The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007 • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by Ekaros » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:34 AM UTC

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)…

Would there also be effect that long term relationships are hard and pairing up has been disturbed by dating apps. If you aren't living together with regular partner taking next step of getting kid rarely happens.

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

#72

Post by mihaic » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:34 AM UTC

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.

That feels actually anti-rational, since if the people that care about the environment stop having children that means the people that are passing on their life outlook are mostly ignorant of the environment.

It must be a US thing more though, as I haven't personally heard people say fear of environmental damage to keep them from having kids.

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

#73

Post by throwaway346434 » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:34 AM UTC

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)…

Yeah that statement is whacky.

Over the past 40 years, was has been rate and efficacy of formal and informal sexual health education?

Pretty sure 80s kids got a lot of reasonable knowledge their parents lacked, and then went on to raise the next generation who are now much more aware of gender, sexual preference, etc concepts and increasingly so via informal means (Tiktok, etc).

No explanation! Just dont look at education policy!

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

#74

Post by withinboredom » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:35 AM UTC

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?

Before having a child, it was something I thought about and my wife and I would occasionally discuss. Now my son asks, "How can you do this to me? You've screwed up our planet and there is nothing I can do for at least ten years," (direct quote after coming home from school yesterday -- he's 9).

Our kids are worried about it, more so than our generation, that's for sure.

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

#75

Post by Aeolos » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:35 AM UTC

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?

A lot of people in the 18-35 demographic I am talking to are keenly aware of the environmental issues, and have taken steps to change their lifestyle to match. No cars, becoming vegetarian, buying second-hand, reducing travel, reducing consumption.

Yes, I may be seeing a bubble - but that is across three different countries, and clearly reflected in car-ownership statistics (down dramatically in younger generations) and in voting preferences.

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

#76

Post by lynx23 » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:36 AM UTC

loxs wrote: post #51

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.

Whenever I hear "wedding" I wonder why the male is going for that risk. The obvious unfairness and non-equality during a divorce is the main reason why I never would get married. Its just illogical to put yourself that much at risk.

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

#77

Post by somenameforme » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:36 AM UTC

As an interesting contrast China (which is also suffering fertility issues) just launched a new pro family/fertility campaign [1]. It's so weird how little coverage this issue receives in the West. Fertility will be one of the biggest factors in shaping our future, to say nothing of its more immediate impact on economic factors, retirement, and general social stability.

I think the big issue is that we live so much longer than we're fertile that it masks the impact of fertility changes by ~60 years. So this makes many people not really appreciate what's happening. To give a toy example, imagine a world with a fertility rate of 1, where everybody reproduces at 20, and dies at 80:

---

(100) Year 0: 100 births, 0 twenties, 0 forties, 0 sixties, 0 deaths

(150) Year 20: 50 births, 100 twenties, 0 forties, 0 sixties, 0 deaths

(175) Year 40: 25 births, 50 twenties, 100 forties, 0 sixties, 0 deaths

(187) Year 60: 12 births, 25 twenties, 50 forties, 100 sixties, 0 deaths

(93) Year 80: 6 births, 12 twenties, 25 forties, 50 sixties, 100 deaths

(46) Year 100: 3 births, 6 twenties, 12 forties, 25 sixties, 50 deaths

Year 120: 1 birth...

---

Various observations:

- Everything looks fine (if not great) until the first generation born from a high fertility generation starts to die. Somebody in year 20 saying there's a major fertility crisis would probably be considered eccentric.

- A fertility rate of 'n' results in an n/2 ratio of younger:older. Fertility rate of 1 = 50% as many people in each succeeding generation that will be ultimately responsible for economically supporting the previous generation.

- By observation 2 one could recreate the entire demographic distribution of year 0. If we assume a fertility rate of e.g. 4, then it would be a ratio of 4/2 younger people per older generation. So it would be: 100 births, 50 twenties, 25 forties, 12 sixties, and 6 deaths.

- The effects are exponential with relation to our window of fertility, and not our life expectancy. From year 60 onward in the above sim, the population would drop by 50% every 20 years. All life expectancy does is add a longer period before you hit an equilibrium.

- The minimum sustainable fertility rate is 2. This would, when equally distributed, be a society where 100% of women are having an average of 2 children each. It's unclear that anything like this is obtainable in our current economic and social models.

[1] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202305/1290693.shtml

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

#78

Post by carlmr » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:37 AM UTC

throwaw12 wrote: post #30

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) no trust in your partner (which is partly related to social networks and porn in some ways). they can divorce anytime, because it is easier to divorce than trying to resolve issues in the relationship, which will leave you as a single care taker of the kid, which creates 2 issues: (1) do you want to raise alone, making kid feel half family (2) can you actually raise alone with current demand at workpla…

Number one is very true. My generation has so many children of divorced parents that I don't see these trust issues ever being fixed.

I'm not sure if it's attributable to porn though. I think it's rather our individualistic, bordering on narcissistic, culture that is driving this.

As the old saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. The next best thing after the village is the family.

But in a society where the individual is celebrated and divorce is so common, the whole burden of raising the child rests either on the mother or the father. And that is just too much to deal with.

I think if you look back in human history it was natural that the tribe would take care of all the children, thereby spreading the burden a lot. But we don't have the tribe anymore. And the families are now breaking apart, too.

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

#79

Post by licebmi__at__ » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:37 AM UTC

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…

>>Are the people who want others to have more children prepared to pay for it?

>This implies that more people make society poorer.

Not really. The implication is that children’s are a costly investment, and as I see it; there’s a big overlap of people decrying the decline of birth rate, and people supporting politician who support slashing the budget that might help people raising children e.g. school lunch programs.

It makes no difference if society reaps the rewards on the long term if individuals can’t afford to cost that investment because it was decried as an irresponsible decision.

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

#80

Post by mytailorisrich » Wed, May 17, 2023, 9:38 AM UTC

gsich wrote: post #16

CalRobert wrote: post #10

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

Overpopulation is currently not a problem for humanity.

It actually is considering that the root cause of our environmental problems is human activity and that billions of people are still poor.

For instance, when we're told we need to eat less meat, we'll it's not so much that meat production is a problem, it's that meat production for billions of people is a problem.

So all the constraining measures we're seeing either being suggested or enforced "for the environment/climate" are constraints to fit so many people on the planet.