Can the Government Get People to Have More Babies?
Posted by newzee1@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 118 comments
Posted by newzee1@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 118 comments
nitonitonii@reddit
Yeah, how about you give each family a house? Nobosy wants to bring a child to this world to be miserable and live in poberty. Until people are not financially stable, they wont have children
bballsuey@reddit
Agreed. This isn’t rocket science. Lots of people aren’t having kids, buying houses, etc. because they can’t afford it. How is this such a difficult concept for politicians to comprehend??
ridukosennin@reddit
Because high income women in prime reproductive years have even lower fertility rates. It’s a cultural shift of which money is one factor among many.
augustfolk@reddit
It’s not an issue of money for women - it’s a problem of time. A child is a huge time sink, and every year a woman delays having a baby is another year she can further her career. It’s a strong correlation that the more established/higher up you are in your career and the more savings you have, your children are more likely to get further in life. The effects cascade: better private schools, better family connections to establish a career, better living conditions in general, etc.
fajadada@reddit
And maybe a middle class income that s enough for a stay at home parent
TheGreatJingle@reddit
So just to be clear I think we should support pregnant women and young families way more than we do.
However the more income someone has, both nationally and relatively in a nation means less kids. So supporting young families is only one part of the equation.
fajadada@reddit
In the US the numbers for middle class stay the same with money only goes down with less money. Immigrants are the same statistically by the third generation in US . To be clear poverty does not make Americans more likely to have children
Smergmerg432@reddit
This right here! If women were promised upward career growth when they came back from pregnancy all would be fine. By “promised” I mean something other than a prevailing culture that fires pregnant women routinely to avoid paying during maternal leave, and a culture in general that understands a year gap in a resume happens sometimes.
sugondese-gargalon@reddit
the ideal number of children polled amongst Americans has stayed at 2.7 since the 80s, the only thing that’s changed is affordability of housing, healthcare and education
ridukosennin@reddit
Much has changed culturally in the last 44 yrs than just expenses
sugondese-gargalon@reddit
…which has not affected women’s desire to have children
ridukosennin@reddit
Incorrect there is no stronger factor recorded than education and religiosity that affects fertility. Your survey asked “what is an ideal family size”, not “how many children I want to have”. For example I’d say an ideal family income would be 250k, but if asked for how much income I want to have I’d say 200 mil.
sugondese-gargalon@reddit
you’re not understanding this, if women want to have the same number of children as a whole, then the causes of a declining birth rate must be economic, not social
ridukosennin@reddit
Where is you data saying women want to same number of children as a whole?
KimJongFunk@reddit
I’m one of those “high income” women and I would take a $30,000 pay cut if I decided to have a baby because maternity leave is unpaid. I have access to 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA.
Juan20455@reddit
Countries in Europe, with a LOT of paid maternity leave, are not faring any better.
KimJongFunk@reddit
Yeah well I don’t live in Europe and my main concern is actually the paid maternity leave sooooo
ridukosennin@reddit
Would you have a baby if offered 30k? Would you have many more if you were financially supported to become a stay at home mom?
KimJongFunk@reddit
I would def have a baby if I got maternity leave. My 2nd concern is daycare costs, but I could find a way to make that work if I kept my stable income. I can’t afford to have a 25% reduction in salary AND pay $2,000/month for daycare in the same year. It’s almost $50k in lost wages + daycare for the first year of the baby’s life.
BuyShoesGetBitches@reddit
Not money per se, but free time, no stress, own time and other good things a kid takes away.
ridukosennin@reddit
Exactly, even with money there is a huge personal sacrifice of time, freedom and stress involved with children if you want to be a good parent.
SamuelClemmens@reddit
Except poverty is tied to a higher birthrate. So it appears to be a bit of tricky science since the data shows that pretty much everything you can do to increase to a first world standard of living decreases birthrate.
reddfoxx5800@reddit
Denial maybe? Like the stages of grief but in this case the stages of capitalism
DeaconOrlov@reddit
Because poor people don't pay for politicians
nitonitonii@reddit
After your 5th house maybe there are some ideas you can't grasp anymore
RydRychards@reddit
Where do you get the space to give everybody a house?
nitonitonii@reddit
Everybody is living somewhere already.
