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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#981

Post by conductr »

bfeynman wrote: post #593
conductr wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a real thought process people are contending with. There's also just the simple fact that kids are liabilities more so than assets. That's not been the case through most of human civilization. I wouldn't limit it to economics either. Socially children are restricting. If you want to be free to travel, move, leave the house on a whim, etc. then kids will interrupt your plans/logistics.

I hate to break it to you but those are almost all economic problems in the grand scheme of things.

I disagree on some cases. If I want my child to have roots, same community, same friends, same school, etc. then I can’t move around. That’s not an economic decision.

Likewise, sure things like nannies can be hired to increase my flexibility. But, there’s a noneconomic factor of me just not wanting my kids to be raised by nannies. This requires my presence and engagement.

These are part of a noneconomic value system. In fact, many values like these are at odds with economics. Parents choose to place their values over economics. This might look like passing on a job/promotion that would require a relocation. If you are self aware enough to realize you have these values, you can estimate how becoming a parent will impact your life and choose how important creating a family is to you and if you want to ensure the consequences.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#983

Post by jjk166 »

ilovecake1984 wrote: post #849
jschveibinz wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disrespect, but historical evidence does not support this argument. I've seen similar claims made in other threads. Fertility rates have been decreasing (multiple factors) since 1850, even while general prosperity has been increasing. There is a connection between economic uncertainty and marriage/families over the short run. But the most likely causes of declining birth rates are cultural: modernization, freedom,…

You are missing a major driver of this. The main reason fertility rates have been decreasing is because of decreasing infant mortality. The number of children surviving to adulthood has been relatively stable until recently.

And more specifically there is a delay between when technology lowers the infant mortality rate and it becomes culturally normal to have the smaller number of children leading to the same number of adult descendants, so you typically get 1-2 generations with way higher populations than preceding generations and then the rest after that is just this large initial population having a normal number of kids. This means you get massive populations and intense crowding decades after the fact.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#984

Post by phendrenad2 »

kranke155 wrote: post #127
phendrenad2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... not how equilibrium works. A self-balancing segway or robot doesn't reach the balance point and then freeze in place. There are oscillations. And it isn't a pretty sine wave either. Considering the massive number of factors that go into something like "global population growth", expect a VERY chaotic graph indeed, like the stock market, but worse.

Yeah fair so what. The argument is - our current economic system can’t handle it. Well then that’s an argument for changing it.

Actually I was replying to someone who said that we weren't reaching equilibrium, and I contended that we are. I said nothing about "our current economic system can’t handle it".

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#985

Post by kixiQu »

ycombinete wrote: post #951
missedthecue wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "village" that used to raise kids was simply low labor force participation among women.

Grandparents, young cousins, older siblings, family friends, aunts and uncles, and extended family beyond. Simply being around frequently, and also easily available when needed. Very little of this has to do with female labour force participation.

https://wol.iza.org/articles/how-does-grandparent-childcare-...

In theory very little of it has to be about women specifically, but practice is different. (The expectations that used to exist for ~teenage girls to babysit for free for their relatives are somewhat undersold relative to adult labor, maybe)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#986

Post by kixiQu »

rr808 wrote: post #624

I know its not an acceptable view in 2026, but if women had to leave school at 16 and thus couldn't have a professional career I'd think many more women would have multiple children, like 5+ would be normal.

Believing "if X, Y" is not unacceptable in 2026. That was the analysis of the recent FT article too, pointing to the fertility rates in different countries with different success in expanding education to women. The difference is what you did not state, which would be to say "Therefore, we should not allow girls to attend school beyond 16 or women to have professional careers". That would be quite a take in 2026 (or in, frankly, 1926).

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#987

Post by littlexsparkee »

matchbok3 wrote: post #574
voiceofchoice wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first time ever people can finally choose not to have kids. Is it really any surprise people would opt out? Go spend a day with kids and you'll see why people would rather not deal with the mess. Especially women who actually end up doing the majority of the work. Add to that the extinction level pressures like climate change and the absolute lack of any benefit whatsoever in being a parent, who is crazy enou…

1. Climate change is most certainly not an extinction level event. 2. I spend many days with kids. They are great. I suggest you do the same and experience the human experience. Someone had to deal with the piece of crap you were when you were 2 years old, after all. 3. You'll stop praising the lack of children when you are 80 and nobody young wants to take care of you. You will have a lonely, lonely existence.

Why do people have such emotional reactions to peoples' preferences? Some of us get along perfectly well without kids, legacy, etc and aren't lonely at all. Feels like projection. Climate change need not be existential, being horrible is enough to ward most people off the notion and I'm certainly not interested in subjecting a kid to this mess.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#988

Post by littlexsparkee »

dpark wrote: post #935
analog31 wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hedonism" seems like an interesting term for a straightforward personal choice. I don't have a specific reference, but both affluence and a decline of childbirth seem to be related to improving the education and economic agency of women. Society can cope.

It seems like the right word. Hedonism doesn’t imply debauchery. It’s just prioritizing pleasure. It’s a hedonistic choice to forgo children in order to enjoy the pleasures of an unencumbered lifestyle. It’s also a personal choice (though I would not say it’s straightforward for most).

It's always invoked as if that makes life shallow - if avoiding pain (raising kids) is hedonism, then yeah I'm a hedonist. I'm not going to self-flagellate to appease society's desire for workers. Bad assumptions about demographics aren't a good reason for people to procreate, just to prolong a scheme that can't hold.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#989

Post by ycombinete »

kixiQu wrote: post #985
ycombinete wrote: post #951

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grandparents, young cousins, older siblings, family friends, aunts and uncles, and extended family beyond. Simply being around frequently, and also easily available when needed. Very little of this has to do with female labour force participation.

https://wol.iza.org/articles/how-does-grandparent-childcare-... In theory very little of it has to be about women specifically, but practice is different. (The expectations that used to exist for ~teenage girls to babysit for free for their relatives are somewhat undersold relative to adult labor, maybe)

What are we doing where looking after children is seen as a con for “the labor supply of senior workers”, and “the labor supply of young mothers”.

Won’t someone think of the labour supply!

Childcare is labour. It is work. It’s the most important work in a society.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#990

Post by Auracle »

somewhatgoated wrote: post #162
Auracle wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to. Let me break that norm for a second. So, are other activities more fun than child rearing? Often, yeah. Definitely less stressful. Rewarding? Not in a million goddamned years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to when your kid first walk…

I don’t buy that having children is the only really rewarding thing you could do as a human. Like the only reasons you can come up with is mystery chemicals or soyboys - seriously? I think it’s vastly more complex than “insert my favourite political reason” and includes many different factors. Personally I think it’s telling that only the Orthodox Jews don’t seem to have that problem - with an extremely rigid, strict…

I didn't say it was the only rewarding thing you can do, but it's probably the most rewarding thing that is attainable for most people.

Don't get me wrong, I think the problem is multifaceted, but don't you think it's odd that in very disparate cultures they're practically all having the same issue, but only in places that have first world-type amenities? Yes, there are odd groups here and there that don't conform, but the trend to that affect is worldwide. And again, this is when we know our hormones are definitely getting disrupted.

"Personally as a male I don’t mind having kids but if I were a woman no way in hell would I have one."

I don't understand that. Why? If anything I've heard the opposite most of my life, where men are afraid to have kids for child support reasons.

Post reply on HN