[Take8435]

So, the solution is to... not provide education? The logic doesn't make sense. You say this yourself: "I would still have them if I knew just how hard it would be"

If it reduces birth rates, that's not due to education alone. That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families.

You should know this with two kids. Any help is better than no help. Women want to work. Women want to go to school. That's what this topic is about.

[filoleg]

> So, the solution is to... not provide education?

Where did the parent comment say that? This is about as bad faith of a take as it gets.

They said that providing more education is not going to help with increasing birth rates, and is likely to do the opposite. That doesn't mean that more education shouldn't be provided. Those two things are not contradictory.

Another example in the same category: increasing quality of life and wealth of the citizens is negatively correlated with birth rates. But it would be extremely silly to suggest that someone stating that actually means "we should not be increasing our quality of life and wealth."

[Take8435]

> Where did the parent comment say that? This is about as bad faith of a take as it gets.

I'm asking a question. It's not a bad faith take. How else should I reply to it? Just accept it and move on? I don't agree and want to know more (from the OP, not from you, by the way)

Parent comment talked about having kids. Guess what, I have kids. My opinion matters too.

[traderj0e]

You'd be surprised how much people "want" to do something has to do with what they're told or pressured to do growing up. Ask kids why they're going to college and you'll see.

[giantg2]

"That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families."

Please show the evidence for this being true. Birthrates are low even in countries that provide a lot of support.

[acdha]

No country provides a lot of support. Some countries provide more but inevitably if you poll people they’ll mention that they mention significant financial deterrents, not to mention things like climate change, all of which are valid. People only need one of them to be true to decide to have fewer children, while society needs to help address all of them.

For example, if your government provides housing and childcare support—and say that’s the unicorn where those are consistently available, high quality, and cover the full cost—but still culturally tends to mommy-track careers into dead ends, despite doing those other things well you are going to have a lot of women decide not to risk multiple decades of lifetime earnings.

[giantg2]

"No country provides a lot of support."

The evidence suggests this is not true. The rest of your comment points to non-financial issues.

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-birth-rate-fertility-rate-pa...

[acdha]

Yes, support does not have to be financial. If you read the entire article you posted note the experts quoted made the same point: opportunity cost is real. Career impact is real. The shift to getting educated and established in a career is real.

Societies have to address many different sources of no because the only reason rates used to be higher in the past was women not having a choice.

[liveoneggs]

countries with high birth rates right now have government support for families?