
Americans Aren’t Making Babies, and That’s Bad for the Economy - elsewhen
https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/coronavirus-pandemic-americans-aren-t-making-babies-in-crisis
======
tomrod
Single income household with three relatively recent babies here. That doesn't
make me an expert, just someone on the front lines of this.

The article makes me say "no duh". The economic tradeoff of kids versus no
kids is crazy in most places in the US. If we hadn't been stuck in a cult
earlier in life we probably would have waited to start having kids.

In order to keep up you basically have to have two income streams or a solid
business.

~~~
mindvirus
It's nuts. Living in a big US city, with two young kids, daycare alone for
them is $5k/month - so that's about $100k of pre-tax income, not to mention
probably $2k/month extra spent on a larger apartment than we'd otherwise need.

We can afford it, but think of what this does to the income gap and GDP. If
either of us made less than $100k/year, it'd make sense for one of us to stop
working for a while to look after the kids. This means that already well off
people have a big advantage of being able to have a double income, while
that's denied to everyone else.

It feels like COVID makes this even worse - at least daycare is only a few
years before public school takes its place. With that gone, kids need full
time care for longer. Does this mean we'll see people dropping out of the
workforce in big numbers? What does that mean for recovery?

How do other places and countries manage it?

~~~
ilstormcloud
Third world resident here. $5k a month income would get you living like a king
here (with in house nanny) so to hear you have to spend that on daycare alone
is insane. If i may ask, What is it about daycare that makes it this
expensive? It seems demand is high and the business is profitable if they can
charge that much so why isn't competition driving price to be affordable?

~~~
mindvirus
Minimum wage is $15/hr (teachers make more), daycare is open 8am-6pm. Law has
4-5 kids per teacher, so that's $1000-$1250/kid minimum, plus floating
teachers (can't close a class if one teacher is sick), and there's rent and
administrators. So the $2.5k/kid is reasonable given all of that - I doubt the
school makes a lot of money.

To be fair, you can also get a nanny for about that (going rate is $20/hr or
so) which works out with two kids.

Still though, my point is that high costs of child care in the city are a
wedge that furthers the gap between rich and everyone else.

~~~
rukittenme
> Law has 4-5 kids per teacher

Is this true? When I was a kid my daycare was like 30 kids _per_ teacher. It
was called "Mother's Day Out". I can't remember the cost but judging by the
amount of time I spent there it was basically free.

------
entropicdrifter
Maybe this should be rephrased as, "Americans have little hope for the future,
and that's bad for the economy", since that seems to be the root issue for
more than just this particular expression of American hopelessness

~~~
rezmason
Seconded. I deeply resent the overall tone of this article, framing childbirth
and family planning as if every couple kept a damn Excel spreadsheet and
talked casually about "biological clocks".

Economists!

The author briefly points out that children born today might live to see the
22nd Century, but clearly hasn't spent much time actually envisioning that
century, using humanity's apparent trajectory as a basis.

I will need to know as a concerned, prospective parent, to which post-
cataclysmic vassal should my hypothetical child indenture themselves to, if
they wish to maximize their chances of living through the Age of Thirst?

What schools in my area can teach my child the skills necessary to deescalate
an armed conflict with a band of Sand Slayers laying siege to a former Amazon
distribution center?

And in all seriousness, what can I pass down to them that would make up for
the fact that I've dragged them into a world set on fire and wasted by
unchecked greed?

And did you notice that this article didn't mention adoption whatsoever? That
there are already kids in need of a family, whose parents apparently never
drafted the Excel spreadsheet, and are suffering through this grim period
along with us, whether we're here for them or not? I guess that information
doesn't fit into their dated narrative, worrying over their youngsters'
biological clocks, seeing a countdown timer on their own contribution to a
gene pool instead of wishing the best for their society.

~~~
shostack
I'll personally be impressed if humanity as a whole makes it to the 22nd
century with global warming and current geopolitical tensions.

------
porkloin
One half of a happily childless mid-30s DINK married couple here. We plan to
stay that way.

If the government wants me to have kids, they had better incentivize it. And
when I say incentivize, I don't mean exclusively financial incentives.
Ideological ones as well.

Right now, the primary reasons for having children are:

1\. Personal desire to have children/biological drive to reproduce - so much
so that you're willing to shoulder an enormous burden just to have children.

2\. Social pressure from family, friends, and society at large - so much so
that you're willing to shoulder an enormous burden just to feel like you're
making them happy.

