The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline • Hacker News Board

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#91

Post by gehwartzen » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

daymanstep wrote: post #41

myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

I can't agree with you enough. I am so sick and tired of the cost of living argument. Back in the 1800s people were living in tiny cramped places and having 5-6 kids while barely able to afford necessities.

People then also largely worked on family farms and having kids was the economically sensible thing to do. Times change and people expect differently for both their own lives as well as the lives of their children.

FWIW I have one child and financial strain is a big reason I don’t have more.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#92

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #69

queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

The growing population of economically non-productive people requires a growing population of economically productive people to support them. At some point, you could take 100% of the output of the productive people and it would still not be enough to support retirees et al. At the limit, not growing the productive population puts younger generations in a position of existing solely for the purpose of serving the non…

[deleted]

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#93

Post by tayo42 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

daymanstep wrote: post #41

myrmidon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "cost of living" explanation for low birthrates is just wrong, and not even plausible (anecdote: my grandmother had 17 siblings, and they could not even afford proper sunday shoes for all of them, much less current living standards). I think the biggest impact is from kids being obsolete/net negative as both workforce (when young) and retirement scheme (when the parents are old). But there is no reverting…

I can't agree with you enough. I am so sick and tired of the cost of living argument. Back in the 1800s people were living in tiny cramped places and having 5-6 kids while barely able to afford necessities.

How many kids do you have?

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#94

Post by throwawayohio » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #62

mikert89 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

I didn't realize incel rhetoric had spread to hackernews. God we're doomed.

The fall of this site after 2016 has been sad to watch. Basically turned into low-volume reddit.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#95

Post by r14c » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

The line has to go up every year forever, even if it causes cyclical market instability and consolidation into mega conglomerates. Creating sustainable wealth across all sectors of society just isn't profitable enough in the short term.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#96

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

anonymars wrote: post #66

mothballed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Social Security system relies on creating a debt of unborn children to older people based on those older people having already paid now dead people, so keeping it solvent requires more meat for the tax machine. A pyramid inversion means the old keep voting for OPM from the young, using their numbers to crush them, meanwhile there are fewer and fewer young to actually pay it. Eventually creating instability, coupl…

Mentioning Social Security and government implies there is some other form of retirement that doesn't inherently depend on younger people still working, doesn't it? I mean, who else going to grow the food and sweep the streets?

The traditional approach to this is:

a) make younger female family members do all the work

b) make them invisible, politically and socially, so everything looks fine

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#97

Post by jleyank » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #13

jleyank wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More that young(er) folks could afford to live on a single income for the pre-school years. Or, I guess, that there's extensive parental leave and support for the parent doing primary caregiver.

There are many solutions to different aspects of the problem - if we define the problem something like "people get together older, and have kids older, and have fewer." But even if everything was "easy and perfect" (arguably some other countries have this) - you still have something that is generally discouraging people from having kids. The median Amish family income is about $65,000 and typically has six to eight c…

The Amish aren't on the consumer treadmill. They have amazing social support from their community. They tend to be "traditional families" so there's no question re: child rearing. So I guess that satisfies both of the original conditions... But I figure people would prefer a more commercial lifestyle. Particularly on places like HN.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#98

Post by czbond » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

I believe the trend of population decline coupled with the wave of retirees when coupled with "AI" will produce a net benefit for everyone.

I believe humans and jobs will be able to accomplish more, with less people and have better margins - and thus be able to be paid much more.

I am an optimist that these trends together, when managed and harnessed well, can make us better paid, less stressed, and with more free time.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#99

Post by yoyohello13 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #69

queuebert wrote: post #16

Why do we obsess over growing everything all the time?

The growing population of economically non-productive people requires a growing population of economically productive people to support them. At some point, you could take 100% of the output of the productive people and it would still not be enough to support retirees et al. At the limit, not growing the productive population puts younger generations in a position of existing solely for the purpose of serving the non…

I think it's inevitable, the model is unsustainable and going to fail. In a finite world we can't have social models that rely on infinite growth. I'm sure the changing demographic is going to cause pain (probably right when I'm getting ready to retire), but historically pain is the real catalyst for change so maybe some good will come out of it.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#100

Post by whatever1 » Tue, Feb 10, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

Most of the developed countries are facing this.

I think our financial/defense systems are not prepared for population decline, so I foresee a lot of turbulence.

The new left will call for more immigration and more globalism to avoid wars, but will have to deal with integration of swaths of immigrants.

The new right will call for closing of the borders and double down on AI doing the work of producing and defending, but will have to deal with the fact that AI will not be ready for that.