Hacker News Reader

I think the US tradition of leaving next generation better off than the last (whether true or not) is somewhat to blame. There is a societal "failure" to not providing for your kid the same or better than your parents provided for you. Many millennials are the tipping point for; they got the most, and it's down hill for future generations. The great American pyramid scheme is falling apart or so it seems.

I think many people have trouble with that and just tend to throw their hands up as they don't have a solution. I boils down to economics. If these same millenials could afford the lifestyle they want for their kids, they would have kids. Global warming, overpopulation, etc is an altruistic substitute. (Granted things are more expensive, etc, etc. it still holds true.)

>Many millennials are the tipping point

Millennials are way worse off than previous generations by many metrics, that's why so many of them are angry. The tipping point already happened.

This is ridiculous. If you look at the totality of the situation, the average person is living an easier more comfortable life than the top 1% 120 years ago.

What, before electricity? How about comparing middle class american with a middle class american from 30 years ago. That's where you see some stratification.

That's essentially what I meant. Millenials are first generation to be effected economically worse than their parents. However, they got the most from their parents in terms of a "nice" upbringing (eg. spoiled). And, they can't afford to spoil kids of their own and it's manifesting as not having kids at all

Millennials in their 30's have something crazy like 1/6th the wealth their parents did at the same age.

The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age.

citation needed. I highly doubt that this is true considering my (millenial) grandparents are still alive.

> The dual of this is that many more millennials have living parents than their parents did at the same age.

I dug into some demographics data and I'm almost certain this is false.

OP said millennials in their 30s. Life expectancy hasn't increased in the USA that much since the 70s. Even if the deaths were completely distributed among adults, you'd expect people in the 30s now and the 70s to have about the same number of parents alive/dead. More importantly, almost all of the increase is due to improved child mortality.

There's a much simpler explanation: Boomers were once-in-a-country's-history lucky. They inherited the spoils of two world wars.

This cannot be accurate in any absolute sense. How is wealth defined in this context?

25 years ago, the median car and house didn't have (central) A/C. Cell phones and the Internet were expensive and not widely available. Truly portable laptops, usable tablets, and smartphones didn’t exist. Health food options were limited. The world was not mapped for all to access at street level. Translation was far more difficult. Information was less accessible—Wikipedia and Google didn’t exist. Free public preschool (4K) was uncommon. The death rates and crime rates were higher, life expectancy lower. Cash and checks were the primary payment methods. The list goes on and on.

Does wealth here refer to an individual’s relative share of contemporaneous wealth? Should the generation that built all of the great technology and systems of the past 25 years not reap the benefits of their work?

I’m in my 30s, btw, in case I come across as defensive in this comment. It sounds like my parents’ generation did a better job of building lasting wealth than their parents did (though not my parents lol). Should we find fault in that?

This is pretty well documented. The main point is that older generations had access to much cheaper housing, they bought it instead of rented it, and it went up in value. Millenials by and large rent instead of own, and the rent increases have been outpacing wage gains for a while. Along with housing, education has vastly increased in price increasing student debt a lot, which was basically non existent in my parents generation. Medical expenses have grown an extreme amount relative to inflation as well as childcare. The net of it is that your boomer uncle can buy a new boat for the lakehouse he bought 30 years ago, but you're spending all of your money on daycare.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-century-pric...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/09/millennials-own-less-than-5p...

And there is no such thing as a guaranteed job, or job for life. My parents are boomer generation, and their friends insist that their kids are too lazy to work and should just march into a business and speak to the boss for work.

The world doesn't work like that for the vast majority. Hell, I worked in a software role for 10 years and it took me 2 years to find a non contract, full time role elsewhere. I applied for hundreds of jobs, with university education and experience, and got a handful of responses.

The economy is set up so a minority of people live in heaven while everyone else is treated like an expendable cost centre.

>> In 1989, when baby boomers were around the same age as millennials are today, they controlled 21% of the nation’s wealth. That’s almost five times as much as what millennials own today.

This doesn't seem to document OPs claim of mililians owning 1/6 of what their parents did.

When the boomers were 30 there people didn't live as long, so there were fewer old people to own things.

I'd like to know how much milinials own in absolute terms compared to the boomers.

Did more millennials also opt to live in city centers, which had hollowed out during the previous generation? You can still buy suburban and rural housing for $1xxK, or even five figures if you’re willing to compromise.

I just looked, and room+board at OSU costs $13,352 per year (http://undergrad.osu.edu/cost-and-aid/basic-costs). Adjusted for inflation, that’s cheaper than it cost 20 years ago. Of course, unsubsidized private or out-of-state schools will cost far more. Many fewer people went to college 40 years ago, too.

The health insurance premiums are higher now, but the coverage is far better. Everyone can have guaranteed health coverage via ACA, subsidized in cases of financial hardship.

