3 ms·

I mostly only have anecdata, but I don't agree that the main reason are "priority changes". My son's classroom is full of parents that wanted to have two or thr

I mostly only have anecdata, but I don't agree that the main reason are "priority changes". My son's classroom is full of parents that wanted to have two or three children but stuck with one due to already having a very hard time to achieve work–family balance with one (in fact, we are in that set). The desire to have more children is still there, but unfulfilled. There are many polls about this, see for example https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-want-more-kids-why-us-birth-rate-is-shrinking-2025-3?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-want-more-kids-why... for the US (figure "How many kids Americans have vs. how many they think are ideal"). In my country, Spain, polls about this give very similar results, most people want 2 or even 3 kids and end up not having them. Really rich people, on the other hand, very often have 3+ kids (as poor people do, but for different reasons). In the US, Bill Gates has 3, Bezos has 4, Zuckerberg has 3, Musk, well, I've lost count :) The thing is that, of course, typical measures like giving some small economic aid to parents, slight improvements of a few weeks in maternity/paternity leave, etc., which are the kind of things the article focuses on, just don't move the needle. This is hardly surprising. None of those things significantly improve work-family balance. Much more radical measures would be needed, like multi-year maternal/paternal leaves with measures to guarantee that there is no or small impact on career, or a significant reduction of standard full-time working hours to, say, 30 or so a week (be it for parents or for everyone). But for all the talk about fertility being a problem that needs fixing, no country seems to be willing to do anything even remotely close to that. Note that the measures I'm proposing are focusing on time, not money, because time is really the limiting resource for raising a child in a high-income country. Of course, with money you can buy time (daycare, caregivers, etc.) - so I'm sure things like massive building of public housing to bring down prices can also help. But it should be more efficient to focus directly on time - and more fulfilling for the parents to actually, well, have time to raise the kids themselves.

Saline9515 1y ago
Tech billionaires are a cultural and economic subset that is so specific that it's difficult to even use to talk about "rich people." They have little in common with the average affluent earner bringing home $300k+ in the US, often sacrificing their private lives on the way. Yes, if they could erase any material difficulty, most people would like to have 3 children. However, they can't, and the "priority change" means people arbitrage more in favor of enjoying the leisure of a child-free life over the hardship (and rewards) of parenting.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
  I'm not saying the system should erase any material difficulty, but surely if it was possible for a couple in the 60s to cover standard expenses with one income, it should be viable now to cover standard expenses without the couple working 80 hours/week in total. If you reduce those 80 to 60, let alone 40, the hardship you mention would be much milder. Parents of past generations just didn't have the same hardships. Juggling work and family life was easier back then.

Saline9515 1y ago

Tech billionaires are a cultural and economic subset that is so specific that it's difficult to even use to talk about "rich people." They have little in common with the average affluent earner bringing home $300k+ in the US, often sacrificing their private lives on the way. Yes, if they could erase any material difficulty, most people would like to have 3 children. However, they can't, and the "priority change" means people arbitrage more in favor of enjoying the leisure of a child-free life over the hardship (and rewards) of parenting.

Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
I'm not saying the system should erase any material difficulty, but surely if it was possible for a couple in the 60s to cover standard expenses with one income, it should be viable now to cover standard expenses without the couple working 80 hours/week in total. If you reduce those 80 to 60, let alone 40, the hardship you mention would be much milder. Parents of past generations just didn't have the same hardships. Juggling work and family life was easier back then.