These countries tried everything from cash to patriotic calls to duty to reverse drastically declining birth rates. It didn’t work.
…
If history is any guide, none of this will work: No matter what governments do to convince them to procreate, people around the world are having fewer and fewer kids.
In the US, the birth rate has been falling since the Great Recession, dropping almost 23 percent between 2007 and 2022. Today, the average American woman has about 1.6 children, down from three in 1950, and significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population. In Italy, 12 people now die for every seven babies born. In South Korea, the birth rate is down to 0.81 children per woman. In China, after decades of a strictly enforced one-child policy, the population is shrinking for the first time since the 1960s. In Taiwan, the birth rate stands at 0.87.
You must log in or register to comment.
My wife and I are well to do in the US, with a good household income that probably puts us in the top 2% or some shit. And to maintain the sort of life that used to be considered “middle class”, we need all of that income for our family of 4. Which means that we both work. We would have liked more kids. But there is only so much time to go around. Fuck are we supposed to do, have another kid and hire a nanny? Fuck is the point of that, we wouldn’t even be parenting.
You want more kids? Give people more time. Which means LESS WORK and BETTER CHILDCARE OPTIONS.
Not to mention better healthcare! Healthcare costs are the primary reason US citizens go bankrupt. Kids get sick, adults get sick, and if one of the adults in the house gets sick and can’t help bring in money for the kids then the entire household essentially goes from upper/middle to lower or bankrupt. If a kid gets very sick, oftentimes one of the parents has to stop working to argue every single claim that insurance would be paying but doesn’t, and call every department of every doctors office or hospital to get an itemized bill and get it lowered to a reasonable cost rather than them asking for a blank check. I’m afraid of having a sick kid and losing my job to their healthcare organization (note: not their healthcare directly, but calling insurance asking them to pay for life saving care, then calling hospitals asking why a small bandage is $1200), losing my house to bankruptcy after healthcare costs, and losing any semblance of future career due to time off and losing myself.
Word. What we really need is a societal overhaul. Not gonna happen, tho.
Absolutely. Taking healthcare costs off our backs would go a long way. The birth of my first kid absolutely wiped out the savings I had built up since getting out of school, and that was WITH insurance coverage. Six years of careful planning and saving just flushed down the toilet in an instant. There’s just no financially-responsible way to manage the risk of a hospital bill that could range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands depending on what does or doesn’t go according to plan, not to mention the following 18+ years of unknowns. It’s kind of a wonder that people are still having as many kids as they are these days.
Not to mention insurance won’t tell you what they cover until you have someone done. “Do you cover this” could mean they cover 10%, 70%, or 100%, and they don’t even know what their system will approve. This is with good insurance. Unless you are apart of the top 5% then everyone can be wiped from you very quickly without notice. Eat the rich anyone?
Not that we had much choice along the way, but you’re right, we were almost completely in the dark about how much anything was going to cost as it happened. Various groups were mailing us bills for the full amounts even before insurance had settled their portion. Nobody in the entire insurance and billing game is on your side.
It was a shock to my system to hear Americans setting aside 10k+ for delivering a child. What the fuck? For a country that claims it wants kids it sure as hell doesn’t act like it.
Here is the Canadian version: you go to the hospital, you deliver, you get the after care, then you go home. Cost to you: $0 (unless you came in an ambulance, then expect somewhere between $150-400?)
In the US ambulance can cost another $10k. They are local companies that have good connections with the local police stations, and the only way to contact them is through the police, and you can only get whichever has the best relationship with the police. I say police because to get an ambulance is the same emergency number. There is usually no competition and they can charge whatever they feel like and insurance may not cover much if anything. For an ambulance, there is literally no way to know how much you need to pay, because insurance determines if you were really experiencing an emergency or if you could have driven, and being unconscious isn’t enough to determine an emergency in many cases.
So much freedom. Freedom to die from preventable causes. Freedom to experience bankruptcy often. So much freedom.
I am you. I have two kids and fucking hell our expenses are getting out of control. Fortunately we spaced them out enough that only one is in day/preschool. But it’s still basically impossible to justify my wife being employed with only our youngest kid’s expenses. Looking at $2.5k per month of childcare expenses for one kid makes me want to give up.
