Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#101

Post by [deleted] »

olalonde wrote: post #82
myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

In my opinion, it mostly comes down to contraception and changing lifestyle choices. Most child-free people I know simply prefer not to have kids. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few decades, the dominant concern swings back toward "overpopulation" as major advances significantly slow or reverse aging.

[deleted]

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#103

Post by amanaplanacanal »

myrmidon wrote: post #8
GiorgioG wrote: post #2

Maybe if young folks could afford housing they'd have kids...there's a thought.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

I'm not going to find sources right now, but from my understanding the research shows that the greatest impact on number of children is education of girls. Once women have more options, staying home their whole life popping out babies seems less desirable.

There will no doubt be a push by some of the most conservative idiots to stop educating girls.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#104

Post by wcoenen »

GiorgioG wrote: post #2

Maybe if young folks could afford housing they'd have kids...there's a thought.

This comes up in every discussion about demographics. But counterintuitively, there are no examples of financial incentives actually fixing this problem.

For example, in 2022 Hungary was spending 6.2% of GDP on such incentives[1], but this only managed to bring total fertility rate up to about 1.6 [2].

It is the same everywhere else. The real reason fertility has declined since the sixties is because people have access to effective birth control. Nobody wants to be a baby factory.

[1] https://abouthungary.hu/news-in-brief/hungary-to-spend-6-2-o...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/hun/hun...

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#105

Post by arcologies1985 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55
nradov wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the hype cycle around humanoid robots it's unlikely that they'll advance enough to be capable of replacing many human workers in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities within our lifetimes. Expect to see lots of really sad stories about elder abuse and neglect because as a society we simply won't have the resources to adequately care for them all.

They don’t have to. If say robotaxis become widespread, you’ve freed up some portion of the labor market to do something else. They don’t have to automate all jobs, just some.

The evidence has shown that this thinking is flawed - disruption of jobs in an industry causes a slow, wrenching, scarring adjustment process that increases the load on welfare programs and makes quality of life broadly worse: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/g-s1-47352/why-economists-got...

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#106

Post by izzydata »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #69
queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

The growing population of economically non-productive people requires a growing population of economically productive people to support them. At some point, you could take 100% of the output of the productive people and it would still not be enough to support retirees et al. At the limit, not growing the productive population puts younger generations in a position of existing solely for the purpose of serving the non…

But infinite population growth is unsustainable so it had to come to an equilibrium eventually. Maybe we overshot the maximum comfortable population by a bit and we are going to rebound for awhile.

Also an economy that requires an infinitely growing population feels like a pyramid scheme which is also an unsustainable system.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#107

Post by b0rtb0rt »

jdlyga wrote: post #68

Once you have a kid, it's obvious why even besides the costs involved. There's not much sense of community, particularly in the white middle class. People are very individualistic and distrusting of others. There's a good reason for some of this, but to have a community you need to be a community member. And that means letting people in, trusting others and being trustworthy, and being out for the group instead of ju…

this really depends on where you live. i’m in an extremely safe family oriented suburb, there’s lot of community, kids have freedom to go outside, good friends with lots of neighbors and parents, my social life is busier than it was when i didn’t have kids.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#108

Post by reducesuffering »

queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

I think people really fail to understand the gravity of an inverted demographic pyramid, going from 2 young people supporting 1 old, to 1 young person supporting 2 old. That's .5 -> 2x, a 4x increase in burden (taxes / extra work).

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#110

Post by dh2022 »

daymanstep wrote: post #41
myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

I can't agree with you enough. I am so sick and tired of the cost of living argument. Back in the 1800s people were living in tiny cramped places and having 5-6 kids while barely able to afford necessities.

See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46960624#46961124
Post reply on HN