[HN Gopher] Baby Boom or Bust?
___________________________________________________________________
Baby Boom or Bust?
Author : Vigier
Score : 25 points
Date : 2021-06-20 06:09 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.historytoday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.historytoday.com)
| chronogram wrote:
| While the article mainly focuses on France, the world is mostly
| looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest
| example. France is a good example for other things though. Its
| extremely pro-pension policies makes it very hostile against the
| young. Both countries at either end of the world were spending
| their time breeding babies to try to feed them 50 years later.
| Animats wrote:
| _World is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as
| the greatest example._
|
| China's one-child policy was a success. They were able to put
| on the brakes during the period between health care getting
| good and standard of living going up, which is when population
| goes way up. India didn't do that, and their population shot up
| beyond the country's water supply. France is just leveling off.
| Japan is in actual decline.
|
| China:
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population
|
| India:
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/population
|
| France:
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/population
|
| Japan:
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population
| whatshisface wrote:
| Let's wait to see which country, between China and India, can
| fare better over the next 60 years of economic development.
| India might not have enough water now but the raw material
| for solving any problem is found in problem solvers, not the
| ground.
| noofen wrote:
| > the raw material for solving any problem is found in
| problem solvers, not the ground.
|
| This implies that the quantity of "problen solvers" is more
| important than quality.
| lorlou wrote:
| The way things stand now, there's like zero evidence that
| India is doing or may ever do better than China in any
| regard.
| whatshisface wrote:
| India has more working-age people and is facing less of a
| population cliff than most countries. Whatever problems
| can be solved by workers, they will be in a better
| position to solve than anyone else. The US has
| immigration, India accomplishes the same thing but in one
| country instead of two continents.
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| The effect of the one child policy was muted, since
| birthrates had already fallen in the years preceding the
| policy being enacted. And since the policy was relaxed,
| birthrates have not increased.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| I'm not sure India is a proof China would have faced similar
| outcomes.
|
| Given China is facing a demographics decline, not introducing
| that policy probably wouldn't have made much difference.
|
| It was just immoral and one more reason for unnecessary
| female infanticide, which is responsible for the tremendous
| gender unbalance the country has.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not see why history would be a good indicator for the
| article's question anyway. The fact that birth control is
| easily and nearly freely available and women have gained
| economic independence is a big factor.
| klipt wrote:
| If you think about it this suggests a strong selective
| pressure for religious communities that consider birth
| control sinful.
| noofen wrote:
| It also suggests a strong selective pressure for
| uneducated, unproductive communities that do nothing but
| breed, take welfare, and vote.
| xf1cf wrote:
| I would imagine birth control plays some part. But the
| economic independence argument I think is the larger factor.
|
| Before I get accused of sexism or whatever consider the
| actual economics of child rearing. 50 years ago assets
| weren't rapidly inflating and college degrees weren't
| required for a decent middle class living. The middle class
| has the best opportunity for raising children successfully
| (good education, good health, etc). The trade off? Someone
| has to stay home and tend to the house. It really doesn't
| matter who does, honestly, but historically this was the
| woman.
|
| The feminists will spin women entering the workforce as
| empowering. Indeed, it is. But as a result birth rates
| decline rapidly. The shirking of that traditional role means
| child care must be offloaded somewhere. Several family
| members with children have told me that pre-K daycare at a
| decent, but not great, daycare runs anywhere between
| $800-$2000 a month. Absurdly expensive. Ignoring the actual
| _cost_ of having the child, taking care of the child before
| you can offload that responsibility onto the education system
| is prohibitive for all but the upper classes these days.
| These upper class people don't often have children. The
| alternative is to return to the old system but that requires
| one income to support a house. If you're not clearing six
| figures this might not even be possible in all but the most
| remote parts of the country.
|
| This combined with rapid asset inflation means that in
| reality women entering the workforce wasn't for "empowerment"
| but rather necessity. With the price of goods going up every
| single year it's no longer feasible in most parts of the
| country to have one person stay home. The result? People have
| less kids.
|
| I have no solution to this really. No amount of
| maternity/paternity leave, pay raises, etc will fix it. We
| can probably place the blame squarely on the big banks and
| the federal reserve. But, how do you bring wages back in line
| so that people can afford to have kids?
| darig wrote:
| History as an academic pursuit Boom or Bust?
|
| Propagandist on a pension?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-20 23:00 UTC)