RydRychards@reddit
Then we don't need to give them houses? Sorry, but what's the argument here?
One-Coat-6677@reddit
They are paying unaffordable rent that requires more working ours than allow for a single income household. No stay at home parent being an option means less people born.
koala_on_a_treadmill@reddit
...there is enough space, I assure you
QuantumCat2019@reddit
That won't happen. What probably will happen is to make it more difficult for people which do not have children.
nitonitonii@reddit
What's more difficult that raising a child in poverty? lol
QuantumCat2019@reddit
The same type of extremist politician which tend to want solutions "punishing" those who don't want children, are those same which are against many form of contraception, are also the same wanting to outlaw abortion, and don't care about children after they are born, so they could not care two shits if the children are in poverty. They are the same, in the US, which want to stop programs to feed children in schools for free.
the_jak@reddit
Paying taxes, but only if you’re rich.
duncandun@reddit
As long as it’s not a single family home!
nldarab@reddit
If Harris wins, my wife and I can get help on a starter home loan, extra tax breaks for having a child? Yes. If Trump wins and life gets harder for low/middle income families by increasing taxes on imported goods, eliminating overtime and building houses out in the desert? No.
oxero@reddit
For some it would take just making them more affordable, but housing, hours working by both parents, education, babysitting/childcare etc are just outrageously priced atm.
For others no amount of anything will make that decision. We're entering a time when abundance of resources is currently drying up and the weather is getting erratic. Wildlife is disappearing, our oceans are becoming warmer and acidic, days are getting hotter for longer, and water is starting to become a scarce commodity.
Why would anyone, at those not ignorant of how poor the future outlook is, willingly bring a child into the world? I straight up would break down crying if I had to explain to my son/daughter about the consequences of our past generations are now their problem too and there isn't a way to fix it. I don't want to live in a world even metaphorically close to "The Road." The thought of the trials they'd have to face with no potential way out is not something I'd wish on anyone new to the world to ever encounter.
spookymochi@reddit
Yeah, this is basically what I came here to say. I wanted kids, but I don’t feel confident that if I have them there will be a world for them in the future.
oxero@reddit
While I was still in highschool about a decade ago, I envisioned what goals in life I would want to strive for. I made one of the decisions of if I wanted children or not dependant on how the outlook on the future looked with climate change.
Since then nothing has changed and not only have we chosen business as usual, we also choose to continue ramping it up. If you listen to the scientists that are studying the raw effects up close on fields they love, whether it's biology to geography, it's utterly heartbreaking. While they don't state it explicitly, there is little hope of recovery, it's already too late. The writing has been on the walls for decades now, I grew up with the signs, and if we aren't all going to heed the warning I might as well and not continue the cycle for myself. I'd hate to have one of my children go through what I have had to see and experience, it's not fair to watch and feel our declining state.
It's certainly depressing, but I've made my peace with it. I just look to enjoy what time we all have and try to make others lives better. Cute username btw!
spookymochi@reddit
It is depressing, but I feel the same way and I’m completely okay with it. I just feel like (for me at least) that I would be imposing a cruelty on any children I’d potentially have.
Tangentially, as a millennial I feel like I have a lot of friends that are still stuck on this idea of a future that we expected, but I’m personally really invested in following climate change and have long contended with the fact that our reality will never be what was promised. I know that sounds pessimistic, but oddly, becoming aware has made me feel more positive about life and my own future.
I also strongly feel that having family is more than blood and that I’m meant to support others in a different way rather than being of service to raising children (and not to imply fate, but more so my personal inclinations and what’s right for myself!).
(Also thank you ☺️)
oxero@reddit
Seriously same here.
Beautifully put, I am glad to see others like you are in the same mindset as myself
Corben11@reddit
This is called existentialism anxiety.
The world will always be here, suffering will always be here. If you have no kids, they will never be here.
while the suffering and issues are here, there is happiness and good things happening all the time. Turn the news off and most places in the world aren't bad.
If youre on reddit, probably doing OK enough.
spookymochi@reddit
I mean, I’m more than okay with it and I’m happy. I don’t need kids to have a fulfilling life. I’m also an illustrator and at this point kids wouldn’t work for me, but the environment is what primarily enforced my decision.
