India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#221

Post by SubmarineClub » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

Arodex wrote: post #166

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

One could make the point this is less about industrialization causing a change in behavior, and more chemical pollution destroying fertility. Of which we have plenty of concrete evidence.

Except evidence does not show that there are many more people trying and failing for kids as in past decades, so much as more people are delaying partnering up and having kids till later and later, along with many opting to be childless.

And most fertility issues people do encounter can primarily be explained by attempting to have children decades later than is biologically optimal.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#222

Post by xeonmc » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:05 PM UTC

m_fayer wrote: post #202

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I have a different pet explanation from the other replies here, and I honestly don't get why it's not talked about more. Basically, our economic reality and expectations have come into conflict with biology and human lifespan. If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family, every year that takes a little longer. And these days, almost everyone wants that dignified middle class life…

So support should be provided for incentivizing younger parenthood then, like guaranteed tuition assistance per children born?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#223

Post by kentm » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

Auracle wrote: post #155

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to. Let me break that norm for a second. So, are other activities more fun than child rearing? Often, yeah. Definitely less stressful. Rewarding? Not in a million goddamned years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to when your kid first walk…

> but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to.

This has not been my experience. What has changed is that its now looked-down on to denigrate people who choose not to have kids (in some circles), and that people are no longer treated as heroes for having children. It had historically been the case that people who chose to not have kids were browbeaten about their choices.

I have had no issues talking about my children at all even with people who have remained childless. This is because I respect other peoples' decisions when doing so.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#224

Post by ianm218 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

i_idiot wrote: post #180

ianm218 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, isn't it already difficult for the not-rich to add to families? Add to that the uncertainty with income and future. Unless socialism is widely adopted, I am not sure humans can enjoy better lives especially with additional burden of kids. Hell, people can't afford homes now. I don't see a widely agreed upon or convincing positive ending. I already see (read about to be accurate) effects of AI on young graduates…

When people say "people can't afford homes now" your referring to places like NY, MA, and CA where people can't afford homes because the local governments have made it basically impossible to build to match the demand in the areas? I.e. Massachusetts despite being one of the most desirable places to live ranks 50th in housing production per capita.

You're not sure humans can enjoy better lives in the future? Like you think things could only get worse?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#225

Post by hgoel » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #31

staminade wrote: post #11

Unless they roll-back women's rights and improvements in child mortality, societies will need to radically overhaul their entire relationship to supporting parenthood in order to reverse this trend. The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high. We need universal childcare services, provided by the state and available to all, and other childcare-enabling reforms like automatic right…

> We need universal childcare services Birth rates have been falling worldwide, regardless of the level of government support. It's much more a matter of attitudes about having children. > The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high Nope. My wife and I have 4 children, on a lower-middle-class income in the US. Your lifestyle choices matter a lot. If you want to have children, you c…

Sorry for wanting my children to not grow up in poverty with immature young adult parents.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#226

Post by danny_codes » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

exitb wrote: post #75

mekdoonggi wrote: post #56

If they have the freedom to choose otherwise, they will. The global fertility "crisis" is simply individuals exercising their choices. Kids are really expensive, and if you want people to willingly have them outside of accidents, you're going to need to pay them a lot of money.

Rising kids also has a time, effort and opportunity costs which are not easily offset with money. I don’t think there’s a way to frame modern parenting in a way where it „pays off” in the same sense as it did in the past. As of now, it’s essentially a hobby.

I mean, it can be offset with money. - Kids take time - Yes, so does working. If you cutout the 90h my partner and I spend working, that's a lot of time to put into raising children. - Kids take effort - Yes, so does working. If I didn't need to work this becomes much easier. - Opportunity cost - Yes, just pay me for the opportunity cost. Pay for my PhD after my kids are in grade school.

It's just that these policies are very expensive, and right now we allocate our money mostly to make rich people richer and maintain very high QoL for our elderly population. That's a choice we make in setting up our society.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#227

Post by M95D » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

marcuskaz wrote: post #183

M95D wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 few…

The population doesn't just go from 100m to 50m instantly. It gradually changes over time, 100 years from now the smaller population will work itself out, but none of us will be alive for that. We still have 100 years of discomfort to get through. Fewer children mean all the industries and gov't services who are employed now to service children will need to downsize, these are lost jobs now before the fewer children…

Pediatricians - not enough of them now. Teachers - also not enough. Toys & Games companies - can switch to adult games, no problem. Children Furniture - can and do make adult furniture too. School Supplies? Electronics? Can also switch to adult products. Fewer people means fewer companies as well - not a problem.

Lots of new jobs will be needed in health and elderly care - you just ignored those.

> All of these are sized with the expectation of the same consumer demand, but when there are less kids to buy and service each of these will be forced to downsize.

Downsizing happens all the time. It's considered normal by most economists.

Yes, there are domains that are more affected than others. Reduction in population is slow enough to simply let the workers retire without hiring new ones.

You're acting like the birth rates are 0.2 instead of somewhere above 1 (too lazy to check). I remind you that Japan had lower birthrates than that for a very long time and nothing bad happend. In fact, their workplace conditions are improving. Salarymen are finally starting to work decent hours.

Why don't you admit that you're worried about your own quality of life at 70y old and you couldn't care less about future generations and their polution, resources, global warming, famine and refugee problems?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#228

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

jacobgkau wrote: post #165

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need universal childcare services Birth rates have been falling worldwide, regardless of the level of government support. It's much more a matter of attitudes about having children. > The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high Nope. My wife and I have 4 children, on a lower-middle-class income in the US. Your lifestyle choices matter a lot. If you want to have children, you c…

Sounds more like it's a matter of attitudes about personal economics than attitudes about having children. If you want to wallow in poverty (and don't mind if your children do as well), then of course you can "find a way."

As per usual arrangement, the internet can't stand a nuanced opinion, but instead jumps straight to extreme conclusions. Nowhere did I say anything about wallowing in poverty.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#229

Post by laughing_man » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

m_fayer wrote: post #205

everdrive wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone claims it's the cost, but poor people used to have kids constantly. When I lived in Baltimore the guy on my block grew up there. They had 12 kids in a ~1100 sq foot row home with two bedrooms and 1 (or no?) bathroom. You can find similar stories everywhere.

We've gotten smarter, to our detriment.

[flagged]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#230

Post by Daishiman » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

xeonmc wrote: post #222

m_fayer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different pet explanation from the other replies here, and I honestly don't get why it's not talked about more. Basically, our economic reality and expectations have come into conflict with biology and human lifespan. If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family, every year that takes a little longer. And these days, almost everyone wants that dignified middle class life…

So support should be provided for incentivizing younger parenthood then, like guaranteed tuition assistance per children born?

More like guaranteed housing because not even having a college degree is a sufficient condition to enter the middle class in this day and age.