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

US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 434 posts

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#231

Post by magduf »

sp527 wrote: post #89
confuseddesi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 .

I have to wonder if there's a dip around the upper middle/lower upper who, because of price discrimination on college costs and such must still be conservative, that then reverses course for the mid to upper upper, who have wealth in excess of any reasonable pattern of consumption and certainly more than enough to raise many children. I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head i…

Middle-class and upper-middle-class people generally do not have enough wealth to afford full-time live-in servants to take care of their kids for them. Having enough money for a somewhat fancy house isn't that rich, and kids don't just take money, they take a lot of time. Personally, I don't really want to sacrifice all my free time for the next 10 years or so.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#232

Post by xienze »

Analemma_ wrote: post #147
nostromo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap produce is awesome. :) But working people not being able to find jobs because they're competing with dirt-cheap no-benefit laborers is not. :(

Every time agriculture-heavy states crack down on illegal immigration, crops rot on the vine because nobody else wants those jobs, even in periods of high unemployment. Here's the story from Georgia, there are identical ones from the Southwest as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/crops-rot... . Your choice is not between illegal im…

Bullshit. If the pay is right, you will find plenty of people to pick produce. But in a world where people expect $15/hour for work that is leisurely in comparison (fast food), paying that much for hard labor ain’t gonna cut it.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#233

Post by dv_dt »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #127
dv_dt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're thinking of the historical details to say that in such a blase manner. The path to integration went through periods much more violent and contentious than anything we see today.

I'm aware of how immigrants were treated back then and I'm not condoning it. That still doesn't change the fact that they came from cultures that IMO were quite compatible with the USAs considering their common origin and values. I think the current situation in Europe, and other instances of mass migration in history, demonstrate that not all cultures are compatible with each other

Like Cubans after the revolution, or Iranians after their revolution, or maybe the mass of Vietnamese after the war? What actual cultures are you saying are incompatible? America has worked with them all and despite hand-wringing over "compatibility". There is a much stronger case to be made human beings are humans in the end and that it just takes time.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#234

Post by hueving »

sp527 wrote: post #89
confuseddesi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, the richer someone is, the less likely they are to have as many children. See https://www.economist.com/node/21561112 .

I have to wonder if there's a dip around the upper middle/lower upper who, because of price discrimination on college costs and such must still be conservative, that then reverses course for the mid to upper upper, who have wealth in excess of any reasonable pattern of consumption and certainly more than enough to raise many children. I know that my plan is two max at the moment strictly because total cost per head i…

>(including total private college costs

If your kids are too stupid to get tuition assistance, private college isn't going to do any more good for them than a regular local uni.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#235

Post by tropo »

Analemma_ wrote: post #147
nostromo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap produce is awesome. :) But working people not being able to find jobs because they're competing with dirt-cheap no-benefit laborers is not. :(

Every time agriculture-heavy states crack down on illegal immigration, crops rot on the vine because nobody else wants those jobs, even in periods of high unemployment. Here's the story from Georgia, there are identical ones from the Southwest as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/crops-rot... . Your choice is not between illegal im…

Sometimes "nobody doing it" is the correct answer. It might not be economically viable for the USA to grow strawberries. We can import strawberries or find something else to eat.

In the long-term, automation may help.

We can also pay a tiny bit more for our strawberries. At retail level, the cost of farm labor is is tiny portion of the total cost.

Crops don't rot on the vine if farmers know the labor situation in advance. Some will decide not to grow that crop. Others will find labor, paying more if required.

Whenever the supply of illegal aliens is reduced, wages rise. The "living wage" can not happen in the presence of illegal aliens. Once wages rise, Americans take the jobs. You can even see this today in the record-low unemployment rates.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#236

Post by kodablah »

wetpaws wrote: post #90
jacquesm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you could of course move but in the end it is mostly about priorities.

Going from expensive area with good job market to slightly less expensive area with little to no job market. Rrright.

> Going from expensive area with good job market to slightly less expensive area with little to no job market.

You forgot many options, such as slightly less expensive area with good job market. Or much less expensive area with reasonable job market. I'm not even sure I know of a place that's only slightly less expensive but has little to no job market.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#237

Post by gowld »

CalRobert wrote: post #3

Sample of one (well, two) here but my wife and I decided it was now or never as we hit our mid thirties and decided to have a kid. She still has mountains of student debt precluding homeownership though which means it's unlikely we'll have two. We also waited until the kid could be something other than American though, so we're outliers.

Most of our parents didn't grow up in owned homes. A 2-child family in a 2-bedroom apartment was quite common in the post-WWII era.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#238

Post by nuna »

Viker wrote: post #10

Interesting... How many people here would say that they have actively decided not to have children? I am just curious.

have 2 and would consider having 3 if it wasnt for the horribly short maternity leave and cost of daycare. I just can't do the pump at work, wash bottles all night again. I also anticipate I wont make any savings for the next 1-2 years with the cost of child care. It sucks, it really really does.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#239

Post by magduf »

dagw wrote: post #75
coldtea wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Student loans, housing costs, job prospects, healthcare, childcare. People are making a rational decision to avoid children they can’t afford. Well, people in the US made way more children when they made very few money, and lived 10 together in tiny houses and apartments. And they still do in the developing world. So it can't be just costs.

So it can't be just costs. Our expected spending on children has also grown dramatically. For example back then there was an expectation that someone would always stay home an look after the kids, now we expect them to go to day care. Back then 4 kids sharing a room their entire childhood was normal, now each kid is expected to get their own room. Back then kids where expected to entertain themselves, now we expect t…

The other thing everyone is forgetting is how much TIME kids require; it's not just about the money. As someone else in this thread said, poor people get their entertainment from their families and communities, whereas richer people have other ways to entertain themselves (travel, etc.). Raising kids is a huge time-sink; you never get any time to yourself, you never get to do anything that isn't kid-friendly, etc. It's a huge lifestyle change if you're used to being able to take weekend trips, go to fancy restaurants, go on international travel, etc.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#240

Post by magduf »

j_gu wrote: post #87
freyir wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs in terms of time and money. In the past, kids could work on the farm or in a factory and generate money, now you have to send them to daycare and buy them toys and they cost money. Previously, more people would jump straight out of high school into blue collar jobs and raising families. Now, men and women are delaying kids to focus on college and building a career. And mothers would more often stay home to rais…

In the past, kids were essentially indentured servants/slaves in other words.

Yes, and don't forget, in the past, women were also essentially indentured servants/slaves.
Post reply on HN