3 ms·

We are not poorer now, but as you pointed out, children have gone from being profitable to being a burden, so no matter how much money we may have, there is les

by JeffL 12y ago

We are not poorer now, but as you pointed out, children have gone from being profitable to being a burden, so no matter how much money we may have, there is less incentive to have children. I'm also thinking that back in the day, your children were your retirement plan, so better have enough of them to make sure you will be taken care of. But now that the state is our retirement plan, even less reason to have kids.

lkrubner 12y ago
Do you honestly feel that, in the entire nation of Germany, there are no families that are constrained primarily by money, when considering how many children to have? Given the way population tends to accumulate over time, you only need to convince 15% of those women who have already given birth to have 1 extra child, to raise Germany's birth rate back up to the replacement level. The question then is, are there those families who might like to have another child, if the cost was less of a burden? To borrow a phrase from economics, such policies seek to influence those families "at the margin", that is, those families that are considering having another child, and for whom some extra subsidy might be exactly what is needed to influence their decision in a positive direction. As in sales, there is no need to go after those who would never buy your product. There is no need to go after those women who are happy to be childless. The focus of pro-natalist policies is always to influence those who are open to the idea and who can be persuaded with some form of help.
- JeffL 12y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think. I'm just pointing out that I don't think people having less kids means that they are poorer. As you pointed out, kids have gone from being profitable to being a cost, so it doesn't really matter how rich or poor people are, they will have less kids. Unless, I guess, the state heavily subsidizes, and it seems that this article is saying that the efforts thus far to increase fertility via subsidization have proved too little. But actually, I think the general theory is that people have less kids precisely because they are richer as opposed to being poorer, since they don't need kids in order to labor on the farm and don't need kids to pay for the parents retirement.
- thejdude 12y ago
  Children have always been expensive, haven't they? But I think that's more of a cultural issue - people prefer consumption to investing in raising kids. And working children don't usually bring in lots of money, but back in the day they would care for their elderly parents, which was a good reason to have kids. I think it's not mainly about money (why do Germany's academics have the fewest children?), but about creating a children-friendly climate and a culture where raising children is considered a good thing and not just a burden that keeps you from consuming. Children and modern consumer culture - bad fit.
  - rmrfrmrf 12y ago
    > I think it's not mainly about money (why do Germany's academics have the fewest children?), but about creating a children-friendly climate and a culture where raising children is considered a good thing and not just a burden that keeps you from consuming. This is so interesting; I was thinking about this exact problem (consumerism vs. child rearing) the other day after noticing some anti-child undertones on Reddit. Some themes I saw were workplace discrimination toward women in their 20's ("Why should I have to pay to train a female employee when she's highly likely to get pregnant and leave? I'd rather just hire a male."), shaming parents experiencing financial hardship ("It doesn't matter if you got cancer; you should have accumulated more savings before deciding to have kids!"), and an overall positive view of a child-free lifestyle ("All of our friends with kids are poor now -- I'm happy without kids so I can buy whatever games and gadgets I want."). I just find it weird that people can forego such a defining element of any life form (reproduction) for the sake of consuming more "things". To take it to the extreme, could consumerism lead to the end of the human race?
    - thejdude 12y ago
      Well, on one point I do agree: you should have your life/finances sorted out (meaning: positive cash flow, enough to raise kids) before you have kids. Everything else is just irresponsible. Generally, it's a personal decision. However, consumer people might well remove themselves from the gene pool this way. The problem is that their culture is everywhere, and all kids catch that virus in school ("mom/dad, Timmy has a PS4, when do we get one?", "I also need to collect all Pokemon, or I'm not cool.") and want to grow up to be models/popstars/celebs or other meaningless things. Here's hoping my (future) kids will grow out of that phase quickly.

by JeffL 12y ago

lkrubner 12y ago

Do you honestly feel that, in the entire nation of Germany, there are no families that are constrained primarily by money, when considering how many children to have? Given the way population tends to accumulate over time, you only need to convince 15% of those women who have already given birth to have 1 extra child, to raise Germany's birth rate back up to the replacement level. The question then is, are there those families who might like to have another child, if the cost was less of a burden? To borrow a phrase from economics, such policies seek to influence those families "at the margin", that is, those families that are considering having another child, and for whom some extra subsidy might be exactly what is needed to influence their decision in a positive direction. As in sales, there is no need to go after those who would never buy your product. There is no need to go after those women who are happy to be childless. The focus of pro-natalist policies is always to influence those who are open to the idea and who can be persuaded with some form of help.

JeffL 12y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think. I'm just pointing out that I don't think people having less kids means that they are poorer. As you pointed out, kids have gone from being profitable to being a cost, so it doesn't really matter how rich or poor people are, they will have less kids. Unless, I guess, the state heavily subsidizes, and it seems that this article is saying that the efforts thus far to increase fertility via subsidization have proved too little. But actually, I think the general theory is that people have less kids precisely because they are richer as opposed to being poorer, since they don't need kids in order to labor on the farm and don't need kids to pay for the parents retirement.
thejdude 12y ago
Children have always been expensive, haven't they? But I think that's more of a cultural issue - people prefer consumption to investing in raising kids. And working children don't usually bring in lots of money, but back in the day they would care for their elderly parents, which was a good reason to have kids. I think it's not mainly about money (why do Germany's academics have the fewest children?), but about creating a children-friendly climate and a culture where raising children is considered a good thing and not just a burden that keeps you from consuming. Children and modern consumer culture - bad fit.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  > I think it's not mainly about money (why do Germany's academics have the fewest children?), but about creating a children-friendly climate and a culture where raising children is considered a good thing and not just a burden that keeps you from consuming. This is so interesting; I was thinking about this exact problem (consumerism vs. child rearing) the other day after noticing some anti-child undertones on Reddit. Some themes I saw were workplace discrimination toward women in their 20's ("Why should I have to pay to train a female employee when she's highly likely to get pregnant and leave? I'd rather just hire a male."), shaming parents experiencing financial hardship ("It doesn't matter if you got cancer; you should have accumulated more savings before deciding to have kids!"), and an overall positive view of a child-free lifestyle ("All of our friends with kids are poor now -- I'm happy without kids so I can buy whatever games and gadgets I want."). I just find it weird that people can forego such a defining element of any life form (reproduction) for the sake of consuming more "things". To take it to the extreme, could consumerism lead to the end of the human race?
  - thejdude 12y ago
    Well, on one point I do agree: you should have your life/finances sorted out (meaning: positive cash flow, enough to raise kids) before you have kids. Everything else is just irresponsible. Generally, it's a personal decision. However, consumer people might well remove themselves from the gene pool this way. The problem is that their culture is everywhere, and all kids catch that virus in school ("mom/dad, Timmy has a PS4, when do we get one?", "I also need to collect all Pokemon, or I'm not cool.") and want to grow up to be models/popstars/celebs or other meaningless things. Here's hoping my (future) kids will grow out of that phase quickly.