3 ms·

> What is the root issue here and what can be done to mitigate it? Nobody has a good answer for this. It's not about wealth. Huge amounts of money have been s

> What is the root issue here and what can be done to mitigate it? Nobody has a good answer for this. It's not about wealth. Huge amounts of money have been spent on incentive programs in Poland, Hungary and South Korea without success. Between countries, wealthier nations tend to have lower fertility rates. Eastern European countries tend to have lower house prices than France but also have lower fertility rates. It's not about religiosity. Qatar, Iran and the UAE all have negative fertility rates. As does Catholic Poland. It's not about social or employment policies. The Nordics have very generous maternity leave and benefits but still have terrible fertility. The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel.

demaga 2y ago
> The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel. Which is constantly at war(s). I wonder how long (20+ year) peace might affect Israel fertility rate.
MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
Exactly, there is a counter example for everyone's favourite theory. The only credible approach to this is issue can be found in this corner of the discourse: https://www.natalism.org/ https://www.natalism.org/
- piva00 2y ago
  Credible on what grounds? It's just another facet of the ignorance around the subject, no one has a good answer to what's happening and this Natalism movement is not it either.
- foldr 2y ago
  Apparently invited speaker Babygravy9 is one of the “brightest minds in the world”. Who’d have thought? https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571 https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571
  - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
    I can't speak to Babygravy9 mind or character, but if "being pleasant" is in any way related to intellect, Isaac Newton must have been a simpleton - he was a famously unpleasant and vindictive person.
    - foldr 2y ago
      We know that Isaac Newton wasn't a simpleton because he wrote the Principia. I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by this particular individual.
      - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
        I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by basically anyone alive.
        foldr 2y ago
        Ok. I guess it doesn't damage the credibility of this conference that they've invited an anonymous racist troll as one of their speakers because no-one is as smart as Isaac Newton.
        MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
        The era where activists were able to make this decision on behalf of everyone else is over, at least in the US - you'll have to decide for yourself. Balaji Srinivasan, Bryan Caplan, Kevin Dolan and Cremieux are quite bright and a good reason to attend, I don't know most of the others.
        foldr 2y ago
        I am not in the US. I have decided for myself on the basis that (i) the first word of the tweet I linked is a nasty ethnic slur and (ii) its contents are merely schadenfreude over someone's raw emotional outburst in response to a traumatic event. There cannot be a good reason to invite such a person to a conference except to send a clear signal about what kind of person is welcome there. I think you know all this, which is why you respond in such an oblique manner.
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  I'm sure this group of mostly far-right weirdos are definitely NOT going to approach the question of "Why don't women want to have more kids?" and end up with something that resembles the Handmaid's Tale. Absolutely not.
foldr 2y ago
One thing that doesn't seem to have been tried out very widely is making it a net economic benefit to have children. This used to sometimes be the case in the days when you could send your eight year old down the mine, etc. etc. But these days everyone in Western countries seems to take it as given that having children will lead to a reduction in disposable income and (especially if you are a woman) a possible career setback. The 'generous' countries you talk about just soften this blow in comparison to somewhere like the US. If the country needs more kids to secure its long term future, then the government should invest in this and (in effect) pay people to have them. I suspect that this would be an unpopular policy, as for whatever reason, people hate the idea of someone receiving lots of money from the government just because they have kids. They especially hate this idea when the person receiving the money is the person who did the hard work of childbirth. But anyone who thinks that low birth rates are a crisis ought to be open to this kind of solution. I also, frankly, would prefer it if my colleagues with kids took lots of subsidized time off work, had access to proper childcare, and then were fully present and focused when they actually were at work. (I am aware of the irony of complaining about people being unfocused while posting on HN during working hours :D)
- soco 2y ago
  Then we wouldn't be able to produce that much. The next question will be then, why should we produce more and more? All these ideas are based on constant growth, even the natality discussion is about getting a birth rate bigger than some other country. But can we grow forever? Or maybe we are approaching an inflexion point, and we should (sooner or later) adapt the thinking instead of the birth rates? Even the retirement benefits are not a god-given but a strategic planning and like just any planning it can be adapted. And also should, I think.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I agree. I don't necessarily think that low birth rates are a crisis. My point is that anyone who thinks that they are ought to be in favor of the government spending a lot of money to fix the crisis.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago

demaga 2y ago

> The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel. Which is constantly at war(s). I wonder how long (20+ year) peace might affect Israel fertility rate.

