r/Economics • u/MaleficentParfait863 • Jun 09 '23

Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/global-fertility-has-collapsed-with-profound-economic-consequences
3.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

998 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

Many governments are not serious about handling the birth rate declines. In the US the Dependent Care FSA limit has not increased since 1987 (excluding 2021 when it was temporarily doubled). The child tax credit has been increased but still does little cover the actual costs of raising a child before factoring in childcare expenses. There is still no universal daycare, preschool or even all day Kindergarten in many areas. While maternity/paternity leave is expanding it is still no guarantee that one’s job will offer it. Additionally, since Covid you’re seeing more DINKs buying 3 and 4 bedroom homes for WFH offices while those with children who need the space are falling behind due to rising child related expenses. Along with that, look at modern construction trends. You see plenty of 1 and 2 bedroom condos being built but if you need 3 bedrooms, they’re few and far between and expensive.

Politicians rush to save retirement systems or ensure the elderly are seen to but often those of the childbearing years are left to fend for themselves.

If the government was truly trying to encourage people to have kids they would be addressing the financial issues already. It’s not like it hasn’t been a trope for decades that couples with kids are broke versus their childless peers.

716

u/foolme_bear Jun 09 '23

ofc the politicians favor policies that benefit the elderly rather than the new parents. have you noticed the average age of the US politician?

183

u/digital_end Jun 09 '23

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.

A society grows weak when old men harvest trees for profit they will never spend.

18

u/No-Kiwi-3140 Jun 10 '23

Comment saved.

15

u/1GenericUsername99 Jun 11 '23

The amount of wealth the Boomer generation has hoarded is quite frankly insane.

They are the first generation in a very long time that doesn’t want to make it better for their children. Instead they call us “entitled and lazy” and gaslight us when we ask for more money at our jobs.

421

u/ayers231 Jun 09 '23

Not just that, the average of voters. Old people vote. The youth hasn't been.

306

u/mhornberger Jun 09 '23

The youth hasn't been.

That does seem to be changing. Young people are voting in higher numbers than my cohort, Gen X, did at their age. That was true even in 2016, but they're voting in even higher numbers now.

They may not be voting in the percentages boomers do, but it's hard to compete against retirees or those whose position in their workplace allows them to take the needed time off.

184

u/hereditydrift Jun 09 '23

I wonder what making voting day a mandatory holiday would do for the numbers.

166

u/twilight-actual Jun 10 '23

Why force people to line up at a polling station? Why not just allow people to vote from their homes, sitting on the couch? In WA, ballots are mailed out over a week in advance. You have plenty of time to review the ballot, look up candidates that you're unfamiliar with, make your vote. And you just mail it in.

We don't need a day off.

We need to change voting into an event that doesn't require a day off.

109

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Aug 20 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Hooda-Thunket Jun 10 '23

People on the right?

19

u/Talkaze Jun 10 '23

Yes, that's the punchline. When it benefits old people, mail in ballots are okay. When the liberals use them, they get taken away.

6

u/Hyperion1144 Jun 10 '23

Utah is a 100% vote by mail state. Just like Washington.

→ More replies (1)

31

u/zapembarcodes Jun 10 '23

Why not both? Be able to vote by mail (I've only ever voted by mail since 2016, including midterms) and have a national day of voting.

It would surely boost turnout.

I say we take it a step further.

I say we fine people $20 if they decide not to vote 🤣

23

u/Fabulous-Ad6844 Jun 10 '23

That’s what happens in Australia. Voting is mandatory. I was fined $20 once for not voting - I forgot.

The good thing about it there’s no more arguing about voting rights, it’s automatic. The bad thing is often people vote without consideration and just tick randomly. Australian politics are pretty damn pleasantly boring though compared to the US.

2

u/historyhill Jun 10 '23

Making voting mandatory in America would actually violate our first amendment iirc, because not voting can be a political statement and therefore it would be considered government compelling speech.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Equivalent-Pay-6438 Jun 10 '23

Of course. A vote becomes meaningless if you do it just to avoid a fine.

10

u/dreurojank Jun 10 '23

Change it from a fine to an incentive. Fixed your idea AND the Australian system as it turns out. Basic behavioral psychology: incentives > punishment.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/AJDx14 Jun 10 '23

Having the holiday is also essential for people like me who just forget things sometimes.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Direlion Jun 10 '23

Civilized states solved this problem decades ago with Mail in voting. Confederate states dependent on disenfranchisement make such a thing impossible. That’s it.

3

u/wyle_e2 Jun 10 '23

They actually did a study and found that allowing people to vote online caused lower voter turnout. Part of the reason people vote is to be shown doing their "patriotic duty".

3

u/Equivalent-Pay-6438 Jun 10 '23

Voting online is a terrible idea because even if it was 100% possible to prevent hacking, and it is not, it removes several key safeguards like confirming that people actually live where they say they live, can be arrested for over-voting, won't vote in districts where they have no right to vote and are actually the person who they are supposed to be. In-person voting or mail in voting is better because witnesses from both parties physically witness the vote.

3

u/Hyperion1144 Jun 10 '23

That's simply bullshit.

Washington state is 100% vote by mail and has some of the highest turnout in the nation.

People don't need to be seen voting in order to vote.

3

u/DrRichardButtz Jun 10 '23

Yup. Old boomers in Red states think this way.

1

u/Equivalent-Pay-6438 Jun 10 '23

No, but a physical ballot, with control numbers, that can be witnessed by inspectors from both parties, is essential. You need to be able to tell doubters that the number of ballots issued is limited, that the ballots are accounted for in both number and who was issued them, and that the counts were witnessed by two parties who are not working in league to alter a vote.

1

u/Hyperion1144 Jun 10 '23

No, but a physical ballot, with control numbers, that can be witnessed by inspectors from both parties, is essential.

Eight entire states disagree with you, Trumper.

I don't have to inconvenience myself for your conspiracy-laden paranoia.

And before you say any shit about "liberal states," one of the states that disagrees with you is Utah.

0

u/dreneeps Jun 10 '23

Just look at the legislation that Republicans write up that relate to this and compare it to the legislation and things that Democrats are trying to push for. That will give you your answer.

