India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#841

Post by oliwarner » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:43 PM UTC

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 not just about fun. We are beaten into believing we need an education, a career, a home, stability before we have children.

We're having kids in our 40s when our parents started in their 20s. We're naturally less able to have as many because menopause kicks in.

There are no easy answers here. Younger pregnancy limits education and careers.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#842

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:44 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #66

calepayson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shot in the dark but my sense is that a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens. I feel pretty confident that ai will eventually be a large driver of growth but I do worry about whether it'll come soon enough.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

I think it means, for example, the stock market collapses if there's no more growth, that means everyone loses their pension fund, and may try to save more to compensate, that means no more consumption and no more economy (paradox of thrift). It's a tall house of cards society rests upon.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#843

Post by jschveibinz » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:45 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 disrespect, but historical evidence does not support this argument. I've seen similar claims made in other threads.

Fertility rates have been decreasing (multiple factors) since 1850, even while general prosperity has been increasing. There is a connection between economic uncertainty and marriage/families over the short run. But the most likely causes of declining birth rates are cultural: modernization, freedom, female economic participation, contraception, later marriage or no marriage, etc.

The world has advanced, and the requirement to procreate has diminished. There is lower want/need from eligible individuals.

My parents had no money at all when they married and they were able to scrape together enough to raise three children.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#844

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:45 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #106

happytoexplain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

Here is what it actually means. When the economy is growing, investment makes sense. Why put your money under the mattress when it could be out there, working for you? When the reverse happens, investment stops making sense. Why risk your money when it becomes worth more while it is sitting under your mattress? But stopping investment does not just mean stopping speculative investment. It means stopping investment in…

I think I read several economic metrics are now worse than in the Great Depression, but I can't remember which ones. Probably something to do with energy prices.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#845

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:48 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #767

happytoexplain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

There is this thing called a zero lower bound. Then there is this thing called liquidity preference, which is basically the minimum fee someone accepts to part with liquidity. Add those two together and you will get a minimum positive return constraint on capital. Capital can only pay a return if it is fully utilized. This means there needs to be enough demand to saturate the machine. You can never have any form of e…

Is the zero lower bound still true? You have effectively negative returns on cash due to inflation (and infinitely negative returns if the economy breaks so hard we have to switch to a new currency) and physical capital depreciates too. There may be a zero nominal lower bound on cash but that doesn't mean anything due to inflation.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#846

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:49 PM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #444

happytoexplain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

> What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; It’s very simple. If you make $1M in profit in a year and the following year you also make $1M but inflation was 3%, you earned 3% less money than you did the year before. The nominal profit was the same but the real profit was lower. To earn the same re…

That's not actual growth though, that's just measuring the same business in a different unit worth 0.97 of the old unit. The business can be the same size.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#847

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:50 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #683

calepayson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly great question. I think of it as: I invest my wages to take advantage of compound interest. It’s kind of my only hope of having a family / owning a home / retiring. If stuff stops compounding, I’m fucked. Multiply by however many millions of people are on the same position. I don’t necessarily think the theories are making any assumption about what is good (except for the “greed is good dicks”)but more ackno…

There existed ways to build a family/home/retire before the financialization of everything - those ways still exist and still work, even if disadvantaged.

Do they? Is there a way to get land without buying it from someone who currently owns it? I'm totally fine with building supplies costing money since you can scale that from a tiny shack to a mansion (or a sleeping bag in the dirt) based on your wealth, but the price of the smallest parcel of land seems to be a lower bound on how much you can spend.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#848

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:55 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #128

marcuskaz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis of capitalism is on growth. How can you continue to grow revenue constantly if there aren't more people to buy products or use your services. Additionally tax revenue decreases as fewer people are working, so less government services and employment would be available. Schools is a good example, as there are less children, you need less schools and consolidate. So there are less jobs for teachers, now it loo…

e.g. how do you sell 100 million smartphones when the population is only 50 million, and can hardly afford to buy 1 (and certainly not more than 1)? this leads to layoffs how do phone shops like verizon or t-mobile stay open if people aren't buying? same for phone repair places? more layoffs more laid off people means less people going out to dinner, ordering pizza, taking trips, buying new cars. those businesses clo…

So, the economy of scale is still there whether the finances are there or not. If I make 10 pizzas for me and all my friends, Bob fixes all our bikes, Carol goes to fetch water from the well, Dave tends the sheep, etc... All 10 of us are doing our own little economy without money and benefitting from it. What I'm trying to say is there can still be people selling pizza in a collapsed financial system, if we can somehow trust each other to deliver (which is what money does). Maybe we'll end up making our own currency.

All this relies on a basic subsistence right though, us all living in harmony on some commune. If the housing rental system remains in place and demands dollars even though no dollars are available to be gotten, then our landlord is probably going to choose to escalate to violence and won't take pizzas as payment. If the government is going to mandate rent payment in dollars without actually making any dollars available, we have a problem.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#849

Post by ilovecake1984 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #843

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…

No disrespect, but historical evidence does not support this argument. I've seen similar claims made in other threads. Fertility rates have been decreasing (multiple factors) since 1850, even while general prosperity has been increasing. There is a connection between economic uncertainty and marriage/families over the short run. But the most likely causes of declining birth rates are cultural: modernization, freedom,…

You are missing a major driver of this. The main reason fertility rates have been decreasing is because of decreasing infant mortality. The number of children surviving to adulthood has been relatively stable until recently.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#850

Post by trumpdong » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 1:00 PM UTC

illiac786 wrote: post #703

i_idiot wrote: post #8

What's the strong case against population dwindling other than supporting aging population? Given the AI armageddon, it just makes sense to reduce the population. If there's less population, we need less production and less workers. Of course, countries have to deal with oldest population for a brief period of time.

I think you’re missing the point, you’re assuming this brief moment will stop. Why would population stop declining?

sex feels good and you need a certain minimum amount of civilization to manufacture condoms