4 ms·

I think if everyone in the country could easily afford a 5 bedroom house on one person's salary, and they deeply felt like their kids would grow up safe and hea

I think if everyone in the country could easily afford a 5 bedroom house on one person's salary, and they deeply felt like their kids would grow up safe and healthy environment, we'd have a population explosion. The decline is caused by a population that cannot afford enough and is constantly panicked over global events. Everyone is presented with terror of doom constantly, and squeezed by a major shift of resources from labor to capital holders. The rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer. A family of rabbits without enough quiet, food, shelter, etc will have hardly any babies. The mother will also eat any babies.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
You really think women, on average, would be willing to sacrifice 6+ years at the minimum to have 3 children? It’s easy for us, men, to say that. But all my girl friends around my age group (late 20s-early 40s) are generally happy with 0-2 children. Genuinely nothing is stopping them other than “why do I need to make that sacrifice?” question. I will never blame them either, because I would do exactly the same in their place. It is the most logical thing to do. It’s either we make women’s lives objectively worse, or figure out a way where we can live without everyone going for 3+.
- lmm 2y ago
  Dig into what exactly is it they would be sacrificing. The actual day-to-day raising of children is fulfilling and positive. The cost is mostly worries that are partly financial and more social - falling behind in your career, not being able to maintain friendships, not being able to spend enough time with your existing kids, not being able to afford to give your new kids a good childhood, not being able to put all your kids through college, not being able to afford retirement.
  - bad_haircut72 2y ago
    Everyone says this until they have kids, and I think they forget once their kid reaches about 5. I currently have a 1 year old and parenting duties are rough, and we have only one kid and my wife is a stay at home mom, its still super tough and I can absolutely imagine why many women would not want to have to raise children no matter how good the circumstances
    - graemep 2y ago
      I have kids and I disagree. I have been the primary parent for much of their lives and an am single parent of a teenager (the other one is an adult). Its not easy, but its worth it. Far more so that putting long hours into your job. > I can absolutely imagine why many women would not want to have to raise children no matter how good the circumstances That sentiment is part of the problem. Why is it still women's work to raise children? Why are there so few stay at home days? Why do couples not sharing parenting equally if both work? Why do not not have more famimly friendly working hours? We have currently culturally accepted that its OK for women to do traditionally male work, but not for men to take on women's work. That will not work. I think this is unstable and we will have either a reversal (of which I see some signs) or a transition to men taking on more of a role in raising children (which is the better outcome, but I think is less likely because it is so ingrained that they do not).
      - tokioyoyo 2y ago
        See, I completely agree with you, but it’s one of the “it’s a nice thing to say but never really works out”. Even in countries with extreme demographic problems (SK and Japan), men still expect the women to take over the main duties of parenthood. And if women know that they’ll just burden themselves with multiple kids with not enough support from their partner… why would they do it? Can’t blame them, because we might say one thing, but super majority works out differently in practice, so odds are against you.
        graemep 2y ago
        I ended up in much the same position, and still think its worth it. > Even in countries with extreme demographic problems (SK and Japan), men still expect the women to take over the main duties of parenthood. Maybe that is why they have extreme demographic problems? People choose to have kids for personal reasons, not demographic ones. Why can we not have that cultural change? We managed the one that allowed women to do men's work? Everyones wins. men get the joy of full participation in their kids lives, women are not landed with all the work, and children get better parenting.
      - 2y ago
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    And the cost to a woman’s body, during and after pregnancy, including risks? I know a pregnant woman has been nauseous for 6 months, is on prescription medication for it, and now can barely walk due to symphysis pubic dysfunction. Completely healthy prior to becoming pregnant in terms of BMI/blood sugar/pressure/physical activity/etc I know many who have had to get a C section, or bed rest, or the kid has issues like allergies, club foot, autism, etc.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > And the cost to a woman’s body, during and after pregnancy, including risks? Is very real, but significantly lower for later pregnancies, and was generally not something that put people off in more prosperous times, even when medical care was less advanced.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        Women only gained rights recently, how could one know that? There is a 100% correlation with total fertility rates dropping and women’s independence.
      - tokioyoyo 2y ago
        I think you’re not factoring in the other choice - not having kids and not having those problems, lower or later in life. Hanging around with educated women in their 20s/30s, and that’s a very real concern.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  > "why do I need to make that sacrifice?" No one does need to make that sacrifice, but don't be alarmed when other groups that made that sacrifice start changing world how they see fit.
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    That’s kinda an irrational statement especially towards the ones that had a kid or two, no? Like even statistically speaking, majority in the west does not have 2+ children. So, like, they’re more likely to change the world as they fit.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      I think it's rational if a bit cold. Subreplacement level fertility is bound to bound to bite you. We don't know of any way to turn subreplacement country (fertility rate < 2.1) into a above replacement country (fertility rate >= 2.1). Just how to mitigate it (immigration). Eventually pools of high fertility will run dry. Some think that it depends on replacing individualism with some form of collectivism. Some think it's related to hope for future. It's very hard to do any comparison.
elzbardico 2y ago
Yeah. It’s pretty hard to want to have lots of kids when the whole of the economy is designed to transfer all current productive resources as much as possible to leisure obsessed boomers. Kind of depressing when you realize you’re designing CPUs with billions of transistors and yet you’re going to end behind some retired boomer who sold cars just because he got here first and the magic of compound interest
Enginerrrd 2y ago
My understanding is that research does not support this position. Something else is likely going on.