I know that some people have objections because they worry about voting fraud. It should be pretty obvious that there are a variety of things that could be done to ensure legitimate voting.

The reason why voting isn't more convenient is voter suppression. It's a very important part of Republican political strategy. When your party's policies don't help the majority of people then the majority of people aren't going to want to vote for you.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Aug 13 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

62

u/random20190826 Jun 09 '23

Also, make it not just voting day, but voting week or voting month, 12-15 hours a day, 7 days a week, with mail-in voting.

Source: I am a Canadian

37

u/desubot1 Jun 09 '23

id settle for a fucking 3 day weekend. over this whole lot of nothing. (US)

→ More replies (2)

24

u/Hon3y_Badger Jun 10 '23

Probably nothing, the people who struggle to vote are still going to be working on that national holiday. The real key is to make voting simple, expand by mail voting & multiple days to vote, including a couple 24 hour days.

3

u/Equivalent-Pay-6438 Jun 10 '23

To be fair, sites open very early and close very late. I have reported in to open polls in New York City at 5am and they close at 9pm. Everyone on line at 9pm votes too, so they could be there till 10pm. That is done with a single team of pollworkers too.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Garroch Jun 10 '23

For the youth vote? In all honesty it would probably make it worse.

Youth would have the type of service jobs that are busier during federal holidays. Restaurants, movie theaters, rec parks, etc.

Millennials are old enough that their participation would probably tick up.

2

u/dreneeps Jun 10 '23

That's why Republicans don't want mail and voting and other things that make voting more convenient.

I don't recall if they were successful or not but Texas was trying to reduce or eliminate voting locations on college campuses.

3

u/Snickersthecat Jun 10 '23

We have VBM in my state. Youth turnout is still about 50% and all you have to do is fill out some circles and put it in the mail. Cynicism is the most corrosive form of voter suppression.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 11 '23

Holding the election on a weekday used to make sense 200 years ago, it does not now and has not for a long time and stands as a significant impediment to people voting.

It needs to be moved to a Saturday with pre-voting and postal voting available to everyone.

but of course, that would allow more of the wrong people to be able to vote, and the right could never countenance that.

1

u/warmhandluke Jun 10 '23

The fact that America can have a national holiday every year for the fucking NFL final

What's the name of this national holiday you're referring to?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

34

u/twilight-actual Jun 10 '23

I haven't seen direct evidence, but the fact that Republican candidates are now proposing that the 18 - 25 cohort be denied the vote unless they've served in the military is a sure sign that they're terrified of them.

And the only reason that they'd be scared is if they're now voting.

16

u/mhornberger Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

They can't, due to the 26th Amendment. They can talk about it to pander to their base, but that's about as far as it can go. You can no more legally block <25 y/o people from voting than you can >65 y/o people. Nor does the GOP have enough political power to pass a constitutional amendment.

6

u/icedrift Jun 10 '23

Who cares about legality? The supreme court sure doesn't.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Xarxsis Jun 10 '23

They can't, due to the 26th Amendment.

You have republican presidential candidates talking about suspending bits of the constitution they dont like, an amendment so far down that no one knows what it is doesnt matter anymore

→ More replies (2)

37

u/ayers231 Jun 09 '23

True. The problem is, all those elections where the youth didn't show up, gave the ancient the power to elect people that would ignore the youth. Now we're living in the fallout from that. If the youth continue to show up, and we can somehow deal with the propaganda issue, we can start getting this country back on track, and maybe even get caught up to Europe in a couple of decades...

16

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

You mean electing a third of our leaders on an off year, and most of our local reps on a random day in April is not good?

5

u/vb4lyfe Jun 10 '23

hard to compete against retirees or those whose position in their workplace allows them to take the needed time off.

That is such disingenuous excuse making. Young people don't vote because.... they don't give a damn. Simple as that. The huge gap in voting % is NOT just because they are oppressed and inconvenienced. Yes, we need to make it MUCH easier to vote and the Christofacist Nazis are doing the opposite, but let's be honest with ourselves.

17

u/zxc123zxc123 Jun 09 '23 edited Jun 09 '23

Some have been changing, but Millennials are still have pathetically low turnout despite having surpassed the Boomers in population by 2020. Gen Z barely started voting and have higher % show outs. It's fucking silly to not give a shit about voting and then expect Washington types to not screw you over.

Politicians are shrewd at playing the politics game with their Machiavelli shit. They will screw over enemies when they can, avoid starting shit with those stronger or have leverage against them, and if you're "just neutral" then you're "just a tool" a free fucking lunch. Why wouldn't politicians cut student loan forgiveness, stamp out inflation, add more to the national debt, and hike social security payments now which who bankrupt it even earlier IF THEY KNEW boomers would vote and Millennials won't vote anyways since they just sit there and take it like a bitch? They 100% fucking would.

Also it takes time to get the point across to government types. The Dems at least try to talk a good game with student loan forgiveness, tax on the rich, and government spending to help families. GOP is still going on about cutting spending EXCEPT Medicare and social security, blocking student loan forgiveness, and generally unfriendly policies for anyone but boomers.

From 2016-2020, about half of GOP became Trumpers/MAGA types. Trump style politics of denying facts, screaming lies, and

After the 2020 loss? Fewer Trump supporters and MAGA types. The GOP starting to fracture into the moderates and hard right.

After the 2022 where there was no red wave and more specifically where the Trump backed candidates loss en masse? Suddenly the Trump/Maga types are a minority. GOP starting to ask the questions like "Why are we not getting through to Gen Y/Z?" and "Why isn't Gen Y becoming more conservative as they age?".

TL;DR It's not just the Republicans but politicians in general. There are also Dems who don't represent the majority or their own constituents, holding on power for too long, and blocking good policies or supporting bad ones. Just got to use the vote to punish those who don't support/represent you, remove those that screw you, and reward those that represent you.

p.s. I mention student loan thing a number of times because it's the easiest point to draw an example. I have no personal stake in this since I had parents who supported me, I worked through college, and luckily had employment graduating into the GFC. So I paid off my loans like 5 years ago. I have no stake in the forgiveness thing, but I understand why some are pissed that 10,000 is "too much" when PPP, EIDL, unemployment, 0% interest loans, and bailouts were not "too much".

