The happiest I've ever been(ben-mini.com) |
The happiest I've ever been(ben-mini.com) |
Best summation of my current feelings yet.
this struck me
In most of the world it's more club-based rather than school-based, and that's quite different.
In response to this I would say that being in the industry comes with a lot of learned role-playing, and if you are no longer happy role-playing your job in one way, throw it entirely out and find a new path.
Teams are already using AI to scout opponents and plan game strategy. IDK how much that will ever happen at the youth level because they generally don't keep detailed stats at that age but it will be coming to high school sports for sure, if it isn't already being used.
Even after adding all that up maybe you save some time. 10%-20%? Maybe? You do save a lot of cognitive load as well and it feels good but a lot of the times you pay the price later when you don't understand the code/project as it gets more complex and you need to debug it when the AI can't anymore. The point is there's just not enough to replace and even if the research angle saves you some time or cognitive-bandwidth why not just use that time to do something else? Like more work or more life.
What is a Hoosier?
If you are talking about Euclid's Elements, it has certainly been a joy to work through them again in my retirement.
Another joy, spend money on someone in need, someone in need of help.
Love isn't owned by a king, it's already built in, inherent to all of us.
This does a great job at teaching those who didn't grow up in the US, how early the insanity starts. Genuinely an insane concept for everyone who grow up elsewhere, like right out of a comedy show that's supposed to be a caricature.
> But I really hope to live in a world where my future kids find sitting in front of a rectangle all day to be dystopian and cringe.
What if sitting in front of a rectangle is the thing that makes you happy?
I've been grappling with a lack of meaning in my software engineering job for over a decade now, well before the advent of AI. Working in a modern software organization means that most of your day-to-day effort isn't spent using your technical skills, but on navigating misaligned organizational structures in order to achieve even the smallest goal. The feedback loop is so drawn out that there is no feel-good dopamine rush at the end of a project, only relief that it no longer has to occupy space in your brain.
I'm driven by solving problems for others and seeing their lives improve as a result. But we're so disconnected from real users that it doesn't really make a difference if you reduce your product's crash rate from 2% to 1%; even with recognition ("You did good work", a pat on the back, a peer bonus, or maybe even a promotion), it just doesn't do it for me anymore, especially when any tangible positive outcome is completely hidden from me. I would rather have been ignorant to these problems and not suffered the stress in the first place.
Even when I try to help my fellow developers in a way where it's much easier to feel the impact, it's hard to make a case for a better engineering culture if means that everyone has to put in an epsilon of extra effort in a day and age where every team ascribes to a scarcity mindset. I actually believe I can have more impact building a medium-sized product by myself with the help of AI rather than fighting for scraps in a software organization which pushes and pulls randomly in all directions.
Over time, my tolerance for nonsense and systemic "injustice" (i.e. incentive misalignment) has effectively disappeared. Every time I rub against an unnecessary barrier that was put up by another person, intentionally or not, my motivation simply drops to zero. I constantly have to wear an emotional blanket to keep from feeling angry and frustrated, and it makes it hard to experience genuine emotional fulfillment in my life outside of work. I simply have no patience left to spend in my life outside of work, where it actually matters.
I 100% identify with this blog post. I feel more happiness taking a friend's kids to the climbing gym and listening to them tell me about their experience doing a difficult climb. I feel more happiness from mentoring a robotics team of goofy but driven teenagers. I feel more happiness when my writer friend tells me that she still uses a wooden tablet stand that I built every day. I want my life to feel like it's making a difference for other people in a way that is unique to my talents and skills.
Life is not an optimization puzzle where the goal is to maximize wealth, status, influence, or prestige. Yet it feels like that's really all that a corporate job can offer you these days.
But: programming languages, libraries, and abstractions are not going away. It is still possible (and might always be possible) to get deep into the weeds of Python or Rust or whatever to understand how those work and really harness them to their full potential, or develop them further. It just won't be _compulsary_ (in most industries) if your only goal is to trade lines of code for dollars in your bank account.
We definitely saw some kind of non-linear step function jump in quality around the beginning of the year - it's hard to express how good Claude opus/sonnet 4.6 is now. However, I wonder if we're going to see the same kind of improvement from here? It's kind of like we got to the 80% point but the next 20% is going to be a lot harder/take longer than that first 80% (pareto principle). Also, as more and more code out there is AI generated it's going to be like the snake eating it's own tail. Training models on AI generated code doesn't seem like it will lead to improvements.
Your job has always been to be accountable for the technical decisions made. Sometimes I read comments like yours and wonder if the almost apologetic tone is an admission of guilt that you never really liked this job. You can speak for yourself, but I didn't get into this to just noodle around or work at unhinged startups where nobody gives a rat's ass about code quality.
You weren’t happy because you optimized your feelings or had the right opinions. You were happy because you stopped focusing on yourself and became responsible for other people. Six kids needed you, in the real world, every week. That kind of outward focus kills emptiness fast.
Chasing happiness, moral righteousness, or political engagement just loops you back into your own head, helping people doesn’t. Feeling good is a side-effect of being useful, not the goal.
With a lot of effort, it's working. However, I soon discovered the last goal was the most difficult. Long story short, I keep my mouth shut a lot more. I feared, at first, that this would make me feel I was compromising myself somehow. But I also discovered that sometimes when I shared my opinion, knowing it was correct, I would later regret how I made that person feel. Conclusion on their feelings: There's nothing to be gained by hurting their feelings when they weren't ready to hear the message. Double success, I'm still happy and I didn't cause them any sadness.
I'm not afraid of competition with AI-driven competitors — I'm afraid of people replacing real beauty with A/B mechanics.
Perhaps this is indeed a good moment to switch to offline.
Thank you for sharing your inspiring example.
Or become a carpenter. The world is going to be flooded by them.
it’s just another tool. lots of people didn’t want to use compilers and got left behind. the world moved on.
i’m older than you and doing fine. it’s just another tech upheaval, we’ve been through plenty.
yes it gets tiring and at some point you find your way off the treadmill. but it’s really not that hard to stay on, especially if you have the experience.
Or just code as you want as a hobby, unrestrained, for whatever you need or makes you happy.
FD 40
RT 90
FD 40
RT 90
FD 40
RT 90
FD 40
RT 90
Then I was slightly older and discovered that 'programs' are just text you use a 'compiler' on and not a special thing you made in Borland's Turbo C.
