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

761–770 of 927 posts

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

#761

Post by cogman10 »

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.

> Yet they are doing fine.

Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes?

There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know they can't work forever and they know that the current political environment is one of removing and undoing every single social safety net out there. Meaning, a mistake today very well could mean homelessness/eating cat food/etc or ultimately starving to death.

My father-in-law is 72 and still needs to work to pay the bills. He can't retire. That's the future for the less financially and intellectually equipped parents and their kids in the current political climate.

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

#762

Post by sjw987 »

pjc50 wrote: post #745
giingyui wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the UK, more often than not, when a couple has more than 2 children they are often part of a certain demographic. The idea of this demographic and its culture becoming over-represented is not popular amongst a large portion of the population, regardless of what societal wide effects that may have.

In addition and in general, paying people to have kids is not a good solution. More often than not, it leads to less educated, less capable people becoming baby mills and ruining the rest of society with their poorly raised children. 2 children is fine. It's almost replacement level.

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

#763

Post by giingyui »

cogman10 wrote: post #761
giingyui wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yet they are doing fine. Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes? There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know…

[dead]

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

#764

Post by sebmellen »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #758
sebmellen wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Can you defend this for me? I'm genuinely asking. Why is it irresponsible to have a child when you're young and financially not established? Why is it any more irresponsible to do that than to have children at a geriatric age? Children are resilient, and so are parents. In my opinion, this idea that you have to have everything perfectly set up in life before you can contemplate having a child is ridiculous.

If you have a child, but don't have a house, you'll probably stay with your parents. They probably would rather you have your own house so they can have privacy and such. A lot of the "multiple generations of families under one roof" type thinking are only practical if you have a large property, which was more common and much cheaper before the industrial revolution, tract housing, high rise apartments, and $2000/mo.…

I had my first child at 24 on a shoestring budget in a 700 sq. ft. apartment and it has been completely manageable. Children are way less expensive than you might think (definitely cheaper than an adult) and if you’re creative you can find good quality, full-time daycare or childcare for $10-15k/yr.

Does this add extra work? Oh yes, absolutely it does. But while having children means you sacrifice certain things, they are an incredible gift and more than make up for the trouble they cause.

It’s appalling to me how heavily we gatekeep parenthood and building a family. There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4 billion years from the very first organism to you. Your ancestors all managed to do it and they were no smarter, more gifted, or more affluent than you are. Chances are they were younger than you when they started and in a far more perilous situation to boot.

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

#765

Post by broken-kebab »

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…

It's popular opinion, but it's demonstrably wrong. In terms of procreation richer countries doesn't do better, richer communities doesn't do better, and while economic incentives may shift needle a little temporarily, so far no consistent effects have been shown with them. Since condoms/pills/abortion detached sexual intercourse from its original biological function, it's only ideals, and culture which make people to choose becoming parents. It's too big a part of life to be paid with money for if you simply don't want it.

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

#766

Post by kelseyfrog »

pyuser583 wrote: post #570
kelseyfrog wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people feel the game is unfair, they quit. When the game is society, the society ceases to exist. It's wild that we find it harder to change the system than to walk away from it entirely. People opt out in a thousand small ways - refusing to have kids, refusing to participate, numbing themselves with distractions, or just mentally checking out. If the core pitch of society is "keep grinding or suffer," it’s not…

Society has been getting better and better. The privations our parents and grandparents went though were insane. Conscription, poverty, illiteracy, I mean wow. By almost every conceivable metric, the world is getting better.

I don't disagree, but better doesn't make up for unfairness.

Inequality isn't an act of nature. No volcano or hurricane is disrupting lives. The source is human, a system we built, the society we live in. If we can't change the system that binds us, then it doesn't deserve us.

The core conceit is, "When I win, it's merit. When you lose, it's fair."

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

#767

Post by broken-kebab »

cogman10 wrote: post #761
giingyui wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yet they are doing fine. Are they? What's the current status of their retirement accounts? What are their plans for funding their kids' educations? Do they own their own homes? There's a difference between being able to survive and living a good life. The reason the more financially literate and educated people put off having kids is because they care about their own futures and the futures of their kids. They know…

When aging population cannot be supported by enough young hands joining the economy, retirement accounts won't mean much. One can't eat digits, or take them as medicine. Money is as useful as you can exchange them for somebody's work.

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

#768

Post by angmarsbane »

epicureanideal wrote: post #518
angmarsbane wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we still have sex? I keep seeing headlines that younger generations aren't having sex. My last relationship ended because my mid-30s male partner wasn't interested in sex.

I think this would be worth a post and a bunch of discussion all by itself. I think there are a bunch of factors influencing this. If you’re willing to share, did they ever discuss with you the reasons they weren’t interested, and do you think they told you the complete and honest list of all the reasons? For example, did they have concerns about unplanned accidental pregnancy? Or were there certain expectations rela…

[dead]

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

#769

Post by cindyllm »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #766
pyuser583 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has been getting better and better. The privations our parents and grandparents went though were insane. Conscription, poverty, illiteracy, I mean wow. By almost every conceivable metric, the world is getting better.

I don't disagree, but better doesn't make up for unfairness. Inequality isn't an act of nature. No volcano or hurricane is disrupting lives. The source is human, a system we built, the society we live in. If we can't change the system that binds us, then it doesn't deserve us. The core conceit is, "When I win, it's merit. When you lose, it's fair."

[dead]

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

#770

Post by sebmellen »

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…

There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4.5 billion years of evolution from the very first organism to you. Every one of our ancestors made it, and chances are they did so in more difficult and perilous circumstances than we can imagine. You can as well.

This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity.

Throughout the history of civilization, we have made such incredible progress in medicine, technology, science, the standard of human living, energy production, space exploration, you name it. The world is a very bright place. Any prophecy of economic or climactic doom or cultural doom is just pessimism. In the long-term optimism is the most rational strategy.

In line with this, you can raise a family on a smaller budget than you'd imagine. Children are way less expensive than adults. Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. (At least this has been my experience; I had my first child at 24 on a small budget and in a small apartment with not all that much help.)

Post reply on HN