Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate(economist.com)
economist.com
Child-safety laws may reduce the birth rate
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/28/child-safety-laws-may-reduce-the-birth-rate
408 comments
I replaced my 3-series BMW with a Honda Odyssey, and I've spent two years singing its praises. Part of the problem is that we have created a culture that uses cars as a form of self expression, and many early parents aren't ready to "be" a minivan. But the minivan is what you actually want as a parent: room for six people of any size, or four people and at least twice as much cargo as an SUV, with safe, remote control doors that can be operated by kids. It's a living room on wheels, including the TV.
Honda is trying to bridge the identify gap a little with paddle shifting, ventilated seats, and almost 300hp, but really we should try to step back from seeing the car as an expression of who we are, and try to optimize for the functionality that we use every day. As much fun as it was to drive the BMW, finding a way to fit my growing family into it was a stressful mess and I'm happy to have found, perhaps unintentionally, a much better situation.
Some of this insight came to me from Steve Kaufer of TripAdvisor, who at the time I was there was running a $4B company and driving an old minivan, because that's what his family fit in. He never cared for a fancy new car because fancy meant small and he wasn't out to impress anyone on the road anyway.
But I also can't pretend that Honda's naturally aspirated 6-cylinder and perfectly matched 10-speed (domestic!) paddle shifter didn't help seal the deal in my garage.
Honda is trying to bridge the identify gap a little with paddle shifting, ventilated seats, and almost 300hp, but really we should try to step back from seeing the car as an expression of who we are, and try to optimize for the functionality that we use every day. As much fun as it was to drive the BMW, finding a way to fit my growing family into it was a stressful mess and I'm happy to have found, perhaps unintentionally, a much better situation.
Some of this insight came to me from Steve Kaufer of TripAdvisor, who at the time I was there was running a $4B company and driving an old minivan, because that's what his family fit in. He never cared for a fancy new car because fancy meant small and he wasn't out to impress anyone on the road anyway.
But I also can't pretend that Honda's naturally aspirated 6-cylinder and perfectly matched 10-speed (domestic!) paddle shifter didn't help seal the deal in my garage.
I own a Porsche 911, a Mercedes GL 550, and a Toyota Sienna XLE. I like cars. However, one of my best friends never told me he was going to the annual car show, despite the fact that we often have lunch together. When I asked why he said it was because I had mentioned that I think the minivan is a peak of automotive greatness. He comes from the Detroit area, and literally assumed I didn’t care about cars simply because I like minivans!
Also, I may be a bit on the spectrum because I simply do not think about cars as a means of self expression. I don’t spend $120,000 on a car because I think it would impress somebody. I am a lousy mind reader and have no idea what people would think about what I drive, nor do I judge people on what they drive. That is bizarre to me.
Also, I may be a bit on the spectrum because I simply do not think about cars as a means of self expression. I don’t spend $120,000 on a car because I think it would impress somebody. I am a lousy mind reader and have no idea what people would think about what I drive, nor do I judge people on what they drive. That is bizarre to me.
Don’t leave us hanging. Why is the minivan peak of automotive greatness, particularly in comparison to the other cars you mentioned. I would surly think a 911 is a much superior machine.
They way I see it, a 911 (or any sports car, really) is for when you want to drive for the sake of driving. In any other use case, it is an impractical compromise, because it was built for a specific purpose. The 911 may even be the most practical sports car, others are much less usable day-to-day. If you choose to daily drive a Porsche, you choose a specific compromise. For driving fast and giving you that fizz of being in control of a powerful machine, obviously it's superior to a minivan, because that's what it was designed to do.
You can certainly drive yourself and one other person on a weekend trip in a 911, no doubt. Anything beyond that quickly becomes a hassle, unless you go for a roof rack or a roof box, which is not ideal. It makes the car top-heavy and is not nearly as secure as packing things inside the car. There is also the issue of suspension travel and ground clearance, again the 911 is better and more comfortable than a lot of other sports cars in this respect, but it is still quite firm and has low ground clearance.
A minivan carries more people in comfort, holds more luggage inside the car hidden from prying eyes, it has better gas mileage and it is cheaper to purchase and service. It does vastly more things better than a 911, which only does a few things exceptionally well.
Personally, I would rather drive a minivan with my friends and our gear to a cabin far in the woods for a week or two of vacation, than I would take a 911 for a drive on public roads or a track day. The minivan is better at the things most people want/need.
Unfortunately, they have been swayed towards SUVs and trucks and sports cars by marketing.
You can certainly drive yourself and one other person on a weekend trip in a 911, no doubt. Anything beyond that quickly becomes a hassle, unless you go for a roof rack or a roof box, which is not ideal. It makes the car top-heavy and is not nearly as secure as packing things inside the car. There is also the issue of suspension travel and ground clearance, again the 911 is better and more comfortable than a lot of other sports cars in this respect, but it is still quite firm and has low ground clearance.
A minivan carries more people in comfort, holds more luggage inside the car hidden from prying eyes, it has better gas mileage and it is cheaper to purchase and service. It does vastly more things better than a 911, which only does a few things exceptionally well.
Personally, I would rather drive a minivan with my friends and our gear to a cabin far in the woods for a week or two of vacation, than I would take a 911 for a drive on public roads or a track day. The minivan is better at the things most people want/need.
Unfortunately, they have been swayed towards SUVs and trucks and sports cars by marketing.
Easily the most practical car since the Model T. For sheer pleasure driving, of course the 911. But a minivan can carry a big family or you can drop the back seats and slot in a stack of 4x8 plywood sheets without a sweat while keeping them covered, which most pickups can’t handle too well anymore. The high end models have ridiculously comfortable seats. You can camp in a minivan. They’re smooth and quiet to drive. They cost little to maintain. In Toyotas, at least, the leather seats are nearly indestructible and barely take on dirt. The remote operated side doors and elevated floors make getting babies into the car seats a doddle. Tall people fit fine. Moms feel safer driving high. They come with 110v outlets. (The vans, not the moms.) They are easily the most versatile cars on the road. Nothing else comes remotely close.
When my wife and I were discussing whether to have a third kid, the "we can justify a minivan now" argument was a big push in favor!
If you think it's uncool, just remember -- if you buy a sports car, there is always someone out there with a cooler sports car. But you can buy THE BEST minivan in the world for ~$40k. Minivans also tend to go heavy on tech and comfort features relative to their price point. Yes, they suck to parallel park in the city, but 360 cameras and ultrasonics have made that much easier than it used to be. Really recommended!
If you think it's uncool, just remember -- if you buy a sports car, there is always someone out there with a cooler sports car. But you can buy THE BEST minivan in the world for ~$40k. Minivans also tend to go heavy on tech and comfort features relative to their price point. Yes, they suck to parallel park in the city, but 360 cameras and ultrasonics have made that much easier than it used to be. Really recommended!
My problem with minivans (as opposed to good sports cars) is that they drive like crap. I have never encountered (or heard of) a van that drove well with one exception [1]
[1] I remember reading about a volkswagen bus that had been modified heavily with Porsche components to the point it could drive and accelerate better than any van had a right to.
[1] I remember reading about a volkswagen bus that had been modified heavily with Porsche components to the point it could drive and accelerate better than any van had a right to.
My parents had a '68 VW bus. Sorry, it was a death trap. I have no idea how we survived several trips across the US in it.
1. no seat belts in the back, no headrests
2. poor brakes (especially if you were seduced by the size of the cargo area and loaded a bunch of weight in it)
3. inadequate power (could barely to 65)
4. would tip over if turned too sharply
5. don't even think about hitting anything head on, just a bit of sheetmetal there
6. highly susceptible to cross-winds
On the plus side, it was inexpensive to maintain and ran for decades. I finally sold it for my dad, and he asked me if I was nostalgic for it. I said no, I was just happy we never had an accident in it. My dad gets the credit for that, he was an unusually careful driver. Never hit anything in 70 years of driving.
I know times have changed, and what was acceptable in the 60's wrt car safety has changed a lot, but still...
1. no seat belts in the back, no headrests
2. poor brakes (especially if you were seduced by the size of the cargo area and loaded a bunch of weight in it)
3. inadequate power (could barely to 65)
4. would tip over if turned too sharply
5. don't even think about hitting anything head on, just a bit of sheetmetal there
6. highly susceptible to cross-winds
On the plus side, it was inexpensive to maintain and ran for decades. I finally sold it for my dad, and he asked me if I was nostalgic for it. I said no, I was just happy we never had an accident in it. My dad gets the credit for that, he was an unusually careful driver. Never hit anything in 70 years of driving.
I know times have changed, and what was acceptable in the 60's wrt car safety has changed a lot, but still...
Have you driven a recent one? It's not hard to get a test drive. Try holding the Odyssey over 6000 rpm in sport-manual and see if it's a boring van.
Odyssey is pretty good. Have you tried it?
Minivans drive perfectly well, beyond the limits of what is responsible on a public road. The point of a minivan is everyday practicality, not lap times.
If you want to drive something that drives like a sports car, get a sports car for the weekends.
If you want to drive something that drives like a sports car, get a sports car for the weekends.
The Alphard V6 really isn’t that bad to drive. We’re not talking Porsche of course (and why would we? Topic is carrying kids safely), but it is a really pleasant drive.
I had a VW Vanagon and thought it handled well. Nearly perfect 50:50 weight distribution on front and rear wheels and a super tight turning radius. That thing could do a U-turn on a two-lane road. Power was pretty pathetic though. It would do 70mph, maybe 72 on the highway.
I find it interesting just how much cars are part of certain cultures. Living in Tokyo of my hundreds of acquaintances I think I know 3 that own a car. Family or no. I know that's not possible in many places though I kind of wish it was more common.
I know 3 immediate family/ relatives who have a car in Tokyo (all are living the 23). My wife’s cousin even has a nice old school Cadillac Escalade he imported from the US (it’s American style left hand drive). That said he likes cars and motorcycles, he’s also a bus driver to Seibu. I’m always impressed by the skill it takes to drive a bus around Tokyo.
I find renting a car in Tokyo super easy. It enables so many things like small day trips. We got one last week to go to the zoo. Often it’s easier to rent a car than take the train to Saitama. So even when you don’t own a car it’s still very accessible and affordable.
Per the article, minivans kinda suck in the US. Japanese ones are much cooler. I think there wouldn’t be as much minivan stigma in the US of Japan exported some of those designs.
I find renting a car in Tokyo super easy. It enables so many things like small day trips. We got one last week to go to the zoo. Often it’s easier to rent a car than take the train to Saitama. So even when you don’t own a car it’s still very accessible and affordable.
Per the article, minivans kinda suck in the US. Japanese ones are much cooler. I think there wouldn’t be as much minivan stigma in the US of Japan exported some of those designs.
Once you get out of the bigger cities, having a car is basically expected in the rest of Japan - layout and planning of smaller cities reflect this a lot. Car ownership can be really cheap as well - parking space is a major cost factor in Tokyo.
Not meaning to counter your point, just pointing out that there are some significant culture differences between metropolises/smaller cities/countryside within the same country
Not meaning to counter your point, just pointing out that there are some significant culture differences between metropolises/smaller cities/countryside within the same country
I recommend an aftermarket trailer hitch as well for the minivan. Our last vacation we fit 2, adults, 2 kids, our dog in his full sized crate, all of our luggage, and 4 bicycles on a hitch rack. Pretty sweet!
Im all about the minivan, and completely agree with everything you're saying here. Ive been getting my wife prepped for one when the time comes, and i think shes come around to see how much they just make sense. Also doesnt hurt that a few friends actually expressed their regret going suv over the van.
Your instincts are good. I have a top-of-the-line SUV that cost three times what my top-of-the-line minivan did, and the minivan smokes it in most ways (driving performance excepted). If I had to choose between the two I would take the minivan any day of the week, though I’d miss the extra hundred horsepower going up the hill to my house.
> It's a living room on wheels, including the TV.
I remain bemused at the idea a tv is a necessity for family car journeys. I would not want one in anything I was driving.
I remain bemused at the idea a tv is a necessity for family car journeys. I would not want one in anything I was driving.
Our minivan came with one and we've literally never used it. After a while the kids stop asking. I think we keep a dvd in the van in case we're stuck somewhere with nothing to do but it's never come up.
Twice as much cargo as an SUV? We have both a minivan (Toyota sienna) and an SUV (Chevy Suburban) and the SUV easily has quadruple the cargo space as the minivan.
A Suburban is a "full size SUV", which weighs, drives, and has the fuel economy of a truck. Minivans are closer in size, weight, fuel economy, and cost to the car derived "mid size SUVs", but they have much more cargo space. Still, the Odyssey claims roughly the same amount of "maximum interior cargo volume" as the Suburban, and almost twice that of the "most popular SUV", the midsize Ford Explorer. It's highly optimized for providing interior space: where the spare tire should be is a deep tub for cargo or to hold the folded down rear seats. The actual spare tire is located in the second row footwell, though you could never tell.
Can you move an upright piano in it?
The thing that finally turned me off to SUVs was when I managed to find an upright piano for $200, and none of my friends with SUVs could help me move it -- I ended up borrowing my mom's minivan (with the seats taken out). At that point I decided that sure, an SUV looks more "manly", but I'd rather have a vehicle that can actually get the job done.
The thing that finally turned me off to SUVs was when I managed to find an upright piano for $200, and none of my friends with SUVs could help me move it -- I ended up borrowing my mom's minivan (with the seats taken out). At that point I decided that sure, an SUV looks more "manly", but I'd rather have a vehicle that can actually get the job done.
This is true. We used to take horses (miniature horses, but horses) in our minivan. They wouldn’t have been able to stand upright in our suburban. We got some really odd stares when people would see a horse with its head between the drivers and passengers seats, looking out the windshield.
Sienna 33.5 ft³, 101 ft³ seats down
Suburban 41.5 ft³, 144.7 ft³
Suburban is almost 2 feet longer.
Suburban 41.5 ft³, 144.7 ft³
Suburban is almost 2 feet longer.
What year Sienna? Ours is from 2000 and is tiny compared to modern Siennas.
[deleted]
We ended up buying Diono Radian carseats [1], which are marketed as "the 3-across car seat"
We can fit our three kids in the back of our Honda Civic perfectly well.
But we've had exactly the same conversation. In order to have a fourth kid, we'd need to swap out our vehicles. House is fine, insurance is fine, income is fine, but we'd need to upgrade vehicles, and that seems to be just enough friction to make the idea unappealing.
[1] https://www.diono.com/us/product/radian-3r-2020/
We can fit our three kids in the back of our Honda Civic perfectly well.
But we've had exactly the same conversation. In order to have a fourth kid, we'd need to swap out our vehicles. House is fine, insurance is fine, income is fine, but we'd need to upgrade vehicles, and that seems to be just enough friction to make the idea unappealing.
[1] https://www.diono.com/us/product/radian-3r-2020/
The Radian is definitely king of three across. But they're premium priced ($200 each, or $600 for three), and sacrifice comfort particularly for longer trips.
In general people who have never had kids don't seem to grasp that the average (non-Radian) car-seat is BIGGER than an adult side-to-side. The Radian series has a niche because they produced a car-seat the same size as an adult (with no loss of safety), but had to sacrifice comfort to do so.
In general people who have never had kids don't seem to grasp that the average (non-Radian) car-seat is BIGGER than an adult side-to-side. The Radian series has a niche because they produced a car-seat the same size as an adult (with no loss of safety), but had to sacrifice comfort to do so.
> sacrifice comfort particularly for longer trips.
I guess maybe they are less comfortable than traditional car seats, but since car seats are basically build like lazy-boy recliners, that seems unsurprising.
Our kids have never complained about the comfort or lack-thereof. They seem to have pretty equivalent comfort when compared to the back seat itself as far as I can tell.
I guess maybe they are less comfortable than traditional car seats, but since car seats are basically build like lazy-boy recliners, that seems unsurprising.
Our kids have never complained about the comfort or lack-thereof. They seem to have pretty equivalent comfort when compared to the back seat itself as far as I can tell.
That definitely seems like an improvement over car seats from the 90s. As an adult I still remember hating full-day road trips in the hard-plastic-with-a-fabric-liner car seat my parents owned; my butt was always sore after sitting in it for too long.
Car seats are way better than they were when I was a kid in the 80s. I recall that my car seat as a kid was a hard vinyl upright contraption that made me carsick whenever I rode in it for a long time. My mom actually sewed fabric covers for it so it wouldn't burn me on hot summer days.
My kid's infant car seat was a click 'n go bassinet with a soft fabric liner. His convertible car seat stays in the car, but it still reclines better than any adult seat, with more plush padding than the car itself. He actually prefers the car over the bed for naps. Only problem is that he's still rear-facing and his legs are getting a bit too long for the seat, but he solves that by putting his feet up.
