4 ms·

That at the end is a really strange take, providing a complex reason for what has a very simple explanation. The birthrates are plummeting because: * the proce

• mjburgess 2y ago
  You've missed the main reason: children were always a pension mechanism, and today we have socialized (, and private) pensions. There's no need to have children if you think, in the end, the state (, or you bank account) will look after you.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    Birthrates are declining in places (like the US) that do not have socialized pensions. (Social Security is not that... secure. And regardless, it's existed much longer than the recent birthrate decline here.)
    • mjburgess 2y ago
      Birthrates amongst the rich have been declining since the late 19th C. "Pension" is the answer, whether it's private or otherwise.
      • bojan 2y ago
        Because rich women started getting a choice then. Very little to do with "pension".
  • bojan 2y ago
    * take it from a young parent that also knows a lot of other young parents - that's really not the reason. We are older millennials, and none of us expects to have a liveable pension anyway, we all save separately for old age if we can. * it's not the "state" that is supposed to look out for you, but your own money invested during the career. I see that money subtracted from my paycheck every month. I only want the state to provide stability and security so that money can be put to good use.
  • Akasazh 2y ago
    Also, the church used to be a motivator for people to create offspring. With secularism rising, that influence wanes.
  • Ferret7446 2y ago
    I think you're missing that people generally and innately want children, irrespective of "pension". If people aren't having children, it is because of sufficient negative incentives, not because of "pension".
• addicted 2y ago
  Agreed with 2 & 3. Not as sure about 1. People are not having as many kids. And we haven’t seen a significant uptake of other forms of child bearing either. Options such as surrogacy, etc haven’t risen as much, and while those may be expensive, neither has adoption. So it’s not just the child bearing aspect, but the raising of a child that appears to be an issue as well.
  • bojan 2y ago
    Raising of a child, absolutely, yes, but childbearing is also an issue that shouldn't be underestimated. Regarding adoption, have you checked how extremely difficult and expensive it is to adopt? Surrogacy is simply not an option in many places.
  • watwut 2y ago
    Surrogacy still requires a woman to do the childbirth thing. Just a different woman. There is no etc here, kids exist because someone was pregnant.
• adrian_b 2y ago
  > our economic system actively punishes people who do choose to have kids This is likely true in USA, but false in many other countries. There are many countries, e.g. in Europe, where people with many children have disproportionate advantages, because the state takes money from the people with few or no children and gives the money to the people with many children. Moreover, there are adequate protections for parents during pregnancy and during the following time after birth. Nevertheless, these measures had very little effect on the birth rates, except inside some restricted segments of the populations, which had a tradition of depending on such subsidies. It may be argued that for a majority of the populations these financial measures actually diminish the birth rates, because they take money mostly from the young people not having children yet, which reduces their revenues, which makes them even more reluctant to attempt to have children, due to the fear that they will not have adequate revenues to support them. Few modern people, when confronted with the fact that their revenue would be insufficient for raising 2 children, would reach the conclusion that the solution to this problem is making 6 children, in order to get enough state aid. Most will choose to make only one child or no children.
  • bojan 2y ago
    > There are many countries, e.g. in Europe, where people with many children have disproportionate advantages, because the state takes money from the people with few or no children and gives the money to the people with many children. No, the state "takes money" from the people with few or no children to ensure that there will be a functioning society even when those people can't contribute to it themselves any more. > Moreover, there are adequate protections for parents during pregnancy and during the following time after birth. While that is true, the pure biology is not something you can fully protect from (yet). There are still women for whom a childbirth turns fatal. > Nevertheless, these measures had very little effect on the birth rates, Because the measures aren't enough. For example, even despite all the measures, I end up paying € 1200 a month for about 40 hours of childcare, for two kids. Per month. That's a mortgage level of expense. And that's because they go to school now. Before that it was over € 2000, net. > It may be argued that for a majority of the populations these financial measures actually diminish the birth rates, because they take money mostly from the young people not having children yet, which reduces their revenues, which makes them even more reluctant to attempt to have children, due to the fear that they will not have adequate revenues to support them. This isn't true. Young people earn less than older people, and thus pay less taxes. What makes young people reluctant to have children are unnaturally high housing costs, not the subsidies towards parents.