Some of the highest birth rates are in relatively quite poor countries. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rat...

We still have (for now, though even this is under threat) good access to contraception, good sexual education, relatively low child mortality rates, etc here in the US.

Comparing the affordability crisis for the middle class in the US to that of historically poor developing countries as it relates to birth rates is not a very good argument.

It might be somewhat comparable a decade or so from now if we keep letting wealth inequality run away at current rates, but it isn't right now.

Quite poor countries can plop out an infant and literally do not worry of him ever again. So much for buying him stuff, education, care...

The reason is very simple, contraceptives.

Developing countries don’t care less about their infants, how can you think that?

lots of developing countries have way stronger communities. in these places you can raise your kids in a more "free-range" style and nobody will give you shit about that.

agreed, they collectively care more, would be my view. In many neighborhoods in the US, people only care about themselves, no one else. They don’t even know their neighbors.

Ask UNICEF if it's not a problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children

Read the paragraph about causes maybe.

This phenomenon has many many causes, and does not represent any statistic on a parents caring for their kids. It is ludicrous you would think so. Please provide at least one study that shows some form of causality.

way easier to raise kids when you have a clan/family around, and they generally cost a lot less money/attention.

Rally cry of a parasite! Only those who have kids are invested in the future of humanity and contributing to the success of humanity.

Do people really talk like this?

“Talk”, no, but a scary number very much think like this. It’s an easy pseudo-intellectual high ground to take.

It's a biological and societal reality. While we may end up solving the immediate demographic crisis through technology (e.g. Optimus for the elderly), the future of humanity depends on raising children. Not taxing the rich, personal convenience, or trivializing my stated position as one that is "easy" to have.

Of all the public online communities, you'd think HN would be capable of calling it the way it is. But I'm afraid it's been overrun by brainwashed ideologues as I've seen many times the truth being downvoted into oblivion during my short time here. Maybe we should do an experiment and make an account that only posts Paul Graham's positions and see how often it gets downvoted. I suspect the culture has shifted quite a lot since HN's founding and a decent chunk on the margin no longer cares about what's true over what's acceptable.

Online, yes. Anywhere else, I doubt it.

How did people afford existence in 1950 when they made 3x less?

> How did people afford existence in 1950 when they made 3x less?

Is this a serious question?

The average price of a home in 1950 was like $7,500 - $10,000.

The average price of a home in 2025 is like $410,000 - $530,000

Of all the (generally) rising numbers that factor into the US economy, wages is one of the major things that has risen the least since the 1950s, and especially so since 1980.

Inflation, at minimum, needs to be factored into such calculations.

Just one data point to illustrate: in 1950, a bottle of Coca-Cola cost 5 cents.