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

271–280 of 286 posts

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

#271

Post by NalNezumi »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #96
marginalia_nu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having children requires an element of hope, of faith in a bright the future. If you're convinced of nothing but dark days ahead, bringing children into the world would be a cruelty. Media messaging, especially on social media, has gotten extremely dark and catastrophic. Looking at the screen you'd think the sky was falling several times every day. If global warming isn't doing us in, the nazis are literally back for…

Many people are living genuinely precarious lives. Some are well aware of it, others haven't quite realised it yet or are firmly in denial about it. Humans don't breed when their own lives are precarious and it's rational and realistic to assume the lives of their kids will be even more so. I see no mystery here.

I'd say it's the other way around. For most of human history we've had to live in a precarious state, stability or "things not changing", static life have never been true. Even for a farmer never leaving his village he always had to be precarious of the element.

It's only maybe last two-three generation or so we've tricked ourselves to the escalator life with dissipation of risk through social programs.

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

#272

Post by marginalia_nu »

NalNezumi wrote: post #271
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people are living genuinely precarious lives. Some are well aware of it, others haven't quite realised it yet or are firmly in denial about it. Humans don't breed when their own lives are precarious and it's rational and realistic to assume the lives of their kids will be even more so. I see no mystery here.

I'd say it's the other way around. For most of human history we've had to live in a precarious state, stability or "things not changing", static life have never been true. Even for a farmer never leaving his village he always had to be precarious of the element. It's only maybe last two-three generation or so we've tricked ourselves to the escalator life with dissipation of risk through social programs.

Historically, people have been far less aware of the circumstances outside of their immediate area. Life appeared extremely stable, because on a local level, it has been. Not that people didn't die or anything, they absolutely did, but what was certain was that life would more or less go on the way it had since time immemorial.

You can't have the sort of uncertainty about the future we have today without the progress we've had until today. The society-scale anxiety essentially boils down to this question: Just what is it we're progressing toward?

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

#273

Post by X0Refraction »

revelio wrote: post #244
X0Refraction wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you grew up with $50M+ and lived a luxurious life, but lost it all, would you not have children over worries they may not have the same standard of living that you did? I'd agree there's nuance to this. For your cherry picked scenario, no, that wouldn't affect my decision. I can accept a single person having a reduction in living standards. However, when most of Western society (I'm British, not American) is str…

You realize the house price obsession is rather uniquely British, right? It's a bit of a national stereotype to people outside the UK. In many countries it's considered normal to rent, including rich countries. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/land-of-lessees_swiss-continue-... Weirdly, the dominance of renting in Switzerland doesn't stop the Swiss having children. So this is really very much a media induced anxiety diso…

Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I meant housing as in a place to live regardless of if that's achieved via ownership or renting. Both are getting more expensive compared to median wage as we build less than the increase in population. I didn't think that was a uniquely British phenomenon, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise.

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

#274

Post by revelio »

X0Refraction wrote: post #273
revelio wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the house price obsession is rather uniquely British, right? It's a bit of a national stereotype to people outside the UK. In many countries it's considered normal to rent, including rich countries. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/land-of-lessees_swiss-continue-... Weirdly, the dominance of renting in Switzerland doesn't stop the Swiss having children. So this is really very much a media induced anxiety diso…

Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I meant housing as in a place to live regardless of if that's achieved via ownership or renting. Both are getting more expensive compared to median wage as we build less than the increase in population. I didn't think that was a uniquely British phenomenon, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise.

General housing pressure certainly isn't a unique phenomenon, just the obsession with ownership. But many other countries have managed immigration levels better and don't experience the same level of pressure on the housing market as a consequence. Again Switzerland is an example.

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

#275

Post by scotty79 »

generic92034 wrote: post #157
scotty79 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is not to rely on workers to finance your schemes. Most of our economic development is captured by the wealthy. Do you need to sustain the elderly? Have 100% wealth tax at age 60 and use it to pay equal retirement for everybody above 60. Let elderly sustain elderly. 100% too much? Ok, let's say it's only for the money above 10 million. Or 50, or 100, whatever.

I sympathize with the idea in principle, but do you really think people who are that rich will not find ways to evade the tax? Most likely they can prevent such a tax being installed at all. Money = power.

You are right of course. What I'm opposed to is when poor people (by which I mean everybody except billionaires) claim that there are no other solutions instead of saying that there are plenty of other potential solutions but billionaires won't let us have them.

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

#276

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

theironhammer wrote: post #268
DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessary to pay for other peoples housing, all that is necessary is to repeal absurd zoning laws and ridiculous bureaucracy that makes building such things 100x more expensive (if it's even possible) than they need to be.

Those houses will just get snapped up by investors. By all means build but you also need laws to prevent houses from being snapped up by those who don't intend to live them.

Housing is only a good investment because there's a chronic shortage. Those big evil investors are just a scapegoat, they might be exacerbating the issue but they aren't the real source. The real issue is the self-imposed shortage.

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

#277

Post by X0Refraction »

revelio wrote: post #274
X0Refraction wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I meant housing as in a place to live regardless of if that's achieved via ownership or renting. Both are getting more expensive compared to median wage as we build less than the increase in population. I didn't think that was a uniquely British phenomenon, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise.

General housing pressure certainly isn't a unique phenomenon, just the obsession with ownership. But many other countries have managed immigration levels better and don't experience the same level of pressure on the housing market as a consequence. Again Switzerland is an example.

I realise the UK is starting in one of the worst positions for house price pressure, but it does seem to be a general trend in all Western countries. My point is that it seems like my potential children would need to work harder to get the same level of basic necessities. It might be getting tougher more slowly in some countries than others, but that doesn't meet the criterion I feel is necessary of mostly getting better for most people.

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

#278

Post by revelio »

X0Refraction wrote: post #277
revelio wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General housing pressure certainly isn't a unique phenomenon, just the obsession with ownership. But many other countries have managed immigration levels better and don't experience the same level of pressure on the housing market as a consequence. Again Switzerland is an example.

I realise the UK is starting in one of the worst positions for house price pressure, but it does seem to be a general trend in all Western countries. My point is that it seems like my potential children would need to work harder to get the same level of basic necessities. It might be getting tougher more slowly in some countries than others, but that doesn't meet the criterion I feel is necessary of mostly getting be…

Many but not all. Populations and governments that manage things well can keep house prices stable:

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Switzerland/Home-...

As you can see, Swiss single family house prices were stable since 2016. It's a different lifestyle, there's a lot of apartment living with shared gardens for example, but it can be done.

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

#279

Post by gsich »

CalRobert wrote: post #168
gsich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

At what number would you consider it a problem? For what it's worth, I would be delighted to live on a planet of 10 billion people who have found a way to live in a way that can persist for millenia, but we don't seem to have done so. Although, living in a well-insulated flat made with renewably-grown timber (a great carbon sink!) walking and biking distance from all of my daily needs where my meagre energy needs are…

Probably 200 billion, going by population sensity.

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

#280

Post by gsich »

another_story wrote: post #92
gsich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

Overconsumption certainly is, and that's tied to population.

No, the average 1st world citizen consumes vastly more than 3rd world.
Post reply on HN