3 ms·

I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think it was pretty much established that money is not the primary reason people have less children. Perhaps obvious exa

I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think it was pretty much established that money is not the primary reason people have less children. Perhaps obvious example, in general it's the rich countries that have problems with replacement rate and the poor countries pick up the slack (and not the other way around). For a more direct example, the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit). So I think it's pretty clear we need other solution if we want to fix that.

dxdm 2y ago
> the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit) That doesn't say much on its own. We don't know how the birth rate would have behaved without that money. And even if that supposed stimulus did have no effect, it could also mean that it's simply not enough money to offset whatever factors cause people to have fewer children. I think the conclusion to draw is that wealth and economics likely play a role, but it's more complicated than can be sufficiently addressed with these kinds of cash handouts.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Throwing cash at a lack of babby has consistently failed to increase babby time and time again, regardless which country. There is quite literally not a single success story to cite. Whatever the factors are, throwing cash at the issue at best does nothing and at worst exacerbates it.