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

The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

econofact.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 286 posts

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#111

Post by nelox »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #25
CalRobert wrote: post #10

Hopefully we can do this for the species as a whole and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population.

It's game theory the same as pollution. "We" can do whatever we want but if not "everyone" is doing it then the impact is fairly limited. You would be better off having children and just consuming less than making a grave decision that impacts your whole family tree for the sake of a Humanity collective that likely will not be making the same "sacrifice".

Er … for those potential parents already living at the economic margins, where having a child would be a demonstrably poor decision, then just having children and consuming less would help them or their children how?

Indeed, who is to say that the perpetuation of one’s family tree is at all desirable or necessary?

Maybe the best outcome is not to play the game at all.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#112

Post by pjc50 »

tombert wrote: post #106
lynx23 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I hear "wedding" I wonder why the male is going for that risk. The obvious unfairness and non-equality during a divorce is the main reason why I never would get married. Its just illogical to put yourself that much at risk.

I mean, disregarding "love" and whatnot, at least in the US, there are lots of bureaucratic benefits to it. I'm not religious or anything, so a wedding in itself doesn't mean a lot to me, but my wife and I got married in no small part so we could share health insurance, help with her immigration, and lower our tax burden. I don't regret the marriage, I trust my wife, and we've been pretty happy for the last eight yea…

People forget all the reasons gay marriage had to be fought for; no matter how solid a relationship is, the external privileges of having that status recognized matter.

(Also, few of the posters in this subthread are looking at the woman's side of the game theory)

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#113

Post by tonyedgecombe »

crooked-v wrote: post #61
throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

I feel like real estate prices outweigh a lot of other factors entirely because real estate costs in places people would prefer to live are an order of magnitude higher than they were even a generation ago after accounting for inflation, and where people live determines an immense number of other factors. Of course, it will be hard to fix that unless we can get people to realize the problem is fundamentally a literal…

Japan has a similar problem but my understanding is house prices are much more reasonable there.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#114

Post by christophilus »

knallfrosch wrote: post #40
bboygravity wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also "the economy improved" doesn't mean that people could afford a house or kids. It could just as well mean that companies and the 1 percent got way richer.

That's what 2,000 people tell Paul Krugman every time he tells them 'the economy is fine' in his New York Times column. It's quite entertaining to watch, altough troubling. He's smart, he gets a lot of direct feedback, and yet he doesn't understand it at all. Put simply, the economy isn't "working" when people can afford less food by the month, renting gets harder by the week, used cars are double as expensive, new c…

I agree with everything you say, but technically it's about as easy for me to build a house today as it was for my grandpa (who built his own house in the 40s). At least, it is if I get to ignore regulations.

It requires being very frugal, moving to a low cost of living area, taking a lot of time, manual labor, and getting help from friends. Also, you have to live in 3rd world conditions for quite a while.

At least, that's what my grandpa did. I know a few folks-- who are quite poor-- who have done it in the past 10 years. But maybe 0.01% of the population is willing to do anything like it. I know I'm not.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#115

Post by marvin »

red_admiral wrote: post #46
throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

* (sociologic) fear of climate change (will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time) or commitment to make a small positive impact on climate change by not having kids I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") but it's definitely a sentiment I've encountered.

For most people who say this, it’s just a rationalization.

Acknowledging that kids are infeasible for economic reasons, like GP laid out, is just too painful and embarrassing. So the ‘environment’ fig leaf saves their dignity.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#116

Post by loxs »

pjc50 wrote: post #112
tombert wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, disregarding "love" and whatnot, at least in the US, there are lots of bureaucratic benefits to it. I'm not religious or anything, so a wedding in itself doesn't mean a lot to me, but my wife and I got married in no small part so we could share health insurance, help with her immigration, and lower our tax burden. I don't regret the marriage, I trust my wife, and we've been pretty happy for the last eight yea…

People forget all the reasons gay marriage had to be fought for; no matter how solid a relationship is, the external privileges of having that status recognized matter. (Also, few of the posters in this subthread are looking at the woman's side of the game theory)

Yeah, because these incentives matter for the fertility :)

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#117

Post by [deleted] »

mschuster91 wrote: post #105
pjc50 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK's "no child benefit for children beyond the second" is a clear policy signal as to what the government wants.

The UK's government is, frankly, gone nuts . They complain about no one picking fruits from fields and empty supermarket shelves, they don't want immigration, they don't want population growth, and they don't want imports from the EU. All of that doesn't add up even in the slightest to anything that makes sense.

[deleted]

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#118

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

samwillis wrote: post #88
pjc50 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK's "no child benefit for children beyond the second" is a clear policy signal as to what the government wants.

I honestly don't get it, but I'm not an economist so I may be wrong. Pensioners cost the state a lot, and in my naive understanding population growth - so more tax payers - has funded that for the last 100 years. Declining birth rates, and reducing immigration, reduces proportional tax income and therefor smaller pot for pensions and healthcare. But as I said, not an economist.

This is why the UK is talking about getting retired people back into work. And is well on its way to ending pensions altogether.

The age at which pensions are paid out has been creeping upwards and is now heading towards 70. What should have happened is that pension payments were ring-fenced, but of course government finances don't work like that.

Most pensioners vote Tory, so the government is literally robbing its own base.

And most haven't realised it.

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#119

Post by pjc50 »

knallfrosch wrote: post #59
richeyryan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's helping Germany offset an ageing population and declining economic productivity. If age distribution in your population is becoming unbalanced and you can't encourage the current residents to increase the birth rate, what other option is there? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/migration-drives-german...

What good is a population high when the new people aren't net contributors to the economy?

Ironically, immigrants are usually net contributors (not eligible for welfare, have to work) while children are not (until they reach the age of majority).

Re: The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007

#120

Post by j7ake »

usui wrote: post #109
madaxe_again wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a really fundamental socio-economic change that nobody has touched upon here yet, as it’s such a slow one with such inertia it’s barely noticeable from the ground. Having children used to be a profitable enterprise. You’d get married, bang them out one after another, hope that a decent number survived, raised them cheaply, and put them to work as soon as they were able. Once, and if, they were grown, they wou…

> Once, and if, they were grown, they would then be part of your family enterprise, be it subsistence farming, cobbling, scrivening, or lording, and would add value. > Now, having a child is a definite cost centre for the individual, for the family. I get what you're saying, but I mean nowadays it's not like they grow up as a purely sunk cost... A fairly-average-in-all-industrious-matters child will get a job and mak…

That kid though will want to have their own family, and on goes the cycle.
Post reply on HN