MrBuddyCasino 2y ago

Exactly, there is a counter example for everyone's favourite theory. The only credible approach to this is issue can be found in this corner of the discourse: https://www.natalism.org/ https://www.natalism.org/

piva00 2y ago
Credible on what grounds? It's just another facet of the ignorance around the subject, no one has a good answer to what's happening and this Natalism movement is not it either.
foldr 2y ago
Apparently invited speaker Babygravy9 is one of the “brightest minds in the world”. Who’d have thought? https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571 https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571
- MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
  I can't speak to Babygravy9 mind or character, but if "being pleasant" is in any way related to intellect, Isaac Newton must have been a simpleton - he was a famously unpleasant and vindictive person.
  - foldr 2y ago
    We know that Isaac Newton wasn't a simpleton because he wrote the Principia. I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by this particular individual.
    - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
      I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by basically anyone alive.
      - foldr 2y ago
        Ok. I guess it doesn't damage the credibility of this conference that they've invited an anonymous racist troll as one of their speakers because no-one is as smart as Isaac Newton.
        MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
        The era where activists were able to make this decision on behalf of everyone else is over, at least in the US - you'll have to decide for yourself. Balaji Srinivasan, Bryan Caplan, Kevin Dolan and Cremieux are quite bright and a good reason to attend, I don't know most of the others.
        foldr 2y ago
        I am not in the US. I have decided for myself on the basis that (i) the first word of the tweet I linked is a nasty ethnic slur and (ii) its contents are merely schadenfreude over someone's raw emotional outburst in response to a traumatic event. There cannot be a good reason to invite such a person to a conference except to send a clear signal about what kind of person is welcome there. I think you know all this, which is why you respond in such an oblique manner.
senordevnyc 2y ago
I'm sure this group of mostly far-right weirdos are definitely NOT going to approach the question of "Why don't women want to have more kids?" and end up with something that resembles the Handmaid's Tale. Absolutely not.

foldr 2y ago

One thing that doesn't seem to have been tried out very widely is making it a net economic benefit to have children. This used to sometimes be the case in the days when you could send your eight year old down the mine, etc. etc. But these days everyone in Western countries seems to take it as given that having children will lead to a reduction in disposable income and (especially if you are a woman) a possible career setback. The 'generous' countries you talk about just soften this blow in comparison to somewhere like the US. If the country needs more kids to secure its long term future, then the government should invest in this and (in effect) pay people to have them. I suspect that this would be an unpopular policy, as for whatever reason, people hate the idea of someone receiving lots of money from the government just because they have kids. They especially hate this idea when the person receiving the money is the person who did the hard work of childbirth. But anyone who thinks that low birth rates are a crisis ought to be open to this kind of solution. I also, frankly, would prefer it if my colleagues with kids took lots of subsidized time off work, had access to proper childcare, and then were fully present and focused when they actually were at work. (I am aware of the irony of complaining about people being unfocused while posting on HN during working hours :D)

soco 2y ago
Then we wouldn't be able to produce that much. The next question will be then, why should we produce more and more? All these ideas are based on constant growth, even the natality discussion is about getting a birth rate bigger than some other country. But can we grow forever? Or maybe we are approaching an inflexion point, and we should (sooner or later) adapt the thinking instead of the birth rates? Even the retirement benefits are not a god-given but a strategic planning and like just any planning it can be adapted. And also should, I think.
- foldr 2y ago
  I agree. I don't necessarily think that low birth rates are a crisis. My point is that anyone who thinks that they are ought to be in favor of the government spending a lot of money to fix the crisis.
- spacebanana7 2y ago