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

851–860 of 927 posts

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

#851

Post by thijson »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #186
IshKebab wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a significant factor because it doesn't come into play until all of your children are at least like 8. Nobody is thinking "I'll have to drive them to music lessons in 10 years instead of letting them play outside". I think the obvious factors are far more likely - people are poorer, childcare is more expensive, stay-at-home parents are less common.

It also may be the wrong causality. Perhaps when children are rarer, they are more precious and we naturally want to protect them more. It's bizarre to me that the piece doesn't mention the contraceptive pill, which debuted in 1960, the exact same year as peak fertility.

I saw it mentioned once that there's less crime today due to birth control. Supposedly there's fewer unwanted children.

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

#852

Post by Mawr »

potato3732842 wrote: post #633
Mawr wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you've consistently chosen immature women to have relationships with tells us nothing about the average woman. You weren't unlucky, you specifically made choices that led to these outcomes. Had you chosen women purely randomly, it'd be a different discussion, but you hadn't. You've done the equivalent of consistently driving above the speed limit and subsequently complaining about the police being too eager to g…

>That you've consistently chosen immature women to have relationships with tells us nothing about the average woman He's restating a complaint that's approximately as old as time. We've got records of roman male heads of household lamenting basically the same thing. He did not voice a novel or even close to novel-ish complaint. >Had you chosen women purely randomly, Have you met men? They're not exactly discerning ex…

> He's restating a complaint that's approximately as old as time.

Heh, reminds me of:

”Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching,” attributed to an Assyrian stone tablet of about 2800 B.C.

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

#853

Post by hackable_sand »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #779
sapphicsnail wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have always been and will always have casual sex. People didn't used to be perfect Christian monogamous couples until the 60s. We just punish people less for it than we used to which is a good thing.

Before contraceptives, there was no such thing as casual sex (except for the homosexual kind). Sex produced babies, 2% of women died in childbirth. Children need a father to help provide and protect, without that, babies were often just abandoned in the woods. There’s nothing casual about that.

Little bro is stuck in the 60's

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

#854

Post by robocat »

paradox460 wrote: post #445
like_any_other wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the parenting of extended family and neighbors - it takes a village.. But we're moving further and further from local, village-like lives.

We're also seeing baby boomers, who were raised partially by their grandparents, neglecting the role of grandparent. They live vicariously, through Facebook and video calls, and when the parents ask for them to get more involved, they're met with "I raised you, so I've done my part" Both my wife and my parents maybe see our kids twice a year, thrice if they have some other reason to come to town. And it's not an issu…

> baby boomers, neglecting the role of grandparent ...

Two 30ish mums I know act really entitled about the Boomer (61 to 79 years old) grandparents not giving enough support. The mums are both working in full-time jobs, so I understand why they need more help. One is a solo mum (due to bad choice for a father, wasn't a surprise).

Both mums get massive support from the grandparents (some working fulltime themselves), but they complain they just don't get enough support.

The mums compare with the support they received as children from their own grandparents, but often their grandmother was a "housewife" and their grandparents were relatively younger.

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

#855

Post by const_cast »

hatefulmoron wrote: post #475
const_cast wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, which is how it is and I don't see this changing any time soon.

But the point is that the illness of developed nations is having the symptoms treated by infusions of immigrants from countries that don't _yet_ have the same illness. If it's a matter of "as countries develop they have less children", you'd better hope other places of the world stay poor and uneducated.

We will develop solutions by then, ideally.

The "illness" is very simple, in my mind.

As rights for women progress, they choose not to have children. Which makes a lot of sense - having children is risky. The reason women in underdeveloped countries choose to have them is because they have less rights and less autonomy, as well as a worse economy.

If you're poor and require a husband to function, then having children is a huge boon. Not that you have much of a choice - your husband usually chooses. He bears little to no risk to having children, so of course he says yes.

What we cannot do in the West is backtrack on education and equality. It would probably work, yes, but we would literally develop backwards. Our economy relies on women working, our economy relies on education, etc.