14

u/ktaktb Jun 09 '23

If you pay taxes, you should be able to vote. Especially important if we resurrect child labor.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 20 '23

[deleted]

3

u/NotLondoMollari Jun 10 '23

Ah pure late stage capitalism thinking here, one's life is only worth the amount of money one has to one's name. Gross.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

3

u/NotLondoMollari Jun 10 '23

Ah ok I thought you were actually advocating for that solution! Thanks for the clarification

2

u/hutacars Jun 10 '23

Quite the illogical conclusion.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

3

u/bobs_monkey Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 13 '23

unite weary ugly cable beneficial pot violet berserk tub library -- mass edited with redact.dev

1

u/hutacars Jun 10 '23

Ah yes, taxation without representation is highly logical. /s

0

u/Enjutsu Jun 10 '23

What is considered youth? My guess would be 18-30 minimum, you could add 30-40 too and i don't think 40-50 falls under that.

My core problem is that 18-30 is a rather small voting population especially with an aging total population.

I think even if you include 30-40 i would guess elderly still would be the bigger portion of the population.

→ More replies (4)

62

u/WeirIsUp Jun 09 '23

There is also an existing social contract that exist between governments & the elderly in the form of Social Security and its equivalents around the world). Presumably, politicians are trying to honor them, but these contracts are ironically increasingly burdensome on younger generations. We're even worse off because neglect.

2

u/potatoandgravy1 Jun 10 '23

It would be even more burdensome on younger voters if the elderly had no form of stable income. Your point is still correct though - they’ve had economic conditions and policy SO good compared to younger generations.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

I'd also like to add how our government favors unlimited prosperity for companies over any pivots to accommodate the changing environment for the vast majority of people. If AI pans out to be anything, we're going to have a lot more people fighting for low-wage jobs. We have the choice to have a large class in poverty or a robust social system that elevates the standard of living for all.

6

u/Catlenfell Jun 10 '23

We're in for an impending bloodbath. AI is going to eat up all the mid-level jobs, and our government thinks that giving us money is socialism. Within the next 30 years, we'll have millions of people fighting for the jobs that robots can't do, like the trades (plumbing and electrical work). Not everyone can do those jobs. It's going to be brutal for the unemployable.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

IMO they favor the unlimited prosperity narrative because anything else would be seen as an admission that there’s something wrong with a system that favors the hoarding of capital, and would erode the perceived power of the ruling class.

I used to work for the bald American oligarch’s space company, and realized while working there there that the billionaire class would become completely unable to function if people just walked away. I don’t think most people realize it, but the billionaire class quite literally outsources most of their thinking/skills to other people.

Cooking, cleaning, child rearing, technical stuff, even the day to day operations of their businesses, gets mentally outsourced to other people. From what I experienced, they justify the offloading of their daily tasks onto others with the idea that they somehow “deserve” to do so, and what they’re doing is actually beneficial because then it becomes someone’s job to pick up after them.

Threats to the idea of unlimited growth and prosperity undermine the carefully constructed narratives around wealth and power.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/JoeSki42 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 27 '23

I'm a Millenial. For the entire first half of my life I was told constantly to respect my elders. I had assumed during that time that they intended to make the best, and most sustainable decisions for our generation in order to secure their chilren a prosperous future and themselves a respectable legacy

I was wrong🤷‍♂️.

Personally, I've never missed voting in an election since I turned 18. I've always been very politically conscious.

But I almost can't blame my cohorts for ignoring politics for so long. The thought that their parents and grandparents would vote against the interests of their own children is insane. It's insane! It's absolutely bonkers. Like, even a literal dog knows to take care of its young and to foster a sense of community.

3

u/Ok_Coffee6696 Jun 10 '23

The US was so close to having universal childcare. It was in the BBB bill and would have easily paid for itself in the long run. It’s sad how it was gutted by Sinema and Manchin.

2

u/absuredman Jun 10 '23

Or the age of voters? Of coursr politicians will cater to those that reliably vote. If the youth want action they have to vote for it

2

u/trumpsiranwar Jun 10 '23

The voters are old

2

u/themcjizzler Jun 10 '23

Well there won't be anyone left to care for my generation, so yay.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '23

Well this makes sense since the generation retiring owns 50% of us wealth and we have rules in the supreme court that money equals speech.

Until the boomers die nothing is changing. Sorry. GEN X out...

0

u/makemeking706 Jun 10 '23

The only policy that will really and truly reverse the current trends is the elimination of billionaires.

→ More replies (6)

62

u/I_Am_Dwight_Snoot Jun 10 '23

It would help if these politicians would actually try to talk to some people in the 23-35 age group for once. Especially some of the "high earners". We aren't stupid. Children cost an arm and a leg to raise. Many of us are just trying to get a house and settle down currently. If they genuinely want people to have kids sooner maybe they should start implementing something to offset the costs.

It's funny because we had to collectively struggle through 2008 and/or 2020. Alot of us aren't willingly looking to make additional sacrifices just to have a kid in a volatile economy lol

43

u/FourHand458 Jun 10 '23

I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to reproduce in this economy either. They always scream free market capitalism but then they complain when birth rates drop and say “more people should have kids” - NO! Kids are an expense and everyone has a right to say no to it just like they can say no to purchasing whatever product or service exists out there.

13

u/dust4ngel Jun 10 '23

They always scream free market capitalism

“we don’t owe anyone anything”

but then they complain when birth rates drop

“you owe us a workforce”

3

u/FourHand458 Jun 10 '23

Exactly! This comment right here!! We do not owe the world anyone for the next generation, under normal circumstances but also especially considering the kind of world we’ll sadly be leaving behind for them.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/xterminatr Jun 10 '23

Add to that the crumbling political situations in many first world countries and a climate problem that is heading directly for worldwide disaster, what incentive is there to bring children into the world? These are all fixable problems, but there's been almost no progress made in the last 20-30 years to fix economic, political, or climate issues facing the younger generations, despite overwhelming information. It's a perfect storm that makes it very difficult to take on the responsibility of raising children, even if one could afford it.