Sidenote: Folks from camp #2 often seem deeply unhappy.

Free universal pre-K childcare would help a lot toward sweetening the pot, as
would substantial investment in public school systems.

Despite what you may think, this isn't about money or about us being greedy
with our time.

I don't have a lot of faith in the idea of bringing a human life into the
world as it is, but I also want to see evidence from my government that
they're building a country worth living in for my future children. Otherwise,
why would I bother to subject them to playing a game where the deck is stacked
against them?

By all accounts, a child of mine would come into the world with their own
enormous privilege and advantage over other children (white, born into a
higher income family of college graduates, etc.) - but can I really stomach
that while knowing it comes at the expense of some other child's opportunity?
I felt this way before the pandemic and social unrest of recent months. Now I
feel it even more acutely.

Personally, I'm completely content with not having kids. But if the government
wants me and other people like me to have children, they'd better make the
lives of parents easier, lower the barrier to entry, and massively increase my
confidence level that this shit-hole country will be worth living in 100 years
from now :)

~~~
dctoedt
> _Personally, I 'm completely content with not having kids._

Sincere question: I wonder how you'll feel in 30 or 40 years. I have an
extremely smart, distant-relative-by-marriage who's in his late 60s; he dotes
on his two middle-aged nephews and their young families — my speculation is
that, as he has developed some health problems, he's come to realize that
they're all he has for his old age.

~~~
porkloin
I've spent a lot of time thinking about that particular question, and the
simple answer is that yes, my partner and I may find ourselves late in life
wishing we had done otherwise. We also very easily could find ourselves
wishing we hadn't. I look around and see many people who also have very poor
relationships with their elderly parents - I don't discount the fact that
given the culture of America at this particular moment that I could have
children who bring me great joy for the 18 years they are with me, who only
then become all but distant strangers once they enter into their adult life.
This seems increasingly common nowadays. Or they could love me sincerely!

Either way, if I had children, I wouldn't think it right or just to burden
them with an expectation that they owe me endless years of emotional,
physical, or social support.

Additionally, I think our brains are very good at rationalizing and justifying
the choices we already have made, and so I'd mostly suspect that I'll continue
to convince myself that I made the right choice regardless of any loneliness
that may crop up later in life.

It also might seem callous, but there are simple psychological needs (such as
feeling that you're caring or providing for another being) that are easily
fulfilled without having children. Pets help a lot. Volunteering helps as
well. And, of course, just like your older relative, spending time around
other children and young people when you can.

My hope is that between all of these things, I'll lead a happy and fulfilling
life. Or maybe I won't – but I ultimately don't have any control over that.
And my personal opinion is that having children doesn't assure you a
fulfilling life either!

~~~
folkhack
> Either way, if I had children, I wouldn't think it right or just to burden
> them with an expectation that they owe me endless years of emotional,
> physical, or social support.

Just throwing this out there - I 100% agree with you but anecdotally find that
older generations see this completely different. There's an
expectation/entitlement there of "we raised you, so you owe us this..."

------
December_Stars
If our economy damns us if we _do_ have a baby but damns us if we _don 't_
maybe the economy is the issue, not us.

~~~
eanzenberg
More to do with the media telling you you’re damned if you do and damned if
you dont.

~~~
cwhiz
I don't need the media to tell me either of those things. I can do arithmetic.
Our economy relies on consumerism expanding infinitely. If people are having
fewer babies that means fewer consumers. The easiest solution is to increase
immigration but that's not such a popular topic in some political circles. It
is easy to connect the dots here and see that there are problems on the
horizon.

On having children, the math is even more clear and obvious. Where I live it
is estimated to cost $350,000 to raise a child to age 18 and this number does
not include any type of college investment. Let's assume I want two kids and
on the second one I miraculously get a discount on everything of 50%. And
let's also assume I invest in a 529 so I can give my kids $120,000 each to go
to college. We're talking 2020 dollars.

I'll need to spend ~$3,000/month to raise the two kids. Not too bad when you
put it that way. However... what is the opportunity cost of that? If I am
conservative it's about $1.1 million. If the market works out well for me it's
$2.2 million or more.

And that's the real cost to me to raise two children. Somewhere between $1
million and $2 million. And people wonder why American adults are having fewer
and fewer children? Humans are great at adjusting to their environments and
rationalizing their decisions so when people tell me about how much they love
being a parent I take it with a huge grain of salt. You can learn to love just
about anything, even captivity.