That said, I have a real anxiety diagnosis and I know with certainty that what I feel isn’t “existential anxiety”. Environmental collapse is very real and I just see it as an objective fact of our collective reality. I don’t know how others in good conscience can bring kids into the world. It’s also not my business and people are free to make their own choices, but it’s not a choice I want to make and I’m very content with it.
Also, I’m incredibly passionate about animals and think that I’m meant to take care of animals instead of children!
Corben11@reddit
That's cool. It was just worded like anxiety was keeping you from something you wanted. Fear of environmental collapse would be under an umbrella of existential anxiety. I'm not like saying global warming is fake or your anxiety about it is.
Like acid raid was the end of days, and then we fixed it with science. Things turn out ok and if not we'll be dead anyways. Humans always suffer even if we live good lives. Buddhism focuses on this a lot and how to live with it, it's very interesting stuff. One day, we all have a personal apocalypse with our deaths.
I know no one usually thinks like this but it always strikes me as snuffing out your own genetic pool and everyone of your ancestors hard work or even your parents because you're afraid it will be snuffed out one day. Or an obsession on suffering to the point of not doing what you want. I understand People do different things and live different ways. Not judging, just my observation.
Often if attention is draw to it, people take it as a personal attack. I wasn't doing that.
Yeah, you don't have to change. I was just pointing it out.
spookymochi@reddit
It’s all good! There was maybe a time as a teenager where a lot of this stuff genuinely did scare me, but as I’ve gotten older and gained more awareness it really doesn’t scare me at all anymore. I feel content!
More than anything, environmental factors were a huge deciding factor for me and I wanted to chime in because most of the comments here are focused on financial reasons (which are completely valid). It’s not the only reason though people are having less kids.
Also, as far as lineage goes I feel like the rest of my family has that covered pretty well lol…but to be honest my parents are not the greatest and my mom is a downright horrible person with a lineage implicit in her choices. Maybe I’d feel differently if I came from better people, but I feel okay with my mother’s lineage ending with me :/
LowFloor5208@reddit
Beyond making it affordable, how about invest into research into making childbirth less dangerous and treating many common injuries women receive during childbirth?
These birth injury stories used to be whispered amongst women. Never shared with unmarried or nulligravada women. It was intentionally hidden because who would want to if they knew how bad it can be?
With the internet it is common knowledge. Childbirth can have severe and permanent damage to your body. It is a risk. Women sacrifice their health to bear children. I'm not doing it.
oxero@reddit
This is also a great point. I never knew how bad it was or how much women hide the fact they were injured in some way permanently. I wouldn't want my wife to be injured permanently for some reason like that when we are just happy vibing together and having tons of other goals. Talk about a kill joy.
LowFloor5208@reddit
It really is awful. I have a friend who ripped from hole to hole and had to be stitched up. She cannot be intimate anymore without extreme pain. These sorts of stories are so common too. My friend had one kid and she is done. She is not going through that again, feels it was a negative experience that destroyed her quality of life. Loves the kid a lot but is done.
If the government wants to incentivize women to have kids, they need to invest into Healthcare research towards treating these common postnatal issues, along with tackling affordability for homes, improve education, etc. And also do something to assist single parents. A lot of women I know don't want kids because they know if the father dumps them, they will be doing it all alone. Too many deadbeats out there.
oxero@reddit
I'm sorry, hole to hole...? 😭 The loss of intimacy alone would be such a depressing result but that just sounds way too painful.
That last one hits hard for me personally. Before I quit using dating apps after I moved to the south, almost every other woman had a 1-5 year old between the ages of 21-28, some women even just outright don't bring it up until you talk with them. It hurt to see, especially the few women that were still pregnant. It was a huge culture shock to myself coming from an area with better education and access to contraceptives where divorced mothers were more uncommon.
LowFloor5208@reddit
Specifically hole to clit 🥵 she had a rough recovery. It was a very bad tear.