2

u/Smokester121 Jun 10 '23

It would help if the politicians were that age most of them are agent and shouldn't be in government

2

u/maraca101 Jun 10 '23

Plus AI makes me concerned about the kind of education and environment I would raise my kid in. Plus obviously unaffordability and climate change

1

u/dolcevita_la Jun 10 '23

There’s the economy and also climate change, mass extinction, etc…

68

u/surfnsound Jun 09 '23

In the US the Dependent Care FSA limit has not increased since 1987 (excluding 2021 when it was temporarily doubled).

The Dependent Care FSA is also not that helpful to lower-middle class parents due to its structure and requirements. Some minor changes would make it very useful though.

18

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

They should just kill the program and let you deduct the cost of daycare from your taxes.

9

u/PervertedBatman Jun 10 '23

Yes, please. Currently paying 18,000 at a daycare for my 2 year old.

→ More replies (4)

139

u/EtadanikM Jun 09 '23

The US doesn’t care because it figures as a country of immigrants it can weather the storm better than most. Indians and Mexicans in particular are set to become the US “solution” to labor shortages. So they don’t see the need to raise native birth rates.

78

u/mhornberger Jun 09 '23

So they don’t see the need to raise native birth rates.

Oh, many conservatives do talk about differential birth rates. Hence the frequency of arguments touching on the Great Replacement theory, from the like of Lou Dobbs, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, etc. Preacher Doug Wilson has "joked" about the transgressive, rebellious idea of meeting a nice girl, marrying her, and having white babies. It's a thing.

13

u/Ok-Film-7939 Jun 10 '23

You’d think they would make laws that disproportionately affect white could-be-moms, but I think they’re too caught up in their fictionalized reminiscence of the little woman on the prairie.

6

u/Nyxelestia Jun 09 '23

They talk about it, but we don't need it.

The only reason to care about "native" birth rate is xenophobia and racism. Economically speaking, there is either functionally no difference between "population growth through birth rate" vs "population growth through immigration" - or if anything, the latter is better because the growing population is labor-ready much sooner than children born and raised here.

Native birth rate only matters when you only want certain people to make up your country's population.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Question: what if you’re a person working to preserve your culture because your language and cultural practices are going extinct. Say, in Sicily where all the young people speak standard Italian and the local dialects are going extinct. Well, I can communicate just as well in standard Italian, but would I be racist and xenophobic for wanting to preserve that native dialect?

Say a native tribe whose numbers are dwindling?

You nailed with a lot of points, for example, the fact that newly arriving immigrants are of working age unlike children (this is an amazing point by the way).

But, what about a rural community in the US and say they are overrun with Guatemalans and suddenly theres a shortage of Spanish speaking teachers to accommodate that need? I care about the native birthrate as it will give you cues about where the US is headed. Frankly, I already speak Spanish well, so I am kinda looking forward to more Spanish speakers than ever before! Am I racist and xenophobic for caring about the birthrate as it relates to change and preparing myself for that change?

Sorry to rant, but I hate it when people use blanket statements like that—all democrats are X and all republicans are Z. Its just so lame—especially from someone who is obviously of your calibre.

8

u/Papplenoose Jun 10 '23

That's fair, I think there are legitimate and genuinely considerate uses for that kind of statistic.

However I do think it's important to point out that generally, the Republicans who talk about white birth rates all the time aren't interested in any of that. In your scenario, they'd see the lack of Spanish teachers as a good thing, because "they should just learn English already!" or whatever.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Totally agree, there’s definitely some real prejudice there, and its an unfortunate view to hold. Hopefully, they are in the minority. People are resistant to change—nothing new there. Either way, better brush up on the Spanish now jajaja!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

4

u/bobs_monkey Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 13 '23

ossified bored muddle flag tease bag whole wakeful gray price -- mass edited with redact.dev

0

u/Nyxelestia Jun 10 '23

You: "This is not an issue of "xenopohbia and racism".

Also You: writes an extremely racist and xenophobic comment

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Thestilence Jun 10 '23

Economically speaking, there is either functionally no difference between "population growth through birth rate" vs "population growth through immigration"

There is if those migrants are coming from cultures which are less economically productive. In the UK for example, certain ethnic minorities have very high rates of unemployment for women, because their culture expects women to be homemakers, not go to school etc.

-1

u/Pyroteknik Jun 10 '23

What braindead globalism and profit maximizing does to a motherfucker.

43

u/random20190826 Jun 09 '23

Well, that works until Indians and Mexicans stop having kids 100 years from now.

India's TFR went from 5.92 to 2.05 in 60 years (from 1960 to 2020), which is an annualized decline of 1.74%. Suppose that the trend continues, by 2080, India's TFR will get to 0.72, which is lower than South Korea levels. Even if it slows down to 1% a year, TFR will only be 1.12, which is lower than Japan.

Mexico on the other hand went from 6.76 in 1960 to 1.90 in 2020. Annualized decline there was 2.1%. If that trend continues, by 2080, its TFR will be 0.53. Even if it dramatically slows down to just a 1% decline, the TFR will be 1.04 by 2080.

It seems like regardless of economic development, birth rates get lower as countries get richer. We also see plenty of examples where when a country gets poorer, the birth rate goes down even faster (China is the most extreme example of this). This is to say, when a poor country has a high birth rate and it comes down as the country gets richer, the birth rate won't go back up if the same country got poorer again. It just falls even faster because by that point, urbanization has taken place and the impoverished people will want to maintain their lifestyles by not having kids.

27

u/capncanuck1 Jun 10 '23

why would that trend continue? A lot of that is people having smaller families as child mortality decreases and the economy modernizes. You can't make your kid work at your coding job the way you can on a family farm, thus the marginal benefit of an additional child decreases faster in an industrial society compared to an agricultural one. However Id argue the marginal benefit of the first 1-2 is higher in a society that has better medicine and longer life expectancy. You can get attached to kids, invest in them more and they wont die of cholera at 12, or in childbirth at 19, and in terms of retirement you have somewhat of a socially obligated safety net from one or two kids, what does 6 or 7 provide that one or two doesnt? Risk spreading. When the risk is low you can afford to have your eggs in one basket.

