Live data from Hacker News

The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

vox.com

131–134 of 134 posts

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps turning men into non toxic soy boys who salivate at being feminist activists will turn America into utopia for all. You don't deserve to be part of this discussion throwing around these phrases. This is why you are being downvoted. You contribute no value. You make the conversation worse through your participation.

I was being a dick there, I admit it. Just a subject that I am passionate about. But the thread did spiral into something else. Sometimes you just throw shit and see what sticks.

Sometimes you do, but please resist the temptation to do it here. We're trying for a higher quality of discussion than is prevalent on the rest of the internet, and for that to work, we need users like you on board.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#132
post #27

I'm not sure I completely agree with the economic argument, particularly because birth rates and wealthiness tend to move in opposite directions and because a comparative analysis doesn't show that strong welfare states which protect a person's income, income stability and alleviate all the costs of being a parent, don't show strong birth rates either. It feels like getting children is still very much a choice, but t…

In regards to your conclusion, I'm not sure this is really entirely true. While Japan is a disaster right now, their situation (by my understanding) was made massively worse through bad economic choices when their economy first started slowing down. Germany and South Korea are two examples of extremely robust economies that have had terrifically low birth rates for a long time now, Germany has had fairly high levels…

I'm not so much referring to the economy right now necessarily. That will be affected, but the population pyramid is just one of many other factors, it's not a great proxy for the long-term sustainability of the welfare state and the burdens on young and middle-aged people in 30 years from now.

Anyway, Japan and Korea really aren't comparable. Just look at their pyramids.

Starting with the 64+ population, grew in Japan from 5% to 26%. Further, it's not just children (In short, old:working age went from 1:13 to 1:2 (rounded off).

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/j...

South Korea is in a very different stage. Its 64+ population only went from 3% to 13%. Meanwhile its working population from 15-64 didn't drop like in Japan but went up from 53% to 73%. If anything, Korea is in an amazing position right now and has been for some time. It's only now levelling off and going the other direction.

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population-structure/s...

In short, old:working age went from 1:18 to 1:6 (rounded off). For every old person in Japan, Korea has 3 times as many working age people. And that puts a lot of pressure on the tax base, even if the economy is doing well, a greater share of production is redistributed away from young and working people to old and not working people. In a country where one young person has to produce as much wealth for himself and one old person, as another country where two young people can share that burden, there's a difference in pressure and sustainability of the welfare state.

Fact of the matter is that Japan is running a deficit on its social security system. You either need to raise taxes or expect welfare state retrenchment (which has happened in most developed countries over the past 30-40 years in large parts anyway). You can only raise taxes so much (Laffer curve). It's typically deemed as inevitable that Japan's welfare state will retrench unless it accepts immigration or technology rapidly does away with humans. I don't see either of these happening in the next few decades, so young people pay to support a system today that they're likely not going to enjoy to the same degree in the future.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#133

As a 24 year old married man sitting in the nursery with my premature son, I feel truly sad that more people cannot experience this. I don't have a house, I rent my apartment, we share a car and we both (were) working. So what? Time marches on. So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. And yet people complain of indulgence and a lack of meaning?…

So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. Ah, the ol' "kids give my life meaning, how can anyone live a life without meaning?" trope. Hey, more power to you, but spreading DNA around isn't the only road to a meaningful life. Your false choice of "have kids, or live a life of hedonism" strikes me as the argument of the religious zealot. Speaking o…

I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot and invoking Jesus as an example of someone who proves my ignorance. Presumably if the point is that Jesus had a meaningful life without having children, that I would relate to the Jesus example. I am an atheist, no one told me to have kids, but I'm glad I did. Jesus can do whatever he wants, I am pro personal freedom, and pro kid-having (clearly).

In terms of being a zealot in general, there are few things harder to counter-argue as adaptable than having children. Certainly it doesn't make sense for the majority of people to have kids in the context they are in, but it's very hard to against having kids period. It's an old thing because it is in many cases true in practice. So it's hard to counter-argue on the basis that we are monkeys on a rock who should know better, when we don't, and never will. Because eventually, everyone exists because someone had kids, and so on.

There is a significant relativity to meaning. It's not that having kids is a binary (meaning vs. no meaning). It's that for me, I feel, and others, it's that having kids is a step function in what meaning is. The first time you work and have that feeling of contributing, that's very meaningful. Having a kid is like that times 100. So kids are impactful on meaning in a relative, as opposed to binary sense. Very meaningful, relative to other meaningful things. And certainly relative to meaningless things.

So I think almost all of history too much emphasis has been placed on kid having. But among this community (Western Liberals?), kid having has a bad rep, for mostly bad reasons, that will almost definitely turn out be a failed social experiment (or else, this community as it exists will just stop existing and be replaced by children of those who chose to have them, in whatever form that takes, better or worse). The point isn't, everyone should have kids, at all. The point is, it's meaningful, and you don't need a house, two cars or two incomes to make it sustainable. That in fact, the struggle and financial impact may be worth it in the end.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. Ah, the ol' "kids give my life meaning, how can anyone live a life without meaning?" trope. Hey, more power to you, but spreading DNA around isn't the only road to a meaningful life. Your false choice of "have kids, or live a life of hedonism" strikes me as the argument of the religious zealot. Speaking o…

I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot and invoking Jesus as an example of someone who proves my ignorance. Presumably if the point is that Jesus had a meaningful life without having children, that I would relate to the Jesus example. I am an atheist, no one told me to have kids, but I'm glad I did. Jesus can do whatever he wants, I am pro person…

I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot

I did no such thing, but I'll allow that perhaps English is a second language for you and analogies might not come across as well as I'd like.

Post reply on HN