Then I was older and started using vim. Then older still and made HTML pages with this new thing called DHTML on Geocities. Then ActivePerl. Then a VPS. Then Wordpress. Then discovered Prolog, Eclipse for Java, Mex for C++ in Matlab, and git. Then some years later github. Then interned in SF and discovered CI/CD, Hadoop et al. and how servers look in a DC in SOMA. Then IntelliJ. Then a trading engine. And then GPT was announced. And TalkToTransformer showed the future. And then people were demoing these ugly To-Do lists it could make. And suddenly we're here today.
Every stage of software has been incredible. I don't have to `movq`. I don't have to `jstack`. If I want a TUI, the tools can construct one to my specifications in moments. It's sheer magic, man. It's a scary time (I've had a couple of what-if nightmares about Dario Amodei ruling the world with his LLMs) but it's also exciting. I think I am happiest today. We're going to do so many wonderful things for so many people now that this is so much cheaper.
Perhaps it's just the good fortune of being born at this time during this thing and riding that wave, but it feels like the world of computing has just been so full of amazing leaps forward during my life. I look back each time and I think "man, I was doing that thing when I could have been doing it so much better?". And I feel so hopeful for the future.
I had an awful experience as a lead because the massive mental context switches between leading and doing IC work were unsustainable.
Describing it as sitting in front of a rectangle, moving all rectangles around is so reductive.
The one downside to the Internet and social media is that truly useless takes can get much more traction than they deserve.
Honestly the one thing that I'm really looking forward to is no longer having to touch CSS.
Btw, the other finding worth mentioning is that people consistently predict that free time and relaxation will make them happier, then report the opposite.
[0] Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience if you haven't read it
Would like to hear more about this. Both for myself and from what I've seen in others, people tend to be far happier during a relaxation-focused holiday trip than during their average working Monday.
But I think there will be new opportunities for people who are willing and able to learn. Entirely new fields will pop up and somebody will have to work on them. Most likely, the CS grads who are out of a job, or just frustrated and want to do something else.
So I don't think the opportunity to do innovative things and make a difference in the world is gone. But the opportunity to do so by typing code into a text editor may have breathed its last.
I wonder how software development would be like if we had coaches like this.
It feels like since 2022 the industry has been too rushed to run this way though.
Hats off to youth coaches - you make a huge difference in kids’ lives.
I love software engineering but I've never really been great at it, if I'm honest. I'll be sad if it goes away, but there are much more important things: nature and access to the outside away from noise and cars, for example.
What I find quite funny is I don't think we ever really got that great at software. There are bridges in my country that are 150 years old and carry 200 trains a day. Most software projects don't even last 5 years and are riddled with bugs.
It still remains to be seen whether LLMs can really do software, though. It will be interesting times ahead, for sure. Maybe we'll realise that recycling old content over and over again isn't good for us, before it's too late.
One year, I had a superior athlete on my youth football team. A foot shorter than everybody else and skinny as a stick, the boy had the gift of speed. He’d run like the wind, arms and legs flailing wildly. It looked like he’d cover distance twice as fast as the other kids.
I took full advantage of the situation. Every game, I started by getting wonder boy the ball until we’d racked up enough points to be comfortable. Then the others got turns. We went the regular season undefeated and I began to convince myself I really had coaching talent. Maybe I could help out at the high school, or the local college! The sky was the limit, I was a natural.
Then came the championship game, also against an undefeated team. Their team had a wonderboy, too. He was actually faster than my speedster!
Predictably, their coach played it just like I had. Through superior speed, they took a healthy lead early in the game and never let it go.
I enjoyed all my years of youth coaching, but that year was just magical. Right up ‘till the last game. It was a memorable year.
My experience on tech as a parent (3 kids under 10), I find their time on iPads etc playing games, music and audio books to be good for them (they don’t get grumpy after it, and particularly playing Roblox with their friends online is great fun - real halo 3 vibes for me), watching shows they get quite difficult after if the have watched for extended periods (smaller the screen the worse it is), but if they get access to anything with a constant scroll / stream of things they go haywire. My son found YouTube on his nanas iPad and mainlined it for half an hour and then went crazy. My daughter lost it over browsing Amazon.
We are withholding social networks & scrolling video as long as humanly possible, but difficult when you don’t want them to miss out on anything, and there’s an element of controlled exposure…
Again great story, makes me want to sign up as a coach. Sorry for the tangent!
I’m an IC (no direct reports) and I’m a “humanist”. Helping people become better and more skilled makes me happy, in the same way the coach here got joy from the goofball making a great play.
On paper we should probably switch jobs. I have way more technical depth, but the crucial difference is that he is more goal-driven, better at managing upward, and more in tune with political trends.
It's not an easy job, but I feel something I haven't felt in a long time as a software developer: fulfillment and contentment. Best of luck to anyone on a similar journey.
I gave up on most passion work years ago, now just optimize for money/time and enjoy my life outside of that.
But programming didn’t disappear. Writing didn’t disappear. Designing didn’t disappear.
AI flips the equation: when creation becomes cheap, value shifts from how much you can produce to what changes because you showed up. The ability to have a positive impact has actually expanded.
It's common in some tech and upper middle class bubbles, but outside of some startups and a few VHCOL cities most of the 40+ people in tech I encounter have families.
I think the mindset is most popular in internet bubbles like Reddit. Reddit went mainstream a decade ago and many people in their 30s and 40s grew up reading a lot of Reddit. Reddit cleaned up their popular subreddits list years ago, but for a while subreddits like r/childfree were constantly in everyone's default feeds. Redditors would talk about people who had kids as "breeders" as a derogatory term and treat them like they'd made terrible decisions with their lives.
I didn't realize how much this carried over into the real world until my friends and I started having kids. I knew a few people who treated our decisions like we were making terrible mistakes and throwing our lives away. I still encounter people from younger generations who are confused when I say that I like spending time with my kids. They can't imagine how that would be enjoyable in any way. When you grow up with your chosen social media telling you that the smart people are maximizing their bank accounts, minimizing their responsibilities, and doing as little as possible to get there, they can't fathom how someone could be happy with kids.
We have no shortage of humans, so there's no need to try to shame the childless. Nor those who focus on themselves.
This is very well put.
I think the culture today is what pushes us towards that: we have a very individualistic culture, which I think comes from the US. I'm from southern Europe, where family used to be very important, whereas now we've adopted a much more individual-centered view.
