You can’t even pay people to have more kids
You can’t even pay people to have more kids
These countries tried everything from cash to patriotic calls to duty to reverse drastically declining birth rates. It didn’t work.
These countries tried everything from cash to patriotic calls to duty to reverse drastically declining birth rates. It didn’t work.
…
If history is any guide, none of this will work: No matter what governments do to convince them to procreate, people around the world are having fewer and fewer kids.
In the US, the birth rate has been falling since the Great Recession, dropping almost 23 percent between 2007 and 2022. Today, the average American woman has about 1.6 children, down from three in 1950, and significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population. In Italy, 12 people now die for every seven babies born. In South Korea, the birth rate is down to 0.81 children per woman. In China, after decades of a strictly enforced one-child policy, the population is shrinking for the first time since the 1960s. In Taiwan, the birth rate stands at 0.87.
My wife and I are well to do in the US, with a good household income that probably puts us in the top 2% or some shit. And to maintain the sort of life that used to be considered “middle class”, we need all of that income for our family of 4. Which means that we both work. We would have liked more kids. But there is only so much time to go around. Fuck are we supposed to do, have another kid and hire a nanny? Fuck is the point of that, we wouldn’t even be parenting.
You want more kids? Give people more time. Which means LESS WORK and BETTER CHILDCARE OPTIONS.
Most birds don't lay eggs without a proper nest
They've tried everything... except putting guardrails on these giant corporations and their runaway price-gouging. In the US at least, if the cost of wages kept pace with skyrocketing housing, higher education, and healthcare, I guarantee more people could afford to live and care for themselves and children...
They might also recognize that shrinking family size isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lower birth rates around the world could lessen environmental degradation, competition for resources, and even global conflict, Wang Feng, a sociology professor at UC Irvine, writes in the New York Times.
In every single one of these "depopulation crisis" articles the "maybe a shrinking population isn't entirely a bad thing" perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it's even mentioned at all.
Also consistently missing in these types of articles: an actual breakdown of the costs of raising a child (including the opportunity costs to one's career as the result of parental leave) vs the benefits the government is offering.
Also invariably missing: a description of the serious short- and long-term physical and mental risks of pregnancy and childbirth; at least this article mentions maternal mortality, but there's so much more at risk even in a "healthy" pregnancy and birth, from post-partum depression to incontinence. Occasionally articles will muse about women's fear of "frivolous" conditions like weight gain and stretch marks, but never life-altering ones like severe hemorrhaging, organ failure, and fistulas. How many women are postponing or forgoing pregnancy because they're not willing to risk life and limb to procreate? We'll never know as long as no one thinks to ask.
I have read a million of these "birth rates are dropping despite government efforts" articles, and they all echo the same pro-growth propaganda while conveniently neglecting these major, crucial points. JOURNALISTS, DO BETTER!
In 1968, when Richard Nixon was first elected, "middle class" was defined as one Union type job paying for a family of four in a private house with a few luxuries. In those days, $1 million was a vast fortune. Nixon ramped up inflation with his Vietnam War buildup, and the Oil Crisis really increased it. Ronald Reagan got elected and by the time Bush Sr. finished the job, "middle class" was two incomes to keep the household going, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
Is a declining birth rate a bad thing? 50 million people live in a country (South Korea) the size of Indiana. Maybe, just maybe the economy should just take a hit for a change so there can be fewer people here. I know rich people don't want that, but I bet the country would be a better place for it.
People who complain about falling birth rates usually want more humans to cheaply exploit as a resource.
In a world with fewer humans, human life and human labors are more valuable.
We should be celebrating declining birth rates, as infinite growth is not possible in a finite system and most of the existential threats we face are due to population pressures.
People are generally depressed and struggling with little help, barely making ends meet, and then they get bitched at for not creating more people to thrust into this thankless meatgrinder. If people felt better about the world that they were bringing people into then maybe they would be more inclined.
We live in a world with an aging population that is happy to reap the benefits of short term thinking, leave it up to the next generation, then get pissed when people aren't giving them a next generation to pay the tab.
