5 ms·

Germany recently discussed raising health insurance premiums for families (because families cause higher costs). Instead of the stick we need to use the carrot.

Germany recently discussed raising health insurance premiums for families (because families cause higher costs). Instead of the stick we need to use the carrot. Everybody is asking why birth rates plummet. It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money. I personally know a bunch of well-off people who have decided against children since they don’t think they’ll be able to sustain any way of middle class existence with kids. Having a program that supports mothers like this, cash, no strings attached, is awesome. The last thing people need is to jump 1000x bureaucratic hoops when they’re broke and have basically zero sleep. Hats off, cool charity!

po1nt 2mo ago
IMHO we should just accept the lower income. Since women entered workforce we got used to the inflated lifestyle. We should just accept that having a kid will cost you money and it's fine. It's the best purchase there is. Some might decide to buy more expensive car or larger house and that's cool choice as well. But in the end will bring you just a temporary happiness and maybe some social status boost. Screw consumerism, just have a child.
- fssys 2mo ago
  you need the larger house to have the kid!
  - po1nt 2mo ago
    Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.
- madduci 2mo ago
  I disagree. Why should we accept lower income, while billionaires are doing whatever they want, in the most illegal ways? Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need
  - po1nt 2mo ago
    Don't pay them money, instead have children. The reason why they have money is you decide to buy their product instead of spending it on kids. (of course nestle and similar excluding)
    - folkrav 2mo ago
      Oh come on. Spending it on kids ALSO means buying their products in the end, captive audience and all. Kids come with all sorts of expenses you can't just wave away. Daycare/education. Clothing. Twice the food you would as a couple, not that far down the line. Possibly a larger vehicle, or just a vehicle at all, depending on your pre-kid lifestyle. Larger housing. And that's assuming everything goes well and you don't happen to have special needs or sick kids, meaning healthcare, taking days off, etc. The whole freaking thing makes you pay at every corner. Don't be dense.
      - po1nt 2mo ago
        It's a tradition within my family to pass down most of the child stuff, so kids run in second hand clothing that will get puked on, torn, and pooped in anyway. There is no need for a larger car unless you really have a 3+ kids family. You don't need a larger house. That is a scam they are trying to sell you. In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
        folkrav 2mo ago
        Pass it down depends on having a kid around your age that can pass it down to you. We buy second hand for most, but we still have to buy. Yes, there is a need for a larger car when your original car is tiny, or you didn't have one at all. Yes, there is a need for larger housing cause I lived in a one bedroom apartment. As for special needs, I mean, it always can happen, and you always need to be ready that it's a possibility. Telling people that they should have kids regardless then turning around and leaving them with no resources for it is just irresponsible. You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong. I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
- rcxdude 2mo ago
  This might be a useful attitude to have individually but it's not really a plan of how to solve the systemic issue.
  - po1nt 2mo ago
    There is no systemic issue to solve. There is only cultural issue.
    - rcxdude 2mo ago
      Culture is part of the system, and probably one of the harder parts to change.
      - jareklupinski 2mo ago
        who makes the culture? one person's actions can start to move the tide
- collabs 2mo ago
  On the contrary, strike! Refuse to have children completely until society and in particular the wealthy uphold their end of the bargain and make universal free of cost childcare a reality. Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!
  - po1nt 2mo ago
    Wealthy don't have children as well. Poorer families in africa have ten or more. It's not money issue. It's comfort issue
    - simonh 2mo ago
      To back this up, there is growing evidence that subsidised child care, financial support for families, etc has a minimal effect on birth rates, if any. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable. None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment. I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.
- criddell 2mo ago
  > It's the best purchase there is. There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.
  - po1nt 2mo ago
    Mine including heh.
fredrikholm 2mo ago
