India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#431

Post by saintvlad » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:58 PM UTC

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.

> Women change their entire bodies, sacrifice years of their lives, and go through considerable stress to have a baby.

"Humans extinct, women most affected"

Pretty amusing how it's always framed as some terrible burden on women to justify more gibs. As if they aren't also the beneficiaries of society thriving and men never make any sacrifices for society. Or that, well, women also "benefit" from reproducing in the Darwinian sense.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#432

Post by shimman » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:59 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #388

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 really the message of Abundance . If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30. To do that, you cannot have supply constrained zero-sum shortage anywhere in society. It means that the cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment so people can just save up and buy o…

No, that is you are reading into what abundance is. Abundance is mostly neoliberal economic ideas repackaged for the current iteration of consultants where workers are entirely excluded from the processes, unions are the enemy, and regulation is actually evil this time (pinky swear this time!).

Thank fuck voters aren't buying this garbage.

I also find your retort equally misleading. Social housing is a solved issue. The problem is that we are letting greedy developers dictate the type of housing to be built. Kinda what the book abundance never mentions, who actually are the ones with power and how they are wielding it to thwart progress.

Blaming democratic societies is even more frankly bizarre too. America has always been deeply antidemocratic and has thwarted the will of the people at every opportunity of progress (every delegate voted against the bill of rights when first mentioned (took a threat of violence to add it), labor rights, ending slavery, universal suffrage); the problem has always been authoritarians against the people.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#433

Post by saintvlad » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 9:59 PM UTC

none2585 wrote: post #306

bluescrn wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unironically why care if this species continues?

That's the neat part! You don't have to care. It will either way. But it's not looking great for liberalism (and that's good thing).

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#434

Post by joe_mamba » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:00 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #408

niemandhier wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the idea floating around in Europe, to nullify people’s student debts if they have children. So two kids during university would mean even the measly amount you have to pay back for an European subsided degree would be gone. I do hope that will be put into effect. I also believe that this will be better for gender equality than all the other measures taken so far. I was in too many meetings, where the CV of…

> was in too many meetings, where the CV of a young woman was critically evaluated for her propensity to get pregnant as soon as the probationary period was over When was this? In much of Europe that's been illegal employment discrimination for decades. But I suppose employers are less worried if they can be confident that it's unlikely that any of their employees will have children.

>When was this? In much of Europe that's been illegal employment discrimination for decades.

Happens all the time in Austria. If you're a woman in your mid 20s to mid 30s, and employer will assume you'll get pregnant soon and go on childcare leave, so they'll pick other candidates if they can. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Illegal things happen ALL THE TIME, and perps get away with it when there's no enforcement or the plaintiff doesn't have enough proof, time or money to fight said injustice. For example, on my street it's illegal to drive over 30kph, and yet half the cars that drive by go over 45 simply because there's no law enforcement nearby to catch them and fine them. If there's no enforcement with direct consequences at scale, then a law is virtually useless.

For an employer to get into legal trouble over pregnancy or racial or nationality discrimination with government authorities, that means the candidate would need to know upfront and have proof that they were discriminated against over those immutable characteristics, which is rarely the case as everyone just gets the same copy-paste legally safe rejection email from HR: "we regret to inform you that you didn't make the final cut because candidates with better experience/qualifications bla bla bla" and that's where it ends. You will never know what they discussed in private.

But that's not the reason women have few kids here. The reason is mostly cultural and environmental.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#435

Post by shimman » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:01 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #376

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.

It's worth remembering that schools in American farming regions would shut down during planting and harvest seasons just 100 years ago. Large families were your source of farm labor.

Reminder that universal public high school education wasn't obtained in the US until the 1940s.

Large families were your source of labor because you never given a chance to make a better life for yourself.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#436

Post by croisillon » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #302

fangorn wrote: post #289

FT's "Why birth rates are falling everywhere all at once" was published, and discussed, recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48168928 https://www.ft.com/content/fba35eca-df3a-4ad6-b42d-eb08eb7c9... https://archive.is/6VpWy Spoiler: smartphones, social media, housing.

Also it’s not ok anymore to rape/get married to 13yo girls. And now with a smartphone every girl knows that it is not ok.

[flagged]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#437

Post by jrmg » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:02 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #388

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 really the message of Abundance . If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30. To do that, you cannot have supply constrained zero-sum shortage anywhere in society. It means that the cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment so people can just save up and buy o…

This is really the message of Abundance.

I both liked Abundance and think there’s truth to what you’re saying.

But it wasn’t what I took away from the book (perhaps it was in there - but what I really got was ‘for a better future we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot, and be prepared to enthusiastically think of and promote the greater good rather than protecting every single valuable individual thing’)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#438

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:03 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/

Your source doesn't contradict the fact that women's fertility has a sharper and earlier cliff than men's. It doesn't even use the same age brackets for men and women. It compares men age over 45 against men age under 25, whereas for women the study compared those age > 35 vs age Even above age 35, 85% of men are able to conceive within 12 months: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11026002/

Like it or not, fertility decline is substantially different between the sexes.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#439

Post by nercht12 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

nercht12 wrote: post #358

The problem with society is that people are commonly selfish, so the majority of people only do things that benefit them. Children benefited ancient societies. The problem with industrialized societies is that people lost all markers of adulthood. Everything became about worshiping convenience, and once convenience (for short-term pleasure) became "god", people wanted to avoid things they saw as unnecessarily difficu…

The downvotes explain why the world is declining in population. Most people fail to see this is the problem.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#440

Post by rluna828 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 10:07 PM UTC

thanhhaimai wrote: post #401

onetimeusename wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In 1970, a single minimum wage income can raise a family and save up for extra. In 2026, a single minimum wage income can barely survive by themselves with no saving in most part of the US.

as professional with a professional salary, wages are not enough. we need abundant housing. Imagine taking a year or two dedicate to helping your mate through pregnancy and early childcare? Or, taking a year or two get your dating life in order. This second one might be important in city with bad traffic or for demanding jobs. This is not possible right now for 99% of people because housing is too expensive.