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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#611

Post by zbentley »

nashashmi wrote: post #588
zbentley wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The theory that improved health and safety and lifespan will shrink the urge to procreate is so far fetched I find it hard to imagine. The longer you live, the more likely you seek connection. It would be easier to imagine that long lifespan and better health makes people less attached to their spouse.

> improved health and safety and lifespan will shrink the urge to procreate

Not what I said at all. Note the “even if I grant … (which I don’t…)”.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#612

Post by int_19h »

gradstudent wrote: post #523
jiggawatts wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in my fourties’ unable to afford a three bedroom apartment in my city with an income in the top two or three percentile. I’ve had boomers tell me with a straight face that “they did it” so it can’t be that hard despite a 5x increase in housing costs relative to income. I’d have to spend every single post tax dollar for two decades to afford an actual house. Not counting interest and other taxes and council rates.…

> nice house in a nice suburb! There's your problem. Everyone wants to live in the same set of well established well resourced neighbourhoods. But there's too many of us. Go out in the 'burbs and accept that owning a house implies a commute you will dislike (among a host of other compromises).

It's everyone's problem if the end result is that there aren't enough children to replenish the population.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#613

Post by thewhitetulip »

madhacker wrote: post #428

Less children less taxing on the planet. Not everyone needs a replacement copy of themselves. The world population in 2026 is approximately 8.3 billion people. It is projected to continue growing, reaching around 10 billion by 2060.

Especially when in India individual tax payers pay more % of overall tax collection than corporates since the recent tax cut of corporate tax 12yrs ago

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#614

Post by HaloZero »

accurrent wrote: post #553
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…

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…

My understanding of Singapore work culture though is it's intense and competitive. Yes the housing is cheaper and more accessible but it's the same age to get there (maybe a bit earlier). You aren't "economically secure" earlier in life than in Western countries. I don't know enough Vienna's system to speak for it.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#615

Post by thewhitetulip »

matchbok3 wrote: post #582
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…

Extended period? How about 5 years? 15? 25? There is literally nothing in the world that compares to the joy of having a large, loving, family that you helped create. The day-by-day crying or trivial complaints that you are so short-sighted about simply don't matter. I encourage you to talk to some happy families.

Basic statistics, common sense and dire poverty would dictate that there will be a sizable number of unhappy families.

If you're surrounded by only happy families then you're privileged.

I've seen families where husbands come home drunk and best the wives (in 2026)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#616

Post by int_19h »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #400
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.

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…

This entire blog post series is well worth a read:

https://acoup.blog/2025/08/22/collections-life-work-death-an...

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#617

Post by functionmouse »

guyzero wrote: post #542
dyauspitr wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading about it in books and watching anime won’t prevent them from going functionally extinct in less than 200 years.

No one cares. Japanese culture today is nothing like it was 200 years ago.

I care

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#618

Post by iamnothere »

ianm218 wrote: post #157
pelotron wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With renewables and nuclear we have basically unlimited energy, which can solve a lot of resource related issues. What are you concerned we would run out of?

Topsoil (the oncoming train nobody has noticed yet)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#620

Post by int_19h »

m_fayer wrote: post #309
submain wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We need a whole new generation of fertility medicine aimed not just at conception but the rest of it as well.

What we need is uterine replicators.
Post reply on HN