5 ms·

I think people here are oversimplifying the issue. It's not about individual choice, it's about social structures. Our societies are by and large not designed t

I think people here are oversimplifying the issue. It's not about individual choice, it's about social structures. Our societies are by and large not designed to encourage people to have kids. Neighbors don't know and support each other, childcare is expensive, schedules are inflexible, not to mention the incredible financial burden of a child for anyone in a financially restricted situation. Median wages simply don't let you afford children anymore. It used to. We as a society simply don't care about people's ability to have kids.

Aunche 4y ago
Even within the US, there is a negative correlation between income and fertility rate. Poor families just make things work. I tutored a student who lived with 7 siblings in a NYC apartment. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
- notch898a 4y ago
  That correlation turns around at the lowest income levels; you get paid per kid. Yes it's not really enough, generally, but if you feed them nothing but gruel and get public benefits for everything then it's actually more profitable to pop out more, especially if you can get 20% from each father if they're plugged in enough to the system that most of the fathers are paying most of the time.
  - anovikov 4y ago
    It doesn't turn around, it stays the same (except for different reasons on different levels of income ladder). Poor people have the most kids, worker class, fewer, middle class, even fewer, and high middle class, fewer still. It might not be the case for the very rich (top 0.01%), because they literally don't care about expenses, and can afford trophy wives 30 years them younger so fertility isn't an issue either.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      How could it possibly stay the same when those at the lowest rung are getting additional benefits for having kids? Starting at income '0' they can only go up from there. I readily admit the benefits are shit and only profitable if you're basically feeding them gruel and giving them little else, although sadly there are people who do this. If those at '$0' are the most fertile then they're (what initially could be described as paradoxically) going to have more income on average at 1+ kids due to increase in benefits, which necessarily turns things around at the lower end.
  - whstl 4y ago
    That's a misconception. This correlation exists even in places that don't have this kind of social security. It even happens between countries, or even historically.
- anovikov 4y ago
  See, so this is the case both between different nations, and within the same nation. More spending power = fewer kids.
anovikov 4y ago
Well that sounds rather absurd. Why would everywhere - in every single country save for (maybe!) Israel - INCREASE of real incomes and improvement in both economic performance and economic stability, make having kids less affordable, rather than more affordable? Why isn't this the case with every other kind of spending - cars, housing, travel, education, even healthcare?
whstl 4y ago
So what's the solution? 4 day work week? Work from home on every possible situation? Flexible hours on every company? Free and good schools like in Finland? Free childcare for the little ones? Good public transportation so kids can move freely? I think companies and governments will hemorrhage money if we ever do something like this. Oh no. Anyway. I'm in!
- mamonster 4y ago
  It's funny how people mention Finland every single time and then you go look at their TFR and it is still below 2 for the last 50 years and has crashed from 1.8 to 1.4 within the last 15 years. And that's ignoring the fact that Finland has a population of 5.5 million and that there is no evidence that their "solutions" scale to bigger countries.
  - whstl 4y ago
    I don't think anyone ever said that Finland's idea of education alone is the solution to population decrease. What it does help with is the the "incredible financial burden of a child" as mentioned by the GP. That's what my answer is all about. EDIT: Deleted my second point as I don't care. I don't see this discussion going anywhere interesting.
    - mamonster 4y ago
      Finland doesn't only have education, it also has the childcare system and the public transportation. Remote first work and 4 days are not there yet, but Finland is also one of the first countries that started the 4 day work trials. Finland is AFAIK one of the furthest along in reducing the financial burdens of having children, which doesn't really seem to help. As to why it wouldn't work in federated countries, simply put: federation does not solve bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is the biggest enemy of scaling public solutions.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

Aunche 4y ago

Even within the US, there is a negative correlation between income and fertility rate. Poor families just make things work. I tutored a student who lived with 7 siblings in a NYC apartment. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

notch898a 4y ago
That correlation turns around at the lowest income levels; you get paid per kid. Yes it's not really enough, generally, but if you feed them nothing but gruel and get public benefits for everything then it's actually more profitable to pop out more, especially if you can get 20% from each father if they're plugged in enough to the system that most of the fathers are paying most of the time.
- anovikov 4y ago
  It doesn't turn around, it stays the same (except for different reasons on different levels of income ladder). Poor people have the most kids, worker class, fewer, middle class, even fewer, and high middle class, fewer still. It might not be the case for the very rich (top 0.01%), because they literally don't care about expenses, and can afford trophy wives 30 years them younger so fertility isn't an issue either.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    How could it possibly stay the same when those at the lowest rung are getting additional benefits for having kids? Starting at income '0' they can only go up from there. I readily admit the benefits are shit and only profitable if you're basically feeding them gruel and giving them little else, although sadly there are people who do this. If those at '$0' are the most fertile then they're (what initially could be described as paradoxically) going to have more income on average at 1+ kids due to increase in benefits, which necessarily turns things around at the lower end.
- whstl 4y ago
  That's a misconception. This correlation exists even in places that don't have this kind of social security. It even happens between countries, or even historically.
anovikov 4y ago
See, so this is the case both between different nations, and within the same nation. More spending power = fewer kids.

anovikov 4y ago

Well that sounds rather absurd. Why would everywhere - in every single country save for (maybe!) Israel - INCREASE of real incomes and improvement in both economic performance and economic stability, make having kids less affordable, rather than more affordable? Why isn't this the case with every other kind of spending - cars, housing, travel, education, even healthcare?

whstl 4y ago

So what's the solution? 4 day work week? Work from home on every possible situation? Flexible hours on every company? Free and good schools like in Finland? Free childcare for the little ones? Good public transportation so kids can move freely? I think companies and governments will hemorrhage money if we ever do something like this. Oh no. Anyway. I'm in!

mamonster 4y ago
It's funny how people mention Finland every single time and then you go look at their TFR and it is still below 2 for the last 50 years and has crashed from 1.8 to 1.4 within the last 15 years. And that's ignoring the fact that Finland has a population of 5.5 million and that there is no evidence that their "solutions" scale to bigger countries.
- whstl 4y ago
  I don't think anyone ever said that Finland's idea of education alone is the solution to population decrease. What it does help with is the the "incredible financial burden of a child" as mentioned by the GP. That's what my answer is all about. EDIT: Deleted my second point as I don't care. I don't see this discussion going anywhere interesting.
  - mamonster 4y ago
    Finland doesn't only have education, it also has the childcare system and the public transportation. Remote first work and 4 days are not there yet, but Finland is also one of the first countries that started the 4 day work trials. Finland is AFAIK one of the furthest along in reducing the financial burdens of having children, which doesn't really seem to help. As to why it wouldn't work in federated countries, simply put: federation does not solve bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is the biggest enemy of scaling public solutions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]