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

821–830 of 927 posts

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

#821

Post by fwsgonzo »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #253

Having a kid is no longer high-status for women. The only women (in the US) having kids in excess of the replacement rate are the poorest and most wealthy, in other words those too destitute for child-rearing to bring them any lower, and too rich for the burdens of it to have any effect on them. For all those in the middle, pregnancy and raising a kid is catastrophic to free-time, career success, and a sense of freed…

I've read so many comments, many of which I agree with and some which I don't. Either way, this comment is the only one that touches on the subject of womens careers. We are new parents and my wife is scared that she will lose her job despite protections. We are sick a lot (almost permanently so far) as childcare is a petri dish. We are also sleeping poorly almost every other day. She sometimes has meetings in the afternoon because people can't respect other peoples time off, and has to sometimes have a screaming child in the background. If she were to lose her job, we would have serious economic issues, despite both of us having good jobs. It's not great. It's becoming very clear to me that something is wrong both economically and politically when it comes to child rearing.

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

#822

Post by abenga »

odyssey7 wrote: post #522

What if we just made people financially comfortable and secure again? The axis is "feed and breed" vs "fight or flight." And stop making people move away from their families for a shot at financial security. Having family around is a key expedient to raising kids, just as it has been since the dawn of time. Stop making people leave their families for return-to-office nonsense. Millennials have been through repeated p…

Don't wealthy people have fewer children?

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

#823

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #813
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandmother was scandalously had. If abortion had been legal her entire family tree wouldn't exist. Me, my dozen or so cousins, my father, aunts, all gone. That's why my father is against abortion.

What terrible reasoning. Does that mean that if he were the child of rape he’d be pro-rape? Anything that would have prevented his existence is bad?

Why don't you show some tact or compassion?

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

#824

Post by IshKebab »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #795
IshKebab wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have two children and this is nonsense. Obviously the first child gets more attention than the second, but not in terms of the amount of time and money the childcare involves. And most people (in the UK at least) are not delivering obsessive levels of care. Some are of course, but most aren't.

Since what age did your kids start to go outside and play by themselves? I'm not in the UK, but in France it seems that people generally won't let their kids outside alone until they're 10 or not even then. That makes a difference of several hours of free time a week which is quite significant. Luckily people seem to be fine to leave their kids alone at home, which amounts to a few more hours of time per week. Also l…

They're only 4 & 6 so they don't yet. A 6 year old cannot reliably cross the road safely.

The NSPCC says 12 is a minimum for leaving kids alone at home: https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone

That's going to depend wildly on the actual child (my eldest is ridiculously responsible so we'll probably go out when she's younger, maybe 10).

I really don't think people are focusing on how busy lives will be in 10-12 years when they decide whether or not to have children. Obviously things like finances and childcare when they are young are way more important. Kind of insane that we're even debating that.

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

#825

Post by redeeman »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #795
IshKebab wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have two children and this is nonsense. Obviously the first child gets more attention than the second, but not in terms of the amount of time and money the childcare involves. And most people (in the UK at least) are not delivering obsessive levels of care. Some are of course, but most aren't.

Since what age did your kids start to go outside and play by themselves? I'm not in the UK, but in France it seems that people generally won't let their kids outside alone until they're 10 or not even then. That makes a difference of several hours of free time a week which is quite significant. Luckily people seem to be fine to leave their kids alone at home, which amounts to a few more hours of time per week. Also l…

> Also luckily there are mandatory public schools starting from the age of 3

wtf... let the kids be kids. this is totally gross and government violation of families

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

#826

Post by WorkerBee28474 »

epolanski wrote: post #660
WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We shouldn't promote teenage and very young women pregnancies Why not? The statement seems very much derived from 'current culture' morals. For most of human history I would guess that behavior was normal human behavior.

Because as of 2025 we know that in modern times such young pregnancies are closely related to financial difficulties, lack of maturity and stability, and in the end those lead to unhappy families and more importantly children.

I know some kids of teen parents. They seem at least as happy as average. Do you have any studies that say that group of people isn't?

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

#827

Post by FeloniousHam »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #559
teitoklien wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the mindset you're discussing isnt whats driving this for majority of people (im myself young and in my 20s). its a problem in your extremely small bubble of leftist spaces which i've often heard this doomism being argued. World has never been that fair, its a work in progress that has been going on since 1000s of years heck probably 100,000s for humans. First there was Anarchy / Stateless Societies (Pre-Leviathan),…

Can you explain how all of this is supposed to make me feel like it's worth opting in to? It sounds like this society is fundamentally broken. Why support something I don't believe in? Make a society worth believing in.

I'm proud of your decision to "opt out". I think the incremental improvements that have brought liberal democratic societies to a place of affluence unimaginable to my grandparents will be best sustained and advanced without your help.

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

#828

Post by mulmen »

0xffff2 wrote: post #802
mulmen wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a stable population good or desirable?

First, we categorically lack the technology for wide-scale colonization of space or other planets. Second, no matter how much people like to deny it, the Earth does have some finite carrying capacity. We can argue indefinitely about what exactly that carrying capacity is, but it exists. It follows from those two facts that unbounded population growth is not possible. A continually shrinking population eventually lead…

> It's not really clear to me what the point of this question is. Are you advocating for infinite growth? For eventual extinction?

Am I allowed to ask a question without having an agenda? What’s with the hostility?

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

#829

Post by dalyons »

thrance wrote: post #43
sparklingmango wrote: post #13

Optimism. And unfortunately based on the doom and gloom that the news and social media constantly shoves in our faces, we have a short supply of that.

Doom and gloom that is somewhat substantiated by material reality. The world is getting warmer and nothing is done about it. Far right populism is getting more and more popular, with no end in sight. No way am I bringing kids in this environment.

not nothing. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/46...

"people are now putting up a gigawatt’s worth of solar panels, the rough equivalent of the power generated by one coal-fired plant, every fifteen hours."

will things still get somewhat bad, certainly yeah. but there's a very real chance we're on track to a mostly carbon free future in a ~ decade. Im pessimistic about a lot of things but there is a lot to be optimistic about here.

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

#830

Post by ToDougie »

creato wrote: post #438
redeux wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a fluke because we've allowed the resources that once enabled this period to accumulate at the top so that it's not feasible on a broad scale any more.

It was a fluke because the US was unscathed by a war that destroyed much of the industrial and productive capacity in the rest of the world, at the same time vast strides in technology were being made. The US worker had a worldwide monopoly on labor and innovation for 30 years.

Oh come now. We didn't need to tax future generations 37 trillion dollars into debt.
Post reply on HN