5 ms·

As someone who is doing well financially I don't think you found the reason. The gist of it is: There are worlds and circumstances into which people want to br

by atoav 3y ago

As someone who is doing well financially I don't think you found the reason. The gist of it is: There are worlds and circumstances into which people want to bring kids. We mostly failed to create that world and those circumstances. If tou want to know what a solution looks like look at western democracies with high birth rates. E.g. France, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark. The rest is probably due to individualism. Kids cost time and energy and capitalism tells us we should live our best lives. And the best live does not involve herding 6 kids, even if they are your own. We created this world willingly, and the low birth rate is a consequence — and so is the need for migration if we wanna stay wealthy. The thing is: now that the genie is out of the bottle we are not gonna be able to force people to have kids. We can just create circumstances in which they are willing to. I am in my 30s and I am unsure if I will ever be able to retire. I am sure however that I will have to change my job and career multiple times throughout my life. Despite me being financially well off, I am not sure if I would be able to support kids in the future. This is not about being whiny. I just think if I had kids it is my responsibility to throw them into a world that can sustain them. This one can't.

sangnoir 3y ago
> Kids cost time and energy and capitalism tells us we should live our best lives. Thought experiment for all the unrestrained free-market folk: how can the free hand of the market can solve for low birthrates? Bonus points if the solution doesn't involve government-issued visas.
- namdnay 3y ago
  > Thought experiment for all the unrestrained free-market folk: how can the free hand of the market can solve for low birthrates tax cuts for families, subisidies for child birth and care - none of these are contrary to the idea of a free competitive market
  - echelon 3y ago
    > tax cuts for families, subisidies for child birth and care - none of these are contrary to the idea of a free competitive market Moreover, a free market can benefit from regulation and certain socialist policies (eg. transportation and education).
- techdragon 3y ago
  Oh it’s got a few solutions… but you’re probably not going to like them… there’s the whole 13th amendment issue for starters…
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Free market is a kind of natural selection. People with inner desire to procreate will spread themselves, people without it won't. Pro-natalist cultures (e. g. orthodox jews) will procreate as well. This inner desire wasn't selected for strongly in the past because there were other mechanisms to nudge people to procreate (social norms, lack of birth control), but I expect it will play a much bigger role in the following generations.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > Free market is a kind of natural selection. People with inner desire to procreate will spread themselves, What does free market have to with it?
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  Well technically those who seek to gain from people having children would want to generate som marketing/propaganda that encourages having kids. Families want big safe cars and would pay a premium for that, singles would be more enclined to drive in old used cars, so theres the car industry. Families usually wants big houses so there that, diaper industry etc.
dmurray 3y ago
> We mostly failed to create that world and those circumstances. If tou want to know what a solution looks like look at western democracies with high birth rates. E.g. France, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark. Those countries all have a fertility rate [0] almost identical to the US - three of them are lower if you look at 2020 figures. All of them have been relying on immigration [1] to maintain their demographics, with various levels of backlash in recent years. The US is still ahead of all but Ireland on that immigration list. In Ireland at least, the narrative around the "housing crisis" and people being priced out of starting families is far stronger than what I get from US media. So I think you need to look elsewhere. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_f... [1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/net-migration-rate/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/net-migration-r...
opportune 3y ago
Capitalism does not tell us we should live our best life. I think there are strong arguments that capitalism (particularly concentrated private investment in housing) causes low birth rates, but I don’t think capitalism itself causes some kind of consumption-fueled decadence causing us to prioritize fun over children.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Except that consumption is exactly what capitalism drives - particularly manufacturing, where a relatively fixed amount of capital (factories & machinery) can drive higher overall profits if more products are made for people to consume - even if those people don't actually need the products. Apparently (I can't find the source for this, but it stuck in my mind), faced with a glut of production after WW2, the US could either consume more, or work less. The choice was made to consume more, not least because the industrialists could cream off a larger slice of the pie that way.
  - NeuNeurosis 3y ago
    I think you are referencing Keynes idea of less work from all the abundance that that the modern industrial society could create. https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we... http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
  - opportune 3y ago
    Having children still fuels consumption though. The difference is what is being consumed vs if that consumption spending were not spent on children. I think you are mixing up the colloquial definition of consumption of ie random plastic crap with the economic definition that is very broad and includes things like paying teachers. Similarly regarding manufacturing and production glute, if the hard capital is fixed then so too typically is the hard production (not the case for many kinds of capital but it is for manufacturing) or at least capped. Just like with consumption, it’s a problem of what portion of capital is being expended on increasing production of things for children (housing, schools, kid stuff) or not. In both cases this is ultimately driven by the supply and demand stemming from parents themselves. But I don’t think there is a feedback loop because capitalism does not itself care whether capital goes to kids or not, only whether there is enough demand for capital expenditure to be profitable.
te_chris 3y ago
New Zealand and Ireland? You're wildly off. Both countries extremely expensive and hard to get by in.
prawn 3y ago
Here's my related guess: many people want to wait until they feel in an appropriate position personally and financially before they have children. That might mean earning a certain amount or feeling like they have a foothold in home ownership or waiting for a future renovation. Only, the world in 2010+ constantly exposes you to bigger options on top of the issue of housing affordability: more adventures, more expensive furnishings, stories of others' salaries, etc. It would be quite easy to push back child-rearing for 5 or more years if you didn't feel like you were quite where you wanted to be, or wonder if you'll ever get there.
- anavette 3y ago
  It's very interesting how this thread treats the decision to have children as a purely rational, logistical one. I would argue it is not entirely rational/logical.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - foobarchu 3y ago
    It also seems pretty straightforward to me that when a person is constantly badgered to justify why they don't have kids, and nobody accepts the simple answer "I don't want kids", they'll probably come up with socioeconomic reasons like these just to get people off their back, but I see only talk like "they just want to keep their Netflix and travel lifestyles" and "housing market/economy"

by atoav 3y ago

sangnoir 3y ago

> Kids cost time and energy and capitalism tells us we should live our best lives. Thought experiment for all the unrestrained free-market folk: how can the free hand of the market can solve for low birthrates? Bonus points if the solution doesn't involve government-issued visas.

