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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#811

Post by zrn900 »

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…

> 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.

Or, as societies industrialize, life becomes more complex, time-consuming, and tiring than the simpler ways of life people were used to and able to manage...

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#812

Post by cnd78A »

a non popular theory: the more people become civilized (not using the traditional meaning) the less basic / animal they become. Animal are programmed to follow one goal : replicating one genes. Some (few) human manage to follow more elaborate (and less selfish) goals than replicating their genes.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#813

Post by dm270 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #795
ycombinete wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, my wife and I live away from family. On the weekends, when there is no nanny, we are at work 100% of the time with him. One's only downtime is when he naps, or when your partner is looking after him. Once we add a second child to that mix it'll be 100% of each of our time the entire time. It's pretty extreme. We both work full time (like most millennial families), so if we couldn't afford a nanny we literally co…

If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to think that two kids takes twice as much effort as one kid? People broadly agree that cost and effort both grow sublinearly. Especially effort, though it is of course much harder to quantify. But personally I suspect that even four kids (serially) may not cross the twice-as-much-effort threshold. Aging affects the amounts and types of effort required, too. Four kids in paralle…

Do you have two or more kids? I say it’s different. For people with more kids, a single child seems like a walk in the park. Because in the worst case at least one parent is "free". With two or more kids the default is being fully occupied or if one partner takes all of them for the other to have free time, it’s insanely draining and the other partner feels almost pressure to make the sacrifice worth it.

This of course being said about the situation without any parents around. The step from two to three is worse for car/transportation and hotel room but I think it’s not nearly as hard as from one to two.

What you also have to consider: You’re gonna have bad nights. With one kid only, it’s fine. You can recover. With two, you simple don’t have room for that. The bad nights will eat you up.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#814

Post by koolba »

chrismorgan wrote: post #795
ycombinete wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, my wife and I live away from family. On the weekends, when there is no nanny, we are at work 100% of the time with him. One's only downtime is when he naps, or when your partner is looking after him. Once we add a second child to that mix it'll be 100% of each of our time the entire time. It's pretty extreme. We both work full time (like most millennial families), so if we couldn't afford a nanny we literally co…

If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to think that two kids takes twice as much effort as one kid? People broadly agree that cost and effort both grow sublinearly. Especially effort, though it is of course much harder to quantify. But personally I suspect that even four kids (serially) may not cross the twice-as-much-effort threshold. Aging affects the amounts and types of effort required, too. Four kids in paralle…

Effort is definitely sub linear. And costs even more so.

Cooking for four kids clearly has more raw ingredients, but you also have more opportunity to buy them in bulk. The active cook time itself does not increase much either.

Hand me down clothing and books are all shared. The kids also help watch, teach, and entertain each other.

I feel sorry for children that grow up without siblings. But even more so for parents that that choose to not have any at all.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#815

Post by trumpdong »

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).

Why should it have to? Other countries build vertically in the urban cores. Many places in Europe even build small towns this way. One of the only good things about Europe is that I get to live really close to where I work, and not even have a commute.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#816

Post by trumpdong »

mullingitover wrote: post #532
trumpdong wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the late 70s As usual... https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Weird site, seems to completely ignore the oil shock and following grave errors with loose monetary policy. Goldbugs gonna goldbug I suppose. Anyway I'm sure the current oil shock and (assuming the clowns get their way) loose monetary policy will be different this time!

the website's concluding statement is obviously propaganda but all these effects are real. Something clearly happened in the 1970s.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#817

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…

You've also tangentially pointed out why wealth inequality is more detrimental to society than an absolute low level of wealth is.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#818

Post by trumpdong »

noosphr wrote: post #775
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'm going to get flagged to hell but 'we' do not. Women do. Men can happily wait till their 80s to have three children. We need to get over the fantasy that biology doesn't drive survival. If anyone is upset by that please help fund artificial womb research. There isn't nearly enough money in the space for the sole thing that can prevent human extinction at worst or soylent green at best.

Men's rate of having children with genetic defects rises with age, just not as sharply as women's.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#819

Post by globnomulous »

voiceofchoice wrote: post #251
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…

For the first time ever people can finally choose not to have kids. Is it really any surprise people would opt out? Go spend a day with kids and you'll see why people would rather not deal with the mess. Especially women who actually end up doing the majority of the work. Add to that the extinction level pressures like climate change and the absolute lack of any benefit whatsoever in being a parent, who is crazy enou…

My love for my daughter and my wife enrich my life and contribute more to my happiness than anything else, by far. As you wrote, the majority of the very, very hard work has fallen to my wife. I wouldn't fault any woman, or man, for not wanting it.

Still, my wife and I both feel that parenting is the best thing we've ever done or will ever do. It's everything I hoped it would be -- and much more besides. The benefits are innumerable for us.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#820

Post by trumpdong »

bluescrn wrote: post #277
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…

We're also teaching the younger generation imminent climate apocalypse is coming, and therefore bringing kids into this dying world would be cruel, or at best contributing to the problem. (And now there's also an AI apocalypse of some kind on the way even if the climate situation can be resolved/survived. And the ever-present threat of WW3 seems closer now than ever)

actually we've been closer to WW3 in the past. Remember that Russian false sensor that almost caused them to launch a nuclear first strike but the guy whose finger was on the button felt something was off?
Post reply on HN