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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#681

Post by arbitrary_name »

matchbok3 wrote: post #579
pelagicAustral wrote: post #29

> But as India and others hurtle through their demographic transition, the consequences will not be pain-free. Pain for whom? The people profiting from cheap labor probably. Why is such a massive sin to scale down? To slow down a bit, I don't think the whole world is about to collapse, but even if it was, I rather that than turning it all into the hellscapes we see on some of the most overpopulated places in the worl…

The world is not even close to 1% "overpopulated". The 1% indulge? The greatest thing a person can do is raise a child and build a legacy. No class warfare or nonsense about climate change can change that. If you want a smaller world, fine. Then give up your 401k, retirement funds, and government care in old age. Because my kids are the ones paying for 100% of that. Think of someone other than yourself.

>The greatest thing a person can do is raise a child and build a legacy.

nice opinion, but it seems you are increasingly in the minority.

if the older generations can't find it in their hearts to take the long term view on social security funding, housing, climate change... why should we feel obligated to breed so there is a nice conveyor belt of wage slaves for them the pull the ladder on?

you sound very entitled.

and i think about myself because in the US, if i don't, no one else will.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#682

Post by thelastgallon »

kopirgan wrote: post #586
accurrent wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that affordable housing is crucial, but the idea that this is 'impossible in a democratic society' ignores global realities. Several democracies heavily subsidize housing—look at Vienna's social housing model or Singapore's HDB system. Yet, this has not solved the birthrate problem; Singapore’s fertility rate recently hit a record low of 0.87. Ironically, the highest birth rates globally occur where economic…

Lol "unique identity" just for 2 states is left political propaganda. Don't fall for it. Every state (for that matter, most districts) in India is unique and none are unique because there's so much in common. Depending on how you look at it. Coming to main topic, much of West doesn't have fiscal runway. But your point about getting old before getting rich is valid. But it is not all bad news. IMHO one of main challen…

That problem won't go away because India is not at 80 - 95% urbanized like the west. There are still ~50% in villages, who will continue to migrate to cities.

The problem is India only has a few metros. India should be building 100+ new cities and rapidly urbanize. Cities are engines of growth. The slow migration from villages to legacy metros amplifies the infrastructure problems.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#683

Post by bombcar »

calepayson wrote: post #84
happytoexplain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a lot of our economics presumes growth and, if we don’t get it, a lot of terrible stuff happens What does this actually mean? Every time I try to wrap my head around why it's bad e.g. for a business to make a constant profit, rather than an increasing profit; or for the population to dip to some number and settle there, rather than increase; the explanations seem to become circular very quickly. I know it's partiall…

Honestly great question. I think of it as: I invest my wages to take advantage of compound interest. It’s kind of my only hope of having a family / owning a home / retiring. If stuff stops compounding, I’m fucked. Multiply by however many millions of people are on the same position. I don’t necessarily think the theories are making any assumption about what is good (except for the “greed is good dicks”)but more ackno…

There existed ways to build a family/home/retire before the financialization of everything - those ways still exist and still work, even if disadvantaged.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#684

Post by willmarch »

nashashmi wrote: post #373
onesociety2022 wrote: post #361

Naive question- why does the human population need to keep growing? Why can’t we let it shrink? If AI and robotics are going to come to fruition in the next 50 years, why do we need so many people?

AI and robotics will still need maintenance. The expertise for the maintainers will be quite expensive to develop (longer years of schooling). Larger portions of society will now be necessary dedicated to new tech. More people are needed to fulfill future needs.

The robots will maintain themselves. AI will be dedicated to new tech.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#685

Post by cadamsdotcom »

There are a few constraints facing policymakers who try to incentivize people to have babies.

People can only drive or commute a few hours per day without being unable to care for children due to schedule. But the best opportunities cluster in small urban districts.

Throw money at the problem and it just gets used to fund housing, driving up costs and absorbing the money, leaving things back where they started.

This combination chokes population growth.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#686

Post by bombcar »

iamnothere wrote: post #618
ianm218 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With renewables and nuclear we have basically unlimited energy, which can solve a lot of resource related issues. What are you concerned we would run out of?

Topsoil (the oncoming train nobody has noticed yet)

We can make topsoil; we know how, we just don't have the will.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#687

Post by bombcar »

M95D wrote: post #318
em-bee wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potholes are indeed a problem actually, less people would mean less traffic, and less wear on the roads, therefore also less potholes.

That's not how potholes form. It depends on wheather, not traffic.

Road wear (including potholes) is almost entirely proportional to the number of large trucks.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#688

Post by bombcar »

ndiddy wrote: post #164
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the concern that we'd marginalize parents and kids? As a parent of little kids, that's a concern that wasn't even on my radar. I had no idea that that was a major concern of people. Wild. I'm not saying it is a fabricated or unfounded fear, I just don't have that concern at all for myself. As a parent of little kids, I worry much more about them living fulfilling lives as they grow up in the future. I'm concerned…

The concern is that if the birthrate drops low enough that having kids becomes unusual, it causes societal changes that create a negative feedback loop that will continue pushing the birthrate lower and lower. If the number of elderly far exceeds the number of working people (which is already locked in for South Korea), you then have to figure out how to restructure society around this while maintaining social order.

You can see this in a microcosm at churches - the ones full of families and exploding children will continue to have such; and the ones that are newly wed or nearly dead will chase families with children away even if entirely unintentionally.

If it happens on a societal level it's tremendously powerful.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#689

Post by bombcar »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #592
sethammons wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is NOT human extinction. Just the collapse of global modernity. Why would the last group of N people not subsistence farm? "Guess we wont try to live like people have for the last x million years, here is a good place to lay down and die."

>Why would the last group of N people not subsistence farm? Why would they be able to reinvent that, when none of their ancestors for how many generations did so? Is that something a person can do well, do you think, with no prior experience or expertise? What if they get it wrong, they'll starve? We could ask why they could reinvent all the technologies that people from prior eras of agriculture could manage? Will t…

They don't need to reinvent it - the Amish are doing it right now to some variation of "Amish on a tractor" if you want.

Insisting that negative population growth necessarily means extinction is as silly as saying that positive population growth necessarily means people standing on people from coast to coast.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#690

Post by thewhitetulip »

matchbok3 wrote: post #628
thewhitetulip wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic statistics, common sense and dire poverty would dictate that there will be a sizable number of unhappy families. If you're surrounded by only happy families then you're privileged. I've seen families where husbands come home drunk and best the wives (in 2026)

You are in the family you help create. It is not just thrust upon you. The existence of despair need not discourage others to thrive.

I think you're too idealistic (or of right wing ideology). The culture aka parents inlaws and random aubties and uncles pressurize Indian couples to have 1 kid then 2nd kid then 3rd kid

But neither of them come to help these days with childcare. Just for the photos and for lolz

Very few couples have kids of their own violitin

Not to mention some religious sects/cultures who look down upon contraceptives due to religious beliefs

So yeah, loads of parents become parents by accident and not by their own choice. (Not saying everyone is like this but a large number is like this)

Post reply on HN