4 ms·

>no one has an answer. We all know what the answer is, we just don't want to admit it: Poverty. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see that the poo

>no one has an answer. We all know what the answer is, we just don't want to admit it: Poverty. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see that the poorer countries have higher birth rates. The richer you become the less babies you will have; Japan is the 4th largest economy in the world and they have the cratering birth rate to match. The problem is rightfully nobody wants to live in poverty.

throwaway48476 2y ago
The problem isn't poverty but hyper competition. Everyone can see the cost/benefit of everything needed to give their child the best shot. They compare their resources to the resources needed to compete in the top~5%. In Asia it's tutors, after school school etc. In America it's funding the kind of hobby that looks good on a college application. A century of propaganda is that there is no place for average people anymore, which is statistically ignorant at best.
randomdata 2y ago
> We all know what the answer is, we just don't want to admit it: Poverty. So close, yet so far. The actual solution is to allow children to be a tangible benefit to parents. Those in impoverished countries have more children, not because of poverty itself, but because poverty means they have strong incentive to put the children to work and reap the benefits of that labour. Children make them richer (not rich, but richer than they would be without children). In our society, children generally make the parents poorer. To the point that "think tanks" love to make it known exactly how much poorer a family can expect to be. Forcing the first world into poverty, but without changing laws and other social norms, wouldn't make much difference as the children would still be left to be useless lumps who do nothing but sit around in a school all day. Who wants to produce a useless lump? And if you do for some reason, your backyard woodworking shop is just as good at producing useless lumps at a fraction of the cost.
- kredd 2y ago
  I agree about making children to be a net benefit for parents, but at the same time it’s hard to make it net benefit. It’s a biological problem - limited time window when you can have children and socially accepted (let’s randomly say 20-35). If you want above replacement level, a couple needs to have 3 children, so have to sacrifice 6 years (pregnancy + 1st year). I’m just spitballing numbers here, so that’s about 40% of your younger years that are gone. In every single rich country, you have so many more opportunities to find fulfilment. To make it a net benefit you have to convince people having 3 children is better than 0, 1, or 2. And it’s very tough when you know the amount of sacrifices one has to make. In our countries we obviously don’t have the cultural or religious push to have my kids anymore. And younger generation wants it even less. The easiest way is to switch to “you have to have” children society, which sucks, and I wouldn’t want that either. I do think this problem will escalate in the next 10 years and people will take it more seriously since it’s starting to impact everyone economically.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >I do think this problem will escalate in the next 10 years I think low/declining birth rate is a self-solving problem (assuming it is a problem) that isn't worth crying bloody murder about. Why? Simple: The world will always be inherited by children, childless people literally have no equity in the future. Childless people cannot affect future birth rates, people with children can and the children will. The birth rate decline will eventually level out because life selects for people who have children.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      > Childless people cannot affect future birth rates That's not true. Maybe in a vacuum it's true, but those children don't exist in a vacuum, and as such, are human beings with agency which is influenced by people around them, including the childless people. If a childless person convinces the child to also not have kids, the child won't have kids, affecting future birth rates. If childless people make the world a bleak place, with climate change and politics, such that children who have grown into adults don't want to bring a child into the world, then they've affected future birth rates.
- BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
  In addition to children making you poorer, our workplaces are filled with people who deeply and visibly detest people who have children for their distraction from Everimportant Work. Everyone sees that, and it shapes their life choices. I find it VERY amusing when I see high profile elites who create these workaholic atmospheres bemoan the dropping birth rate.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  I don't think the available data actually shows that. In a wide array of simple societies -- whether the people's primary mode of production is agriculture, hunting, gathering nuts or shaking trees for breadfruit -- it turns out most people are not break even on calorie production until they are about 20! Children probably didn't ever -- or didn't often -- make anyone richer.
rayiner 2y ago
Define “poverty.” France and the U.S. were not impoverished countries in the early 2000s, but both had something approaching sustainable birth rates. In 2008, 26 states had above-replacement birth rates. And it wasn’t just impoverished immigrants propping up the rate: states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, the Dakotas, Alaska, Iowa, Idaho, Minnesota, etc., which are predominantly native-born people also had above-replacement birth rates.
themaninthedark 2y ago
I think that poverty is only part of the answer. Why would countries that have higher poverty have more children when children take up resources? Parents from wealthier countries should be having more kids, instead we see the opposite? In countries where agriculture is the main economy, more children equals more labor to run the farm. These countries tend to be poorer but we can look at the Amish and Mennonite communities in the US, they are not that poor but they often have large families. If we look at the factors in a post-industrial economy, are both parents working away from home? What education is expected for the children(parents pay for collage? Agriculture doesn't require that)? Think about the time and money sink for children activities that society put on the parents, need to have kids in sports, band, summer camp. We in the west have pushed for having both parents work, which make it very difficult for those who only want to have a single working parent household due to societal pressure and also economic pressure as well.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  In simple agricultural societies, primitive hunter-gatherer societies, feudal societies, &c, both parents generally work (or worked). It's just that they both worked in or near the home. Having a single-working-parent household has probably never been sustainable for any length of time, in any kind of society. Women generally contribute considerably to factors in the economy, whether it's stuff like nets and rush mats or ballpoint pens and machine-sewn shirts. What is different about industrial society is that parents can do basically no meaningful work around their children, and so they can't be available for their children, because not working is not an option.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    Correct and that is why I talked about both parents working away from home in an (post) industrialized society. Another point that should not be lost is that homemaking/homecare is a job abet not a GDP generating one. With some of our advancements; time savings(dishwashers, clothes dryers and washing machines), food logistics(grocery stores with fresh food vs growing & canning), fast fashion(cheap clothing) we have taken the job from being a full time position to part time. This triggers a shift in labor allocation, we now(ideally) split the part time job between the family members to allow the adults to focus on profit generating activities.