Women never used to talk about these things. It just wasn't done. It was taboo to talk about sex with unmarried women, even with other women. Didn't want to scare women off pregnancy.
oxero@reddit
That's so messed up, hopefully she is doing better now T_T
huehuehuehuehuuuu@reddit
Knew one person who became permanent diabetic, and another who had a partially shattered pelvis. Not to mention mild urine incontinence, depression, hair quality change.
oxero@reddit
Diabetic is a new one to hear, yikes.
the_jak@reddit
Part of why we aren’t having a second child are the ongoing medical problems my wife has from our first 18 months ago.
BlackShieldCharm@reddit
According to the who, it takes women at least two years to be fully recovered post-partum. That’s also why it recommends leaving at least two years between pregnancies.
So things may still improve your wife yet. She’s not even halfway to recovery yet.
Smergmerg432@reddit
And what could fix all this? Healthcare that focused on solving these issues! Geez how could we avoid ripping someone’s genitalia down to their anus? Maybe a timely c-section. The horrific mutilations are AVOIDABLE. That’s the worst of it. It’s simply no one takes women’s pain seriously.
LowFloor5208@reddit
Look at IUD insertion. Incredibly painful. Often done without pain relief or barely any. Why? There's no good reason why.
My spouse dislocated his shoulder after rolling out of bed and they gave him morphine at the ER.
Kuro-Dev@reddit
Cats, on average live about 2 years longer when you sterilise them. I wonder if the same could be said for women
koala_on_a_treadmill@reddit
what the fuck??
dabblez_@reddit
Address the existential crisis of climate change, make living more affordable, and children less annoying and then I'll consider it. Until then I'm not plucking some poor soul from the ether to suffer in this place.
insomnimax_99@reddit
Well, no, by the looks of it.
So far, no developed country has been able to reverse the trend of increased development -> lower birth rates.
It’s not a money thing, otherwise we’d be seeing the opposite trend.
psaux_grep@reddit
Take away education, contraception, and the possibility to have an abortion and that’s what you get. I’d be surprised if the numbers show anything else.
JTibbs@reddit
Make housing affordable: use taxes to severely discourage landlords from hoarding property for income rentals. Tax the shit out of 3rd+ homes. Make it so corporations can own residential property without severe tax disincentives. Encourage reformation of zoning laws.
Make babies affordable: Medicare for all, so healthcare is decoupled from employment . Government funded childcare through kindergarten. Mandate a minimum provided number of sick days/maternity/paternity days.
Wages: increase minimum wages to a living wage, adjusted for inflation/COL. Make stock buybacks illegal again. Increase labor protections. Tax the shit out of companies that send labor and manufacturing overseas. Repeal dumb manufacturing laws like the chicken laws that affect manufacturing.
Public transportation: massively invest in public transportation infrastructure. Busses, commuter trains, long distance trains in place of air travel. Make it easy to move around.
Expand social security: remove the cap on wages. Make it so that parents dint have to support THEIR parents as well as their new children.
Reform the tax code to remove loopholes and tax avoidance schemes. Repeal the last 40 years of tax cuts for the rich. Tax capital gains similar to income.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
No.
It's not a money thing, it's cultural. If it was a money thing the highest birth rates wouldn't be in the poorest places. People in wealthy places, with other things to do, would simply rather do something else than have children.
NaturalCard@reddit
It's both.
In richer countries, children are more expensive, and access to contraception is easier.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
It's not just money. If you want to raise your kids 'right,' it takes a massive amount of time. Lots of people don't want to deal with that.
Wanderhoden@reddit
It also takes a village, which people in richer capitalist countries don’t have (or they pay for via nanny or daycare), because young people are not living in communities of extended family & close friends.
Husband and I are raising two kids in an extremely expensive city, far away from our respective families bc of job opportunities, and we are not considering leaving all that behind to move to his country and be closer to family.
Raising children in the modern era is extremely isolating, especially if both parents work (which they have to in high cost of living areas)
Corben11@reddit
My daycare is 1.7k a month until he starts school at like 6. That's For one kid. I would have another if I could afford it.
My rent is 2k a month. My health care for him and parent is 700 a month.
Houoh@reddit
I think it's naive to say it's not even partly money-related. An entire generation of people are struggling to secure affordable housing and are increasingly giving up on the idea of owning a home. Just because the world's GDPs keep rising doesn't mean the median person is thriving.
