5 ms·

Lack of affordable housing, job insecurity and the looming threat of AI and automation, unaffordable healthcare, unaffordable higher education, inflation, trade

Lack of affordable housing, job insecurity and the looming threat of AI and automation, unaffordable healthcare, unaffordable higher education, inflation, trade/culture/cold/proxy wars, societal unrest and thanks to social media the prospect of a global trend towards the collapse of democratic institutions and a march towards authoritarianism. Sure, let me just bring a couple of new humans into the world—people I’m legally responsible for and could go to jail over if I can’t afford to feed them. Sounds like a solid plan.

kspacewalk2 1y ago
Your life, and the world around you, is objectively better than it would have been in the 1930s, when birth rates didn't fall. So while you may see this as a valid reason/excuse for yourself not to have kids, it doesn't explain broader fertility declines.
- drooopy 1y ago
  You're right that many aspects of life have improved since the 1930s, but that doesn’t mean the current conditions for raising children are good or sustainable. In high-income countries, lower birth rates correlate with rising housing costs, lack of affordable childcare, stagnant wages, and job insecurity. People in the 1930s did have more kids, quite often out of necessity. Child labour was the norm, birth control access was severely limited cmpared to today, and high infant mortality rates meant larger families were a survival strategy.
- louthy 1y ago
  When people are considering having children, of course the first thing they think is “our lives are objectively better than the 1930s, let’s go for it!” As the GP makes clear, most people think about the future, not the past. And many think the future is looking pretty bleak right now. I do think there’s a tendency to overstate the potential future problems (humans are resourceful and will find ways to solve them), but the psychology of this seems fairly clear cut.
  - kspacewalk2 1y ago
    That's the precise argument I'm refuting with the 1930s analogy - not that people today look to the past, but that people in the past had a lot less reason to be optimistic about the future. Again, think 1930s in rural central Ukraine - you've had a relatively okay life, but now uncle Stalin has re-instituted serfdom, this time under the auspices of a totalitarian state (itself a terrifying bleeding-edge invention in the 1930s). Your friends, neighbours and relatives are dropping dead all around you, there's rampant cannibalism, for god's sake. What possible hope is there for the future? Birthrates didn't fall. Just one example of many. This "vibes about future" argument ought to make no sense whatsoever to anyone who is a fan of history, particularly the daily-life-in-the-age-of kind, not the battles-and-dates kind.
- kaibee 1y ago
  > So while you may see this as a valid reason/excuse for yourself not to have kids, it doesn't explain broader fertility declines. C'mon you have the whole answer right here. Its a prisoners dilemma. People aren't stupid. For any one individual, it makes sense to wait and defer having kids until they're more economically secure. They know that. So what happens when _everyone_ is under that same incentive structure? Well, some people eventually pull the trigger and just yolo it, if they _really_ wanted kids. They probably aren't as economically secure as they wanted to be, but make the personal sacrifices to do it anyway. But you probably also have a lot of people/couples who are depressed that they didn't reach the position they expected to and depressed people generally don't want to have kids.
  - kspacewalk2 1y ago
    I really don't think incentives changed so much in Eritrea or North Korea or Iran lately. If this was a Western-only or rich-countries-only phenomenon, I would provisionally buy this (and a bunch of other Western-centric) explanations. But it's a global phenomenon.
- poisonborz 1y ago
  Higher living standards also raise expectations. Young people of today would view the 1930s as barbaric.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    My dad grew up with hand-pump well water, an outhouse, a four-room house his dad built on cinderblocks that was too small for both the girls and the boys so the boys slept in the barn (and I think maybe they had a dirt-floor house at first, that one may have come after he was born), no electricity in his early years, no phone until he was a teen and I think it was a party line until after he moved out. Pretty sure they still had a one-room school house, too (small rural town). This was the late '40s through '60s, not even the '30s. In the US.
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  Directionality is the key. Do we see things as getting better, staying the same, or getting worse? Right now, the future has very very few signs of promise. Humanity is behaving attrocious, being a menace and a monster is amazingly popular, science and free thinking are being cancelled and rounded up by government goons. The very rich prey ever more on everyone else.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    But is it substantially different? The writing from the 30's is extremely pessimistic. In the 50's and 60's everybody assumed that we were all going to die in a nuclear war. And going back in time you can find numerous examples of where the future was worse than uncertain, where an awful future for your children was guaranteed. As an extreme example, many children were voluntarily born into slavery. I would argue that pessimism about the future is the rule, and the American optimism about the future in the 20th century was the exception.
    - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