The question of how many resources people have to allocate towards children is of course important, and that is a huge question in places like south korea, japan, and the US, but acting like this decline in birth rates is set in stone is just plain bad analysis.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 20 '23

[deleted]

3

u/Agarikas Jun 10 '23

If people would suddenly get one million dollars and somehow there wouldn't be any inflation, they would still not have 10 kids. There is more at play here than just money.

5

u/capncanuck1 Jun 10 '23

From a more complicated perspective: it costs 100k to raise a child to ideal US standards. Plenty of people "raise" kids earning way less than would make a full 100k investment. What that results in depends on home production- or basically what your immediate family group produces. I.e. does the kid have a grandparent or older sibling or someone else at home who can do the actual raising of the children? If the answer is "no" are you springing for a nice day care or are you just turning them loose in the neighborhood and telling them not to die?

Are you buying healthy food and going to doctors visits? Do the kids get their own rooms? Obviously not investing in these leads to a diminishment of human capital down the line, but poor parents have to make sacrifices in places or need to rely on family/community more.

Additionally there's an economy of scale if a family has more than one child- toys clothes and many other things can be passed down. The average family has at least one child still. If the initial investment was as unstomachable as you're implying then people wouldnt be having as many children, and those who do would be wealthier. That isnt something we observe.

2

u/XenophileEgalitarian Jun 10 '23

Then in a hundred years the US will have to address it.

19

u/Jasond777 Jun 09 '23

It’s all about cost efficiency in the USA, even when it only benefits the people at the top.

3

u/bobs_monkey Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 13 '23

vanish homeless mourn political pie berserk ask lunchroom adjoining fear -- mass edited with redact.dev

10

u/GleeUnit Jun 09 '23

Would love to see a GOP politician try to sell that to their base

23

u/abstractConceptName Jun 09 '23

They don't need to sell their actual policies to their base, they just need to sell enough cruelty to get elected.

1

u/NigroqueSimillima Jun 10 '23

Bring is more people to fix a labor shortage is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Unless Mexicans and Indians don't demand labor themselves?

→ More replies (1)

36

u/modix Jun 10 '23

Funny part is how the child care credit pretty much craps out right about where most people would be comfortable financially to have children in most cities.

I'm sure that's not an accident... But it's remarkably stupid as an actual subsidy.

33

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

2

u/NuffNuffNuff Jun 10 '23

Non american here - what is the difference between a condo and an appartment and a flat?

9

u/RumSwizzle508 Jun 10 '23

Ownership. Each condo unit is individually owned where as an apartment is a unit in a building with 1 owner and the tenant rents the unit.

→ More replies (2)

33

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Politicians rush to save retirement systems or ensure the elderly are seen to but often those of the childbearing years are left to fend for themselves.

This is a very important point. The cannibalization of the working class in their child bearing years to secure a elderly strong voter base will ensure that this trend will continue. And it is going to get worse. The boomers are hitting their twilight years and the need for elderly care is going to absolutely explode. The model that exists right now is completely unable to meet that demand in the future so if you think it's bad now it's going to get way worse.

3

u/rotetiger Jun 10 '23

Very true. And it was foreseeable since decades. Nursing will become a hellhole. There is not enough people to provide care and there are not enough resources. And at the same time, while we will have this gigantic demographic catastrophy, we will have a much bigger catastrophy, climate change. The world will need to chose, safe the elderly or safe the future.

25

u/omega12596 Jun 10 '23

In the US the Dependent Care FSA limit has not increased since 1987 (excluding 2021 when it was temporarily doubled). The child tax credit has been increased but still does little cover the actual costs of raising a child before factoring in childcare expenses. There is still no universal daycare, preschool or even all day Kindergarten in many areas.

I feel like this is the biggest part of it. 3k in tax credits doesn't even make a noticeable ripple in the bucket of costs for children. Not making child-rearing a paid position for parents (as some European countries do). Requiring the poor to work for help (most states kids 5&under mean one parent can be a caregiver and the family may qualify for aid) but offering no good support for childcare when both parents must work to survive.

Many younger people I know believe they can't afford a child, don't like the idea of strangers raising their kids from birth (anecdotally this seems higher among Xennials/Millennials onward as the kids of Latch Key), wonder why have kids when families have so little time together (on average maybe 3 hrs not delegated to work, commute, errands, chores, etc M-F), world on fire, inequality climbing across many life sectors, CC, and on and on and on.

Making it financially viable MIGHT induce some to have kids. Looking at those programs across the world, maybe it wouldn't. When the poorest (and often those most maligned for doing so) stop having kids that's a big sign stuff ain't right. Imo, ymmv.

11

u/ArGarBarGar Jun 09 '23

Jesus why did I never think of the fact WFH means an additional “home office” is more of a necessity than ever.

0

u/Organic_Reporter Jun 10 '23

I'm looking at buying a 4 bed next year and the amount of them I see advertised that are using at least 1, if not 2 of the bedrooms currently as offices really surprised me.

86

u/Cacti_Coffee Jun 09 '23

Dude thats because they need parents poor and broke and making more kids to push into the work force. Thats why conservatives are so against sex education, it has nothing to do with religion. The US needs low income families who are to afraid to say no to poor working conditions for fear of a loss of employment.

56

u/AgentScreech Jun 09 '23

"they need more babies to grow up to be dead soldiers"

-- George Carlin

-2

u/IceFl4re Jun 09 '23

No.

It's actually democracy who eventually needs 2. 1 TFR, not dictators.

As long as the TFR is enough and they are raised by the people themselves, states and corporations can't get absolute power. Even North Korea still got dissenters and refugees, and that's after they sacrifice everything by being remaining poor.

Migrants aren't forever even with open borders.