Kid stuff is one area where I've been pleasantly surprised by how technology advanced when I wasn't looking. Car seats, strollers, baby gates, and toys are all way more advanced (and cheaper, inflation-adjusted) than they were in the 80s.
My kid's infant car seat was a click 'n go bassinet with a soft fabric liner. His convertible car seat stays in the car, but it still reclines better than any adult seat, with more plush padding than the car itself. He actually prefers the car over the bed for naps. Only problem is that he's still rear-facing and his legs are getting a bit too long for the seat, but he solves that by putting his feet up.
Kid stuff is one area where I've been pleasantly surprised by how technology advanced when I wasn't looking. Car seats, strollers, baby gates, and toys are all way more advanced (and cheaper, inflation-adjusted) than they were in the 80s.
You kids are funny - I remember sleeping in the back of our station wagon with my sister while we were flying down the autobahn. (Yes, it seems crazy today).
My main gripe about the car seat is all the damn waste. We have four of them and you can't sell them or even give them away. I'm not sure about the recycling situation yet, but even in the best case not much can be recycled.
My main gripe about the car seat is all the damn waste. We have four of them and you can't sell them or even give them away. I'm not sure about the recycling situation yet, but even in the best case not much can be recycled.
There's no reason you can't gift a non-expired car seat, or even sell it. It's probably not a good idea to buy one on Craigslist, but we had no qualms about taking a secondhand car seat from a trusted source who assured us it hasn't been in any accidents.
Keep them and give them to family, otherwise donate to charity? Heck, check your local community chats/groups/forums, you can probably sell it for a small amount. Someone will find a way to resell it and make a profit.
There is a fear that car seats can be weakened by being involved in a crash.
My opinion is that it's way overblown, how many people have a serious crash with kids in the car? How many of them would then go on to resell the car seat? How many of those people would go on to have another serious crash to test the theory?
That said, when it comes to protecting our children, it's hard to justify saving a few bucks.
My opinion is that it's way overblown, how many people have a serious crash with kids in the car? How many of them would then go on to resell the car seat? How many of those people would go on to have another serious crash to test the theory?
That said, when it comes to protecting our children, it's hard to justify saving a few bucks.
I remember sleeping on the windowsill behind the back seat of our car. Good times.
What makes you say they're less comfortable? Compared to my kid's carseat, it looks like they removed the side bolsters (which are like 6" tall in mine) but kept everything else basically the same - a few mm of foam and some neoprene over plastic.
Yeah, the Diono is also just the most well-designed car seat, in all sorts of ways: e.g. they have the best-designed latch clips I’ve seen.
As a new parent, I was surprised how much space a kid took up. I didn't know about Radian car seats - we did Graco. We also upgraded to an SUV (Honda Pilot), and then a minivan (Pacifica) to hold all of our kids.
The cars were expensive. As young adults, with small incomes, having to buy large vehicles was a punch to the gut.
Let's say it costs you $200k to raise a kid to adulthood [0]. A Honda Civic costs $25k new [1], an 8-seater Honda Odyssey costs $31k new [2]. A car lasts 10+ years so conservatively that's $12k extra in transportation costs for your fourth child. Maybe you can argue it's $20k with fuel.
That...doesn't seem unreasonable? As a society, we like people to start families and continue the human race, but we know overpopulation is a thing and we don't want everyone to have huge families. 10% extra marginal cost is small, and offset by other economies of scale.
[0] I don't have a better estimate for this than Bill Waterson putting it at $100k. In 1987. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/07/24
[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/
[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/odyssey/
That...doesn't seem unreasonable? As a society, we like people to start families and continue the human race, but we know overpopulation is a thing and we don't want everyone to have huge families. 10% extra marginal cost is small, and offset by other economies of scale.
[0] I don't have a better estimate for this than Bill Waterson putting it at $100k. In 1987. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/07/24
[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/
[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/odyssey/
> That...doesn't seem unreasonable?
Financially, no it isn't unreasonable. But it's an added bit of friction to a decision we are already on the fence about.
I think that's the entire point of the article. Adding friction to the decision on whether to have more kids leads to people having fewer kids.
Financially, no it isn't unreasonable. But it's an added bit of friction to a decision we are already on the fence about.
I think that's the entire point of the article. Adding friction to the decision on whether to have more kids leads to people having fewer kids.
> but we know overpopulation is a thing
Overpopulation is not a thing anywhere in West.
Overpopulation is not a thing anywhere in West.
We still have a birth rate that is too high. It will be a long long time before we need to work on raising the birth rate and the problem isn't that complex.
> We still have a birth rate that is too high. It will be a long long time before we need to work on raising the birth rate and the problem isn't that complex.
Do you have any citations for this? Not snarking—genuinely curious, not arguing, but I was under the impression that most population growth in developed countries like the U.S. was due to immigration rather than above-replacement fertility rates.
Do you have any citations for this? Not snarking—genuinely curious, not arguing, but I was under the impression that most population growth in developed countries like the U.S. was due to immigration rather than above-replacement fertility rates.
If you think globally, the population still appears to be on the rise.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
{Edited for typo}
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
{Edited for typo}
It probably depends on the metric you're trying to optimize. I was curious about that as well, but I was thinking in terms of the maximum number of humans the earth can support. We certainly haven't hit that yet, we have large swaths of land allocated to relatively inefficient means of producing food (i.e. cattle).
Also, don't we need some level of population growth for Social Security to function correctly? We could replace Social Security, but it would be difficult and expensive.
Also, don't we need some level of population growth for Social Security to function correctly? We could replace Social Security, but it would be difficult and expensive.
The world overall might have too high a birth rate but almost all Western countries have a birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 (e.g. US, UK, AUS all at 1.7 [0] and falling [1]).
Unless you make up this difference with immigration, you have a declining population, which creates all sorts of short term issues.
Given that western countries have become increasingly hostile to immigration, especially from developing countries, trying to increase birth rate in western countries is a reasonable thing to explore imo.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
Unless you make up this difference with immigration, you have a declining population, which creates all sorts of short term issues.
Given that western countries have become increasingly hostile to immigration, especially from developing countries, trying to increase birth rate in western countries is a reasonable thing to explore imo.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
Let's explore that after we figured out how to live without destroying the planet.
The economy will collapse if there are 2 pensioners per employee
Because its built on bullshit. With the automation we have today we could easily satisfy the needs of everyone with fewer workers. Its the obscene demand for constant growth that causes these issues.
The economy will also collapse if climate change keeps going, the oceans are empty, topsoil is gone, aquifers depleted, insect populations decimated...
> The economy will also collapse if climate change keeps going, the oceans are empty, topsoil is gone, aquifers depleted, insect populations decimated...
Yeah, there's a tension here it seems. But it's harder to fix a pension system with technology, and the system is much more socially fragile. There are policy approaches available in the US that might not be available elsewhere (e.g., lifting income caps on social security and medicare taxes) that will kick the can a bit further down the road, but it's challenging to make diverse societies peaceful and cohesive.
On the other hand, private enterprise and technology have a bevy of tools that aren't as readily available to policy makers. Government in principle can encourage more environmentally-friendly energy and food production, but they're not in the business of actually innovating.
Yeah, there's a tension here it seems. But it's harder to fix a pension system with technology, and the system is much more socially fragile. There are policy approaches available in the US that might not be available elsewhere (e.g., lifting income caps on social security and medicare taxes) that will kick the can a bit further down the road, but it's challenging to make diverse societies peaceful and cohesive.
On the other hand, private enterprise and technology have a bevy of tools that aren't as readily available to policy makers. Government in principle can encourage more environmentally-friendly energy and food production, but they're not in the business of actually innovating.
Most developed countries have a declining population, most of europe has a fertility rate of 1.5. We are propping it up with immigration, and if it goes too low, the pention system would collapse - there would be not enough people in work to support the elderly.
>"problem isn't that complex."
It's a very conplex problem, people, especially women, had a tectonic shift in their priorities, culture and family size.
All developing and developed countries are on the same trajectory of declining birthrates, and I have not seen any policy that can raise it succesfully.
>"problem isn't that complex."
It's a very conplex problem, people, especially women, had a tectonic shift in their priorities, culture and family size.
All developing and developed countries are on the same trajectory of declining birthrates, and I have not seen any policy that can raise it succesfully.
The only places with high birth rates are Africa and SE Asia. These days complaining of birth rates has a tinge of racism. Wouldn’t want too many more brown and black people would we? Especially with white birth rates in a free fall that doesn’t seem to have a bottom.
A lot of the "too many people" complaints are directed at the West and 1st-World countries. So not complaints about "too many black/brown people", but rather "too many White/Western people", which is obviously not racist at all!
Ironic if true since given current trends there won’t be many white/western people left within a short amount of time.
I mean in the US you’ll also need to save 6 figures for the kid’s college as well…
Except National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rated Dino carseats with 2 stars for ease of use. Which means you're more likely to injure a child when using the seat.
> the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five
I recently visited Pakistan for the first time, and was amazed to see a family of five riding around on a small Honda motorbike. The father was driving, a small child sat in front of the father, the was mother hanging on behind the father, and the oldest daughter sitting on the far back with both legs hanging off to the left while holding an infant. None of them were wearing helmets. It was both terrifying & impressive.
I recently visited Pakistan for the first time, and was amazed to see a family of five riding around on a small Honda motorbike. The father was driving, a small child sat in front of the father, the was mother hanging on behind the father, and the oldest daughter sitting on the far back with both legs hanging off to the left while holding an infant. None of them were wearing helmets. It was both terrifying & impressive.
>> the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five
My wife and I had the minivan discussion. They are amazingly practical when you need to carry vast amounts of crap. Neither of us was particularly interested in driving around in one though, so we optimized by carrying less crap around.
I'd say about 99% of our usage of our 4 door sedan or small SUV requires no additional cargo capacity for our family. For the other 1% of the time, we're able to optimize by carrying less stuff. I think there has been 1 or 2 times in 13 years where cargo capacity was insufficient. For us, it was a tradeoff worth making.
We totally respect those who make different choices, though. Everyone has their own preferences and needs.
My wife and I had the minivan discussion. They are amazingly practical when you need to carry vast amounts of crap. Neither of us was particularly interested in driving around in one though, so we optimized by carrying less crap around.
I'd say about 99% of our usage of our 4 door sedan or small SUV requires no additional cargo capacity for our family. For the other 1% of the time, we're able to optimize by carrying less stuff. I think there has been 1 or 2 times in 13 years where cargo capacity was insufficient. For us, it was a tradeoff worth making.
We totally respect those who make different choices, though. Everyone has their own preferences and needs.
I was in Ukraine in the mid-00s. Saw a five person motorcycle. No helmets, but they had an open side-car so a bit more space. Youngest kid was in a bucket held by big sister.
Add to that a wooden box with a small metal bars through which I could glance a couple of chickens that were being transported by the family, in Vietnam. Amazing.
The rate of children deaths or severe injuries caused by motorbike accidents must have been over the roof in these countries.
The rate of children deaths or severe injuries caused by motorbike accidents must have been over the roof in these countries.
Must have been? Large parts of Southeast Asia still get around with the whole family on one motorbike today. Not so much in the large cities but once you get outside them, absolutely.
The road deaths are also very large in those countries (though a fair amount of that is also people going high speeds on roads that would not be rated for that speed in a developed country)
Helmets work but after working in automotive safety, motorcycles are death traps.
I can't emphasize this enough.
They are no automobile, and are not comparable.
I can't emphasize this enough.
They are no automobile, and are not comparable.
That's why so many people like them.
It's a pleasant distraction from sitting in a fluorescently-lit cubicle getting diabetes, and facing the dread of going home to another night's existential crisis.
Twist that throttle and there's a gentle tap on the shoulder and a whisper, 'hey buddy, just wanted to remind you that you're actually alive'.
It's a pleasant distraction from sitting in a fluorescently-lit cubicle getting diabetes, and facing the dread of going home to another night's existential crisis.
Twist that throttle and there's a gentle tap on the shoulder and a whisper, 'hey buddy, just wanted to remind you that you're actually alive'.
What other precautionary methods could help reduce mortality rates of motorcycles?
Build a car around them?
In India TATA tried that. Built $2000 car (tata nano). Target audience were the bike going families.
First , the motor bikes are cheap. So you need car matching that cost and you end up compromising a lot.
https://thewire.in/business/tata-nano-why-did-the-people-not...
First , the motor bikes are cheap. So you need car matching that cost and you end up compromising a lot.
https://thewire.in/business/tata-nano-why-did-the-people-not...
Keeping your speed under 40km/h would do a lot. And removing cars from streets.
Yeah, the average speed of traffic in Pakistan, at least in the areas I visited, was much lower that I'd expect to see in the USA.
When you look at the curve of chance of death vs speed, it very very rapidly rises. You have very little risk of serious injury at 40km/h and almost certain death at 60km/h
I saw the same thing in India.
I once saw a motorbike with two people and a cow in western Kenya. It wasn't a /big/ cow, but still.
CinchWrench(1)
Saw much of that in Hyderabad 2008.
It's one way the lethality of poverty is visible.
It's one way the lethality of poverty is visible.
There's an individual on YouTube who does a great job reviewing carseat fits into various vehicles. The example below he fits 3 car seats in the back of a Ford Focus, which most people wouldn't consider to be a large car.
Alex on Autos https://youtu.be/RTh06yWql_s?t=223
It can be done. There's also a great product called the MultiMac sold in the UK and I think the EU. Fits 4 in the back seat, worth checking out if available in your locale. It won't ship to the US for regulatory reasons. https://youtu.be/zybM8cltCxU?t=179
Alex on Autos https://youtu.be/RTh06yWql_s?t=223
It can be done. There's also a great product called the MultiMac sold in the UK and I think the EU. Fits 4 in the back seat, worth checking out if available in your locale. It won't ship to the US for regulatory reasons. https://youtu.be/zybM8cltCxU?t=179
Let's not forget the expiration dates on Car Safety Seats. C'mon, really? Seats with Styrofoam may deteriorate eventually but I haven't heard of a casualties due to expired car seats.
Regulatory Capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It isn't the exception; it is the rule. Bodies that govern an industry are _inevitably_ captured by the industry they govern, because that industry has the absolute highest incentive to write the rules it has to follow.
It isn't the exception; it is the rule. Bodies that govern an industry are _inevitably_ captured by the industry they govern, because that industry has the absolute highest incentive to write the rules it has to follow.
This is part of the plan to force people to buy new. They make it illegal to sell any kids stuff older than a year or two.
All the car seats for my kids were chiefly composed of plastics. I'm sure there is quite a high factor of safety for car seat design, but there are quite a few time and temperature related failure modes for plastics (i.e. getting brittle over time as the plasticizers outgas, UV exposure, etc.).
https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/ffs/dokumenter/se...
https://www.amazon.com/Plastics-Failure-Guide-2E-Prevention/...
https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/project/ffs/dokumenter/se...
https://www.amazon.com/Plastics-Failure-Guide-2E-Prevention/...
To be fair, how do you test this - as a system - effectively. The consequences of failure on a child seat are not like, say, a stand mixer. That being said, I suspect it has more to do with the manufacturer attempting to limit their liability window. It's wasteful right, but in a litigious world, I get it.
Start crash testing expired seats and compare results to new ones of the same make/model. They expire relatively quickly, so they would not be difficult to find. For example, our Graco Keyfit 30 expires after 6 years.
I think you’d have to mandate it legislatively though. There are no incentives for seat manufacturers to do this of their own volition. The quick expiration works in their favor on every front...
Chicco Keyfit 30
Some tests have found that brand new seats break when loaded near their stated limits. I think it is reasonable to say that plastic weakened due to the relatively harsh thermal and UV conditions in a car would fare worse.
https://www.consumerreports.org/toddler-booster-seats/child-...
https://www.consumerreports.org/toddler-booster-seats/child-...
I don't think a seat will get any UV exposure in a car, UV does not pass through glass
Glass blocks most, but not all UV [0]. And people open their windows sometimes.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12925188/
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12925188/
Not quite the same thing (adult seats vs car seats, and it's possible they were just faulty from the factory rather than expired), but the last time I was rear-ended the seats snapped behind me. Quite the experience really -- to stop you from going forward you have seat belts, air bags, and all kinds of fancy engineering. Inertia is a cruel mistress when the car moves forward out from under you though, and the only things ensuring your forward motion are a couple of broken seats (thankfully there weren't any passengers or children in car seats for me to smash into) and the 2-ton metal projectile poking through the ass end of your car.
When I was young, this was what minivans were for: families with three kids.