~~~
refurb
_I 'll need to spend ~$3,000/month to raise the two kids._

Sure, before they go to school (up to ~6 yrs old), but after that cost goes
away. Sure, new costs pop up, but they aren't $3,000 per month.

~~~
cwhiz
I didn't make those numbers up. They came straight from the USDA and include
actual estimated costs that actual Americans paid to raise their children. My
numbers were adjusted for my city which is more expensive than average. The
$3,000/month is averaging out the total cost over the lifetime of a child, not
what a parent would expect to pay on a monthly basis.

Here is the report. If you feel strongly that their information is wrong,
contact the USDA: [https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/crc2015_M...](https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/crc2015_March2017.pdf)

~~~
refurb
I can’t find your $3,000 per month. Your reference ranges from less than $1000
to maybe $1500 per month.

And 1/3 of that is housing, yet, I know plenty of couples without kids have 2
or 3 bedroom homes. Converting your old office to a kids bedroom isn’t
increasing your monthly housing cost.

This report is more “costs we can attribute to children” rather than
“additional costs as a result of children”.

~~~
cwhiz
Like I said... my city is more expensive than the average, my number is for
two kids, and I included funding for college.

I am not here to defend the USDA report. Take it up with them if you disagree.

------
bantunes
Maybe people will start listening to degrowthers like Jason Hickel that
advocate for a rethinking of our economical systems' reliance on infinite
growth on a finite planet
[https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/27/degrowth-a-
call-...](https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/27/degrowth-a-call-for-
radical-abundance)

~~~
nerdponx
This is basically missing from the Jones paper that is cited in the article
here. That model, as far as I can tell from my initial skimming, doesn't allow
for something like "human societies adopting different customs and policies as
population growth goes to 0 or below."

------
AdmiralAsshat
It is your patriotic duty to condemn yourself and your progeny to poverty by
having babies you can't afford, so that somewhere out there, your retired
parents can enjoy the benefits of social security and a slightly-better-
performing 401k.

~~~
RestlessMind
Wrong. _You_ are currently paying social security for your parents and _your_
work is propping up the valuations of their portfolio companies.

Your babies will be paying, not for their grandparents, but for you and your
generation.

------
ck425
If the economy relies on population growth then the economy needs to change.
Doing some back of an envelope calculations:

Current Human Population: 7.80E+09 Current worldwide growth rate: 1.05%
Current Land Surface of Earth: 1.49E+14

If we presume the latter figures stay the same (they won't) then in a mere 944
years the human population would be such that there's only _one square meter
of land per human alive_.

Granted we'd probably kill each other well before we reached that point, but
the point remains, we need to figure out how to make the economy work with
zero population growth.

~~~
baq
> If we presume the latter figures stay the same (they won't) then in a mere
> 944 years the human population would be such that there's only one square
> meter of land per human alive.

not a problem - with the current energy consumption growth we'll boil off the
oceans in half of that time.

~~~
neltnerb
Heck, at that biodensity just human body heat would probably boil off the
oceans... if the people could feed themselves with nuclear greenhouses
underground to avoid the limits of solar insolation.

But the point that economics assumes as a tenet a clearly nonphysical core
assumption is a problem. It is weird to me how hard it is to find academic
literature on this.

I guess they all figure it's either a problem that's so long term it's
presumptuous to try to solve it so early on, that the definition of "growth"
will just change to make it always true, or the math is just hard. My guess is
the first two to be honest, they're plenty smart when it comes to math... just
not always making realistic models.

