Will lower birth rates affect the infrastructure of cities? | Hacker News Reader

Will lower birth rates affect the infrastructure of cities?

6 pointsXen917 comments

Hypothesis:

Increase in population => reason to invest and to expect economic growth.

Historically cities have not been nudged to build efficient infrastructure. The systems have been "maintained by money."

Lower birth rates => no reason to invest in infrastructure => unmaintained infrastructure, problems in places without major economic changes

Timeline: within 40 years

---

This hypothesis is very primitive because I want to know if the line of reasoning makes any sense.

Which premises you agree / disagree with, why?

Do the consequences / causes seem plausible?

Please exclude AI from discussion.

View on HN

Economically vibrant cities will continue to attract migrants (both from within the country and abroad) and will maintain their population levels. Cities that are already on decline, as well as rural areas, will be hit hard.

Rural areas still have high rates of family formation and child birth.

And self-sufficiency is highly valued.

Cities will have trouble getting service providers to do electrical, plumbing, hvac, roofing, etc. They already do have trouble with this things.

Lol no. Most rural areas are in free fall. Small farms are all fubar in the US, so the economics around agriculture is pretty grim “Rural” growth is mostly unincorporated exurban type places.

Well the rural area where I'm living is booming, and all the people around me have 3 and 4 young children. And surprisingly they do it on 1 income.

That sounds sustainable to me. Can't do that in the city on 1 income.

If you like the city you should stay in the city. Don't listen to me. I don't know what the future holds any more than you do.

But I'm hedging against a continuing gradual decrease in the standard of living in the US and a decline in infrastructure and general lawlessness.

That is near impossible to do in the city.

You will be eating whatever is available. You drink the water that is available. And you get to depend on entirely on law enforcement for your safety and security. And if your roof leaks you pray that you can get someone to show up.

Me personally? I'm going to ensure my own well-being, not rely entirely on corporations and government.

Good for you!

I grew up on a dairy farm. Miss the country, but driving 45 minutes every time I want a gallon of milk got old. I don’t think being a helpless idiot correlates with living in any particular place.

I hear you, it does suck having to drive a bit if you need something.

>I don’t think being a helpless idiot correlates with living in any particular place.

It isn't so much that you or I or others aren't helpless people, it's more that in the city you are surrounded by helpless people. Just due to the shear population density.

I'm inclined to agree.

That's why I moved away from major population centers and I am setting up my own private infrastructure on defensible ground. And I learned how to do my own plumbing, electrical, carpentry, food production etc. And I plan on having a lot of kids.

Care to share what problems you personally think will arise?

How do you learn it all by yourself? This is amazing. You could live off a piece of land totally.

You would be surprised what you can learn given sufficient curiosity, time, and resources.

I don't work a 9-5 job most years, and I don't have dependents or a mortgage.

And also I would take jobs as an apprentice for 6 months and I would ask lots of questions and do research on the side to maximize the learning. Treat it like a college course: read the book before, and watch videos. Meet people in other trades and ask them stuff. People are quite willing to share knowledge if you show an eagerness.

Basically immersion learning.

Thanks. I probably don't have the luxury given a family and a couple of mortgages. Hopefully I'll have more time.

The problems caused by declined birth rates will surface in the coming decades differently in different places. Historically tight-knitted places might well begin to form new kinds of communities / economies; in the worst affected places, the self-sufficient will form a new economic class.

All long-term self-sufficient settlements must overcome the challenge of maintaining high hygiene & sanitation standards. For example: the need for toilet paper, women's items and plastic bags; and how will the people around you survive when everyone is puking and shitting around; how will you fight parasites; how to deal with common but complex medical issues such as as appendicitis and infections.

There's also psychological side. For example getting everyone adapted to self-sufficient life and to understand the philosophy. And maintaining certain "integrity" of culture. I am personally the kind of leader who doesn't hesitate to "root out" any potential troubles in my walled garden; but there are otherwise decent leaders who fall with their communities because they were "too nice" & allowed people with "infections" spirit to spread for too long, causing grudges.

I think in investing in data hoarding is also worth it / important if anyhow possible. You want to have safe systems to store programs someone made three decades ago. For large amounts of data, tape (in storage boxes specifically meant for storing tape) seems to be best cheapest & most durable choice. But the algorithms / software side matters also.

Especially in recent years, public infrastructure investment is evaluated by ROI (though not just from an economic perspective). Therefore, if the population declines, the number of projects meeting the ROI threshold may also decline.

Also, I live in Japan and can perhaps provide an example:

In Japan:

- Public infrastructure investment reached its peak in the mid-1990s.

- The birth rate peaked in the mid-1970s.

Of course. In a world with two 75 year-olds for every 25 year old, different decisions will be made.

75 year olds over 25 year olds don’t. Laws will be made accordingly. Good luck suckers

Relatively recent popup USofA cities optimised for cars with now rusty bridges, or European cities with a thousand year history?

Both.

The European cities will be affected in varying amounts, generally less than America; but it's relevant to analyze both to see if European cities / countries will have to increase taxes significantly.

Much of the infrastructure in the US that was highlighted in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Report Card as in need of critical attention dates back to the 1950s.

    In the six decades from 1950 to 2010, the U.S. population increased from 157.8 million to 312.2 million ..

If the infrastructure was built when the population was less than half the current 2020s population, can it be repaired with modern technology should the population hypothetically plummet by half?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com