[mekdoonggi]

If they have the freedom to choose otherwise, they will. The global fertility "crisis" is simply individuals exercising their choices.

Kids are really expensive, and if you want people to willingly have them outside of accidents, you're going to need to pay them a lot of money.

[exitb]

Rising kids also has a time, effort and opportunity costs which are not easily offset with money. I don’t think there’s a way to frame modern parenting in a way where it „pays off” in the same sense as it did in the past. As of now, it’s essentially a hobby.

[mrguyorama]

It just has to be a "Job" you get paid to do. People will absolutely sign up.

The problem is that there will be far too many people wanting that job, so you have to filter somehow, and that's basically eugenics which isn't the most fun, so I guess you'd have to have a lottery and deal with the fact that like 10% of the population will constantly riot about someone who "doesn't deserve it" getting paid to raise kids.

[em-bee]

there will be far too many people wanting that job

i don't think so. you can control it with how high the pay is, or only pay for the first two children or something like that...

[b65e8bee43c2ed0]

the state hates, hates, HATES paying for children, to the point of occasionally forcing victims of rape, infidelity, or fraud to pay child support.

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05238.h...

>In October 2000, however, when appearing before a Family Court hearing examiner to answer Shondel's petition, Mark{*7 NY3d at 325} requested DNA testing. The hearing examiner ordered genetic marker tests, which revealed that Mark is not the child's biological father. The hearing examiner then dismissed Shondel's paternity petition, and Mark abandoned his petition for visitation, having severed his relationship with the child. Shondel objected to the hearing examiner's order, expressing doubts about the laboratory tests and stating that she would be able to show that Mark had always recognized the child as his. Realizing that the hearing examiner had exceeded her authority in dismissing Shondel's petition, Family Court sustained her objection and appointed a law guardian for the child.

>...

>Family Court entered an order of filiation and awarded child support retroactive to the date Shondel commenced the Family Court proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that "Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the subject child to equitably estop [Mark] from denying paternity" (6 AD3d 437 [2004]).[FN1] We agree, based on our precedents, the affirmed findings of fact and the legislative recognition of paternity by estoppel.

and that not just the US, Europe is equally batshit, with France in particular fucking banning paternity tests outright.

they aren't going to pay anything resembling a livable wage for child rearing. firstly, that defeats the purpose, secondly, it would be expensive as fuck.

[trumpdong]

That one's about someone who acted as the father for almost five years before suddenly questioning it. It's not about paying for children, it's about seeing a responsibility you took on through to the end.

Mandatory DNA testing at birth would solve a lot of these, and bring in new problems.

[danny_codes]

I mean, it can be offset with money. - Kids take time - Yes, so does working. If you cutout the 90h my partner and I spend working, that's a lot of time to put into raising children. - Kids take effort - Yes, so does working. If I didn't need to work this becomes much easier. - Opportunity cost - Yes, just pay me for the opportunity cost. Pay for my PhD after my kids are in grade school.

It's just that these policies are very expensive, and right now we allocate our money mostly to make rich people richer and maintain very high QoL for our elderly population. That's a choice we make in setting up our society.

[aidenn0]

Exiting the workforce for a decade (Replacement fertility rate is 2.1 implying some people will have 3 kids, spaced 2 years apart plus 5 years of child-rearing until kindergarten) has an opportunity cost that is potentially in the millions of dollars, depending on the industry, and the time costs of child rearing doesn't suddenly end at 5 either.

[vkou]

There's no amount of money (that society could ever afford to pay) that could convince my wife to have children.

[mekdoonggi]

Yep. And that's good! That's freedom of choice. Similarly, my wife wanted children, and there's no amount of money that could replace the joy of having our child.

Everything is better when we have the freedom to make a choice.

[kixiQu]

I wish society had taxed me (desired path zero children) more in some way that would have routed the resources to my friend who would have wanted to start having kids earlier and have more. Instead, the combination of regional housing crisis with contemporary parenting standards meant she and her husband waited for career progression to have the money for the space to start.

[g3f32r]

> Yep. And that's good! That's freedom of choice.

Is it? Was it actually her choice? Or was she propagandized into being a fully-available consumer?

Was she fed a steady diet of anti-natalist/anti-family formation and pro-independence (pro-consume) media and government policies from the moment she was born?

[scbrg]

An alternative take is that we've endured thousands of years of propaganda aimed at keeping women as child bearing, house keeping slaves, and we're finally starting to see the end of that in at least some cultures.

But of course, it's only "propaganda" when you don't like it.

[blockmarker]

On one hand we have propaganda not even a century old, only possible by the invention of birth control, the creation of tv, radio and newspapers, which itself required the invention of many things such as communications faster than horseback, the existence of strong centralized states which guarantee welfare to the elderly even if they don't have children to maintain it, and technological advances and social changes which make children an expense instead of an economic asset. And this propaganda leads to societies slowly economically collapse and their populations go extinct.

On the other hand, we have the "propaganda" which has existed for thousands if not millions of years, needed no technological, scientific or economic advances to exist, and the societies that followed it grew and made all the advances required for the other.

Of the two, I know which seems to be truer and more natural.

[catlike0076]

Appeal to nature + Appeal to antiquity

[b0rtb0rt]

maybe it’s not propaganda if it’s been around for the entire human existence until the last 50 years

[mekdoonggi]

I will assume that she has the same ability to reason and make an informed choice as you.

[vkou]

Thank you for bringing up this incredibly rational, and not at all offensive or infantalizing presumption - one that hypothesizes that my spouse is incapable of thinking and deciding for herself.

You are, of course, the sole free-thinking, unpropagandized person in the world.

[saintvlad]

FWIW, I think we all (I am including myself here) underestimate the degree to which our beliefs are formed by the culture we inhabit.

[anon291]

This is why I disagree with the zeitgeist that says this is due to economics. We have less kids because people don't want them. If you wanted them you'd have them.