~~~
baq
I guess economists assume that economics is really a social discipline. When
arguments about hard limits are made, they IME come from physicists. I
particularly like a decade-old (time flies!) Do The Math series. The post
which makes a prediction about the oceans in 400-ish years assuming 2.3% yoy
growth in particular is here: [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-
scale-energy/](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/)

~~~
neltnerb
I guess when I look for inspiration about exponential growth my goto would be
Dyson from 1960. I did get a degree in physics and like the blog post though,
so I'm with you there.

[http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SETI1.HTM](http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SETI1.HTM)

"The reader may well ask in what sense can anyone speak of the mass of Jupiter
or the total radiation from the sun as being accessible to exploitation. The
following argument is intended to show that an exploitation of this magnitude
is not absurd. First of all, the time required for an expansion of population
and industry by a factor of 10^12 is quite short, say 3000 years if an average
growth rate of 1 percent per year is maintained. Second, the energy required
to disassemble and rearrange a planet the size of Jupiter is about 10^44 ergs,
equal to the energy radiated by the sun in 800 years. Third, the mass of
Jupiter, if distributed in a spherical shell revolving around the sun at twice
the Earth's distance from it, would have a thickness such that the mass is 200
grams per square centimeter of surface area (2 to 3 meters, depending on the
density). A shell of this thickness could be made comfortably habitable, and
could contain all the machinery required for exploiting the solar radiation
falling onto it from the inside.

It is remarkable that the time scale of industrial expansion, the mass of
Jupiter, the energy output of the sun, and the thickness of a habitable
biosphere all have consistent orders of magnitude. It seems, then a reasonable
expectation that, barring accidents, Malthusian pressures will ultimately
drive an intelligent species to adopt some such efficient exploitation of its
available resources. One should expect that, within a few thousand years of
its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species
should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds
its parent star."

------
nxc18
Massive inflation of health care, education, housing prices isn't helping. I
probably won't ever have children due to those factors. (aside: I'm gay and
would be adopting anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter, but my straight
friends are in the same boat)

For people that went the college route (which 95% of the people at my high
school did, for context), there was 4-5 years of study during prime child-
making, partner-finding years. Now you're 22-23. Then it takes 10 years to pay
off the 80k of debt (assuming a comparatively cheap 20k per year) before you
can start saving for a house. Maybe you're very wise and are able to pay off
your loans two years early. Now you're 30 - 10 years away from the presumed
biological clock running out. Next, you've got to save for a house and find a
partner. You could argue that renting is fine and you don't need a house, but
it seems like home ownership is desirable to create stable conditions for the
family. Housing is extremely expensive; a tiny home near me is going for
$400,000. It might take another few years to save up a 10% deposit, assuming
you're stuck paying potentially extreme rent.

Once you've got a house, you've got to be very secure in your career before
you can risk having a child; insurance is very expensive. Even with an
employer contribution, healthcare for a family likely costs upwards of
$1,000/month; that's comparable to rent in many places.

On top of all of those structural barriers to parenthood, American society is
facing massive uncertainty, deteriorating economic conditions, democracy under
serious threat, and ongoing attacks on the environment and institutions that
keep people safe and healthy.

And finally there's the culture part of it. For the last 30 years, there's
been an emphasis on teens never, ever, ever doing anything sexual, because the
horror. Then as soon as they turn 18, parents/society are suddenly asking
about grandchildren.

~~~
refurb
If this was true, lower and middle class people wouldn't be having as many
kids as they do. It's obviously possible to have kids without an upper-middle
class income. People _choose_ not to have kids because they prioritize other
things like education, career, buying a home, living in a HCOL area.

------
burlesona
There is an obvious short term cause, which is that the US is stuck with
pandemic conditions for quite a long time, and pregnancy and delivery is quite
a medical thing. The idea of going through that when the local hospital is
overwhelmed with coronavirus patients is not appealing. And you don’t know if
it will be because you have to forecast 9 to 12 months ahead.

Meanwhile we have a housing crisis where even very high income people are
having a difficult time finding family sized housing in the places that they
work.

Having lived in San Francisco for years with children, I would very much like
to get a three bedroom two bathroom home, but the cheapest places that are
reasonably safe are in the $1.3 million range and up. I don’t want to move to
a low cost of living area, I like living in the city. And besides, most of the
so-called lower cost of living places aren’t actually that much cheaper. One
example: living anywhere near downtown Austin, similar houses have a wider
range from as low as 600k (most seem around 800k), but with much higher
property taxes the payments are comparable to $1M+ properties in SF. And
that’s living in car town without the beauty, walkability, or convenience of
an older city.

(Once you adjust for the huge pay cut that leaving the Bay Area brings, there
aren’t any great options. The “winning” strategy instead is to horde as much
savings as you can in the Bay Area then move to a true LCOL location (rural
America / rust belt) as a form of early retirement, living mostly off those
accumulated savings for the long haul.)

But the problems I’m describing, frustrating as they are, are nothing compared
to the struggle that a family living with median income is facing.

