India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#391

Post by zbentley » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

voiceofchoice wrote: post #374

I encourage anyone surprised that people would opt out of babies and raising kids actually spend time with kids. Not just like for the holidays and pass them back when they start crying, but an actual extended period of time dealing with all the issues that they bring. You've got to be a special kind of idealistic romantic to still see the appeal afterwards. Which is great for you of course if you do. But there's a r…

> there's a reason authoritarians across the world are banning abortion and targeting birth control

I don’t think that’s because of birth rate decline. While authoritarians give lip service to that occasionally, it’s never their primary cited reason (which is usually some combo of religion, purported return to “traditional” prosperity via reduced promiscuity, aggression against feminist political opponents, etc). Also, most authoritarians aren’t that long-term in their goals.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#392

Post by conductr » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

forlorn_mammoth wrote: post #317

conductr wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a real thought process people are contending with. There's also just the simple fact that kids are liabilities more so than assets. That's not been the case through most of human civilization. I wouldn't limit it to economics either. Socially children are restricting. If you want to be free to travel, move, leave the house on a whim, etc. then kids will interrupt your plans/logistics.

Appreciate you putting it bluntly. I've found having children the most rewarding thing to have done with my life. And even so, you are right about the costs. "Million dollar baby" is not just a catch-phrase.

Same. I contended with having children at all because I enjoyed my freedom. As much as I enjoy it and find it inspiring and rewarding, there’s a part of me that’s counting down to independence again. I was fortunate enough economically it doesn’t require sacrifices but I still see the tally and it’s enormous. When I see median numbers on common stats like home prices, incomes, groceries, etc. there’s no way I would have taken it on if that was my reality.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#393

Post by evo » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:24 PM UTC

submain wrote: post #270

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…

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.

Would it make sense to frame this as a Baumol's Cost Disease problem? E.g., the labor of child rearing has been historically offset by the inherent emotional surplus of the task, but the march of productivity in other sectors gradually increases that imputed loss until we reach a breaking point.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#394

Post by scbrg » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

g3f32r wrote: post #214

mekdoonggi wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yep. And that's good! That's freedom of choice. Is it? Was it actually her choice? Or was she propagandized into being a fully-available consumer? Was she fed a steady diet of anti-natalist/anti-family formation and pro-independence (pro-consume) media and government policies from the moment she was born?

An alternative take is that we've endured thousands of years of propaganda aimed at keeping women as child bearing, house keeping slaves, and we're finally starting to see the end of that in at least some cultures.

But of course, it's only "propaganda" when you don't like it.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#395

Post by decimalenough » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:26 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #343

everdrive wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, women's overall fertility drops off a cliff after 30, but this is downplayed because the extreme sensitivity of the issue.

No need to gender this, and I feel like people would be more receptive to the issue if it wasn't. Everybody ages: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12801554/

Gender does matter though. Men can sire offspring into their 60s, women have marked decline in fertility starting from 32 and hit an absolute wall (menopause) by their fifties.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#396

Post by btilly » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:28 PM UTC

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #163

btilly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> if credit cards stop working, food distribution breaks down Except for the very last step in the chain I find it hard to believe that credit cards play much of a role.

How does almost everyone pay for food at the grocery store? If stores don't have a good way to get money from customers, how do they pay the next step up the line?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#397

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:28 PM UTC

onetimeusename wrote: post #390

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…

I was surprised to find that just as recently as 1970 the median age of first marriage for men was ~23 and ~21 for women.[1] The average age at first child birth for women in 1970 was ~22.[2] There was a change that took place in the late 70s it looks like, probably acquiring education, that started to pretty dramatically raise the age of first marriage and first childbirth. So for me this was realizing that there wa…

[deleted]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#398

Post by zbentley » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #370

Lots of theories here. Industrialization. Wealth. Education. First world transformation. Kids' expense. All of these are second-round of reasons. Primary reason: Materialistic wealth or wealth in general is preferred over human contact. Effect: People connection drops. Community drops. Independence and Individualism prosper. Secondary effect: The seeds for family development (community, human connection, village cama…

> I will acknowledge industrialization improved people's access to wealth and materialism.

And reduced illness, increased education, increased access to better nutrition, increased lifespan, increased able lifespan (knees/back/teeth don’t give out as early), and lots more.

Like, even if I grant that this replaced human connection (and I’m not sure that’s true, nor am I sure if it is meaningfully true—access to water replaces thirst, too), some very substantial benefits were acquired in return.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#399

Post by hactually » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

onetimeusename wrote: post #390

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…

I was surprised to find that just as recently as 1970 the median age of first marriage for men was ~23 and ~21 for women.[1] The average age at first child birth for women in 1970 was ~22.[2] There was a change that took place in the late 70s it looks like, probably acquiring education, that started to pretty dramatically raise the age of first marriage and first childbirth. So for me this was realizing that there wa…

house prices

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#400

Post by Gibbon1 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

conductr wrote: post #245

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…

This is a real thought process people are contending with. There's also just the simple fact that kids are liabilities more so than assets. That's not been the case through most of human civilization. I wouldn't limit it to economics either. Socially children are restricting. If you want to be free to travel, move, leave the house on a whim, etc. then kids will interrupt your plans/logistics.

You bring up assets. I think per-industrial economies the majority of couples have no ability to gain modern assets. Things like land and infrastructure was locked down. Unless you wanted to try to take stuff by force you were SOL. So only thing you could do is have a lot of children whose value was performing labor. Only encouraged by a high childhood mortality rate.

Switch to an industrial society. Having children to do raw physical labor competes directly with tractors and a backhoes. But you can acquire other assets and put more resources in upscaling children through education. And wage work means you can send wives and daughters out to make money.

I think it usually takes a society one or two generations to figure that out and act accordingly.

Adding a thing I harp on. Malthusian limits traditionally is thought to apply to just food and disease. But you can extended that to an industrial wage based economy and the resource restrictions still apply just not to food and disease. Industrialization probably results in structural population overshoot.