> Everybody is asking why birth rates plummet. It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money. It's a factor, it's not the only factor. Decrease in teenage pregnancies, decrease in alcohol consumption, contraception and day after pills, higher levels of education, less socialized culture, less generational housing etc. Having a child is more than often a deliberate, calculated decision that is made by adults whereas in the old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it. Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter. No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. The better quality of life people have, the fewer children people tend to have. It's not just about who does and who doesn't have children, it's also how many children per family. 1-2 children is the new normal. My grandpa was #7.
- eru 2mo ago
  > No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. Perhaps we can learn from the past? Birthrates between the world wars were below replacement level in much of the western world. Then the trend reversed for a while.
  - rcxdude 2mo ago
    Question is why was this the case? I feel a natural explanation is it's a reaction to there being less people around on account of the huge number of deaths, in which case there's probably little reason to worry: if birth rate increases as population drops then the system should tend to equalise itself. If it's something else related to a gigantic war specifically then it's a bit less certain (one very important question is was the growth just a displacement in time from all the couples who could not have a child during the war but now can?).
    - eru 2mo ago
      I am not so sure about 'lots of people' died causation. Eg I don't think we'll see a babyboom after the war in Ukraine ends. And just look at the interwar years themselves: lots and lots of people died in World War I, but that didn't trigger a babyboom. Just the opposite.
mattlondon 2mo ago
> It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money I've got two young kids. I wouldn't say day to day expenses are particularly huge. Sure you can go wild and buy them designer clothes/shoes they grow out of in 6 months, or you can fill every waking moment with white-knuckle entertainment and excitement and that all costs money. But you don't need to do that, the kids don't care what they wear so long as it's got a robot/unicorn/etc on it, and they're often very happy playing with a cardboard box, a small amount of generic Lego, and their imagination. Food cost is almost a rounding error. Barely anything for an extra loaf of bread, an extra packet of cereal, some more chicken etc. peanuts. The main cost - beyond needing to live in a larger house which I probably would have got anyway even without kids - is the opportunity cost of having kids: I've probably missed a promotion or two because I've had to say no to work travel, projects, late meetings with the US office etc to go kid related things. That and UK nursery costs are bigger than the mortgage, but again that is "optional" and only for the first few years. Good luck
- robot_jesus 2mo ago
  Yeah. And the first chart on the page highlights that. It's the drop in income or (to your point, even the opportunity cost of missed promotions) that is most challenging. Though my kids are amazing and absolutely worth it, no questions asked, I did feel like i was playing catchup in my career starting in my mid-30s.
  - mattlondon 2mo ago
    At least for me, our income did not decrease at all like it does in the chart. It went up but only by normal small inflationary increases. A one-off 1500 USD is not going to m move the needle in the grand scheme of things for me (and I am fortunate to be in that position I acknowledge) I'm probably 8-10 years behind where I thought I would be in terms of promotions though (and the chunky pay rises that come with it) - I've basically been treading water since my wife was pregnant with the first kid because I had to say no to things at work so I could focus on family. I'm fortunate to have a very chill employer, but there have been many, many, many times where before children I'd simply have stayed late at the office to get something done or done a bit of work at the weekend or jumped on a plane somewhere with less than 24 hours notice or whatever. Instead things just have to wait to the morning or Monday, or I don't respond to messages any time of the day/weekend, or I am not there for that critical meeting with the stakeholders because its in Dallas or at 9pm UK or whatever. I am only just starting to emerge tentatively from the other side of that now about 7 years later, and even then very very tentatively as I am basically 24/7 on-call for family emergencies that trump anything else. Your wife and family won't believe you if you say it's impacted your career as the man or that it's hard to context switch - they'll laugh and dismiss your feelings as the narrative is that it is typically the mother who makes the sacrifices etc, but even if the mother is the stay at home parent there is still a major impact on the husband's career and work (or it has been for me anyway) but don't ever dare say that to a mother because they have a monopoly on that position.

po1nt 2mo ago

IMHO we should just accept the lower income. Since women entered workforce we got used to the inflated lifestyle. We should just accept that having a kid will cost you money and it's fine. It's the best purchase there is. Some might decide to buy more expensive car or larger house and that's cool choice as well. But in the end will bring you just a temporary happiness and maybe some social status boost. Screw consumerism, just have a child.

