4 ms·

If you want people to have more children, put them into harsher conditions. It works empirically quite well. Policies that prevent women from getting education,

by js8 3y ago

If you want people to have more children, put them into harsher conditions. It works empirically quite well. Policies that prevent women from getting education, and reduction in social spending so that children can be forced into labor as soon as possible, seem to be the most effective. Creating more stress and economic uncertainty also helps; people will see having more kids as less risky option.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
This is missing the key component of women not having the option to not have children. Usually by limiting their access to contraception and ability to earn income. And a bit of social pressure to create expectations of them helps.
- igetspam 3y ago
  Wait a second... this is starting to sound familiar. I swear there are policies that are too into place but I just can't my finger on it. Hmmm... /s
- rayiner 3y ago
  I think that’s a jealous rationalization. In my diaspora community, women are educated and work, but also everyone has kids because the culture emphasizes family over self. I’m sure that will die out over time. But it won’t be the education and affluence that does it—they have that already. It’ll be the gradual assimilation into self-centered American culture.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    It has nothing to do with American, hence the effect being almost universal around the world. Evolution resulted in a shit mechanism for procreation and child rearing is costly, and requires a lot of short term pain. While there obviously are long term benefits, we see the same problem here of humanity needing to bridge short term pain with long term benefits and individual sacrifices for collectivist goals. Pendulums swing both ways, and the past was not pretty for women, and it seems like it will require over correcting before it swings back.
  - JamesBarney 3y ago
    Not having kids and having less kids is a universal trend that is not unique to America. It's affecting every country in the world, and the US is actually doing better than most at the same level of development. It's also affecting Bangladesh. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/fertility-rate#:~:text=The%20current%20fertility%20rate%20for,a%201.2%25%20decline%20from%202020 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/fertili....
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Bangladesh’s decline in fertility rate is due to deliberate population control efforts over the last 70 years. (That was my dad’s career. We came to the US because he was working on a USAID population control program in Bangladesh.) You can see this clearly by looking over at Pakistan, which has almost double the fertility rate despite being at a similar level of economic development. If it was dictated by economics rather than culture and policy, you wouldn’t see that.
TheCapeGreek 3y ago
To OP's comment then, basically force them to be paupers so that having kids doesn't make a difference to the (lack of) quality of life...
pastor_bob 3y ago
When people say 'crushing financial burden,' many mean relative to maintaining their current DINK lifestyles
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  $2K/month for two kids in flyover country at what amounts to the only day-care in the area. That's just the day-care costs, not counting the additional missed work from every bowel-voiding illness they bring home! Have to pick them up by 16:30.
  - systems_glitch 3y ago
    OK I know I'm doing it wrong because no one on HN misses $2K/month, but what's up with the downvotes?
    - midasuni 3y ago
      I certainly would miss 2k a month - it certainly whosnt be worth while one of us working at that level But stay at home parent isn’t a thing nowadays.
      - sarchertech 3y ago
        > But stay at home parent isn’t a thing nowadays If you look at the numbers, around 1/3 of families have one stay at home parent. If you just look at families with kids too young to stay at home by themselves after school, it’s even higher. The number of stay at home parents of both genders has been growing since the late 90s.
  - moduspol 3y ago
    Our parents' parents were primarily not paying for day-care. It still seems quite odd to their generation to have mom work to pay for someone else to watch the kids. $2k/mo is a lot, but it can be avoided if one parent stays home. Helps with the illness-spreading and inconvenient pickup times, too. If you're in "flyover" country and there's only one day-care in the area, it's likely that's what a lot of the other households are doing.
digging 3y ago
Or, again, make it easier to raise kids. Subsidize childcare, or even better, allow zoning that stimulates community development so people have free childcare in their neighbors or extended family living nearby.
- analyte123 3y ago
  Countries such as Portugal, South Korea, Iceland, and Latvia have more affordable childcare, more subsidies, and more parental leave than the US, yet even fewer cousins. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-countries-have-the-most-generous-child-care-policies https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-co... [2] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/06/childcare-puzzle-which-countries-in-europe-have-the-highest-and-lowest-childcare-costs https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/06/childcare-puzzle-wh...
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    Like most human related things there is no single cause. I can't comment on Iceland. However, South Korea has one of the most crushing work cultures in the world, with insane work hours. Most people are not even in a relationship yet alone with kids. In Portugal you have a huge problem of disposable income. Median salaries are insanely low and stagnant when adjusted to COL. To the point that by now most former 'Iron Curtain' EU members have surpassed Portugal in workers income both adjusted and absolute.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      The fact is, when comparing across all countries in the world, that the harsher the conditions, the more kids there were. Do people really believe that their ancestors lived in better times for raising children than currently? It is precisely because they didn't that they had so many, as they needed labor for agriculture or to make sure at least a few survived since so many would die before the age of 5. Now, I am not having children either, but I will not deny that even in the best of countries, when controlling for all of these factors, people still aren't having children simply because they have no want or need of having them. That's it, that's the reality. Now it is an uncomfortable truth for many, but many people nowadays, me included, just don't want them, for no particular reason at all.
redandblack 3y ago
Panhandling as a child is a good training to hustle later in life. I am sure children in Gaza will grow up to successful business people
- interloxia 3y ago
  Considering current events, I consider this comment to be inappropriate. A different example, perhaps relating to children who aren't in a conflict zone would have been more constructive.
  - redandblack 3y ago
    Agree. Children death cannot be used like this - even in sarcasm. Apologies.