We have "freedom" as a value, but it's hard to tell what to do with it. You are privileged, therefore you can do whatever you want. But what is it that I want? What do I do with my freedom, privilege, options? We also need an objective, and "to be happy" is not a good objective, because we humans are very bad at predicting what will make us happy. Seeing stereotyped photos of happy people on tropical beaches on Instagram makes it even harder to remember what happiness is.
For happiness you need objectives, things you believe in, a sense of purpose.
This sounds very judgmental. Don't assume there's a single way to live a happy life. People with kids aren't immune to depression or lack of purpose.
Does it?? That sounds like the perfect life for me - I don’t need to contribute to others to make myself happy, I’m already happy on my own.
To me, this sounds like there’s something wrong with you - your capacity to just be happy by yourself is broken, you need the happiness of others to validate your life, and that’s a terrible way to live, always desperate to get what you need from others.
Rabindranath Tagore
How amazing and ironic or a reminder it is that the comments below that seem the most reasonable and avoid generalizing an entire group of people or way of life are the ones that are the least likely to drive more comments because they are perfectly reasonable.
From the few ive read about previous decades, people joined adult life earlier, with easier and better integration around adults and cheaper housing or similar needs. This creates a different existential landscape imo
For some it works for some it doesn’t. The hard problem is knowing yourself well enough to make the right choice. Personally, I’m in the “you get what you give” camp but I know not everyone is. Again, the key is knowing which camp you actually belong in. I want to add that “knowing yourself well enough” is no small task and can take a lifetime meanwhile you encounter the forks in the road of life almost daily so.. much easier typed than done.
/turning 50 in about 2 months so, while not that old enough to be considered wise, have been around the block once or twice
Once that’s done there really isn’t a purpose in life other than to pass it along to someone else. Dare I say that’s your responsibility. What are you gonna do, buy another toy? Go to another bar?
I have the utmost respect for people with kids, but I also think that an individual needs to be 100% ready to have one, and not just reproduce because it would somehow provide them with a purpose.
No man, you're just making X easier. If the world needs more X, fine. If not, woops.
The detachment from reality makes it all too easy to deceive yourself into thinking "hey this actually helps people".
Hey dude these are my emotional support rectangles!
Truth is, anything can be meaningful. We make our own meaning and almost anything will do as long as you believe in it. If optimizing rectangles on the screen makes you happy, that’s great. If it doesn’t, find something else to do.
No one is attached to some mythical objective reality. Everyone is imprisoned by the same social, economic and thought prisons.
For real though, I’m not wasting tokens on comments. I do wonder if we will pick up habits when interacting with them a lot though.
There is never a bad time to learn this lesson.
I'm child-free by choice, so I can only offer the CF perspective. If you're a parent who wants to better understand our viewpoint, or if you're not a parent but are on the fence about kids, I recommend reading "Childfree by Choice" by Dr. Amy Blackstone. It's an extremely comprehensive book that deeply explores why we choose this life and how we find fulfillment beyond the material benefits that come with this decision.
(I want to be clear: There are loads of happy and very fulfilled parents out there, and it is possible to have a rich life with kids!)
I guess I get why that irks a lot of the child-free people but it wasn't really the point I was making.
I used to race on a friend’s sailboat. One of the things that people noticed on a sailboat is that you need to and have to be focused on immediate problems, rather than any problems on land. If you fail to pay attention to problems at sea, you may no longer have any problems on land, or anywhere.
This can allow you, at least temporarily, to forget any problems you might have on land.
I'm over 40 and single and childless. I work in Tech, have a good salary, a house, a car, investments and a second property. I have everything people work for in life but I'd give it all up for a family. I wish I hadn't been so proud and arrogant and full of myself when I was younger and made different decisions. I'd much more prefer to not have the material wealth that I have today, but instead have a home to come to after work and kids to wake me up in the morning.
I used to shrug it off in the sense that there is still time and as years went by I suddenly woke up one day to be 40y old and realised the time left me behind. I have more money than I need but have nothing that needs me. And it's nice to be needed.
I did achieve a lot in terms of professional career but now I can't help but feel that I was scammed. Nobody cares about the things that I had built or features I helped develop and ship, I doubt anyone can even see them. All those decades of my life completely invisible to the world. All I'm left with now is money and countless mental health conditions I have to deal with as a consequence of my life choices.
And I don't believe for one second that there are people who are 40-50 without any dependencies and feel happy in life. That's just bull shit. The reason why people say that is because they keep their minds preoccupied and when you don't have time to think you have no problems. The problem with that is that eventually kicking the can down the road doesn't work anymore and you reach a point when you have to stop and take a break. And that's when all your baggage comes rushing forward into your consciousness and you crash.
I often remember Blaise Pascal's quote: "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
My job was to make sure the 40 kids that came were having a good time. When your job is to make others happy, you become happy.
Presumably you imply that moral righteousness, too, is best attained intuitively, by being useful to others and helping them (to do whatever, like a useful idiot?) without conscious thought for what's right.
Or else you're saying "help people for no reason even though it isn't right, and you'll end up feeling good that way so it's fine".
To be clear though feeling good is not the justification per se, it's pretty much just the signal that you're aligned correctly. When you aim outward, morality becomes less about self image and more about stewardship which is why it tends to work.
I’m also not claiming morality is relative or "attained" particularly beyond normal development as an adult. I would assert that we already know what’s right, the problem isn’t discovering the moral law, it’s obsessing over our own righteousness instead of living it.
I found a little thriving town in the university with all the important things I needed and the most important thing of all: human social interaction and seeing people around me.
I recall being pretty miserable working in a maze of cubicles surrounded by coworkers. I don't think there are single solutions for any of these questions. What works well for one person will not work well for another.
Would you mind elaborating on why that was the case? I’m super curious because I’ve considered switching careers to become a teacher.
You might be lucky to reach a small minority of your students, assuming environmental forces of poverty, dysfunctional family, and peer influence don't muzzle their gifts. But the day in day out bulk of your work isn't those "Mr. Holland's Opus" moments: it's handling a bunch of kids who don't want to be there in a bureaucratic set of rules imposed on you from above. And private schools are not immune to these problems either.
This has been happening for at least a decade now, no help from LLMs needed.
A/B testing/validation has become a sort of A/B creation method.
AI is attractive to the sorts of people who have their secretary write their Christmas cards.
AI is still not competent enough to come up with good solutions in many things I work on. So, at least so far, AI has made me happier.