My state, Oregon, passed a leave law that is currently saving our lives. Extra 4 weeks of leave that can be taken intermittently. We are financially fucked the moment we are out of our state leave. For reference I have an MS in ME and work in manufacturing. And my wife is one of the highest paid dental assistants I’m aware of.
Yes. This and this fella’s income.
Space between your kids and wait until they are ready to care for the other kids?
I hope you don’t have children that you’re forcing to be babysitters. I know people who did that growing up, their relationship with their parents is… not good.
What are you talking about?
I’m 6 years older than my sister and when we were younger, I have babysitted her every day after school until my parents came home a few hours later. That’s just not a traumatic thing at all.My parents had nine kids. The eldest still doesn’t talk to them, ten years after he left. Our two experiences must mean that the average reality is somewhere in between. Resentment sounds about right. /s
Isn’t it neat how we can have different experiences? Just because you are happy with your specific situation does not mean that certain actions won’t tend to cause resentment in the average home.
I think you’d agree that there is a stark difference between “babysitting your one sister” and “babysitting 8(!!) Children”. Yet, the comment I replied to just said broadly “letting one sibling babysit will traumatize that child and they will hate their parents” which I refuted as not being the universal truth the comment made it out to be. “Don’t cover your toddler’s nose” or “don’t let a toddler’s head fall back or forwards” are such truths. “Babysitting leads to resentment of parents” isn’t.
Also, babysitting and “caring for” are different things. While I absolutely agree that you should not be in a parenting role as sibling and being responsible for the upbringing of your younger siblings, babysitting usually means “watch for a few hours and keep the status quo so the child doesn’t starve or kill itself while the parents are away”, nothing more.
Besides, you closed your reply implying that I’m the outlier here because my experiences aren’t doing what would happen in “an average home”. Now don’t get.me wrong here but isn’t my home a little more average than your’s? Like… Going by the numbers in the very post above.
the comment I replied to just said broadly “letting one sibling babysit will traumatize that child and they will hate their parents”
It’s funny, i thought the exact opposite; your comment was saying that kids babysitting kids will never cause resentment, and the comment you replied to was obviously saying that kids baysitting kids is a bad habit to get into, but not terrible in moderation.
I am well aware that my family situation is an outlier, i just understood your comment to mean that kids babysitting kids will never cause resentment, so one counter example was enough to make my point, which was that you need to be careful about choosing to have enough kids so they can ‘parent themselves’.
Yeah, my last sentence sounds wrong in hindsight. Should have said “That is just not a traumatic thing to me at all” or "That was not a traumatic thing at all.
I absolutely agree that a line should be drawn where you expect children to prematurely… well… mature and be parents/adults.
In my case, I was 12 or so and my sister was 6, so we both came home from school and were alone until our parents got home from work. They never expected me to make her do things or something. When we hadn’t done our homework when they got home, the consequence was that the homework needed to be done still and we couldn’t go out and play. That’s it. My job was to make sure my sister got a warm meal (reheated; pre-cooked by my parents) and basically didn’T die. They asked us to do certain things while they were away (vacuum the living room or something) but they never really made a fuss when we failed to do it. They just made us do it later then.
The problem is that a child is the responsibility of the parents, and the parents alone. Could you have said no if you wanted to? You should have been able to, every time.
I personally take offense in strangers who tell me how my family life which I’m rather fond of “should have” been. You have no right to stamp your ideas of family onto me and my relatives. Period.
That isn’t happening. Stop trying to play the victim.
Oh? So uranibaba did not postulate their opinion on how responsibilities in a family “should be” and formulated them as absolute rights or wrongs? Did we read the same comment?
My oldest daughter is a bit over 6 years older than our baby. I might ask her to do something similar to what you are describing. Most people on here seem to think helping the family out equals trauma because birthing someone automatically means you retain full responsibility for them existing. It’s more complicated than that and I think the thing people are mad about is choosing to have kids in a way that you expect them to take care of each other.