Minivans are only un-cool until you are forced to appreciate their practicality. They can transport groups of kids and all their gear, a bunch of dogs, a surprising amount of furniture or even large sheets of lumber or drywall. I would only consider replacing my minivan with an electric minivan.
My wife and I don't have kids (yet) but absolutely love our Pacifica minivan. It fits 4x8 sheets of plywood in the back perfectly (it was designed this way), all of the seats fold down into the floor, which is awesome, and it can tow a trailer.
We actually got it because it meant we could more easily pack more things to burning man every year. Since then we've done tons of road trips all over the country, and build the back of the van into a bed.
Love that car. Hoping to upgrade to a hybrid with the comma.ai autopilot eventually.
We actually got it because it meant we could more easily pack more things to burning man every year. Since then we've done tons of road trips all over the country, and build the back of the van into a bed.
Love that car. Hoping to upgrade to a hybrid with the comma.ai autopilot eventually.
I inherited my family’s old minivan while I was at college—a small, private one where the students lived on campus and most didn’t have their own vehicles. Overnight my popularity skyrocketed.
Not full electric, but we've been loving our Pacifica PHEV. You do sacrifice a bit of practicality—no towing capability, and the middle seats don't fold into the floor like the gas version (the battery is down there)—but in the summer we sometimes go months without refueling.
I fully concur on the practicality. The only vehicle more versatile than a minivan is full-size van (my family's conversion van growing up was insanely useful).
I fully concur on the practicality. The only vehicle more versatile than a minivan is full-size van (my family's conversion van growing up was insanely useful).
Thanks for the heads up on the PHEV and the stow-and-go seats. That one would be a no-go for us because we it to haul stuff all the time. With the seats fully stowed it's practically as good as a pickup truck.
Of course, you have to get all the toy cars and goldfish crackers off the floor first if you want the seats to actually stow.
Of course, you have to get all the toy cars and goldfish crackers off the floor first if you want the seats to actually stow.
I've found the goldfish crackers readily crush themselves out of the way and the dust vacuums up fairly easily, especially if left to age for at least three months. Toy cars can definitely bugger up latches and hinges, though.
BETTER than a pickup in my opinion! You can lock the doors.
I called my parents minivan the indoor pickup truck, the seats spent more time stowed to haul stuff then not (after kids were grown)
I was a triplet in the 80s where the fullsize van was a family favorite, and I haven’t seen vans much since.
Why did the fullsize van fall out of style? (Assuming it did)
It doesn’t seem much bigger than the other goliath SUVs and pickup trucks that saturate our US streets.
Why did the fullsize van fall out of style? (Assuming it did)
It doesn’t seem much bigger than the other goliath SUVs and pickup trucks that saturate our US streets.
Actual full size vans from that era had horrible crash safety records, perhaps they built a bad reputation because of that?
It was the unibody minivan that killed their reputation.
Full size vans were larger, yes, but due to their construction being based on legacy truck platforms, they offered a wildly inferior driving experience. They got single digit gas mileage (many had dual gas tanks to compensate), were clumsy to park, were rear-wheel drive, relatively more expensive to maintain, and offered a stiff and unrefined ride.
When the Caravan was introduced, it was better in every single way that would be relevant for the average family.
Stuff like the Ford Transit is a lot better than the Econoline it replaced, but they didn't bring it to the US until they were about 29 years too late.
Full size vans were larger, yes, but due to their construction being based on legacy truck platforms, they offered a wildly inferior driving experience. They got single digit gas mileage (many had dual gas tanks to compensate), were clumsy to park, were rear-wheel drive, relatively more expensive to maintain, and offered a stiff and unrefined ride.
When the Caravan was introduced, it was better in every single way that would be relevant for the average family.
Stuff like the Ford Transit is a lot better than the Econoline it replaced, but they didn't bring it to the US until they were about 29 years too late.
In the 80s people didn't care that much. An 80s van is still gonna beat an 80s car in terms of crash test results. And the bad results are only for the driver's legs. The kids in rows 2/3/4 are safe as can be
Don't forget the 5th row. My van has 15 seats. I'll fill the final seat this summer.
The safety problem is that most drivers can't deal well with a suspension that lets the vehicle movement lag well behind the driver inputs. Drivers would roll the vans over while driving on perfectly straight roads with good pavement. It's the same as pilot-in-the-loop oscillation. When the vehicle has a delayed response, the operator will overdo the input. That then needs to be corrected, but the correction may also be overdone. Each mistake leads to another mistake of larger magnitude in the opposite direction.
The extended-body vans like mine are particularly bad. When the body got extended, the rear axle didn't get moved rearward. Instead, the read tire pressure was increased to compensate for bad axle location.
Non-professional drivers often got asked to drive these vans for daycare, church groups, and other group activities. The problem got so bad that the federal government mandated that states act to keep the vans from being used for daycare and similar uses. Each state did something different. My state uses a $250,000 fine against the original dealer that sold the vehicle new, even if the vehicle was subsequently sold. This totally shut down new vehicle sales. The vans can be leased however, and they can be purchased coming off of a lease. As a result, all vans are provisioned as preferred by the rental companies. (white, naturally aspirated gasoline V8, cloth seats, etc.)
The safety problem is that most drivers can't deal well with a suspension that lets the vehicle movement lag well behind the driver inputs. Drivers would roll the vans over while driving on perfectly straight roads with good pavement. It's the same as pilot-in-the-loop oscillation. When the vehicle has a delayed response, the operator will overdo the input. That then needs to be corrected, but the correction may also be overdone. Each mistake leads to another mistake of larger magnitude in the opposite direction.
The extended-body vans like mine are particularly bad. When the body got extended, the rear axle didn't get moved rearward. Instead, the read tire pressure was increased to compensate for bad axle location.
Non-professional drivers often got asked to drive these vans for daycare, church groups, and other group activities. The problem got so bad that the federal government mandated that states act to keep the vans from being used for daycare and similar uses. Each state did something different. My state uses a $250,000 fine against the original dealer that sold the vehicle new, even if the vehicle was subsequently sold. This totally shut down new vehicle sales. The vans can be leased however, and they can be purchased coming off of a lease. As a result, all vans are provisioned as preferred by the rental companies. (white, naturally aspirated gasoline V8, cloth seats, etc.)
> I'll fill the final seat this summer.
I’m so envious! Congratulations!
I’m so envious! Congratulations!
I don't get it, do you have 13 children?
It depends on how you count: 1 unborn, 1 miscarriage, 2 legal adults still here, and 10 others. That could add up to 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14. All are from the same mother.
Car seats go in rows 2 and 3, since those are easiest to reach from the side door. It helps that our state hasn't totally caved to the car seat industry lobbying.
Car seats go in rows 2 and 3, since those are easiest to reach from the side door. It helps that our state hasn't totally caved to the car seat industry lobbying.
I have good memories of growing up in the 90s with a fullsize van as the family vehicle.
The most 90s thing of all was probably my dad plugging an inverter into the cigarette lighter so that he could power a SNES and 10" TV on our 24-hour drive to Pennsylvania to pacify us kids. That was peak existence for young me.
The most 90s thing of all was probably my dad plugging an inverter into the cigarette lighter so that he could power a SNES and 10" TV on our 24-hour drive to Pennsylvania to pacify us kids. That was peak existence for young me.
> That was peak existence for young me.
Man, I felt shivers just reading this. So much 90s cool.
Man, I felt shivers just reading this. So much 90s cool.
Got the Pacifica a few years ago, never looked back. Probably will buy a new one in a few years.
The Pacifica Hybrid is wonderful. We buy very little gasoline (even less this year).
How are they on road trips? Instead of a luxury SUV, my main concern is comfort.
We do a lot of cross country trips visiting family and my wife and I will alternate driving. If passenger gets tired of looking at the road or wants to get some sleep they usually hop over the center console and go hang out in the power reclining 3rd row. 2 kids ride in the 2 center captain chairs and one in the 3rd. Larger dog (90 lb) usually wanders around between everything. We usually put a cargo box on top so we can keep the cabin cleaner but we'd still fit without it.
I also own a top trim mid-sized luxary SUV and I'd say the limited pacifica (plus all packages) is easily the go-to option for comfort on road trips. Its no contest how much better something like that is compared to what basically equates to a larger sedan with a big trunk. Maybe something like a suburban or a yukon xl could compete but thats about all I'd think might.
I also own a top trim mid-sized luxary SUV and I'd say the limited pacifica (plus all packages) is easily the go-to option for comfort on road trips. Its no contest how much better something like that is compared to what basically equates to a larger sedan with a big trunk. Maybe something like a suburban or a yukon xl could compete but thats about all I'd think might.
Great driver and front passenger comfort. I haven't heard the kids complain about the rest of the seating. I've sat in the middle row a couple times and being tall-ish it wasn't as good as the front but still pretty decent.
The ride itself is great, and its not noisy. There's an active noise cancellation system, not sure if it does anything as I don't think I can turn it off to compare.
The ride itself is great, and its not noisy. There's an active noise cancellation system, not sure if it does anything as I don't think I can turn it off to compare.
Great for road trips!
I've taken more than 6 trips longer than 15 hours and they rock.
If you want comfort, get an E-class wagon or similar. SUVs are not built for comfort.
What is the wear and tear cost per mile? I would be very apprehensive about investing in a Fiat Chrysler product.
Fiat cars are pretty cheap.
Sometimes a Fiat is the only reasonable option. That was the case when I bought my smallest car. Despite the small exterior size, the 500L is really roomy on the inside. It works for a person who is 6'10" (208 cm) tall, leaving enough room to sit up straight and wear a hat. None of the normal large cars (SUV, minivan, pickup, etc.) were as good. With the short length and small turn radius, parking is very easy.
Sometimes a Fiat is the only reasonable option. That was the case when I bought my smallest car. Despite the small exterior size, the 500L is really roomy on the inside. It works for a person who is 6'10" (208 cm) tall, leaving enough room to sit up straight and wear a hat. None of the normal large cars (SUV, minivan, pickup, etc.) were as good. With the short length and small turn radius, parking is very easy.
I've never done the calculation, but we haven't had anything major come up yet on our 2017. We did have a corrosion problem on the aluminum hood out of warranty, and Chrysler fixed it for free.
I hated minivans until we caved and got one. It is easily the most useful vehicle I have ever owned. Best "pickup" I've ever owned as well.
My wife and I rented one while on a vacation trip with our two girls to North Carolina. Holy moly was it convenient!!! Very eye-opening experience.
Whatever happened to station wagons, with all those extra flip-up seats in the back bay?
This is the new Wagon Queen Family Truckster. This is a damn fine automobile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXN5sQ5g-U&ab_channel=Foste...
This is the new Wagon Queen Family Truckster. This is a damn fine automobile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXN5sQ5g-U&ab_channel=Foste...
Whichever car designer decided to laminate simulated wood on the sides of the car needs to have their car taken away.
Now you can get color LCD panels that simulate simulated laminated wood on the sides of your car, including simulated wear and fading and scratches.
They're called SUVs now and the extra seats are absent so that they can be styled with a sloping back. Priorities.
I'd guess it has more to do with rear-impacy safety and crumple zones - the Tahoe is pretty square and could fit some small seats back there.
[deleted]
Actually, they should reboot National Lampoon's vacation with an electric vehicle. That would be funny to watch.
COVID Vacation: The Griswold family rides VR exercise bicycles all around the country!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OOBfeLPqSk&ab_channel=Casan...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OOBfeLPqSk&ab_channel=Casan...
don't SUV's fulfil that niche now? Basically station wagons with a slightly higher driving position?
source: Drive a Kia Sorrento with 7 seats - two in the back row that flip up.
Sure but when I was young it wasn't mandated for children to be in car seats until the age of 8 like TFA mentions. I was sitting in the back seat but I was definitely not in a car seat once I was around 4-5.
When I was young in the 90s, our car didn't even have seat belts for the back seats and child seats were unheard of.
When I was young you could fit 6 in a sedan and 8 in a station wagon. Bench seats in the front have gone away (I assume due to airbags). We didn't have a big family, but on car-pools, I was the smallest so I always got stuck straddling the stick shift for the cars that had the shifter on the floor.
Throw in one kids best friend who is always around and maybe a grandparent who lives alone, going up to a 7 seater starts to get appealing pretty quickly.
Minivans seat 7-8, which is 6 kids.
If your kids have friends, you'll probably find yourself driving around as many kids as that fairly often. I was raised in a family of five and my parents had a minivan because nothing smaller would have been practical. Even if you can technically squeeze 3 kids into the back of a sedan, good luck going more than 30 minutes away without fights breaking out. And even if your kids are particularly well mannered, they still won't be comfortable. If you're driving a few hours to visit family, do you want to have a headache from fighting kids when you get there? Or kids in sour moods because their sibling wouldn't stop elbowing them?
With today's car seats, it can be made to work but it's a challenge. Realistically 2 kids in car seats makes the middle seat of anything but the largest cars impractical. At which point you are going up an extra row of seats, 6 seat layouts are uncommon.
In practice, Minivans seat 7 - Two adults, three of your own kids, and two of the neighbors.
You can't fill every back seat with a car seat. You will have issues accessing the rear if you put 3 in the middle row, the rear seat often isn't wide enough to accommodate three seats
Alright, don't leave me hanging -- which Volkswagen?
The Sharan fits seven persons (possibly seven adults, but the two back seats could be a bit tight for some), and is wide enough in the middle row for three kids in kids' seats.
It still looks and handles like a normal car rather than a bus.
It still looks and handles like a normal car rather than a bus.
Either the Sharan or a Caravelle? The Caravelle seems to be a favourite with big families in Europe
edit: but neither are sedans
edit: but neither are sedans
My guess would be the Passat.
My family had a VW Passat in the late 80's, lots of fond memories.
I'll even give a pass to the neighborhood kids who stole the VW badge (yay Beastie Boys!) ....... You know you're out there ... you might now be the CFO for a mid-size logistics company specializing in a modern, flexible forward-thinking unrivaled logistics service but back then my dad was NOT happy that morning when he discovered the badge was missing.
I'll even give a pass to the neighborhood kids who stole the VW badge (yay Beastie Boys!) ....... You know you're out there ... you might now be the CFO for a mid-size logistics company specializing in a modern, flexible forward-thinking unrivaled logistics service but back then my dad was NOT happy that morning when he discovered the badge was missing.
When my partner and I had our third, the Mazda 5 was our compromise vehicle— still has sliding doors and the overall aesthetics of a minivan, but drives like a car, gets decent gas mileage, and has a footprint comparable to a CUV for the purposes of parking and so-on.
We may well go to a full size van at some point, but once the kids are no longer babies, they actually travel somewhat lighter— no stroller, playpen, diaper bag, etc being shlepped everywhere.
We may well go to a full size van at some point, but once the kids are no longer babies, they actually travel somewhat lighter— no stroller, playpen, diaper bag, etc being shlepped everywhere.
The Ford Transit Connect is an awesome, just slightly larger version of that if you want to be a bit smaller than a full-sized van or a Metris.
Now if only they sold it with air suspension (or back breaking stiff coils) so it could also replace pickups...
[deleted]
I would have bought a Mazda 5 if they still sold them. However, I don't live in a great place for buying used.
Glad you found a vehicle that worked for you.
Minivans have locked this market segment up for years. Honda Odyssey & Toyota Sienna are the market leaders.
Minivans have locked this market segment up for years. Honda Odyssey & Toyota Sienna are the market leaders.
> the vast majority of cars today simply don't work for a family of five
Yes, but only if you count by unique line items. If you count by market share, the large family market is well served.
“S.U.V.s made up 47.4 percent of U.S. sales in 2019 with sedans at 22.1 percent,” said Tom Libby, automotive analyst at IHS Markit. “By 2025, we see the light-truck segment that includes S.U.V.s, vans and pickups to make up 78 percent of sales compared to 72 percent now.”[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/business/suv-sales-best-s...
Yes, but only if you count by unique line items. If you count by market share, the large family market is well served.
“S.U.V.s made up 47.4 percent of U.S. sales in 2019 with sedans at 22.1 percent,” said Tom Libby, automotive analyst at IHS Markit. “By 2025, we see the light-truck segment that includes S.U.V.s, vans and pickups to make up 78 percent of sales compared to 72 percent now.”[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/business/suv-sales-best-s...
Even if you find a seat configuration that fits, the next hassle that drove me nuts was getting access to seatbelts easily. Taking the kids anywhere is that much more annoying when you can't rely on the oldest at least sorting out their own buckles. (Only just occurred to me that a seatbelt extender would probably help bring the receiving part of the latch up from the depths between the seats -- too late now, bought a different car.)
Almost worth staggering births so that after three years the eldest is able to handle buckling themselves and then siblings. Worth finding every advantage like this when you're outnumbered by children.