My husband and I chose not to have biological children and there are so many reasons for it. It's not even just one big one - it's multiple huge ones. Lack of support systems for parents and childcare, finances (we are ok for a couple, but there is no way we could comfortably afford even a single child), healthcare costs alone will break you, the future of this planet is not looking so hot (or rather, VERY hot actually), carbon footprint of another child on the planet is huge, and I refuse to bring in another soul to become a slave for our corporate overlords. And I am not even listing any personal reasons, which there also are - these are just things that are happening in the world overall... and the best the politicians can do is pikachu face that there is no population growth. Because, ya know, 8 BILLION of us is not enough.
I've been terrified of pregnancy my entire life and I'm a selfish adult who wants to do what I want.
So yes, nothing the governments do can ever make me want to have kids.
Not even you, Greg Abbott, you dickhole pathetic excuse for a "person". I fucking hate you!
Edit: One of my sentences was exceptionally dark.
You absolutely can pay people to do just about anything including having kids.
Give me a credit card that can pay ALL of my bills and i will both adopt a kid and find someone who wants to have one.
The problem is kids are a huge burden when you can barely afford to live your own life let alone provide and be responsible for another human being
Pay people to retire early and you will see a huge boom in population
I would honestly need twice my salary and a free home to consider it with my girlfriend.
Not even on the table.
Giving birth to someone is the worst thing you can do to them. I'm not taking money for that.
reducing work hours in japan lead to a spike in pregnancies. If you want to raise birth rates a 4day work week should be at the top of the list.
The real reason why people don't have kids is because they suck. Kids are stupid and annoying. More and more people are waking up to this fact and starting to resist the social pressure."I can actually live my life instead of dedicating all my time and resources to something I don't even need? I'll have two of that please!"
If government wants kids let them raise the kids. Pay women to give birth and then put the kid in public system. Problem solved.
Mandate a 32 hour, 4 day work week? That's one more day per week to think about makin babies?
How much cash? Is it drastically less than the increase in the cost of living since birth rates started to drop? I'll bet that it's as little as possible while still technically not being zero, and I'll bet it's taxed as earned income.
They tried EVERYTHING, except...
I grew up lower middle class or more likely upper lower class, my parents both worked and owned a house but it was tough to make ends meet when they were getting older and my dad couldn't move as easily because of injuries.
I still grew up with parents that were home from work everyday, good food, lights, heat and internet were never cut off. I couldn't do what my parents did for me. I have a great job, my partner is much better educated has the opportunity to get much more important jobs and we earn more than 135k a year but it would be impossible to raise kids, even just one as well as my parents raised me and my sister.
Why would I want to raise a child in a worse environment than I grew up in? I can see why immigrants come in and have a family. Their next generation will likely have a far better life in Canada than in their home countries. I welcome others to have a better life here than back in their home countries and have kids here.
I'd be happy to have kids if you paid me! In fact, not having enough money is literally the whole fucking reason behind many of us not having kids! Businesses have lost the ideal that if you make your workers prosperous, they will make your company prosper. People can't even afford rent, let alone children now!
I have 4 friends in their mid to late 30s who have had to move back in with their parents this year because they can no longer afford to live on their own. Meanwhile, I've got relatives asking all the time, so when are you and the Mrs going to have a kid? I'm having to decide between my own medical bills, food, utilities and you want me to add a child to that? Go ahead and start paying me. Cause right now, in this economic climate, that's the only way it's gonna work!
Pay me. If you want me to raise your future workers. Pay me enough to live and raise them. It used to be possible to support a family of 7 on one income with a house and two cars in the driveway. People can barely keep their heads above water nowadays on two incomes. Since it requires two incomes, there is no time for child raising. The government doesn’t provide guarantees of time off to have them, doesn’t provide daycare so you can keep your job, and doesn’t provide healthcare. No, instead we write blank checks to the Pentagon and give the rich tax cuts.
