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

What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 927 posts

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#601

Post by sapphicsnail »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #436
vjulian wrote: post #408

What we need are 25/30+ year-olds who are completely at ease with sex, who have no hang-ups, and who know how to form strong relationships because they’ve been doing it and having sex freely since they were teenagers. Instead, we have a generation of adults of parenting age who are deeply uncomfortable with sex and emotionally unskilled in relationships. And that’s a big part of the problem. I’m saying a large swathe…

This is an unusual take. People in the past made 4-10 babies per family and they did it by being celibate until marriage. Sex positivity and casual relationships were not normal, and grandparents encouraged marriage before sex, probably because the grandparents knew they’d be partially responsible for raising the kid and wanted to ensure two parents to help care for their grandchildren

People have always been and will always have casual sex. People didn't used to be perfect Christian monogamous couples until the 60s. We just punish people less for it than we used to which is a good thing.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#602

Post by KolibriFly »

crtified wrote: post #178

My anecdotal experience, which illustrates how changing societal norms may be contributing. Around 1960, my grandmother scandalously fell pregnant with my mother in her late teens. The child was adopted out - well, not out - in. To her own grandmother, to be raised as a "younger sister" to her own mother. Around 1980, my mother scandalously fell pregnant with me, in her late teens. Despite family disapproval, the chi…

It's a perspective that often gets lost in the macro-level fertility discussions: how many births never happen not because people don’t want kids, but because the only off-ramp they might've taken got paved over by modern expectations, norms and etc

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#603

Post by KolibriFly »

socceroos wrote: post #312

I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful. It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over). I feel like, primarily, the reason why our society isn't having children is because of a growing selfishness and entitlement; which happens to be the very thing that Rome was suffering from when their society was collapsing too. No,…

Parenting can be deeply meaningful and fulfilling, and your experience is a powerful reminder of that. But I'd be cautious about chalking up declining birth rates to selfishness. People today are navigating a very different world

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#604

Post by Yeul »

crtified wrote: post #178

My anecdotal experience, which illustrates how changing societal norms may be contributing. Around 1960, my grandmother scandalously fell pregnant with my mother in her late teens. The child was adopted out - well, not out - in. To her own grandmother, to be raised as a "younger sister" to her own mother. Around 1980, my mother scandalously fell pregnant with me, in her late teens. Despite family disapproval, the chi…

Only until recently women were basically property who got no say in what they wanted.

You either got married to a man who protected you or you got raped. That's it.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#605

Post by Yeul »

acdha wrote: post #420
more_corn wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, I’ve never met a man who was incapable of doing what it takes. It’s not rocket surgery. Just mostly don’t be a dick and treat your wife how you’d want to be treated. If there’s anything more to it please let me know (for the sake of my marriage)

The bar is not high but a shocking number of men still fail it. I’ve lost track of how many coworkers I’ve had relate some story about their “crazy” girlfriend or wife expecting sympathy and not noticing that their audience is feeling bad for her.

For the first time in history women have choice and they choose against men.

Instead of introspection men react angry- predictably.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#606

Post by Zanfa »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #383
UncleMeat wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortions are not the primary reason why teen pregnancy is way down. There's actual data, you know. Fewer teen pregnancies is a reason why birth rates in the US are declining. But it isn't driven by abortion. And it is insane to me that I'm now seeing this "oh actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad" thing pop up all over the place.

> And it is insane to me that I'm now seeing this "oh actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad" thing pop up all over the place. The other side of this is insane to me... the "oh actually looming human extinction won't be so bad" thing. Sub-replacement fertility rates are slow-motion extinction. Animal models where they "bounce back" is irrelevant, those animals have their extremely high above-replacement fertility all…

I’m sorry, but calling anything but above-replacement birth rates “slow-motion extinction” is ridiculous. This is the equivalent to expecting babies to be 15 meters tall by the time they’re adults from extrapolating their rate of growth in their infant years.

Below-replacement rate might be an economic issue around retirement, but as far as the human species goes, it’s a nothingburger at this scale. We’re not passenger pigeons.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#607

Post by zormino »

standardUser wrote: post #215

The tiny period of time that allowed some men in the wealthiest parts of the world to purchase property and support a family of 4+ on a single salary was an anomaly. It was a macroeconomic fluke, forever lost to the specific place and time that allowed it to briefly flourish. There's a chance a highly-automated future could reduce our neccesary working hours to those boomtime levels. But the one thing that will absol…

Also in 1950 the population of the US was 151 million, today it's 341 million. it has more than doubled, and the amount of space has stayed the same. More people competing for the same amount of property will always lead to inflated housing costs beyond what inflation would predict.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#608

Post by thinkingemote »

KolibriFly wrote: post #603
socceroos wrote: post #312

I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful. It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over). I feel like, primarily, the reason why our society isn't having children is because of a growing selfishness and entitlement; which happens to be the very thing that Rome was suffering from when their society was collapsing too. No,…

Parenting can be deeply meaningful and fulfilling, and your experience is a powerful reminder of that. But I'd be cautious about chalking up declining birth rates to selfishness. People today are navigating a very different world

I think the issue is that the very different world is different because it's about the self and the individual. I am the most important thing. Human rights are about the person. My body. I can still be selfish and unselfish in my consumer choices. I can be unselfish and share my cake with you but I still get to eat my cake. What choices I make define who I am. The identities I freely adopt make me whom I am. The rewards of life impact me first.

It used to be about sacrifice and responsibilities. It's about giving up on choice. It's about not having cake. Our grandparents were defined by their responsibilities not their choices. Their identity was assigned to them as parent, it wasn't something they made themselves. It's horrific to think about for many (including me). How could I advocate for less of me?

A fear of the future of the world is about my future identity. Indeed we fear giving up our identity. We even want to die on our own terms. Many comments here talk about having babies as a kind of economic consumer choice and I imagine some parents do have children as a luxury good. "If only it was cheaper." It's still a choice of the self.

Our world is different in that it's hard to think about and talk of a world where the self is less important than the other and yet being a parent is usually about putting the child before themselves. Ironically therefore, babies are the best way to talk about not living in a selfish world!

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#609

Post by 0dayz »

triceratops wrote: post #206
itake wrote: post #161

My $0.02 is being a mom sucks. In modern relationships, men just want to work and come home to a cooked meal and clean house, but their wives are working just as many hours the men are. Having kids means tension in relationship, unpaid labor by the woman, and stress parenting kids. Even if the husband steps up, he still can't breast feed for 3 hours per day. Pregnancy is really terrible on the woman's body. Post-part…

> In modern relationships, men just want to work and come home to a cooked meal and clean house As a man in a "modern relationship" I strenuously object to this. I mean yeah I want that (who wouldn't?), but I know I'm not going to get it because my partner has a job too so we have to help each other. Literally every one of my married male friends also regularly cooks and cleans.

Data shows very clearly that men are way behind on helping around the house.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#610

Post by IshKebab »

bongodongobob wrote: post #382
IshKebab wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a significant factor because it doesn't come into play until all of your children are at least like 8. Nobody is thinking "I'll have to drive them to music lessons in 10 years instead of letting them play outside". I think the obvious factors are far more likely - people are poorer, childcare is more expensive, stay-at-home parents are less common.

I was roaming the country and forest with the neighbor kids when we were 4. This was mid 80s.

Yes presumably those neighbour kids were a little older than 4...
Post reply on HN