4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBirthrates 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.)
- 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 agoAlso, the church used to be a motivator for people to create offspring. With secularism rising, that influence wanes.
- Ferret7446 2y agoI 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".