3 ms·

Why family-friendly policies don't boost birth rates

2 points by yamrzou 3y ago

yamrzou 3y ago
https://archive.is/dXpQf https://archive.is/dXpQf
hunglee2 3y ago
the inevitable conclusion is: sex was a trick to get us to reproduce - we like the former, but don't really want the latter. Contraception has disrupted this equation and now fhere likely is no way of going back. Artificial wombs might be a good long term investment
- Ekaros 3y ago
  There is likely a sub-set that strives to get lot of children. This could be driven by biological and/or cultural source. But there is also large set that don't... So it there might eventually be increase in rate of child production. The length interim time is however very good question.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Not sure why family-friendly policies should want to do that. You want existing children to thrive. Encouraging more is another kettle of fish entirely?
silverquiet 3y ago
> In their 2019 book, Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti theorise that the realisation a comfortable life has become impossible to attain without a top-quality education has sparked intense status competition between parents. They feel compelled to invest huge amounts of time and effort into optimising their kids’ upbringing. This may have become a deterrent. This paragraph seems to contradict the thesis of the article that this is a cultural shift as opposed to an economic one. Or perhaps culture is downstream from economics.
bell-cot 3y ago
This really ain't a magically-uncrackable nut: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nagi%2C%20japan https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nagi%2C%20japan But, that I have knowledge of, the reality of "family-friendly policies" is always "that's nice, but...". Politicians make a big show of kinda-addressing a few of the barriers to having a bunch of kids. Then loudly congratulate themselves...and walk away. Leaving huge barriers to anyone who's actually interested in having kids. Starting back in early-1940's America, with minimal family wealth and a pretty modest job, my own parents had & raised 6 kids. And paid for our college educations. In modern America - considering just the costs of medical care, housing, and college - could anyone outside of the top 1% even dream of doing that? But, conveniently, there are massive entrenched interests behind the vastly higher modern costs of medical care, housing, and college. Interests that really don't give a sh*t about making "have a decent-sized family" affordable for the 99%.

2 points by yamrzou 3y ago

https://archive.is/dXpQf https://archive.is/dXpQf

the inevitable conclusion is: sex was a trick to get us to reproduce - we like the former, but don't really want the latter. Contraception has disrupted this equation and now fhere likely is no way of going back. Artificial wombs might be a good long term investment

Ekaros 3y ago
There is likely a sub-set that strives to get lot of children. This could be driven by biological and/or cultural source. But there is also large set that don't... So it there might eventually be increase in rate of child production. The length interim time is however very good question.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Not sure why family-friendly policies should want to do that. You want existing children to thrive. Encouraging more is another kettle of fish entirely?

silverquiet 3y ago

> In their 2019 book, Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti theorise that the realisation a comfortable life has become impossible to attain without a top-quality education has sparked intense status competition between parents. They feel compelled to invest huge amounts of time and effort into optimising their kids’ upbringing. This may have become a deterrent. This paragraph seems to contradict the thesis of the article that this is a cultural shift as opposed to an economic one. Or perhaps culture is downstream from economics.

bell-cot 3y ago

This really ain't a magically-uncrackable nut: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nagi%2C%20japan https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nagi%2C%20japan But, that I have knowledge of, the reality of "family-friendly policies" is always "that's nice, but...". Politicians make a big show of kinda-addressing a few of the barriers to having a bunch of kids. Then loudly congratulate themselves...and walk away. Leaving huge barriers to anyone who's actually interested in having kids. Starting back in early-1940's America, with minimal family wealth and a pretty modest job, my own parents had & raised 6 kids. And paid for our college educations. In modern America - considering just the costs of medical care, housing, and college - could anyone outside of the top 1% even dream of doing that? But, conveniently, there are massive entrenched interests behind the vastly higher modern costs of medical care, housing, and college. Interests that really don't give a sh*t about making "have a decent-sized family" affordable for the 99%.