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?

#881

Post by fouc » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 9:13 AM UTC

sapphicsnail wrote: post #591

itake wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tracts, but I think women are evaluating men in “TikTok” metrics, instead of qualities that make a man a great partner. For example, being over 6ft doesn’t make you a good dad. Or being physically attractive, doest’t make you a supportive partner. If anything, these characteristics make a man worse, as men in these categories tend to have the pick of the litter, resulting in many women frustrating and disappoint…

I've spent a ton of time around women and men and I can tell you men are way more likely to make a decision based on physical appearance.

That's not what the data says when looking at online dating for example.

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

#882

Post by sebmellen » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 9:52 AM UTC

sjw987 wrote: post #879

sebmellen wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

Somebody else echoed my opinion exactly. Don't load your expectations onto other people as a given. I don't use social media. I read (and less often, post on) Hacker News at work sometimes, and that is quite literally all the user submitting content I produce. I've never used social networks (truly, personal choice), nor browsed them anonymously. I also don't read the news on a daily basis. I use one day per week to…

I agree with your point on the word “doomerism” and I should have quoted it. Later in my comment I said “prophecy of economic or climactic doom,” which is more reflective of how I see it. Go back through history and you will see time and time again that the world was due to end, but did not. Bayesian probability says we’re probably not headed for a world-ending outcome.

But I suppose I also take issue with your claim that “things aren't as good as they were a few years ago.” On what metric are you measuring this?

Finally — your point about the dodo just reinforces what I’m saying all the more! What I’m saying is: let’s not go extinct!

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

#883

Post by alexey-salmin » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 10:06 AM UTC

ponector wrote: post #840

redeeman wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You say to let moms be forced to stay at home as daycare is expensive?

I guess he's upset not by the existence of school but by the mandatory nature of it.

It's a relatively recent thing, starting 2018 [1]. The official explanation is reducing inequality, making sure rich and poor kids all actually get the same education and not a mere possibility to get it. Unofficial explanations often revolve around integration of immigrants with culture gaps getting too big to bridge by the age of 7.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43562029

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

#884

Post by immibis » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 10:12 AM UTC

alexey-salmin wrote: post #565

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was literally told as a kid that we were heading to overpopulation and that having kids would be immoral. The Chinese committed a genocide against girl infants with that as a justification.

I'm not saying that's something that can't happen, I'm saying it can't last for long. The "immoral to have kids" crowd still exists e.g in Europe but their options are to either change their mind or to be gradually overrun by people who think otherwise.

They're not genetically transmitted.

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

#885

Post by the_real_cher » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 10:55 AM UTC

FeloniousHam wrote: post #796

the_real_cher wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are acting confounded that the birthrate is goong down. But if people cant afford kids they wont have them. Its like super simple.

I don't agree with the premise (data point: I grew up poor, with siblings), but certainly the inverse isn't true.

Singular data point. Were talking macro level.

Talking about the educated West where people have the information and tools to make the decision.

Context inference is important

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

#886

Post by sjw987 » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 11:39 AM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #882

sjw987 wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody else echoed my opinion exactly. Don't load your expectations onto other people as a given. I don't use social media. I read (and less often, post on) Hacker News at work sometimes, and that is quite literally all the user submitting content I produce. I've never used social networks (truly, personal choice), nor browsed them anonymously. I also don't read the news on a daily basis. I use one day per week to…

I agree with your point on the word “doomerism” and I should have quoted it. Later in my comment I said “prophecy of economic or climactic doom,” which is more reflective of how I see it. Go back through history and you will see time and time again that the world was due to end, but did not. Bayesian probability says we’re probably not headed for a world-ending outcome. But I suppose I also take issue with your claim…

We needn't jump to the end of the world or human extinction, hence why I didn't understand the need for finalistic terms like doom. What many people believe is that life simply isn't going to be as good for the next generation(s).

You can already see the downward trend from our parents generation to ours, the downward trend (economically, politically and socially) within our own lifetimes and project that to the next generation. Keep in mind, our parents received an unlikely to be repeated boost in their fortunes (which was paved with the largest war we've ever had and good luck for us to be on the receiving end of most of the spoils of that war, rightly or wrongly). There's a huge list of issues making life worse for people right now, and many more being kicked down the road for the next generation.

