Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India's surprise baby bust

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#871

Post by trumpdong »

georgeburdell wrote: post #698
zb3 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of life is reproduction There's no "purpose" of life, it just happens, it's physics. > I am a very successful and wealthy entrepreneur So now imagine you're not, and your life sucks because of such "successful and wealthy entrepreneurs" sucking all the wealth. If your life is shit, you naturally don't want to make it even shittier just so you can produce people whose life will also be shit (thanks to th…

The first time it happened it was physics. The next several billion years it was the purpose.

No, that's not correct. Otherwise grey tin would also have the same purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_pest

This is an allotrope (alternative crystal form) of tin metal that forms spontaneously at very low temperatures and can convert ordinary tin that it touches into the same form at room temperature. (It's not irreversible, as it melts into regular molten tin.). In other words, it's a metal that reproduces. At first due to physics, but after the first time it's purpose, wouldn't you say?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#872

Post by Earw0rm »

m_fayer wrote: post #202
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I have a different pet explanation from the other replies here, and I honestly don't get why it's not talked about more. Basically, our economic reality and expectations have come into conflict with biology and human lifespan. If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family, every year that takes a little longer. And these days, almost everyone wants that dignified middle class life…

So I think you're right, but my diagnosis of the problem is a little different.

As in: _why_ does everyone want a middle class life? _why_ is only a middle class life that's seen as being dignified?

I've friends across a wide range of ages, from late 50s to mid 20s, and it's notable that the older ones have stories of some incredibly grimy circumstances from their 20s which today's 20somethings would be unwilling to endure, they'd rather stay at home with their parents. Living in squats, bedsits or mobile homes, sofa surfing for extended periods, etc.

Lots of people in previous times started families when they were flat broke. Some out of choice, some it just happened. Granted that's not ideal, but they made it work.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#873

Post by trumpdong »

nashashmi wrote: post #370

Lots of theories here. Industrialization. Wealth. Education. First world transformation. Kids' expense. All of these are second-round of reasons. Primary reason: Materialistic wealth or wealth in general is preferred over human contact. Effect: People connection drops. Community drops. Independence and Individualism prosper. Secondary effect: The seeds for family development (community, human connection, village cama…

Thanks ChatGPT

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#874

Post by trumpdong »

matchbok3 wrote: post #628
thewhitetulip wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic statistics, common sense and dire poverty would dictate that there will be a sizable number of unhappy families. If you're surrounded by only happy families then you're privileged. I've seen families where husbands come home drunk and best the wives (in 2026)

You are in the family you help create. It is not just thrust upon you. The existence of despair need not discourage others to thrive.

Did the drunk wife-beaters intend to be that way?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#875

Post by illiac786 »

trumpdong wrote: post #863
illiac786 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. The environment will be destroyed but it won’t be getting any worse anymore. They will be delighted. Just a couple thousand years, maybe a million, to wait out – doable.

Probably less than a hundred. We're not talking about a nuclear winter scenario. Look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone (most of which is not radioactive and is closed off as a precaution)

We’re talking climate warming by 2-3°C at least, no one knows how bad it’s going to be. I wish I would share your optimism. At the moment, scientists keep revising their prognostics for the worse each year.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#876

Post by lucketone »

scoofy wrote: post #446
pj_mukh wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with all of this but, "cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment" That's not true, its that the cost to build the apartment is far too high and the cost is totally passed on to a the public, thereby hovering up any disposable income that might go towards having a child. There can be a profit margin, but the cost needs to be low.

My point is only that we can see the value capture of the housing shortage by looking at the delta of housing development COGS and housing prices. I generally agree with you that there is plenty of room for profit margin, but when we see housing prices diverging significantly from lowest-cost construction prices, then we can measure our shortage. My main point is that, because housing takes a very long time to build…

> We do it for food, oil, weapons, vaccines, you name it.

Much easier to have a reserve of X, if X can be put in a warehouse and transported later.

After reading comments here, I think that US has plenty of cheap housing… but… cheap housing is in places where people don’t want to live. (Demand is low, price is low)

If you actually plan to use your own money to build a reserve of housing, better double-tripple check if anybodyz will want to live there.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#877

Post by [deleted] »

matchbok3 wrote: post #628
thewhitetulip wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic statistics, common sense and dire poverty would dictate that there will be a sizable number of unhappy families. If you're surrounded by only happy families then you're privileged. I've seen families where husbands come home drunk and best the wives (in 2026)

You are in the family you help create. It is not just thrust upon you. The existence of despair need not discourage others to thrive.

[deleted]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#878

Post by Paradigm2020 »

trumpdong wrote: post #861
Paradigm2020 wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not religious at all but... "To those who is given much..." If all they do is not have kids and claim that we are a cancer the minimum they could do is that other classic Speaking is silver but silence is gold... And well I firmly believe the biggest problem is the pervasive desire to be weak and complain by those who have the possibility of actual impact. The battle is lost before it's fought and all. But yeah we ar…

You are using so many words to tell a person they should just kill themselves without directly saying it. I flagged your comment anyway. I hope the moderator understands the context.

If that is the (logical) conclusion you come to maybe the answer is that the person should be more careful about their choice of words because of the conclusion it leads to ?

Not that I expect too much deep thinking of someone who chooses to call themself trumpdong...

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#879

Post by mannanj »

ninininino wrote: post #170
trgn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i put off children because it takes longer to establish a foothold. not because i loved to travel or eat out necessarily, or felt i needed to prioritize hedonistic activities over building a family. but, during that time of getting my degree, figuring out my career, get some savings, etc.. those were the things to fill up time with. i'd trade it all for having kids younger though. it's just that they would have come…

Respectfully, you don't know why you put off children. You may tell yourself a story of why you have, but for example if there was an environmental contaminant shaping population level stats on endocrines and hormones that reduced human sex drive and desire for children, you wouldn't necessarily be conscious of that.

You got people angry about that.

I agree with you.

Most people can be sick and not see it because they are surrounded by other sick people. To them, that baseline of health feels healthy. You won't even really know why certain other people may cry, and smile, and laugh so easily and you can't. Maybe you received conditioning and beliefs about it in your environment which molded you into the sick person you are, and the other healthy ones are the sick ones to you!

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#880

Post by Spooky23 »

bombcar wrote: post #664
WarmWash wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have the state which pays for most of the top line expenses of having kids. Once you start making money, those benefits don't fade, they instantly disappear entirely.

If you're at a certain income, additional kids is additional income as more and more gets taken care of. And that certain income can be surprisingly high, as it's often a multiple of the poverty level which is calculated based on family size . eg: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/badgercareplus/fpl.htm

Yup. And it tends to cluster around rural and sectarian lines.

When people start having 6+, the formulas get weird and vary by state and sometimes county.

Post reply on HN