For me, this always went under “caring for each other” which is something children should learn and practice. Besides, we always had a grand old time. They always made absolutely sure there was food to be warmed up, so that was.taken care of. After that, I’d play computer games upstairs, she’d watch cartoons downstairs and then shout for me when she heard someone coming. Then we’d tell our parents how we practiced piano or some shit and they knew what was up, yet let us go on.
People don’t want to bring children into this capitalistic hellscape. Color me surprised.
And even if they want to, they can’t afford to
But they’re being paid!!!
Except that is the whole point of the article, money isn’t why.
8 months pay isn’t going to pay for 18 years
From the article (that you didn’t read):
“In a 2018 US poll, about a quarter of respondents said they had or were planning to have fewer kids than they would ideally like to have. Of those, 64 percent cited the cost of child care as a reason. Ballooning costs — of child care, housing, college, and more — are an issue around the world”
In 2009, after decades of falling birth rates, it began offering six months of paid parental leave, reimbursed at 60 percent of a new parent’s salary — then recently increased that share to 80 percent. The government has introduced a cash benefit and a tax break for parents of young children, and has invested in child care centers.
They’re giving money but you’re taking a 20% pay cut with massive increases in cost. Math doesn’t really work that way. You’d probably need an extra $50k/year to even consider it.
Costs keep going up and income keeps going down.
At the end of the day it’s a good thing. Less humans = less consumption = slowing the trashing of our planet.
Less billionaires would be better than less humans in general.
Exactly, Elon Musk has 11 kids and they’l contribute more to climate change than 1000 kids in China.
When it takes two people’s income to live in the middle class, there is no time for children until much later. The trend is to have children at 30, when you are starting to make a decent income.
It is more about too much centralization of power than any one economic system as this issue is a near global issue.
The cost of raising a child has gone up thousands. No government has come close to subsidizing the increase.
That’s my experience too. I read the whole article to find out what countries have actually tried helping with the expenses of raising a child. The most financial help mentioned was a 30,000 LOAN that would be given to newly weds and only forgiven if they had 3 kids… 30k isn’t enough for one kid…
The only other financial help I saw was $7000 per kid in Russia.
And money is only one part of the problem. It takes time to raise kids. If both parents have to work full time there isn’t any time left to raise your kids even if you’re rich while working.
20th cenrury’s policies put a lot of effort into distancing us from our means and our families. Paying peanuts for a newborn wouldn’t help poor who are most likely to want it, only to dig themselves deeper. It’s, true, a systemic problem that can’t be solved with a mere donation.
Russia was already building their army back then hehe
Yeah, how much cash are they offering? If it’s a one time payment of like $1000, that won’t even cover the cost of nappies in the first year.
That won’t even cover the epidural for the delivery in the US
Even if you choose not to have kids, the sad thing is that you’ll spend the same money taking care of your parents when we stop taking care of our elderly in 20 years so the rich can have more tax breaks. The really sad part is you’ll spend all your money on both if you do have kids anyways
Have they tried raising the salaries so that one parent can stay at home and actually take care of the children, instead of sending them to way too expensive daycares. Having children is a “luxury” nowadays.
I assure you you can. The payment would have to cover all of the child’s needs plus a bit more but you definitely can.
But the cost of that would far exceed anything remotely reasonable. I say fuck it, let the birthrate drop for a few decades. The planet could use the break.
It’s only catastrophically low in traditionally “western” countries. the world’s population is still growing. It appears immigration is now a requirement to grow the economy. How interesting.
Conservatives/fascists are just gonna LOVE these next few decades. Climate change is set to destroy countless homes, displacing millions if not billions of people. If they think the “border crisis” is bad now, they’re gonna lose it then.
That’s why they want to militarize the border and normalize the concept of the ethnostate now, so they can machine gun climate refugees in the near future.
But don’t you dare call them fascists.
I think that’s predicted to level off in 60 years then drop. Though I guess it was level before the industrial revolution, so a lot could still change.
This, it’s not as though me and my partner don’t want children, it’s that we want children and we don’t want to be the source of their suffering for failing to care for them as well as we should, due to financial hardship.
A lot of childless people feel real responsibility to non-existent children, and feel like the world keeps pushing them down, making life harder, and making it feel impossible to be one of the people to have their own children.
