5 ms·

> 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 bene

> 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.
  - kredd 2y ago
    Again, if every couple only had one child, we still would be having this issue, albeit slower. There’s no point in time we’ve had disproportionately high percentage older people either. Theoretically the issue might be resolved by itself, but it would be an incredibly tough road for everyone involved. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people who don’t want children right now. They don’t want it, again, because given current paradigm, it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. We can preach “no equity in the future” as much as we want, but in the real world, you don’t need it unless you’re subscribed to a specific cultural or moral belief. Also, the more childless people live through their lives and pave the way to emotional fulfilment, the more likely for others to follow.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. Funnily enough, that fact alone might be enough to reverse course! What we see over and over and over and over again throughout history is that the rich will do something that stands out and then the poor will try their best to emulate it; seemingly stemming from a subconscious (and perhaps sometimes conscious) "That must be why they are rich. If I do the same, I will become rich too!" In fact, I would argue that the fertility situation is just another example of that. When the rich were able to start choosing to not have children, they did, and the poor have been trying to do the same ever since. As suggested in earlier comments, it is quite clear that the no children/few children movement started with the rich, and now is working its way through the entire population. Like you imply, perhaps unintentionally, it has become assumed in our culture that the rich are rich because they don't have children. To the point that we see a lot of messaging towards our youth along the lines of "What about your education? Having children is throwing your future away." However, as we reach the long tail of the poor no longer having children, there is a pretty good chance that the rich will start having children again because they can – as a display of their opulence. Should that take hold, the poor will try everything they can to follow suit. They always do. And then... Problem solved.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Well, what's six years worth? Universities love to claim that a four year degree is worth around $1MM, so can we fairly say $1.5MM? Now, my six year old could definitely handle the work of my employees making $60-80k per year, legalities aside. If we stick with the social norm of 18 years of the child being an extension of the parent, that is 12 years of gains. If I recall, the cost to support a child is $4,000 per year[1], so let's say after 12 years one child will pay out $672,000[2]. $2MM from all three children. That's a $500,000 payday ($2MM less the $1.5MM opportunity cost) by the time your children have left the nest, or, as the universities like to calculate it, $8MM in additional lifetime earnings. I am quite certain that if you told would-be parents that they stand to gain a $8MM by having three children they would take notice! Trouble is, in rich countries that is unquestionably considered amoral, and is no doubt illegal. Without that changing, it is, indeed, hard to realize the benefit. But, by the same token, if you forced the people into poverty without a change in those legal and social norms, they're still not going to be able to realize the benefit. It is not poverty itself that is significant. [1] You will probably be more familiar with a figure around $13,000, but you will notice that it factors in things like the cost of housing, etc. While it is not unreasonable to include those things in certain contexts, for the sake of this discussion it would not be an additional cost. You're probably not venturing into the woods and living under the leaves if you don't have children. The housing cost is there with or without them. [2] It is more complicated than that, I know. But, for the sake of illustration let's run with it.
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.

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.
- kredd 2y ago
  Again, if every couple only had one child, we still would be having this issue, albeit slower. There’s no point in time we’ve had disproportionately high percentage older people either. Theoretically the issue might be resolved by itself, but it would be an incredibly tough road for everyone involved. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people who don’t want children right now. They don’t want it, again, because given current paradigm, it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. We can preach “no equity in the future” as much as we want, but in the real world, you don’t need it unless you’re subscribed to a specific cultural or moral belief. Also, the more childless people live through their lives and pave the way to emotional fulfilment, the more likely for others to follow.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. Funnily enough, that fact alone might be enough to reverse course! What we see over and over and over and over again throughout history is that the rich will do something that stands out and then the poor will try their best to emulate it; seemingly stemming from a subconscious (and perhaps sometimes conscious) "That must be why they are rich. If I do the same, I will become rich too!" In fact, I would argue that the fertility situation is just another example of that. When the rich were able to start choosing to not have children, they did, and the poor have been trying to do the same ever since. As suggested in earlier comments, it is quite clear that the no children/few children movement started with the rich, and now is working its way through the entire population. Like you imply, perhaps unintentionally, it has become assumed in our culture that the rich are rich because they don't have children. To the point that we see a lot of messaging towards our youth along the lines of "What about your education? Having children is throwing your future away." However, as we reach the long tail of the poor no longer having children, there is a pretty good chance that the rich will start having children again because they can – as a display of their opulence. Should that take hold, the poor will try everything they can to follow suit. They always do. And then... Problem solved.
randomdata 2y ago
Well, what's six years worth? Universities love to claim that a four year degree is worth around $1MM, so can we fairly say $1.5MM? Now, my six year old could definitely handle the work of my employees making $60-80k per year, legalities aside. If we stick with the social norm of 18 years of the child being an extension of the parent, that is 12 years of gains. If I recall, the cost to support a child is $4,000 per year[1], so let's say after 12 years one child will pay out $672,000[2]. $2MM from all three children. That's a $500,000 payday ($2MM less the $1.5MM opportunity cost) by the time your children have left the nest, or, as the universities like to calculate it, $8MM in additional lifetime earnings. I am quite certain that if you told would-be parents that they stand to gain a $8MM by having three children they would take notice! Trouble is, in rich countries that is unquestionably considered amoral, and is no doubt illegal. Without that changing, it is, indeed, hard to realize the benefit. But, by the same token, if you forced the people into poverty without a change in those legal and social norms, they're still not going to be able to realize the benefit. It is not poverty itself that is significant. [1] You will probably be more familiar with a figure around $13,000, but you will notice that it factors in things like the cost of housing, etc. While it is not unreasonable to include those things in certain contexts, for the sake of this discussion it would not be an additional cost. You're probably not venturing into the woods and living under the leaves if you don't have children. The housing cost is there with or without them. [2] It is more complicated than that, I know. But, for the sake of illustration let's run with it.

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.