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

The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#341

Post by JPKab »

qweiopqweiop wrote: post #300
csallen wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern humans live in what would have been historically viewed as a Utopia. I think about this all the time, and how tragic (comedic?) it is that humanity finally created a Utopian age but most of its inhabitants are ignorant of that fact, and thus don't appreciate it, and instead genuinely believe they live in one of the worst times ever.

Great point. I'd argue though, is it a utopia if we're not as happy?

We are unhappy BECAUSE it's a utopia, and our brains evolved in a landscape that was ALWAYS trying to kill us. Like an immune system in an overly clean environment starts attacking inert things and creates allergies, our minds have created threats and focused on "relative" scarcity over actual scarcity. Instead of "How am I going to get enough calories to survive this week?" it's "Why does that guy get to be in a private jet and I have to fly coach?"

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#342

Post by hackable_sand »

whatever1 wrote: post #100

Most of the developed countries are facing this. I think our financial/defense systems are not prepared for population decline, so I foresee a lot of turbulence. The new left will call for more immigration and more globalism to avoid wars, but will have to deal with integration of swaths of immigrants. The new right will call for closing of the borders and double down on AI doing the work of producing and defending,…

Much to do about nothing

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#343

Post by triceratops »

bombcar wrote: post #217
internetter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I am a social democrat, not a libertarian) All models require to some extent the youth working, but not all require a part of the youth's fruits of their labour being taken and put into social security. A libertarian might say that the onus is on the boomers to save enough money to fund their own retirement so that they're not reliant on the social security safety net.

It doesn't really matter on a macro scale if you have social security doing it, or "retirement accounts" doing it - at the base there is capital and value-add (work) and you're transferring from one to the other. Now perhaps 401ks owning stocks is effectively "lending" capital to the working-class for a fee - but you'd have to argue that.

It absolutely does matter whether you're taxing wages or capital though.

Wages are constrained by the number of workers. Capital is constrained by total productivity.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#344

Post by alephnerd »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #257
Balgair wrote: post #207

I like to hang out on fertility twitter. It's a strange place. Since the fertility problem is worldwide, you get a lot of ideologies mixing about. There's hardcore CCP folks, free market Mormons, radical Imams, universalist preachers, the whole lot of them. They're all trying to share ideas and jumping on the latest research findings from reputable and crackpot sources. They're all looking for the recipe to get peopl…

There is another way to go about this. Statistically immigrants from Latin America have lower crime rates than the average American. It is possible to increase population AND decrease the crime rate by allowing immigrants into the country. Personally, as someone with capital, having people who also work hard for less salary is beneficial. Most native born Americans are much poorer than I am so I understand their fear…

The US isn't that attractive for white collar Latin Americans either. For example, the kind of Mexican who can get a job at Google MTV or ATX would also be able to work at Reddit CDMX for around $80k-$100k TC or McKinsey CDMX for $130k-160k TC.

Even for blue collar immigrants working undocumented in the US, a large portion were formerly lower middle class before the states they lived in either failed (eg. Venezuela) or quasi-failed (eg. El Salvador, Honduras).

I remember seeing a similar trend as a kid - we used to see plenty of college educated Mexicans and Argentinians Engineers working blue collar jobs in California because of both their economic crises. When the worst of their economic crises ended, those that didn't naturalize chose to move back to the old country.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#345

Post by AndrewDucker »

inetknght wrote: post #250
AndrewDucker wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are two steps: 1) Make people want to have kids. 2) Make it feasible for them to do so. People already want more kids than they're having, so focussing on (2) at the moment is probably the best approach.

> People already want more kids than they're having Maybe some people. But nobody I know wants more children. They want a better future for the children they already have. They want to have hope for their future.

