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

India's surprise baby bust

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#141

Post by M95D »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #128
marcuskaz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clo…

> how do you sell 100 million smartphones when the population is only 50 million

You don't. You only sell 50 million.

> this leads to layoffs

Why? 50 million people instead of 100 million also means half the employees in the factory, making just 50 million phones instead of 100.

> government offices cut bodies (layoffs) and reduce services

Yeah, but no layoffs (same reason as the phone factory). Fewer people need fewer services. Potholes are indeed a problem. Some roads leading to abandoned places will need to be abandoned as well.

> most stocks will tank

By your argument, those people that can't buy a second phone, also can't buy any stocks anyway. I see no problem here.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#142

Post by lenkite »

calepayson wrote: post #42
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.

Shot in the dark but my sense is that a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens. I feel pretty confident that ai will eventually be a large driver of growth but I do worry about whether it'll come soon enough.

Gradual population decline empowers lower-income workers. As seen after the Black Death, a scarcity of labor drives real wages up and lower the cost of basic goods and rent.

Basically, the billionaires dislike it and hence are changing the message. They want you to be ants.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#143

Post by happytoexplain »

swat535 wrote: post #135
mekdoonggi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it hedonism if a child-free adult gets fulfillment out of nurturing and caring for others, mentoring, caring for themselves and their community? That's like, the complete opposite of the hedonistic young couple not using protection and accidentally getting pregnant.

[flagged]

>The term "child-free" implies relieving oneself of a disease, the way one describes himself as "cancer-free" or "drug-free".

Wow, this is an eyebrow-raising degree of uncharitability. There's no reason to attack straightforward words like this.

Also, the parent did not make this implication. They implied it's irresponsible to have children unintentionally or flippantly.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#144

Post by vkou »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #138
vkou wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the pain from overpopulation and a glut of uneducated labour? Doesn't that shit roll downhill, too? "The poor will always pay for it" is a thought-terminating cliche that is often trotted out in support of the status quo (or some mythical past status quo). How do you know that past status quo isn't actually worse for them than the direction things are trending? Do you think we somehow stumbled upon some gl…

What overpopulation?

The kind you'd find in any place with a housing or food shortage, (or a job shortage if you are the sort of person who has #firstworldproblems) or really any other shortage where some public demand cannot be met by limited supply.

We don't see a lot of food shortages these days, but with climate change fucking with agriculture sufficiently, regular famines in the global south might make a comeback... Or might not, if population growth and degrowth projections solve that problem before crop yields are seriously impacted.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#145

Post by kixiQu »

mekdoonggi wrote: post #108
vkou wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no amount of money (that society could ever afford to pay) that could convince my wife to have children.

Yep. And that's good! That's freedom of choice. Similarly, my wife wanted children, and there's no amount of money that could replace the joy of having our child. Everything is better when we have the freedom to make a choice.

I wish society had taxed me (desired path zero children) more in some way that would have routed the resources to my friend who would have wanted to start having kids earlier and have more. Instead, the combination of regional housing crisis with contemporary parenting standards meant she and her husband waited for career progression to have the money for the space to start.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#146

Post by Legend2440 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #54
saulpw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the second most populous animal on the planet. We are in no danger of extinction.

If the trend doesn't reverse, it's mathematically guaranteed. But realistically, I agree. Civilizational collapse would happen long before extinction, which seems like it would almost certainly return the birth rate back to pre-industrial levels. I just don't think that's a desirable outcome either. Or, even more realistically, nations with state religions that effectively outlaw birth control and/or women's rights w…

It's not a problem. Go look at a graph of historical world population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3...

It's virtually flat for eons, and then in the last 100 years it shoots up like a rocket. We didn't hit the first billion people until 1800, but the 8th billion took only 11 years. (2011-2022)

This rate of exponential growth was never sustainable, and it's normal and natural that it's leveling off now.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#147

Post by lukeschlather »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #132
mekdoonggi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do you think this is bad?

Hedonism is bad because: - hedonic pleasures are adaptive. The first time you experience them is incredible. The 1000th time, much less so. - chasing hedonic pleasures is counter-productive. Studies show that people who actively seek out hedonic pleasure are less happy than those that don't. OTOH, eudaimonic pleasure (aka fulfilment, satisfaction) is much more durable. Work, hobbies, charity work, and children are av…

I wonder how those who have experienced the pleasure of having 1000 children experience that compared to the first one.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#148

Post by swat535 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #143
swat535 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>The term "child-free" implies relieving oneself of a disease, the way one describes himself as "cancer-free" or "drug-free". Wow, this is an eyebrow-raising degree of uncharitability. There's no reason to attack straightforward words like this. Also, the parent did not make this implication. They implied it's irresponsible to have children unintentionally or flippantly .

> Also, the parent did not make this implication

You're arguing a straw man, I didn't mention that the parent made the implication.

I simply refuted a portion of parent's claim that people are forgoing children to foster a care of their community or performing acts of service as they implied here:

"a child-free adult gets fulfillment out of nurturing and caring for others, mentoring, caring for themselves and their community"

> There's no reason to attack straightforward words like this.

If you feel like my interpretation of the term is an attack, that's on you. I simply voiced what the term communicates to me.

As an example, there's a reason Anti Abortionists rebranded the term to "Pro Life" because of the connotation.

Terms do have an intention behind them.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#149

Post by pelotron »

ianm218 wrote: post #114
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.

What is your case at all? AI could usher in a post scarcity world so why not have more humans who can enjoy better lives? You just said AI Armageddon as if there is an already predetermined ending that is widely agreed upon.

I love how "post scarcity world" is tossed around as if the earth has infinite natural resources.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#150

Post by tzs »

btilly wrote: post #106
happytoexplain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

Here is what it actually means. When the economy is growing, investment makes sense. Why put your money under the mattress when it could be out there, working for you? When the reverse happens, investment stops making sense. Why risk your money when it becomes worth more while it is sitting under your mattress? But stopping investment does not just mean stopping speculative investment. It means stopping investment in…

> When the economy is growing, investment makes sense. Why put your money under the mattress when it could be out there, working for you?

> When the reverse happens, investment stops making sense. Why risk your money when it becomes worth more while it is sitting under your mattress?

Is it necessary to have a growing population in order to have a growing economy?

For much of human history I'd guess the answer was yes, because the size of the economy was based almost entirely on how much physical work people did, but the modern economy is very different from historical economies.

Post reply on HN