Almost worth staggering births so that after three years the eldest is able to handle buckling themselves and then siblings. Worth finding every advantage like this when you're outnumbered by children.
I guess that's why Minivans are popular here in the US. I have a Mazda 5, which is like a mini-minivan and it's probably big enough for 3 car seats. I really like this car, too bad Mazda gave up on them here in the US.
I agree, but I also have friends who fit three car seats into a Honda. It’s super tight, but it can be done.
Your comment leads me to wonder if car safety laws also contribute to this. Back in the day cars were large and you could fit four kids in the back of a station wagon. In sedans, there was a platform behind the seats in the rear that kids could stretch out on (no seatbelt of course).
The cost of raising a child is roughly 10-15k a year. How much is the car upgrade (on a per year basis)?
This is an even bigger problem to solve when you factor in that:
- Different countries have different standards, so car seats vary accordingly
- Models change over the years
So finding out if you can get three car seats into a car is a massive headache.
- Different countries have different standards, so car seats vary accordingly
- Models change over the years
So finding out if you can get three car seats into a car is a massive headache.
Seems like a good opp. Make a bench seat attachment that fits into most cars, with interchangeable carseats for different aged kids. Could have a 3-wide and a 4-wide model for different sized cars.
I've been thinking about whether, when we have our fourth, to get a minivan, or just jump straight to a 15 passenger van. I know I'll need one eventually.
We got the 7 seater transit after we were pregnant with our fourth, then exchanged it for the sub 7ft height 15 seater after we had 5.
just get a minivan
You can do it in almost any car. You just need narrower car seats. Cosco has several that are narrower.
I own a Cosco from Walmart (for travel), and while they're the smallest and lightest legal seats on the market the build and safety is inferior.
There's a reason we own it, and don't use it day-to-day. It is a fine occasional "grandparent seat" or for travel, but if it is your daily driver and need three across, the Radian is a safer & much better built alternative.
There's a reason we own it, and don't use it day-to-day. It is a fine occasional "grandparent seat" or for travel, but if it is your daily driver and need three across, the Radian is a safer & much better built alternative.
[deleted]
Why on earth would you buy a sedan if you need to haul stuff/dogs around?
I once read a convincing argument that, in some cases, American's resistance to helmets caused helmet laws to have a net negative effect on health. The author claimed that the laws caused enough of a reduction in ridership that the lost exercise outweighed the reduction in injury. I've attempted to find the paper again, but I can't seem to track it down.
De Jong, Piet, The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws (February 24, 2010). Risk Analysis, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1368064 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1368064
That's the one! From the conclusions: "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response."
Yes and it's mind-blowing that municipalities are still trying to enact that crap. Most recently:
Nearly half of Seattle’s helmet citations go to homeless people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
Nearly half of Seattle’s helmet citations go to homeless people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
I believe you're thinking of Australia. There are very few (if any?) places in the US with helmet laws for adults.
King county Washington[1].
[1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev...!
[1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev...!
It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.
A stark difference to Sydney, Australia.
I regularly see commuters getting fined cycling without helmets.
The police favorite one is fining all the tourists on rental bikes. Most of the rental bikes don't have helmets as they go missing and as a tourist they are oblivious it's law to need a helmet while cycling in Australia. A big fine to!
Most get tricked in to the relaxed tourism marketing image portrayed without realising Australia is one of the most litigious places in the world and bit of a nanny country.
I regularly see commuters getting fined cycling without helmets.
The police favorite one is fining all the tourists on rental bikes. Most of the rental bikes don't have helmets as they go missing and as a tourist they are oblivious it's law to need a helmet while cycling in Australia. A big fine to!
Most get tricked in to the relaxed tourism marketing image portrayed without realising Australia is one of the most litigious places in the world and bit of a nanny country.
It seems to be selectively enforced against certain demographics. There was a discussion[1] in /r/Seattle earlier
1. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half...
1. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half...
Like most laws in Seattle, they are rarely enforced, and if you do get arrested or cited, current prosecutors aren't actually interested in doing their job very much either.
It's like the law where if you ride your bike on the road or sidewalk. It's 100% up to how busy the cop is that day and if he REALLY wants to write you a ticket.
Also, because this is the US, and Seattle in particular, police discretion means that some populations get the brunt of enforcement.
Nearly half of helmet citations in Seattle are against homeless people. And that was where they could corroborate homelessness using easily identifiable records (noted in press, police reports, or the address on file was a homeless shelter) https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
Nearly half of helmet citations in Seattle are against homeless people. And that was where they could corroborate homelessness using easily identifiable records (noted in press, police reports, or the address on file was a homeless shelter) https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?
Do you wear a helmet while driving a car? Head injuries are a top cause of death in vehicle accidents something that helmets would significantly reduce.
The truth is that you never even considered wearing a helmet while drivi g because driving is an ordinary activity that doesn't seem to require special equipment. In places where cycling is an ordinary activity people feel the same.
It's not about statistics or the actual effectiveness of safety equipment. If it were you would start wearing a driving helmet tomorrow.
The truth is that you never even considered wearing a helmet while drivi g because driving is an ordinary activity that doesn't seem to require special equipment. In places where cycling is an ordinary activity people feel the same.
It's not about statistics or the actual effectiveness of safety equipment. If it were you would start wearing a driving helmet tomorrow.
Your comment seems to presuppose that I am advocating for helmet-wearing, when I have done no such thing.
Helmets are big unwieldy things. They're not easy to carry, and are shaped such that even if you had a bag big enough for one, it would probably crowd out a lot of things that might also go in the bag (e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet) It is inconvenient to take spontaneous or quick bike rides if you have to lug a helmet around everywhere.
Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...
Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...
Personal anecdote, probably irrelevant. When we were kids in the 80s, we bicycled to school. My parents heard about bike helmets (which were pretty new at that time) and bought them for us. I kept mine on the back rack, because I thought they were utterly uncool.
Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way.
I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain.
I've always worn a helmet after that.
Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way.
I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain.
I've always worn a helmet after that.
I don't think anyone argues that in specific incidents helmets are safer.
The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely;
- helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.)
- drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents.
As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)
The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely;
- helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.)
- drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents.
As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)
I live in Australia, and I’ve always been taught to wear a helmet. It’s just a thing everybody knows now. Every bike you buy even has a sticker saying “use your head, wear a helmet.”
I think many of the side effects you mention arise from systemic biases when people aren’t used to helmet wear. Drivers wouldn’t overestimate safety when all cyclists wear helmets; this would take time to set in, but with compulsory helmet wear it would certainly occur.
As for inconvenience, and comfort, it’s hard to know the long-term effects of this. Once compulsory, future generations or cyclists may not mind as much because they don’t know an alternative. Anecdotally, nobody I know has ever complained about helmets being bulky or uncomfortable, because... it’s just how it is.
I think many of the side effects you mention arise from systemic biases when people aren’t used to helmet wear. Drivers wouldn’t overestimate safety when all cyclists wear helmets; this would take time to set in, but with compulsory helmet wear it would certainly occur.
As for inconvenience, and comfort, it’s hard to know the long-term effects of this. Once compulsory, future generations or cyclists may not mind as much because they don’t know an alternative. Anecdotally, nobody I know has ever complained about helmets being bulky or uncomfortable, because... it’s just how it is.
Here's an article showing the literature covering Western Australia's helmet law, which pretty much universally shows a total decrease in cycling rates, and a general increase in hospital admissions rate for the cyclists left on the road.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html
People may not outwardly complain about it, but they may not even think of it as a viable trip alternative anymore.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html
People may not outwardly complain about it, but they may not even think of it as a viable trip alternative anymore.
All very good points.
The university of Bath study was barely scientific. The researcher was his own subject, and it has never been replicated. Yet it is now accepted as the Truth.
A vastly better way to study the issue would be to analyze video footage from roadways where there are both cars and bikes.
I suspect the greatest danger to cyclists is when the driver isn't paying attention at all, or is not controlling their vehicle, in which case I doubt there's a special mental circuit that triggers an unconscious behavioral response when it detects a helmet.
A vastly better way to study the issue would be to analyze video footage from roadways where there are both cars and bikes.
I suspect the greatest danger to cyclists is when the driver isn't paying attention at all, or is not controlling their vehicle, in which case I doubt there's a special mental circuit that triggers an unconscious behavioral response when it detects a helmet.
> e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet
I clip the helmet to the backpack straps.
I clip the helmet to the backpack straps.
I have a hard time imagining this. To the front or under the bag? Also, wouldn't it just bang into you as you walked?
If you are wearing the backpack with both straps, then I attach at the bottom of the strap, near the waist.
Yes it bumps in to me but not in a way that bothers me (it’s more ‘resting’ than ‘bumping’).
Yes it bumps in to me but not in a way that bothers me (it’s more ‘resting’ than ‘bumping’).
Yes (you can do either or even some bags have a strap on top for hanging on a hook and you can clip the helmet to that) and yes it bangs into you when you walk.
Put the helmet on the bike?
Not particularly secure (unless you go to the expense of getting a second lock for the bike helmet) and depending on the configuration of the bike parking where you are, may not fit with other bikes parked.
I mean, it’s just a helmet. Sure, I lock it so you’d have to cut the strap to get it (thus rendering it largely useless without repair), but in general the theft rate of helmets is low enough that I can just eat the cost of buying a new one.
Not everyone lives in an area where that is true, nor can everyone just afford to replace $20 helmets on a regular basis.
Compulsory helmets just for cyclists is a bit arbitrary too, since pedestrians and car occupants would also benefit from helmets, and at least pedestrians are likely to encounter the same exact crash scenarios which cyclists encounter where helmets are necessary (e.g. pedestrians can also get hit by cars and flung a distance)
Compulsory helmets just for cyclists is a bit arbitrary too, since pedestrians and car occupants would also benefit from helmets, and at least pedestrians are likely to encounter the same exact crash scenarios which cyclists encounter where helmets are necessary (e.g. pedestrians can also get hit by cars and flung a distance)
I realize I'm privileged in that I live in a low-crime city, but seriously, who is going to steal a $20 helmet which will have a broken strap?
It looks like new straps cost ~$8 on Amazon, so the helmet is worth at most $12. Which isn't nothing, but... unless you happen to need a helmet and the helmet just so happens to be the right size for your body, you'd need to sell it, and no one is going to pay full price for a used helmet. I'd be amazed if you got more than a couple dollars when all was said and done.
I suppose you could buy straps in bulk for much less money, but then you're basically setting up a helmet-stealing operation... it all just seems like so much work, for very little gain! If you're that desperate, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in wire cutters so you can steal the bikes themselves?
It looks like new straps cost ~$8 on Amazon, so the helmet is worth at most $12. Which isn't nothing, but... unless you happen to need a helmet and the helmet just so happens to be the right size for your body, you'd need to sell it, and no one is going to pay full price for a used helmet. I'd be amazed if you got more than a couple dollars when all was said and done.
I suppose you could buy straps in bulk for much less money, but then you're basically setting up a helmet-stealing operation... it all just seems like so much work, for very little gain! If you're that desperate, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in wire cutters so you can steal the bikes themselves?
In the summer every morning I would see a bike locked up outside that had been they over night. One morning I saw the bike and all that was left of it was the frame. The saddle, handlebars, and wheels were all gone.
I agree that it's odd that people would steal these individual pieces, but it does happen. It reminds me of people only stealing 2 rims from a car.
I agree that it's odd that people would steal these individual pieces, but it does happen. It reminds me of people only stealing 2 rims from a car.
That would imply that the people doing the stealing are thinking rationally and trying to maximize outcomes.
I've been in areas with large drug problems, and people steal weird things (and avoid stealing less weird things) all the time.
Also, generally speaking the more valuable things are the riskier they are. It's a lot easier to pawn some random bike helmet, but bikes have registration numbers, and you may need to enlist the help of a chop shop that's in on what you're doing.
I've been in areas with large drug problems, and people steal weird things (and avoid stealing less weird things) all the time.
Also, generally speaking the more valuable things are the riskier they are. It's a lot easier to pawn some random bike helmet, but bikes have registration numbers, and you may need to enlist the help of a chop shop that's in on what you're doing.
I'd be afraid that people bash the helmet for fun or by accident, rendering it unsafe.
If you are using a U lock, You could thread a simple, short steel cable through the large foam helmet holes and the lock. It would be nearly no extra weight and a trivial amount of time and effort. I locked my helmet to my bike all the time when I lived in the city. I think it is worth the tiny inconvenience to bring the helmet unless you are doing some very mellow biking on well protected trails.
Philosophically, I believe that personal responsibility cannot exist without without the freedom to make bad decisions; and that freedom cannot exist without at least sometimes being exercised.
I think a person should have the right to cycle without a helmet regardless of the fact it may be inadvisable - just like they should have the right to take up skateboarding or skiing or boxing or cheerleading, even if that's even less advisable.
And because I think it's an important right I'm going to exercise it, because a right that exists in theory but not in practice is a right that does not exist.
I think a person should have the right to cycle without a helmet regardless of the fact it may be inadvisable - just like they should have the right to take up skateboarding or skiing or boxing or cheerleading, even if that's even less advisable.
And because I think it's an important right I'm going to exercise it, because a right that exists in theory but not in practice is a right that does not exist.
If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things.
Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity?
Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?
Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity?
Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?
At least among certain demographics in the US, a very clear orthodoxy has emerged between uses where you must wear helmets vs. where helmet use would seem pretty silly for the most part. There's some logic in the categorization but almost certainly not the clear line that some people would like to think exists.
That sounds like a strawman argument. If you don't wear a helment while doing activity A, why wear it while doing activity B.
To answer your question, perhaps because the common factor in all of these activities is that I am moving relatively slowly and my surroundings are basically stationary. These factors are void if I am riding a bike (or a motorcycle), where I might be moving at a few mph and there could be vehicles around me that might be moving even faster.
To answer your question, perhaps because the common factor in all of these activities is that I am moving relatively slowly and my surroundings are basically stationary. These factors are void if I am riding a bike (or a motorcycle), where I might be moving at a few mph and there could be vehicles around me that might be moving even faster.
Because they do not improve outcomes when a driver runs you over, the speeds involved are simply too high. When you do mountainbiking, a helmet protects you, speeds are lower, but not on the public roads.
I cycle in a city and a know several people who have been hit by cars. None of them went under the car’s wheels. Half of them believe their helmet saved their life. It’s not as though you automatically die upon contact with a car, and of course it helps to have your head protected.
But it protects you if you fall off your bike.
That happens almost never.
Just like getting hit by a car happens almost never? Anecdotally, I have never been hit by a car, but have fallen off my bike multiple times for a variety of reasons: bike entered the lane without warning while I was going downhill, I hit a rock on the road, front tire got caught in a groove in the road, …
Falling off because of gravel on the road, grooved surface or other road hazards sounds too much like inattentive riding or speed unsuited to road conditions. A helmet would help in those cases, but better attention to the road would also be a good idea.
In cities many accidents actually happen at relatively low speeds, e.g. the right hook, or dooring, or slipping on oil or wet leaves.
In my case, it's because the store is a few blocks away along a carefully chosen route. Otherwise, I wear one. It's saved me a couple times.
[deleted]
Because I have a narrow head and they make me look like a dork.
could be on the books but not enforced. in my city helmets are required when riding those electric scooters. you're also exposed to the same DUI laws that apply to actual cars. doesn't stop a bunch of drunk college kids from riding them around with no helmet every night.
There are more head traumas from car occupants than cyclists, it’s odd that there aren’t laws mandating helmets for drivers - 20% of Traumatic brain injuries Resulting in hospitalisation were caused by car crashes - about 1,000 a week.
I think the relevant statistic would be head trauma per miles traveled. But cars do get a lot of exceptions to standards society expects from other situations.
Given the wildly different rates of speed involved, incidents per unit of time would perhaps be more directly comparable.
[deleted]
I think that what it does is that it reduces casual "biking to go shopping, work, school" trips. The safest ones and the ones that do good for health.
It does not reduces sport "I am going to get workout now" trips - the most dangerous ones. (But still pretty safe!)
It does not reduces sport "I am going to get workout now" trips - the most dangerous ones. (But still pretty safe!)
Underlying paper: https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665...
In the comments on my post about the paper when it originally came out (https://www.jefftk.com/p/three-car-seats) people pointed out that the methodology cannot determine whether there is a common cause, and a common cause is actually quite plausible. Posit that over time people are becoming more protective of children, for whatever reason. This (a) makes parenting substantially more work/money (closer supervision, more childcare hours), leading to people having fewer kids on the margin, and (b) makes people supportive of legislation to protect children (car seat laws). So while it looks that car seat laws are causing fewer children, they could actually both be caused by changing societal attitudes toward child protection.
