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

India's surprise baby bust

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#511

Post by mrtksn »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

> more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children

Close but it’s not about fun, it’s about exploring the new possibilities. There’s simply no time for having kids when you just transition to a new way of life and you don’t know what to do. You maybe want to travel the world or build a house etc so you work more and spend more towards these. The next gen is having more kids.

Bulgaria used to be a prime example of population collapse but today has the highest birth rates in Europe(not just EU). The population will still shrink but as the dust settles people have certainty, know what to expect from life and can make a choice of having kids. Traveling the world can be just a phase in the early 20s, don’t have to grind as much for the basics, the definition of success isn’t getting rich through hard work so a simple and balanced life with kids becomes a feasible and desirable option.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#512

Post by firdunupsa2 »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

[dead]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#513

Post by autoexec »

trumpdong wrote: post #486
saintvlad wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do need to be able to afford to care for them and be reasonably capable of providing them with a stable and healthy environment to grow up in though. You kinda don't though? The government won't let you starve to death. Surprised there aren't more people welfaremaxxing, TBH.

The government absolutely lets people starve to death. Have you ever tried to get any welfare? It's gatekept to hell.

I haven't checked the data for myself, but supposedly, while still not a common cause of death, malnutrition is the fastest growing cause of death in the US (https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/health-and-famili...)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#514

Post by laughing_man »

trumpdong wrote: post #496
laughing_man wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one ranks high on my list. If you're a farmer in the countryside children are an economic asset. They can feed the animals, plant, weed the crops, maintain fencing, etc. Once you move to the city, whatever else they are in terms of fulfillment, they're an economic liability. Oddly enough, it's likely the US and Europe defused (and then some) Erlich's population bomb with farm subsidies which pushed people off fa…

Is this still true when machines do the farming?

Not as much, but once you start mechanized farming you don't need many people in agriculture. There are few enough farmers in industrialized countries that they don't affect demographics much.

My sense is American farmers have more children than the population at large, but I don't have numbers to back it up. My farmer maternal great grandparents had 12 and 9 children -- I don't think that happens much anymore.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#516

Post by autoexec »

saintvlad wrote: post #463
autoexec wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. You do need to be able to afford to care for them and be reasonably capable of providing them with a stable and healthy environment to grow up in though. People who are one or two missed paychecks away from homelessness probably shouldn't be thinking about having children, and sadly that's a whole lot of people.

> You do need to be able to afford to care for them and be reasonably capable of providing them with a stable and healthy environment to grow up in though. You kinda don't though? The government won't let you starve to death. Surprised there aren't more people welfaremaxxing, TBH.

You should try it because I bet you'll find out why pretty fast. It just isn't worth it.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#517

Post by broken-kebab »

scoofy wrote: post #506
broken-kebab wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2026 now and we know for sure that applying purely economic stimuli did nothing substantial to birthrate anywhere. FWIW kids of rich parents do not procreate somehow better even if they are not constrained by housing market.

Economic stimulus does nothing about affordability of goods in a shortage. Quite the opposite, economic stimulus just causes inflation for goods in a shortage. Which is exactly what we’ve seen for 15 years.

It's a bit of evasion. If you support the claim that it's housing which keeps Western societies birthrate low, you building your theory on the same sand of "economy prevents youth from having kids".

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#518

Post by peyton »

scoofy wrote: post #506
broken-kebab wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2026 now and we know for sure that applying purely economic stimuli did nothing substantial to birthrate anywhere. FWIW kids of rich parents do not procreate somehow better even if they are not constrained by housing market.

Economic stimulus does nothing about affordability of goods in a shortage. Quite the opposite, economic stimulus just causes inflation for goods in a shortage. Which is exactly what we’ve seen for 15 years.

Yep, the real answer’s electricity.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#520

Post by em-bee »

theshackleford wrote: post #500
SoftTalker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think they need to do this but it's really not true. You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. And in terms of avoiding complications and having energy, 18-25 years old is probably the best time.

> You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids My parents didn’t have their life figured out and I paid the price with extreme mental and physical abuse as their life entered a never ending downward spiral. This had impacts on me, which extended to impacts on others. I’m ok now, after years of intensive counselling reversed the violent tendencies that were beaten into me with their fists over two…

but this comes from parents being expected to have their life figured out and not giving them any help. if we accept as normal that young parents will not have their life figured out then we will also make sure that we don't leave them alone but actually support them.

i think this is especially extreme in the US where some parents tell their kids that at their 18th birthday they are on their own. that's an insane attitude. not everyone is that extreme, but what ever you experienced is more a failure of society, and less a failure of your parents.

Post reply on HN