If we don’t get serious about fixing housing, then it won’t surprise me at all
if we have a permanent dramatic decrease in birth rates as many adults are not
willing to try and raise a family without feeling economically secure, and a
lot of people do not feel economically secure until they own their own home.

~~~
yanks215
> pregnancy and delivery is quite a medical thing.

This was historically not the case. There is a movie "The Business of Being
Born" which emphasizes midwives in childbirth. It's important to know about
this idea _before_ conceiving, because you cannot change your OB after a
certain number of weeks, at which point you are on the hospitalization
conveyor belt.

Caveat emptor, I am a man, and my wife preferred hospitalization, and if you
have medical problems it makes sense to be in a hospital. But if you are
healthy and young, you have options. Given the pandemic, it _could possibly_
be safer, on balance, to deliver at home or in a non-hospital facility. A
migration to this less expensive model would also save money for new families
and beds for the critically ill, such as in this pandemic.

> Having lived in San Francisco for years with children, I would very much
> like to get a three bedroom two bathroom home, but the cheapest places that
> are reasonably safe are in the $1.3 million range and up.

I think a lot of people in the upper middle class that read Hacker News are
focused on maintaining their status and driving education (and land value
increases) from school districts. I myself have made this choice and live in a
very high cost suburb with a great school district. But that does not mean
these amenities are necessary to have more children. I grew up in a blue
collar village and while I graduated college and have some post-graduate
coursework, most of my skills have been self-taught. I have often found,
albeit anecdotally, that children placed into these districts and affluent
situations tend to be less self-reliant and creative than the intelligent
peers I grew up with from similar backgrounds. A lot of the worry about
educational outcomes is driven by values imparted by strong parenting - my
parents did not have much when I was young, but they imparted work ethic and
emphasized enrichment outside of the organized classroom. Sometimes I regret
moving to my affluent neighborhood because my children will learn less
resilience due to less adversity. But I am not moving, so I don't really
regret it.

My point is that there can be successful Americans from all walks of life and
all levels of income due to the meritocratic nature of our nation and strong
values in the home and surrounding community. Needing an expensive location
with great schools can be helpful but overall is unnecessary. I have friends
in a smaller city, one a developer and one a teacher, who own a $190k 4BR
house and have safety and good schools. Their child is smart because they
spend time and impart values. It is _different_ because tradeoffs are made in
potential income and budget decisions. But it is not necessarily harder.

------
izzydata
Maybe the current economic system is not good for humanity. An economy based
on an infinitely expanding population is a pyramid scheme bound to collapse
eventually. Why does everything have to be based on endless growth rather than
maintaining a net neutral?

~~~
folkhack
Truth be told, I have a cushy tech job and I'm still scared s_tless every day
of losing everything. Also, economically speaking, I'm probably who should be
having a kid right now. Hard no. Not with these risks/anxieties. Get sick,
lose it all - I've experienced it first hand.

I feel like I don't have any sort of social safety net. I need so much more
than I do right now to responsibly have a child and actually provide for their
future (in the US, in 2020).

------
hstaab
Speak for yourself, I made one this year. For the economy of course.

~~~
speedgoose
Congratulations!

~~~
hstaab
Thanks! It’s a first for me. Nothing better.

------
jawns
This doesn't get directly addressed in the article, but the problem goes
beyond Americans not making babies. It's also a problem with making families.

In 1968, only 7% of parents with a child in the home were unmarried. In 2017,
that had risen to 25%. That rise is partly driven by an increase in couples
who are cohabiting but unmarried. In 2017, 35% of unmarried parents were
cohabiting.

But cohabiting relationships tend to be less stable than married
relationships. Whereas about 20 percent of parents married at the time of
their child's birth have split up five years later, that jumps to nearly 50
percent for parents who were cohabiting but unmarried at the time of their
child's birth.

There are myriad difficulties associated with the decline of stable marriages
among parents. There are economic implications. There are implications for
child development and outcomes. There are legal implications, particularly
with regard to family courts becoming a party to the relationship.

There are tons of policies that influence these trends, but I would argue that
paid parental leave, paid medical leave, flexible work schedules, incentives
for attending marriage-prep classes and parenting classes, and other social
welfare programs have the potential to move the needle.

It's unfortunate that we live in a society where families with minor children
are one of the most common household types (making up about 40% of all
households) and yet our laws and our employer's policies are so anti-family.