I agree with most the points others in this thread make about the economy having gotten worse such that it discourages more kids.. I have a decent job and if I had a second child I think I would never have a chance at retirement.
I am also curious about rising infertility.... My wife and I had go through ivf to even have one child.. This after 7 years of trying..
Several of our peers and friends have struggled with this as well.. It could just be a coincidence but we only know around 20 other couples outside of work and at least 6 of them have not been able to produce children naturally.
At least in the USA and I presume other places, having a child is not only an increasingly insurmountable financial burden, but also society and school are actively anti-discipline to the point you can't even stop a kid from running wild and dominating the household. I am constantly amazed at parents who seem completely unable to keep their children from running amok and bothering people or destroying things in public, skipping school, eschewing homework, and disrupting class, yelling, punching, and kicking their own parents, etc.
Why anyone should want to subject themselves to a lifetime of hassle and heartache is the question. I have one kid and he is pretty awesome, but he was raised before the Internet and smartphones became the world's nannies. If I were of childbearing age, I would get my tubes tied if I could get somebody to do it.
Not to mention climate change is probably going to doom any child born now to life in a physical and political hellscape.
Here's the core problem: people can't afford to have kids. Until economies are restructured so that a family can reasonably and rationally survive on a single income, you aren't going to see birthrates rise.
Alternatively, you could ban any and all forms of birth control, and institute a state-religion that tied into your economic system, so that people had huge economic incentives to appear outwardly devout. Handmaid's Tale, et al.
It worked when Australia did this back in the mid 2000. But it probably wouldn't today, with today's cost of living, job and childcare shortages.
Yeah that is bull. There is a number you can pay me to have another kid I assure you. If you got money for a plane that can't fly in the rain and a border fence that fell down you got money to pay for babies.
Like is it necessary to have replacement? I’m just think it’s not such a bad thing if population shrinks a bit, I’m only referring to the US. Like I think we find ourselves in a housing and inflation crisis because our parents and our parents parents had a bunch of kids. Am I the only person thinking a decline in population isn’t such a bad thing? Could it be possible to have a flat population?
We have more than enough people.
This is good from an employment perspective as we move to AI and automation, replacing 2.4 million US jobs by 2030. We are getting to the point where you will need to work in a specialized trade or be highly educated in a specialized field if you want a paycheck. All low-skill jobs will be replaced by AI or automation.
For no amount of money would O give up all my free time and sleep
I was gonna do a Victoria 3 joke about activating the +10% birthrate bonus if your government is liked by the major religious group but I don't know if many will understand it here.
This mentions row v wade and abortion and I saw just the other day the birth rate is going up in the red states. Now is the birth rate going up faster than the death rate in the red states?
For whatever reason the death rate was higher in the red states versus the blue after 2020 and I'm not sure if it has gone down pre 2020 levels
As someone who doesn't have and never wanted kids, I'd hate this but...
If a country really wants a sustainable birth rate, it needs to make it painful to not be a parent. Already, non-parents have to pay for public schools they'll never use, and so-on. But, that's a minor expense compared to raising a kid. A country that made it a true priority to keep the population up could do so much more.
Jobs could be required to give 3 weeks additional vacation to parents every year so they could spend it with their children, while non-parents didn't get that time. Taxes could be significantly higher for non-parents vs. parents. Workplaces could get tax breaks based on the number of parents they employ. There could be tax incentives for workplaces that hire new parents. Retirement benefits could be based on the number of kids you raised, capping out at max benefits for 3 kids.
Of course, if any modern country tried that, a lot of people who never want kids would emigrate. But, if you ran an authoritarian country like China or North Korea and could control immigration, you'd definitely get people opting into having kids instead of enjoying a child-free life.
having kids is immoral in this time period i believe.
we are vastly over populated act like it.
BRB, Imma go do my part to satisfy the "population replacement rate" by getting pregnant with 2.1 children. That last one-tenth of a child is gonna be tricky though.
Not enough money. Too tough a situation.
if the main argument to have a kid is so they can enter the workforce why the hell would i want to have one?