namdnay 3y ago
> Thought experiment for all the unrestrained free-market folk: how can the free hand of the market can solve for low birthrates tax cuts for families, subisidies for child birth and care - none of these are contrary to the idea of a free competitive market
- echelon 3y ago
  > tax cuts for families, subisidies for child birth and care - none of these are contrary to the idea of a free competitive market Moreover, a free market can benefit from regulation and certain socialist policies (eg. transportation and education).
techdragon 3y ago
Oh it’s got a few solutions… but you’re probably not going to like them… there’s the whole 13th amendment issue for starters…
The_Colonel 3y ago
Free market is a kind of natural selection. People with inner desire to procreate will spread themselves, people without it won't. Pro-natalist cultures (e. g. orthodox jews) will procreate as well. This inner desire wasn't selected for strongly in the past because there were other mechanisms to nudge people to procreate (social norms, lack of birth control), but I expect it will play a much bigger role in the following generations.
- troupo 3y ago
  > Free market is a kind of natural selection. People with inner desire to procreate will spread themselves, What does free market have to with it?
ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
Well technically those who seek to gain from people having children would want to generate som marketing/propaganda that encourages having kids. Families want big safe cars and would pay a premium for that, singles would be more enclined to drive in old used cars, so theres the car industry. Families usually wants big houses so there that, diaper industry etc.

dmurray 3y ago

> We mostly failed to create that world and those circumstances. If tou want to know what a solution looks like look at western democracies with high birth rates. E.g. France, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark. Those countries all have a fertility rate [0] almost identical to the US - three of them are lower if you look at 2020 figures. All of them have been relying on immigration [1] to maintain their demographics, with various levels of backlash in recent years. The US is still ahead of all but Ireland on that immigration list. In Ireland at least, the narrative around the "housing crisis" and people being priced out of starting families is far stronger than what I get from US media. So I think you need to look elsewhere. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_f... [1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/net-migration-rate/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/net-migration-r...

opportune 3y ago

Capitalism does not tell us we should live our best life. I think there are strong arguments that capitalism (particularly concentrated private investment in housing) causes low birth rates, but I don’t think capitalism itself causes some kind of consumption-fueled decadence causing us to prioritize fun over children.

somewhereoutth 3y ago
Except that consumption is exactly what capitalism drives - particularly manufacturing, where a relatively fixed amount of capital (factories & machinery) can drive higher overall profits if more products are made for people to consume - even if those people don't actually need the products. Apparently (I can't find the source for this, but it stuck in my mind), faced with a glut of production after WW2, the US could either consume more, or work less. The choice was made to consume more, not least because the industrialists could cream off a larger slice of the pie that way.
- NeuNeurosis 3y ago
  I think you are referencing Keynes idea of less work from all the abundance that that the modern industrial society could create. https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we... http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
- opportune 3y ago
  Having children still fuels consumption though. The difference is what is being consumed vs if that consumption spending were not spent on children. I think you are mixing up the colloquial definition of consumption of ie random plastic crap with the economic definition that is very broad and includes things like paying teachers. Similarly regarding manufacturing and production glute, if the hard capital is fixed then so too typically is the hard production (not the case for many kinds of capital but it is for manufacturing) or at least capped. Just like with consumption, it’s a problem of what portion of capital is being expended on increasing production of things for children (housing, schools, kid stuff) or not. In both cases this is ultimately driven by the supply and demand stemming from parents themselves. But I don’t think there is a feedback loop because capitalism does not itself care whether capital goes to kids or not, only whether there is enough demand for capital expenditure to be profitable.

te_chris 3y ago

New Zealand and Ireland? You're wildly off. Both countries extremely expensive and hard to get by in.

prawn 3y ago

Here's my related guess: many people want to wait until they feel in an appropriate position personally and financially before they have children. That might mean earning a certain amount or feeling like they have a foothold in home ownership or waiting for a future renovation. Only, the world in 2010+ constantly exposes you to bigger options on top of the issue of housing affordability: more adventures, more expensive furnishings, stories of others' salaries, etc. It would be quite easy to push back child-rearing for 5 or more years if you didn't feel like you were quite where you wanted to be, or wonder if you'll ever get there.

anavette 3y ago
It's very interesting how this thread treats the decision to have children as a purely rational, logistical one. I would argue it is not entirely rational/logical.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarchu 3y ago
  It also seems pretty straightforward to me that when a person is constantly badgered to justify why they don't have kids, and nobody accepts the simple answer "I don't want kids", they'll probably come up with socioeconomic reasons like these just to get people off their back, but I see only talk like "they just want to keep their Netflix and travel lifestyles" and "housing market/economy"