Free childcare is still available for many of those who live close to family. Maternity and parental leave and FMLA laws have only improved. Free public schooling generally starts earlier. More wfh jobs are available today than ever before.

My point in all of this, of course, is that I suspect a lot of these differences boil down to optionality and different decision making. I don’t think it’s reasonable for our generation to pursue a more exciting, leisurely, and expensive lifestyle than our parents had (prestigious school, expensive city, travel, white collar job, moving away from a childhood home, delayed commitment), then resent that generation’s boat and lake house.

Can you have it all today? For most, the answer is still no, just like it always was. I suspect that more people than ever before can get pretty close, though, leaving those who can’t even more resentful about it than in the past.

BTW, with one month of SF rent, you can buy yourself a nice used boat. A couple years of that rent will buy you a simple lake house.

Rents, education, childcare costs, and healthcare costs have been rising everywhere, not just in city centers. OSU is way more expensive than it was 20 years ago. My mom graduated from OSU in the 80s and paid for her self with a summer job working retail, you cannot do that now. Most flagship state universities now cost 35k+ for in state residents, and they used to cost 5-8k for in state residents. They have increased tuition expenses because the state legislatures cut funding during the great recession. Today a much larger portion of the cost of state uni education is borne by the student and less is borne by the state. Maybe 20 year ago, for some people it made financial sense to "opt out" and move back near your parents, and with the rise of remote work, it might make sense today for a small slice of workers. The large majority of millenials do not, and never will work at jobs that can be done remotely. They include huge industries like medical staff, retail, home healthcare, food service, etc.

I'm pretty sure millennials don't want kids because children are expensive. I think this has more to do with the phasing out of the middle class than anything. You can't buy a house on a blue collar paycheck anymore.

Also, for many women, its very hard to juggle motherhood and a career----if they chose to go that route.

There is also a choice now. Women can use a plethora of contraceptives that weren't as common in my parent generation.

Honestly, this whole "antinatalism" thing is all smoke and no fire.

>When the millenial zeitgeist has drifted in a direction where this is a common opinion, I take it to indicate that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals, the values of a family are subservient to the values of globalism, and all is nihilistic considering that we have a poor shot at solving the worst of our problems.

Uhhhh, What?

>When the millenial zeitgeist has drifted in a direction where this is a common opinion, I take it to indicate that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals, the values of a family are subservient to the values of globalism

You lost me a little there. How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals?

> How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals?

Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

I think a lot of people don't consider a new person worth anything at all. Or at least would prefer 9 people at happiness level 10 over 10 people at happiness level 9.

> Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

What? No.

Most people who do have children are not doing in order to fulfill some dispassionate abstract moral commitment to the inherent moral worth of human life.

And there are all sorts of examples of people who clearly value human life but choose not to have children. Or are all nuns terrible people?

Whether someone chooses to have children or not has very little to do with your underlying moral commitments or -- more importantly -- behavior. Sociopaths and abusers have children. Mother Teresa didn't have children.

> there are all sorts of examples of people who clearly value human life but choose not to have children. Or are all nuns terrible people?

OP was specifically referring to people (including in this thread) who choose not to have children on moral grounds:

>> several of my friends (millenial like myself) think that bringing children into this world is a bad thing to do- with global warming and other social problems

So it seems fair to assume that they consider the value of the new person to be none or negative overall.

>>> several of my friends (millenial like myself) think that bringing children into this world is a bad thing to do- with global warming and other social problems

...and?

There's nothing at all logically inconsistent about two following two propositions:

P1. All human life has value.

P2. Intentionally creating new human life is unethical.

FWIW, I am not an anti-natalist, and I do not believe P2. However, I do believe it's unethical to purposefully have children you cannot support (financially, emotionally, intellectually, etc.). But that doesn't meant that I think that the children created by people who cannot support a child are worthless or have negative value! Just because "creating X is bad" does not mean "X has no value".

> So it seems fair to assume...

No, it isn't fair to assume that people who believe "creating X in situation S is bad" implies that those same people believe "X has no value". Those are two very, very distinct and different value judgements.

More importantly, I very much doubt people who hold to above position would agree with this characterization of their view of the value of human life.

>Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

I think it's worth distinguishing between:

--potential Y < X

--actual Y < X

With Y being the presence of the kid. To me actual Y > X, but potential Y < X.

I'd rather not have kids for a bunch of reasons. If I had kids I'd sacrifice those reasons for them.

> humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals

Isn't it flipped? If humans had little moral worth, then there would be no need to worry about the suffering they would experience. It's because they have moral worth that people hesitate to bring new humans into the world.

Maybe it is:

Humans have moral worth; to remove suffering of humans, make sure they don’t exist to experience suffering.