I live in the UK, so I speak mostly with the context of my own country. That's the life I live and what I know. I read quite a bit about affairs in other countries, as I said, once a week, and the picture doesn't seem to be too unique country-to-country.

I don't want to list everything that would fall under the metric of measurement, because while I know it looks like a cop-out, it's honestly a huge list filled with points that we all know about (war, inequality, political shifts, cost of living crisis, climate change, changing cultural landscape). I could pick one and discuss it at length, but I don't know what that would do besides allow for venting.

The advance of science, medicine, and technology can be used as a reliable metric for improvement, but these alone can't balance out the negative socio-economic and political changes, especially when they're all so intertwined. It's great that science can provide GLP drugs for people to lose weight, but the counter-balance is that socially people are less inclined to do without. New technology is always getting better, but if it's just being used to revolutionise serving ads and selling subscriptions, that's counterintuitive. Antibiotics are becoming redundant faster than we can create new types.

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

#887

Post by kelipso » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 11:47 AM UTC

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #793

sebmellen wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell you how strange it is to have become a parent at 24. It anecdotally feels like the average parents my wife and I meet (with similarly-aged kids) are about ten years older than us. Making life is a normal part of life, and it's quite sad that we don't acknowledge the capacity of young adults.

When I was 30, I once thought to myself, "When my parents were my age, they had 3 kids and lived on a Navy base in another country. I still feel like a child that has fooled people into thinking I'm an adult." I'm 43 now and I'm still not convinced that I'm not 3 kids stacked in a trench coat. Despite having a great career that pays for an upper-middle class lifestyle, when I travel first class or go out to a fancy d…

My theory is that this feeling is the result of not enough socialization with people of varying ages. Their behavior towards you in aggregate grounds you to your age subconsciously, something like that.

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

#888

Post by cedws » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 12:05 PM UTC

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…

Your comment reminds me of the "housing economic theory of everything."

I watched this video a while back about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc

It used to take one income to run a household. Now it takes two.

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

#889

Post by MisterTea » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 12:09 PM UTC

sparklingmango wrote: post #716

MisterTea wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Costs $2500-4000/mo for infant care where I am. That's what grandparents are for. Growing up my immediate family lived in the same neighborhood. My mother's parents lived two blocks away and walked over. My fathers parents lived ~15 minutes away. Everyone worked locally. Baby sitters were always named grandma :-) Now you have to move across the country for a lucrative tech job, leaving behind your support network.…

It's a lot to ask grandparents to take care of an infant full time during the work week. Here and there, on occasion, that is a completely reasonable thing to ask for. It helps strengthen family bonds. But I would never ask my parents or my in-laws to care for my toddler 8-5 M-F. They already raised kids.

> But I would never ask my parents or my in-laws to care for my toddler 8-5 M-F. They already raised kids.

This is disheartening to hear. You should not have to ask, like ever. My mother would KILL to have grandchildren and would absolutely love to repeat what she calls the best time of her life. She nags me for not having kids and I feel bad because she sees other grandparents and is saddened she is missing out.

I recently overheard a conversation between two older women who were both new grandparents and they conversation was about the pure joy of getting to raise kids again - BUT - you get to go home at night. They loved it!

If you have the right parents then you should never have these reservations. Otherwise it sounds like you have parents who had kids "because that's what you're supposed to do." So they never enjoyed it and dont want to repeat it. My condolences.

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

#890

Post by MisterTea » Thu, Jul 17, 2025, 12:12 PM UTC

bdavbdav wrote: post #579

MisterTea wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Costs $2500-4000/mo for infant care where I am. That's what grandparents are for. Growing up my immediate family lived in the same neighborhood. My mother's parents lived two blocks away and walked over. My fathers parents lived ~15 minutes away. Everyone worked locally. Baby sitters were always named grandma :-) Now you have to move across the country for a lucrative tech job, leaving behind your support network.…

Which worked great when people had long retirements and were procreating early. Grandparents are working longer, older age when their children have children, and generally enjoying retirement more instead of grand parenting.

> and generally enjoying retirement more instead of grand parenting.

These are just people who never liked kids. My friends parents were still working and went out of their way to watch the kids when available. Believe me, there are people who LOVE kids.