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

281–286 of 286 posts

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

#281

Post by X0Refraction »

revelio wrote: post #278
X0Refraction wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The absolute cost isn't a perfect measure for what I'm considering though because it will need to be compared to median real income. Looking at this: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ILC_MDED01__c... it appears housing is costing a bigger share of household disposable income over time in Switzerland

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

#282

Post by dumpsterdiver »

pjc50 wrote: post #124
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe so, yes. If birth rates continue to decline then the pool of available workers will decline, and their work will become much more valuable. At that point, workers will be making enough money to feel comfortable enough to have children again.

Exactly. I'm boggling at all these people who think that a dip is an inevitable decline and that civilisation will evaporate in a straight line without anyone ever thinking to change anything.

On the other hand there is always the possibility that we regress to a sort of feudal age, and the lords of the land require that all inhabitants produce children while surviving off of the allotted amount of rations, otherwise they face consequences.

Edit: Not only are there natural corrections that occur, there is also a lot of room for human-made "corrections". Is it ugly? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Will it ensure that the local economy continues to function? Yes. The vast majority of us in such a scenario would live in poverty.

(This is where I go off the deep end) Imo, the proliferation of LLM's will truly lead to massive amounts of people being displaced from meaningful work. I foresee that in the not-so-distant future "normal people" who didn't attend elite institutions (or who are otherwise not extraordinary in some sense) will only find "flesh work" available to them - i.e. prostitutes. As long as human flesh exists there will always be work for humans. It's dark, I know, but ask yourself if it's true.

Disclaimer: I find prostitution appalling and sad, but its existence is no secret. In my experience the people who are okay with it are either socially inept people who can't manage to hold down a partner, or socially competent people who are bored with their partner(s). In the latter case I wonder, why not just get a new partner? I didn't ask them about it because the answer doesn't actually matter to me. To them I say, "Do you", just as I would say to the poor souls who know no other way. Who am I to question how someone feeds their kids? I don't even have kids.

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

#283

Post by louwrentius »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #265
louwrentius wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world can sustain the current number of people many times over in terms of food supply. Indeed based on sustainable (vegetarian/vegan) food. Talking about how many people can be sustained by earth is talking about the wrong thing. It only leads and HAS only lead to the eugenetics part. Because it's always poor people in different countries who gets sterilised. The real topic is that capitalism and consumerism is…

If we must all become vegeterian/vegan then to me that proves that the planet is currently overpopulated. In my view a sustainable population level is one that does not require drastic measures because ultimately we want the best quality of life we can have and not live like in a dystopian movie.

Going vegetarian/vegan is about the environment, not about the number of people. Even with half of the world population, meat-based diets are unsustainable.

Why do people insist on making this an eugenics talking point?

The number of people is not the problem.

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

#284

Post by zorrotorro »

richeyryan wrote: post #15
shp0ngle wrote: post #3

Just offset the lack of new people being born by opening up borders to everyone, problem solved!

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...

> can't encourage the current residents

Can't or won't?

What are companies doing: training people or just hiring externally and expecting those new hires to hit the ground running? The same strategy is applied everywhere.

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

#285

Post by llampx »

pjc50 wrote: post #119
knallfrosch wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Big difference between immigrants as the US sees them and the way Germany sees them. The US doesn't have a social safety net to speak of for immigrants, Germany does for refugees. Nobody is complaining about the Indian IT workers or EE truck drivers when they say "immigrants."

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

#286

Post by dumpsterdiver »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #217
knallfrosch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Americans are stupid. Housing is more expensive but real wages are up, the vast majority of Americans can afford more food than ever before.

> Housing is more expensive but real wages are up, the vast majority of Americans can afford more food than ever before.

Housing is pervasively unattainable, and yet you would still claim that "real wages are up"? What the crap do "real" wages mean to you? Our parents and grandparents easily purchased homes to keep them safe in as they grew old. What "real" wealth do we have that can compare?

Post reply on HN