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

Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 411 posts

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#401

Post by christinamltn »

souprock wrote: post #396
ashtonkem wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having had two kids in the age where they needed large car seats, trucks are no help at all and even fairly decent sized SUVs don't handle more than two well. Nonsense. They don't fit your seats maybe, but that's not the same as it not being possible. 15 seconds of Googling finds tons of lists with car seats that'll fit 3 across, including tests for a Honda Civic . Some on the list include convertible ones that'll…

There is a natural ceiling on the costs for daycare and career, at 100% of the mother's income. It can't get worse than that unless you just like to pay money, because the mother can care for the kids. Having 2 or 3 kids in a city is probably the worst plan. Costs are high, but not not quite high enough to make the career obviously a mistake.

100% plus future losses that could be attributed to loss of career progression during those years. I’ve known people who paid nearly 100% of their salary to childcare after tax but determined it would be countered by future raises and leave them in a better position long-term.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#402

Post by SulfurHexaFluri »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #360
adrianN wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's explore that after we figured out how to live without destroying the planet.

The economy will collapse if there are 2 pensioners per employee

Because its built on bullshit. With the automation we have today we could easily satisfy the needs of everyone with fewer workers. Its the obscene demand for constant growth that causes these issues.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#403

Post by globular-toast »

curryst wrote: post #400
seanicus wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure the economic impact of doubling the workforce as well as decades of frozen wages has had a significant effect on social acceptance of 2-worker households, but blame whatever boogeyman/woman you'd like to.

I'm not a fan of blaming feminism (there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker), but I do see a correlation between the rise of 2-worker households, stagnating wages, and the difficulty of raising children. The line of thinking here is that feminism caused 2-worker households, which doubled the workforce, which caused wage stagnation. Basically that doubling the wor…

> there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker

How is it unfair? Men don't get to choose whether to work or not. They can like it or lump it. If you told men they could stay at home all day spending someone else's money improving the home, many would jump at the chance. The grass is always greener on the other side.

> Women should have always been free to join the workforce

They were always free to join the workforce. Just like they are free to join men's sporting events etc. The problem is now they are being encouraged to join the workforce. They are being indoctrinated into masculine roles from a very young age, fed through education and into the corporate machine. Then they get to 30, panic and realise they are running out of time to have children but they are trapped in the machine. Women's happiness has only decreased.

Most women didn't want this. Going to work sucks. The only people benefiting from this are the billionaires who are richer and more powerful than ever.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#404

Post by _carbyau_ »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #372
_carbyau_ wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:-) I only have one. And we think we'll have a second and leave it at that. Partly for the reason of not wanting to be outnumbered. But also partly from a social/environmental point. Two kids means we replace ourselves when we die.

But you don’t replace your bachelor uncle, which is why on average the population replacement rate is greater than 2. :)

Yeah. But the population has to stop growing sometime. And could do with coming down a bit. We take care of ourselves, let others do the same. If they choose NOT to have kids, then the numbers come down.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#405

Post by souprock »

christinamltn wrote: post #401
souprock wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a natural ceiling on the costs for daycare and career, at 100% of the mother's income. It can't get worse than that unless you just like to pay money, because the mother can care for the kids. Having 2 or 3 kids in a city is probably the worst plan. Costs are high, but not not quite high enough to make the career obviously a mistake.

100% plus future losses that could be attributed to loss of career progression during those years. I’ve known people who paid nearly 100% of their salary to childcare after tax but determined it would be countered by future raises and leave them in a better position long-term.

Future losses are included in the 100%. My assumption is 100% of lifetime salary. One can easily blow past that with a large family.

There is probably an unspeakable truth behind the people you've known who pay nearly 100% of their salary to childcare. Not every parent really likes their children. Getting away from them might be a bonus, even if it can't be admitted.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#406

Post by giantg2 »

curryst wrote: post #399
giantg2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. I would rather have them give me that 3% to invest myself. Investing $2k annually for 40 years could yield me $250k-$350k at retirement age. But I guess I'm just a dumb peasant who can't take care of myself.

I believe Medicare is funded like Social Security, where the money you pay in pays for benefits right now, and when you retire, other people will be paying the money that actually goes to you. They can't give you that 3% to invest yourself because then they have nothing to give people that are already retired. > But I guess I'm just a dumb peasant who can't take care of myself. Here's the rub. You, and many people, a…

It's not really supposed to go to other people. It's currently working that way because congress "borrows" from the system. What was the surplus they said should exist right now, 3 trillion or something huge like that?

People who can't afford medical care can sign up for Medicaid. In fact, people on Medicare who can't afford it also sign up for Medicaid.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#407

Post by whatusername »

DonHopkins wrote: post #104
kube-system wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young, this was what minivans were for: families with three kids.

Whatever happened to station wagons, with all those extra flip-up seats in the back bay? This is the new Wagon Queen Family Truckster. This is a damn fine automobile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXN5sQ5g-U&ab_channel=Foste...

don't SUV's fulfil that niche now? Basically station wagons with a slightly higher driving position? source: Drive a Kia Sorrento with 7 seats - two in the back row that flip up.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#408

Post by schwartzworld »

FullyFunctional wrote: post #312
nostrademons wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car seats are way better than they were when I was a kid in the 80s. I recall that my car seat as a kid was a hard vinyl upright contraption that made me carsick whenever I rode in it for a long time. My mom actually sewed fabric covers for it so it wouldn't burn me on hot summer days. My kid's infant car seat was a click 'n go bassinet with a soft fabric liner. His convertible car seat stays in the car, but it still…

You kids are funny - I remember sleeping in the back of our station wagon with my sister while we were flying down the autobahn. (Yes, it seems crazy today). My main gripe about the car seat is all the damn waste. We have four of them and you can't sell them or even give them away. I'm not sure about the recycling situation yet, but even in the best case not much can be recycled.

There's no reason you can't gift a non-expired car seat, or even sell it. It's probably not a good idea to buy one on Craigslist, but we had no qualms about taking a secondhand car seat from a trusted source who assured us it hasn't been in any accidents.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#409

Post by IBCNU »

handmodel wrote: post #5
IBCNU wrote: post #3

"number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films nocolas cage appeard in"

While I don't quite see how the safety seat alone could cause that much of a difference, I don't think it is unreasonable to see a causal relationship here. Raising a child has gotten more expensive in the US for many reasons (laws about child seats, more money needed for education, no longer socially acceptable to leave kids alone for awhile) and that certainly has an impact.

It's unreasonable to see causal relationships without rigor, always.

Re: Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate

#410

Post by gwbas1c »

Robotbeat wrote: post #320
gwbas1c wrote: post #285

Child #3 is about to be born any day now. I was shocked to learn that we just can't get three car seats into the back of our Model 3. Fortunately the other vehicle is a minivan, but the rear row can seat 3 without car seats, or two with car seats. This means we can no longer fit grandparents with all kids.

You might want to double-check that. I was looking at a thread specifically about 3 carseats in the back of a Model 3. There are several options. You might need new carseats. But I managed to get our 3 kids in the back of my first generation Nissan Leaf, which I think is slightly smaller.

The 1st generation Leaf was larger inside.

I like the Leaf's interior much more than the Model 3. (But, overall the Model 3 is a much, much better car.)

Post reply on HN