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

61–70 of 286 posts

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

#61

Post by crooked-v »

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 feel like real estate prices outweigh a lot of other factors entirely because real estate costs in places people would prefer to live are an order of magnitude higher than they were even a generation ago after accounting for inflation, and where people live determines an immense number of other factors.

Of course, it will be hard to fix that unless we can get people to realize the problem is fundamentally a literal shortage of housing in places, and that slapfighting with developers and landlords won't conjure up more homes for people to live in.

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

#62

Post by scotty79 »

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...

The solution is not to rely on workers to finance your schemes. Most of our economic development is captured by the wealthy.

Do you need to sustain the elderly? Have 100% wealth tax at age 60 and use it to pay equal retirement for everybody above 60. Let elderly sustain elderly.

100% too much? Ok, let's say it's only for the money above 10 million. Or 50, or 100, whatever.

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

#63

Post by dumpsterdiver »

exitb wrote: post #18
CalRobert wrote: post #10

Hopefully we can do this for the species as a whole and gradually find equilibrium at a more sustainable population.

Is there a factor that would make it stabilise at some equilibrium, rather than fall indefinitely?

I believe so, yes. If birth rates continue to decline then the pool of available workers will decline, and their work will become much more valuable. At that point, workers will be making enough money to feel comfortable enough to have children again.

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

#65

Post by ur-whale »

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 other option is there?

Cloning?

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

#66

Post by quaintdev »

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)…

Wait I know a video that describes your comment

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I

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

#67

Post by crooked-v »

hardware2win wrote: post #58
red_admiral wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* (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?

It's anecdotal, of course, but I've definitely seen a number of posts online that amount to 'my spouse and I have decided not to have children, because we don't want to inflict them with the terrible state of the planet in 30 or 40 or 50 years'.

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

#68

Post by throwbadubadu »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #37
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…

> Are the people who want others to have more children prepared to pay for it? This implies that more people make society poorer. Which is false. People don’t consume a finite set of resources, they create more. As populations rise the net general standard of living goes up, not down. For source, check out all developed nations over the last 200 years, and human history to date. USA actually has an advantage here as…

Oh.. just that problem about our space ship not having infinite resources.. looking into the past won't help for seeing the rebound of the sigmoid curve..

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

#69

Post by t0mislav »

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)…

>12 hours/day

I can't even imagine working a minute longer than 8 hours per day, and 12+ hours is woow. Is this common in US?

I work 8 hours my whole career (IT). My wife works 6 hours per day. (central Europe)

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

#70

Post by lynx23 »

echelon wrote: post #42
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)…

To quote Peter Zeihan, kids are no longer free labor for the farm, they're expensive furniture for your tiny condo that often break things.

What a wise man.
Post reply on HN