NippleFlicks@reddit
This. At least in the US (and I believe the UK), the middle class has been shrinking for a long time.
Houoh@reddit
And in Canada and Australia, the housing market is absolutely fucked. I'm not familiar with how Europe's housing market is doing, but a quick Google search is pretty doomer.
MischiefofRats@reddit
Agreed. This is a huge, many-pronged problem with a lot of causes, but it ultimately isn't just about money. If it were mostly about money, the wealthy countries who have implemented progressive policies addressing the financial strain of childbirth and parenting would have seen an upward change in their birth rates, but they haven't.
The causes: - Money, particularly the cost of housing and stagnation of wages respective to cost of living - Anxiety about the future, like war and climate change - Decline in secularism - Feminism/ hormonal birth control - Increased awareness of childbirth as a major, incredibly traumatic, life-changing medical event - Complete change in cultural expectation of parents (far more demanding now, you'd be crucified for handling your children today the way parents did in the 50s, 60s, 70s)
To elaborate: we used to not have a choice. Women were second class citizens. Pregnancy happened whether women wanted it or not. Women were expected through culture and religion to stay home and pop out babies. Our desires were irrelevant.
The reality of pregnancy as a major, traumatic medical event was out of the public eye and conversation because it was shameful and gross and not relevant to men.
Women could pop out six kids and be high on benzos all day while they did household chores; there was so much less accountability surrounding the whereabouts of children and an unattended child was not reason to send up an alert or call authorities. People didn't CARE as much about children. Children did not have very many rights. Children needed to go to school, not be demons, and make it to legal adulthood; that was enough. Of course parents still loved their kids; different parenting culture doesn't make parents of the past monsters. It's just that the demands of parenting decades ago were vastly less demanding than they are today.
And frankly, I'm a feminist to my core but feminism changed the public mind about the role of women, and it's a good thing overall, but we are in a period of social transition right now that the structure of our lives and communities have not caught up with. Women's rights will ALWAYS mean fewer babies, period, and that is a GOOD thing. Women are full and complete humans who deserve the right to choose the path of our lives and that's not up for debate. A good number of us in the past would never have had children if we'd had the option. A good number of us would never have gotten married if that was an option. Ending, however gradually, the oppression of half the population is a good thing, but that absolutely means the structure of society will need to change to match. This population bust is for keeps. It's going to be painful in the short term but it is moral, correct, and necessary We need to adjust, and structure our systems to drastically better support people who CHOOSE to birth children.
Trilobyte141@reddit
I think you're confusing correlation and causation here. Being childfree means more disposable income, better investments, better career mobility. People who would rather do something else than have children end up wealthier than those who do. The money issues definitely discourages having children by creating a strong economic reason for people not to.
ridukosennin@reddit
Then we’d see upper income reproductive age women having more kids… we don’t
loner-phases@reddit
No, you wouldnt BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSY WORKING.
ridukosennin@reddit
And women weren’t busy before? I work with many high income high achieving women. Many just aren’t interested in having big families or becoming moms regardless of the money. They enjoy their careers and lives even high income spouses would let them become stay at home moms. There isn’t a one size fits all solution to a complex cultural problem
loner-phases@reddit
No, not too busy not to mess around with guys and play with babies. Obviously!
Bull SHIT if the money was good Enough. It is NOT.
Yes, including the money and what they can spend it on
Only the very tiniest few of already married couples, I am certain.
There are PLENTY of young women wishing they could find men to support them and a family. There probably is a mismatch between the women and men who want these things, geographically and attraction-wise.
huehuehuehuehuuuu@reddit
Most people are just working class. Some make more sure. But if anything goes wrong, they become poor. A coworker of mine had to use food banks after their third child. Kid has severe celiac disease. Trying to provide good food for the kid plus the three kids is expensive thing took them down an entire income bracket. Plus the older ones can’t find part time jobs anymore. Companies rather hire temp foreign workers for cheap than hire local kids with their own wage and working condition demands.
ridukosennin@reddit
I don’t disagree. However even families that are wealthy enough to have a stay at home parent with many kids and still live comfortably choose not to. Many people simply don’t want children. Many who do want 1-2 not 5-6 like a generation ago
Corben11@reddit
Like 80% of women have a child by their 50's.
huehuehuehuehuuuu@reddit
Education is different. Childhood psychology has made leaps and bounds. My great grandfather loved all 11 of his children, one of them a foster. He was wealthy, had extra help around the house, a live in nanny, his wife never worked.
