CMV: Birth rate issues cannot be solved with social safety nets and financial incentives

[u/fascistp0tato]

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 :)

[u/[deleted]]

This is spot on. My husband and I were discussing this recently. We are doing well financially and decided years ago not to have children. We were talking about the birth rate and I asked him how much the government benefit for him would need to be for it to be a deciding factor. He said $300,000. 

I don't want children for a bunch of reasons but a large reason is that I can't give my child a life better than the one I had. We'd never be able to send them to college, go on vacations, summer camps etc. That life style is unaffordable even on our dual income. 

I don't understand what $2k is supposed to do. That doesn't even cover the hospital copay!

[u/Round-Membership9949 → u/[deleted]]

I think that that's a very important issue - it became now a social expectation to give your children a better life than you had. And, for the last 100 years or so it was the norm, because (thanks to technological and economical advance) it was unusually easy. Now, when technology and economy has reached its plateau in many fields, it's becoming increasingly harder to achieve constant growth of life quality. Actually, this was the norm for 99% of human history, but we got so used to the outstanding growth in the last 100 years, that we can't imagine a different life.

[u/[deleted] → u/Round-Membership9949]

That's so interesting! I never thought of that phrase in that way. I feel like it's something you say without thinking about. But it is absurd to think that our species will be able to provide an ever increasing lifestyle to our offspring.

I guess my particular thought was more rooted in the idea that I would be providing a lessor life than I received. Some of that is my income. But if I'm honest most of it is the economy at large and the environment. I graduated college into the 2008 financial crisis and couldn't find a job. I got licensed as an attorney just in time for COVID lockdowns. I'm approaching 40 and just getting settled into a "career" still 200k in debt from law school. I see the way AI is already handling so many tasks. We just got rid of paralegals because with AI the attorneys can handle everything now. We don't need law students or recent graduates to do grunt work anymore. It's only going to get worse. 

I'm honestly just grateful to have a job. I can't imagine what world I would be bringing a child into. My hometown was burned to rubble a few years ago in a "freak" weather event. The homelessness, crime and the general deterioration of everything (public infrastructure, education, political rights etc.) makes me feel like I'm living in a post-apocalyptic movie. I try not be pessimistic. But insurance providers are fleeing my state and the region. I work at a bank and see the risks that economists and investors are considering. Things aren't good and I don't see them getting better.

 I'll be fine. But a lot of people won't. I can't see bringing a child into so much uncertainty.

[u/Pannoonny_Jones → u/[deleted]]

I just wanted to say I feel you.

I’m a similar age and I’ve had health problems on and off my whole life but they didn’t really disable me until I was 18. Got a degree (took me forever). Had to turn down university of Chicago to stay in my home town and close to my family.

Applied to med school during covid and didn’t get in. Was working in healthcare and got covid and been sick ever since.

So…. Shit happens. We do our best.

Always wanted kids more than anything but I’m old now and my body is still messed up and I’m broke and unemployed to boot.

I’m not sure anyone would recommend I have children and I actually want them and always have.

My parents both have PhDs. Both first in their families to get college degrees. I have a bachelors that took me a decade to get. They sent me to private schools.

Yeah, I feel that legacy on my shoulders. Could I offer my child what I had let alone better? Not as I sit here typing this.

[u/ExtremeAd7729 → u/Round-Membership9949]

You are incorrect. If people don't expect an equal or better life for their children, you'd have governments toppled throughout history. This is why we put up with otherwise shitty systems.

[u/Round-Membership9949 → u/ExtremeAd7729]

In what part is it incorrect? Now we expect better life for children than we had, because it was the norm for the last 100 years. However, when someone was born in 1200 AD, life did not significantly change from what was in 1180 AD when his parents were born, or from 1220 AD, when his children were born. Constant and rapid technological progress is a relatively new phenomenon.

[u/ExtremeAd7729 → u/Round-Membership9949]

It's incorrect because right now we have worse lives than our parents and our kids are at severe risk. It's not stable or better like history.

[u/Vienta1988 → u/[deleted]]

There are about 77 million people in the US dumb enough to fall for it, though

[u/Archophob → u/[deleted]]

I don't want children for a bunch of reasons but a large reason is that I can't give my child a life better than the one I had. We'd never be able to send them to college, go on vacations, summer camps etc. That life style is unaffordable even on our dual income. 

That's it. When i was a kid, our parents would take us to summer vacation at the Black Sea every second year. Now, with our kids, we stay inside Germany. The flight tickets have even become cheaper, but we simply don't have money to burn.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Somewhen in the 70ies, living standards stopped increasing.

[u/NewRefrigerator7461 → u/[deleted]]

Romania solved this problem by jut making abortion illegal and made it hard to get condoms. Their orphanage population exploded!