So, instead, we should make having children a sweeter deal, rather than pseudo-forcing women to have children. We should offer generous and safe maternity leave, we should offer free childcare, and we should implement universal healthcare to eliminate risks associated with infant care, pregnancy, and postpartum care. We could even make higher-education free, to eliminate risks associated with saving for college.

Basically, women aren't having children because it's incredibly risky for little to no gain. By having children, you are ensuring greater economic hardship, health challenges, and less autonomy. It's a Catch 22 - if you choose to stay home, you have sabotaged your career. If you choose to work, you must pay exorbitant childcare fees.

We should not be surprised that women are opting out.

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

#856

Post by xyzelement »

One thing is always missing from the analysis of collapsed fertility is the recognition that truly religious people seem immune to the problem. Religious Jews, mormons, muslims, etc are having as many kids as a hundred years ago, if not more thanks to modern medicine and things that made things easier (I know guys with 11 kids, imagine doing that before diapers.)

From that perspective, much of the analysis about the systematic causes seems bunk - the same forces (eg the economy, costs, etc.) affect everyone. An ultra-orthodox woman averages 6.6 kids, while an atheist - about 1, despite the fact that they might live in the same Brooklyn zip code for instance.

It's just that - somehow - religious people maintain the motivation and energy to do it while atheism somehow doesn't create the same inspiration and ability. To be clear, fertility rate of around 1 means that each generation of atheists will be half the size of the previous one. So in one sense, the fertility problem will "solve itself" as subsequent generations are dominated by children of those who haven't lost their faiths.

I suspect part of the problem here is that secular society fails to turn an inward look on itself and recognize that their "secularity" is at the very least co-morbid with this problem.

I don't really have a solution since it's not like someone's going to read this and go "oh shit better pray up if I want to be a dad" (though it seems like that's true) but just wanted to point out the obvious connection between religiosity and being immune from this infertility on average.

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

#857

Post by ta8645 »

vjulian wrote: post #725
ta8645 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sex was great back then? Yes, obviously; there was a much higher reproductive rate. It seems like you're talking about enjoyment or something else, but that really wasn't the focus of this thread.

I find it interesting you suggest that pleasure be separated from reproduction in a thread about encouraging reproduction.

There is great pleasure in having a family. Even for people who get no pleasure out of the act itself.

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

#858

Post by crtified »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #790
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…

> In the late 90's, my late-teens girlfriend scandalously fell pregnant. And whose fault was that, eh?

Partly her parents, for refusing to allow her to go on birth control as a preventative in advance. She did ask. Back then, in my country, parental approval was required by law for people under a certain age. That has since changed.

Unfortunately it took a lot more than asking (i.e. it took "a pregnancy") before they took her seriously.

But primarily, yes, my fault and her fault.

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

#859

Post by hatefulmoron »

const_cast wrote: post #855
hatefulmoron wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point is that the illness of developed nations is having the symptoms treated by infusions of immigrants from countries that don't _yet_ have the same illness. If it's a matter of "as countries develop they have less children", you'd better hope other places of the world stay poor and uneducated.

We will develop solutions by then, ideally. The "illness" is very simple, in my mind. As rights for women progress, they choose not to have children. Which makes a lot of sense - having children is risky. The reason women in underdeveloped countries choose to have them is because they have less rights and less autonomy, as well as a worse economy. If you're poor and require a husband to function, then having children…

We have examples of countries with universal healthcare, long maternity leave, economic incentives to have children, and better social safety nets.

They have lower birth rates than the United States. Look at Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

I'm not saying these aren't good policies, but they aren't a fix for having more children.

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

#860

Post by itake »

drooby wrote: post #662
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then post the sources directly. What you linked to is obviously useless for good faith discussion?

What they linked cited sources well. Quote from the original source study. "Housework was defined as “core chores,” or routine housework that people generally do not enjoy doing such as washing dishes, laundry, vacuuming floors and dusting … Routine housework, like cooking dinner or making beds, was captured … . Other activities such as home repairs, mowing the lawn, and shoveling snow were not in the study. Items su…

When I was a kid in Florida, my sisters stayed inside learning how to knit while watching tv in the AC while I was outside in 95º Florida Humidity heat, helping my grandfather repair and maintain his home.

Outdoor labor is not enjoyable.

Post reply on HN