tokioyoyo 2y ago

You really think women, on average, would be willing to sacrifice 6+ years at the minimum to have 3 children? It’s easy for us, men, to say that. But all my girl friends around my age group (late 20s-early 40s) are generally happy with 0-2 children. Genuinely nothing is stopping them other than “why do I need to make that sacrifice?” question. I will never blame them either, because I would do exactly the same in their place. It is the most logical thing to do. It’s either we make women’s lives objectively worse, or figure out a way where we can live without everyone going for 3+.

lmm 2y ago
Dig into what exactly is it they would be sacrificing. The actual day-to-day raising of children is fulfilling and positive. The cost is mostly worries that are partly financial and more social - falling behind in your career, not being able to maintain friendships, not being able to spend enough time with your existing kids, not being able to afford to give your new kids a good childhood, not being able to put all your kids through college, not being able to afford retirement.
- bad_haircut72 2y ago
  Everyone says this until they have kids, and I think they forget once their kid reaches about 5. I currently have a 1 year old and parenting duties are rough, and we have only one kid and my wife is a stay at home mom, its still super tough and I can absolutely imagine why many women would not want to have to raise children no matter how good the circumstances
  - graemep 2y ago
    I have kids and I disagree. I have been the primary parent for much of their lives and an am single parent of a teenager (the other one is an adult). Its not easy, but its worth it. Far more so that putting long hours into your job. > I can absolutely imagine why many women would not want to have to raise children no matter how good the circumstances That sentiment is part of the problem. Why is it still women's work to raise children? Why are there so few stay at home days? Why do couples not sharing parenting equally if both work? Why do not not have more famimly friendly working hours? We have currently culturally accepted that its OK for women to do traditionally male work, but not for men to take on women's work. That will not work. I think this is unstable and we will have either a reversal (of which I see some signs) or a transition to men taking on more of a role in raising children (which is the better outcome, but I think is less likely because it is so ingrained that they do not).
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      See, I completely agree with you, but it’s one of the “it’s a nice thing to say but never really works out”. Even in countries with extreme demographic problems (SK and Japan), men still expect the women to take over the main duties of parenthood. And if women know that they’ll just burden themselves with multiple kids with not enough support from their partner… why would they do it? Can’t blame them, because we might say one thing, but super majority works out differently in practice, so odds are against you.
      - graemep 2y ago
        I ended up in much the same position, and still think its worth it. > Even in countries with extreme demographic problems (SK and Japan), men still expect the women to take over the main duties of parenthood. Maybe that is why they have extreme demographic problems? People choose to have kids for personal reasons, not demographic ones. Why can we not have that cultural change? We managed the one that allowed women to do men's work? Everyones wins. men get the joy of full participation in their kids lives, women are not landed with all the work, and children get better parenting.
    - 2y ago
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  And the cost to a woman’s body, during and after pregnancy, including risks? I know a pregnant woman has been nauseous for 6 months, is on prescription medication for it, and now can barely walk due to symphysis pubic dysfunction. Completely healthy prior to becoming pregnant in terms of BMI/blood sugar/pressure/physical activity/etc I know many who have had to get a C section, or bed rest, or the kid has issues like allergies, club foot, autism, etc.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > And the cost to a woman’s body, during and after pregnancy, including risks? Is very real, but significantly lower for later pregnancies, and was generally not something that put people off in more prosperous times, even when medical care was less advanced.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Women only gained rights recently, how could one know that? There is a 100% correlation with total fertility rates dropping and women’s independence.
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      I think you’re not factoring in the other choice - not having kids and not having those problems, lower or later in life. Hanging around with educated women in their 20s/30s, and that’s a very real concern.
Ygg2 2y ago
> "why do I need to make that sacrifice?" No one does need to make that sacrifice, but don't be alarmed when other groups that made that sacrifice start changing world how they see fit.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  That’s kinda an irrational statement especially towards the ones that had a kid or two, no? Like even statistically speaking, majority in the west does not have 2+ children. So, like, they’re more likely to change the world as they fit.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    I think it's rational if a bit cold. Subreplacement level fertility is bound to bound to bite you. We don't know of any way to turn subreplacement country (fertility rate < 2.1) into a above replacement country (fertility rate >= 2.1). Just how to mitigate it (immigration). Eventually pools of high fertility will run dry. Some think that it depends on replacing individualism with some form of collectivism. Some think it's related to hope for future. It's very hard to do any comparison.

elzbardico 2y ago

Yeah. It’s pretty hard to want to have lots of kids when the whole of the economy is designed to transfer all current productive resources as much as possible to leisure obsessed boomers. Kind of depressing when you realize you’re designing CPUs with billions of transistors and yet you’re going to end behind some retired boomer who sold cars just because he got here first and the magic of compound interest

Enginerrrd 2y ago

My understanding is that research does not support this position. Something else is likely going on.