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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#261

Post by bryanlarsen »

Daishiman wrote: post #240
bryanlarsen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> OTOH, eudaimonic pleasure (aka fulfilment, satisfaction) is much more durable. I am not actually sure that this is consistent across most people who have had children.

Certainly not. It's much more likely to be successful than getting it from work, though.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#263

Post by thewebguyd »

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?

Tuition assistance per kid isn't going to cut it. That doesn't solve any other problem of: unaffordable housing, unaffordable child care, a hustle culture that mandates people be productive and climb the career ladder to barely get ahead, the loss of complete freedom and free time, etc.

The incentives just aren't there.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#264

Post by rekabis »

btilly wrote: post #71
vachina wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 1% is freaking out at the thought of population shrinking because the cogs of the machine won’t turn itself.

The other 99% is even more dependent on the machine than the top 1%. They can build themselves reinforced bunkers, just in case. What is your plan if, say, the food distribution infrastructure breaks down? Does that sound like an extremely unlikely outcome? Back in 2008, we came within hours of credit cards stopping working. Projections say that if credit cards stop working, food distribution breaks down. Mass hunger…

> What is your plan if, say, the food distribution infrastructure breaks down?

300 acres on the westward-facing slope of the interior cascade temperate rainforest. Even if the entire region sees extended drying over the next 50, there will still be sufficient rainfall for crops. All it will need are a few holding pools to reliably produce a year-round supply.

It’s also reasonably remote, difficult to reach unless you know of the specific path, and reasonably defensible.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#265

Post by throw3578322 »

somewhatgoated wrote: post #162
Auracle wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t buy that having children is the only really rewarding thing you could do as a human. Like the only reasons you can come up with is mystery chemicals or soyboys - seriously? I think it’s vastly more complex than “insert my favourite political reason” and includes many different factors. Personally I think it’s telling that only the Orthodox Jews don’t seem to have that problem - with an extremely rigid, strict…

In surveys, Orthodox Jewish women rate their happiness with life higher than secular women. You could argue that this is subjective, but I think you would find the same if you look at other derived markers, like substance abuse, suicide, etc.

There can be multiple reasons why modern societies have less kids, but the main theme of Orthodoxy is to keep as much as possible the same as in previous generations. So they would be avoiding almost all the possible reasons given for the decline.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#266

Post by em-bee »

thewebguyd wrote: post #263
xeonmc wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tuition assistance per kid isn't going to cut it. That doesn't solve any other problem of: unaffordable housing, unaffordable child care, a hustle culture that mandates people be productive and climb the career ladder to barely get ahead, the loss of complete freedom and free time, etc. The incentives just aren't there.

both parents having to work fulltime, and the severe hit to your career if you pause working while the children are young is the primary hindrance in my view.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#267

Post by nemomarx »

Henchman21 wrote: post #250
xeonmc wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right why would we change the behavior that got us here? Just provide some incentives and problem solved right? How about we undo the mess we’ve created through industrialization? Change the world so people WANT to have kids again?

Why did people want to have them in the past, and what shifts do you think could undo industrialization enough to return to that?

The economic value of kids and the relative surety that kids will provide for you in your old age are I think very hard to reclaim now, and that was a pretty strong motivator for most of history. You could end all retirement funds and pension systems and so on, maybe?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#268

Post by jacobgkau »

kakacik wrote: post #23
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…

Yeah I am not sure I will call that plumber or electrician which only works from home... some folks really live in bubbles, big or small

I think jobs that can't be done remotely is where the universal childcare services they mentioned would come into play.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#269

Post by em-bee »

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?

in germany education is free, and some places also offer free childcare. parents get $300 per child per month in financial support regardless of income. and yet all that is still not enough.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#270

Post by submain »

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…

I agree. It comes down to the opportunity cost for women to have babies.

On pre-industrialized societies, women have barely a choice. On industrialized ones they do. And it turns out that, when given the choice, they choose not to have babies.

Post reply on HN