It is okay to view code as a means to an end. I disagree, preferring to treat code as craft, and striving for better systems that are easy to understand, maintain and extend. And I think that's the source of our disconnect; deeper than one's opinion about AI is one's value of human skill and the effect that has on the output. Maybe I overvalue it, and maybe creating code "manually" is going to look more like carpentry in the future; but you cannot expect to convince a skilled carpenter that an IKEA chair is just as good and accomplishes the same task.
a) Carpentry already happens in the real world
b) There's a clear problem being solved (you need furniture).
Stretching your analogy to fit my point: pretend that programming is manually sanding wood, while AI-assisted programming is using a belt sander. If you're focused on the chair being built, getting a belt sander to help is great! If you're sanding for the craft (?) of it, focused on the wrist mechanics of rubbing sandpaper up and down, you'd be disappointed.
The sharp end of the debate now is around what exactly that means in the LLM world. It's extremely unclear what exactly the new level of abstraction unlocked is, or at least how general/leaky it is.
There's obviously just the stance of enjoying the craft, and that's one thing off to the side, but I think the major source of conflict for those who are more oriented towards living in the top level of abstraction (i.e. what you can do in real life) is between some of the claims being pushed about said level of abstraction and what many still experience in actual reality using these tools.
Also, hasen't coding gone through many waves of automation now?
But trust us this time we'll do incredible things, the same things but more of it, faster and cheaper, will automatically make things amazing!
And literacy rates are increasing. I don't know why you say it's not, just google "literacy rates trend".
That may be true. But, if somebody offered me a time machine to travel back in time and live at any point in history, would I take it? Hell no.
> purchasing power is going down
That is not a new thing.
> quality of goods is going down
Phones are better. Computers are better. Cars, planes, washing machines ...
> life expectancy is decreasing
On the whole, this is not the case.
> child mortality is increasing
Globally?
> illiteracy is increasing
Globally?
You seem to have a negative view of things. And sure, many things are not great. But the examples you gave are not it.
People are either proactive or reactive. Proactive think about the system and its incentives and how to align them for everyone's benefit. Reactive people only complain after they have been exploited.
Most people are reactive.
If AI is not a scam, we're gonna see a massive wave of unemployment and only then will many people realize they have spent half of their waking hours making someone else richer and they have no control over what they created.
And I don't meant just those who build AI. I mean everyone whose work isn't mostly manual/physical.
They're OK with open source code being turned into statistical patterns and plagiarized en masse. They will only start complaining once their work has been stolen and they are broke.
It's also why every empire in history collapsed.
The future appears now to be: "Young kids wont have this sense of wonder, or control of the machine, anymore. And a whole lot less will now have a career in IT either".
Why don’t school provide transportation to games on the weekends? Seems like a massive waste of collective resources to have every family drive for hours to get to wherever games are played.
Is it an American phenomenon due to the car-centric culture?
I think most schools provide transportation to away games. But in my city official school sports clubs don't start until high school - before that it's all private club teams.
In my kids' club, the team will provide transportation to far away games in other prefectures, or sometimes for games on school holidays when parents may be working. But it's very common for parents to have to drive their kids an hour or more to other cities within our prefecture. Carpooling is very common.
But most parents want to watch their kids' games as much as possible. Even when the team provides transportation to a game, there are a handful of parents who will make the drive separately to support the team. My son asked me to drive 3 hours to watch an upcoming big game and support the team, and of course I'm not going to say no. To be able to see how far he has progressed, and to know that he wants me there to support him, is special. But also still exhausting at times.
Btw. this is in Central Europe, my kid can go to training by himself with tram/bus. As for the matches, I accompany him if it is in our city, but if it's outside the city then he can either join coach(es), they usually ride kids or not participate in match. We don't have car so can't drive him there. Though soon kid will have to move to higher age league, so not sure what club we will find eventually, the one they are cooperating with is outside the city with like 1+ hour commute one way by public transport, so will certainly look into something closer.
TLDR if my kids were already adult I would have also lot of spare time and teaching/helping kids it's sure more fullfiling than doomscrolling at home. Though I am lazy person, but I was in recent years thinking about helping people instead of doing my work for money, the issue is I don't like most of the people, who need help.
People anchor identity to the hardest part of their work. • Assembly → craftsmanship • Hand coding → engineering skill • Complex stacks → seniority • Writing longform → intellectual authority
The difficulty of the tool becomes proof of worth. “If few people can do this, then my contribution matters.”
So value feels intrinsic to the technical act itself.
⸻
“Then the tools got easier, faster, automated, and the definition had to change.”
Historically, this always happens.
Compilers replaced assembly expertise. Frameworks replaced boilerplate knowledge. Cloud replaced infrastructure mastery. AI replaces a lot of implementation effort.
Each time, people initially interpret it as:
the skill is dying
But what actually dies is the old measurement of importance.
Value moves up a level: from execution → judgment → direction → taste → responsibility
⸻
“But programming didn’t disappear. Writing didn’t disappear. Designing didn’t disappear.”
This rejects the common fear narrative.
The activities persist, what changes is why they matter.
You still code, but code is no longer scarce. You still write, but writing is no longer the bottleneck. You still design, but layout isn’t the achievement.
The work shifts from producing artifacts to choosing which artifacts deserve to exist.
⸻
“AI flips the equation: when creation becomes cheap, value shifts from how much you can produce to what changes because you showed up.”
This is the core claim.
Old model:
effort → output → value
New model:
judgment → outcome → value
Previously you proved worth by volume, speed, or complexity.
Now production is abundant, so the scarce thing is: causal impact
Not:
Did you make something?
But:
Did reality change because you were involved?
You’re moving from manufacturing to intervention.
⸻
“The ability to have a positive impact has actually expanded.”
So the post ends optimistic.
AI doesn’t reduce agency, it removes the cost barrier to acting.
Before: You needed a team, funding, or org permission to affect the world.
Now: A single person can teach, fix, organize, build tools, or help communities directly.
Meaning shifts from scale (reach) to consequence (effect).
⸻
In one sentence
The post argues that AI doesn’t eliminate human contribution, it removes technical scarcity, forcing value to relocate from producing things to changing outcomes.
Well, that's the key question isn't it? What do we actually want?
In America it is dead simple. Having successfully cut all of our important social ties & creating all this existential anxiety via propaganda, "free enterprise" has swooped in promising to solve all our ills with the simple tap of a credit card.