He was only able to take one trip per child, to give them each his undivided attention. Otherwise he rarely saw them. Back then he was considered to be going above and beyond. An exemplar father and husband.
I have no doubt had he lived in our time, he would at most have two or three including the foster child, because he could cares. We want more for our children. We now understand children do need more.
And most of my peers now would be financially crushed by one child with serious health issues. Two friends had their husbands turn abusive and then run away on them after having a kid on the spectrum. We all make well above the regional average.
The very few truly wealthy can reproduce like Elon Musk and still not make up the balance.
Trilobyte141@reddit
Because once you start having kids, you remove yourself from joining the upper incomes.
Setting aside people who are born into wealth, reaching the 'wealthy' status means focusing on careers during the prime child-bearing years. By the time people reach upper incomes, they may feel too old to start a family, or their careers are too demanding for them to have the time.
People forget that parenting is not just about money, but time. There is no point in having a kid if you need to hand the child over to nannies and barely see it in order to keep your high paying job.
Those who do have kids see a disruption to their careers, more pronounced for women of course but it's also there for men. You change your priorities to live in a place with better schools, not necessarily better pay. You lose hours to sick days and sleepless newborn nights. You have less time to pursue better positions or improve your skills and certifications outside of work hours. You have to buy a big house earlier than your childfree peers, for whom it is a luxury rather than a necessity. Inflation hits your budget much harder when you're paying for extra people. A childless couple sees milk go up a dollar and they pay an extra dollar a week for milk; the parents with two kids pay an extra two dollars. Multiply every increase accordingly.
So, having kids means more expenses to pay for and less money to pay with. That is not a recipe for getting to the higher income brackets.
ridukosennin@reddit
I agree however that has always been true even when fertility was higher. Women in higher income brackets with financial security or wealthy spouses who don’t need to work still have dropping fertility. Women who used to have 4-5 kids are now having 1-2. Demographics who had 1-2 kids are now having zero. Cultural norms around parenthood have changed drastically. Asking young women if they would consider 8-9 kids like a couple generations ago will be met with laughs regardless of the level of wealth. Money is one factor among many. There is no one size all explanation for this cultural shift away from big families
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
I'm not.
It's not just money, it's time. Unless you're wealthy enough to hire a nanny, kids will suck up your time like nothing else does. 24/7. Lots of people don't want that.
PEKKAmi@reddit
I think you’re the one confusing causation with correlation. That is, in your thinking that insufficient income is linked to less desire to have kids, you treat the former as a direct cause of the latter. The whole picture is there are many variety of causes. Consideration of money may have a correlation to the result, but doesn’t cause it directly because there are other factors, such as cultural aspects of women empowerment, that may be more determinative depending on the person/society in question.
loner-phases@reddit
Yes, WORK FOR MONEY.
Why NOT - That is where peoples time is not worth $$!
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Or go out to shows. Or take trips. Or do anything other than raise children.
loner-phases@reddit
You have to have the money to go to the shows or on trips. From work. Morning until evening.
UonBarki@reddit
This reply is a symptom of not understanding the data.
The issue isn't that there are more childless families. It's that families in the West that used to have three, four children as a norm are now having one or two. Just one generation ago, growing up in a family of five siblings was normal. Now it's unheard of.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
On the contrary, I understand it perfectly.
It was not common "one generation ago." it was common maybe three generations ago.
The simple truth is that the fertility rate in the US, as in other places, has been falling continuously since the Industrial Revolution. People used to have 10 kids and most of them died. Then their children had 5 kids and most of them lived. And then their kids had 2 or 3 kids. And then their kids had 1 or 2 kids.
Atiggerx33@reddit
Why don't we consider that maybe it's a good thing to have less babies?
Climate change is a thing, people do horrific damage to the planet. Why does there actually need to be more of us?
