You can’t even pay people to have more kids

Not to mention better healthcare! Healthcare costs are the primary reason US citizens go bankrupt. Kids get sick, adults get sick, and if one of the adults in the house gets sick and can't help bring in money for the kids then the entire household essentially goes from upper/middle to lower or bankrupt. If a kid gets very sick, oftentimes one of the parents has to stop working to argue every single claim that insurance would be paying but doesn't, and call every department of every doctors office or hospital to get an itemized bill and get it lowered to a reasonable cost rather than them asking for a blank check. I'm afraid of having a sick kid and losing my job to their healthcare organization (note: not their healthcare directly, but calling insurance asking them to pay for life saving care, then calling hospitals asking why a small bandage is $1200), losing my house to bankruptcy after healthcare costs, and losing any semblance of future career due to time off and losing myself.
- Absolutely. Taking healthcare costs off our backs would go a long way. The birth of my first kid absolutely wiped out the savings I had built up since getting out of school, and that was WITH insurance coverage. Six years of careful planning and saving just flushed down the toilet in an instant. There's just no financially-responsible way to manage the risk of a hospital bill that could range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands depending on what does or doesn't go according to plan, not to mention the following 18+ years of unknowns. It's kind of a wonder that people are still having as many kids as they are these days.
- It was a shock to my system to hear Americans setting aside 10k+ for delivering a child. What the fuck? For a country that claims it wants kids it sure as hell doesn't act like it.
  Here is the Canadian version: you go to the hospital, you deliver, you get the after care, then you go home. Cost to you: $0 (unless you came in an ambulance, then expect somewhere between $150-400?)
I am you. I have two kids and fucking hell our expenses are getting out of control. Fortunately we spaced them out enough that only one is in day/preschool. But it's still basically impossible to justify my wife being employed with only our youngest kid's expenses. Looking at $2.5k per month of childcare expenses for one kid makes me want to give up.
My state, Oregon, passed a leave law that is currently saving our lives. Extra 4 weeks of leave that can be taken intermittently. We are financially fucked the moment we are out of our state leave. For reference I have an MS in ME and work in manufacturing. And my wife is one of the highest paid dental assistants I'm aware of.
Yes. This and this fella's income.
Space between your kids and wait until they are ready to care for the other kids?
- I hope you don't have children that you're forcing to be babysitters. I know people who did that growing up, their relationship with their parents is... not good.

People don’t want to bring children into this capitalistic hellscape. Color me surprised.

And even if they want to, they can't afford to
- But they're being paid!!!
- Except that is the whole point of the article, money isn't why.
When it takes two people's income to live in the middle class, there is no time for children until much later. The trend is to have children at 30, when you are starting to make a decent income.
It is more about too much centralization of power than any one economic system as this issue is a near global issue.

The cost of raising a child has gone up thousands. No government has come close to subsidizing the increase.

That’s my experience too. I read the whole article to find out what countries have actually tried helping with the expenses of raising a child. The most financial help mentioned was a 30,000 LOAN that would be given to newly weds and only forgiven if they had 3 kids… 30k isn’t enough for one kid…
The only other financial help I saw was $7000 per kid in Russia.
And money is only one part of the problem. It takes time to raise kids. If both parents have to work full time there isn’t any time left to raise your kids even if you’re rich while working.
- 20th cenrury's policies put a lot of effort into distancing us from our means and our families. Paying peanuts for a newborn wouldn't help poor who are most likely to want it, only to dig themselves deeper. It's, true, a systemic problem that can't be solved with a mere donation.
- Russia was already building their army back then hehe
Yeah, how much cash are they offering? If it's a one time payment of like $1000, that won't even cover the cost of nappies in the first year.
- That won't even cover the epidural for the delivery in the US
Even if you choose not to have kids, the sad thing is that you'll spend the same money taking care of your parents when we stop taking care of our elderly in 20 years so the rich can have more tax breaks. The really sad part is you'll spend all your money on both if you do have kids anyways

Have they tried raising the salaries so that one parent can stay at home and actually take care of the children, instead of sending them to way too expensive daycares. Having children is a "luxury" nowadays.

