3 ms·

Has any country really reversed the diminishing fertility rate with industrialization without religious zealotry? I honestly don’t think money is the factor her

Has any country really reversed the diminishing fertility rate with industrialization without religious zealotry? I honestly don’t think money is the factor here. Yes it matters but $40k is nothing. That covers maybe a year or two of daycare in the states. It needs to be a cultural change but not sure what would reverse it. Or we set a max age of the population where you off yourself. It’s the plot of Half a Life in Star Trek TNG

JimBlackwood 17d ago
But why does it need to be reversed? We are at the same time experiencing all the challenges and consequences of depleting the planet of resources, a warming climate and shortages everywhere. Why can less people in a natural way not be part of the solution?
- hdgvhicv 17d ago
  You’ll need to kill people off at say 70. Healthcare meds increase dramatically when you get older and older, and that means more people needed to care. When the worker:dependence ratio increases you end up with people emigrating or care reducing.
  - mitxela 17d ago
    That's where spreading the young population around via migration comes in, but people are racist and can't tolerate that. In your solution you also wouldn't have to kill people off. They would die naturally due to a lack of healthcare.
    - swat535 17d ago
      Why would you have immigration in that scenario? Other countries would also lack people.
      - johnnyanmac 17d ago
        Other first world countries. The global population overall is still slightly increasing because 3rd world countries have plenty of children. As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
- johnnyanmac 17d ago
  >why does it need to be reversed? Because a major superpower dying out doesn't really benefit anyone except potential conquerors.
hdgvhicv 17d ago
$40k is an average full time age after tax and student loans in the U.K But we’d rather tax workers to the hilt to pay for wealthy old people. Isla refreshing to see the op mention that “savings” are just a claim on future work. When there’s 10 billionaires who need care and 2 people who can provide it, how much will those carers charge. The other solution is high immigration. If you can import 18 year olds it’s win win win. At least for old rich people. Keep wages down, no tax money on new generations.
cameldrv 17d ago
I'm saying 40k per year per kid per year. That's not a magic number, but it's something like where if you have 2-3 kids, one parent doesn't need to work because their income is replaced by a child subsidy. Alternatively, if both parents work, daycare is paid for, along with the other expenses of having a kid. Now, that does mean taxes have to go up a lot. Maybe you don't need such a high number. You could play around with it and see what works. On the other hand, prospective parents have to believe that the money will keep flowing, or the incentive isn't as strong. In that case, maybe something like giving new parents a house is a better bet because they'd own that regardless of what future governments do.
ponector 17d ago
Has any country really tried? To have multiple kids you need bigger house, more stuff and more time. To have 2+ kids you either neglect them or should become stay at home parent. It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary. The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
- johnnyanmac 17d ago
  >It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary. or collectivist societies. We completely forgotten the old adage: "it takes a village to raise a kid". 3rd world countries still increase in population because everyone chips in to care for everyone's kids, not simply staying within their own house raising their own kid by themselves. >The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22. This is definitely another piece of the puzzle, one within the levers of government. Shorter work weeks for the same or more pay would alleviate this issue. But that's something the elite will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
  - sandmn 16d ago
    In 3rd world countries having children is also a retirement plan because government does not guarantee much for elderly. Not sure if developed countries want to go there though.

JimBlackwood 17d ago

But why does it need to be reversed? We are at the same time experiencing all the challenges and consequences of depleting the planet of resources, a warming climate and shortages everywhere. Why can less people in a natural way not be part of the solution?

hdgvhicv 17d ago
You’ll need to kill people off at say 70. Healthcare meds increase dramatically when you get older and older, and that means more people needed to care. When the worker:dependence ratio increases you end up with people emigrating or care reducing.
- mitxela 17d ago
  That's where spreading the young population around via migration comes in, but people are racist and can't tolerate that. In your solution you also wouldn't have to kill people off. They would die naturally due to a lack of healthcare.
  - swat535 17d ago
    Why would you have immigration in that scenario? Other countries would also lack people.
    - johnnyanmac 17d ago
      Other first world countries. The global population overall is still slightly increasing because 3rd world countries have plenty of children. As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
johnnyanmac 17d ago
>why does it need to be reversed? Because a major superpower dying out doesn't really benefit anyone except potential conquerors.

hdgvhicv 17d ago

$40k is an average full time age after tax and student loans in the U.K But we’d rather tax workers to the hilt to pay for wealthy old people. Isla refreshing to see the op mention that “savings” are just a claim on future work. When there’s 10 billionaires who need care and 2 people who can provide it, how much will those carers charge. The other solution is high immigration. If you can import 18 year olds it’s win win win. At least for old rich people. Keep wages down, no tax money on new generations.

cameldrv 17d ago

I'm saying 40k per year per kid per year. That's not a magic number, but it's something like where if you have 2-3 kids, one parent doesn't need to work because their income is replaced by a child subsidy. Alternatively, if both parents work, daycare is paid for, along with the other expenses of having a kid. Now, that does mean taxes have to go up a lot. Maybe you don't need such a high number. You could play around with it and see what works. On the other hand, prospective parents have to believe that the money will keep flowing, or the incentive isn't as strong. In that case, maybe something like giving new parents a house is a better bet because they'd own that regardless of what future governments do.

ponector 17d ago

Has any country really tried? To have multiple kids you need bigger house, more stuff and more time. To have 2+ kids you either neglect them or should become stay at home parent. It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary. The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.

johnnyanmac 17d ago
>It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary. or collectivist societies. We completely forgotten the old adage: "it takes a village to raise a kid". 3rd world countries still increase in population because everyone chips in to care for everyone's kids, not simply staying within their own house raising their own kid by themselves. >The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22. This is definitely another piece of the puzzle, one within the levers of government. Shorter work weeks for the same or more pay would alleviate this issue. But that's something the elite will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
- sandmn 16d ago
  In 3rd world countries having children is also a retirement plan because government does not guarantee much for elderly. Not sure if developed countries want to go there though.