4 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoThen 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 agoI 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> the natality discussion is about getting a birth rate bigger than some other country Having fertility rate of around 2.1 to produce a stable population level is ideal. Otherwise you eventually end up with exponential problems one way or another.
- spacebanana7 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 I think Hungary may have already reached this level. Families can get income tax reductions / exemptions, maternity leave, childcare support, preferential mortgagee rates and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary