6 ms·
Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible ex
by mastax 5y ago
Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it.
There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens of Liberal vs Conservative birth rates, but much is broadly applicable discussion of policy and the more "vibes focused" angle that conservatives tend to take with the issue.
- rowanG077 5y agoIsn't the simple explanation for child birth falling so rapidly being the participation of women in the workforce? I didn't do any research but I just always assumed that it is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI am curious what the market rate for pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding will end up being. After seeing what it is like, if I was a woman, even the best current European benefits would not be enough.
- bhouston 5y agoIn Hungary, if you do it four times you are exempt from paying taxes for the rest of your life: "Hungarian women with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax, the prime minister has said, unveiling plans designed to boost the number of babies being born." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612
- ativzzz 5y agoWomen with four children will most likely be full time moms for the majority of their productive lives so that's a pointless benefit, unless this policy manages to somehow reverse gender roles as well.
- inglor_cz 5y agoEven if said lady only rejoins the workforce for 20 years, the savings are fairly significant. Also, knowing Hungary, this is probably intended as a subtle disincentive for the local Roma ghetto population. All the Central and Eastern European states fiddle with their welfare systems not to incentivize higher birthrates among the Roma ghetto population, even if they do not want to state this aloud. That is why the benefits target taxes, which you only pay if you actually work.
- akudha 5y agoNot familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?
- inglor_cz 5y agoRecently (1940s-1950s) forcibly settled former nomads whose culture hasn't yet made the necessary switch. To be fair, it took our Neolithic ancestors much longer than a few generations to adapt, too. Basically, not enough education and a lot of crime in the community. Combined with enormous brain drain, because whoever manages to succeed a bit, moves away and marries into the majority population, thus disappearing as a potential positive influence. This is one of the notorious ghettos in Slovakia, a neighbourhood called Luník IX: https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6 https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6
- akudha 5y agoThank you. That is one scary looking building!
- CommieBobDole 5y ago
- wonderwonder 5y agoThat's a pretty great incentive. From your article: "As part of the measures, young couples will be offered interest-free loans of 10m forint (£27,400; $36,000), to be cancelled once they have three children." The average household income in Hungary appears to be $7,100. So essentially they can get a potential 5 years of income for having kids. Massive incentive.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> So essentially they can get a potential 5 years of income for having kids. Massive incentive. Depends how you look at it. If you're nursing, it takes 5 years to have three kids anyway.
- criddell 5y agoPerhaps the incentives will lead to a drop in breastfeeding rates.
- jimbob45 5y agoThis is super interesting and everyone I’ve showed it to at work agrees. I suggest you make this a new post here on HN.
- ako 5y agoEuropean countries may have generous benefits for raising children, but they’re not even close to covering the costs of children. I doubt there are many people who will decide to have children based on these benefits.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- distances 5y agoI agree, I wouldn't talk of extremely generous before the benefits cover a larger apartment to house the kids, and other indirect expenses. Unlikely to happen!
- Beaver117 5y agoI'm sure some people are happy to move to the countryside for cheap larger housing if the government pays them
- lemoncookiechip 5y agoLiving in the countryside, isn't going to put food on the table for most. People are living the countryside to find jobs and a better life, not the other way around unfortunately.
- praptak 5y agoAre these benefits generous enough to make one feel safe with the crappy job market and the raising costs of living?
- nradov 5y agoThe incentives in France have also been somewhat effective relative to peer countries, however they're still below replacement rate.
- akudha 5y agoToday we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number... This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.
- vidarh 5y agoThe issue is not the number. The issue is the rate of change.
- pzo 5y agoI would stay both: rate of change (up or down) and overall size of population - there has to be a ceiling somewhere - if you start filling your bucket with water even slowly at one point it will start overflowing.
- vidarh 5y agoThere has to be some sort of ceiling, sure, but the point of focusing on a rate of change is that the ceiling is constantly moving too, no matter what you consider the "ceiling". There are many ceilings. E.g. there's the carrying capacity of earth. But that carrying capacity changes with technological improvements. There's the carrying capacity of the solar system that changes as we get the technology to settle more and more other planets. There's the number of housing units currently available, and the amount of food currently produced, and so on. But a lot of these current ceilings are highly malleable given time to address them, which is why what matters is the rate of change. Even if one assumes there is a hard ceiling on capacity for earth that no technological advance can overcome, as long as the rate of change is low enough we can bypass that by building off-earth colonies fast enough . So ultimately, while you're right there are ceilings, it's still the rate of change that matters: We can build or obtain more buckets to move water to, but we need enough time to do so.
- rowanG077 5y agoIt seems you answered your own question with: > This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better. Honestly any species will ALWAYS displace some other species. Nature doesn't just let usable energy lay around on long timescales.
- mschuster91 5y ago> Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates Yeah because even in Germany the Kindergeld of ~220€ per child per month isn't nearly enough to cover the extra cost in rent, much less the actual expenses that a child brings with it. When most people below 30 struggle to make rent, even without children, and actual ownership of a decent sized home is even more unrealistic, they won't have children.