by js8 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

This is missing the key component of women not having the option to not have children. Usually by limiting their access to contraception and ability to earn income. And a bit of social pressure to create expectations of them helps.

igetspam 3y ago
Wait a second... this is starting to sound familiar. I swear there are policies that are too into place but I just can't my finger on it. Hmmm... /s
rayiner 3y ago
I think that’s a jealous rationalization. In my diaspora community, women are educated and work, but also everyone has kids because the culture emphasizes family over self. I’m sure that will die out over time. But it won’t be the education and affluence that does it—they have that already. It’ll be the gradual assimilation into self-centered American culture.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with American, hence the effect being almost universal around the world. Evolution resulted in a shit mechanism for procreation and child rearing is costly, and requires a lot of short term pain. While there obviously are long term benefits, we see the same problem here of humanity needing to bridge short term pain with long term benefits and individual sacrifices for collectivist goals. Pendulums swing both ways, and the past was not pretty for women, and it seems like it will require over correcting before it swings back.
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  Not having kids and having less kids is a universal trend that is not unique to America. It's affecting every country in the world, and the US is actually doing better than most at the same level of development. It's also affecting Bangladesh. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/fertility-rate#:~:text=The%20current%20fertility%20rate%20for,a%201.2%25%20decline%20from%202020 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/fertili....
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Bangladesh’s decline in fertility rate is due to deliberate population control efforts over the last 70 years. (That was my dad’s career. We came to the US because he was working on a USAID population control program in Bangladesh.) You can see this clearly by looking over at Pakistan, which has almost double the fertility rate despite being at a similar level of economic development. If it was dictated by economics rather than culture and policy, you wouldn’t see that.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago

To OP's comment then, basically force them to be paupers so that having kids doesn't make a difference to the (lack of) quality of life...

pastor_bob 3y ago

When people say 'crushing financial burden,' many mean relative to maintaining their current DINK lifestyles

systems_glitch 3y ago
$2K/month for two kids in flyover country at what amounts to the only day-care in the area. That's just the day-care costs, not counting the additional missed work from every bowel-voiding illness they bring home! Have to pick them up by 16:30.
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  OK I know I'm doing it wrong because no one on HN misses $2K/month, but what's up with the downvotes?
  - midasuni 3y ago
    I certainly would miss 2k a month - it certainly whosnt be worth while one of us working at that level But stay at home parent isn’t a thing nowadays.
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      > But stay at home parent isn’t a thing nowadays If you look at the numbers, around 1/3 of families have one stay at home parent. If you just look at families with kids too young to stay at home by themselves after school, it’s even higher. The number of stay at home parents of both genders has been growing since the late 90s.
- moduspol 3y ago
  Our parents' parents were primarily not paying for day-care. It still seems quite odd to their generation to have mom work to pay for someone else to watch the kids. $2k/mo is a lot, but it can be avoided if one parent stays home. Helps with the illness-spreading and inconvenient pickup times, too. If you're in "flyover" country and there's only one day-care in the area, it's likely that's what a lot of the other households are doing.

digging 3y ago

Or, again, make it easier to raise kids. Subsidize childcare, or even better, allow zoning that stimulates community development so people have free childcare in their neighbors or extended family living nearby.

analyte123 3y ago
Countries such as Portugal, South Korea, Iceland, and Latvia have more affordable childcare, more subsidies, and more parental leave than the US, yet even fewer cousins. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-countries-have-the-most-generous-child-care-policies https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-co... [2] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/06/childcare-puzzle-which-countries-in-europe-have-the-highest-and-lowest-childcare-costs https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/06/childcare-puzzle-wh...
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Like most human related things there is no single cause. I can't comment on Iceland. However, South Korea has one of the most crushing work cultures in the world, with insane work hours. Most people are not even in a relationship yet alone with kids. In Portugal you have a huge problem of disposable income. Median salaries are insanely low and stagnant when adjusted to COL. To the point that by now most former 'Iron Curtain' EU members have surpassed Portugal in workers income both adjusted and absolute.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    The fact is, when comparing across all countries in the world, that the harsher the conditions, the more kids there were. Do people really believe that their ancestors lived in better times for raising children than currently? It is precisely because they didn't that they had so many, as they needed labor for agriculture or to make sure at least a few survived since so many would die before the age of 5. Now, I am not having children either, but I will not deny that even in the best of countries, when controlling for all of these factors, people still aren't having children simply because they have no want or need of having them. That's it, that's the reality. Now it is an uncomfortable truth for many, but many people nowadays, me included, just don't want them, for no particular reason at all.

redandblack 3y ago

Panhandling as a child is a good training to hustle later in life. I am sure children in Gaza will grow up to successful business people

interloxia 3y ago
Considering current events, I consider this comment to be inappropriate. A different example, perhaps relating to children who aren't in a conflict zone would have been more constructive.
- redandblack 3y ago
  Agree. Children death cannot be used like this - even in sarcasm. Apologies.