      The future being grimdark isn't new, that's true. But humanity had so much finding out to do. Average material conditions haven't moved steadily forwards, no, but humanity has been overall rising. Science and technology developing, insights to the natural world happening & spreading, cultural elements forming & flourishing. The powers that be in the world were quite regionalized, had their fingers in only small pies: there was similarities across the world but it was characterized more as many individual experiments rising and falling, a variance among societies where many things were being tried in many ways. The difficulty in survivng (for much of this time) was overall characterized by the difficulty of finding food in the world, which was brutal work but work against nature. Today, things are so different. We all see (or can see if we want) the whole world. Progress has tapered down. The bold efforts for progress like the New Deal and international order (UN) have been worn down or unrepaired (notably the security council sotuation). But more than all that, we have lost the civilizational diversity that fed change and growth. We don't try new things, our systems don't shift: we are locked on course, path dependence amid the vast global network of international trade. The efforts to try new things are small tweaks, of limited scope: Obamacare (much protested), 4 day work weeks, some small scale UBI. We have seen so few attempts to house and feed the populations of the world, so few attempts to broaden education. The millions of enterprises across the world keep being hoovered up into ever larger companies with ever more high up and far off seats of power, the 0.1%'s ascent over us all and control of the world's money supply and markets extends and extends. The stagnancy and unflinching singular trajectory we are all locked into is pitiful. Humanity feels so a long for the ride of a couple absolutely insane pathological freaks. That loss of diversity, the consolidation of many things into fewer and fewer, is an evolutionary stagnancy which even if unconsciously experienced weighs enormously heavy on the human souls of today. It feels terrible, feeling like as the wheel turns, it's not the rise and fall of civilizations, but now the plight of us all, enmeshed, and knowing that we do so very little have so few levels to pull, so few positions of any real power to steer this.
- aaomidi 1y ago
  Statements like this are mostly useless. People don’t measure happiness in aggregate. Just because I can fly anywhere in the world in a few hours, doesn’t make up for something like loneliness. There’s categories of “happiness with life”, and some of them are much, much worse than a century ago. It could very well be that those carry a lot more weight than tech.
  - kspacewalk2 1y ago
    When comparing the 1930s and today, I'm not talking about tech or flying, of course. I'm talking about health and longevity, economic opportunities for the bottom 80%, political and personal freedom, social progress on most fronts, that sort of thing. Perhaps you're right in saying that the vibes are off, and in any individual country that could be a very valid point - pressures imposed on young people in South Korea, for example. Killer argument - except the same thing is happening in Sweden where these pressures are almost absent by comparison. And in North Korea, would you believe it? Birthrates falling. I somewhat doubt their "happiness with life" has dropped in concert with that in the West, on account of them having a life and a culture that's almost orthogonal to ours in every way.
- dagw 1y ago
  I suspect the big factor is that the opportunity costs have gotten a lot higher over that past 80-100 years. For the median woman in the 1930s, her expected lifetime earnings if she didn't have kids probably wouldn't be that much higher compared to if she took 10-20 years off to raise some kids. Equally the relative quality of life a single income family could expect wasn't too different from that of a dual income family. Today a dual income, no kids, household have opportunities and possibilities simply not available to such a household in the 30s.
rdm_blackhole 1y ago
The lower birthrates are also happening in countries like Sweden/Finland/Norway where higher education is "free" and healthcare is also "free" so those are not the reasons why women opt out of motherhood, or at least not the complete reasons anyway. The trend is global so the main reason is most likely something global. In this case couldn't it be simply that motherhood is no longer attractive to women and they want to do other things instead of raising kids?
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  My read of your first paragraph is that despite quality of life in the Nordic countries being overall better, it’s still not enough to offset the sacrifices associated with becoming parents. If you frame this from an economical standpoint, there simply isn’t a single country in the world that adequately compensates parents (especially mothers) for the costs of raising children. These costs are numerous and not just financial — there’s also massive opportunity costs, and that’s to say nothing about the tradeoffs a parent is forced to make (“do I spend more time with my kid or spend more time working to help ensure they have a stable childhood and bright future?) Simply put, if we want people to raise families it needs to make economical sense to do so. What exactly that looks like can be debated, but it’s likely something along the lines of one of the parents receiving a midrange part time or full time paycheck (depending on if they decide to stay at home or not) on top of the other parent being able to work an hour or two less each day without taking a hit to their paycheck. Otherwise, it makes more sense to either accumulate wealth until the last biological second and then only have 1-2 children or simply have none at all. That’s what the current system incentivizes.
  - rdm_blackhole 1y ago
    > Simply put, if we want people to raise families it needs to make economical sense to do so. What exactly that looks like can be debated, but it’s likely something along the lines of one of the parents receiving a midrange part time or full time paycheck (depending on if they decide to stay at home or not) on top of the other parent being able to work an hour or two less each day without taking a hit to their paycheck. I agree with your general comment but this type of incentive for parenthood basically turns into a tax for single/childless/infertile people. The money has to come from somewhere at the end of the day. So you need to raise more tax revenue but how? The big corps will exploit the tax loopholes, the 1% will emigrate to more tax friendly countries and you'll be left with a lots of single/childless/infertile people paying a hefty bill to subsidize other families so that the country can have a bigger working population 25 years after the fact. I just don't see how this is feasible politically in any way.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

kspacewalk2 1y ago

Your life, and the world around you, is objectively better than it would have been in the 1930s, when birth rates didn't fall. So while you may see this as a valid reason/excuse for yourself not to have kids, it doesn't explain broader fertility declines.

