The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline • Hacker News Board

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#71

Post by biophysboy » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

I am not remotely worried about birth rates. Every tech executive hyperventilating about it is extrapolating social trends decades ahead, which is the same mistake Erlich made when he published the "The Population Bomb". The total fertility rate has limitations as a metric too (it assumes constant birth timing).

The fact that they do this coercive paternalism on the very platforms that substitute for real life social interaction is very rich to me. I'll listen to them when they divest from the social corrosion machines.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#72

Post by PyWoody » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

phainopepla2 wrote: post #54

ashishb wrote: post #47

New Yorker has a detailed article on this phenomenon that's a great read. It busts many common myths. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/03/the-population...

What are some of the myths they bust in that article? For those of us who can't see past the paywall

https://archive.is/bmlll

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#73

Post by postflopclarity » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

dbspin wrote: post #70

postflopclarity wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

facilitating the free movement of labor across borders by... abducting and abusing all the laborers coming across our borders? very curious

I think you missed the sarcasm.

I did, sorry

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#74

Post by bombcar » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #40

myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

>I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong If you're demanding it be all-or-nothing, then sure it is "wrong". It obviously isn't the only reason. As countries get richer, people have fewer kids. Is it a factor? Of course it is . Children are incredibly expensive if you subscribe to modern norms and expectations. There are many, many, many people who want kids but can't afford it, and i…

> expectations around having and raising a child are very, very different from someone sixty years ago

This is at the root of "it's too expensive" - what are in the "needs" column has vastly changed.

It is very likely that if you want a large family, one spouse (usually the mother) is going to have to stay at home, or at most work very part time - at least until all kids are into school. The costs otherwise simply don't work out unless you have "free childcare" from grandparents or other family members - which used to be quite common.

The easiest thing to do is unsubscribe from modern norms and expectations - but this is a personal decision and too hard for many.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#75

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

bnjms wrote: post #65

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is housing really that expensive? When you price out a loan on a starter house it really ain't that bad. I'm a recent first time homebuyer and I don't understand why people think they aren't affordable. There were plenty of cheaper homes that I looked at and even with rates at their highest would be cheaper than my rent. Do people expect a palace? Are there more unmarried people today who can't afford it alone?

How much cost do you consider a first time home as costing?

[deleted]

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#76

Post by mothballed » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #40

myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

>I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong If you're demanding it be all-or-nothing, then sure it is "wrong". It obviously isn't the only reason. As countries get richer, people have fewer kids. Is it a factor? Of course it is . Children are incredibly expensive if you subscribe to modern norms and expectations. There are many, many, many people who want kids but can't afford it, and i…

>? If you're middle class in 2026, the expectations around having and raising a child are very, very different from someone sixty years ago.

I think this is it. Watching children bore me to death. I enjoy it for about an hour and that is it. The child doesn't appreciate having someone hover over them and the parent has better things to do than play children's games all day.

When I was a kid kids would walk home by themselves, spend all day either at school or playing outside, basically parents are there to provide general guidance, food, housing, a few luxuries, and protection. But none of this insanity where it is negligent if someone is not watching the child 24/7.

The biggest regret I have about parenthood is I envisioned it as it was when I was a child, and failed to take note that nothing that was allowed when I was a child is allowed anymore, someone will rat your ass out to CPS lickity split. This mean the child gets little of the independence and neither does the parent get a chance to give it to them. It's made me horribly, horribly sad on so many occasions to the point I've begged my spouse to let us move to another country where children can actually experience a childhood without the busybody enforced-by-law-helicoptering nonsense.

If I could parent children under the standards of the 1960s, or in most foreign countries with more liberal standard on the age appropriate independence of children, I would happily have a few more.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#77

Post by tayo42 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #48

The primary cause of low birth rates is that society does not value children. Sure we talk a big game, everything is 'for the children' obviously. However, we publicly divest from schools, we invest in technologies that devalue humans and human labor. Growing up we make people believe they need to be millionaires just to not be swallowed up by the 9-to-5 meat grinder (this is true actually). It's no wonder young peop…

Agree with the statement,

Don't agree with the supporting statements though.

Parenting is just really hard, families need two parents working, birthing itself is expensive, even with good insurance, day care is 2k a month and it's not a good idea to skip it. Houses are expensive, raising a kid in a tiny apartment is hard, renting brings instability to your life. There is no serious parental leave for new parents.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#78

Post by mekdoonggi » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

yoyohello13 wrote: post #48

The primary cause of low birth rates is that society does not value children. Sure we talk a big game, everything is 'for the children' obviously. However, we publicly divest from schools, we invest in technologies that devalue humans and human labor. Growing up we make people believe they need to be millionaires just to not be swallowed up by the 9-to-5 meat grinder (this is true actually). It's no wonder young peop…

As a parent, I genuinely question why I continue to participate in a society that tolerates traffic deaths and firearm violence like the US. If there's a large chunk of people who won't lift a finger to keep kids from being shot at school, there's a large chunk of people who value my child's life at zero.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#79

Post by mindslight » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

actionfromafar wrote: post #10

garbawarb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck, they could just make it easier for documented immigrants to live here.

There are other plans now: https://baptistnews.com/article/remember-the-first-goal-of-p...

The ever-advancing big tech dystopia where individuals are pervasively tracked, quantified, and siloed. A destroyed economy squashing mobility, making the basic necessities uncertain, and future wealth questionable. Terrorist gangs abducting people in their homes based on what AI says, and executing people in the streets for protesting about it. All things that make for warm fuzzy feelings about bringing children into this world!

As a parent, I will say that the reelection of destructionists has basically guaranteed that my son's life will be markedly worse than my own. This was our chance to pull up out of the death spiral, but instead we chose full speed ahead, downward. The only sane way to analyze the fascist movement is as the death throes of our society, rather than latching on to any of their conflicting purportedly-constructive plans they chum out to fool the gullible.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#80

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #8

GiorgioG wrote: post #2

Maybe if young folks could afford housing they'd have kids...there's a thought.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

Animals have "r/k selection": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory ; some have huge numbers of offspring (e.g. spiders, most fish), some carefully nurture a single egg per year. Humans are already at the smaller number of offspring compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, but what I think is happening is that social pressure has simply pushed the tradeoff hard into "quality".

That is, the message is "unless you can give your children a perfect life, you shouldn't bother".

Certainly the main victory against birthrate worldwide has been the long process of eradicating teen pregnancy.

> Easy access to contraceptives probably makes a significant difference too

This is so basic as to be an axiom of the whole thing. The politics of going back to forced childrearing through suppression of healthcare are horrific, but some of the US is pushing for that.