Of course. Me and my significant other will end up doing the same thing. Both of us are from heavily catholic families but due to many reasons.
Yes, and the total payment would have to be substantial. The cost of raising a child from infancy to age 18 (not including university, obviously) in Canada is $320,000.
https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/making-it/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-in-canada/
Yep, it sounds weird but some politicians are floating the idea. It will never pass, but it’s the thought that counts(?). Of all people, Trump wanted to give a family 5k per child. So the idea exists in the us with some strong political people. ( because of lemmygrad I am saying this I don’t like Trump I am only using his statement to show how much the belief exists)
$5K one-time payment? No way!
$5K per month? Sign me up.
Florida is giving $8k per year for private school costs, and apparently homeschool can count. As against that idea as I am, I do think that could have a positive impact on population growth.
I could definitely see someone fantasizing having 4-5 kids then “retiring” to homeschool them. For $8k per year each kid.
Indiana gives $6k, but even though my daughter is in online school, she doesn’t get it because it’s a state program (except it’s run by Pearson). If she was in another online program, she’d get the $6k. Granted, we don’t have to pay tuition, so we don’t need the $6k, but it seems unfair to me.
Don’t live in fear of or apologize to the lemmygrad assholes, speak your piece.
Can’t believe the Mentos rap song campaign didn’t work. They’re the Freshmaker!
Most birds don’t lay eggs without a proper nest
Tried everything…except work life balance.
Also didn’t paying a livable wage
Just like the socalled “work shortage”, the problem is they aren’t offering nearly enough. That’s it.
Currently in Taiwan, citizens receive 2500 NT per month (i.e. $80 USD) per birth until the child is five years old. That’s a fucking joke.
Yeah there’s no way these programs are coming anywhere near the cost of having kids. Childcare alone is insanely expensive these days.
snort
deleted by creator
And money. And a place to live. And food prices that aren’t massively inflated.
Lot of folks can’t even afford to take care of themselves. Add a kid into that struggle? No thank you.
Look, if you didn’t want to be price gouged, you shouldn’t have paid those high prices! Vote with your wallet!
(For those who think I might be serious, I’m not. Voting with your wallet isn’t democratic, it’s literally plutocratic.)
Kidding aside, there’s a clip of some grocery store chain CEO talking about how they will raise their prices as high as the market will bear - it’s chilling, but, like, in the USA, it’s the law - it would literally be illegal if they didn’t.
Christ, it’s too expensive to be alive right now… fucking suffering.
That hasn’t stopped boomers
Kids are cheap to feed plus you eat their leftovers, so it’s a win win.
Don’t know if you know this, mate, but kids grow.
Not if you eat their food.
I know a fair chunk of my friends who have given up on the dream of kids. When both parents have to work full time at jobs their post secondary education qualified them for and court mental health issues because nothing they do for work feels meaningful just to scrape by with the bare minimum and accrue damn near nothing in savings… They don’t really want to have kids.
A lot of mammals when they don’t feel safe or secure in resources abandon or kill their young. Humans given control over their reproduction just seem to settle on raising dogs because they are cheaper.
It also kind of feels like society hates me for being ADHD and wants me to suffer so why would I want to bring another human into this world that has felt for 30+ years like a door slamming in my face.
I like when I tell boomers I don’t feel like I will be financially able to raise a kid until I am much older than I should be for having a kid and they smile and with a nostalgic look say “Oh, nobody is ever ready! You will figure it out trust me! We did!”. Makes me want to punch them in the face.
I’m with you on this. My family is, let’s just say, prone to melancholy and leave it at that.
My having children means there’s a significant likelihood that I’d be bringing even more misery into the world. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that.
nods for me, my depression comes out of having an invisible disability that most people think is a joke excuse that arises out of being on too much tiktok or something. I don’t know if I would be sad if society actually valued me for the unique qualities of my brain…. but it doesn’t and there is no way I would want to give a kid the experience I have had trying to push through that. It has been awful honestly and I don’t understand what possible point there could be to it OTHER than to scream in my ear that I shouldn’t pass my mind on to another human.
