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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#291

Post by em-bee »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #241
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…

>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. But this is by and large not true. I've traveled, eaten at expensive restaurants, enjoyed a child free existence into my mid thirties and having kids is a blast [*] My wife was adamantly against having kids when we got together in our twenties, and she c…

having kids is a blast

true, but you didn't know until you had them, and society keeps telling us otherwise. we need to change the message and educate youth about becoming parents. but also create a culture where having children is welcome.

in the west we complain about kids running around, making noise, being not under control. and most importantly we blame the parents. in china every child is treated like a treasure. sometimes even to a fault. but at least parents are not being blamed for having children, or for bringing them along when they have noone else to care for them. for example children hanging out at their parents workplace after school is normal. in the west that's ground for getting fired.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#292

Post by happytoexplain »

everdrive wrote: post #287
happytoexplain wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True - but, honest question that I've always wondered: Do we know the degree of this problem as it relates to whether or not people have kids? I.e. yes, it takes longer to get pregnant, but how much less likely does it become to get pregnant at all ?

Nearly every metric gets worse - likelihood to get pregnant - likelihood to bring child to term - health risk to mother during pregnancy and child birth - health risk to baby during pregnancy and child birth - increased likelihood of multiple birth defects - increased likelihood of genetic abnormalities I'm not casting aspersions. My wife and I had kids when she was 38 and 40 respectively. But, the numbers for the ri…

So even if it takes a year instead of one night to get pregnant, which wouldn't really affect long-scale statistics that much, more pregnancies fail, and more people may choose not to try at all because of the risks. That makes sense.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#293

Post by bluescrn »

submain wrote: post #275
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?

Is that enough though? Women change their entire bodies, sacrifice years of their lives, and go through considerable stress to have a baby. And at the end, the benefits of that ordeal are not clear. Society would need to offer something to offset all those costs.

'The benefits of continuing the existence of the species are not clear'

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#294

Post by happytoexplain »

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?

Right train of thought, but as others have pointed out, this is spitting on a fire.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#295

Post by hamdingers »

snihalani wrote: post #278
zkmon wrote: post #6

This has a religious angle. Some religions believe in having as many babies as possible. Other religions are seeing the effect and realizing their mistake.

I keep hearing some religions push for this. I don't understand how it benefits them

It's significantly harder to convert an adult than it is to indoctrinate a child.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#296

Post by SoftTalker »

dh2022 wrote: post #271
SoftTalker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think they need to do this but it's really not true. You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. And in terms of avoiding complications and having energy, 18-25 years old is probably the best time.

In my city of Seattle you simply cannot have more than one kid in your twenties. You simply do not have the income to pay the Seattle rent / mortgages and pay daycare for more than one kid at the start of your career. Forget about going to a concert or a restaurant: there is simply no money for it. Young people in Seattle either live in studios or 1 bedroom apartments, or live with roommates, or with their parents. Y…

And yet I bet there are thousands of young people in Seattle having kids. These limits are all about what kind of life you want for yourself, and not about what is possible.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#297

Post by penteract »

lenkite wrote: post #142
calepayson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> As seen after the Black Death, a scarcity of labor drives real wages up and lower the cost of basic goods and rent.

Does this still hold when the majority of labor is no longer closely tied to a finite supply of land? At the time of the Black Death, the majority of men's labor was farming, and having more land directly made labor much more productive[1]. The modern economy feels much more complicated (e.g. if your job involves transporting things/people from A to B, it probably decreases in efficiency as the density of people decreases).

[1] https://acoup.blog/2025/09/12/collections-life-work-death-an...

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#298

Post by geodel »

pelotron wrote: post #149
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.

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

Yeah, see those millions laid of last 5-10 years, everyone got better, more fulfilling jobs. Companies are falling over each other with ever more outrageous perks and salaries. Excellent healthcare, plentiful housing, unlimited education opportunities, nothing is scarce any more.

Thinking hard, the only thing we are having shortage is of AI tokens. Thats all we need to plan for or worry about in coming decades.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#299

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#300

Post by em-bee »

M95D wrote: post #141
red-iron-pine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 few…

Potholes are indeed a problem

actually, less people would mean less traffic, and less wear on the roads, therefore also less potholes.

Post reply on HN