Lonely? Here pay for a therapist. Need childcare? Get a nanny. Need exercise? Buy a gym membership. All in service to inflating the vanity metric that is the US GDP.
I am a firm believer that (lack of) parenting is the problem that most affects the other learning environments negatively. Parents are the key to any meaningful change. Parents should be responsible for all of it. Teachers are convenient scapegoats of bad parents.
https://youtu.be/9fUjwV4j-H0 (The Offspring - Have You Ever)
Especially when their kids turn into adults and don't need them anymore. Having "kids" doesn't last that long.
The day my oldest son (he’s 16) was born I was holding him and my mom said “enjoy every minute because you’ll blink and it will be over”. I got two years left and he’s off to college. Just two years, it feels like I’m getting fired. She was right, as mothers usually are.
None of us are really contributing to each other when we work, or the commons, since that's all been purchased and is being rented back to us.
You got lucky and had kid(s) that were not extremely difficult to raise. Not everybody gets that. Not all kids are alike. Some will make your life a living hell. It is a total crapshoot.
Also, not everybody enjoys parenting, even if they have easy kids. We are not all built the same.
I did get lucky and had relatively easy kids. I love them. But, I do not enjoy parenting.
People can obviously make the opposite choice, but I'd encourage anyone that's never been around good little kids as an adult, to find a way to be around them in a helpful or fun role for a while. Volunteer at a youth group, sports camp, coding class, whatever. Or just be an "uncle" to some of your friends' kids. My volunteering at a church youth group in my early 20's probably gave me the nudge I needed.
But probably my biggest concern with having kids of my own is that you can't really choose their personalities. Even the best parents can end up with kids who are frankly much less enjoyable to be around.
I’d love to have had kids, but ew. That is creepy. When you’re a single man even just beyond 30, trying to be around other’s kids isn’t a good idea in today’s society. Besides, trying to play your part while the kid is in another education schema is inconvenient because any meaningful perspective on life might conflict with the parents’.
I love my kids and they're pretty great (and seem easy by comparison to others), but it's definitely burdensome and hard.
Lines of code for dollars used to be a trade businesses made with developers out of necessity, but soon it will only be economically viable to make that trade with AI providers. So not only will going deep in the weeds not be compulsory, understanding anything about any programming concept will become economically void (though not void of educational value, or enjoyment).
On the other hand, what that code does depends entirely on a particular understanding of the real world, which is indescribably complex (i.e. combinatorially explosive). This is what I truly care about, and the possibilities for the application and customization of software are infinite. The interface between the world and software will always involve a value decision that AI cannot have a monopoly over (it would be economically infeasible, no matter how cheap inference becomes). This means that as long as my passion is not within the machine, but is instead centered on the relationship between the machine and the world, I will never be out of a job.
And part of me thinks, "good riddance!". For all the good we created, developers have also generated so much bullshit, it's honestly insane that any software companies were ever successful in spite of it. The human-politicking is probably the worst of it - think of the countless years of human life wasted in scrum ceremonies - but also so much of the software we've created sucks, and users hate it!
We used to be a proud culture of hackers, building miracles with miniscule resources, or at least that's what the greybeards here on HN like to whine about. They're right, we've squandered limitless cycles, uncountable exabytes of useless data. If there was a God of hackerdom, we are living in his Gomorrah, and he will strike us down with AI as punishment for these sins.
My honest and rather pessimistic take is that in the long-term any craft that purely lives in the abstract is likely to be doomed.
Take even 1 simple example - software applications on a smart watch. How many dimensions of reality are relevant? Maybe I'm a busy person, so I need a personal assistant for my calendar. Maybe my wife needs access too. Maybe I'm a bird watcher and I'd like to track the birds I see. Maybe I'm a bird researcher and those observations need to integrate with my research.... ad nauseum forever.
AI will write all the code, and make all the meaningful decisions, but the backstop of the whole thing has to be some non-virtual reality with a paying user, otherwise there is no value to extract.
I personally only care about the outcome, I don't even really care if I understand how anything else works, or any of the decisions made. My dollars go in, working code comes out to suit me.
The thing I most crucially remember about my son being born is that it felt downright easy to simply dive into all the things I would now be doing: because there was no one else. I either got it done or it didn't get done.
Someone else's kids on the other hand there is a choice: their parents.
It's not absolute IMO but you also see it echoed by working too: when it's your job, it's a lot easier to simply go "right I need to handle this" then when it's not.
This is a strawman position in my opinion. I don't think there's that many people who think they're carrying out some selfless act by having children. It's simply biologically true that the children you'll probably have the easiest time raising are your own and, assuming we want to continue as a species, we do need people to have children. It's fine to have them, fine to not, neither side has some moral high ground.
A global retirement community without even any grandkids to visit them strikes me as a depressing dystopian future.
The extreme mode of 50% of child-bearing age adults going 0 kids is not necessary and will probably end up being disastrous.
What happened to the Shakers?
But I think looking at this in global terms is wrong-headed anyway, whether you're for or against. The question is whether a specific person should be a parent here and now in specific personal circumstances. So of course it tends to be selfish. It's not entirely selfish since others are involved locally, including the future child. But "the world needs more children" or "the world needs fewer children" is barely relevant at all.
It's a choice I made for myself, that I am ready to bear the consequences of, say paying a greater share for other's childcare/making society more family-friendly/later retirement. I just would not want to add another ~copy of my soul to this pile. Yet I respect those who do.
Which is why it's changing the calculus on junior devs: if you're not mature enough to do self-review and self-QA, you're just dead weight for the team/company.
Unless you are hand selecting every atom that goes into a thing (maybe you make nuclear weapons?), you always make choices about what you focus on and what is irrelevant to your project.
What I was getting at is that nothing stops you from asking AI what would be the next best smartwatch app to build, and based on all its aggregated knowledge and other inputs (e.g. search) it has, it can potentially make a better estimation than you or any human of a product that would sell.
Of course whether that is actually true depends on how well its training data is able to model/mimic reality, and how grounded its inputs (e.g. internet) are. You can always help it a bit by steering it into the right direction, providing additional grounding. Was mainly wondering for how long this "additional" guidance would be a necessity, fearing that it won't be for as long as we think.
Trust there are some really great women in their thirties, they may not have been your first choice, you probably wouldn’t have been theirs either, but from where I sit it was worth it.