fssys 2mo ago
you need the larger house to have the kid!
- po1nt 2mo ago
  Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.
madduci 2mo ago
I disagree. Why should we accept lower income, while billionaires are doing whatever they want, in the most illegal ways? Unions and Fight for your rights, that's what we need
- po1nt 2mo ago
  Don't pay them money, instead have children. The reason why they have money is you decide to buy their product instead of spending it on kids. (of course nestle and similar excluding)
  - folkrav 2mo ago
    Oh come on. Spending it on kids ALSO means buying their products in the end, captive audience and all. Kids come with all sorts of expenses you can't just wave away. Daycare/education. Clothing. Twice the food you would as a couple, not that far down the line. Possibly a larger vehicle, or just a vehicle at all, depending on your pre-kid lifestyle. Larger housing. And that's assuming everything goes well and you don't happen to have special needs or sick kids, meaning healthcare, taking days off, etc. The whole freaking thing makes you pay at every corner. Don't be dense.
    - po1nt 2mo ago
      It's a tradition within my family to pass down most of the child stuff, so kids run in second hand clothing that will get puked on, torn, and pooped in anyway. There is no need for a larger car unless you really have a 3+ kids family. You don't need a larger house. That is a scam they are trying to sell you. In case of special needs you are correct. But you need to hope that's not the case.
      - folkrav 2mo ago
        Pass it down depends on having a kid around your age that can pass it down to you. We buy second hand for most, but we still have to buy. Yes, there is a need for a larger car when your original car is tiny, or you didn't have one at all. Yes, there is a need for larger housing cause I lived in a one bedroom apartment. As for special needs, I mean, it always can happen, and you always need to be ready that it's a possibility. Telling people that they should have kids regardless then turning around and leaving them with no resources for it is just irresponsible. You also entirely skipped the most expensive ones. Feeding them, an expense that's been ever growing in the last decade, much faster than inflation. Education and child care, which the cynic in me, having read you say the problems started when women joined the workforce, thinks this is probably cause you think women should stay home for these - I hope I'm wrong. I'd be extremely surprised if your budget didn't radically change before and after having kids, even staying frugal and living within your means.
rcxdude 2mo ago
This might be a useful attitude to have individually but it's not really a plan of how to solve the systemic issue.
- po1nt 2mo ago
  There is no systemic issue to solve. There is only cultural issue.
  - rcxdude 2mo ago
    Culture is part of the system, and probably one of the harder parts to change.
    - jareklupinski 2mo ago
      who makes the culture? one person's actions can start to move the tide
collabs 2mo ago
On the contrary, strike! Refuse to have children completely until society and in particular the wealthy uphold their end of the bargain and make universal free of cost childcare a reality. Love your own life, refuse to have children for free!
- po1nt 2mo ago
  Wealthy don't have children as well. Poorer families in africa have ten or more. It's not money issue. It's comfort issue
  - simonh 2mo ago
    To back this up, there is growing evidence that subsidised child care, financial support for families, etc has a minimal effect on birth rates, if any. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-026-09861-1 https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust https://www.economicsobservatory.com/baby-bust Estimates are that in France and Poland pro-natalist policies have cost around from $1m-2m per extra birth. This is completely unsustainable. None of which means we shouldn't support families having children, of course we should for all sorts of reasons. It improves health and education outcomes for children, reduces child poverty, and gives women greater autonomy in their choice between work and home life, and overall seems to increase their participation rate in employment. I think realizing this and taking it into account in family support policies can help us achieve actually achievable outcomes, while avoiding sinking money into unachievable ones.
criddell 2mo ago
> It's the best purchase there is. There are more parents out there that would disagree with that than you might think.
- po1nt 2mo ago
  Mine including heh.