Sources:

[https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/25/the-changing-
prof...](https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-
unmarried-parents)

[https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-
an...](https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-
are-not-interchangeable)

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/242074/percentages-of-
us...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/242074/percentages-of-us-family-
households-with-children-by-type)

------
Ericson2314
Because productivity has gone up so much over the past decades, we should have
the same standard of living with less working ours / higher ratio of retires.
Full stop.

Screw "growth", raise the cost of labor so that we find all the unproductive
weakest links and fix them.

------
standardUser
This is nothing that increased immigration can't solve. Immigration has
insulated the US from the age curve that has afflicted most Western nations
for generations.

~~~
coredog64
Unpopular comment ahead.

We need people to pay taxes and provide services for the young and the
elderly. In general, that requires a high trust environment. Wholesale
importation of immigrants without a plan to integrate them into the
environment is _not_ a high trust environment. One (very probable) outcome is
the large community of unintegrated immigrants will detach from the
responsibilities being placed on them. At which point we also haven’t solved
the demographic problem that immigration is supposed to solve.

~~~
standardUser
Immigration is the one and only formula the United States has used to grow
into the largest economy and among the highest standards of living in the
world.

I'm not sure why you imagine this strategy is suddenly problematic.

"At which point we also haven’t solved the demographic problem that
immigration is supposed to solve."

I also don't follow the logic of this line at all. Why would new immigrants
working and paying taxes and having children not help the demographic
situation?

------
chadlavi
this is another one of those "why aren't millennials buying diamonds?!?!" out
of touch takes

~~~
superhuzza
No it isn't at all, the article is just pointing out the potential
consequences down the road. The article is perfectly cognizant that having a
child is an economic burden to individual couples:

"Unromantic as it sounds, planning a family is a numbers exercise that factors
in the age of the would-be mother, access to affordable child care, college
costs, income, and job security. Toss in a national health emergency and an
economic crisis that invites comparisons to the Great Depression, and the
benefits of parenthood no longer pencil out for many."

------
dustingetz
"Sufficiently Powerful Optimization of Any Known Target Destroys All Value"
[https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-
ha...](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-hate-your-
family/)

------
chishaku
We need to rethink the economy.

~~~
apta
A good start is banning interest and other parasitic practices that underly
the banking system.

------
pjc50
"Do this incredibly difficult, expensive and slightly risky thing for the
Economy, an abstract concept which will not benefit you personally" is just
not a convincing sales pitch.

If you want that to change, you have to change one of those factors. Pick one.
Or several.

The physical effort of labour or child-rearing is not yet reducible
technologially. The cost may be, but since that gets into questions of
"welfare" it will be unpopular - people who themselves feel struggling to
provide for their children are hardly likely to want to provide for the
children of others. The risk is a similar question: America has a surprisingly
high maternal mortality rate, and a notoriously difficult healthcare system
for those who are not lucky with their employer's insurance.

Wider social purpose? Is there such a thing in America, over and above money?

------
nerdponx
The Charles Jones working paper cited in the article is here:
[https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/emptyplanet.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/emptyplanet.pdf).
His papers homepage is here:
[https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/papers.html](https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/papers.html)

I haven't had the time to read it in full, but keep in mind that the paper
lays out a model. It is not _the_ model, it is just one of many many possible
ways to model the world. As the aphorism goes, "all models are wrong, but some
are useful." It's important to consider how and why a model is "wrong", in
order to evaluate how "useful" it is.

------
throwaway068
What about we simply stop importing cheap things from China? Surely all
Americans can't just "learn to code", so would it hurt with some factories
building things in America? Is a bit of protectionism that bad?

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
If we have Americans making cheap things on American soil for minimum wage...
that doesn't change the larger issue at all.

------
echelon
A few ideas:

\- Grant tax incentives or write offs for children born. It'd be incredibly
unfair and unconstitutional to scale with kids' grades due to socioeconomic
backgrounds being a major factor, but perhaps educational expenses can be
subsidized. Or maybe we should just put more money into early education.

\- Make family leave a mandatory benefit for parents of all children, born or
adopted.

\- Open up to immigration. Don't shut it down. This seems like the simplest
solution.

\- Maybe we don't need a bigger population?

------
platz
if it's true that a couple might be taking more risk than normal by choosing
to have a baby during a pandemic, then it may also be true that those pandemic
babies will grow up in an environment where they are more scarce and therefore
more in demand, and so will enjoy advantages that they would otherwise have to
compete against each other for, compared to the norm.