drooopy 1y ago
You're right that many aspects of life have improved since the 1930s, but that doesn’t mean the current conditions for raising children are good or sustainable. In high-income countries, lower birth rates correlate with rising housing costs, lack of affordable childcare, stagnant wages, and job insecurity. People in the 1930s did have more kids, quite often out of necessity. Child labour was the norm, birth control access was severely limited cmpared to today, and high infant mortality rates meant larger families were a survival strategy.
louthy 1y ago
When people are considering having children, of course the first thing they think is “our lives are objectively better than the 1930s, let’s go for it!” As the GP makes clear, most people think about the future, not the past. And many think the future is looking pretty bleak right now. I do think there’s a tendency to overstate the potential future problems (humans are resourceful and will find ways to solve them), but the psychology of this seems fairly clear cut.
- kspacewalk2 1y ago
  That's the precise argument I'm refuting with the 1930s analogy - not that people today look to the past, but that people in the past had a lot less reason to be optimistic about the future. Again, think 1930s in rural central Ukraine - you've had a relatively okay life, but now uncle Stalin has re-instituted serfdom, this time under the auspices of a totalitarian state (itself a terrifying bleeding-edge invention in the 1930s). Your friends, neighbours and relatives are dropping dead all around you, there's rampant cannibalism, for god's sake. What possible hope is there for the future? Birthrates didn't fall. Just one example of many. This "vibes about future" argument ought to make no sense whatsoever to anyone who is a fan of history, particularly the daily-life-in-the-age-of kind, not the battles-and-dates kind.
kaibee 1y ago
> So while you may see this as a valid reason/excuse for yourself not to have kids, it doesn't explain broader fertility declines. C'mon you have the whole answer right here. Its a prisoners dilemma. People aren't stupid. For any one individual, it makes sense to wait and defer having kids until they're more economically secure. They know that. So what happens when _everyone_ is under that same incentive structure? Well, some people eventually pull the trigger and just yolo it, if they _really_ wanted kids. They probably aren't as economically secure as they wanted to be, but make the personal sacrifices to do it anyway. But you probably also have a lot of people/couples who are depressed that they didn't reach the position they expected to and depressed people generally don't want to have kids.
- kspacewalk2 1y ago
  I really don't think incentives changed so much in Eritrea or North Korea or Iran lately. If this was a Western-only or rich-countries-only phenomenon, I would provisionally buy this (and a bunch of other Western-centric) explanations. But it's a global phenomenon.
poisonborz 1y ago
Higher living standards also raise expectations. Young people of today would view the 1930s as barbaric.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  My dad grew up with hand-pump well water, an outhouse, a four-room house his dad built on cinderblocks that was too small for both the girls and the boys so the boys slept in the barn (and I think maybe they had a dirt-floor house at first, that one may have come after he was born), no electricity in his early years, no phone until he was a teen and I think it was a party line until after he moved out. Pretty sure they still had a one-room school house, too (small rural town). This was the late '40s through '60s, not even the '30s. In the US.
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
Directionality is the key. Do we see things as getting better, staying the same, or getting worse? Right now, the future has very very few signs of promise. Humanity is behaving attrocious, being a menace and a monster is amazingly popular, science and free thinking are being cancelled and rounded up by government goons. The very rich prey ever more on everyone else.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  But is it substantially different? The writing from the 30's is extremely pessimistic. In the 50's and 60's everybody assumed that we were all going to die in a nuclear war. And going back in time you can find numerous examples of where the future was worse than uncertain, where an awful future for your children was guaranteed. As an extreme example, many children were voluntarily born into slavery. I would argue that pessimism about the future is the rule, and the American optimism about the future in the 20th century was the exception.
  - jauntywundrkind 1y ago
    The future being grimdark isn't new, that's true. But humanity had so much finding out to do. Average material conditions haven't moved steadily forwards, no, but humanity has been overall rising. Science and technology developing, insights to the natural world happening & spreading, cultural elements forming & flourishing. The powers that be in the world were quite regionalized, had their fingers in only small pies: there was similarities across the world but it was characterized more as many individual experiments rising and falling, a variance among societies where many things were being tried in many ways. The difficulty in survivng (for much of this time) was overall characterized by the difficulty of finding food in the world, which was brutal work but work against nature. Today, things are so different. We all see (or can see if we want) the whole world. Progress has tapered down. The bold efforts for progress like the New Deal and international order (UN) have been worn down or unrepaired (notably the security council sotuation). But more than all that, we have lost the civilizational diversity that fed change and growth. We don't try new things, our systems don't shift: we are locked on course, path dependence amid the vast global network of international trade. The efforts to try new things are small tweaks, of limited scope: Obamacare (much protested), 4 day work weeks, some small scale UBI. We have seen so few attempts to house and feed the populations of the world, so few attempts to broaden education. The millions of enterprises across the world keep being hoovered up into ever larger companies with ever more high up and far off seats of power, the 0.1%'s ascent over us all and control of the world's money supply and markets extends and extends. The stagnancy and unflinching singular trajectory we are all locked into is pitiful. Humanity feels so a long for the ride of a couple absolutely insane pathological freaks. That loss of diversity, the consolidation of many things into fewer and fewer, is an evolutionary stagnancy which even if unconsciously experienced weighs enormously heavy on the human souls of today. It feels terrible, feeling like as the wheel turns, it's not the rise and fall of civilizations, but now the plight of us all, enmeshed, and knowing that we do so very little have so few levels to pull, so few positions of any real power to steer this.
aaomidi 1y ago
Statements like this are mostly useless. People don’t measure happiness in aggregate. Just because I can fly anywhere in the world in a few hours, doesn’t make up for something like loneliness. There’s categories of “happiness with life”, and some of them are much, much worse than a century ago. It could very well be that those carry a lot more weight than tech.
- kspacewalk2 1y ago
  When comparing the 1930s and today, I'm not talking about tech or flying, of course. I'm talking about health and longevity, economic opportunities for the bottom 80%, political and personal freedom, social progress on most fronts, that sort of thing. Perhaps you're right in saying that the vibes are off, and in any individual country that could be a very valid point - pressures imposed on young people in South Korea, for example. Killer argument - except the same thing is happening in Sweden where these pressures are almost absent by comparison. And in North Korea, would you believe it? Birthrates falling. I somewhat doubt their "happiness with life" has dropped in concert with that in the West, on account of them having a life and a culture that's almost orthogonal to ours in every way.
dagw 1y ago
I suspect the big factor is that the opportunity costs have gotten a lot higher over that past 80-100 years. For the median woman in the 1930s, her expected lifetime earnings if she didn't have kids probably wouldn't be that much higher compared to if she took 10-20 years off to raise some kids. Equally the relative quality of life a single income family could expect wasn't too different from that of a dual income family. Today a dual income, no kids, household have opportunities and possibilities simply not available to such a household in the 30s.

