> 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

> 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.