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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by miroljub »

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…

The main issue is that you don't need children anymore. Previously, your children were:

- your workforce

- your retirement plan

- your elderly care plan

- your security

- your private army

Now, when all these things don't apply anymore, or you have better replacements, you simply don't need children. They are just an unnecessary cost. You can live a happier and better life without that with children.

Maybe when children become scarce, and the whole social security civilization collapses, children will again start to be worth something. And then, there would be more of them. But not until then.

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

#492

Post by kccqzy »

hamdingers wrote: post #354
lukeschlather wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No amount of baby cash There is an amount of baby cash that would work. But we're talking enough cash to hire a competent housekeeper/nanny until the child is old enough to take care of themself.

That isn't realistic though, there will never be enough nannies for every family with children to have one. If you wanted to pull a purely financial lever, you'd have to give couples enough money to offset one partner's income plus a lifetime of lost income due to the years spent outside of the job market. IMO this would be perfectly fair and reasonable, considering they are raising a future lifelong taxpayer, but th…

That basically sounds like retirement. If you choose to stop working because of kids, you could be entitled to receive social security just like in old age.

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

#493

Post by jimt1234 »

I've said it before on HN, but it's worth repeating: When my parents started a family in the late-60's, my dad had only a high school diploma, yet he supported his wife, 2 kids, 2 cars, and a brand new house. Heck, one of their cars was a 1964 convertible Corvette (my mom still talks about how much she misses that car). That is basically unheard-of these days.

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

#494

Post by Retric »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #414
kraig911 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just hard now. Before I had kids I had a network of friends and had a great social life. Now it's just me and my wife. If I want more friends I'll have to have more kids I guess? I have 4 now. One (my first) is severely autistic. Financially the cost? I pay about 6,000 a month in daycare. 2k a month in healthcare expenses. Then community wise. Every time I've gone to take them to the movies, or to a restaurant o…

> I pay about 6,000 a month in daycare. My sister did this too until it got to be nearly as much as her entire salary so then she stopped working again and became the daycare. And that is super hard when your children have special needs. I think the worst may be that in-between area, where working and paying for daycare still seems to make sense financially because you take home more than you spend on not being at ho…

The tipping point isn’t just take home pay. Peak daycare expense is generally only for a few years. Quit the workforce for a decade and you see long term effects.

Further if either parent loses their job you can quit daycare until they get a new one. Single income families are far less resilient.

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

#495

Post by wisemang »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #463
WhompingWindows wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone, Kraig911. It's very hard to be a parent in modern society. My wife and I's friends have basically vanished from our lives, they have zero initiative or interest in coming over to see the kids or help in any way. They say they do, but they rely on us to take the initiative and make social things happen. After dozens of rejections or silence from dozens of them, it's rejection fatigue with the friends…

> Many of our child-free friends are going to go through a lot of loneliness when they're old I've seen this "kids are insurance against loneliness" logic repeated often, but I don't believe this bares out in reality. I personally know plenty of child-free older couples who remain quite happy and social. I also know plenty of parents whose kids don't speak to them anymore or whose children have lives on the other sid…

Indeed. There was a CBC radio episode last year that had parents discussing regrets. It felt weird to hear people saying these things out loud.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/audio/9.6661746

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

#496

Post by whattheheckheck »

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 its more mother's and father's in aggregate must think babies will make their lives easier or more fulfilled. Because at the end of the day its about incentives

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

#497

Post by SirMaster »

tbirdny wrote: post #366
cco wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's not just money. It's time and money. You can have lots of money and nice things, but if you don't have time to raise your kids, you can't do it. And if you had the time, you wouldn't have the money.

If you have the money you hire help like a nanny. I know plenty of families who have a nannies to help with their children.

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

#498

Post by MyHonestOpinon »

dmm wrote: post #448
mmastrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope that automation and robotics will _finally_ allow us to invert the pyramid.

Much more likely is that conditions for elder care will continuously degrade until MAID becomes most people's choice.

For those who don't already know this, like me. (MAID) Medical Assistance in Dying

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

#499

Post by Gagarin1917 »

JPKab wrote: post #358
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Birth control made it so women can choose how many times they get pregnant. Pregnancy is not exactly a walk in the park, so it’s no surprise it’s decreasing as birth control increases. To override this, society needs to make having kids be “cool.” It’s that “simple,” but there’s no real way to coordinate that in society from the top down without being authoritarian. So it’s a problem that can only be solved by i…

I totally agree, and my argument with the original post was that the author made it sound so simple. Has any society successfully done this yet? Basically, the only prosperous first world groups I see with fertility rates above replacement rate are religious subcultures (like the Mormons, Evangelicals, and Modern Orthodox Jews in the US). I simply don't see any other examples of being able to pull this off.

Anything can become cool and desirable if enough people think it is.

The acceptance of LGBT was largely won this way. Same with women’s rights and environmentalism (although that one is still in the midst of fighting for success).

You just have to settle for a long road ahead before reaching any tipping point.

“A man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.”

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

#500

Post by greedo »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #434
tshaddox wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some might say this is selfish, but on the other hand it’s kind of weird to expect anybody to commit to that for the sake of some other party, whether that be society, the government, peers, or parents, particularly when none of them are doing anything of substance to help mitigate those impacts in exchange. Nah, I think that it is just selfish, and that it’s the least weird thing in the world to expect people to c…

I would agree if it weren’t almost everything that must be sacrificed in some capacity. Sacrifice of some things are unavoidable, but when no aspect of life remains untouched it’s too much. It’s worth noting that such a degree of sacrifice wasn’t always associated with raising children. It used to be much more hands-off and less financially burdensome — responsibilities were split between grandparents, other relative…

Talking to my parents, and listening to recordings made with my grandparents and great-grandparents, this is silly. All of them worried about finances and the cost of kids. They survived the Depression, and that informed their view. And they always worried about their kids success and safety.
Post reply on HN