In the comments on my post about the paper when it originally came out (https://www.jefftk.com/p/three-car-seats) people pointed out that the methodology cannot determine whether there is a common cause, and a common cause is actually quite plausible. Posit that over time people are becoming more protective of children, for whatever reason. This (a) makes parenting substantially more work/money (closer supervision, more childcare hours), leading to people having fewer kids on the margin, and (b) makes people supportive of legislation to protect children (car seat laws). So while it looks that car seat laws are causing fewer children, they could actually both be caused by changing societal attitudes toward child protection.
The reality for a lot of families is that having children is frighteningly expensive.
The twin costs of childcare and a reduction in parental work hours (often mom's) and as a result future career and income advancement potential can be substantial drag on a family's income. Each additional child just prolongs this drag.
Multigenerational households where grandparents provide childcare are one solution around this problem that I've seen.
The twin costs of childcare and a reduction in parental work hours (often mom's) and as a result future career and income advancement potential can be substantial drag on a family's income. Each additional child just prolongs this drag.
Multigenerational households where grandparents provide childcare are one solution around this problem that I've seen.
A lot of people move away from home to find work, especially if educated, and don't have access to grandparents. Also, as people are waiting longer to have kids, the grandparents are older and not as capable -- or may even be in need of care themselves.
In addition to childcare, there's also health care and education to pay for. Middle class families get virtually no help on either front.
In addition to childcare, there's also health care and education to pay for. Middle class families get virtually no help on either front.
Also, as people wait longer to have kids, the mother's body is less and less able to bounce back from pregnancy. I know tons of couples who have 2 kids in their 30s, but 2 only so that the first kid can have a sibling. CDC recommends 3 years between births for a woman's body to recover, and I don't know many women eager to continue having kids past 35.
"Multigenerational households where grandparents provide childcare are one solution around this problem that I've seen."
Except many grandparents are still working, especially to cover healthcare costs.
Except many grandparents are still working, especially to cover healthcare costs.
[deleted]
In the US, elderly people have Medicare, so why is this happening?
Medicare isn't free. You still have copays for visits, procedures, and medications (deductible and premium costs vary too!).
The other point is that you would have to have pretty large generation gaps to have child care while the child is still young if depending on Medicare. Once they're older they generally can stay home alone for a bit. Medicare age is 65. So for example, the grandparent would need to give birth to the parent at age 32.5 and the parent would have to give birth to the child at age 32.5. That would be for the oldest child, so you would be giving birth even later in life for the other children. I believe pregnancy after age 34 is considered to be a geriatric pregnancy.
If you take the generational gap the other direction, then you could have great grandparents providing child care if the next generation starts at 22. Higher education and financial stability might be a barrier in this scenario.
Then if we are talking about raising the birth rate, how sustainable is this model when families have 3 or more children? Meaning 1 set of grandparents would be responsible for 3 sets of parents assuming this model is used on a wide enough scale to affect the birth rate. This is exasperated is using the great grandparent example.
The other point is that you would have to have pretty large generation gaps to have child care while the child is still young if depending on Medicare. Once they're older they generally can stay home alone for a bit. Medicare age is 65. So for example, the grandparent would need to give birth to the parent at age 32.5 and the parent would have to give birth to the child at age 32.5. That would be for the oldest child, so you would be giving birth even later in life for the other children. I believe pregnancy after age 34 is considered to be a geriatric pregnancy.
If you take the generational gap the other direction, then you could have great grandparents providing child care if the next generation starts at 22. Higher education and financial stability might be a barrier in this scenario.
Then if we are talking about raising the birth rate, how sustainable is this model when families have 3 or more children? Meaning 1 set of grandparents would be responsible for 3 sets of parents assuming this model is used on a wide enough scale to affect the birth rate. This is exasperated is using the great grandparent example.
Some are not that old. If you have child at 22 and your child is 22 when having another kid, you are 44 when being grandparent. Hardly retirement age.
I vouched for your comment, because I'm also curious. What healthcare costs is Medicare not covering?
Medicare pays primarily for emergency hospitalization scenarios (referred to as Part A). Anything that happens outside of a hospital stay (called outpatient services) and medications come from Parts B, C, and D. Coverage for parts B, C, and D is insanely complicated and involves some means testing and who knows what else. There’s private health insurers involved too, and if you can’t afford that, then you can go to the state’s Medicaid, which is also means tested.
The whole thing makes you want to kill yourself, which might be the objective.
The whole thing makes you want to kill yourself, which might be the objective.
Yep. I would rather have them give me that 3% to invest myself. Investing $2k annually for 40 years could yield me $250k-$350k at retirement age. But I guess I'm just a dumb peasant who can't take care of myself.
I believe Medicare is funded like Social Security, where the money you pay in pays for benefits right now, and when you retire, other people will be paying the money that actually goes to you.
They can't give you that 3% to invest yourself because then they have nothing to give people that are already retired.
> But I guess I'm just a dumb peasant who can't take care of myself.
Here's the rub. You, and many people, are likely able to manage that yourselves. Some people can't. They may already be poor and behind on their bills, so they'll put that 3% towards fixing the transmission in their car that hasn't worked for 3 months. They might be an entrepreneur with a poor sense of risk, that empties that money to start an underwater basket weaving college. Or they might just be bad for money.
If we let people manage that themselves, what do we do when someone has to retire because of medical issues, but can't afford health insurance or the medical care they need? Do we just let them die? If we treat them, then everyone is subsidizing their healthcare, at which point you're investing 3%, but you're also paying a 1% tax to help cover all the people that didn't invest their 3%. At a certain point, the most sensible thing is just to not save your 3% and join the people the government takes care of. At some critical mass, we're just back to Medicare.
Of course, if we're willing to tell people "You should have saved money, we're not going to help you. Please die close to the graveyard to make our lives easier." then that arithmetic changes dramatically, but I don't think that's a world I care to live in.
They can't give you that 3% to invest yourself because then they have nothing to give people that are already retired.
> But I guess I'm just a dumb peasant who can't take care of myself.
Here's the rub. You, and many people, are likely able to manage that yourselves. Some people can't. They may already be poor and behind on their bills, so they'll put that 3% towards fixing the transmission in their car that hasn't worked for 3 months. They might be an entrepreneur with a poor sense of risk, that empties that money to start an underwater basket weaving college. Or they might just be bad for money.
If we let people manage that themselves, what do we do when someone has to retire because of medical issues, but can't afford health insurance or the medical care they need? Do we just let them die? If we treat them, then everyone is subsidizing their healthcare, at which point you're investing 3%, but you're also paying a 1% tax to help cover all the people that didn't invest their 3%. At a certain point, the most sensible thing is just to not save your 3% and join the people the government takes care of. At some critical mass, we're just back to Medicare.
Of course, if we're willing to tell people "You should have saved money, we're not going to help you. Please die close to the graveyard to make our lives easier." then that arithmetic changes dramatically, but I don't think that's a world I care to live in.
It's not really supposed to go to other people. It's currently working that way because congress "borrows" from the system. What was the surplus they said should exist right now, 3 trillion or something huge like that?
People who can't afford medical care can sign up for Medicaid. In fact, people on Medicare who can't afford it also sign up for Medicaid.
People who can't afford medical care can sign up for Medicaid. In fact, people on Medicare who can't afford it also sign up for Medicaid.
And "Medicare for all" is a serious proposal?
I don’t think people mean copy it in it’s current form, at least not forever. It’s just a catchy name to refer to a program where the government pays for healthcare, even though the current iteration of Medicare is hardly that.
The idea is probably to expand the current system to everyone, which is better than nothing, and then work on improving it.
The idea is probably to expand the current system to everyone, which is better than nothing, and then work on improving it.
I would image that's the plan, although with different motives. By placing a majority of the people into a broken system, you bring the people's attention to it and force a new system into existence using that public support. If you look at the strategy behind the ACA, it is intended to lay the framework for a replacement by a federal plan/system.
Hard to get velocity behind improving something half the voting population would rather be rid of, even if it's against the very same voting population's best interest. So it goes in the US.
Well it makes sense if you have politicians consistently selling you misrepresented ideas like "Medicare for all" or "Defund the police". Of course you will start to lose trust in the system and the officials.
I think the bigger issue is how the divide between the parties happens. People seem to demonize the other side based on a specific issue that is important to them and then extrapolate that view to all positions held by the party on the basis that "all [party] politicians are stupid because of their stance on [issue] so their ideas on other issues are stupid too".
For a generalized example, the divide is mostly urban vs rural (even in other countries). A major single-issue voting topic would be gun rights vs gun control. A rural person thinks a new gun control law is stupid because the law seeks to ban certain items that statistically don't cause many problems and they find utility in their gun rights (more likely to hunt, slow police response, etc). An urban person would think the new law is good because "why does anyone need that item" and they find little to no utility in those rights (less likely to own a gun, carry a gun, hunt, faster police response, more exposure to the negative news/affects just due to population density). Each side thinks the other is stupid on this subject. People then think, hey the urban person wants to take away my rights on guns on (what appears as) stupid reasoning, so I don't trust their proposal to federalize healthcare because their logic/brain must be deficient. Then urban people will say these dumb hicks "...are clinging to their guns and bibles..." so they must be too stupid to know what's good for them. Which leads to neither side actually listening to the concerns of the other like a community should and instead just trying to gain full control of the government to ram through whatever laws their side wants.
I think the bigger issue is how the divide between the parties happens. People seem to demonize the other side based on a specific issue that is important to them and then extrapolate that view to all positions held by the party on the basis that "all [party] politicians are stupid because of their stance on [issue] so their ideas on other issues are stupid too".
For a generalized example, the divide is mostly urban vs rural (even in other countries). A major single-issue voting topic would be gun rights vs gun control. A rural person thinks a new gun control law is stupid because the law seeks to ban certain items that statistically don't cause many problems and they find utility in their gun rights (more likely to hunt, slow police response, etc). An urban person would think the new law is good because "why does anyone need that item" and they find little to no utility in those rights (less likely to own a gun, carry a gun, hunt, faster police response, more exposure to the negative news/affects just due to population density). Each side thinks the other is stupid on this subject. People then think, hey the urban person wants to take away my rights on guns on (what appears as) stupid reasoning, so I don't trust their proposal to federalize healthcare because their logic/brain must be deficient. Then urban people will say these dumb hicks "...are clinging to their guns and bibles..." so they must be too stupid to know what's good for them. Which leads to neither side actually listening to the concerns of the other like a community should and instead just trying to gain full control of the government to ram through whatever laws their side wants.
Yeah, I don't really get it. I imagine it's just catchy marketing like the defund the police movement (it's really about adjusting their duties in specific situations by augmenting the force with civil servants of different training).
You spend 40ish years working and funding Medicare with a 3% tax to use it for 20ish, with still paying these costs. I don't see how it would be feasible to extend the plan to everyone under that system (kids never paid in, how do they get coverage; what about young adults with no work history nor the savings to pay the premiums?). So the proposed systems must be fundamentally different from that.
You spend 40ish years working and funding Medicare with a 3% tax to use it for 20ish, with still paying these costs. I don't see how it would be feasible to extend the plan to everyone under that system (kids never paid in, how do they get coverage; what about young adults with no work history nor the savings to pay the premiums?). So the proposed systems must be fundamentally different from that.
There are parts A-D. They can vary by part and by state, other factors too.
I think you generally pay about $1k-$2k per year in premiums in total for all parts. There are also deductibles and copays. For example, the deductible is about $1500 for hospital stays and copays for doctors visits is 20% of the medicare approved costs.
So it's lower than private insurance, but not negligible. It can get pretty expensive if you require lots of procedures or medications, as many people do at that age.
Here is an article claiming the average cost for A and B parts is almost $8k per year.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average...
I think you generally pay about $1k-$2k per year in premiums in total for all parts. There are also deductibles and copays. For example, the deductible is about $1500 for hospital stays and copays for doctors visits is 20% of the medicare approved costs.
So it's lower than private insurance, but not negligible. It can get pretty expensive if you require lots of procedures or medications, as many people do at that age.
Here is an article claiming the average cost for A and B parts is almost $8k per year.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/05/heres-the-average...
My plan is to beat the game by not playing.
A coworker and his wife just had a child. They got on wait-lists before the child was even born because of the huge demand. They also told me that they were lucky to find a place (work subsidized) that was less than $1k.
Yeah, that's mostly due to feminism as some of the already buried comments here point out. You only have to look back a short time and there was no such thing as "child care". The children were cared for by their mothers. Imagine that! A mother having time to raise her own children! Now they are "free" to be drones in the corporate machine instead and can't get out because the family needs that money. The children now get the privilege of being raised in a child care farm instead of by loving family. Oh, and nobody has time to cook or clean any more so it's ready meals and takeaways every night. What progress...
Pretty sure the economic impact of doubling the workforce as well as decades of frozen wages has had a significant effect on social acceptance of 2-worker households, but blame whatever boogeyman/woman you'd like to.
I'm not a fan of blaming feminism (there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker), but I do see a correlation between the rise of 2-worker households, stagnating wages, and the difficulty of raising children.
The line of thinking here is that feminism caused 2-worker households, which doubled the workforce, which caused wage stagnation. Basically that doubling the workforce crashed the price of labor, but companies were unable to reduce everyone's salaries, and instead stagnated wages until inflation caused them to fall to the new price of labor.
I find it crass to blame feminism for that, though. Women should have always been free to join the workforce, and the problem is really 2-worker households, not that women are able to work. I think single-worker households address some of these issues, but there's no reason to point and say women were the problem. It's just as valid for the wife to go work and the husband to take care of the house.
Single-worker households aren't going to make a comeback, imo. For one, we, as a society, don't really respect homemakers. It's unskilled labor, and we grant it about as much value as most unskilled labor. And the more likely you are to be able to afford having a single-worker household, the more drastic the gap in prestige between the worker and homemaker becomes, which creates a weird power dynamic. I.e. if you're a hotshot lawyer and your wife stays at home, that's a huge gap in how you're perceived by other people. The second reason is that wages have effectively fallen through stagnation and inflation. Even if we forced all households to only have a single worker tomorrow, I'm doubtful wages would rise to where they might have been. Third and finally, a lot of homemaking is stuff people don't really want to do. Time with the kids is great, but does anyone really enjoy vacuuming, or cleaning the bathroom, or doing dishes? This might just be my perspective bleeding through, but the work itself seems awful. And worse yet, you do it either almost entirely alone, or while children are playing/screaming/fighting around you. It's physically demanding, and generally not mentally stimulating.
Longer-term, I would bet that the solution to this is a) more optimized services (i.e. a cleaning service that cleans all the houses on your street, like landscaping people often do), and b) robotics that are able to handle small bits of this. Roomba is a good example. They're reasonably effective at vacuuming. Give it a decade and they'll probably be able to actually replace vacuuming. We will also need a way for people that can't afford the upfront price to have one, which will probably come forth in the form of a subscription (give us a $100 deposit, and then we'll charge you $1 every time it runs).
The line of thinking here is that feminism caused 2-worker households, which doubled the workforce, which caused wage stagnation. Basically that doubling the workforce crashed the price of labor, but companies were unable to reduce everyone's salaries, and instead stagnated wages until inflation caused them to fall to the new price of labor.
I find it crass to blame feminism for that, though. Women should have always been free to join the workforce, and the problem is really 2-worker households, not that women are able to work. I think single-worker households address some of these issues, but there's no reason to point and say women were the problem. It's just as valid for the wife to go work and the husband to take care of the house.
Single-worker households aren't going to make a comeback, imo. For one, we, as a society, don't really respect homemakers. It's unskilled labor, and we grant it about as much value as most unskilled labor. And the more likely you are to be able to afford having a single-worker household, the more drastic the gap in prestige between the worker and homemaker becomes, which creates a weird power dynamic. I.e. if you're a hotshot lawyer and your wife stays at home, that's a huge gap in how you're perceived by other people. The second reason is that wages have effectively fallen through stagnation and inflation. Even if we forced all households to only have a single worker tomorrow, I'm doubtful wages would rise to where they might have been. Third and finally, a lot of homemaking is stuff people don't really want to do. Time with the kids is great, but does anyone really enjoy vacuuming, or cleaning the bathroom, or doing dishes? This might just be my perspective bleeding through, but the work itself seems awful. And worse yet, you do it either almost entirely alone, or while children are playing/screaming/fighting around you. It's physically demanding, and generally not mentally stimulating.
Longer-term, I would bet that the solution to this is a) more optimized services (i.e. a cleaning service that cleans all the houses on your street, like landscaping people often do), and b) robotics that are able to handle small bits of this. Roomba is a good example. They're reasonably effective at vacuuming. Give it a decade and they'll probably be able to actually replace vacuuming. We will also need a way for people that can't afford the upfront price to have one, which will probably come forth in the form of a subscription (give us a $100 deposit, and then we'll charge you $1 every time it runs).