fredrikholm 2mo ago

> Everybody is asking why birth rates plummet. It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money. It's a factor, it's not the only factor. Decrease in teenage pregnancies, decrease in alcohol consumption, contraception and day after pills, higher levels of education, less socialized culture, less generational housing etc. Having a child is more than often a deliberate, calculated decision that is made by adults whereas in the old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it. Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter. No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. The better quality of life people have, the fewer children people tend to have. It's not just about who does and who doesn't have children, it's also how many children per family. 1-2 children is the new normal. My grandpa was #7.

eru 2mo ago
> No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. Perhaps we can learn from the past? Birthrates between the world wars were below replacement level in much of the western world. Then the trend reversed for a while.
- rcxdude 2mo ago
  Question is why was this the case? I feel a natural explanation is it's a reaction to there being less people around on account of the huge number of deaths, in which case there's probably little reason to worry: if birth rate increases as population drops then the system should tend to equalise itself. If it's something else related to a gigantic war specifically then it's a bit less certain (one very important question is was the growth just a displacement in time from all the couples who could not have a child during the war but now can?).
  - eru 2mo ago
    I am not so sure about 'lots of people' died causation. Eg I don't think we'll see a babyboom after the war in Ukraine ends. And just look at the interwar years themselves: lots and lots of people died in World War I, but that didn't trigger a babyboom. Just the opposite.

mattlondon 2mo ago

> It’s simple. Having a family costs a fuckton of money I've got two young kids. I wouldn't say day to day expenses are particularly huge. Sure you can go wild and buy them designer clothes/shoes they grow out of in 6 months, or you can fill every waking moment with white-knuckle entertainment and excitement and that all costs money. But you don't need to do that, the kids don't care what they wear so long as it's got a robot/unicorn/etc on it, and they're often very happy playing with a cardboard box, a small amount of generic Lego, and their imagination. Food cost is almost a rounding error. Barely anything for an extra loaf of bread, an extra packet of cereal, some more chicken etc. peanuts. The main cost - beyond needing to live in a larger house which I probably would have got anyway even without kids - is the opportunity cost of having kids: I've probably missed a promotion or two because I've had to say no to work travel, projects, late meetings with the US office etc to go kid related things. That and UK nursery costs are bigger than the mortgage, but again that is "optional" and only for the first few years. Good luck

robot_jesus 2mo ago
Yeah. And the first chart on the page highlights that. It's the drop in income or (to your point, even the opportunity cost of missed promotions) that is most challenging. Though my kids are amazing and absolutely worth it, no questions asked, I did feel like i was playing catchup in my career starting in my mid-30s.
- mattlondon 2mo ago
  At least for me, our income did not decrease at all like it does in the chart. It went up but only by normal small inflationary increases. A one-off 1500 USD is not going to m move the needle in the grand scheme of things for me (and I am fortunate to be in that position I acknowledge) I'm probably 8-10 years behind where I thought I would be in terms of promotions though (and the chunky pay rises that come with it) - I've basically been treading water since my wife was pregnant with the first kid because I had to say no to things at work so I could focus on family. I'm fortunate to have a very chill employer, but there have been many, many, many times where before children I'd simply have stayed late at the office to get something done or done a bit of work at the weekend or jumped on a plane somewhere with less than 24 hours notice or whatever. Instead things just have to wait to the morning or Monday, or I don't respond to messages any time of the day/weekend, or I am not there for that critical meeting with the stakeholders because its in Dallas or at 9pm UK or whatever. I am only just starting to emerge tentatively from the other side of that now about 7 years later, and even then very very tentatively as I am basically 24/7 on-call for family emergencies that trump anything else. Your wife and family won't believe you if you say it's impacted your career as the man or that it's hard to context switch - they'll laugh and dismiss your feelings as the narrative is that it is typically the mother who makes the sacrifices etc, but even if the mother is the stay at home parent there is still a major impact on the husband's career and work (or it has been for me anyway) but don't ever dare say that to a mother because they have a monopoly on that position.