Hacker News Reader

Comment by CalRobert | Hacker News Reader

Is your country in a place with low birthrates and propping up its population with immigration?

I don't think your view is inconsistent, necessarily, but it comes down to different views about the role of the state, whether new generations are important, etc.

Anyway, in some ways we should be doing what we can do reduce birthrates as much as possible before we destroy ourselves and our life support system, but on the other hand making it possible for people to engage in about the most basic function of being an animal without destroying their lives isn't all bad.

View on HN

Low birthrates yes, just like any other European country, with the added pressure of a strong catholic presence.

The state has been encouraging births as long as I remember. And while on one hand I can appreciate that everything is for the well being of newborns and a better society tomorrow, on the other all I notice are those who exploit this system to have years and years of paid leave and benefits.

It's just as libertarian as it gets, but if you can't feed them, don't make them. And I don't want my tax money to go into a safety net for people who made very poor life decisions.

Will you be happier with the tax money in your pocket and your local economy in the pits due to population aging?

Human population on earth has been rising since we're here. Just 100 years ago nobody would ever thought about spending public money to make new humans, and I think we all turned out fine.

The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption, because in many countries incentives are not in place, and you don't hear of economies collapsing and the elderly swarming the streets in search of food because people don't pop just the right amount of babies to reach the replacement rate.

And again, we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in a system of limited resources.

100 years ago life was pretty different. It was assumed mom would be home with kids, possibly grandparents, etc. Then we decided it was OK for women (including moms) to work. Then we restricted housing supply pushing most couples to be dual-earners (see The Two Income Trap). Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are.

As for child benefit (the cash) I see why it grates tbh, but I think it's meant to help avoid kids being in abject poverty. Whether it works, well, I dunno.

I agree that we can't grow indefinitely, though.

> Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are.

Employer-wise, pregnancies are a loss. You have one skilled worker parked for 1,2, or 3 years. You have to hire and train from scratch a replacement. You risk, basically.

> The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption

Not really:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-agi...

The economy might sort itself, but society has a much harder time of it.

Also, there's a class discrepancy in childbirth. In many affluent countries - as you've rightly pointed out - those who can live off what paltry state benefits exist (or even see the childbirth benefits boost their incomes) will - and will procreate abundantly, relying on the state. But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not.

Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families.

The kinds of people who engage with HN are probably the kinds of people we should be encouraging INTO childbirth, not out of it - for the sake of society as well as for the sake of the economy.

And yes, there are limited resources. We need to deal with that. I don't think space travel or the next advance in GM is going to fix it all, by any stretch. We should do serious research into how to best fit the resource at hand, as a species.

But high-brow fear-mongering is the worst solution pragmatically. And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). You clearly have some intelligence, so don't settle for the false economy of unfeeling intellectualism, it's counterproductive. Find real solutions, not rhetoric.

> But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. > Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families.

I find all of this Neo-Malthusian. There's abundant data showing that the more educated is a population, the less kids per capita they produce. This does not mean that the uneducated or poor shouldn't reproduce.

> And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically).

Oh come on, that's not what is going to happen if we lift the monthly baby cheque.

You're right, I totally said that the poor shouldn't reproduce.

And no, street children don't exist, philanthropists will always come and save the day. The world is a just and fair place, and the only people hurting are the struggling entrepreneurs, under the pain and indignity of dealing with maternity / paternity regulations. Enjoy the warmth of your delusions.

Fertility encouragement has been an active part of government, and religious (often a more potent power) policy for centuries.

And so let's assume it's the right thing to do, religious leaders and governments never fail.

That wasn't your initial assertion. Only that it wasn't a matter of public expenditure, which is manifestly false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com