Live data from Hacker News

We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

nytimes.com

331–340 of 461 posts

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#331

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

I agree with you. The only way out of this is via automation. If we have high enough automation, costs will drop despite lack of growth. In the end the world will be a stark 0.001% who own the automation and the flat 99.999% who subsist on leisure and boredom.

> In the end the world will be a stark 0.001% who own the automation and the flat 99.999% who subsist on leisure and boredom.

Leisure? Or poverty?

This strikes me as a return to the default state for much of human existence and the current reality for much of the world's population.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#332

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

[deleted]

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#334
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it to the extreme. What do you suppose would happen if every American household is credited with a billion dollars tomorrow?

Good thought experiment Not nearly as much inflation as you might think Most of everyone's newfound Billion would sit idle The inflation would come from the $200K/year everyone was spending, as in if you just gave everyone $200K*expectedRemainingLifeExpectancy, you'd get the same consumer inflation The extra billions would go into inflating assets. The key concept here is velocity of money - really interesting concep…

Unless everyone moves to protect their new found billion by buying assets, in which case asset prices shoot the roof. This is not a problem, since most assets these days are unproductive, and like you say, no one would notice a difference in their day to day lives. The one place people would notice is housing.

The fix is to see somehow make houses a toxic asset that cost exactly the value the provide in the form of a roof, and no more.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#335
post #142

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

Unfortunately much of the financial system (in the US anyway) is highly dependent on population growth. Many existing entitlements were created during periods of uncommon birth-rates with the expectation that the babies being born will grow and reproduce at the same rate as their parents. This growth hasn't materialized, and much of the existing growth can be attributed to immigrant inflows. Regardless of the environ…

> We are however, living in a unique time were robots and AI can potentially pick up the slack for whatever losses of productivity a lower population may cause.

Productivity growth is currently the lowest it's been since before the industrial revolution. AI and robotics may be revolutionizing a few specific domains. But there's no evidence that they're replacing the need for human labor any time soon.

That probably will happen at some point. But probably not in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetime. We still need able-bodied workers to run the economy.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's jargon-y because I'm using terminology you don't regularly use. I talk like this all the time, not to try to sound smart or academic (I really value clear communication, some ideas are just hard to communicate clearly) but because these are the terms I think in. I am trying to translate from my terms into what I assume are yours though (leaning on some cultural assumptions here), so please bear with me. > (Sorry…

When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples. After all, I can think of several concrete interpretations of "propping up the status quo" that are pretty different. For example, perhaps you think the media's gossip coverage props up the status quo by making already-famous people more famous. On the other hand, maybe…

> When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples.

Yeah I do tend to do that too, but I'm also wary that concrete examples in this case tend to make people switch off their minds and think with their ideologies. It's a hard balance to strike - I usually try to concretise the example with an analogy if the topic is messy. But the failure to communicate successfully here is mine, so I'll try to clarify.

What I mean is that the media props up the narrative of its audience. A concrete example is the idea of cultural norms. So to concretise the parent I was originally replying to:

> And it's not just a question of generalization, but a question of whose stories get told through the media. Whose lifestyles make it into the "lifestyle" section.

becomes:

> the media promotes WASPy values, lifestyle sections promote very "white" lifestyles

So my point was that yes, they do, because it sells, because most of their audience is white and share those cultural values - and that is because that is the biggest audience segment available. Hence large WASP-cultural population => media wants large audience => media targets WASP-cultural audience => everywhere you look, WASP cultural standards are promoted. The norm is reflected and promoted by the media. Role models are mostly white and represent WASP values.

But where in a modernist setting, these values are treated as ideals to live up to (and thus that if you have different norms, you'd better shape up), in a postmodern context the idea of "objectively best" cultural norms breaks down because people simply disperse into their own groups with their own media that reflect their own norms. Every groups creates an echo chamber where there is no competing narrative because they shut it out.

My criticism of progressivism is that it hasn't abandoned the idea of a central narrative, and instead of creating parallel media is mostly concerned with reforming the old media to represent every cultural bloc, ie tokenism. Also for confusing race with culture.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I don't understand, if population growth is stagnant or declining, how is it these housing prices are reaching such heights?

Home prices keep reaching new heights in some areas due to: 1) Migration. Immigration from outside the country, but also internal immigration within the country from less economically vibrant parts to more economically vibrant regions. 2) Falling interest rates keeping the monthly mortgage payment the same or lower despite higher principals 3) Expectations that the price trend for homes will continue to look like the…

Also add; limited housing development.

Most new housing development after the war was gotten by turning farmlands and nature into single family houses. A lot of places have reached the limits of how far one can expand and run into some combination of geographical barriers, legal barriers (e.g. protected park or farmlands), or the barrier posed by time (most people have an upper limit of how long they are willing to commute.)

The next logical step in density, subdivision of existing lots and/or intensifying into homes that accommodate two, three, four families in a place where a single family house stood, is pretty much illegal on most residential parcels in the US. Pre-zoning, neighborhoods were free to densify as they desired, so even in older single family neighborhoods there are sprinklings of slightly more intense development. But in 2021 zoning reform is hotly contested because people feel like they should have control over what their neighbors do with their land, and the overall result is that there isn’t too much developable land left.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, people need some fucking perspective. Yeah, things aren't too hot right now, but that's because all you do is consume the 24/7 newscycle and worry about what some nobody on Twitter is agonizing over about Disney's latest TV show. The world is the safest it's ever been. Aside from Covid, many massive killers of the past are no longer a problem. Our ancestors would be shaking their heads if they saw the pros…

I was reflecting just this morning how glad I am that I don't have children. (And I don't follow the 24/7 newscycle or use Twitter.) You want perspective? The Doomsday Clock is still set to 100 seconds before midnight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock > Aside from Covid ... Covid isn't the last virus. And the tools we use to fight it are also the tools we could use to make worse ones. (Every tool is also…

Imagine not having children because of the fucking Doomsday clock lmfaaaaaaaaao

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#339

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

I have neither the "Malthusian or environmentalist worldview" nor the opposite, which seems to be dangerously close to a "nationalist or eugenics worldview". In other words: any grievances about birth rate on a population-wide level run the risk of spurning legislation or other changes with the purpose of forcing (with varying level of vehemence) individuals to make reproductive choices they otherwise wouldn't.

Specifically, it's hard to interpret the universal drop in birth rates among societies as they advance on anything but women exercising their newfound freedom not to have children. Many attempts to reverse the trend will thus look to reverse these changes.

To be sure, there are other policy ideas one could advance, and some examples of them working well, such as universal childcare, mandatory parental leave for both genders, and some others that share the distinction of having zero chance to become law in the US.

I'm taking the liberty to advocate for ignoring any population-wide concerns about birth rates because even in the most extreme cases such as Germany or Japan, and even moreso in the US where it's relatively mild, the effect just isn't strong enough to lead to any insurmountable problems. Given a bit more automation and medical advances that keep people not just alive but fit, the problems of an ageing population seem to be solvable, especially as long as there is still significant will to immigrate, which does not seem likely to abate.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#340

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

> public debt and entitlements mean shoring up a replacement rate population with immigration from high-birthrate societies

There are very few of these left, and the ones that still exist are also in declining fertility, even if still above replacement.

Post reply on HN