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

51–60 of 286 posts

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

#51

Post by loxs »

throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

* (policy) - If things don't work out, your wife will divorce you, take half of what you have and enslave you to pay her support for the next 15 years. Actually, she might do that just because she needs more passion while you are hard at work.

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

#52

Post by progx »

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...

I can't see where it help us declininng economic productivity. Other options: family friendly politic, better education, investments in schools, better care in schools (full day care), consistent politic where you can plan your future,....

Today we can read in the newspaper, that 25% of our children in school can not read. Elephant in the room.

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

#53

Post by greenimpala »

throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

I think your last two points make up most of the drivers. Particularly now many people are in an un-breakable relationship with their smartphones.

I know many people that simply don't want to entertain the "hassle" of a relationship. It's an inconvenience for them to think about somebody else other than their own immediate needs and wants.

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

#55

Post by usui »

throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

I generally agree with you and while reading that line made me laugh, I think you are misunderstanding the statement.

If I read that line charitably, it wants to point out that no single set of demographic, economic, or policy changes can directly explain the decline. It appears to be an emergent outcome—a sum of its constituent factors.

Yes we could go and enumerate the hundreds of reasons people contribute to the decline, but the article wants to ascribe a more "matter-of-fact" explanation to populations of people rather than speculating those hundreds of reasons.

And though I'm defending the above statement, the article writes in a tone of surprise ("The Mystery"), which makes it difficult to take the article seriously. This emergent property shouldn't surprise anyone at all considering nearly every developed nation is experiencing it...

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

#56

Post by pjc50 »

samwillis wrote: post #29

Unsurprisingly the UK birth rate has done a similar roughly 20% drop of that period: https://www.statista.com/statistics/428262/birth-rate-in-the... Gone from 12.6 to 10.1 per 1k people. Anecdotal evidence, I'm in my mid 30s, a lot of our friends and family are stopping at one kid.

The UK's "no child benefit for children beyond the second" is a clear policy signal as to what the government wants.

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

#57

Post by findthewords »

pjc50 wrote: post #12

The other day someone was complaining about too many people in the housing thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35962521 The two are linked. Having children is at least partly an economic choice. People have spent decades working against "teen moms" and "single parents" and "welfare queens". Everyone is very clear that you must not have children unless you can comfortably afford to do so. And not just now, th…

Children can live in their parents' homes, or parents can live in their childrens' homes.

Distinction arbitrary when it comes to availability of "shelter" in the Maslow sense but non-trivial when it comes to comes to components higher in the hierarchy pyramid.

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

#58

Post by hardware2win »

red_admiral wrote: post #46
throwaw12 wrote: post #23

> This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. I disagree with this statement. Put yourself in the shoes of 25 years old and ask why don't you want to have kids? * (economic) difficult to manage finances * (economic) can't buy house, too expensive * (economic) to compete with others in the workplace, I need to work >12 hours/day, can't do with kids or will be laid off. * (sociologic)…

* (sociologic) fear of climate change (will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time) or commitment to make a small positive impact on climate change by not having kids I'm not saying this is true or rational (there are actually blog posts in the rationalist community along the lines of "no, having kids does not cause climate change") but it's definitely a sentiment I've encountered.

>will the world still be habitable in 20 years' time

I dont know anyone that is seriously worried about this in such a way

And dont get me wrong - we arent climate change deniers, just... pick your battles

Why waste your life worrying about something you have tiny impact on?

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

#59

Post by knallfrosch »

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...

What good is a population high when the new people aren't net contributors to the economy?
Post reply on HN