|
|
|
|
|
|
by rembal
5 days ago
|
|
|
A different perspective from Poland: house affordability is equally as bad, so the argument could have been "young people don't have babies because they can't afford three bedroom apartments".
But the country had a major baby boom in the 80s, during a (relatively mild) civil war and in the middle of a major economic crisis, when getting anything other than vinegar was a huge problem.
And I clearly remember ppl living with 3 kids in studio apartments, playing with a lot of kids while waiting in mile long-lines for totally mundane rationed foodstuffs, school classes starting at 2 pm and ending at 8pm (too many kids), and my parents reaching out via their network to a director of orthopedic shoe factory because even money couldn't get you that kind of stuff.
And in the 40 years since we had sustained growth rates comparable only to China or South Korea, and similar problems with childbirths.
I don't buy any economic arguments. |
|
|
As a father of two I can tell you right now why demographics in Poland are in the gutter: most families need two incomes to survive, but:
-Companies insist every employee works full time.
-Women often have nothing to come back to after maternity leave.
-Daycares, kindergartens etc. are open for 9h at most, so pray your commute isn't too long if you have two or more kids.
-Commutes to these institutions have become longer as on one hand more people live in the suburbs while on the other urban planners kinda sorta forgot you need to carve out some land for a school/kindergarten when you're planning a new residential area, so if you live in a recent-ish building forget about leaving the car at home.
Most people seeing all these obstacles just settle on one child, whom they can leave and pick up in shifts.
My family copes by living on a single income, which is still possible today if you're a software engineer, but most likely won't be long term.
[0] In hindsight it wasn't a terrible plan - there was enormaous demographic potential