The data says that the benefits provided by the Scandinavian and European countries are not enough, or that providing benefits is not going to lift TFR to repla

The data says that the benefits provided by the Scandinavian and European countries are not enough, or that providing benefits is not going to lift TFR to replacement rate. And also TFR was declining a lot all the way back since the 1950s, when kids were not as daunting and real estate costs and schooling costs were lower and people were buying houses on single incomes. I have a suspicion that there is almost no amount of realistic benefits that can incentivize having sufficient kids to the level of replacement rate. The problem is that once sufficient women do not have 2 children, it is unrealistic to expect a sufficient amount of the remaining women to have 3+ children to offset those that have 0 or 1 child. The big change from 100 years ago is that being a couple is now completely optional with no social stigma for being single, so if 30% or even 20% opt out of the compromises required in a relationship (due to their financial independence and safety in society), then you're fighting a losing battle (to keep TFR at replacement rate).