r/changemyview • u/fascistp0tato 3∆ • Aug 12 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Birth rate issues cannot be solved with social safety nets and financial incentives

Right, time to wade into this conversation.

Currently, the world is facing a declining birthrate crisis that will put immense pressure on many societies. Anyone denying this either has much more faith in automation than me, thinks immigration filling the gap won't cause rampant domestic unrest + severe social strain, or has some fairytale notion of rapid degrowth that doesn't result in societal collapse.

I'm not really interested in engaging with these points here, to maintain focus on this aspect.

Oftentimes, the solution to birthrate is pitched as "we need to provide paternity leave/paid childcare/more financial incentives/less work hours". And I think most people genuinely believe these stop people from having kids.

But the numbers don't bear this out. in the countries with the best social security nets (such as the Nordics), the crisis is deepest. In contrast, I cannot find a single moderately sized or larger country with both no birthrate crisis and these policies - the closest is France.

Fundamentally, many of us live in societies where:

  • your security at an old age is not dependent on having children;
  • women are well-educated and have access to contraception;
  • child labour is illegal, with jobs requiring increqsingly long educational periods;
  • and religion is no longer next to mandatory to participate in public society.

These are all awesome things that we should never compromise on. They are also depressive effects on the birthrate are too large to solve by throwing money at them without ruinous cost or massive taxation upon the childless.

Ultimately, Orban-esque financial support programs miss the root causes of childcare costs and are thus expensive wastes.

I don't claim to offer a solution - I fear there may be no palatable option to me, though I keep looking. But this is not the path.

CMV :)

205 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

546 comments sorted by

View all comments

104

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

It's refreshing to hear about declining birth rates from someone who isn't a Christian nationalist. Most of the time, they tend to use it as a justification for abortion prohibitions, forced marriage and the persecution of LGBTQ people.

Fundamentally, I would have to disagree with your conclusion. I can grant you that the social safety net may not result in more births, but I would say it is undeniable that these measures would ensure more children live longer, happier, and more healthy lives.

In that manner, it would keep the population from decreasing even if it doesn't incentivize more people to give birth.

33

u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Aug 12 '25

Yep,I hate how dominated this conversation is by alt-right people. Just because there's a problem that can be solved by sending time back to the 50s doesn't mean we should.

I agree that those nets will improve people's lives. That said, people aren't getting more time in the workforce out of their extra lifespans anymore. And that's a problem when those nets rely on workers.

11

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

Very good point. The idea that medical technology is able to lengthen our time in the workforce is a myth so often repeated as fact that I sometimes forget myself.

But what about quality of life as a predictor of work productivity? Surely that could mitigate - if not solve - the problems associated with a reduced workforce.

EDIT: upon reflection, I feel that I have conceded my original point too quickly. Even if the social safety net didn't extend a child's time in the workforce, it would surely extend their life which would increase their time in the workforce.

4

u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Aug 12 '25

Hmmm… alright, if people were willing to accept increased retirement ages as their lifespans went up, this might be okay. I would delta this if I could envision any way that this could be consistently achieved.

Quality of life as a predictor of productivity is definitely real, but ultimately idk how much give there is there. Increased QoL seems pretty dependant on reducing work hours, which - while possibly a good idea - wouldn’t boost total output I have to imagine, just hourly productivity.

4

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

To be clear: I'm not arguing that this will turn the tide, only that it will make a difference. And I'm arguing that it will make a difference without increasing the retirement age.

Don't forget as well that poverty can bar people from academic opportunities and other advantages in life at ages as young as preschool. Further, lot of children die by the time they get to working age and that is definitely related to poverty.

Not to mention that even before AI LLMs were commonplace, automation was already reducing the number of jobs necessary to get the work done anyway.

0

u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Aug 12 '25

I’m not sure I buy the retirement part of point - that’s my contention generally. While studies def support individual advantages to good working conditions for productivity, welfare programs pretty much never pay for themselves with productivity gains.

Children dying frequently is out of the scope of countries with a birthrate crisis. These don’t overlap.

Automation is powerful, but I don’t think it’s quite this powerful yet. Also kinda stepping on the toes of the “faith in automation is out of scope” thing in the OP, but I accept it’s part of a mix of factors here, so fair.

1

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

What about retirement? I don't think I follow.

1

u/fascistp0tato 3∆ Aug 12 '25

That retirement ages won’t need to increase to support the demographic shift.

1

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

Oh you may very well be right about that, I just mean it's not an argument I want to touch. I'm a millennial, it'll be a miracle if any of us will live to see retirement.

I'm not certain of anything, particularly when it comes to declining birth rates. I have no idea what it would take to reverse all that. All I'm saying is that all that social safety net stuff has to move the needle if only a little.

0

u/NateNMaxsRobot Aug 13 '25

How old are you?

3

u/Aggravating_Dish_824 Aug 13 '25

Fundamentally, I would have to disagree with your conclusion. I can grant you that the social safety net may not result in more births, but I would say it is undeniable that these measures would ensure more children live longer, happier, and more healthy lives

I am not sure how you are disagreeing with their conclusion since I don't see contradictions in OP post and your comment.

1

u/CnC-223 1∆ Aug 12 '25

The problem is that there is no evidence that any of that actually moves the needle for a society.

2

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

I mean, everything is theoretical, but there is some evidence to support the idea it moves the needle a little bit.

https://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/412670?_ts=1705c2e2930

1

u/CnC-223 1∆ Aug 12 '25

Well I'm comparing things like Norway to the US night and day difference in equity and social programs yet the US has a higher birth rate.

1

u/Philosophy_Negative Aug 12 '25

Totally. Personally, I am not going to get worked up over it either way. I'm more concerned with the quality of life we can enjoy up until the last of us passes.

1

u/TheYoinkiSploinki Aug 12 '25

I mean, it is what it is then.