Icy-Cry340@reddit
They can certainly take steps to make having children easier for parents, especially young parents. Most of my cohort is just having kids now and we are in our forties - and the delays has to do with expenses more than anything else.
What’s also paradoxical is that none of us are even poor. As you get higher on the socioeconomic ladder expectations of what parents have to provide get higher still. I know a lot of people with decent six figure incomes who feel that they can’t afford to have kids.
marysalad@reddit
The last thing on earth I would want to be is a single mother, no shade at all, but it's just such a fucking lonely grind. But beyond that, it would come down to money. If having children didn't come with such an enormous economic opportunity cost (not just present income but future earning potential) hem I might have given it more serious thought.
Some might say "yes but a reliable husband would make up the shortfall as well as be daddy etc". Yes.. that would be lovely. Though I argue that's a bigger gamble than betting all my money on red. And if the relationship didn't work out for any reason, I'm back at square one.
So suppose I'd have needed an iron clad, irrevocable guarantee that I would not find myself at a lifetime socioeconomic disadvantage for having child/ren.
BuyShoesGetBitches@reddit
After some consideration I have reached the conclusion that the only way to increase birth rate is to ban all contraceptives, let women work after 3td kid only and limit their education. I don't expect to win elections with this but it seems the only things that separate low birthrate countries from high ones.
liftoff_oversteer@reddit
Make it really cheap and affordable. Kindergarten free, school free (including lunch and books) and so on. Not every couple would jump on the scheme but maybe enough for replacement level.
Fun-atParties@reddit
Is kindergarten not free where you live? Or do you mean daycare?
Inevitable-Menu2998@reddit
it's funny how without regulation, creating an environment in which both partners are encouraged to work has resulted in each of them being paid half what their work used to be worth
From_Deep_Space@reddit
While each are several times as productive.
Legal_Lettuce6233@reddit
I won't have kids, ever. But if I wanted them, I wouldn't be able to afford them.
I earn decent money; but not decent enough to care for another life AND save money for unexpected stuff. 2 months of my salary can't afford a square metre of apartment in the city, and can just about cover 1.3 outside the city.
But that's in older buildings. The block being built about 10 mins from where I live right now?
It's literally ~5x my salary per square metre.
And that's programmer salary. Most people earn way less, even tho I'm underpaid by 30-40%.
Plus, everyone is moving away because living here fucking sucks balls. Right wing politics dictated by idiots made at least half my friends move into other countries.
Corben11@reddit
In another frame, you can basically think of it as the rich having sterilized you by economic factors.
Being poor use to not stop people from having kids. Half the time it raised your income after the first decade of their life.
Now it's nearly impossible being poor without huge government help having a kid.
Lower_Ad_5532@reddit
It's housing, transit, and daycare that are the big issues. Suburban car centric developments make it harder to be young families with two working parents.
BluudLust@reddit
Work life balance. Give us 21 days off per year, minimum. 4 day work weeks. Improve job security. Make homes affordable (no more lumbar tarrifs, crack down on corporate single family home ownership).
But no, that hurts profits.
octopusboots@reddit
This guy tried by outlawing abortion. Revolution happened 20 years later and he was executed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu
Kahzootoh@reddit
Housing.
That is the problem. Nobody is particularly eager to have children unless they’ve got a home and a reasonable degree of certainty that they won’t lose that home.
UonBarki@reddit
Give every new family $X,000 a month for the first 18 months of a new baby's life, $X,000 a year for the first three years, and paternity leave enshrined into federal law and people will have babies. I don't even think home ownership is part of the equation. Just make it easy and affordable.
the_jak@reddit
It’s simple: make parenting cheaper and easier. That includes socialized healthcare for all, fully funded child care from newborn through secondary education, minimum 3 months of fully paid paternity and maternity leave, and subsidized access to nutrition and care products like diapers. These are all required together, not individually.
But that means rich people will need to pay taxes and be slightly less rich so it will never happen.