throwaway48476 2y ago

The problem isn't poverty but hyper competition. Everyone can see the cost/benefit of everything needed to give their child the best shot. They compare their resources to the resources needed to compete in the top~5%. In Asia it's tutors, after school school etc. In America it's funding the kind of hobby that looks good on a college application. A century of propaganda is that there is no place for average people anymore, which is statistically ignorant at best.

randomdata 2y ago

> We all know what the answer is, we just don't want to admit it: Poverty. So close, yet so far. The actual solution is to allow children to be a tangible benefit to parents. Those in impoverished countries have more children, not because of poverty itself, but because poverty means they have strong incentive to put the children to work and reap the benefits of that labour. Children make them richer (not rich, but richer than they would be without children). In our society, children generally make the parents poorer. To the point that "think tanks" love to make it known exactly how much poorer a family can expect to be. Forcing the first world into poverty, but without changing laws and other social norms, wouldn't make much difference as the children would still be left to be useless lumps who do nothing but sit around in a school all day. Who wants to produce a useless lump? And if you do for some reason, your backyard woodworking shop is just as good at producing useless lumps at a fraction of the cost.

kredd 2y ago
I agree about making children to be a net benefit for parents, but at the same time it’s hard to make it net benefit. It’s a biological problem - limited time window when you can have children and socially accepted (let’s randomly say 20-35). If you want above replacement level, a couple needs to have 3 children, so have to sacrifice 6 years (pregnancy + 1st year). I’m just spitballing numbers here, so that’s about 40% of your younger years that are gone. In every single rich country, you have so many more opportunities to find fulfilment. To make it a net benefit you have to convince people having 3 children is better than 0, 1, or 2. And it’s very tough when you know the amount of sacrifices one has to make. In our countries we obviously don’t have the cultural or religious push to have my kids anymore. And younger generation wants it even less. The easiest way is to switch to “you have to have” children society, which sucks, and I wouldn’t want that either. I do think this problem will escalate in the next 10 years and people will take it more seriously since it’s starting to impact everyone economically.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >I do think this problem will escalate in the next 10 years I think low/declining birth rate is a self-solving problem (assuming it is a problem) that isn't worth crying bloody murder about. Why? Simple: The world will always be inherited by children, childless people literally have no equity in the future. Childless people cannot affect future birth rates, people with children can and the children will. The birth rate decline will eventually level out because life selects for people who have children.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    > Childless people cannot affect future birth rates That's not true. Maybe in a vacuum it's true, but those children don't exist in a vacuum, and as such, are human beings with agency which is influenced by people around them, including the childless people. If a childless person convinces the child to also not have kids, the child won't have kids, affecting future birth rates. If childless people make the world a bleak place, with climate change and politics, such that children who have grown into adults don't want to bring a child into the world, then they've affected future birth rates.
BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
In addition to children making you poorer, our workplaces are filled with people who deeply and visibly detest people who have children for their distraction from Everimportant Work. Everyone sees that, and it shapes their life choices. I find it VERY amusing when I see high profile elites who create these workaholic atmospheres bemoan the dropping birth rate.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
solidsnack9000 2y ago
I don't think the available data actually shows that. In a wide array of simple societies -- whether the people's primary mode of production is agriculture, hunting, gathering nuts or shaking trees for breadfruit -- it turns out most people are not break even on calorie production until they are about 20! Children probably didn't ever -- or didn't often -- make anyone richer.

rayiner 2y ago

Define “poverty.” France and the U.S. were not impoverished countries in the early 2000s, but both had something approaching sustainable birth rates. In 2008, 26 states had above-replacement birth rates. And it wasn’t just impoverished immigrants propping up the rate: states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, the Dakotas, Alaska, Iowa, Idaho, Minnesota, etc., which are predominantly native-born people also had above-replacement birth rates.

themaninthedark 2y ago

I think that poverty is only part of the answer. Why would countries that have higher poverty have more children when children take up resources? Parents from wealthier countries should be having more kids, instead we see the opposite? In countries where agriculture is the main economy, more children equals more labor to run the farm. These countries tend to be poorer but we can look at the Amish and Mennonite communities in the US, they are not that poor but they often have large families. If we look at the factors in a post-industrial economy, are both parents working away from home? What education is expected for the children(parents pay for collage? Agriculture doesn't require that)? Think about the time and money sink for children activities that society put on the parents, need to have kids in sports, band, summer camp. We in the west have pushed for having both parents work, which make it very difficult for those who only want to have a single working parent household due to societal pressure and also economic pressure as well.

solidsnack9000 2y ago
In simple agricultural societies, primitive hunter-gatherer societies, feudal societies, &c, both parents generally work (or worked). It's just that they both worked in or near the home. Having a single-working-parent household has probably never been sustainable for any length of time, in any kind of society. Women generally contribute considerably to factors in the economy, whether it's stuff like nets and rush mats or ballpoint pens and machine-sewn shirts. What is different about industrial society is that parents can do basically no meaningful work around their children, and so they can't be available for their children, because not working is not an option.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  Correct and that is why I talked about both parents working away from home in an (post) industrialized society. Another point that should not be lost is that homemaking/homecare is a job abet not a GDP generating one. With some of our advancements; time savings(dishwashers, clothes dryers and washing machines), food logistics(grocery stores with fresh food vs growing & canning), fast fashion(cheap clothing) we have taken the job from being a full time position to part time. This triggers a shift in labor allocation, we now(ideally) split the part time job between the family members to allow the adults to focus on profit generating activities.