rdm_blackhole 1y ago

The lower birthrates are also happening in countries like Sweden/Finland/Norway where higher education is "free" and healthcare is also "free" so those are not the reasons why women opt out of motherhood, or at least not the complete reasons anyway. The trend is global so the main reason is most likely something global. In this case couldn't it be simply that motherhood is no longer attractive to women and they want to do other things instead of raising kids?

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
My read of your first paragraph is that despite quality of life in the Nordic countries being overall better, it’s still not enough to offset the sacrifices associated with becoming parents. If you frame this from an economical standpoint, there simply isn’t a single country in the world that adequately compensates parents (especially mothers) for the costs of raising children. These costs are numerous and not just financial — there’s also massive opportunity costs, and that’s to say nothing about the tradeoffs a parent is forced to make (“do I spend more time with my kid or spend more time working to help ensure they have a stable childhood and bright future?) Simply put, if we want people to raise families it needs to make economical sense to do so. What exactly that looks like can be debated, but it’s likely something along the lines of one of the parents receiving a midrange part time or full time paycheck (depending on if they decide to stay at home or not) on top of the other parent being able to work an hour or two less each day without taking a hit to their paycheck. Otherwise, it makes more sense to either accumulate wealth until the last biological second and then only have 1-2 children or simply have none at all. That’s what the current system incentivizes.
- rdm_blackhole 1y ago
  > Simply put, if we want people to raise families it needs to make economical sense to do so. What exactly that looks like can be debated, but it’s likely something along the lines of one of the parents receiving a midrange part time or full time paycheck (depending on if they decide to stay at home or not) on top of the other parent being able to work an hour or two less each day without taking a hit to their paycheck. I agree with your general comment but this type of incentive for parenthood basically turns into a tax for single/childless/infertile people. The money has to come from somewhere at the end of the day. So you need to raise more tax revenue but how? The big corps will exploit the tax loopholes, the 1% will emigrate to more tax friendly countries and you'll be left with a lots of single/childless/infertile people paying a hefty bill to subsidize other families so that the country can have a bigger working population 25 years after the fact. I just don't see how this is feasible politically in any way.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]