[staminade]

Unless they roll-back women's rights and improvements in child mortality, societies will need to radically overhaul their entire relationship to supporting parenthood in order to reverse this trend. The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high.

We need universal childcare services, provided by the state and available to all, and other childcare-enabling reforms like automatic right to work from home and other flexible working arrangements for those with children.

These won't be popular with everyone, but you'll won't solve the demographic crisis without them.

[thewhitetulip]

> societies will need to radically overhaul their entire relationship to supporting parenthood in order to reverse this trend.

Absolutely impossible to do in the modern age, not just in India.

Everyone is set in their lifestyle.

This reason and cost of living crisis + AI + pollution + lack of any support whatsoever is causing this baby bust but govt thinks it van give a one time $ 300 money grant for the 3rd kid! It takes about $ 1.5k to get delivery done in a good hospital in the cities. Checkup and pre delivery costs are above $ 500 at the least over 8 months.

[9cb14c1ec0]

> We need universal childcare services

Birth rates have been falling worldwide, regardless of the level of government support. It's much more a matter of attitudes about having children.

> The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high

Nope. My wife and I have 4 children, on a lower-middle-class income in the US. Your lifestyle choices matter a lot. If you want to have children, you can find a way to afford them.

[aidenn0]

The worse the primary-caregiver's job prospects are, the cheaper the opportunity costs are to have kids. My wife quickly realized she didn't want to be an English teacher, and couldn't do a whole lot of other things with that degree, so her staying home to raise our 4 kids was very affordable for us. If she had been a software developer, the opportunity costs would have been higher.

[jacobgkau]

Sounds more like it's a matter of attitudes about personal economics than attitudes about having children. If you want to wallow in poverty (and don't mind if your children do as well), then of course you can "find a way."

[9cb14c1ec0]

As per usual arrangement, the internet can't stand a nuanced opinion, but instead jumps straight to extreme conclusions. Nowhere did I say anything about wallowing in poverty.

[jacobgkau]

Of course, "If you want to have children, you can find a way to afford them." is a very nuanced statement for you to have made.

4 kids on a lower-middle-class income in the US makes me picture poverty, as someone on a lower-middle-class income whose girlfriend is legally in poverty (and with that being the primary reason we haven't gotten married and had kids yet). If you disagree, feel free to describe your circumstances in more nuanced detail. I wonder if it will really end up being a description of lower-middle-class.

[win311fwg]

> It's much more a matter of attitudes about having children.

That is the story right there. We as a society spent decades upon decades demonizing having children at a young-ish age. "Your career is more important", they said. We got shows like "16 and Pregnant" to dissuade viewers from having children. People have become genuinely afraid of having kids.

Not until you are in your 30s does the social messaging shift from "only failures have children" to "why haven't you had a child yet?" That change in social pressure often compels one to start to change their mind, but at that point one becomes biologically limited in how many children they can reasonably birth.

[hgoel]

Sorry for wanting my children to not grow up in poverty with immature young adult parents.

[jdthedisciple]

> The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high.

Interesting, guess our cavemen ancestors were much smarter and more capable than us since that seemed easy for them.

Hint: Imagine cutting defense budget and foreign meddling in favor of supporting families at home. Genius idea right?

[trumpdong]

There's a certain other country that has free education, free healthcare, free childcare, heavy tax subsidies for having children, has the highest birthrates in the region, and it's all paid for with American tax dollars.

[kakacik]

Yeah I am not sure I will call that plumber or electrician which only works from home... some folks really live in bubbles, big or small

[jacobgkau]

I think jobs that can't be done remotely is where the universal childcare services they mentioned would come into play.

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

>but you'll won't solve the demographic crisis without them.

you won't solve it with them either. all of that feel good crap would bump the TFR of an average civilized country by 0.2. how can you have access to all the data in the world and still believe that the reasons are economical and not cultural?

[dividefuel]

I agree it's primarily cultural. I wonder whether there's anything that a non-totalitarian government can do that would significantly change the cultural side of it.

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

I don't think even totalitarian governments can do anything about it now. with few exceptions, the only places on Earth with TFR above replacement are undeveloped countries or underdeveloped areas within developed countries. what could China or Russia even do, undeveloped themselves? dismantle their cities and uneducate their people?

[trumpdong]

Communist Romania did it simply by outlawing all forms of contraception. TFR jumped from 1.9 to 3.7, nurseries were very busy, and the rivers were full of dead unwanted babies (as that is the thing humans seem to be hardwired to want to do with unwanted babies). It didn't last as people found ways to get contraception anyway within a few years.

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

banning contraception in the present time would have even less impact. the percentage of single/never married fertile age adults today is much higher than it was in communist-era Romania. "NCFMR analyses of ASEC Current Population Survey, 2022" says 73% of men and 65% of women among 18-29 in the US.

it is however one of those "stick" things both totalitarian and non-totalitarian countries will inevitably attempt at some point in near future, now that it's clear that none of the "carrot" things make any fucking difference. likely not with outright bans, not even in China, but by artificially limiting availability and raising prices of condoms and pills with tax. like the rest of those things, it will predictably have little to no positive effect.

[trumpdong]

PSA: this account with the hex digit name has been shadowbanned for overt racism in another comment