Lots of cultures have arranged marriages that most people are happy with. There is nothing immoral about seeking someone you can live with in order to build a life together and to have an raise children with them.
its probably a safer path to happiness than the romantic one. I did that and it very definitely did not work out and I am now divorced. I do have two kids though and have been a single dad for the last few years (the younger one is about to turn 18 so that phase of my life is coming to an end).
I'm not sure playing "spot the llm" is going to be a good use of time in many cases.
I can cover every wall of my living space in flat screen color television more cheaply than feed, house, heal, and educate another child in my family.
That's why communism got so popular in some places and why after capitalism won, it demonized communism so much that people now think those are the only two options and communism is the bad one so capitalism must be the good one.
There are other options like mutualism or market socialism and people (including me until recently) have never heard of them.
Cooperatives exist and most people don't even know what that word means.
We need a system where ownership of both the means of production and more importantly the product goes to the workers. If production is more effective with an assistant ("manager") overseeing them, then can hire one and negotiate his salary collectively. If they need an investment, they can quantify the risk and agree how much the investor gets in return after how long but it should not give the investor a massive chunk of or complete ownership - at most it should give small ownership according to his hourly rate compared to other workers.
Sure consumer goods are cheaper, but I don't need more "stuff". The essentials I need for my family: food, energy, housing, and most importantly time are much less accessible. Sure, we could buy bulk, move to a LCOL area and work remote, but not everyone can do that.
This is the trend that a lot of people in my generation complain about.
This scares me. Humans are getting so domesticated and docile they might soon be content with being pets. I am not sure US independence or French revolution could happen today.
I am obviously not a fan of crime against other peaceful individuals. But crime against an oppressive regime is still crime by that regime's rules.
This ties in with your second point. There are uncountably many ways to accomplish the goal of making a chair or writing a program. And if you are a carpenter working on a one-off matched dining set for a fickle client, the problem might not be as clear as even many software tasks are. Your skill and experience is highly likely to play into the eventual form and structure of the finished work. The customer might not know where you hid the dovetail joints or dominoes, but they can absolutely notice the grain continuity and lack of obvious engineered joinery evident in a factory piece.
If you don't care, then fine! You can focus on the other things that bring you joy. But I hope you can appreciate that some of us want to experience solving these problems with a bicycle for the mind instead of a Waymo.
I do both carpentry and programming and both activities have long since become repetitive. There are only so many dovetails or distributed systems you can make.
That’s why I don’t care if AI can replace those parts. I’m in it to do the designing, not the crafting.
But I also disagree about the getting bored on the “crafting”. It may depend on what you do, but there are always new design decisions and trade-offs to make all the way down. This isn’t a solved problem, and AI doesn’t change that.
That analogy falls flat, because there is little creative difference between these two modes of sanding. In particular, there is approximately zero variation in what the belt sander does as a function of how you control it. It is a reliable, deterministic, very predictable tool. That’s as different from generative AI as a compiler is.
Candidly, if half of your friends are in regretful marriages and 90% of the people you encounter are "crap" then I would be questioning your social filtering.
When those of us with noble traits -- intelligence, empathy, morality and so on -- refuse to reproduce, we do so at the cost of allowing the OTHERS who lack those traits to make up a larger and larger percentage of the population. They WILL reproduce.
Food for thought.
This describes all of the childless people age 50 and older than I know.
It does not describe the social media r/childfree mindset people I know at all. They have their bubble of friends they keep in touch with only when they feel like it but that's about it.
There's a big difference between childless and r/childfree style people, though.
> People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids
FIRE rose to popularity before this economy, though. It felt like peak FIRE was during ZIRP when it was easy to get a high paying tech job even if you barely had the skills for it. All the blogs and influencers made it sound so easy to just keep that going straight into early retirement as long as you continued living an austere lifestyle, which came with implied advice to avoid having kids.
I followed several of the FIRE blogs and forums in the early days but had to stop reading after they started filling up with people convinced they could retire at age 36 with $1.2 million in the bank because they they lived frugally last year and decided they could keep coasting that way for another 50 years without their lifestyle changing. I remember reading a few disaster stories from people who thought they were doing leanFIRE with their spouse until their spouse grew up and realized they actually wanted kids and to be married to someone who had a little more ambition in life. I know these stories aren't what FIRE is supposed to be about in the theoretical optimal sense, but there were so many stories like this that the forums just felt like a sad place to be.
Do you actually know a lot of those people? I know a lot of people that don't have kids and they all are very normal, well adjusted people. None of them hate kids. Using the word "breeders" as derogatory is weird, bordering on mentally unwell behavior. I've never met anyone that doesn't have kids that's like that. Even for the few people I've met that don't particularly care for children, they just keep it to themselves.
Reddit I think is not representative of real life for the vast majority of people.
They're mostly bitter anti-child people who rail against what they see as entitlements that parents get that non-parents don't. They derisively call parents petty and mean things like "breeders" and seem to be a very cynical bunch. I'm not saying their feelings are always ridiculous; certainly some of them have reasonable reasons for feeling the way they do. But they're a mostly-toxic, vocal minority.
It really annoys me when people assume all (or even a significant number) of childfree people are like those reddit folks (not accusing you of that, just saying in general.
And I don't get the automatic association between FIRE and childfree that some people are making here. Sure, FIRE is easier if you don't have kids, but IME the two groups are only loosely connected, at most.
On the other hand it remains quite confusing that after centuries of capital achieving vastly better results than labour people still keep going for labouring as their primary strategy. Building up a strong income-generating capital base is just common sense and it is an extremely good idea to have enough that you could technically avoid working if it made sense.
Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money.
That is not restricted to the “current” economy. It has been that way throughout all of human history (and probably applies to other animals too).
Who wouldn’t want security of energy, food, shelter, healthcare, and education?
Everyone worries about what happens to their kids if they get injured, or even just lose their job. It’s only in the last few decades that a significant portion of people have access to more of that security (even though it’s only an increase of 1% to 10% of the US).
Now we have free brokerage accounts and low cost index funds so being financially independent has a catchy acronym.
They just post about how important those things are online but not doing much about it.
Meanwhile ideas can be "self-removing" due to being bad, but then you'd just say "that's a bad idea" not "that's self-removing", so genetic descent was implied.
Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. This would proliferate a healthy culture that sees kids as a source of happiness, not a burden of misery taken out of necessity.
To make this work you need some kind of cross-subsidy (e.g. large child tax credit), because having a larger number of kids requires the means as well as the will and the people willing to do it aren't all billionaires.
