can grow a lot more than the population. Right now it's considered communism to tax assets. Once we get over that taboo things'll go a lot smoother.

That would destroy the incentive to save. Why put aside a dollar now, only to have it taxed every year? Better to spend it while it’s whole. That changes future value calculations, too. These are things not to mess with lightly.

we have property taxes, and its taxed every year. and somehow people keep trying to buy yet more property.

plenty of incentive to put money there, ditto for saving.

a saved dollar does not stimulate the economy, either. the whole idea of microloans is that the money gets spent ASAP and goes straight into the economy

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#130

Post by UtopiaPunk » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

ndiddy wrote: post #92

i_idiot wrote: post #8

What's the strong case against population dwindling other than supporting aging population? Given the AI armageddon, it just makes sense to reduce the population. If there's less population, we need less production and less workers. Of course, countries have to deal with oldest population for a brief period of time.

The problem isn't if the population gradually shrinks, it's if there's an uncontrolled downward spiral in fertility. If the birthrate gets below a certain point, then most people won't have any experience whatsoever interacting with babies or young children in their day-to-day life, and cultural norms will shift to make childlessness the default option. This marginalizes people who choose to have children, which push…

Is the concern that we'd marginalize parents and kids? As a parent of little kids, that's a concern that wasn't even on my radar. I had no idea that that was a major concern of people. Wild. I'm not saying it is a fabricated or unfounded fear, I just don't have that concern at all for myself.

As a parent of little kids, I worry much more about them living fulfilling lives as they grow up in the future. I'm concerned about climate change, wars, and an economic system that will allow them to live self-actualized lives. I have no doubt that the population number plays some factor in that, creating problems that must be solved. But ultimately, humans have created amazing technologies and the Earth is bountiful. We can support whatever number of people is on the horizon (whether that number is larger or smaller), but society must choose to do so and adapt.

My greatest fears are that governments and corporations consolidate their wealth and power to only an elite few, bending society to serve that elite. That is a fear exists regardless of the fertility rate.

I think Charlie Chaplin's speech at the end of The Great Dictator is relevant and inspirational: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20&t=2s

Thank you for sharing your article. It's from a view so unlike my own, and it's been eye opening.