Just limit work to 35 hours (10-10-10-5) and have parents alternate schedules
- Fuck that, have you worked 10 hour shifts? Pretty sure studies have shown you max out productivity at 6. I say 24 hour work week, 6 hours 4 days a week.
If you're going to boil it down to bare economics, daycare should come out ahead. 2 people can take care of 9 babies versus a stay at home parent taking care of 1 or 2. And realistically today, advocating for a stay at home parent is telling women to go back to the kitchen. It's regressive, unnecessary, and not actionable advice.
I would instead argue that modern life is not supportive of real-life, tight communities and lasting relationships. Online social lives are a starkly inferior substitute for real life but they're easier to access and give the equivalent dopamine hit.
- And realistically today, advocating for a stay at home parent is telling women to go back to the kitchen. It's regressive, unnecessary, and not actionable advice.
  No, what YOU said is regressive. The commenter never mentioned women; men can just as easily be house spouses, and that's also without mentioning non-binary partners. You just assumed they meant women and ran with it
  Edit: grammar
- Hmmm I'd like to stay at home and I'm the man. We both earn about the same, she earns more. I don't trust daycare workers. You optimize for what you value, if you value economics you're simply not going to optimize for what's best for the child. Because at all the cross roads where the biological needs or psychological needs conflict the economical value you'll not be making those choices.
- I do believe that nobody "belongs in the kitchen" as far as gender roles go. What we're up against is the weakness of the family unit in society and the breakdown of lasting friendships contributing to mental health issues. Online social lives are objectively bad for us, and I'd argue that the dopamine hit is just helping burn our dopamine receptors even more.
  Regardless this reminds me of the classic argument that was had back in the 80's about the kitchen itself, that it's more "efficient" for people not to cook at home but to go to a place that prepares food en masse for a community. This was during the Soviet Communism era and there was a side debate going on. Western culture favored the family unit, while a communist concept favored social efficiency at the cost of liberties.
  I don't think it's regressive to desire to have more time to be with your kids, whether it's day care, school, etc. The real issue isn't economics and progressive concepts, I think we'd all agree that a robust public education system is valuable, and that we should have economics that let us pick our kids up from school rather than send them to a day care. It's not about sending anyone to the kitchen.
  I like our kitchen, I like cooking food for the family, and I even enjoy it as a way to wind down after work. Modern life not supportive of tight knit communities and lasting relationships is complete bullshit. Modern life in that viewpoint is the continuous hustle culture and prioritization of work over a fulfilling life experience, and in my opinion your viewpoint is regressive for that reason alone. Kill hustle culture, eat the rich, and let's have economics that give us a choice.
- Aldous Huxley described your vision of Utopia in brave new world. I think it's ridiculous, unobtainable, and overall a terrible approach to society. Life is all about lasting and meaningful relationships, so any approach that views these as optional or outdated is broken before it even starts. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.
Plain raising of salaries would only drive hyperinflation.
- Or the could offer free child care, but that's socialism.
- Assuming that additional income isn't being wrestled back from the "profiteering rich" class: yes.
- Even rightoid economists like Friedman disagree with this.

I assure you you can. The payment would have to cover all of the child's needs plus a bit more but you definitely can.

But the cost of that would far exceed anything remotely reasonable. I say fuck it, let the birthrate drop for a few decades. The planet could use the break.
- It's only catastrophically low in traditionally "western" countries. the world's population is still growing. It appears immigration is now a requirement to grow the economy. How interesting.
This, it's not as though me and my partner don't want children, it's that we want children and we don't want to be the source of their suffering for failing to care for them as well as we should, due to financial hardship.
A lot of childless people feel real responsibility to non-existent children, and feel like the world keeps pushing them down, making life harder, and making it feel impossible to be one of the people to have their own children.
- Of course. Me and my significant other will end up doing the same thing. Both of us are from heavily catholic families but due to many reasons.
Yes, and the total payment would have to be substantial. The cost of raising a child from infancy to age 18 (not including university, obviously) in Canada is $320,000.
https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/making-it/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-in-canada/
- Yep, it sounds weird but some politicians are floating the idea. It will never pass, but it's the thought that counts(?). Of all people, Trump wanted to give a family 5k per child. So the idea exists in the us with some strong political people. ( because of lemmygrad I am saying this I don't like Trump I am only using his statement to show how much the belief exists)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/singapores-national-night-encourages-citizens-to-make-babies-15402105/
Can't believe the Mentos rap song campaign didn't work. They're the Freshmaker!

