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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#471

Post by trumpdong »

alehlopeh wrote: post #456
rluna828 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some mathematicians ran some numbers and diferent societies have different lowlying fruit. None of his improvements get societies to 2.1, but will theoretically move them to ~1.8. I'll find the source if people ask. 1. End toxic masculinity (machismo) in middle east and LatAM. No woman who knows how to read want to beaten or enslaved. 2. Jobs and Housing: Europe and America respectively. More three bed-room houses wo…

How is machismo causing women in Latin America to not know how to read? And which ones are enslaved exactly? This is a ridiculous assertion.

They said women who can read don't like machismo.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#472

Post by trumpdong »

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…

> in the late 70s

As usual...

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#473

Post by blockmarker »

scbrg wrote: post #394
g3f32r wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

On one hand we have propaganda not even a century old, only possible by the invention of birth control, the creation of tv, radio and newspapers, which itself required the invention of many things such as communications faster than horseback, the existence of strong centralized states which guarantee welfare to the elderly even if they don't have children to maintain it, and technological advances and social changes which make children an expense instead of an economic asset. And this propaganda leads to societies slowly economically collapse and their populations go extinct.

On the other hand, we have the "propaganda" which has existed for thousands if not millions of years, needed no technological, scientific or economic advances to exist, and the societies that followed it grew and made all the advances required for the other.

Of the two, I know which seems to be truer and more natural.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#474

Post by thewebguyd »

em-bee wrote: post #266
thewebguyd wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah the career thing is huge, and also just a general lack of flexibility at a lot of companies. Expectations to be in-office, butt in chair for 8 hours a day, etc.

When you have kids, you need the freedom to just get up and leave at any time to respond to things. School calls cause your kid is sick, emergencies, you name it. You gotta be there and be available for them, and we need a culture to where that doesn't become damaging to your career, and enough worker protections in place to where you cannot face disciplinary action for that.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#475

Post by trumpdong »

happytoexplain wrote: post #273
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…

Yes, absolutely. I agreed with the parent too, but I think your explanation is not as different as it seems. I think your framing is just more direct and correct. However, one big caveat: "If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family" What you're saying is more relevant to the state of already-developed nations, that are now all in a slow decline. Not so much to newly developed na…

I think the "entitlement" argument can be easily refuted by telling your interlocutor they're not entitled to you having children, and if they want America to have a million more children they should have them themselves.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#476

Post by trumpdong »

autoexec wrote: post #415
pjc50 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget that there's been a multi generational messaging of preventing women from having kids without economic security; this used to be done by the parents rejecting marriages that didn't bring enough dowry and extreme punishment for extra-marital relationships. Now contraception has decoupled these things. You can have the relationship you want, and put off children until "sufficient" economic conditions have…

> People forget that there's been a multi generational messaging of preventing women from having kids without economic security I think it's probably a wise thing to advise against having children you can't afford to take care of. I don't think it was something that was explicitly hammered into me or my peers growing up, but we all saw enough examples of kids being raised in poverty to know that we wanted something b…

The framing as such makes a systemic issue into an individual one. If you can't afford children don't have one... until everyone can't afford them at the same time, then there are none and that civilization dies out.

(Even when it's not affecting everyone at the same time, isn't it a form of eugenics? Who decides which individuals can afford children? It's not the individuals.)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#477

Post by trumpdong »

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.

Happens in Germany. As long as she can't prove it, she can't win a suit.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#478

Post by em-bee »

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 are several comments here contradicting you directly and talking about how kids are a great experience.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#479

Post by trumpdong »

hamdingers wrote: post #280
submain wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While none of this is wrong, men are also choosing not to have babies, which points to a broader root cause.

[dead]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#480

Post by em-bee »

mrguyorama wrote: post #381
exitb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It just has to be a "Job" you get paid to do. People will absolutely sign up. The problem is that there will be far too many people wanting that job, so you have to filter somehow, and that's basically eugenics which isn't the most fun, so I guess you'd have to have a lottery and deal with the fact that like 10% of the population will constantly riot about someone who "doesn't deserve it" getting paid to raise kids.

there will be far too many people wanting that job

i don't think so. you can control it with how high the pay is, or only pay for the first two children or something like that...

Post reply on HN