Hacker News Reader

Comment by downrightmike | Hacker News Reader

Just like abortions in the 70's stopped the super criminals from existing in the 90's. Not having unwanted kids goes a long way to prevent crime. Now we are in the place where people want kids, but can't afford them so they aren't.

View on HN

Crime will surely go back in red states in a couple of decades due to the current return of the abortion bans in those states.

I’m not sure if either of you are being honestly factual or snarky, but I seem to recall this hypothesis is actually quite highly contested in social circles, and not at all as strongly supported as the parent seems to state it as fact

It is sufficiently detrimental in its predicted consequences that one would do well to heed it. Is it really worth the risk? It even is logical.

Seriously? It is also logical to kill anyone accused of a crime, in case they actually might have really committed it and might again. Is trial even worth the risk that one guilty man should go free?

Children have never been more affordable than they are now. People's wants and expectations have changed.

might be craziest thing written here this month, I really hope you were being sarcastic

In the vein of ‘LLMs can now raise your children’

You should look at some actual statistics instead of vibes.

that is asking too much for this crowd ;)

In 2026 in the West, most correct ideas and understandings of things come across as crazy because the elite strata within Western societies promotes ideas and even entire epistemological frameworks which are abjectly and just simply wrong and often also insane

I'm pretty sure that one of the ideas that Western societies still promote is the notion that a claim should be consistent with the evidence, and that if it is not, it is probably wrong. And if it's very obviously inconsistent with the evidence, it may in fact be crazy. And there's a ton of evidence that raising a child in 2026 is substantially more expensive today than it was 75 years ago.

If you compared the costs of the items and services that people paid for for their children in the 1950s to the costs of those same exact items and services today I would bet they were the same or cheaper.

That's burying the fact that people have had done a lot more work that does not show up in pure econ stats. Care provided by stay at home primary caretaker or the offloading of that care to extended family those are huge things that you can't simply wrangle out of raw data.

More broadly there’s a lot of societal infrastructure in terms of just cultural norms that are no longer the same or intact at all. For example, grandparents are not really involved in child rearing anymore in the West. That’s why I just focused on the material costs, the issue is really not a material one but a cultural one or a matter of societal constitution.

I would take that bet. Let's start with housing, which has almost doubled as a share of income since 1960. (See e.g. [1]). Same thing with medical care (including insurance premiums, since more medical costs were out-of-pocket back in the 50s and 60s).[2] Groceries are a bit cheaper as a share of discretionary income, but only by a few percentage points.[3] And of course we're assuming no one goes to college, which wasn't true even in the 50s and 60s. College costs have soared since then.

1. https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=18800

2. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...

3. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-fa...

Exactly. If you want to bring up kids the way they were brought up in the 50s and 60s, it will cost less as a proportion of people's incomes today. No one wants to bring up kids that way, though.

But that environment also largely doesn't exist anymore that made that upbringing possible. Heck, parents are getting arrested and having CPS show up at their door for having their kids walk alone less than half a mile to the store.

Actually curious for someone to run the numbers on this.

>it will cost less as a proportion of people's incomes today.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion, or are you relying on intuition here? A cursory search yields a number of references similar to this one---https://reno.nyloffices.com/resources/articles/starting-a-fa..., which indicate that the cost of raising a child has gone up significantly, at least in the last 40 years. And many of these references do not include the cost of college, which has skyrocketed. I'm not sure what you mean by "bringing up kids the way they were brought up in the 50s and 60s." They certainly had housing in the 50s and 60s, and that single expense alone is probably enough to make today's kids more expensive.

Even a cursory reading of that article is full of stat crimes. They denominate a single value for the past then a gigantic range for current times. But basic math shows no major increase for the bottom of their range in their own numbers.

I don’t have any intuition or stats either way but that’s a bad and biased citation.

Which is not surprising giving it’s selling something.

This is not complicated. Median household income in 1960 (in today's dollars) was about $58,000. Today it's about $88,000. You therefore have more inflation adjusted money available to spend on everything, including children.

The inflation adjustment includes everything: housing, education, and their proportion in the average US family's bucket, so calling out a specific item like education or housing doesn't change that data.

It doesn't include the non market services provided. And those are non trivial part of rising children. So both things can be true - median monetary income is higher and rising a child is more expensive.

That figure was created in 1963 by a lady who assumed that 3x starvation was thriving. Now may years later we claim ~34% of our population is now making up to $160k a year! we ended poverty, but they costs for an actual family of 4 starts at about $160k/yr. The figure shows that a huge amount of our population is still actually in poverty. You all just assume because the TV says so, it must be so.

Maybe you're confusing the terms "income" and "disposable income"? The latter would presumably include the items you mention, but the former does not. The (unreferenced) numbers you cite are almost certainly income, not disposable income. Or perhaps you're assuming that all costs have increased only by inflation, which is not true.

Median housing cost in 1960 was $11,900, which was about twice the median income at the time. Today it is nearly $400K, which is over 4 times as much as the median income. Medical and education costs have similarly risen faster than inflation (and faster than wage growth). You're right that it's not that complicated, though.

I meant income. I think you may be confusing what "real" income means. It adjusts for the typical bucket of goods and services Americans consume, and the deflator used to correct incomes over the years includes housing and education. After adjusting for the increases in these, the resultant real median household income today is $88,000 vs. $58,000 in 1960.

I know it doesn't feel that way, but that's because of the hedonic treadmill.

>I think you may be confusing what "real" income means.

Median income is exactly what it sounds like, the median income.

>The deflator used to correct incomes over the years includes housing and education.

That may be the intent, but it is clearly not working, because housing, medical, and education costs have in fact risen as a percentage of income.

I thought we were pretending it was lead?

What’s wrong with the lead hypothesis? It explains about 4 to 15% of the effect since 1990 [1].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393136/

On the one hand, you have a meta-analysis estimating 7–28% of the U.S. homicide decline, depending on the model, after correcting for publication bias. That’s 4–15 percentage points of a 54% decline.[1]

On the other hand, you have the Dunedin study, where lead exposure was uncorrelated with measured socioeconomic status, which found weak links with offending overall and no significant link to violent crime.[2]

In any case, people talk about this like lead was the dominant factor in the violent crime decline, when these results don’t establish that. Even the meta-analysis leaves most of the homicide decline unexplained by lead.

[1] https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/332830/1/332830.pdf

[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com