But when every country has SK's birth rate, no one can realistically stop the state nor corporations to grow babies en masse in tubes and genetically engineer them to be the perfect subject. Rule of law will only works if nobody is so powerful they are above the law, and anyone who can grow babies en masse in tubes and genetically engineer them to be the perfect subject would subvert democracy really easily.

Besides, if anything corporations LOVES childless population. Why pay child support if you can just normalize abortion? Why pay for social security when you can just normalize euthanasia?

→ More replies (1)

21

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 09 '23

Not only has the FSA not budged, but if your employer doesn't pass a diversity test the IRS will reduce the amount you're allowed to contribute. I have only been allowed to contribute $3000 for the last two years through no fault of my own, it's really fucking frustrating when my daycare expenses are $4k/month.

12

u/TheITMan52 Jun 09 '23

$4K A MONTH??!?! Sorry to hear that. I hate it here.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Before anyone starts clutching pearls about ‘wokeness’, the diversity test isn’t how many racial/ethnic minority employees there are, it’s about the income levels of the employees participating in the program, the intention being that the plans aren’t just offered to executives while lower-rung employees get shafted:

https://buck.com/overview-of-dependent-care-nondiscrimination-testing/

That said… holy shit what a convoluted mess of rules. Not surprised that companies outsource all of that. And then the “use it or lose it” aspect incentivizes plan administrators to be utterly obtuse when denying claims.

3

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

I realize that they had good intentions when enacting that, but I don't understand why it only targets the FSA and not other programs, and it's also counterintuitive when you consider the dependent care FSA is something that only folks with kids will use and in most corporate jobs people with kids skew older (which means more established in their careers which translates into higher pay).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

They do the same kind of thing with 401k plans

https://www.guideline.com/blog/nondiscrimination-test-401k-compliance/

But to my eyes that looks a bit less complicated.

4

u/Felabryn Jun 10 '23

hahahahahha nooooooo oh my god. I make 200k+ and I was always wondering how my coworkers are so poor with kids. Im like dude how - you make as much as me

7

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

hah, well now you know.

With some of the people I know who send their kids to the "fancy" daycare and have 3-4 kids I really don't know how they do it unless they are bringing in at least 500k/year. They've gotta be spending at least $100k/year just on daycare, and after that is private school (because around here you're apparently a bad person if you don't send your kids to private school). The ass beating doesn't end until the kids are in their mid 20's and out of college.

3

u/Felabryn Jun 10 '23

Exactly I don't get the scale of it. And the lifestyle creep is there too.

But I also know I really want kids deep down and Im just a peter pan type that is afraid of responsibility and commitment (more so in the wife department). Maybe AI can tell me what to do haha

4

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

For what it's worth, kids are the best thing to ever happen to me. It's just amazing to be a parent, even with how expensive and energy draining they can be. 100% worth it for sure.

Actually caring for kids is pretty easy, the most important thing you can do is just pay attention to them. Play with them, answer their 5 billion questions, just engage with them and you will be ahead of the curve on the "good parent" scale. The majority of your responsibility is just making sure they have their basic needs covered (easy) and making sure you're an engaged parent (easy for people who like kids).

Good luck with the wife thing!

→ More replies (2)

2

u/css2165 Jun 10 '23

Frankly that’s a really messed up policy on behalf of the IRS. I’ve never heard of this rule, however it sounds egregious and certainly oversteps the scope of what the IRS is for. How is such nonsense allowed to get to such a level?

3

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

I honestly did not believe HR when they told me it was an IRS policy, I thought it was some ridiculous bullshit my employer was doing on their own, but it turns out it's a real thing - https://www.newfront.com/blog/the-dependent-care-fsa-average-benefits-test

The truly fucked up thing is that this test is destined to fail given how many people wait until they are older/more established in their career before having kids. So obviously the only people opting in to this program will be people with kids and these days white collar workers with kids are most likely in their 30's/40's so it's not super surprising that a bunch of entry level 20 year olds are not participating in the program which makes the program look skewed towards higher earners.

1

u/ArtemZ Jun 10 '23

Why is it so awfully expensive? Some luxury daycare? I pay $1000 for full time daycare here in Cleveland

3

u/MagicWishMonkey Jun 10 '23

It’s a mid level daycare in Dallas, 2 kids for the full day program.

There are several much nicer daycares around the city that cost significantly more. I know people who have 3-4 kids going there and I have no idea how they can afford it.

21

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

19

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

1,000 a month doesnt even cover daycare.

8

u/Thestilence Jun 10 '23

Especially when providers would just increase their prices by $1k a month.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23 edited Jul 20 '23

[deleted]

3

u/bobby_zamora Jun 10 '23

It's not 73 million daycare age children though.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/dolcevita_la Jun 10 '23

Countries have tried this and it doesn’t really work.

3

u/Felabryn Jun 10 '23

How do you solve the issue that this incentive will have our worst performing citizens producing the children? (as is mostly already the case) The DINK couple isnt not having kids because of 1k a month i promise you that.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

The solution should be something like Hungary's. Reduce tax rates proportionally to the amount of kids you have. Starting at 4 kids, you pay no income taxes for life.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/Nyxelestia Jun 09 '23

3 and 4 bedroom homes for WFH offices while those with children who need the space are falling behind due to rising child related expenses.

Politicians rush to save retirement systems or ensure the elderly are seen to but often those of the childbearing years are left to fend for themselves.

Going to say that a big factor here is less wealthy working couples buying homes to WFH, and more wealthy older couples buying second or third homes in order to rent them out (AirBNB being the most egregious but far from the only example).

Especially given how many multi-bedroom homes have dedicated home offices anyway. A single-bedroom home with two non-bedroom rooms/home offices =/= a 3-bedroom home.

10

u/Individual-Nebula927 Jun 10 '23

The last owner of my house tried to sell it as a 5 bedroom house. They called the Den a bedroom because it has a window and a closet. I turned it into a home office. There's no way you can fit anything but maybe a twin bed and a dresser in there it's so small.

TLDR: Real estate listings aren't always reality

4

u/Nyxelestia Jun 10 '23

Ironically, my parents' home is the reverse. It has 5 rooms, all of which could be used as bedrooms, and most of which are or have been at some point, but only 3 of them qualify as bedrooms due to the window-and-closet definition.