------
rayiner
Just as important, people want more kids than they end up having:
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-
norm.asp...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx).
Ideal number of children is between 2-3 (average 2.6).

------
JoeAltmaier
Anecdata: I have three. The youngest is at the age I got married, still
single. The oldest is older than I was when I had all of them; not planning on
any. The middle one is in Silicon Valley and too distracted by all that to
even date.

------
taylodl
My wife sacrificed her career for our 3 kids. When you factor in _all_ the
costs of working - the daycare, the work clothes, eating out more frequently,
maintaining a "professional" wardrobe and so on and so forth - she was only
making a few dollars/hour for all her work, less than minimum wage. Then when
you factor in the stress, spending so much time away from your kids, it just
doesn't make any sense. She was happy and the kids were happy.

Having 3 happy and now successful (my youngest starts college this year) kids
is worth far more than whatever other crap I would've spent the money on.

------
devalgo
Between increasing economic uncertainty, student loan debt, no mandated
maternity/paternity leave, no sick leave, no vacation time, etc. etc... Is it
any wonder Millennials aren't having kids?

------
cannabis_sam
Talk about putting the cart before the horse.. what if Americans are avoiding
or postponing having children due to lack of financial prospects?

(I’m not American, and generally have a lot more support where I live, but
even I am questioning the rationality of having kids in the world we live in..
For me personally, living in the US would mean an automatic no to having kids)

------
minikites
Immigration would help this issue, but half the nation believes nativist and
xenophobic rhetoric, so expanding immigration is a non-starter.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I'm sure it's unintentional, but to reach a 50% number, your comment perhaps
lumps together two groups that are worth treating separately:

(a) Persons who oppose large-scale immigration in general. Some of whom
(perhaps a majority) oppose it for reasons you abhor: racism, cultural
elitism, etc.

(b) Persons who oppose _only illegal_ immigration. Some (most?) of whom do so
for reasons entirely unrelated to racism or cultural elitism.

People sometimes refuse to differentiate (a) from (b), perhaps on the
assumption that most persons espousing (b) are actually using it as a fig leaf
for (a).

Personally, I'm in (b-not-a), and it's very frustrating to discuss the topic
with people who refuse to believe that I'm arguing in good faith.

~~~
minikites
The idea of there even being a "right way" to immigrate is very recent and
tied to racism. The "legal" immigration process is so artificially arduous and
strict that unless someone who believes (b) is out there arguing and voting
for sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform, they essentially believe
(a) by default.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Thanks for explaining. Yours is one of the first articulations I've been able
to understand regarding (a) == (b).

Here's why I still see (b) as a sensible position. (I'm sure some of my
reasoning only seems valid if you share certain core ideological beliefs about
virtue) :

\- Civic virtue in a democratic nation. It seems to me that a democracy relies
on people accepting laws that they don't agree with, at least in most
circumstances. The alternative (AFAICT) is that laws are merely suggestions
for those inclined to act that way anyway. Or perhaps, laws are for _other_
people, not oneself. (I'd agree that it's morally imperative to break certain
laws, but I don't usually hear this distinction made regarding illegal
immigration.)

\- Fairness to persons who _aren 't_ willing to break the law. By ignoring
illegal immigration, we're basically rewarding people who _ignore_ the law
over those who are willing to await legal entry/residence. This includes
would-be immigrants, legal employers, and legal job-seekers.

\- Communicable diseases. _To the extent_ that the spread of communicable
diseases can be reduced by imposing screening, vaccination, etc. at border
crossings, illegal immigration burdens current residents with greater risk.

------
IanDrake
Women joining the workforce is the real issue here. Society has not adjusted
since that event.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of women working or their ability, but a
fundamental change in human behavior.

It will take some time for society to figure this out.

~~~
throwaway068
It's not. Most people want kids. Put a 500% tax on China imports and the
economy will become sane again, allowing people of every "class" to breath.

~~~
IanDrake
I didn't claim women don't want kids, that's on you.

My claim is that we now have an economy and standard of living set up for dual
incomes. This is relatively new and is not conducive to raising children.

------
GoToRO
People want to spend more time with their children. I propose the 3 days
workweek.

