3 ms·

> Pick up a copy of Empty Planet Haven't read this, thanks for the recommendation. > Once a woman receives enough information and autonomy to make an informed

> Pick up a copy of Empty Planet Haven't read this, thanks for the recommendation. > Once a woman receives enough information and autonomy to make an informed and self-directed choice about when to have children, and how many to have, she immediately has fewer of them, and has them later. I do not agree with this premise. > adults under 50 who say they’re unlikely to ever have kids say a major reason is they just don’t want to This is like asking the anorexic why they don't eat and believing them when they tell you that they're "just not hungry".

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Reality stands on its own without belief in it. Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy, it does not materially improve the fertility rate. I ask, out of curiosity, what you do believe the culprit is and what your data to back the assertion is (if the cause is not empowered women making fertility choices). https://reason.com/2023/05/02/storks-dont-take-orders-from-the-state/ https://reason.com/2023/05/02/storks-dont-take-orders-from-t... ("South Korea spent more than $200 billion subsidizing child care and parental leave over the past 16 years, President Yoon Suk Yeol said last fall. Yet the fertility rate fell from 1.1 in 2006 to 0.81 in 2021. The amount of money required to trigger even these small effects is enormous. In "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies," published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2017, researchers found "one extra percentage point of GDP spending" on early childhood education and child care programs was "associated with 0.2 extra children per woman." In the U.S., where the 2022 GDP was $25.46 trillion, that would mean spending more than $250 billion.") https://www.nber.org/papers/w23051 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23051 ("The Economic Consequences of Family Policies: Lessons from a Century of Legislation in High-Income Countries")
- RGamma 2y ago
  Kinda wonder if/how we could/should turn having (and caring for!) children into its own serious career. As in: Have 8 well-tended children and you're top 10% of disposable income (someone needs to work out the math on this).
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > Reality stands on its own without belief in it. What data? > Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy, it does not materially improve the fertility rate. I'm aware of this. I even understand why... it's not that difficult. While it probably remains true that you can bribe someone to raise a child, the monetary amount required isn't a few thousand bucks. But if a government needs 100,000 babies to be born, they also can't afford to pay $1 billion each. So they cheapskate out, and we get bribes far too small to make any difference. (One might also wonder what "product quality" one would get in such circumstances.) > I ask, out of curiosity, what you do believe the culprit is A contagious mental illness. We know some mental illnesses to be contagious (teenage suicide, for instance). This is why the surveys are so useless. Psychology has already hinted that people often do not know why they make the decisions that they make and instead invent post hoc rationalizations after the fact. Asking them "why did you have no children" isn't going to elicit any useful information at all, any more than asking the 15 yr old why they attempted suicide after 3 other teens did so in nearby towns. > researchers found "one extra percentage point of GDP spending" on early childhood education and child care programs was "associated with 0.2 extra children per woman." The education itself isn't what causes this. But the public schools are the place where the contagion is endemic, and so that's where they're exposed to it. You'd find all sorts of strange differences if you knew where to look, I think. Girls who "graduated" illiterate without an education to speak of would have fertility rates just as low as high achievers, because they're still exposed to the contagion. I doubt that elite private schools are safe either, because though it would appear that those schools are disconnected from the system at large, they're still staffed by the same sorts of teachers and administrators moving back and forth between public and private schools as their career progresses. I should also point out that dissolving the public education system (even if that were feasible from a political standpoint) is unlikely to change things substantially. New vectors are arising, ready to take over. I don't think we can policy our way out of this.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy Nit: This patently does not exist. Zero countries pay or provide anywhere close to the actual cost of raising a child, let alone the lost opportunity of choosing to raise children vs living a life dedicated to yourself. That actual cost is horrifically high, but I promise you if it was offered, people would have more children. We WILL have to have that discussion eventually, unless we somehow return to a society where women are property and don't have rights, or unless we just outsource the whole baby making process to the places of the world that DO work like that, but people hate immigrants, especially when they are poor (for some fucking reason).
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I strongly agree, and that is a material component of this story: global depopulation is underway. Why? Because women can affirm their reproductive decisions now. We've built entire systems upon historical fertility assumptions, assumptions that did not assume women having agency at scale would lead to a rapid decline in fertility rates. Those systems are now in objective peril. Does the will exist to pay the "horrifically high" costs you mention? Based on all available evidence, that does not appear to be the case. There is enough will to loudly complain, but nothing can be done about it, nor would the costs ever be accepted as necessary by anyone with the power to accept said costs and institute said costly policy. That's the story, in my humble opinion. Not that depopulation is underway, but that nothing can be done about it, and any policy put forth to try to do something about it would be so expensive as to be deemed impossible.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Reality stands on its own without belief in it. Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy, it does not materially improve the fertility rate. I ask, out of curiosity, what you do believe the culprit is and what your data to back the assertion is (if the cause is not empowered women making fertility choices). https://reason.com/2023/05/02/storks-dont-take-orders-from-the-state/ https://reason.com/2023/05/02/storks-dont-take-orders-from-t... ("South Korea spent more than $200 billion subsidizing child care and parental leave over the past 16 years, President Yoon Suk Yeol said last fall. Yet the fertility rate fell from 1.1 in 2006 to 0.81 in 2021. The amount of money required to trigger even these small effects is enormous. In "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies," published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2017, researchers found "one extra percentage point of GDP spending" on early childhood education and child care programs was "associated with 0.2 extra children per woman." In the U.S., where the 2022 GDP was $25.46 trillion, that would mean spending more than $250 billion.") https://www.nber.org/papers/w23051 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23051 ("The Economic Consequences of Family Policies: Lessons from a Century of Legislation in High-Income Countries")

