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!
> 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.
There's been many countries who've reversed declining birthrates to some extent. Almost all European countries and the US did so after WW2, the US had a birthrate below replacement in the 30s. Many cities in the western world had fertility rates well below 1.5 some under 1, Vienna is the most striking example with a tfr of about 0.6 about as low as South Korea right now.
Besides European countries you have many of the Soviet countries who had a rebound, Kazakhstan is the greatest example, going from 1.8 to 3. Israel was mentioned by others.
I also don't think the better life => less kids holds true at this point. Plenty of countries in deep troubles (e.g. Tunisia) have birthrates far below the US or some other western countries. Having a phone is enough to keep people distracted.
Those who do well financially (at least relatively in their own country) get more kids, I've heard about people working for TSMC getting twice as many kids vs their non TSMC peers.
If somehow everyone was able to have a stable job, could afford good housing, wasn't obsessed about the rat race you'd see birthrates close to replacement (like you see them in regions of the US where these conditions are mostly met). Sadly this isn't going to happen.
> No country has managed to reverse the trend of declining birth rate
May I point you to the State of Israel? Its TFR sits at 3.
And if we really want to be nitpicky, and concentrating on the "reverse"-part of your statement, then even Balkan countries shine, as they literally managed to reverse the trend.
Israel is still declining just more slowly [0]. They do show the general point of this thread: it’s not money that is causing people to have fewer kids. It is the changing social structure and norms, in Israel they appear to tolerate kids everywhere, everyone has lots of kids adding social pressure, family and social support structures are strong making it easier.
In South Korea the reports are they this is very different. Kids are not tolerated in many places, many couples have few kids, society makes it quite hard on moms as well.
> And if we really want to be nitpicky, and concentrating on the "reverse"-part of your statement, then even Balkan countries shine, as they literally managed to reverse the trend.
That same bump is now reversing and the general trend of depopulation continues to accelerate. IIRC Bosnia has the lowest birth rates in all of Europe.
I appreciate the push back; I was overly confident in that statement. I do think however that it's correct to state that the slow trend across all developed countries could be summarized as "aggressively downwards".
> 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.
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?).
For at least half that time period between world wars, there was significant economic depression.
It might simply be the economy. The vibes are bad and have been bad since the late 70s because wealth distribution is lopsided and income growth is stagnant.
> It might simply be the economy. The vibes are bad and have been bad since the late 70s because wealth distribution is lopsided and income growth is stagnant.
Seems unlikely: the decrease in fertility rates is pretty universal, but what your are giving as reasons here seem pretty US specific.
> old world pregnancies happened left and right with little to say about it.
Yes.
> Support systems existed because the problem was pervasive. Now the problem is generally gone, and the support systems thereafter.
Meh, support for single moms or pregnant teenagers was not all that great. To large extend, they were punished and suffered, they were blamed. Their kids were oftentimes blamed.
You are better off being pregnant teenager is a single mom today then in 1950 or 1925 or whatever.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Food is not that expensive when you cook yourself. Children even don't eat that much.
Breast milk substitutes are expensive though, I admit.
I'm not saying your budget doesn't change after having a child. I'm just saying for a price of a special color on car, vacation and couple nights out, you can afford to have a child for a year.
It's not cheap, but most of us are blowing money on useless stuff anyway. Some are donating thousands a year to online creator, game microtransactions, drinks in a bar, designer bags, funko pop collections and such.
The lifestyle inflation is real. And thanks to shifting priorities, you might even get yourself into better financial position after a few years, then before having a child.
> 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.
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.
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.
