What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another? • Hacker News Board

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

#741

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:07 PM UTC

jalapenos wrote: post #729

swat535 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the uncomfortable truth that many are reluctant to admit is that religion and societal norms (as you highlighted above) played a major role in this. I'm not discounting other facts such as the housing crisis or cost of living but I fear that while those are important, they are secondary. Women were often forced to carry a child due to outside pressure and had no recourse. However since the introduction of saf…

[flagged]

Or you can stand over a woman and prevent her receiving medical treatment until her avoidable death. Thus shocking an entire nation into permitting abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

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

#742

Post by sjw987 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:09 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #217

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…

I think that you're right and that this is one of the predominant reasons for declining child births. I think that if I were a woman that I would personally choose career or personal life first before having children, all other things in my life held equal. I have a lot invested in those things, they're here and tangible, and they bring me joy. Media says that it's the economy, but I've never once believed that to be…

"Media says that it's the economy, but I've never once believed that to be the leading factor. People had babies when they didn't have fresh food, running water, or even homes. Certainly far worse lives than we have today."

Historically, women didn't have bodily autonomy, had lower education and when those two points have not applied (recent history) there has been hope of an improvement around the corner.

Women now have bodily autonomy, have higher education, and many people today only see a downward trajectory economically speaking.

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

#743

Post by jalapenos » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

thrownearacc wrote: post #405

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…

Oh, I’m sure some “anecdotal” stories will come up, painting a perfect picture of the “good old days” — without calling them that, of course. Here's one then: Take my great-grandfather, for example. 56, falls head over heels for a 14-year-old girl from church, and boom — 30 days later, they’re married. 8 months later, my grandfather’s born. They stayed married for 50 years. My grandmother was 16 when she married my 4…

I mean, at least you're not propagating that woods-rapist line?

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

#744

Post by jalapenos » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

squigz wrote: post #638

thrownearacc wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I’m sure some “anecdotal” stories will come up, painting a perfect picture of the “good old days” — without calling them that, of course. Here's one then: Take my great-grandfather, for example. 56, falls head over heels for a 14-year-old girl from church, and boom — 30 days later, they’re married. 8 months later, my grandfather’s born. They stayed married for 50 years. My grandmother was 16 when she married my 4…

Your 56 year old great grandfather married a 14 year old girl and was married for 50 years?

[flagged]

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

#745

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

giingyui wrote: post #736

sjw987 wrote: post #720

It's the economy, stupid. Most younger people can't afford homes. People's money doesn't go as far as it used to. Academic qualifications are worth less than they used to be. Many people currently working now won't see a pension. Many won't see a good paying job, even with good academic qualifications and work experience. General health and wellbeing is getting worse, with businesses abusing human psychology to shift…

No, it’s not the economy. All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents. Yet they are doing fine.

> All the people my age who have children are the less financially and intellectually equipped to be parents

Well, yes. Because they've not quite got the heavily broadcast message that having children is a bad financial decision. The West is a society that respects wealth and has a vague distaste for children and parents.

The UK has an ongoing debate about the two-child limit on child benefit payments. Whenever this is discussed, furious people appear out of the woodwork to condemn those who dare to have three children as financially irresponsible.

An additional child at £17.25 a week is an intolerable cost to the taxpayer, apparently. And you wonder why people don't have more children.

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

#746

Post by jalapenos » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:16 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #625

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…

> scandalously Yes. Society hates teen pregnancy. Some societies will carve out an exception for married teens, which is a whole other can of worms. This is not a change in norms, it's the victory of the norms. People have been told not to have children until they are ready, and finally compliance with that is pretty high. There were even worse alternatives, like the mass grave at Tuam or the Victorian practice of "b…

No, parents just hate not being in absolute control over their kids, and an unmarried teen pregnancy is an extreme case of such non-control.

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

#747

Post by tstrimple » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #672

Larrikin wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology allows your body to get sick and die from bacteria and viruses, sometimes floating in the air. Human biology let's you get a cut on your hand and die from infection. That was a thing for most of history. Do you think it's weird we don't just let people suffer from those things as well?

You say that as if having children is a disease. If you are old enough to have a child, you are very likely old enough to successfully raise one. Otherwise the human race wouldn’t exist.

Having a child under a certain age has all the health risks of a serious disease putting the life of the mother and child at much higher risks. Why shouldn't it be treated as such?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5965834/

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

#748

Post by arvinsim » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

missedthecue wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take a TFR of 2.1, so depending where you live, a 40-250% increase in fertility. There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. Not even hunter gatherers could function like that

You’re answering the wrong question. That’s the answer to “how do we maintain the status quo?” We can absolutely exist in a world where growth does not exist from ever increasing population, but profits will evaporate as inflation increases and labor supply contracts. As a sibling comment mentions, automation will be a component. Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the c…

> Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the cost of labor goes up, and it becomes increasingly scarce.

I am increasingly tired of arguments for the elites to do something for the betterment of society. They have repeatedly shown that they don't care.

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

#749

Post by hermannj314 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

People will have more kids when the population of the planet is closer to 1 billion people than 10 billion, it is a problem that mostly self-corrects without intervention from what I can tell.

To answer the headline question: find a way to make other planets inhabitable and the human population will grow to fill the new spaceships, but for now this one is too crowded.

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

#750

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 2:35 PM UTC

nottorp wrote: post #593

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like being a parent much more than being a breadwinner. Working in an office, commuting, sitting in front of a computer, climbing the ladder, meetings, deadlines, office politics, fighting for promotions and raises and bonuses, OKRs and KPIs, insane pivots to chase fads, the constant fear of layoffs hanging over your head... It sucks. The only rewarding part is coming home to my partner and child. I much prefer coo…

> it should pay a basic income to stay-at-home parents However, birth rates are through the floor even in countries with 2 years paid parental leave.

True. The pay you get on that leave is according to the pay you earn at your job, is it not? If so, that's a policy that rewards working parents with busy, high-paying careers, having kids later in life, rather than young full-time parents. I don't know which policy is better but that might be one reason.