> there's a very valid point that it's unfair that the woman is/was expected to be the home maker
How is it unfair? Men don't get to choose whether to work or not. They can like it or lump it. If you told men they could stay at home all day spending someone else's money improving the home, many would jump at the chance. The grass is always greener on the other side.
> Women should have always been free to join the workforce
They were always free to join the workforce. Just like they are free to join men's sporting events etc. The problem is now they are being encouraged to join the workforce. They are being indoctrinated into masculine roles from a very young age, fed through education and into the corporate machine. Then they get to 30, panic and realise they are running out of time to have children but they are trapped in the machine. Women's happiness has only decreased.
Most women didn't want this. Going to work sucks. The only people benefiting from this are the billionaires who are richer and more powerful than ever.
How is it unfair? Men don't get to choose whether to work or not. They can like it or lump it. If you told men they could stay at home all day spending someone else's money improving the home, many would jump at the chance. The grass is always greener on the other side.
> Women should have always been free to join the workforce
They were always free to join the workforce. Just like they are free to join men's sporting events etc. The problem is now they are being encouraged to join the workforce. They are being indoctrinated into masculine roles from a very young age, fed through education and into the corporate machine. Then they get to 30, panic and realise they are running out of time to have children but they are trapped in the machine. Women's happiness has only decreased.
Most women didn't want this. Going to work sucks. The only people benefiting from this are the billionaires who are richer and more powerful than ever.
Multigenerational does help, and it helps immensely if they had kids (you or partner) when they were younger (20s), or else they are more likely to have health issues and low energy themselves.
[deleted]
There is no reason to give a career — a poor abstraction built around the simple concept of doing work for money — higher value than rearing a child, something millions of years of evolution has gender specifically selected for.
That poor abstraction is what allows most people to provide their children with the quality of life they deem necessary.
Then call it what it is, working for money, and put it in its place. Doing that lets you see the true value of child rearing — even its economic value.
In general there's a strong negative correlation between development of a society and birth rate. Also income. It's extremely powerful, and applies literally all over the world. I suspect that in America over the last few decades, development continued. Child-safety laws came along for the ride. [1, 2]
Income is a less compelling argument in America as wages have remained totally constant on an inflation adjusted basis for ages.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-fertility-rate-TFR...
[2] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link...
Income is a less compelling argument in America as wages have remained totally constant on an inflation adjusted basis for ages.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-fertility-rate-TFR...
[2] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link...
There's a great article that investigates this and presents a more refined analysis so separate out factors like child-safety laws:
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/28/...
It was recently discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25445643
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/28/...
It was recently discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25445643
Funny :)
Important to note that real income per capita isn’t actually flat, only household income but that’s likely because of household size changes.
See here for disposable real income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0
See here for disposable real income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0
Great call-out thank you!
I can see this as being correlated, but I don't see this as being causative. And that's from someone who thinks some of the child/society safety laws are a bit absurd.
I think maybe it could go something like this: child safety laws are more prevalent/stringent in advanced society, living in an advanced society carries a higher cost of living, as the cost of living goes up (without matching income raises, like the US for the past 30+yrs) the people who feel they can't afford children rises. I think there are other underlying causes and the overall effect is a combination.
I think maybe it could go something like this: child safety laws are more prevalent/stringent in advanced society, living in an advanced society carries a higher cost of living, as the cost of living goes up (without matching income raises, like the US for the past 30+yrs) the people who feel they can't afford children rises. I think there are other underlying causes and the overall effect is a combination.
This article teases apart factors: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/28/...
See this comment from this very thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446153
This reads like a textbook example of "correlation is not causation". You think there'd be ...some? people talking about how they decided not to have a child because she/he wouldn't fit in the car if it's going to have a measurable effect on birth rates but at least personally I have never, ever heard this one.
I have elementary school age kids, so I know lots of parents. Anecdotally, there is a big jump between having two kids and having more than two. I've had a lot of conversations with friends on their third pregnancy about having to upgrade to a bigger car because with the size of car seats, you can't fit three of them in one row of a typical sedan. And I've likewise had conversations with parents who decided (like my wife and I did) to stop at two, and many of the reasons are fundamentally about logistics and resources. Transportation is a real component of that.
If you take a step back, it does make sense. The difference between zero kids and one is a major qualititative lifestyle change. It's the transition from parent to non-parent. It means not easily going out at night, schooling, etc. Everything changes.
The transition from one to two kids is a qualitative change for the kid because it means going from no siblings to siblings. That transitively makes it somewhat of a qualitative change for parents. It means the kids always have a playmate and someone their age on vacations. But for parents, it's mostly a change in degree. More work, more cost, more time parenting, but the overall lifestyle is basically unchanged.
The transition from two to three is really just quantitative. 33% more space in the house for sleeping, 33% more food costs, 33% more car space for transportation, etc. So the decision about when to stop is mostly just "how much of this experience do you want?" The transportation overhead here in the US where you do a lot of driving is a pretty big piece of that.
If you take a step back, it does make sense. The difference between zero kids and one is a major qualititative lifestyle change. It's the transition from parent to non-parent. It means not easily going out at night, schooling, etc. Everything changes.
The transition from one to two kids is a qualitative change for the kid because it means going from no siblings to siblings. That transitively makes it somewhat of a qualitative change for parents. It means the kids always have a playmate and someone their age on vacations. But for parents, it's mostly a change in degree. More work, more cost, more time parenting, but the overall lifestyle is basically unchanged.
The transition from two to three is really just quantitative. 33% more space in the house for sleeping, 33% more food costs, 33% more car space for transportation, etc. So the decision about when to stop is mostly just "how much of this experience do you want?" The transportation overhead here in the US where you do a lot of driving is a pretty big piece of that.
"Going from two kids to three, you have to switch from one-on-one to zone defense."
:-) I only have one. And we think we'll have a second and leave it at that. Partly for the reason of not wanting to be outnumbered.
But also partly from a social/environmental point. Two kids means we replace ourselves when we die.
But also partly from a social/environmental point. Two kids means we replace ourselves when we die.
But you don’t replace your bachelor uncle, which is why on average the population replacement rate is greater than 2. :)
Yeah. But the population has to stop growing sometime. And could do with coming down a bit. We take care of ourselves, let others do the same. If they choose NOT to have kids, then the numbers come down.
> The transition from one to two kids is a qualitative change for the kid because it means going from no siblings to siblings. That transitively makes it somewhat of a qualitative change for parents. It means the kids always have a playmate and someone their age on vacations.
... Or fightmates, as my mother herself warned me. :-)
... Or fightmates, as my mother herself warned me. :-)
> The transition from two to three is really just quantitative.
not from the perspective of the women who bear the health risk.
not from the perspective of the women who bear the health risk.
I absolutely buy the step-wise argument, especially for housing, but I do not buy it for cars. Americans buy way more large SUVs and trucks than the rest of the world, even those with fewer than three kids (or no kids). The idea that car size is a meaningful barrier to the number of children one has, especially compared to housing and education costs, simply does not pass the sniff test to me.
From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing. All of which have been growing much more rapidly than the cost of cars or gasoline.
From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing. All of which have been growing much more rapidly than the cost of cars or gasoline.
> Americans buy way more large SUVs and trucks than the rest of the world, even those with fewer than three kids
Having had two kids in the age where they needed large car seats, trucks are no help at all and even fairly decent sized SUVs don't handle more than two well. Car seats for young children are a significant issue, and I suspect almost anyone whose had two or more children under the current safety regime would both recognize that fact and likely consider it before intentionally having a third.
> From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing.
Young children don't necessarily have a big impact on housing costs (they can share some easily), often because of the structure of health insurance costs don't have much impact on healthcare costs after the first, and education costs are largely deferred if you aren't going private/homeschool. Day care costs / career impacts are probably more significant than any of those given the frequency of two-working-parent families, but car transportation logistics are quite palpable.
(“Source”, have two kids under 5.)
Having had two kids in the age where they needed large car seats, trucks are no help at all and even fairly decent sized SUVs don't handle more than two well. Car seats for young children are a significant issue, and I suspect almost anyone whose had two or more children under the current safety regime would both recognize that fact and likely consider it before intentionally having a third.
> From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing.
Young children don't necessarily have a big impact on housing costs (they can share some easily), often because of the structure of health insurance costs don't have much impact on healthcare costs after the first, and education costs are largely deferred if you aren't going private/homeschool. Day care costs / career impacts are probably more significant than any of those given the frequency of two-working-parent families, but car transportation logistics are quite palpable.
(“Source”, have two kids under 5.)
> Having had two kids in the age where they needed large car seats, trucks are no help at all and even fairly decent sized SUVs don't handle more than two well.
Nonsense. They don't fit your seats maybe, but that's not the same as it not being possible. 15 seconds of Googling finds tons of lists with car seats that'll fit 3 across, including tests for a Honda Civic. Some on the list include convertible ones that'll work up to 120lbs.
Bigger SUVs might be more convenient, especially when loading and unloading, but the idea that you can't fit three car seats into a larger vehicle is simply not grounded in reality.
> Young children don't necessarily have a big impact on housing costs (they can share some easily), often because of the structure of health insurance costs don't have much impact on healthcare costs after the first, and education costs are largely deferred if you aren't going private/homeschool. Day care costs / career impacts are probably more significant than any of those given the frequency of two-working-parent families, but car transportation logistics are quite palpable.
My understanding, at least from people I know with 3 or more children, is that daycare and career costs dominate, depending on your location. All my colleagues had to decide between paying out the nose for city daycare, punching an even longer gap in someone's career (obviously reducing earnings), or simply not having a third.
Well, except for that one colleague who had five. According to him logistics got very expensive very quickly. Even "cheap" flights for a family of seven hits the $1K mark very quickly.
Nonsense. They don't fit your seats maybe, but that's not the same as it not being possible. 15 seconds of Googling finds tons of lists with car seats that'll fit 3 across, including tests for a Honda Civic. Some on the list include convertible ones that'll work up to 120lbs.
Bigger SUVs might be more convenient, especially when loading and unloading, but the idea that you can't fit three car seats into a larger vehicle is simply not grounded in reality.
> Young children don't necessarily have a big impact on housing costs (they can share some easily), often because of the structure of health insurance costs don't have much impact on healthcare costs after the first, and education costs are largely deferred if you aren't going private/homeschool. Day care costs / career impacts are probably more significant than any of those given the frequency of two-working-parent families, but car transportation logistics are quite palpable.
My understanding, at least from people I know with 3 or more children, is that daycare and career costs dominate, depending on your location. All my colleagues had to decide between paying out the nose for city daycare, punching an even longer gap in someone's career (obviously reducing earnings), or simply not having a third.
Well, except for that one colleague who had five. According to him logistics got very expensive very quickly. Even "cheap" flights for a family of seven hits the $1K mark very quickly.
There is a natural ceiling on the costs for daycare and career, at 100% of the mother's income. It can't get worse than that unless you just like to pay money, because the mother can care for the kids.
Having 2 or 3 kids in a city is probably the worst plan. Costs are high, but not not quite high enough to make the career obviously a mistake.
Having 2 or 3 kids in a city is probably the worst plan. Costs are high, but not not quite high enough to make the career obviously a mistake.
100% plus future losses that could be attributed to loss of career progression during those years. I’ve known people who paid nearly 100% of their salary to childcare after tax but determined it would be countered by future raises and leave them in a better position long-term.
Future losses are included in the 100%. My assumption is 100% of lifetime salary. One can easily blow past that with a large family.
There is probably an unspeakable truth behind the people you've known who pay nearly 100% of their salary to childcare. Not every parent really likes their children. Getting away from them might be a bonus, even if it can't be admitted.
There is probably an unspeakable truth behind the people you've known who pay nearly 100% of their salary to childcare. Not every parent really likes their children. Getting away from them might be a bonus, even if it can't be admitted.
It's probably a mistake to put "SUVs and trucks" all in one bucket. Can you even fit a third car seat in a crew cab pickup, assuming two adults in the front?
See https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th...
That massive green chunk is for crossovers, which typically have space for two adults and two car seats. Fitting a third means graduating to a full-size SUV (or minivan), which means a significantly more expensive vehicle (assuming similar trim levels, etc).
See https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th...
That massive green chunk is for crossovers, which typically have space for two adults and two car seats. Fitting a third means graduating to a full-size SUV (or minivan), which means a significantly more expensive vehicle (assuming similar trim levels, etc).
I’ve never tried but I’d be shocked if I couldn’t easily get 3 car seats across into my F350. The rear bench is much wider and can fit 3 adults across comfortably.
> Americans buy way more large SUVs and trucks than the rest of the world, even those with fewer than three kids (or no kids).
Trucks are a mostly useless metric here. Many of those are work trucks, and most won't fit car seats for three kids. While Americans buy lots of SUVs, many Americans do not have one, and for those, transporting three kids is indeed a challenge.
> From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing.
Housing definitely comes into play, but I don't think the other two end up being major factors in the decision because they are so far out. In the US, you literally cannot leave the hospital with your baby if you don't have adequate transportation and an approved car seat. So Americans are made acutely aware that they need to have a transportation solution for their family right now before choosing to have a baby.
Healthcare is a non-issue for many because their employer-provided insurance covers as many kids as they have. Education is somewhat far down the road and fairly fungible so it's less likely to be a showstopper.
Trucks are a mostly useless metric here. Many of those are work trucks, and most won't fit car seats for three kids. While Americans buy lots of SUVs, many Americans do not have one, and for those, transporting three kids is indeed a challenge.
> From a pure financial standpoint, I'd look more to the cost of education, healthcare, and housing.
Housing definitely comes into play, but I don't think the other two end up being major factors in the decision because they are so far out. In the US, you literally cannot leave the hospital with your baby if you don't have adequate transportation and an approved car seat. So Americans are made acutely aware that they need to have a transportation solution for their family right now before choosing to have a baby.
Healthcare is a non-issue for many because their employer-provided insurance covers as many kids as they have. Education is somewhat far down the road and fairly fungible so it's less likely to be a showstopper.
Even in a full-size SUV, you can't fit three car seats in one row of the back seats.
Combine that with requirements to keep kids in various car seats and booster seats until they hit arbitrary age and weight limits, which stretch out longer and longer all the time, and it's still a problem.
Combine that with requirements to keep kids in various car seats and booster seats until they hit arbitrary age and weight limits, which stretch out longer and longer all the time, and it's still a problem.
Here is a list of car seats that'll fit 3 across in a F-150. https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
Several on that list will fit children up to 57-62" in height and up to 120lbs.
This (https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/diono-radian-r120-revie...) seat will fit 3 across in my Subaru Forester, a Honda CRV, or a Fiat 500L, and support a kid up to 57" tall and 120lbs in weight.
It might be more convenient to have a three row SUV with three kids, but the idea that you can't fit 3 seats in these cars is nonsense.
Several on that list will fit children up to 57-62" in height and up to 120lbs.
This (https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/diono-radian-r120-revie...) seat will fit 3 across in my Subaru Forester, a Honda CRV, or a Fiat 500L, and support a kid up to 57" tall and 120lbs in weight.
It might be more convenient to have a three row SUV with three kids, but the idea that you can't fit 3 seats in these cars is nonsense.
Please RFA.
"The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car"
"They discovered that tightening these laws had no detectable effects on the rate of first and second children".
Also, if i understand it correctly, you have about 50 quasi experiments, one for each state.
"The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car"
"They discovered that tightening these laws had no detectable effects on the rate of first and second children".
Also, if i understand it correctly, you have about 50 quasi experiments, one for each state.
Please RFA more ;)
"the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families"
So this has both the most and least effect on families that have little reason to care about needing a bigger car (because they can easily afford it, or they can't afford any car at all, respectively). When you go fishing for a correlation, form a post-hoc hypothesis for its mechanism, and then other data fits that hypothesis poorly, it's a strong sign you've found yourself a red herring. Which is the usual result of failing to properly understand the distinction between correlation and causation.
"the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families"
So this has both the most and least effect on families that have little reason to care about needing a bigger car (because they can easily afford it, or they can't afford any car at all, respectively). When you go fishing for a correlation, form a post-hoc hypothesis for its mechanism, and then other data fits that hypothesis poorly, it's a strong sign you've found yourself a red herring. Which is the usual result of failing to properly understand the distinction between correlation and causation.
With increasing wealth, per-child cost goes up. It's self-imposed of course.
Getting a larger Porsche or BMW or Mercedes is going to be harder than getting a larger used Hyundai or Kia. At the extreme, you're just out of luck; there is no Ferrari with more than 4 seats.
