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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#551

Post by linkregister »

broken-kebab wrote: post #494
scoofy wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's 2026 now and we know for sure that applying purely economic stimuli did nothing substantial to birthrate anywhere. FWIW kids of rich parents do not procreate somehow better even if they are not constrained by housing market.

Early childhood public spending as a percentage of GDP has a strong positive correlation with fertility. That is, among nations that have already experienced the fertility drop associated with women's employment.

1. The Economics of Fertility: A New Era, p50, https://www.nber.org/papers/w29948

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#552

Post by smallmancontrov »

stego-tech wrote: post #547
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…

It’s a valid theory, and I certainly think it’s a contributor, but I would also argue that the “boom” years of fertility in modernity have been tied to periods of widespread benefit for most, if not all. When prospective parents and grandparents see the potential for a brighter future, there’s more societal pressure to have kids because their success will naturally boost your own. Then when the vice starts tightening…

"But we gave 1000 lucky participants $3.50 and a used bubblegum wrapper to share between them and it didn't measurably affect their marginal propensity to have children at all! Extractive economics couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fertility crisis!"

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#553

Post by accurrent »

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…

I agree that affordable housing is crucial, but the idea that this is 'impossible in a democratic society' ignores global realities. Several democracies heavily subsidize housing—look at Vienna's social housing model or Singapore's HDB system. Yet, this has not solved the birthrate problem; Singapore’s fertility rate recently hit a record low of 0.87.

Ironically, the highest birth rates globally occur where economic security is non-existent, a state of living none of us want to return to. What is truly worrisome about a country like India is that it is facing sub-replacement fertility before fully industrializing. In states with highly unique identities like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the native population has already fallen well below the 2.1 replacement mark. While internal migration from higher-fertility northern states fills the gap, it creates significant political and cultural friction.

In developed countries, the state can at least leverage accumulated wealth to bankroll healthcare and social services required by a rapidly aging population. In a developing nation like India, they risk growing old before they grow rich, leaving an aging population without the robust safety nets or fiscal runway of the West- we might even see the country slide backwards into sub-saharan African levels of poverty

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#554

Post by b65e8bee43c2ed0 »

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.

the state hates, hates, HATES paying for children, to the point of occasionally forcing victims of rape, infidelity, or fraud to pay child support.

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05238.h...

>In October 2000, however, when appearing before a Family Court hearing examiner to answer Shondel's petition, Mark{*7 NY3d at 325} requested DNA testing. The hearing examiner ordered genetic marker tests, which revealed that Mark is not the child's biological father. The hearing examiner then dismissed Shondel's paternity petition, and Mark abandoned his petition for visitation, having severed his relationship with the child. Shondel objected to the hearing examiner's order, expressing doubts about the laboratory tests and stating that she would be able to show that Mark had always recognized the child as his. Realizing that the hearing examiner had exceeded her authority in dismissing Shondel's petition, Family Court sustained her objection and appointed a law guardian for the child.

>...

>Family Court entered an order of filiation and awarded child support retroactive to the date Shondel commenced the Family Court proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that "Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the subject child to equitably estop [Mark] from denying paternity" (6 AD3d 437 [2004]).[FN1] We agree, based on our precedents, the affirmed findings of fact and the legislative recognition of paternity by estoppel.

and that not just the US, Europe is equally batshit, with France in particular fucking banning paternity tests outright.

they aren't going to pay anything resembling a livable wage for child rearing. firstly, that defeats the purpose, secondly, it would be expensive as fuck.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#555

Post by zb3 »

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…

I'm so happy people are rejecting your masochism (assuming your comment is not sarcastic) and are not falling for this scam of suffering anymore.

> We need more bold people, people who aren't afraid to suffer because they see the light at the end of the road.

At "the end of the road" there's only death, so it's pointless to suffer just so you can make more people which will also suffer.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#556

Post by chrsw »

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…

It's not talked about more because it's very uncomfortable to talk about.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#557

Post by em-bee »

theshackleford wrote: post #540
em-bee wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but this comes from parents being expected to have their life figured out and not giving them any help. if we accept as normal that young parents will not have their life figured out then we will also make sure that we don't leave them alone but actually support them. i think this is especially extreme in the US where some parents tell their kids that at their 18th birthday they are on their own. that's an insane att…

I think you are correct, but not in a manner likely to happen. My parents had all the support they needed from their parents, but it wasn’t enough, their life was interrupted before they found their footing and they just never developed that footing once children were added to the mix. To your point though, maybe if there was more support of parents from society from a larger perspective, maybe it would have been dif…

ouch, i can't imagine the stress your parents must have been under that they lost control like that, or the pain you had to experience. i can somewhat sympathize. my dad had a rough temper too at times, but nowhere near what you describe. and we lived in germany where we got financial support from the government. not being able to pay rent is not a thing there. if that was all it took to set your parents off then this totally could have been prevented with a better welfare system.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#558

Post by gopher_space »

broken-kebab wrote: post #517
scoofy wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic stimulus does nothing about affordability of goods in a shortage. Quite the opposite, economic stimulus just causes inflation for goods in a shortage. Which is exactly what we’ve seen for 15 years.

It's a bit of evasion. If you support the claim that it's housing which keeps Western societies birthrate low, you building your theory on the same sand of "economy prevents youth from having kids".

I have a large extended family and we're fairly tight-knit. Lots of family gatherings each year. When questions like this pop up we can just ask the "kids" what they think (kind of a neat idea). Here's the top three replies from last Thanksgiving:

1) We can't afford it. 2) There isn't really a "dating scene" anymore. 3) I'm not starting a family in this country.

and that's the end of things because we either can't or won't address their concerns.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#559

Post by zb3 »

silexia wrote: post #355

The purpose of life is reproduction and having your own kids is the greatest joy in life. I am a very successful and wealthy entrepreneur who can do anything I wish with my time and I have done everything; travel, rock climbing, super cars, wine tasting, etc etc. Time with my kids is all that matters to me.

> The purpose of life is reproduction

There's no "purpose" of life, it just happens, it's physics.

> I am a very successful and wealthy entrepreneur

So now imagine you're not, and your life sucks because of such "successful and wealthy entrepreneurs" sucking all the wealth.

If your life is shit, you naturally don't want to make it even shittier just so you can produce people whose life will also be shit (thanks to the class society). Since we stopped forcing people to do this, they're naturally excercising their will.

But your wealth depends on them reproducing, so that's a nice middle finger they gave you by not doing so. You're concerned? You should be, that's the message.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#560

Post by SoftTalker »

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.

> In 1970, a single minimum wage income can raise a family and save up for extra

Absolutely not true. Minimum wage has never been sufficient to raise a family. It is (was) sufficient to keep one person out of poverty.

Post reply on HN