Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

If you want to talk history, people would have 15-20 kids, 4 would survive to adulthood, and would be put to work in the fields to support the family. Daughters would often be abandoned or killed at birth because they were considered a burden. Developed countries have lower birth rates because (1) they don't need the extra labor and (2) more women have careers and don't want to keep popping out kids. None of it has anything to do with children being a "gift". Practical concerns have always and will always win out.

We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list.

View on HN

> We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list.

I understand this. My point was, almost every previous generation lived with objectively less financial security and a lower standard of living, and they still chose to have more children. We can't say people are more financially insecure than before. It just isn't true, on the whole. So, logically speaking, it must be true that those same concerns would often not have stopped this hypothetical couple's grandparents or great grandparents... Because they didn't. And I don't think you can say in good faith that they all had more children for monetary reasons like labor.

Look at first generation immigrants from third world countries. They tend to have a ton more kids than the existing populace, while at the same time being much poorer than average. Then, by the 2nd (or 3rd) generation, that birthrate difference disappears completely. I bet if you were to ask this group why, they would talk about financial insecurity. But that didn't stop their parents (or grandparents), despite being much more financially insecure.

So besides being more well off, what else changes between 1st and 3rd generation immigrants? Integration into the Western culture.

We don't even need to look back into history, right here today poorer regions have higher birth rates.

Ergo: A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children.

It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me.

Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. But the reality is the exact opposite.

I don't know why this is the case, but it's flabbergasting. It almost seems like evolution strives to eliminate those that find too much success.

Perhaps - 1) The people in the richer society are exposed to more ideas and options than the people in poorer societies, which makes them evaluate having/not having children vs "have them because everyone does it" 2) The people in richer societies have a social security net/wealth to fall back on in their old age, whereas the poorer societies are always "hand to mouth" without having the luxury of any retirement savings - all their time and energy goes just for basic survival - and they need children to support them in their old age.

>Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities.

Based on seeing my wife’s experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, without any complications, I would not agree the above statement.

Based on speaking to my women members of my family, friends, and the data, it is evident that childbirth/child rearing is a costly undertaking, not measurable in any “normal” amount of money.

So logically, I would expect women to have a couple kids (due to wanting to be mothers, or whatever), but each additional kid is at a very high marginal cost (on their body).

I would posit poorer regions have higher birthrates simply because women lack the knowledge and power to obtain and use contraception. Even in poorer regions, giving women freedom (economic freedom and security such that they are deciding when to get pregnant), and access to contraception will make the birthrate drop.

>>> A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children. >>>It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me.

Poor people can't afford hobbies, vacations, or VR headsets. So they spend what leisure time they have doing a highly-rewarding activity that is free: fucking. Do that enough times, and eventually people stop pulling out.....and boom population growth.

Also wealthier people with hobbies perhaps become inherently a bit anti-social (maybe I'm projecting...)? The value proposition of dopamine-delivering activities exceeds the perceived value of childrearing?

Just my 2 Yen...

Do the richer societies actually have surplus as in the money used to buy these things? At least on the middle-class or working class level? Sure they can afford more stuff than poorer countries, but do they have higher relative surplus? While they are richer, many things are lot more expensive in relation.

Is the surplus actually enough to feed, house, cloth, entertain etc. the children? Maybe poorer have cheaper costs thus their surplus can better afford this as the quality desired is lower?

AKA Education

Financial security is the reason - if people don't have financial security, they'll expect their children to care for them in their old age when they're unable to earn. That's the case in most (all?) immigrants cultures - children are expected to, and do, take care of their parents in their old age (exceptions are always there ofc).

After families are established and have financial security, they no longer need to rely on their children in their old age - at which point it becomes a choice.

>Look at first generation immigrants from third world countries. They tend to have a ton more kids than the existing populace, while at the same time being much poorer than average.

The data below indicates otherwise.

I assume it is because contraception is far more available.

See figure 3, showing foreign born vs native born statistics for US. Both show big drops in fertility rate between 1990 and 2019:

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/04/fertility-rat...

This website has graphs showing steep declines in birthrates for immigrants:

https://cis.org/Report/Fertility-Among-Immigrants-and-Native...

>In 2019, immigrant fertility dropped below 2.1 children on average, which is the level necessary to replace the existing population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com