Getting a larger Porsche or BMW or Mercedes is going to be harder than getting a larger used Hyundai or Kia. At the extreme, you're just out of luck; there is no Ferrari with more than 4 seats.
Most well-to-do families that I know drive a very large SUV as their secondary car, often a Q7 or a Land Rover.
> You think there'd be ...some? people talking about how they decided not to have a child because she/he wouldn't fit in the car if it's going to have a measurable effect on birth rates but at least personally I have never, ever heard this one.
We have 3 kids. When talking to friends with only 2 kids, this comes up all the time and is a non-trivial concern in having a third child.
You need a bigger car, a bigger house and bigger everything, and many things are not geared towards families of 5 - family passes at museums/zoos are often 2 adults + 2 children etc.
When we had our third we upgraded our car (from 5 seats to 8 seats) and our house. If we had a fourth we'd need to upgrade the house in a few years again. It's definitely a concern and is definitely talked about by people who are affected by it.
We have 3 kids. When talking to friends with only 2 kids, this comes up all the time and is a non-trivial concern in having a third child.
You need a bigger car, a bigger house and bigger everything, and many things are not geared towards families of 5 - family passes at museums/zoos are often 2 adults + 2 children etc.
When we had our third we upgraded our car (from 5 seats to 8 seats) and our house. If we had a fourth we'd need to upgrade the house in a few years again. It's definitely a concern and is definitely talked about by people who are affected by it.
This is good news then. We should be thinking hard about having more kids. 2 is more than enough. The damage each extra child does, especially in the west is insane.
Speak for yourself! After past generations have screwed over the world, my kids are going to have to be the ones to fix it.
I wasn't going to have more than 2 kids, partly for reasons around travel logistics, and car seats play a surprisingly large role in that. Car seats needs to be rear facing until children are big enough, but most cars expect everyone to be leaning back and so rear facing car seats can be tricky for tall drivers. Part of our planning involved spacing children so we'd only have 1 rear facing car seat at a time. I'm tall enough that I can't have a rear facing car seat behind me in most cars (even SUVs). If I hadn't had twins the second go round my calculus would have stuck. Instead we had to get a minivan.
Now I'm not saying this is a strong effect nationally, the effect wasn't particularly strong for me since other costs were a bigger deterrent than a new car payment, but there is an effect and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did that math.
Now I'm not saying this is a strong effect nationally, the effect wasn't particularly strong for me since other costs were a bigger deterrent than a new car payment, but there is an effect and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did that math.
> personally I have never, ever heard this one
I did and find it completely normal? "What everything we would have to buy" is completely normal consideration. So is "if we dont fit in a car we need to stop doing all these things" is another completely normal consideration.
I did and find it completely normal? "What everything we would have to buy" is completely normal consideration. So is "if we dont fit in a car we need to stop doing all these things" is another completely normal consideration.
I've heard it, and said it, pertaining to not having a fourth child. Semi tongue-in-cheek but having to buy a van would be one extra inconvenience.
Just to reinforce your point: the idea that Americans are deciding not to have children because they can't fit modern child seats in their cars is outright laughable. Americans drive massive cars compared to the rest of the world; if there is any society where car size would not prove to be a hindrance to having children it would be America.
It is not easy to fit three car seats in the back of seat of the average vehicle in the US.
I bet this is not a hinderance in the rest of the world because many of those other places have either:
1. a lack of child seat laws
2. effective public transportation.
It's not like Europe is full of A-segment cars with 3 car seats in the back.
I bet this is not a hinderance in the rest of the world because many of those other places have either:
1. a lack of child seat laws
2. effective public transportation.
It's not like Europe is full of A-segment cars with 3 car seats in the back.
The median vehicle in the US is fully capable of seating three child safe seats.
Yes, if you get a Honda Civic you're going to struggle. But sales of sedans are absolutely swamped by SUVs and trucks. The best selling car in America by a long shot is the F-series pickup truck, with about 900,000 units sold. You can easily fit three child seats in it[0]
Oh, the number two and number three best selling vehicles are the RAM 1500 truck and the Chevy Silverado, at 633k and 575k. The Silverado is a bit smaller, but it too will fit three seats[1] across. You have to get to number eight in the list before you find a sedan at all, the Toyota Camry. You have to get to nine and ten on the list before you start finding sedans that would get uncomfortably tight fitting three seats, specifically the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, and even those will fit three if you're careful in your shopping. The top selling car that I'm pretty comfortable you simply could not fit three car seats in is the Nissan Sentra at number 19, with only 184k sales last year.
Now, 184K sales isn't nothing. There are clearly cars sold in America that will not fit three car seats. But the sales of those cars are dwarfed by large trucks and SUVs. In 2019 Ford sold more f-series trucks than the top three sedans combined. And that's before we consider the sales of three row SUVs which can easily fit 4-5 child safe seats in them.
So, if Americans are willing to buy massive vehicles capable of seating three seats safely by the literal millions, how in the world is that consistent with "the cost of upgrading to a car capable of seating three seats is a major barrier to having more children"?
0 - Here's a list of all the child seats that'll fit three across in a F-150: https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
1 - https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
Yes, if you get a Honda Civic you're going to struggle. But sales of sedans are absolutely swamped by SUVs and trucks. The best selling car in America by a long shot is the F-series pickup truck, with about 900,000 units sold. You can easily fit three child seats in it[0]
Oh, the number two and number three best selling vehicles are the RAM 1500 truck and the Chevy Silverado, at 633k and 575k. The Silverado is a bit smaller, but it too will fit three seats[1] across. You have to get to number eight in the list before you find a sedan at all, the Toyota Camry. You have to get to nine and ten on the list before you start finding sedans that would get uncomfortably tight fitting three seats, specifically the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, and even those will fit three if you're careful in your shopping. The top selling car that I'm pretty comfortable you simply could not fit three car seats in is the Nissan Sentra at number 19, with only 184k sales last year.
Now, 184K sales isn't nothing. There are clearly cars sold in America that will not fit three car seats. But the sales of those cars are dwarfed by large trucks and SUVs. In 2019 Ford sold more f-series trucks than the top three sedans combined. And that's before we consider the sales of three row SUVs which can easily fit 4-5 child safe seats in them.
So, if Americans are willing to buy massive vehicles capable of seating three seats safely by the literal millions, how in the world is that consistent with "the cost of upgrading to a car capable of seating three seats is a major barrier to having more children"?
0 - Here's a list of all the child seats that'll fit three across in a F-150: https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
1 - https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
You assume any SUV is automatically the size of Suburban so you skipped over CR-V and RAV4, which should be just under the tucks in any best selling vehicles list? They do not have much more passenger room than a Civic (more headroom but the size and distance between the seats is basically the same). A
"compact SUV" is a thing.
There are plenty of car seats that’ll fit 3 across in a CR-V. There are plenty that’ll go 3 across in a civic, although the lack of trunk space for strollers would obviously be an issue with three children. You can’t buy any random car seat, of course, but an ounce of up front research will help you pick one that’ll fit.
I find it kind of perplexing how many people pretend that you simply cannot put 3 child seats in a small SUV, it’s incredibly trivial to Google and find ones that will fit. This isn’t rocket science, I found a site that’ll list which seats will fit 3 across in which cars in the first hit on Google.
I find it kind of perplexing how many people pretend that you simply cannot put 3 child seats in a small SUV, it’s incredibly trivial to Google and find ones that will fit. This isn’t rocket science, I found a site that’ll list which seats will fit 3 across in which cars in the first hit on Google.
Which Civic are you talking about? Here's a review that shows they can only really fit two seats (and this car only has two ISOFIX fittings on the outside seats).
https://babydrive.com.au/reviews/hatches/2017-honda-civic-vt...
> Installing child seats came with a few difficulties too. I could fit two child seats in the Civic in the outer back seats, there was not enough room for a middle child seat too.
https://babydrive.com.au/reviews/hatches/2017-honda-civic-vt...
> Installing child seats came with a few difficulties too. I could fit two child seats in the Civic in the outer back seats, there was not enough room for a middle child seat too.
Obviously not the coupe.
I’m not sure about ISOFIX anchors, but here in the US the LATCH anchor system actually has a relatively low weight limit, typically 40-65 lbs (including weight of seat) depending on how it’s installed. Beyond that weight limit, you’re supposed to skip the anchors and just use the regular seatbelt.
This would be an issue if you have 3 children that need rear facing seats. But given that we typically transition kids into forward facing seats between 1-4 years old, realistically you’d need twins or triplets before this is a necessity. A parent with 3 kids could attach a seat in the middle via seatbelts for the oldest child, and use the anchors on the outside seats for the younger child.
Not as convenient as a 3 row SUV, I’ll agree. But far from impossible.
https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
I’m not sure about ISOFIX anchors, but here in the US the LATCH anchor system actually has a relatively low weight limit, typically 40-65 lbs (including weight of seat) depending on how it’s installed. Beyond that weight limit, you’re supposed to skip the anchors and just use the regular seatbelt.
This would be an issue if you have 3 children that need rear facing seats. But given that we typically transition kids into forward facing seats between 1-4 years old, realistically you’d need twins or triplets before this is a necessity. A parent with 3 kids could attach a seat in the middle via seatbelts for the oldest child, and use the anchors on the outside seats for the younger child.
Not as convenient as a 3 row SUV, I’ll agree. But far from impossible.
https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-installations-...
The problem is that you don't just put child seats into the car for fun - you are supposed to put children in them too. Children are not going to teleport in and out and they need to crawl/be put in their seats. The middle seat will be a hard reach in a compact.
That is a wholly different argument from “they won’t fit”.
I absolutely agree that a larger vehicle is more convenient for people with 3 or more kids. But that isn’t the argument people have been making in this thread. The assertions it that you can’t fit 3 car seats in these cars, an assertion which is provably false.
I absolutely agree that a larger vehicle is more convenient for people with 3 or more kids. But that isn’t the argument people have been making in this thread. The assertions it that you can’t fit 3 car seats in these cars, an assertion which is provably false.
Looking at vehicle total sales figures is a very bad way to determine what families drive. Those numbers you cite include corporate fleet sales, which heavily skew domestic truck sales figures. Nor are all of those trucks in a crew-cab configuration.
But yes, even many mid-size cars and SUVs are difficult to fit three seats in.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-seats/how-to-fit-child-c...
> we assess a vehicle’s ability to securely and easily accommodate three child restraints in the second row. Our test results have shown that unless you’re driving a full-sized crew-cab pickup truck or an Audi Q7, the installation is going to be difficult, if it's even possible.
(It is kind of funny that your source shows a picture of a single cab 97-03 F150 in regards to fitting child seats three across... :D )
But yes, even many mid-size cars and SUVs are difficult to fit three seats in.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-seats/how-to-fit-child-c...
> we assess a vehicle’s ability to securely and easily accommodate three child restraints in the second row. Our test results have shown that unless you’re driving a full-sized crew-cab pickup truck or an Audi Q7, the installation is going to be difficult, if it's even possible.
(It is kind of funny that your source shows a picture of a single cab 97-03 F150 in regards to fitting child seats three across... :D )
> 1. a lack of child seat laws
Not even lack of, just less need to have three children in them at once.
Not even lack of, just less need to have three children in them at once.
Not a surprise at all.
When you start adding all sorts of "cost of compliance" stuff to having kids the people who can usually afford to comply (upper middle class, so most people here) start taking that into account.
Meanwhile the rich and the poor just keep doing what they've been doing.
When you start adding all sorts of "cost of compliance" stuff to having kids the people who can usually afford to comply (upper middle class, so most people here) start taking that into account.
Meanwhile the rich and the poor just keep doing what they've been doing.
None remembers the Superfreakonomics piece of child seats anymore. What a pity! See e.g. here https://freakonomics.com/2009/10/27/what-the-secretary-of-tr...
I think this is sort of burying the lede though that if the cost of a bigger car is keeping people from having kids, that implies that the real reasons for the declining birth rate are economic.
Marriage rates are historic lows. Birth rates are historic lows. Women having careers is certainly the current belief why these are so low. Though as the article says they dont quite explain the situation.
Car seats are ridiculous. Not a thing I considered before having a kid. It kind of makes sense, now that more kids could happen, the probability of filling the back seats with car seats is certainly expensive and annoying. Thus when that third kid comes along, the minivan must happen.
A convincing argument being made by the article but I feel it's similar in that it's just 1 piece of the puzzle.
The other factor no doubt occurring is how imbalanced the system has become. It has become increasingly risky to even have a relationship with a woman let alone going to the extent of having a kid. The nanny government has come in to 'help' in many ways far beyond just car seats.
Car seats are ridiculous. Not a thing I considered before having a kid. It kind of makes sense, now that more kids could happen, the probability of filling the back seats with car seats is certainly expensive and annoying. Thus when that third kid comes along, the minivan must happen.
A convincing argument being made by the article but I feel it's similar in that it's just 1 piece of the puzzle.
The other factor no doubt occurring is how imbalanced the system has become. It has become increasingly risky to even have a relationship with a woman let alone going to the extent of having a kid. The nanny government has come in to 'help' in many ways far beyond just car seats.
Well educated kids is obviously an asset to our society, but it puzzles me how the same society not only doesn't reward men for raising kids, it makes kids their biggest liability. It's like planting a tree because our society cries wolf about deforestation, and then years later getting a 500k bill from USFS because they had to do some works related to that tree. Men really need a lot of altruism to start a family these days.
As a father there are certainly upsides. The problem is the nanny government is all cases. There is a good intention but in turn adjust a social balance that is in place.
Even something like alimony is a liability. So men simply don't get married anymore. The government seeing the failure of the system then that having a woman as your roommate is 'common law' and still counts. So you literally just cant have a woman roommate.
Yes the original reasoning was that the woman might hinder her career by tending kids and shouldn't be punished. However it has evolved well past those goals. The government is practically incentivizing divorce or never having a relationship with women to beginwith.
Even something like alimony is a liability. So men simply don't get married anymore. The government seeing the failure of the system then that having a woman as your roommate is 'common law' and still counts. So you literally just cant have a woman roommate.
Yes the original reasoning was that the woman might hinder her career by tending kids and shouldn't be punished. However it has evolved well past those goals. The government is practically incentivizing divorce or never having a relationship with women to beginwith.
> They discovered that tightening those laws had no detectable effects on the rates of births of first and second children, but was accompanied by a drop, on average, of 0.73 percentage points in the number of women giving birth to a third while the first two were young enough to need safety seats. That may not sound much, but it is a significant fraction of the 9.36% of women in the sample who did become third-time mothers.
> The authors also made two other pertinent observations. The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car. And it was larger in households where a man was living with the mother. The latter point is relevant, they think, because this man would take up space in a vehicle that could otherwise be occupied by a child.
Yikes. The front passenger seat is not an acceptable place to put a car seat anyway.
> The authors also made two other pertinent observations. The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car. And it was larger in households where a man was living with the mother. The latter point is relevant, they think, because this man would take up space in a vehicle that could otherwise be occupied by a child.
Yikes. The front passenger seat is not an acceptable place to put a car seat anyway.
> Yikes. The front passenger seat is not an acceptable place to put a car seat anyway.
That's what my pickup trucks says. But it only has the one row of seats, so it's put the car seat in the front or put it in the bed.
My understanding is it's legal and reasonable to fill up the rear seats with children in child seats, and then put the largest child in the front seat. Bonus points if you can disable the passenger airbag (many cars will do it automatically and indicate it, a very small number have a manual switch).
That's what my pickup trucks says. But it only has the one row of seats, so it's put the car seat in the front or put it in the bed.
My understanding is it's legal and reasonable to fill up the rear seats with children in child seats, and then put the largest child in the front seat. Bonus points if you can disable the passenger airbag (many cars will do it automatically and indicate it, a very small number have a manual switch).
Newer cars disable the passenger airbag if the weight of the occupant is less than a certain threshold (65 lbs according to https://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2018/Civic%20S...).
The idea is to protect lighter weight occupants who are wearing seatbelts; they're not particularly reliable in the case that someone has yanked the seat belts tight on a car seat that is sitting on the seat bottom.
Some quotes from your source:
> Placing a forward-facing child seat in the front seat can be hazardous, even with advanced front airbags that automatically turn the passenger’s front airbag off.
> WARNING Placing a forward-facing child seat in the front seat can result in serious injury or death if the front airbag inflates.
> WARNING Placing a rear-facing child seat in the front seat can result in serious injury or death during a crash.
Some quotes from your source:
> Placing a forward-facing child seat in the front seat can be hazardous, even with advanced front airbags that automatically turn the passenger’s front airbag off.
> WARNING Placing a forward-facing child seat in the front seat can result in serious injury or death if the front airbag inflates.
> WARNING Placing a rear-facing child seat in the front seat can result in serious injury or death during a crash.