Most birds don't lay eggs without a proper nest

Tried everything...except work life balance.

Also didn't paying a livable wage

Just like the socalled "work shortage", the problem is they aren't offering nearly enough. That's it.

Currently in Taiwan, citizens receive 2500 NT per month (i.e. $80 USD) per birth until the child is five years old. That's a fucking joke.

Yeah there's no way these programs are coming anywhere near the cost of having kids. Childcare alone is insanely expensive these days.
snort

And money. And a place to live. And food prices that aren't massively inflated.
Lot of folks can't even afford to take care of themselves. Add a kid into that struggle? No thank you.
- Look, if you didn't want to be price gouged, you shouldn't have paid those high prices! Vote with your wallet!
  (For those who think I might be serious, I'm not. Voting with your wallet isn't democratic, it's literally plutocratic.)
  Kidding aside, there's a clip of some grocery store chain CEO talking about how they will raise their prices as high as the market will bear - it's chilling, but, like, in the USA, it's the law - it would literally be illegal if they didn't.
- That hasn't stopped boomers
- Kids are cheap to feed plus you eat their leftovers, so it's a win win.
I know a fair chunk of my friends who have given up on the dream of kids. When both parents have to work full time at jobs their post secondary education qualified them for and court mental health issues because nothing they do for work feels meaningful just to scrape by with the bare minimum and accrue damn near nothing in savings... They don't really want to have kids.
A lot of mammals when they don't feel safe or secure in resources abandon or kill their young. Humans given control over their reproduction just seem to settle on raising dogs because they are cheaper.
- It also kind of feels like society hates me for being ADHD and wants me to suffer so why would I want to bring another human into this world that has felt for 30+ years like a door slamming in my face.
  I like when I tell boomers I don’t feel like I will be financially able to raise a kid until I am much older than I should be for having a kid and they smile and with a nostalgic look say “Oh, nobody is ever ready! You will figure it out trust me! We did!”. Makes me want to punch them in the face.

Woman of childbearing age here. Lots of my friends took another child off the table when Roe fell. Being potentially forced to die and leave your existing children orphaned is a big deterrent, turns out

Plus it just fucking sucks to be a mother these days. Things are a lot more egalitarian than they used to be, but society still expects the uterus-having to take on more of the child caring tasks, and the emotional labor especially tends to still fall disproportionately on women. Our careers suffer, our bodies suffer if we bore (and possibly nursed) the baby/ies, our mental health suffers from the unrelenting societal pressure and neglect, plus all of the other shit that every other parent deals with as well. The women and mothers I know are fed up and so, so tired. (I'm not bitter... not at all... :D)
I love my children to pieces, but if I had seen an older sister go through this I might have opted out of having kids entirely. Two of my sisters have.
Yeah can't blame the ladies for that one, if I were a woman I'd be mighty tempted to seal up my womb too.
Interestingly this is actually how a lot of men feel about their own procreation. You're one broken condom away from being beholden to an unwanted child and a selfish mother. It can ruin your life before you've even had a chance to start. Hell teenage boys raped by older women have had to pay child support.
I'd love to see this lead into a useful conversation about the rights of both sexes but it has been pretty one-sided so far.

I suspect the rise of the dual-income family (often as a matter of necessity) has had a massive influence on this.

In addition to the absurd increases in cost of living etc.

Also the bleak outlook into the future.

They've tried everything... except putting guardrails on these giant corporations and their runaway price-gouging. In the US at least, if the cost of wages kept pace with skyrocketing housing, higher education, and healthcare, I guarantee more people could afford to live and care for themselves and children...

They might also recognize that shrinking family size isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lower birth rates around the world could lessen environmental degradation, competition for resources, and even global conflict, Wang Feng, a sociology professor at UC Irvine, writes in the New York Times.