Maybe I will get a dream job one day that accommodates me and lets my strengths come out…. but statistically it’s just not that likely. Why would I knowingly set a kid up with such a shitty diceroll?
Woman of childbearing age here. Lots of my friends took another child off the table when Roe fell. Being potentially forced to die and leave your existing children orphaned is a big deterrent, turns out
Plus it just fucking sucks to be a mother these days. Things are a lot more egalitarian than they used to be, but society still expects the uterus-having to take on more of the child caring tasks, and the emotional labor especially tends to still fall disproportionately on women. Our careers suffer, our bodies suffer if we bore (and possibly nursed) the baby/ies, our mental health suffers from the unrelenting societal pressure and neglect, plus all of the other shit that every other parent deals with as well. The women and mothers I know are fed up and so, so tired. (I’m not bitter… not at all… :D)
I love my children to pieces, but if I had seen an older sister go through this I might have opted out of having kids entirely. Two of my sisters have.
Yeah can’t blame the ladies for that one, if I were a woman I’d be mighty tempted to seal up my womb too.
Interestingly this is actually how a lot of men feel about their own procreation. You’re one broken condom away from being beholden to an unwanted child and a selfish mother. It can ruin your life before you’ve even had a chance to start. Hell teenage boys raped by older women have had to pay child support.
I’d love to see this lead into a useful conversation about the rights of both sexes but it has been pretty one-sided so far.
I suspect the rise of the dual-income family (often as a matter of necessity) has had a massive influence on this.
In addition to the absurd increases in cost of living etc.
Also the bleak outlook into the future.
They’ve tried everything… except putting guardrails on these giant corporations and their runaway price-gouging. In the US at least, if the cost of wages kept pace with skyrocketing housing, higher education, and healthcare, I guarantee more people could afford to live and care for themselves and children…
They might also recognize that shrinking family size isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lower birth rates around the world could lessen environmental degradation, competition for resources, and even global conflict, Wang Feng, a sociology professor at UC Irvine, writes in the New York Times.
In every single one of these “depopulation crisis” articles the “maybe a shrinking population isn’t entirely a bad thing” perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it’s even mentioned at all.
Also consistently missing in these types of articles: an actual breakdown of the costs of raising a child (including the opportunity costs to one’s career as the result of parental leave) vs the benefits the government is offering.
Also invariably missing: a description of the serious short- and long-term physical and mental risks of pregnancy and childbirth; at least this article mentions maternal mortality, but there’s so much more at risk even in a “healthy” pregnancy and birth, from post-partum depression to incontinence. Occasionally articles will muse about women’s fear of “frivolous” conditions like weight gain and stretch marks, but never life-altering ones like severe hemorrhaging, organ failure, and fistulas. How many women are postponing or forgoing pregnancy because they’re not willing to risk life and limb to procreate? We’ll never know as long as no one thinks to ask.
I have read a million of these “birth rates are dropping despite government efforts” articles, and they all echo the same pro-growth propaganda while conveniently neglecting these major, crucial points. JOURNALISTS, DO BETTER!
In every single one of these “depopulation crisis” articles the “maybe a shrinking population isn’t entirely a bad thing” perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it’s even mentioned at all.
That’s because people aren’t willing to leave the “babies are the super bestest things ever and if you are super happy then you’re a horrible person” narrative.
In 1968, when Richard Nixon was first elected, “middle class” was defined as one Union type job paying for a family of four in a private house with a few luxuries. In those days, $1 million was a vast fortune. Nixon ramped up inflation with his Vietnam War buildup, and the Oil Crisis really increased it. Ronald Reagan got elected and by the time Bush Sr. finished the job, “middle class” was two incomes to keep the household going, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
Is a declining birth rate a bad thing? 50 million people live in a country (South Korea) the size of Indiana. Maybe, just maybe the economy should just take a hit for a change so there can be fewer people here. I know rich people don’t want that, but I bet the country would be a better place for it.
Korean here. The problem is the steepness of the trend. We are not ready for such dramatic change over short period. Gradual decrease in population will cause economic downfall for sure. But we can deal with that. But in current speed, it’s going to be economic airplane crash. Claiming that it’s only bad for the 1% is just delusional at best. The crash will overwhelm any social/economic structure.