"for every three kids wanted… only two are born".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv7211jljo

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#346

Post by cosmic_cheese »

cco wrote: post #251
Balgair wrote: post #207

I like to hang out on fertility twitter. It's a strange place. Since the fertility problem is worldwide, you get a lot of ideologies mixing about. There's hardcore CCP folks, free market Mormons, radical Imams, universalist preachers, the whole lot of them. They're all trying to share ideas and jumping on the latest research findings from reputable and crackpot sources. They're all looking for the recipe to get peopl…

That doesn't seem to be supported by the data, the "nicer" and richer a country becomes, birth rates drop. And basically the opposite is true for countries with a high birth rate. How do you square those facts with your view here?

Generally, the more developed a country is, the more capitalistic it is. Capitalism inherently assigns monetary value to everything, even children, and as capitalist societies currently function children have deeply negative value. So deeply negative that it completely nullifies the higher “default” standard of quality of life that comes with life in a developed country.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#347

Post by [deleted] »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #214
Balgair wrote: post #207

I like to hang out on fertility twitter. It's a strange place. Since the fertility problem is worldwide, you get a lot of ideologies mixing about. There's hardcore CCP folks, free market Mormons, radical Imams, universalist preachers, the whole lot of them. They're all trying to share ideas and jumping on the latest research findings from reputable and crackpot sources. They're all looking for the recipe to get peopl…

I think there are two steps: 1) Make people want to have kids. 2) Make it feasible for them to do so. People already want more kids than they're having, so focussing on (2) at the moment is probably the best approach.

[deleted]

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#348

Post by a_better_world »

mattmaroon wrote: post #260
throwawayohio wrote: post #85

Living in a city that this administration has constantly been attacking forced me and my wife, as well as many of our neighbors, to put off our family growth plans. Not only did many of my neighbors lose their jobs, but others are simply fearful of living their lives. We're fine financially, have housing, etc, but at this point why would we go through the stress of raising a child when a masked federal agent might ju…

I certainly don’t agree with the things the administration is doing, but this seems like just hysteria. You are putting off your family growth plans because they might deport a theoretical future undocumented nanny? It is strange to me how generalized partisan fear has become.

I guess you don't live in Minneapolis, or another targeted metro area. It is hard to imagine what it is like to live in a city where 3000 masked and poorly trained people cos-playing special forces are specifically tasked with arresting as many people as they can and told that they have full immunity.

you haven't seen the effect on schools when federal agents enter school grounds and take kids away.

you haven't seen my parent's nursing home sending the senior leadership outside the building to look for patrols before they let the staff leave (the staff is all legal/greencard holders, but see note above -- ICE doesn't care).

It's not hysteria when it is your every day lived experience.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#349

Post by dh2022 »

bluGill wrote: post #189
dh2022 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash news - todays people have higher standards and expectations of living than your grandma and grandpa. In particular - most people want college education for their kids. College education comes with tens of thousands in expenses and people are like "how am I gonna put 2 kids in college? I think I will have 1" Another flash news for people who haven't had kids in daycare for a while - pricing for daycare means tha…

> if we had 2 kids in daycare my wife would have been better off staying at home (which we could not afford and she did not want to do anyway). Why the sexist idea that only your wife you could stay home? There are a growing number of men who are staying home to raise their kids - still a minority, but a good trend to encourage. Of course I have no idea what your personal situation is. You may have made the best choi…

Because I was making more money than my wife. Get it?

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#350

Post by knuckleheads »

Balgair wrote: post #207

I like to hang out on fertility twitter. It's a strange place. Since the fertility problem is worldwide, you get a lot of ideologies mixing about. There's hardcore CCP folks, free market Mormons, radical Imams, universalist preachers, the whole lot of them. They're all trying to share ideas and jumping on the latest research findings from reputable and crackpot sources. They're all looking for the recipe to get peopl…

Every since the start of the industrial revolution, children became an economic burden instead of a benefit. Once man power was replaced by machines, it stopped making sense to have so many kids and the total fertility rate started to decline. The data is sparse prior to 1950, which is coincidentally when there was a huge global post war baby boom, but visit https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate and scroll down to births per woman and look at someplace like Sweden. It was already going down! Prior to modernity and its ills. TFR was higher when people felt like they had to have kids to survive a harsh world.
Post reply on HN