[lynguist]

When you were a kid for the first 20 years society provided for it - schooling etc. A day of school will easily cost the community 1000 $/€ of public money per day.

After that the kids turn into net positives that finance the rest of society.

A society that is declining in population because of a large number of people actively choosing to not have kids means that they are not “doing their part” to build our society.

It sounds weird and abstract, but on a large scale makes sense.

By the time you stop working society gives you more for your life, they maintain and uphold society and pay for your retirement. When you don’t have children you only take from then on without returning to society.

[Rinzler89]

>and pay for your retirement

I think by that point I already paid for my retirement for the 40+ years that I've worked.

[Ekaros]

More interesting viewpoint in this is for kids to provide labour for you to buy with your retirement.

This might or might not be an issue for retirements in future. You could have currency units, but there might not be labour to buy with those units. As money in sense is just saved labour.

[sickofparadox]

And it's all dependent on the entirety of society not collapsing the second everyone born in your generation retires. Every Generation owes its retirement to the next, just like how it owes its upbringing to the one before - that's just how it works.

[lm28469]

> I think by that point I already paid for my retirement for the 40+ years that I've worked.

That's not how it works at all though, when you work you pay other people's retirement. When you retire the working class pays yours.

And yes it's as sustainable as it sounds...

[skeaker]

Wait, what? Don't you pay back the money spent on you in the school system by being a working member of the economy? How does having more children to draw more school funding out of society benefit it if not for the economic impact they, and therefore you because you also went to school, eventually have?