4 ms·

I don't understand why Western countries are not incentivising people to have children.

netsharc 6y ago
Most European countries give parents monthly stipends for children and even one-off payments for births, so that's.. a little incentive.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Yes. US wasn't incentivizing having children because the population growth historically always used to be a solid 1%. But it ended around 2008, so policy is likely to change soon. "The West" taken in general predictably provides incentives when it sees effects of small or negative population growth. Take for example stats for the year 2000 to see how the past shaped policy of today: - US 1.1% - France 0.7% - UK 0.4% - Germany 0.1% - Italy 0.0%
mantas 6y ago
It'd take a lot of propaganda to turn the ship around. Too many people are focused on short-term returns to collectively sign off on that.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
At the moment (speaking for myself), cost of living is a negative pressure on having children; in a lot of places you can no longer own a house without a double income.
pmlnr 6y ago
Because we don't want to overpopulate as well.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
It won't make much difference, people aren't having children because they don't want them.
- growlist 6y ago
  source?
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Their use of birth control.
    - growlist 6y ago
      Perhaps they are using contraception because there are disincentives, and they are working.
Balgair 6y ago
Where I am in the US the average cost of first birth without c-section is ~$8k to the patient. With c-section it's ~$20k to the patient. ~30% of all births where I am are c-sections. These prices do not include any other treatment to the mother or child, only the delivery fee. I assume these prices include medicaid/VA patients as well, but I cannot confirm. Likely that means people not under government insurance are paying more than what I stated, but I'd go with those numbers with a gun to my head. So, the simple act of having children in my part of the US is quite expensive.
bobthepanda 6y ago
Some do. One common tactic is to have very cheap daycare, which solves a huge issue for many. Quebec is the most notable example: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/05/quebec-child-care-family-leave/559310/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/05/quebec-ch...
alexashka 6y ago
You'd need to make a compelling reason for incentivizing it if anything. Western countries are incentivized by corporate interests. Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. You'd need someone who can rise above corporate interests to do things like health care, children, human rights, etc.
- pembrook 6y ago
  > Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. Baloney. People having more children is the dream scenario for all business--more children = more consumers = more economic growth. This has nothing to do with some evil corporate boogeyman. Just look at the data. There's a direct correlation between rising standards of living and having less children. This is because, if you give humans education and birth control, it turns out most of them don't actually want to have 8 kids.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_b_er 6y ago
    No, they dream of having customers who buy more stuff. As employers, having parents take care of children cuts into work and is a distraction.
pas 6y ago
Couples usually need a good prospect for the future to commit to having children. Many don't feel that the future is bright enough.

Most European countries give parents monthly stipends for children and even one-off payments for births, so that's.. a little incentive.

kubanczyk 6y ago
Yes. US wasn't incentivizing having children because the population growth historically always used to be a solid 1%. But it ended around 2008, so policy is likely to change soon. "The West" taken in general predictably provides incentives when it sees effects of small or negative population growth. Take for example stats for the year 2000 to see how the past shaped policy of today: - US 1.1% - France 0.7% - UK 0.4% - Germany 0.1% - Italy 0.0%

mantas 6y ago

It'd take a lot of propaganda to turn the ship around. Too many people are focused on short-term returns to collectively sign off on that.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

At the moment (speaking for myself), cost of living is a negative pressure on having children; in a lot of places you can no longer own a house without a double income.

pmlnr 6y ago

Because we don't want to overpopulate as well.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

It won't make much difference, people aren't having children because they don't want them.

growlist 6y ago
source?
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Their use of birth control.
  - growlist 6y ago
    Perhaps they are using contraception because there are disincentives, and they are working.

Balgair 6y ago

Where I am in the US the average cost of first birth without c-section is ~$8k to the patient. With c-section it's ~$20k to the patient. ~30% of all births where I am are c-sections. These prices do not include any other treatment to the mother or child, only the delivery fee. I assume these prices include medicaid/VA patients as well, but I cannot confirm. Likely that means people not under government insurance are paying more than what I stated, but I'd go with those numbers with a gun to my head. So, the simple act of having children in my part of the US is quite expensive.

bobthepanda 6y ago

Some do. One common tactic is to have very cheap daycare, which solves a huge issue for many. Quebec is the most notable example: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/05/quebec-child-care-family-leave/559310/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/05/quebec-ch...

alexashka 6y ago

You'd need to make a compelling reason for incentivizing it if anything. Western countries are incentivized by corporate interests. Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. You'd need someone who can rise above corporate interests to do things like health care, children, human rights, etc.

pembrook 6y ago
> Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. Baloney. People having more children is the dream scenario for all business--more children = more consumers = more economic growth. This has nothing to do with some evil corporate boogeyman. Just look at the data. There's a direct correlation between rising standards of living and having less children. This is because, if you give humans education and birth control, it turns out most of them don't actually want to have 8 kids.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_b_er 6y ago
  No, they dream of having customers who buy more stuff. As employers, having parents take care of children cuts into work and is a distraction.

pas 6y ago

Couples usually need a good prospect for the future to commit to having children. Many don't feel that the future is bright enough.