Melodic-Strategy-504@reddit
The main thing I’ve noticed with people having kids is it is not actually how much money the couple has, but how much money they feel they have. What I mean by this is whether they feel they are upwardly mobile, or downwardly mobile. No one wants to give their kids less than they had growing up, so even if they can give their kids more than 80% of other families in the country can they won’t feel like they can give their kids a proper upbringing. Government throwing money at families won’t work because it’s not going to change their class position.
KimJongFunk@reddit
I’m sick and tired of news articles bringing up what other countries are doing. I don’t live in Japan or Europe. I live in America. The concerns I have about raising a child in America are not the same as I would have in another country.
Ffs, I can’t even take paid maternity leave so I really don’t want to hear about other countries which do provide those benefits.
JLock17@reddit
Not really. They could make child raising dorms, separate from how an orphanage works, that pays people to have kids and send them there if they're unwilling to raise them, but that has a huge host of problems and ethical concerns.
LowRevolution6175@reddit
There are policies that are very important for child development and better family life, namely subsidized child care. Every $1 in subsidized childcare saves $5-10 in future spend in potential criminal justice, welfare, psychiatric care, lost potential wages, etc
We also need to roll back the culture of helicopter parenting, let kids be kids instead of shifting the burden to parents - parents cannot and should not be expected to spend 100% of their non-work time with children.
roy1979@reddit
Hmm, why do they need people, just grow them in the incubator like in The Matrix? In the end, they want to milk them to fill their coffers, right?
In trying to get rich people richer, the cost of raising a child has become so obscenely high, that people are reluctant even if they want to.
genescheesesthatplz@reddit
My minimum requirement would be $2mil, guaranteed quality,free childcare, all my baby supplies paid for, a paid year off, and the ability to pause mortgage and car not payments for two years.
Trilobyte141@reddit
Affordable childcare. GOOD public education. Better gun control. Support public parks and libraries.
This isn't rocket surgery. Lots of people want to have kids. Give us a society that we actually want them to grow up in and make it affordable to raise them in it and boom, you get babies.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
The continued total failure of the world’s governments to confront this issue suggests their efforts are not bearing much fruit. All measures to reduce costs and barriers to parents amount to nothing, with the richest and most equitable nations facing the worst of the crisis. Openly sexist and patriarchal places like South Korea and India are still in freefall, so the losers suggesting a “return to tradition” approach are also wrong.
It seems to me that ultimately it’s just women not wanting (for good reason) the huge physical and social burden of having many children. Children really do become your whole life. And with the commodification of all aspects of life very few people can comfortably have more than one or two children, with or without government aid.
Maybe one potential solution is fostering a more communitarian approach to child rearing, where friends and extended family participate extensively in raising them. So women can have children without either abandoning their dreams or combusting from the stress, or going broke.
spearblaze@reddit
Let me introduce you to anti-abortion legislation.
pineapplegrab@reddit
No. I am not gonna pop out a kid or two just so you can continue milking us for money. I don't support uncontrolled growth simply because the money we generate isn't funneled back to us, but it is stolen by people at the top and their funders. I refuse to be a part of cheap labor, and I refuse to have a kid just so they can continue the cycle. If you want more growth, we want stable policies, decent housing, decent jobs, etc. A single uncertain future is enough for me. I cannot add another uncertainties that I care for, whether it is a kid or a long term relationship, and that's not on me. That's on the conditions my government has provided for me thus far. I am doing my best to improve my situation, but it shouldn't have been too much to ask for a chance to buy a house.
Inevitable-Menu2998@reddit
Wow, those incentives are amazing! I wonder why it didn't work.../s
I don't know about Japan in particular, but in general the population grows when:
Sadly, 1 is usually more potent than 2. But we should never attempt to implement 1 and 2 has a high price for those in a position to implement it so... here we are
there_is_no_spoon1@reddit
No, it can't. It can, however, remove or lesson many of the obstacles to the ability to afford both the financial and personal cost of bearing children, which no government seems to be willing to do. The birth rates in Japan and Korea are testament to the cultural millstone that having a job and living for it bring to bear. Gov'ts *could* have stepped in when they saw what was happening but "productivity good" is always an easy sell to economists who then have an easy time selling to the politicians. Treating humans like machines never works out and these cases are excellent examples of the consequences of that.
If you want people to make children, you've got to get everything else out of the way.