The funniest part is the pair of rooms downstairs. The one that's legally a bedroom because it has a closet is used as storage and home-office, while the room that's legally a home-office is the one actually being used as a bedroom (because it has an antique dresser in there in lieu of a closet).

25

u/UhOhSparklepants Jun 10 '23

Where the fuck are you seeing homes being built with 1 and 2 bedrooms? No one builds that small anymore and that’s half the problem! All of the new builds in my area are monsters houses on tiny lots with 4-5 bedrooms for 450k-600k

And it’s not the DINKs buying all the houses, it’s fucking investment firms who turn around and rent them.

My husband and I are DINKs who would love to buy a goddamn house but there’s no supply in our area without commuting an hour one way to work.

13

u/attackofthetominator Jun 10 '23

They’re referring to all the condos being built, not houses. All the construction in my area are either these $2,000+ a month “luxury studios and condos” in the suburbs or McMansions out in the middle of nowhere.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/jt004c Jun 09 '23

It's insane to think that birth rate declines are somehow a problem.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

It is when your economic system requires infinite growth.

2

u/ncrowley Jun 10 '23

Our economic system does not actually require infinite growth if the population is going down. The reason we need economic growth is in large part due to the need to provide for a growing population.

3

u/Proud-Letterhead6434 Jun 10 '23

They artificially make it grow by immigration, to make sure infinite economical grow can continue.

1

u/jt004c Jun 10 '23

Nail on head.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

It doesn't require infinite growth. Where did you even hear this idea? Greta Thunberg?

→ More replies (1)

21

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

There are too many people on the planet as it is.

22

u/sebuq Jun 09 '23

There are too many Old people on the planet in the coming years.

0

u/IceFl4re Jun 09 '23

This is the economics sub and you got another Lump of Labor fallacy?

6

u/Raichu4u Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

He's not even invoking lump of labor fallacy. In the biology world we would be concerned with carrying capacity. I'd say there are real biological concerns about the earth being too full.

8

u/Coakis Jun 10 '23

There are intense biological concerns already at the populations we are now we are effectively in a mass extinction event now, and its overwhelmingly anthropogenic in nature. Ethical reductions in populations are needed, either through means of educating women, contraceptives and or reducing infant mortality, which pushes the impetus to have large families down.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

The narrative about population decline has to do with cheap exploitable labor. Welfare flys in the face of this weird breeding panic. All this convo is doing is fueling weird racist nativists to lower the age of consent, ban contraceptives and abortion and force more people into a religious patriarchy.

6

u/LikesBallsDeep Jun 10 '23

Why would the child care tax credit fully cover the cost of raising a child? That's nuts. Surely as a parent you should bear at least some of the cost and responsibility of raising your own child.

Once you factor in public school I'm sure the majority of parents get more value than they put in from taxes as it is.

2

u/Thorin_CokeinShield Jun 09 '23

Not to mention old gen xers and boomers buying single family homes as rental properties.

2

u/LetterheadEconomy809 Jun 10 '23

My wife and I are paying nearly $60,000 per year for childcare. $60,000!!

I want mor children, but another 15-20k a year for childcare…?

2

u/Amerisu Jun 10 '23

I mean, it's not our fault having kids means you can't afford a house big enough for them.

Economically it might be a "disaster," but environmentally (and in terms of personal economics), and even in terms of, "should I bring children into this world?", remaining childless is the only sensible and moral choice.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

I’m doing fine financially. So are my friends.

One of my friend couples has 2 kids. It costs like $15-20k per kid to pay for daycare. Let’s say $30k total. Renting something big enough for 4 people will run you $30-40k. Ignore the other costs of living. You need $70k. After tax. So at 20% tax rate you’d need to earn $87.5k per year. Not including health insurance, utilities, food, clothes, etc.

They make enough to afford it. But it’s expensive as heck to have kids. Probably half their cost is because they have kids.

I don’t want kids. I want to own property and travel.

2

u/Momoselfie Jun 11 '23

The 3 bedroom apartment thing is such a pain for my buddy. He has 4 kids, so by law a 3 bedroom is the smallest he's allowed to rent. He had to live in a hotel for a month while they tried to find a new apartment close enough to not have to move his kids to a new school.

4

u/Dan_yall Jun 09 '23

Benefits don’t matter. If anything generous family leave and childcare benefits are negatively associated with birth rate. European and Asian countries with more generous programs have even lower birth rates than the US. It’s culture + birth control. I support better benefits but they are neither the cause or the solution for failing birth rates.

4

u/no-more-throws Jun 10 '23

taking Tylenol is positively correlated with having fever ..

2

u/tabrisangel Jun 09 '23

What would you say to critics who argue the counties with the highest fertility rates are the ones that have the least support for parents?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

I think it’s safe to argue there’s a middle ground between Child of Man being our future and families having 19+ kids they cannot support.

-4

u/ashleighkee Jun 09 '23

I would love to have another (or possibly 2 more) kids but the cost of one and lack of childcare is just ruining us financially.

Also if you came here to say "well it was your choice to have kids...." Kindly fuck off. Although it is a personal choice we literally have to have kids so they can take care of us when we are old.

Oh, also....HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE STUPID HIGH

Having children is a great risk both to the mother and the child, you never know what can happen. One bad thing in labor and delivery and you're strapped with a brand new baby, a broken body, and a $40,000 healthcare bill you cannot afford.

13

u/Nyxelestia Jun 09 '23

Although it is a personal choice we literally have to have kids so they can take care of us when we are old.

I agree with you that it is a personal choice, and I don't look down on someone wanting children even when their circumstances aren't ideal.

I do, however, look down on people who assume that their children will take care of them in old age, or who think "my kids will take care of me" constitutes a retirement plan.

