6 ms·

This is a challenging topic to discuss because (rightly) it's very personal. Sadly the fact of the matter is this: we need more children and young people to kee

This is a challenging topic to discuss because (rightly) it's very personal. Sadly the fact of the matter is this: we need more children and young people to keep society functioning (and continually improve our quality of life). There is no other known way. So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Of course, the "cruel" part is how it affects those who either can't have children, are gay, etc. I'm not sure how to work through that.

dude250711 5mo ago
Do you mean something like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany-law-men-up-to-45-military-permission-long-stays-abroad https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany... But aimed at childless women? To balance things out a bit?
x3ro 5mo ago
If you want people to have children make it an attractive life choice, or even a viable option. A centrally located apartment in a desirable city with the space to house a family of 3-4 is out of reach for a very large part of the population, financially. That’s _before_ you even consider all of the other costs of having children. Meanwhile our chancellor talks of 70h+ work weeks, while spending hundreds of billions on special military budgets, and also cutting health care funding..
- guruide 5mo ago
  I’m not sure why a central location or a desirable city would be required? If that is more important than having children to someone, by all means, they should make those choices. But if they really want children, like I dreamed of since I was a teenager, then accepting a less costly living arrangement and lifestyle seems like a trivial sacrifice. I sometimes would rather live in a more expensive area, but I definitely would not trade any of my 4 children in order to do that.
  - em-bee 5mo ago
    you are willing to make that tradeoff, but not everyone is. and as the goal is to get more people to have children, we need to make it more attractive. you want parents to be able to live in the same desirable places as childless couples. and especially as the kids get older, they want to live in the places where other young people live, and where all the action is. that tends to be in the city centers.
qurren 5mo ago
If you want to incentivize people to have kids, hand out $500K-1M to anyone who wants to have kids. Don't penalize those who don't. And yes, kids cost that much. I'm a senior level software engineer in the bay area. I don't have kids. I don't think I can afford them. I'm tired of people telling me I can afford them. The world works differently today. In the 1980's, if you had a stable job that let you leave at 5pm, you could more or less handle kids. Today, leaving at 5pm means risking PIP and not having an income; your company may lay off people randomly without notice; your rents could go up 10-20% unexpectedly; groceries could double in price over a couple years; you basically need to be working round the clock to not get PIPed and even sustain an income. And if you work around the clock you also need cash to hire nannies because you don't have the time to raise them yourself. As such I wouldn't even think about kids in this world without having saved up the full sum of my expenses AND their expenses for their ENTIRE life until 21 years old in CASH before even having the kid. We just don't have the job security today.
- ghusto 5mo ago
  > Today, leaving at 5pm means risking PIP and not having an income; This is Germany, not the USA. Shit doesn't work like that here.
  - nowandlater 5mo ago
    It also doesn't work like this in all job domains in the US. These hyper-competitive FANGlike employers are meat grinders. You can live well enough on a modest wage a few hundred miles away in the Central Valley working for a public institution with a pension. It still exists even it's less so than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
- saalweachter 5mo ago
  > If you want to incentivize people to have kids, hand out $500K-1M to anyone who wants to have kids. Don't penalize those who don't. Where does the money come from?
  - qurren 5mo ago
surgical_fire 5mo ago
I am sure countries will do everything to incentivise the population to have more children. Except, of course, reduce income inequality, address housing shortages, that sort of thing.
politelemon 5mo ago
A good way to work through that is by not framing people as free riders in the first place.
ghusto 5mo ago
> Of course, the "cruel" part is how it affects those who either can't have children, are gay, etc. Adoption. At least that was the choice one of the gay couples I know made.
thefz 5mo ago
> So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Free rider? I am already paying close to 30% of my income for the state to distribute to ALL.
- matchbok3 5mo ago
  That is why I put it in quotes. At the end of the day, taxes don't being to compare to the lifetime (and compounding effect) of children. And yes, you have a good point. You pay taxes (a lot) and so it makes these conversations difficult.

dude250711 5mo ago

Do you mean something like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany-law-men-up-to-45-military-permission-long-stays-abroad https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany... But aimed at childless women? To balance things out a bit?

x3ro 5mo ago

If you want people to have children make it an attractive life choice, or even a viable option. A centrally located apartment in a desirable city with the space to house a family of 3-4 is out of reach for a very large part of the population, financially. That’s _before_ you even consider all of the other costs of having children. Meanwhile our chancellor talks of 70h+ work weeks, while spending hundreds of billions on special military budgets, and also cutting health care funding..

guruide 5mo ago
I’m not sure why a central location or a desirable city would be required? If that is more important than having children to someone, by all means, they should make those choices. But if they really want children, like I dreamed of since I was a teenager, then accepting a less costly living arrangement and lifestyle seems like a trivial sacrifice. I sometimes would rather live in a more expensive area, but I definitely would not trade any of my 4 children in order to do that.
- em-bee 5mo ago
  you are willing to make that tradeoff, but not everyone is. and as the goal is to get more people to have children, we need to make it more attractive. you want parents to be able to live in the same desirable places as childless couples. and especially as the kids get older, they want to live in the places where other young people live, and where all the action is. that tends to be in the city centers.

qurren 5mo ago

If you want to incentivize people to have kids, hand out $500K-1M to anyone who wants to have kids. Don't penalize those who don't. And yes, kids cost that much. I'm a senior level software engineer in the bay area. I don't have kids. I don't think I can afford them. I'm tired of people telling me I can afford them. The world works differently today. In the 1980's, if you had a stable job that let you leave at 5pm, you could more or less handle kids. Today, leaving at 5pm means risking PIP and not having an income; your company may lay off people randomly without notice; your rents could go up 10-20% unexpectedly; groceries could double in price over a couple years; you basically need to be working round the clock to not get PIPed and even sustain an income. And if you work around the clock you also need cash to hire nannies because you don't have the time to raise them yourself. As such I wouldn't even think about kids in this world without having saved up the full sum of my expenses AND their expenses for their ENTIRE life until 21 years old in CASH before even having the kid. We just don't have the job security today.

ghusto 5mo ago
> Today, leaving at 5pm means risking PIP and not having an income; This is Germany, not the USA. Shit doesn't work like that here.
- nowandlater 5mo ago
  It also doesn't work like this in all job domains in the US. These hyper-competitive FANGlike employers are meat grinders. You can live well enough on a modest wage a few hundred miles away in the Central Valley working for a public institution with a pension. It still exists even it's less so than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
saalweachter 5mo ago
> If you want to incentivize people to have kids, hand out $500K-1M to anyone who wants to have kids. Don't penalize those who don't. Where does the money come from?
- qurren 5mo ago

surgical_fire 5mo ago

I am sure countries will do everything to incentivise the population to have more children. Except, of course, reduce income inequality, address housing shortages, that sort of thing.

politelemon 5mo ago

A good way to work through that is by not framing people as free riders in the first place.

ghusto 5mo ago

> Of course, the "cruel" part is how it affects those who either can't have children, are gay, etc. Adoption. At least that was the choice one of the gay couples I know made.

thefz 5mo ago

> So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Free rider? I am already paying close to 30% of my income for the state to distribute to ALL.

matchbok3 5mo ago
That is why I put it in quotes. At the end of the day, taxes don't being to compare to the lifetime (and compounding effect) of children. And yes, you have a good point. You pay taxes (a lot) and so it makes these conversations difficult.