~~~
kylec
Once schools closed and my coworkers started working from home due to the
pandemic, I observed the opposite. Endless, unbounded time with their children
generally made my coworkers less excited about having any more.

~~~
neltnerb
It is possible that both things are true.

People want to see their children more.

People don't want to _have_ to see their children more. And I don't think
people want to _have_ to coordinate educating their children on top of
everything else they need to do.

It's the unavoidable part of it, I think. If it was a vacation with a clear
end date it'd be different.

As long as people don't start blaming millenials and zoomers for not having
kids when you see quotes like "60% of renters in West Virginia are at risk of
eviction". This is happening because of economics, it isn't being done _to_
economics.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/27/how-the-eviction-crisis-
will...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/27/how-the-eviction-crisis-will-impact-
each-state.html)

Data link:

[https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzRhYjg2NzAtMGE1MC00N...](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzRhYjg2NzAtMGE1MC00NmNjLTllOTMtYjM2NjFmOTA4ZjMyIiwidCI6Ijc5MGJmNjk2LTE3NDYtNGE4OS1hZjI0LTc4ZGE5Y2RhZGE2MSIsImMiOjN9)

------
Press2forEN
I would be interested in hearing arguments as to why the social contract
doesn't obligate all able men and women to replace themselves for the
perpetuation of its other benefits.

~~~
watwut
Cause practically, that amounts to state sanctioned rape.

------
pyuser583
Having kids generally doesn’t work out in terms of numbers but that’s not the
point. It’s more of a deep existential reason, then economic utility.

------
xellisx
As someone with a two year old, we were, and are worried about the society in
which our little one will grow up in...

------
ycombonator
The answer was right in front of our eyes. Just needed to look at all the pets
and dog poop left on side walks.

------
sam_lowry_
That's good for the environment!

------
Reimersholme
Speaking from a European perspective, raising children to be productive
members of society used to be peoples retirement security. Socialised pensions
where other peoples kids will be working to pay for your stay in the
retirement home changes that equation completely.

------
w-j-w
I think part of the issue may be in how we measure the success of our society.
Developed nations may be wealthy, but it should be clear by now that "more
wealth" isn't the most pressing issue faced by people in developed nations.
Instead, maybe we should focus on why we don't have time for children, or why
we kill ourselves at 10x the rate we did when we were impoverished farmers.

------
tootahe45
Everyone is always quick to blame their economic hardships as usual when this
thread comes up.

The fact is women don't want to reproduce or even be seen with a man <= to
them in income, status and education. Women increasingly outdoing men in these
three areas is the #1 'problem' here. I've noticed all of the women in my
circle who did well in education and are pursuing white collar jobs tend to be
permanently single (not that i ask them), they look down on my blue collar
peers as stupid even when those men earn more.

~~~
folkhack
> Everyone is always quick to blame their economic hardships as usual when
> this thread comes up. The fact is women don't want to reproduce or even be
> seen with a man [...]

So let's blame women? Just making sure I'm reading this right. As a man who's
been around the block a few times in corporate America, women are NOT outdoing
us in "these three areas" like you seem to posit...

This comment feels like mental gymnastics to justify misogyny.

~~~
econcon
>As a man who's been around the block a few times in corporate America, women
are NOT outdoing us in "these three areas" like you seem to posit...

To be fair to OP, women don't have to outdo men to reject 80% men.

For example, usually women opt for men who are better than them financially.
[Feel free to refute with data]

In a world where there are lots of jobs making low wages, and very few jobs
where you make high income. [Feel free to refute with data]

This leaves us with 80% women earning average wage and 80% men earning average
wage.

Now these 80% men are not suitable for them and women select for partners who
do well financially. I've seen several papers and surveys on this, feel free
to refute this with data

So, now you've 80% women aiming for 20% men who have plenty of choices and
they don't want to commit nor settle.

Other than this, education and career has drastically increased the age at
which women have kids.

Lots of women I know personally want to have kid - but they suffer from
fertility issue mostly because most of them are in late 30s. Is this the right
are to have kids? Even if it's, their body is not cooperating with them to
achieve this goal.

Other than this, there is one problem that today it's very easy to leave a
relationship or marriage, so most don't dream about future when future can
change very fast.

~~~
folkhack
Putting in "feel free to refute with data" three times in a response where
you're throwing around a whole bunch of "80% this, 20% that" talk, _while
citing no sources yourself_ , is not a becoming way to argue your point. It
also lends no credibility to your argument when you ask the reader to front
_their own research and justification_.

~~~
econcon
>80% this, 20% that" talk, while citing no sources yourself, is not a becoming
way to argue your point.

That's normal distribution which is abundant in nature.