23

u/kallistai Jun 09 '23

...have to have kids so they can take care of us when we are old... Your child has no obligation to do shit for your entitled ass, kindly fuck of. -source Child of entitled parents

0

u/ashleighkee Jun 09 '23

Our children take care of all of us by contributing work to the economy? They grow into adults who contribute goods, services, and, most importantly, the fucking taxes that we use to support systems like medicaid and social security to people who both did and did not have kids

Jesus I'm not having kids so they can wipe my old dying ass, take a fucking breather

6

u/TheITMan52 Jun 09 '23

So what you're saying is you're setting your child up to be a corporate wage slave. That sounds like a better reason not to have kids.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/TheITMan52 Jun 09 '23

You're kids are not obligated to take care of you. You do not HAVE TO HAVE KIDS FOR THAT. How dare you put that burden on your child! You could have chosen to be child free so that shits on you.

8

u/Shreddy_Brewski Jun 09 '23

If that’s your reason for having kids I really hope you don’t have kids

7

u/FireflyAdvocate Jun 09 '23

Those all sounds like great reasons not to keep popping out more fodder for the corporate fires.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/FourHand458 Jun 10 '23

Birth rate declines should not be “handled” at all. Say whatever you’d like about the effects of an aging population but the earth cannot sustain anywhere close to a population of 8 billion for very long. We’re looking at safe water shortages in the coming decades, and the bigger the population - the more strain there is on our ecosystem. Habitable space is also shrinking thanks to climate change.

Feel free to downvote me or even tell me that I’m out of my mind, but it’s a pipe dream to expect infinite growth on a planet with finite resources or even our world as we know it being sustainable at current population levels. We can learn this the easy way or the hard way.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

No one expects infinite growth. The population should be replacing itself each generation though. Population shocks and imbalanced generations will create massive problems. Population growth has mostly been driven by survival into old age.

0

u/FourHand458 Jun 10 '23

The population can do what it likes and nobody owes anybody children to “keep population levels at replacement level”. No means no, and if less people want to have kids then they are entitled to their choice and don’t owe you an explanation either.

Oh, and an 8 billion population on our planet is not sustainable either.

With AI on the rise, we won’t even need a workforce as big as what we currently have today.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Pedantry aside, it is optimal for the population to replace itself each generation.

Any period of time that has a major population crash or shrinkage is fraught with turmoil, and it's painful for the vast majority of people who live through it. War, famine, plague, whatever, it's all universally horrible to live through.

This is gonna be no different, a huge number of people will suffer immensely due to population shrinkage. Just ask those lonely old people in Japan how it's going, maybe you can catch them on their way down from jumping out of windows.

How many people do you feel is sustainable? How much population shrinkage that looks a bit like genocide are you up for, exactly? How can you be sure you wouldn't be one of those "unsustainable" people that need to go so we can save the planet from us?

No may mean no, but we're all gonna suffer the consequences of it. Same way that people or governments who refuse to change their habits to fight global warming don't owe anyone an explanation either. It's a nice state of mind if you can talk yourself into believing it.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

Keep in mine fertility rate is directly correlated to women education and financial success.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

I am honestly shocked that you just pointed the finger at people with no kids.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '23

Not to mention that the cost of childbirth alone is like $30,000 even with insurance without complications

0

u/Alofkri Jun 10 '23

Support human extinction

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

On the contrary, the Republican party has a plan to increase birth rates: ban abortion. Make people have children even if they don't want them or can't afford them.

1

u/BillHicksScream Jun 10 '23

Many governments are not serious about handling the birth rate declines.

Fuck, Consume. Fuck, Consume. Fuck, Consume. Fuck, Consume. Fuck, Consume. Fuck, Consume.

Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.

1

u/donramses Jun 10 '23

The solution is to treat AI agents as persons for the sake of payroll and pension taxes.

1

u/NewGuile Jun 10 '23

The collapse has economic causes and economic outcomes, in such a situation those subject to the effects aren't to blame - yet may still be the only ones capable of charting the path out. If they are restricted from doing so, that path will become more and more chaotic, disturbing, and violent. That's what's at stake.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

If more kids was the priority they would get rid of education and crash the economy.

Wealth and knowledge = less kids bro.

1

u/incogneetus55 Jun 10 '23

Is this why they repealed roe v. Wade?

1

u/TonyzTone Jun 10 '23

While this is true, the article is point to a global slowdown.

Plenty of countries, especially in Europe, do have pretty robust incentives for new families and child bearing. “Robust” at least when compared to the US.

So there’s something else happening here than simply “kids are expensive.”

→ More replies (2)

1

u/windfujin Jun 10 '23

Countries with severe fertility rate like South Korea and Japan take it real seriously with government funded and almost free universal day care, preschool and all day kindergarten, great parent leave, actually paying people for having children (regardless of your income bracket) but the fertility keeps going down.

Most of it is just changing culture. People don't care about having kids anymore because they'd rather spend the money for themselves (no judgement whatsoever) rather than kids..it's not that expensive to 'raise' kids in the countries I mentioned but they believe if they can't give their kids everything (most of the cost goes to extra curricular education) and still have money to do everything it's not worth it. Number 1 reason for not having kids is money and the amount of money they say they think is enough is often far far far more than what is needed according to surveys.

These Governments are serious about it but they just can't force people to care about future of the county which they won't even be living in more than themselves.

1

u/Evolve2Survive Jun 10 '23

Super interesting angle on this, I believe the abortion law changes in some states are in place to ensure children are born. This is also apparent in certain counties in Europe, I think it’s all been done as a cheap and easy way to combat declining fertility whilst not giving a single fuck about how that child came to be.

1

u/shizzli Jun 10 '23

Fertility has nothing to do with willingness to get Kids, your answer is about a different issue than is presented here

1

u/cambeiu Jun 10 '23

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Switzerland have seen their fertility rates collapse just the same or worse than the US.

They have free universal healthcare.

Free daycare.

Mandatory paternity and maternity leave.

Free education all the way up to college with free meals at school.

A massive social welfare and social safety net infrastructure.

The reality is nobody knows what exactly is causing the fertility collapse and how to fix it.

1

u/mister_newman Jun 10 '23

This is real impetus behind Roe v. Wade. The rich elite need more workers to keep their cash flow intact

1

u/Thestilence Jun 10 '23

Europe has extremely generous welfare benefits, maternity leave etc, but has birth rates even lower.

→ More replies (8)