But then we do essentially the opposite and drive up housing prices when larger families need more house. Higher housing prices are essentially a transfer from young and future families to retirees.
I would describe myself as being the converse of that statement. I do not believe my desires should truly have much of a bearing on my situation.
The assumption that humanity must, and shall, exist forever has no proof.
I grew up with emotional neglect and all sorts of mental health struggles that grew from that, so I find the cavalier attitude people have towards parenting and how people in the world treat each other in general appalling.
My parents (and honestly most, in my opinion) were not qualified to be parents. They were deeply broken themselves and didn't even have awareness of that.
I know humans could do better, but looking at the state of things, greed and hatred and aggression in all forms from interpersonal to wars are propagating themselves as the most successful traits. In a dog eat dog world, I'd much rather leave everything to animals, at least they don't destroy the entire planet when they maul each other
Who do you think pays for schools-kindergartens for your kids while you getting tax credits for them and likely for your dependent wife who doesn't work while rearing them? And on top of that for your kid's healthcare in many European countries...
In my opinion, it's better to not have kids when you are not 100% LOCKED IN on wanting them instead of gambling and potentially being forced into a commitment you never wanted to make.
Almost all the teachers I know have kids. Most scientists do. Einstein had three kids, Dirac four, and Planck five. Marie and Pierre Curie managed two.
I came from a big family and grew up somewhat poor watching remorseful adults who didn't recognize the gravity of bringing a life into this world, let alone several, basically drink themselves to death to cope.
My social life is mostly offline and I enjoy helping people in any way I can, but I am fully aware of my own flaws. I find balance by being generous in what seems like a million other ways I might not have the energy or time for if I had a family. To each their own.
For the vast majority people nothing else they can do with their lives will be anywhere near as fulfilling as having children. There are exceptions, of course, but it takes something like an unusual personality, or a great commitment to something else (e.g. celibacy in religious orders etc.), or something else really fulfilling.
I strongly suspect that someone who has the sense of responsibility that you have about children would make a great parent and not do what you grew up with.
The outcomes of the children are directly correlated with the quality of the relationship the parents have. No relationship I've ever seen, then or now, seems to be stable enough to do much better.
In my case, they made up for it with love and attention that brought plenty of comfort but few answers. I know many people pine for that sort of thing, but it's very heavy for a child to go through. People often foolishly romanticize a life where anything seems possible as long as they feel supported. They think that support is the missing piece. What they don't think about is all the times that kid is going to walk directly into a wall and have to find the courage to not be mad at the wall or lose their shit and turn radical like those people on reddit. Love is not enough for hope, and hope is not a plan.
On the other end I had some friends whose parents brought plenty of answers without much love. Those people found some early success in life, but ended up restless and unsatisfied following someone else's path.
You can again say I'm being extreme, but my own experience with relationships is to bridge this gap is almost impossible. Trust is hard and must go both ways, and the current social climate makes it harder than ever. I am still young enough to give it time I guess. I'm not saying no to a family ever. I'm saying I don't know enough to be confident I can do better.
To be clear, I'm saying I've never met someone that has the curiosity and unyielding stubbornness to truly know something (in the Richard Feynman sense) while still being strong enough to be vulnerable and really love their family over all else. What few out there exist and meet that bar must then somehow find each other and commit. It's tough.
Sometimes you just need to know when to stop pushing for a while and come back later. Later can be sooner than you think, or never. It's the whole point of living. I'd find it miserable to be over my skis the entire time, but I still take risks here and there. How else do you find out?
And fertility determines not only the size of a population, but even the age ratios within that population. Low fertility means you end up with far more elderly than you do working age. Far from this vision of being a society with more for everybody, we'll be creating societies where labor is ever-more scarce, economies are primarily dedicated to helping sustain the elderly and simultaneously collapsing at the same time. It's not going to be pretty.
For these reasons, and many others, I think the social aspect is one of the most important. Self fulfillment and these other things are very important and good, but if we don't have children then we're going to be creating some pretty messed up societies for our descendants. We're likely going to get to see this play out in South Korea during our lifetimes. And I do wonder what their descendants will think of the South Koreans of today.
And it becomes even less realistic if you look outward to times when this becomes necessary. Japan is a good example of this issue. Migrating to Japan is not difficult. The only meaningful barrier is learning basic Japanese. Beyond that, after just 5 years of residency you can even apply for citizenship which has a very high acceptance rate. And there are a ton of 'Japanese enthusiasts', many of whom already speak basic Japanese.
And many of them have tried to migrate, but they don't last at all. They quickly realize that a Japan in decline is not the Japan in their minds. Getting paid $1500 a month to work a job with extremely high expectations and demands in a country with a median age of 50 (and increasing) isn't the Japan they thought they were moving to.
Personally I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their own life, and that the default assumption should be that they make conscious decisions in line with their own preferences.
Have a child? Great, but don't complain to me about early mornings and stress... you knew that before you had one. No child? Go for it! But don't complain to me about loneliness and lack of purpose.
I'm leaning towards the no child camp myself. I love my long morning, and complete lack of some little createurs (rightful) demand on my time. Yes, I won't have the pleasure of seeing that little creature grow up, and I might have a lonelier old age (but there's plenty of social settings I can inject myself into), but that's life. There's advantages and disadvantages to everything.
The trick is to find out which ones you like more.
That would be great, but I never heard any realistic proposals how to make educated women with good opportunities want to birth and rear 3+ children.
Do they? Or have most just become too distorted to feel allright filling their emptiness with empty online debates and netflix?
I know people who are really happy without kids (and who will never have them), but the majority is rather miserably lonely when you look past the facade. And with many, there isn't even a facade.
I haven't asked "why should I even try" in ages. The question "how do I even manage this hell" has been on my mind more often.
People make their own choices, and it’s not up to me, nor you, to make assumptions on their lives. If children give you fulfilment, god speed to you. If others can find happiness without children, god speed to them.
By the way, I’m speaking as a person who wants children. But I totally get my child-free friends. I know people in their 60s as well, who debated this question and found a life for themselves. There is always a “what if question” hanging around, but all in all, they’ve weighed their options and are generally happy.
I think a lot of people who ended up having children to find fulfilment did not find happiness in other means. So they can’t experience the “other side’s argument”. Same applies to child-free people, as they haven’t experienced the other side.
