3 ms·

Maybe the Norwegian model/Canadian model is a good example (not that it's increasing fertility, but it's improving affordability). We have: - Subsidized daycar

Maybe the Norwegian model/Canadian model is a good example (not that it's increasing fertility, but it's improving affordability). We have: - Subsidized daycare - Subsidized education - 1.5 year maternity leave - Subsidies for families with children under a certain income bracket It's affordable, but couples in western countries don't really want more children (just under 2 is the average)

pvelagal 9y ago
I wonder if the Canadian model of 1.5 years of maternity leave is a must for humanity's survival in the long term. IMHO (without much research) i see many women who have no choice but to feed formula milk to their babies (at daycares) as they are not around to breastfeed. Now i read somewhere that without breastfeeding the baby enough the women's body generates lesser and lesser breastmilk. But, Doctors always recommend breastfeeding as it gives maximum immunity to the baby. In the absence of a proper/sufficient maternal leave (like the Canadian one), i wonder if the next generations of humans become less and less immune to diseases.
colmvp 9y ago
> It's affordable, but couples in western countries don't really want more children (just under 2 is the average) I was looking at how many contraceptions and items my friends bought for their newborn ranging from things related to feeding/sleeping/playing. And that's not including the highest expenses, namely shelter/transportation/food. I thought to myself, my goodness how did we ever raise children in previous millennia? Anecdotally it feels like it's becoming more and more expensive to have children. I'm fairly well-off myself, and I would probably be fine with just one child, if any.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I was looking at how many contraceptions and items my friends bought for their newborn “Contraceptions” for a newborn seems a bit...premature.
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    Clearly meant to be “contraptions”.
thunderplot 9y ago
Canadian resident here. Our kids go to daycare, it's not subsidized and costs us $1200 per month per kid (and we had a good deal). Families with kids used to have some tax breaks, they were all eliminated a couple years ago. There's some support though, you need to be really poor to get max ~$500/mo per child. Even with my relatively good IT salary having kids here is not fun at all.
bobthechef 9y ago
Subsidized by whom? Norway is rich off oil and gas money. With greater distribution of capital (not income, that's just more wage slavery), we could likely not only afford kids more, but also support social relations that make rearing kids easier. Society wouldn't be fighting you. Mondragon and the cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna might be work looking at.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Subsidized by the people whose retirements the kids will be paying for when they reach working age. And don't say that saving up money now will get rid of the need to depend on future generations in retirement. You can't eat a 401k. Retirement is inherently dependent on the productivity of subsequent generations no matter how you move money around.

pvelagal 9y ago

I wonder if the Canadian model of 1.5 years of maternity leave is a must for humanity's survival in the long term. IMHO (without much research) i see many women who have no choice but to feed formula milk to their babies (at daycares) as they are not around to breastfeed. Now i read somewhere that without breastfeeding the baby enough the women's body generates lesser and lesser breastmilk. But, Doctors always recommend breastfeeding as it gives maximum immunity to the baby. In the absence of a proper/sufficient maternal leave (like the Canadian one), i wonder if the next generations of humans become less and less immune to diseases.

colmvp 9y ago

> It's affordable, but couples in western countries don't really want more children (just under 2 is the average) I was looking at how many contraceptions and items my friends bought for their newborn ranging from things related to feeding/sleeping/playing. And that's not including the highest expenses, namely shelter/transportation/food. I thought to myself, my goodness how did we ever raise children in previous millennia? Anecdotally it feels like it's becoming more and more expensive to have children. I'm fairly well-off myself, and I would probably be fine with just one child, if any.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I was looking at how many contraceptions and items my friends bought for their newborn “Contraceptions” for a newborn seems a bit...premature.
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  Clearly meant to be “contraptions”.

thunderplot 9y ago

Canadian resident here. Our kids go to daycare, it's not subsidized and costs us $1200 per month per kid (and we had a good deal). Families with kids used to have some tax breaks, they were all eliminated a couple years ago. There's some support though, you need to be really poor to get max ~$500/mo per child. Even with my relatively good IT salary having kids here is not fun at all.

bobthechef 9y ago

Subsidized by whom? Norway is rich off oil and gas money. With greater distribution of capital (not income, that's just more wage slavery), we could likely not only afford kids more, but also support social relations that make rearing kids easier. Society wouldn't be fighting you. Mondragon and the cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna might be work looking at.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Subsidized by the people whose retirements the kids will be paying for when they reach working age. And don't say that saving up money now will get rid of the need to depend on future generations in retirement. You can't eat a 401k. Retirement is inherently dependent on the productivity of subsequent generations no matter how you move money around.