5 ms·

>We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 We could also make risi

by slushh 3y ago

>We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 We could also make rising children less of an obstacle. If you build the infrastructure around rising children so that rising 2 children is not a full-time job, then parents would get more children.

explorer83 3y ago
We do sacrifice a lot of our time to raise children. But it's the cost of childcare that makes it really difficult imo. Unless you have a high paying job, you are quite literally going to work so you can afford to pay other people to watch your children while you're at work.
- namdnay 3y ago
  If that were the main factor you’d expect to see much higher fertility rates in French families for example, which isn’t really the case (especially if you exclude families of foreign descent)
vidarh 3y ago
There is little evidence of that. Countries with more support do not necessarily retain higher fertility rates. Look at e.g. the legal right to nursery places with capped costs, long parental leave, and subsequent financial aid in Norway. It might be it'd happen if you exceed a certain level of support, but we've not cracked that nut yet.
- explorer83 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with Norway's culture. Personally, if I had access to these benefits, I would have more children and faster. But I do see people who have the financial means and time to raise children who view children as a restriction of their life experience.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    This seems to be the challenge. Some people will have more kids if they can, but a lot of others will see more money as an opportunity to do all kinds of things that are hard to combine with having more kids. There may well be a balancing point where beyond a certain level of wealth people will start having more kids again, but so far we haven't found it.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  I think coat housing still bites even in norway. I am relatively cobfident that cheap housing would allow improved birthrates. If population declines, maybe housing will get cheaper, but our current system directs unhealthy amount of cash into houaing market and inflates it beyong it's natural state.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    While I think addressing prices are important, consider that the high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income. The living standard in Norway has increased massively from when I was a child there, and the benefits given to families with children as well. Yet birth rates have declined in parallel with the increasing wealth.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income. But it doesn't, housing prices have. roughly doubled in UK for example since 2008, and wages have fallen.c If you measure housing cost is multiples of income, they have grown massively in the past 70 years. If the price of chicken went up as much as price of housing over the same period, a chicken would cost like $55 or smth
      - vidarh 3y ago
        What matters is the long term trends and the multiple is less relevant than the affordability of the monthly cost of housing, or there wouldn't be sufficient buyers able to afford driving the costs up. The multiple of my mortgage to income is higher than for my parents, but I'm still left with more spending power left over, because my lending is cheaper, the LTV higher, and not all the other costs have increased at a similar rate. Overall, despite a higher proportion of my income going to housing, I'm far better off than my parents were at my age.
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        I am not sure about your personal situation, but my parents paid off their property faster because it was cheaper, despite higher interest rates. After 15 Years all theie property is fully paid. They are much better off now. And low interest rates didn't last, now they are back up in Europe, so people with large mortgages are not having to make huge repayments and will be making them for the next 30 years. generally speaking we have more capital tied up in housing than we do in productive economy. This is inefficient deployment of capital and is not economically healthy.
- aurizon 3y ago
  Once women gained control of their own fertility - they voted with their bodies. Many of the old large families were, in essence, forced on women, to the detriment of many as death was common in childbirth until late in the 19th century.
- jplrssn 3y ago
  There's pretty strong evidence that policies like subsidised child care in high-income countries lead to higher fertility rates. https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/16/why-there-are-so-few-babies-in-southern-europe https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/16/why-there-are-so...
aurizon 3y ago
True, many women/couples delay children, but look at Japan where the population has been in decline for many years to the point that there are thousands of empty houses - the converses of many places where zoning rules designed to block new homes for the express reason of forcing scarcity = upwards $$. There is huge inertia in the trades to build it the old way = codes the old way. We even have laws that mandate windows in all rooms from the days when coal/wood fireplaces were in every room. We got central heat, but we still build no inner rooms with no windows these days. Want a window = wall screen with a video of a scene you like - not brick walls 6 feet away.

by slushh 3y ago

explorer83 3y ago

We do sacrifice a lot of our time to raise children. But it's the cost of childcare that makes it really difficult imo. Unless you have a high paying job, you are quite literally going to work so you can afford to pay other people to watch your children while you're at work.

namdnay 3y ago
If that were the main factor you’d expect to see much higher fertility rates in French families for example, which isn’t really the case (especially if you exclude families of foreign descent)

vidarh 3y ago

There is little evidence of that. Countries with more support do not necessarily retain higher fertility rates. Look at e.g. the legal right to nursery places with capped costs, long parental leave, and subsequent financial aid in Norway. It might be it'd happen if you exceed a certain level of support, but we've not cracked that nut yet.

explorer83 3y ago
I'm not familiar with Norway's culture. Personally, if I had access to these benefits, I would have more children and faster. But I do see people who have the financial means and time to raise children who view children as a restriction of their life experience.
- vidarh 3y ago
  This seems to be the challenge. Some people will have more kids if they can, but a lot of others will see more money as an opportunity to do all kinds of things that are hard to combine with having more kids. There may well be a balancing point where beyond a certain level of wealth people will start having more kids again, but so far we haven't found it.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
I think coat housing still bites even in norway. I am relatively cobfident that cheap housing would allow improved birthrates. If population declines, maybe housing will get cheaper, but our current system directs unhealthy amount of cash into houaing market and inflates it beyong it's natural state.
- vidarh 3y ago
  While I think addressing prices are important, consider that the high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income. The living standard in Norway has increased massively from when I was a child there, and the benefits given to families with children as well. Yet birth rates have declined in parallel with the increasing wealth.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > high housing costs reflects drastic increases in income. But it doesn't, housing prices have. roughly doubled in UK for example since 2008, and wages have fallen.c If you measure housing cost is multiples of income, they have grown massively in the past 70 years. If the price of chicken went up as much as price of housing over the same period, a chicken would cost like $55 or smth
    - vidarh 3y ago
      What matters is the long term trends and the multiple is less relevant than the affordability of the monthly cost of housing, or there wouldn't be sufficient buyers able to afford driving the costs up. The multiple of my mortgage to income is higher than for my parents, but I'm still left with more spending power left over, because my lending is cheaper, the LTV higher, and not all the other costs have increased at a similar rate. Overall, despite a higher proportion of my income going to housing, I'm far better off than my parents were at my age.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        I am not sure about your personal situation, but my parents paid off their property faster because it was cheaper, despite higher interest rates. After 15 Years all theie property is fully paid. They are much better off now. And low interest rates didn't last, now they are back up in Europe, so people with large mortgages are not having to make huge repayments and will be making them for the next 30 years. generally speaking we have more capital tied up in housing than we do in productive economy. This is inefficient deployment of capital and is not economically healthy.
aurizon 3y ago
Once women gained control of their own fertility - they voted with their bodies. Many of the old large families were, in essence, forced on women, to the detriment of many as death was common in childbirth until late in the 19th century.
jplrssn 3y ago
There's pretty strong evidence that policies like subsidised child care in high-income countries lead to higher fertility rates. https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/16/why-there-are-so-few-babies-in-southern-europe https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/16/why-there-are-so...

aurizon 3y ago

True, many women/couples delay children, but look at Japan where the population has been in decline for many years to the point that there are thousands of empty houses - the converses of many places where zoning rules designed to block new homes for the express reason of forcing scarcity = upwards $$. There is huge inertia in the trades to build it the old way = codes the old way. We even have laws that mandate windows in all rooms from the days when coal/wood fireplaces were in every room. We got central heat, but we still build no inner rooms with no windows these days. Want a window = wall screen with a video of a scene you like - not brick walls 6 feet away.