This is the question inmy mind: an unborn/un conceived child has not experienced any suffering. Is it morally just to expose someone to suffering, even if the alternative is non-existence (or whatever state they are in prior to life)? I did not consent to exist, to think/feel/hurt, but two idiots made that choice for me 37 years ago and now I have to deal with it.

For me it is illuminating to meditate on some underlying assumptions here.

E.g. “I did not consent”

This type of statement assumes you have a will. If one decides that they have a free will to make decisions, it is useful to note that this is a supernatural belief (because the laws of physics have no room for free will in a stochastic universe).

If there is no free will, and nothing matters, not only did you not consent, but the entire chain of events since the creation of the universe also lacked consent.

In this sense, whatever happens, happens.

(Note: I do not believe this :) )

Obviously Nihilism is the ultimate freedom to do whatever the fuck you want.

Now, do you have any thoughts on the actual point of the morality of having a child without their consent since you do believe in free will?

The morality of gift giving is a good starting point.

Intention matters.

Is it good to give a gift for selfish reasons? no.

Is it good to give a gift to make others jealous? no.

Is it good to give a gift to help force your will on others? no. (this is the one closest to your consent question)

Is it good to give a gift out of a genuine desire to share the joy you received from said gift? yes.

E.g. the decision to have a child is not a trivial moral decision. It is not necessarily a good to decide to bring a child into the world. We see this clearly play out in the data of NYC for example, where less than half of conceived children in some communities make it to term.

Self examination is required to see where the true motivation comes from. If one feels that their life was more a burden than a gift, that person is probably not in a great state to decide to morally have a child.

Unfortunately, many people think that having a child will fix their issues.

People on HN speak their armchair sociology with such confidence it astounds me.

Even the idea that resentment can be "deserved" or not seems meaningless to me. People don't resent people because they think they deserve it, they resent people because things happened to them. We obviously can't assign blame for such infinitely complex causal chains, hell we can't even assign agency. Who's fault is it that someone's grandfather got brain damage in the war he was conscripted into, then went on to be abusive to his children, who went on to become addicted to alcohol. Who should say if these people then deserve resentment for being bad parents?

Life seems to me too random to comprehend, yet everyday I find people to tell me I should or should not condemn or condone people for their actions.

Maybe shit just happens and we look for reasons afterwards?

i think as we see crises accelerate, the only ones with true freedom to act and make the world they want to be in will be the nihilists.

everyone else is busy playing calculus looking for solutions that fit into existing logic and political economy, when the truth is that survival and creation irreducibly exist for their own sake.

bringing a child into a dying world might be the ultimate selfish act. it's also the only option that doesn't feel like suicide. and once they're here, there's nothing left to do but devote all your energy into making the world the best it can be.

i think this is what "family values" ultimately missed. family became the default, an inwardly-focused tradition and culture decoupled from praxis, and action was taken for granted.

> bringing a child into a dying world might be the ultimate selfish act.

That's a pretty bleak outlook on the future of our world. Do you really think getting born today is significantly worse than being born at a random time in human history?

today doesn't have to be the worst day ever to generate anxiety about the future. knowing that cavemen got ate by dinosaurs wouldn't make it any nicer to pitch a tent under i5. but i think it's pretty clear that barring some kind of unexpected radical change, and maybe even in that case, many of us are going to experience deprivation and terror unlike anything we've known before. at previous moments in history, if it got too bad and all else failed, you could just start walking and live off the land on your way to someplace nicer. it sucked and was often violent but people had the skills and the world had the space. that's not an option now.

i can't imagine surviving something like a famine or civil war in the modern world. and it doesn't look like that kind of risk is growing smaller. could you take on some total disaster like that while caring for a child? what kind of person would you be at the end of it? what kind of person would they be?

and it doesn't even have to be that dramatic. there will be a lot of suffering that doesn't touch us directly, but it will still shape the places we inhabit. could you stand to live in a total police state, even if you're safe (from the outside) and relatively wealthy (compared to a refugee)?

these are the questions on a lot of people's minds. and nobody has good answers, because there are none.

> i can't imagine surviving something like a famine or civil war in the modern world. and it doesn't look like that kind of risk is growing smaller.

I don't think anybody studying the history of civil wars or famine believe that that is likely to happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/civil-war-united-stat...

Besides, even if you talk to people who lived through wars or famines, few of them wish they hadn't been born. People find happiness and meaning everywhere. From interviews I have read, people living through wars find their lives more meaningful rather than less.

> could you stand to live in a total police state, even if you're safe (from the outside) and relatively wealthy (compared to a refugee)?

Probably. But I don't think anything like that is likely. I think there will be fewer police states in the future.

It's odd how people living in poorer and less well-managed countries are much more optimistic about the future than people living in the West.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactiv...

I wonder if it's just spending too much time on social media and too little time reading history books that make people so pessimistic...