RGamma 2y ago
Kinda wonder if/how we could/should turn having (and caring for!) children into its own serious career. As in: Have 8 well-tended children and you're top 10% of disposable income (someone needs to work out the math on this).
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Reality stands on its own without belief in it. What data? > Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy, it does not materially improve the fertility rate. I'm aware of this. I even understand why... it's not that difficult. While it probably remains true that you can bribe someone to raise a child, the monetary amount required isn't a few thousand bucks. But if a government needs 100,000 babies to be born, they also can't afford to pay $1 billion each. So they cheapskate out, and we get bribes far too small to make any difference. (One might also wonder what "product quality" one would get in such circumstances.) > I ask, out of curiosity, what you do believe the culprit is A contagious mental illness. We know some mental illnesses to be contagious (teenage suicide, for instance). This is why the surveys are so useless. Psychology has already hinted that people often do not know why they make the decisions that they make and instead invent post hoc rationalizations after the fact. Asking them "why did you have no children" isn't going to elicit any useful information at all, any more than asking the 15 yr old why they attempted suicide after 3 other teens did so in nearby towns. > researchers found "one extra percentage point of GDP spending" on early childhood education and child care programs was "associated with 0.2 extra children per woman." The education itself isn't what causes this. But the public schools are the place where the contagion is endemic, and so that's where they're exposed to it. You'd find all sorts of strange differences if you knew where to look, I think. Girls who "graduated" illiterate without an education to speak of would have fertility rates just as low as high achievers, because they're still exposed to the contagion. I doubt that elite private schools are safe either, because though it would appear that those schools are disconnected from the system at large, they're still staffed by the same sorts of teachers and administrators moving back and forth between public and private schools as their career progresses. I should also point out that dissolving the public education system (even if that were feasible from a political standpoint) is unlikely to change things substantially. New vectors are arising, ready to take over. I don't think we can policy our way out of this.
mrguyorama 2y ago
>Even in countries with robust (ie expensive) pro natalist fiscal policy Nit: This patently does not exist. Zero countries pay or provide anywhere close to the actual cost of raising a child, let alone the lost opportunity of choosing to raise children vs living a life dedicated to yourself. That actual cost is horrifically high, but I promise you if it was offered, people would have more children. We WILL have to have that discussion eventually, unless we somehow return to a society where women are property and don't have rights, or unless we just outsource the whole baby making process to the places of the world that DO work like that, but people hate immigrants, especially when they are poor (for some fucking reason).
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I strongly agree, and that is a material component of this story: global depopulation is underway. Why? Because women can affirm their reproductive decisions now. We've built entire systems upon historical fertility assumptions, assumptions that did not assume women having agency at scale would lead to a rapid decline in fertility rates. Those systems are now in objective peril. Does the will exist to pay the "horrifically high" costs you mention? Based on all available evidence, that does not appear to be the case. There is enough will to loudly complain, but nothing can be done about it, nor would the costs ever be accepted as necessary by anyone with the power to accept said costs and institute said costly policy. That's the story, in my humble opinion. Not that depopulation is underway, but that nothing can be done about it, and any policy put forth to try to do something about it would be so expensive as to be deemed impossible.