[blueblisters]

I think the idea is to bring the average up to 2.1, which is the accepted "replacement" fertility rate, to stem a population decline. One way to achieve that level is when a majority of women have 2 children but a few have 3 children. For a population the size of China, a "few" might mean a few million. I don't see that happening without a few carrots.

[dragonelite]

Its a hard problem to solve don't even know a developed country that actually managed this problem well.

[hutzlibu]

I am not sure, that this is a problem that needs centralized "solving".

I don't want anyone tell me, how much children I can or should have.

We got to make sure the work life balance is in order for people to have the time and money to afford a family and give adequate support like daycare etc.

But apart from that, I really don't like some buerocrats in some buerau somewhere calculating the "correct" number of births. That regulates itself. There is immigration and emigration. There is automatisation (elderly care), better medicine, so older people can tend to themself longer and less need of a "dumb" workforce etc. etc.

Trying to calculate it and declare meassures based that, can only fail in my opinion.

[WillDaSilva]

> We got to make sure the work life balance is in order for people to have the time and money to afford a family and give adequate support like daycare etc.

Stuff like this can and does result from bureaucrats / policy-makers deciding what an ideal number of children (for the well-being of the society) is. You say "that regulates itself", but clearly the things you listed (work-life balance, economic prosperity, daycare, etc.) are not self-regulating. You also mention specifically that this matter doesn't need centralized solving, but that's different from what you went on to say, that the factors that go into determining how many children are had are self-regulating. A decentralized approach does nothing to guarantee that.

Whether you like it or not, the government has a large influence over all of these matters. Choosing to not regulate them is a choice that will affect how they turn out. Likewise, the very structure of the economy and social systems will affect these things. A government can not avoid determining what those are like, whether by the government's active influence over them, or its more laissez-faire approach. When you have a monopoly on violence, you cannot truely recuse yourself from what happens in the society around you, and if you lack a monopoly on violence then you aren't really a government.

[hutzlibu]

I have a young family, so I can tell you that I do know a bit how things go and how many things don't work so well - to which I do in fact blame the various regulations.

Because you know, what worked best for us? All the things that are not regulated, like grandparents watching over the childs or teenage babysitter. The very well regulated state kindergarten?

It was a nightmare so far, even though we have a quite good kindergarden compared to the various stories I heard so far of what is possible, as well. And sure, Corona was not helping with that either, but I know quite some people in social jobs and I listen to their stories since way before corona.

[iammisc]

Wow... I can't believe you're advocating for something completely normal, like choosing to decide how many children you have, and how creepy it is that some governments literally dictate to you this most private aspect of you and your spouse's life, and you are being downvoted. The shills must be out in full force today.

[hackingthenews]

Yup agreed, commented the exact same below.