I’ve noticed some people here practically yearn for disasters because it might hurt the rich. The absolutely staggering collateral damage to everyone else is ignored or waved away. It’s very much a desperate “nothing left to lose” philosophy that’s both sad and scary.
Multiple generations have had all the doors slammed in their faces, and all the ladders pulled up before them. Instead of acting like crabs in a bucket, they’ve decided they would rather have nothing so long as the people who trapped them suffer too. It’s pure spite but can you blame them? I’d probably do the same thing.
You are ignoring the fact that there’s going to be several times the loss in human workers added to the workforce by way of virtual laborers within 20 years.
This is just one of the many recent instances of humans being unable to adequately forecast consequences due to anchoring biases. While we typically see it in the other direction (minimizing increasing risks because of lower historical risk) here it’s something that would have been concerning decades ago but won’t be nearly as risky decades from now.
Maybe the chaebols should stop constantly putting up new apartment blocks now.
That’s very far from what’s happening right now. I’m curious where did you get that idea from.
Maybe the evidence is anecdotal, but I’ve lived in Korea for 20 years, and there’s always a huge new, self-contained apartment complex going up nearby. If anything, they’ve ramped up production in that time. While older population centers are left to decline. Maybe not in Seoul which is shoulder-to-shoulder apartment complexes already, but the smaller cities are full of decaying apartment complexes since they put them up, then completely fail to maintain them as they know their market is full of people who will move into the next complex since “gotta have the latest and greatest” is a problem here.
There’s good evidence though. When you drive from Incheon Airport into Seoul, you see a ton of new apartment / condos going up. Every time I visit, I see more and more buildings put up.
I mean, in the short term (50-100 years), yes it is. Unless people start dying at a younger age, there’s going to be a lot of orphaned seniors, which isn’t good. We won’t really see the benefits of a declining birthrate in our lifetimes, but we will see numerous negatives.
In the long term, it’s probably more nessecary then “not bad,” but again, you don’t want to be the one of the people living during the population collapse.
deleted by creator
It’s bad for capitalism and the 1%. You can’t have infinite growth with falling population numbers.
Edit: A lot of people claiming it’s also bad for the young and old people. It depends on how you’re social services are structured. Where I live the system is set up so that everyone only gets back the money they put into the system. That’s what the EU recommendations are and where all the EU countries are moving. Yes, the retirements will be lower in the future but that’s the only way to make the system sustainable without major cuts to everything else. IMHO it’s better than the idea of infinite growth.
No, it’s actually bad for everyone, because few young people have to support loads of old people. Politics will cater to the old people, because they have more voting power in numbers and will cut budgets for young people (education, social security and so on).
As opposed to now? That’s literally what happens here, no one wants any of these old fucks’ laws. They were born when the first plane was taking off and haven’t kept to date with anything in the modern world. We have no choice because the only people who seem to have any time to do anything in this country are the old people. Therefore we get shit on for simply trying to exist.
Yeah, that’s getting even worse.
It’s bad for capitalism and the 1%.
It’s bad for the Old who will have their Pensions cut and bad for the young who have to pay for more Pensions.
It’s not bad because we’re such a capitalist Society but exactly because we’re not. Because we expect to pay Welfare to older People to retire. And that whole Concept lies on the Assumption, that there will always be more People paying for the Welfare than People receiving it.
Lol. What pensions?
Just like national health insurance, every workers in SK is mandated to pay for the pension insurance. You give x% of your earnings and 국민연금공단(National Pension Service) gives you back(with x more amount, in consideration of interest rate and everything) as pensions after you retire(from 65, that is). Problem is steep decline in taxpayers and increasing number of pensioners have resulted in NPS not having enough money to pay everyone who already paid for their pensions.
Nice of you to just go lol what pensions when you don’t seem to know anything about the system.
deleted by creator
Sounds nice for SK. But lol pensions don’t exist for most of the US anymore
It’s bad for humanity too. You can’t replace all the old people that cannot create what we desire for living without having kids.
