5 ms·

Society pays a lot for children as well. Including members without children.

• dude250711 5mo ago
  E.g. they have "free" higher education in Germany isn't it? Maybe not even just for domestic students?
  • lokar 5mo ago
    I know a big factor in Korea is social relationships between the genders (expectations about housework, childcare, etc). The current arrangements are not attractive to many women. How is it in Germany? I would guess better
    • em-bee 5mo ago
      not much. the reality is that women still take a hit on their potential careers and income, and are expected to do most of the childcare work. another problem that i see not only in germany is that men are not trusted with children or being capable of doing housework. also on the attractiveness for women, germany being less traditional means that more women are willing to break traditions, so even if the situation there is better for them, women are still less interested, which means the effect in the end is the same.
      • lokar 5mo ago
        A mismatch between expectations (of women) and the current status (of men, and society).
• utilize1808 5mo ago
  The fact that birth rate is so low in countries with good social security safe net suggests that the society isn't paying enough.
  • hn_throwaway_99 5mo ago
    Not necessarily. It's possible that no amount of money would solve this problem. Birth control inherently broke the previously built evolutionary mechanism that insured that the extremely strong built in desire for sex would result in kids. That's no longer the case, and a lot of people would decide to not have kids even if money were no object. As you point out, Finland famously has incredible family support, and also a birth rate under 1.3.
    • condis 5mo ago
      [dead]
      • cindyllm 5mo ago
        [dead]
      • lokar 5mo ago
        One possibility is that wealthy people with few (often just 1) child, a stable home life, fewer financial pressures, etc spend a lot more time on the child. And this keeps them out of trouble more often. Also, a lot of the education around avoiding pregnancy is about the financial future of the child (eg getting present in high school will ruin your life). For that to have an impact, the child has to think they have some kind of future.
      • _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
        'having a child removes your future opportunity so don't have a child until you are ready' resonates more with people with future opportunity.
        • condis 5mo ago
          [dead]
  • theragra 5mo ago
    Afaik according to research, the only thing that helps is 1. Lump sum, pretty big (like year worth of salary or close) payment on birth 2. Works for first child only. That's it. So, it kinda works, but very limited. Increasing sum did not increase birthrates, if I remember correctly.
• myrmidon 5mo ago
  Yes, but not commensurately. A child might cost its parents somewhere beyond $200k, the parents only get a tiny fraction of this from the state. And the public paying for education is not a subsidy for parents in my view, but an investment into the children, i.e. future taxpayers (=> the parents don't really gain from that).
  • lokar 5mo ago
    I think you are arguing inconsistently here. You can't claim at the same time that we should recognize all of the benefits of children (in their adulthood) and at the same time not recognize the cost to society to educate them. It's a subsidy, a wise subsidy and money well spent, but it's still a cost.
    • myrmidon 5mo ago
      My point is: Society itself recoups the investment into education very easily (from competent taxpaying workers some years later), but the main cost of raising children is paid by parents, and they don't get back anything (economically). All the benefits that used to be there (adolescents helping with farm/work, children taking care of aging parents) became more and more irrelevant, but general costs of raising children (to parents) have not decreased at all (and "reputational" cost of just skipping parenthood is at rock bottom, too, so that is no longer pushing prospective parents towards economically irrational decisions, either).
  • thefz 5mo ago
    > A child might cost its parents somewhere beyond $200k, the parents only get a tiny fraction of this from the state. Yet another reason for others not to chip in your bad ROI decisions then
• djvdq 5mo ago
  People who don't ride trains also pay taxes for rail. People who are not flying are also financing airports from taxes. This is why butthurt "childless pay taxes for schools but not using them" is super stupid