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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.