Thread

1. mlboss · 1790816419 · focus · HN ↗

   There is a very simple solution to the problem. Just add a tax to single people and childless couples or reverse give huge tax break to married and couple with kids.

   In past the motive for marriage was sex and companionship which was frowned in society if out of wedlock. Now it is not frowned upon. The old constraint is gone and we need to add new constraints if we want to solve the problem.

   1. croes · 1790818929 · focus · HN ↗

      That’s how you get loveless marriages and kids whose purpose is being a tax break.

      Good wages, enough free time, affordable housing, free child care, universal healthcare.

      That’s the better way.

      There plenty of people who want to marry and get kids but they don’t have enough time and money.

      1. mlboss · 1790822138 · focus · HN ↗

         History will disagree. People used to have multiple children with far less resources and education. It is a well known phenomenon that more affluence lead to less children.

         1. croes · 1790830150 · focus · HN ↗

            In history having children wasn’t decision based like it is now.

            Now it‘s easy to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant unwanted.

            So know you have to provide the right environment so people want to have children.

            Back then the choice was much more limited.

            1. fragmede · 1790832353 · focus · HN ↗

               If we want to recreate those conditions, we need to: Cut the power and Internet for an unknown period, stop the sales of condoms, and give away alcohol.

               1. croes · 1790864425 · focus · HN ↗

                  That would raise the birthrates but I don’t think women would be so happy about it.
         2. godwinson__4-8 · 1790835179 · focus · HN ↗

            Because children were an economic good - a source of labor and something that could be exchanged.

            Also most children died before adulthood.

            If you are affluent with each additional kid the risks more rapidly outweigh the rewards. Since all of us are generally more affluent now it is quite sensible to avoid having many kids.

            The history around childbirth is really very brutal and grim. We should be having less kids. It's a positive sign for our species, like having less blood spilled over religious conflicts.

            People who have kids because they don't know what else to do with their lives are probably raising children that are going to turn into unpleasant adults. I'm not sure why I would want to incentivize more kids where I would not relish the parents undergoing mitosis either. If someone wants to reproduce have at it, but why should I be excited by this? If "hell is other people" then what are other people's kids?

            1. akk0 · 1790859854 · focus · HN ↗

               Because somebody needs to grow your crops, sew your clothes, lay your fiber optic cable, synthesize your medication and cut your hair?

               1. godwinson__4-8 · 1790864453 · focus · HN ↗

                  Between all the excess in the economy (which will only grow as less people are born) and increasing levels of automation, I'm going to give that a hard no.

                  If you want to spawn children under the theory that they can sew my clothes be my guest. I assume you did not mean to confine this benefit to yourself given the other things you lumped it with.

                  I have no interest in bringing a soul into this world to satisfy anyone's economic interest. If you disagree that's your prerogative. Historically the only thing more dangerous than having kids is trying to control who has kids. So do what you will. Just don't ask I be excited for you to raise children under such a flimsy theory.

      2. TFNA · 1790823784 · focus · HN ↗

         > Good wages, enough free time, affordable housing, free child care, universal healthcare.

         Nordic countries did this. Birthrates have been declining regardless. Even Gulf Arab countries which are an even more enviable welfare state, and have considerable religious-cultural emphasis on childraising, too, have seen declining birthrates.

         1. SXX · 1790831825 · focus · HN ↗

            Birthrates decline is unrelated process which is just stronger than those incentives.

            Do you aware how expensive Nordic countries are to live in and have social life even counting all the free stuff?

            And gulf arab countries are basically even worse in this regard.

            1. fragmede · 1790832415 · focus · HN ↗

               It's simpler than that. People need to have hope for the future. With the climate going to shit, who wants to subject a child to that?

               1. TFNA · 1790834658 · focus · HN ↗

                  You might want to get out more. Climate-change concerns are amplified online like many other kinds of activism, but if you travel countries with declining birthrates, you'll rarely hear people IRL speaking of them.

                  1. viraptor · 1790855270 · focus · HN ↗

                     A lot of this is just a difference in topics for conversations - local/global. See: us talking here about a Singapore dating app, when likely neither of us two is in Singapore and at least one is already married. On the other hand, people in my circle are worried about the climate change concerns and we're aware of that... but it's not often a topic of conversation. It's not the concern that's amplified, just the topic is more frequent. But it doesn't mean I'm not seriously worried about my kid having to migrate in later life due to local agriculture becoming not viable at scale, one of the dumb wars turning into ww3, or just dying due to one of the current climate effects turning into a feedback loop that we can't survive within the next few generations.
                  2. nemo · 1790860876 · focus · HN ↗

                     Not everyone is well informed about the realities of climate change, but many are and it's a concern I hear from normal people from the US, Europe, and Asia that I've met. Some bury their heads in the sand, and if you do you'll ignore others who haven't, but it's a very legitimate concern for people with a basic awareness of reality. Things have gotten far worse in my lifetime, probably older people are more concerned since we can see the changes more clearly, but not all young people are deluded or ignorant about the reality of climate change.
               2. mlboss · 1790900367 · focus · HN ↗

                  What better way to solve challenges by getting rid of the generation that created it and letting new generation come and build a better world.
            2. TFNA · 1790832634 · focus · HN ↗

               Gulf Arab countries are not expensive for locals. They are provided with housing, a sinecure job. They drive multiple new-model cars. Nearly every family can afford a Filipino nanny, a cook and South Asian coolies for other labor. And food costs are some of the lowest in the developed world, much less than Europe.
            3. mrweasel · 1790845773 · focus · HN ↗

               The strongest indicator of declining birthrates isn't living expences, it's the education level of women in a society. Highly educated women, with good, high earning jobs have less children.

               1. boelboel · 1790876281 · focus · HN ↗

                  Highly educated women with high earning jobs don't really have fewer children. It's the women who are above average educated with above average earning. The first category would be graduate degrees/specialised degrees with an earning above 200K in most parts of America (well above it in the vhcol areas and lower in lcol areas) while the second is those earning 70-120K in most parts of America with a bachelor education or some less wanted graduate degrees (again a bit higher in vhcol areas).

                  Very high educated well earning women can offload their duties to others even the getting pregnant part these days. Educated women also tend to have a higher desire for large families, I know families with large amounts of engineers/lawyers/doctors where almost all get more than 2 children.

      3. matrix87 · 1790832030 · focus · HN ↗

         brute force scales a lot better than nuance

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.