I'm myself very happy I don't have children. I'm gay and can't adopt in my country, so I'm also happy I don't have any desire to have children, because that would be a problem. However I do really like working with teens, and it's very important to me on a gut level.
Not even, I was taking the US as an example because they're at the front of this "tech will deliver us" hypothesis
If given a choice I would rather be born in 1940s. 80 years of relative peace, prosperity, cheap education, cheap housing, only single parent needs to work, stronger community network, less overpopulation, better access to doctors, better wealth equality, and you get to partake in the first generation of computers before computers became a method of spying and manipulation of purchasing decisions. Honestly I would much rather be hacking on v6 unix than what I am currently doing.
Sign me up.
I always wondered how much truth that was.
Turns out in 1950’s it was true for 65% of households. In 1960’s it dropped to 40% then in 70’s to 30% and in 90’s it landed at 20%.
So while you could support a family on a single income, it still was quite far from universally true and only most likely in the 50’s.
Before women had the ability to be professionals earning real money, or access to birth control and many, many other types of healthcare specific to women. Before no fault divorce and before rape within marriage was outlawed?
Decades before the Civil Rights Act and Jim Crow laws still existed?
> better access to doctors
I would take a nurse today over a doctor from the 1940s. The amount of advancement in healthcare between 1940 to today, even just over the counter stuff or information wise from online searches is tremendous.
My grandma was born in the 40s and said it was better back then.
> Decades before the Civil Rights Act and Jim Crow laws still existed?
I don’t live in the USA so that is irrelevant.
Also, keep in mind I still have over half my life to live and the future seems very uncertain. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I would take 1940-2020 which I now know in hindsight was a pretty decent time to live compared to whatever the next 40 years holds. Maybe I am wrong and we will magically cure cancer, solve wealth inequality, 20 hour work weeks due to automation, and stay WW3.
I think after you got your draft notice in the 1960s to go fight in the Vietnam war, you might have had second thoughts.
This question always implies "to the high middle ages, or to 300CE". Of course I wouldn't. But to the 1990s? Probably I would.
many of them are higher class than me. in absolute numbers it's more lower class simply because there are fewer rich people than poor people but take 5 truly random people of either high or low, I think you would agree with me that only 1 at best you would want something to do with.
I think where we disagree is that I am more optimistic and I think you have higher expectations of what is needed to give children a life worth living. There is a lot of pressure on parents to be perfect.
For example, I agree about outcomes being correlated with the quality of relationships parents have, but its not the only factor. I brought up my kids for many years in a deteriorating marriage, and in the last few years by ex-wife became increasingly emotionally abusive towards me and the children in the last few years of our marriage. That was painful for them, but there were a lot of happy times in their childhood before that.
In terms of outcomes they are balanced, kind people with great relationships with everyone in their lives except their mother. They have done well academically and the older one has a job she loves.
From my own point of view, I regret marrying my ex, but I do not regret having children with her.
The fear of bringing up kids who become extremists or other bad outcomes is reasonable, but its always been a problem. I love what Kahil Gibran says about this: https://poets.org/poem/children-1 Its a small risk as very few people are like extremists on social media, and the rewards are enormous.
I do think there are social problems in both developing good relationships, and in lack of social and financial support for bringing up children. We make parenting far to difficult these days.
And I did not, nor would I ever say people need to have children to be fullfilled. Those who question whether having children is the right choice, I would never urge to do it. Rather the contrary as you cannot reverse this decision and if you find out after the act, no, children are too much for me - then it is too late.
Edit: my friends without kids have more cash for toys (boats, trips, etc) but it doesn’t make me resentful or anything. Besides, they let me play with their toys whenever I want :)
No question about that. My life has become simpler in many ways: the annoying big questions have gone away.
My grandma was also, and she will tell you women should not have as many rights as men. And that periods make women unclean. And kids should have to follow their parents’ religion. And corporal punishment for kids is okay. And daughter in laws should defer to parents’ in laws.
> Maybe I am wrong and we will magically cure cancer
Quality of life after a cancer diagnosis is leaps and bounds better today than it was in decades past. Setting the standard at what I presume is “take this pill and you never have to worry about cancer again” seems like a good way to disappoint yourself.
> Also, keep in mind I still have over half my life to live and the future seems very uncertain.
Things might very well be trending down, but they can still be better than the past in some ways, and worse in some ways.
Maybe, I would take a guaranteed pretty good 80 years over the next 40-50 years where things are trending downwards. And for all we know, the past 80 years were a fluke caused by WW2 and the carbon impulse happening at the same time.
Countries like Sweden and Norway have equal non-transferable paternity leaves and "free" daycare/education/healthcare. They birth rates are still nowhere near replacement levels. The hard truth seems to be that majority of women with education and opportunities don't want to spend their best years on children and bear the cost to their health from multiple child births.
> Improve the climate to that we can be positive about the child’s future.
Please. Now is objectively the best, safest time to have children. When western societies had high birth rates the expectation was basically "it is a coin toss whether a child will survive until adulthood and then they will have to deal with wars, famines and epidemics".
This argument is rather one dimensional. If you're trying to solve the problem in modern developed society, you can't look to what happens at a more primal level, you need to address the actual concerns people are living with.
We have more choice and visibility into options and unfair power structures now, and unless your solution is to remove choice again, then looking back to a time when people depended on children for survival and safety isn't going to offer much relevant insight. Instead it's going to lock you into positions with no way out.
Yet there are many western countries where the issue is how to prevent all the people attempting to get in from doing so.
US also put a lot of roadblocks in a way of highly skilled immigration. For example, check the waiting time of Indian engineers to obtain Green card.
> These people are no more a solution than our idealistic weebs.
Not sure I agree with this assessment. Unskilled immigrants tend to be over-represented on hard low-paying jobs, both in EU and US. Someone has to build, pave roads, cook, deliver, tend of elderly, etc.
It was enough that, even with the on-off nature of the work (you're not getting paid when nothing's getting built), they could easily raise a large family very comfortably. Now a day construction in the US pays awfully and a big factor is the large number of illegal migrants working in it for sub-market wages. So you're talking about the necessity of solving a problem by expanding the thing that caused it.
It's very difficult to predict what demographic collapse will look like in a place like the US, but one general trend that might inform us is that fertility within places like the US remains strongly inversely correlated with income. Those who are earning a lot aren't having children, those who aren't earning much - are. Pair that alongside fairly low upward mobility, and again I think it's unlikely that significant numbers of unskilled workers will have any real value in the future (or present).