"The idea is to protect lighter weight occupants who are wearing seatbelts;"
Not exactly. Lighter weight occupants are not supposed to be in the front seat wearing a seatbelt. The same places you're getting the warnings for not placing child seats in the front seat will also tell you not to put children in the front seat.
They try to plug it as a safety thing as a way to protect ignorant consumers from themselves.
Not exactly. Lighter weight occupants are not supposed to be in the front seat wearing a seatbelt. The same places you're getting the warnings for not placing child seats in the front seat will also tell you not to put children in the front seat.
They try to plug it as a safety thing as a way to protect ignorant consumers from themselves.
This is a lot of fun when you have a big dog that likes to ride in the front seat, or even if you just put a bunch of groceries in the passenger seat, since it also makes the seatbelt alarm go off.
Yet some states have outdated, one-size-fits-all laws against it.
As they should. That weight sensor is not intended to make it safe to put a car seat in the front of a car.
So what's the difference between a front seat without the airbag on and back seat?
My guess is that it's really just automakers CYA so they don't have to treat it as a safety critical system. There's really no reason to have that sensor then.
My guess is that it's really just automakers CYA so they don't have to treat it as a safety critical system. There's really no reason to have that sensor then.
It is part of a safety system, but the other way around. One of the purposes is to make an annoying dinging sound when the passenger does not put their seat belt on.
Eh, if one doesn't want to wear a seat belt, then don't. Pretty annoying feature if you're using it as a farm truck.
[deleted]
"number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films nocolas cage appeard in"
While I don't quite see how the safety seat alone could cause that much of a difference, I don't think it is unreasonable to see a causal relationship here. Raising a child has gotten more expensive in the US for many reasons (laws about child seats, more money needed for education, no longer socially acceptable to leave kids alone for awhile) and that certainly has an impact.
I'll throw one out there: the birth rate has been falling everywhere across the globe at the same time, even in countries that don't have the same laws about child safety restraints. So the hypothesis is bogus, or it's a tiny fraction of what holistic analysis would suggest are the causes.
It's unreasonable to see causal relationships without rigor, always.
Skepticism is good, but not outright dismissal
The conclusions here are fairly robust because there's a few natural experiments due to different states enacting stricter child safety laws at different times.
[deleted]
Two blokes wonder why the same highly educated women who want a safer world for their children don’t want to push four babies out of their vagina.
Edited to add: “Dr Nickerson and Dr Solomon found, in fact, that the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families” - they put this down to them not wanting to buy a larger vehicle to accommodate 3+ kids because it’s too gauche!
I think we’re supposed to conclude that car seats are actually costing lives, which is the wrong conclusion to draw because it ignores all the injury and disability caused by car accidents.
Edited to add: “Dr Nickerson and Dr Solomon found, in fact, that the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families” - they put this down to them not wanting to buy a larger vehicle to accommodate 3+ kids because it’s too gauche!
I think we’re supposed to conclude that car seats are actually costing lives, which is the wrong conclusion to draw because it ignores all the injury and disability caused by car accidents.
I think there is a plausible mechanism for causation here. It adds to the expensiveness of children -- many smaller vehicles are not even compatible with the big car seats required, or with having more than two car seats in use. There is kind of a calculation: if we would have even one kid we need a "family" car; getting to 3 or more kids basically requires a minivan.
A Full-size sedan fits 3 child-seats, if you choose an appropriate thin design of seat.
> A Full-size sedan fits 3 child-seats, if you choose an appropriate thin design of seat.
If all three are of such a design, which only exist meeting the requirements for child safety seats for older children. If any one is an infant seat, that doesn't work.
If you have N children of ages requiring safety seats, you will for some period of that require at least 1 infant seat and N-1 other seats to transport them all legally.
If all three are of such a design, which only exist meeting the requirements for child safety seats for older children. If any one is an infant seat, that doesn't work.
If you have N children of ages requiring safety seats, you will for some period of that require at least 1 infant seat and N-1 other seats to transport them all legally.
There are common convertible seats which are legal for infants (e.g., Chicco NextFit & Britax Clicktight have a 5lb min weight, Graco 4ever goes down to 4lbs, the Clek seats have an add-on to go down to 5lbs). An infant-specific seat is convenient but not strictly required to be legal.
Lacking an Economist subscription, is it due to a game theory explanation for how above a certain survival or wealth probability threshold, human societies switch from r-selection to K-selection, or is it just that the overprotected ones genetically select out because they grow up to be unattractive?
The articles describes a study which purports to show that stricter child safety requirements for cars inhibits families from going from 2 -> 3 children, since it essentially forces them to buy a minivan, which is either too expensive or makes you look like the kind of family that drives a minivan.
> published in SSRN, a repository for so-called preprint papers that have yet to undergo formal peer review
https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Thanks to the Economist for our daily dose of sketchy papers
https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Thanks to the Economist for our daily dose of sketchy papers
Makes me wonder about the effect of car reliance in general
This is all rings very true, but there's a lemma which might not play well on HN: how much does requiring people to use public transit reduce the birth rate?
Getting 3+ children around town to school, errands, etc in a minivan isn't a trivial job. Dragging around 3 under-six children by bus, or train? That's nearly Herculean.
I would expect the fertility hit to large families from the _lack_ of cars to be far, far greater than the hit from requiring larger cars. This also aligns with the (traditional) higher US fertility rate, where the US has been traditionally (large) car focused, whereas small cars and mass transit dominated in Europe.
Getting 3+ children around town to school, errands, etc in a minivan isn't a trivial job. Dragging around 3 under-six children by bus, or train? That's nearly Herculean.
I would expect the fertility hit to large families from the _lack_ of cars to be far, far greater than the hit from requiring larger cars. This also aligns with the (traditional) higher US fertility rate, where the US has been traditionally (large) car focused, whereas small cars and mass transit dominated in Europe.
[deleted]
Child #3 is about to be born any day now.
I was shocked to learn that we just can't get three car seats into the back of our Model 3.
Fortunately the other vehicle is a minivan, but the rear row can seat 3 without car seats, or two with car seats. This means we can no longer fit grandparents with all kids.
I was shocked to learn that we just can't get three car seats into the back of our Model 3.
Fortunately the other vehicle is a minivan, but the rear row can seat 3 without car seats, or two with car seats. This means we can no longer fit grandparents with all kids.
You might want to double-check that. I was looking at a thread specifically about 3 carseats in the back of a Model 3. There are several options.
You might need new carseats.
But I managed to get our 3 kids in the back of my first generation Nissan Leaf, which I think is slightly smaller.
You might need new carseats.
But I managed to get our 3 kids in the back of my first generation Nissan Leaf, which I think is slightly smaller.
The 1st generation Leaf was larger inside.
I like the Leaf's interior much more than the Model 3. (But, overall the Model 3 is a much, much better car.)
I like the Leaf's interior much more than the Model 3. (But, overall the Model 3 is a much, much better car.)
The first gen leaf is higher, for sure, because it's almost a crossover like the Model Y (and this is nice for loading and unloading the kids, altho it hits the efficiency slightly), but I'm really not sure it's any wider. You really can fit 3 kids abreast in a Model 3.
Look into the Radian and the Clek. I’d be surprised if they don’t work.
(Exciting!)
I do wonder how many techie parents are waiting for the 7 seat Tesla before getting their third or fourth kid.
I do wonder how many techie parents are waiting for the 7 seat Tesla before getting their third or fourth kid.
Congratulations! Driving a van sounds like a good choice when everyone has to go.
The unspoken assertion is that we want a high birth rate. Why do we want a high birth rate?
> Why do we want a high birth rate?
Economic pyramid scheme, such as entitlements and economic growth mandates that rely on it.
A lower birth rate is preferred (less resource contention and impact on the ecosystems we rely on for survival), we should be driving it down with economic incentives (faster than it’s falling naturally). It happens naturally as women are empowered and educated (per Our World In Data [1]).
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...
Economic pyramid scheme, such as entitlements and economic growth mandates that rely on it.
A lower birth rate is preferred (less resource contention and impact on the ecosystems we rely on for survival), we should be driving it down with economic incentives (faster than it’s falling naturally). It happens naturally as women are empowered and educated (per Our World In Data [1]).
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...
I pretty much agree.
What would be an example be of an economic policy that would maintain stability while bringing the birth rate down below the replacement rate?
What would be an example be of an economic policy that would maintain stability while bringing the birth rate down below the replacement rate?
Direct cash transfers to those who opt out of having children voluntarily (as their opt out has value they should be compensated for), while accepting that more tax revenue will be needed to support entitlements during the population decline curve. We’re in a sort of resource debt and will end up having to pay it back, balancing gdp cost with quality of life of those here now who will eventually age out.
Can’t grow forever in a physical system with constraints.
Can’t grow forever in a physical system with constraints.
You obviously don't need to pay people to not have kids because the fertility rate is already below the population replacement rate.
The hard question would be how to maintain the existing programs that provide social assistance to the elderly without a larger population of working people to pay the taxes to fund them. The existing solution is to run preposterously large deficits every year, which seems problematic/unsustainable.
The hard question would be how to maintain the existing programs that provide social assistance to the elderly without a larger population of working people to pay the taxes to fund them. The existing solution is to run preposterously large deficits every year, which seems problematic/unsustainable.
> The hard question would be how to maintain the existing programs that provide social assistance to the elderly without a larger population of working people to pay the taxes to fund them. The existing solution is to run preposterously large deficits every year, which seems problematic/unsustainable.
This boils down to “how much GDP are you willing to burn to keep the elderly cohort comfortable.” How each country handles this demonstrates their ingenuity and character. Can you be both compassionate and efficient? I think so.
This boils down to “how much GDP are you willing to burn to keep the elderly cohort comfortable.” How each country handles this demonstrates their ingenuity and character. Can you be both compassionate and efficient? I think so.
Unfortunately in a democracy it also demonstrates how large a percentage of likely voters are elderly, which also seems like it could cause serious problems during that sort of demographic shift. (Notice that almost everywhere, people over 65 get a vote but people under ~18 don't.)
Who was that Scottish economist that had a famous quote about something like once the citizens in a democracy realize they have the keys to the treasury they grant themselves services/money?
Alexander Tytler, although apparently it may be misattributed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_....
Economists have enough trouble trying to predict economic behavior, they probably should be more restrained when branching out of their field into predictive political science.
Economists study many things other than "the economy". Quite often they are involved in political or policy studies because many systems act as an economy.
> Economists study many things other than "the economy".
And, even moreso than is already notoriously the case with the economy, their predictions on those many other things tend to be based on conclusions drawn by abstract reasoning from ideologically-motivated assumptions with little empirical basis that are poor predictors of behavior of the real world.
And, even moreso than is already notoriously the case with the economy, their predictions on those many other things tend to be based on conclusions drawn by abstract reasoning from ideologically-motivated assumptions with little empirical basis that are poor predictors of behavior of the real world.
If that's the way you see it, then who do you look for to data?
Seems like you can't trust anyone if you can't trust your own evaluation of an individual paper based on statistics.
Seems like you can't trust anyone if you can't trust your own evaluation of an individual paper based on statistics.
[deleted]
"Can’t grow forever in a physical system with constraints."
Agreed.
But I think any economic system with a shrinking population will be disruptive. Like those payments to people not having kids will result in decreased GDP, need increased taxes (we already do), and see large parts of industry shut down because of the decrease in consumption. Our whole system is consumption based.
Agreed.
But I think any economic system with a shrinking population will be disruptive. Like those payments to people not having kids will result in decreased GDP, need increased taxes (we already do), and see large parts of industry shut down because of the decrease in consumption. Our whole system is consumption based.
Demographics can explain a lot of ills in a society. A nice pyramid is pretty good and stable. When things get too top heavy (low birth rate compared to previous generations) or too bottom heavy (high birth rate compared to previous generations), serious but predictable problems almost always occur.
Because we don’t want to be Japan, which is about to become an expansion state of immigrants since their birth rate can’t support their future population.
Africa has a high birth rate. Should we crack down on that? Or are you just saying it’s a problem when rich, low-crime nations have high birth rates?
Africa has a high birth rate. Should we crack down on that? Or are you just saying it’s a problem when rich, low-crime nations have high birth rates?
> Africa has a high birth rate. Should we crack down on that?
Yes, please. We know from experience that the way to get the birth rate down is to get in place education and work for women, and some form of socialized support for the elderly (like pensions). So let's do that for the countries in Africa that lack it!
Yes, please. We know from experience that the way to get the birth rate down is to get in place education and work for women, and some form of socialized support for the elderly (like pensions). So let's do that for the countries in Africa that lack it!
>an expansion state of immigrants
Why is immigration bad?
Why is immigration bad?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/c...
Roy Beck here is far more articulate than I could be in the 6.5 minutes I have to type this answer.
Roy Beck here is far more articulate than I could be in the 6.5 minutes I have to type this answer.
[deleted]
Because our entire capitalist economic system is built on consumption, which is largely reliant on the birth rate being above the replacement rate (2.1). This is especially important for some sectors like durable consumer goods, housing, etc.
Why is this downvoted?
Good question. The root of all of this is human population. Let's get real and talk about it.
Human population would be why we don't want a high birth rate.
The parent comment was asking why we do want a high birth rate. Increase in economic output from population growth in a consumer based economy is a reason that economists would give and that politicians would use to support the policies promoting a higher birth rate.
I think we probably could eliminate most policies promoting population growth. Of course some of those could meet some ethical concerns. If we start talking about policies to limit population growth, that could get even trickier.
The parent comment was asking why we do want a high birth rate. Increase in economic output from population growth in a consumer based economy is a reason that economists would give and that politicians would use to support the policies promoting a higher birth rate.
I think we probably could eliminate most policies promoting population growth. Of course some of those could meet some ethical concerns. If we start talking about policies to limit population growth, that could get even trickier.
For one, the word "above" is unfounded. At or slightly below works too. You can have a consumption-based economy where the population drops 1% per decade just fine.
But more than that, even the least capitalist economy is going to have trouble if the ratio of young healthy workers drops too low.
But more than that, even the least capitalist economy is going to have trouble if the ratio of young healthy workers drops too low.
I agree it's mostly about the ratio of workers. It can be below for relatively short periods (a few generations maybe). But if it stays below for long periods of time, you will run into some structural issues. Like the young workers you mentioned, tax burdens, some consumer durable industries, and possibly housing/real estate.
A slow rate of decrease doesn't really run into issues. To use the number of 1% per decade again, if we kept that up for 300 years we'd have no worker shortages as we slowly crept down to a "mere" 240 million people. (For reference, the population in 1950 was 152 million.)
Don't you still run into labor force participation rate issues due partly to wealth accumulation when shrinking the family size?
For example, if you receive your parents inheritance at age 50, you might be inclined to retire early. Even if you have to split it with one sibling, that could still be enough for early retirement depending on the specifics of the assets.
For example, if you receive your parents inheritance at age 50, you might be inclined to retire early. Even if you have to split it with one sibling, that could still be enough for early retirement depending on the specifics of the assets.
Even between relatively extreme examples of "every family has 2 children" and "every family has 3 children", the difference in inheritance isn't that big. So I wouldn't expect much more early retirement than if there was mild population growth.
I found out about this from a hacker news comments not long ago. I have a hard time believing the causality of it, but if its true, it would be quite an incredible indictment against child-safety laws.
This stuff is overplayed. My sister is super nutty about following every piece of guidance. It takes her 30 minutes to get out of the driveway.
[deleted]
I joked a few times about families in the 70s and early 80s often having a 3rd child as a reserve here in Europe, since we grew up without child seats, airbags and such things and the birth rate dropped by approximately 1 child per mother since these safety measures were introduced. Seems like there was some truth in that...
Very economist argument. Removing Child-safety law may increase child mortality.
Good!
This claim is a little sus.
Cars themselves have only been popular for 100 years or so.
A 0.73% drop in third child births is really nothing compared to what else has happened to the birth rate over that time period - the effect size is very small.
Cars themselves have only been popular for 100 years or so.
A 0.73% drop in third child births is really nothing compared to what else has happened to the birth rate over that time period - the effect size is very small.
We are Marcuse's one dimensional man.
This paper is fascinating and probably the basis of the article (I can’t tell since it’s paywalled):
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046
I think the really sad part is the increased burden of rules supposedly to protect kids that are useless, such as booster seat laws.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046
I think the really sad part is the increased burden of rules supposedly to protect kids that are useless, such as booster seat laws.
These are the kind of harmful effects that prohibiting market options, that fall below some arbitrary quality/safety standard, have.
It took me MONTHS of shopping and playing child-seat-jenga in various car dealership lots before I finally found a sedan that was actually able to hold everything (thank you, Volkswagen, for making an actual family sedan that could fit a family!).