In every single one of these "depopulation crisis" articles the "maybe a shrinking population isn't entirely a bad thing" perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it's even mentioned at all.

Also consistently missing in these types of articles: an actual breakdown of the costs of raising a child (including the opportunity costs to one's career as the result of parental leave) vs the benefits the government is offering.

Also invariably missing: a description of the serious short- and long-term physical and mental risks of pregnancy and childbirth; at least this article mentions maternal mortality, but there's so much more at risk even in a "healthy" pregnancy and birth, from post-partum depression to incontinence. Occasionally articles will muse about women's fear of "frivolous" conditions like weight gain and stretch marks, but never life-altering ones like severe hemorrhaging, organ failure, and fistulas. How many women are postponing or forgoing pregnancy because they're not willing to risk life and limb to procreate? We'll never know as long as no one thinks to ask.

I have read a million of these "birth rates are dropping despite government efforts" articles, and they all echo the same pro-growth propaganda while conveniently neglecting these major, crucial points. JOURNALISTS, DO BETTER!

In every single one of these “depopulation crisis” articles the “maybe a shrinking population isn’t entirely a bad thing” perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it’s even mentioned at all.
That's because people aren't willing to leave the "babies are the super bestest things ever and if you are super happy then you're a horrible person" narrative.

In 1968, when Richard Nixon was first elected, "middle class" was defined as one Union type job paying for a family of four in a private house with a few luxuries. In those days, $1 million was a vast fortune. Nixon ramped up inflation with his Vietnam War buildup, and the Oil Crisis really increased it. Ronald Reagan got elected and by the time Bush Sr. finished the job, "middle class" was two incomes to keep the household going, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.

Is a declining birth rate a bad thing? 50 million people live in a country (South Korea) the size of Indiana. Maybe, just maybe the economy should just take a hit for a change so there can be fewer people here. I know rich people don't want that, but I bet the country would be a better place for it.

- I've noticed some people here practically yearn for disasters because it might hurt the rich. The absolutely staggering collateral damage to everyone else is ignored or waved away. It's very much a desperate "nothing left to lose" philosophy that's both sad and scary.
- You are ignoring the fact that there's going to be several times the loss in human workers added to the workforce by way of virtual laborers within 20 years.
  This is just one of the many recent instances of humans being unable to adequately forecast consequences due to anchoring biases. While we typically see it in the other direction (minimizing increasing risks because of lower historical risk) here it's something that would have been concerning decades ago but won't be nearly as risky decades from now.
- Maybe the chaebols should stop constantly putting up new apartment blocks now.
I mean, in the short term (50-100 years), yes it is. Unless people start dying at a younger age, there's going to be a lot of orphaned seniors, which isn't good. We won't really see the benefits of a declining birthrate in our lifetimes, but we will see numerous negatives.
In the long term, it's probably more nessecary then "not bad," but again, you don't want to be the one of the people living during the population collapse.
It's bad for capitalism and the 1%. You can't have infinite growth with falling population numbers.
Edit: A lot of people claiming it's also bad for the young and old people. It depends on how you're social services are structured. Where I live the system is set up so that everyone only gets back the money they put into the system. That's what the EU recommendations are and where all the EU countries are moving. Yes, the retirements will be lower in the future but that's the only way to make the system sustainable without major cuts to everything else. IMHO it's better than the idea of infinite growth.
- No, it's actually bad for everyone, because few young people have to support loads of old people. Politics will cater to the old people, because they have more voting power in numbers and will cut budgets for young people (education, social security and so on).
- It’s bad for capitalism and the 1%.
  It's bad for the Old who will have their Pensions cut and bad for the young who have to pay for more Pensions.
  It's not bad because we're such a capitalist Society but exactly because we're not. Because we expect to pay Welfare to older People to retire. And that whole Concept lies on the Assumption, that there will always be more People paying for the Welfare than People receiving it.
- It's bad for humanity too. You can't replace all the old people that cannot create what we desire for living without having kids.

Raising a kid in America starts around $200k, conservatively. A 2-3k incentive or even 6 months of paid leave worth around 25k aren't gonna make a dent.

Give me 2-3k per month for 18 years plus cost of living increase at 5%+ per year and I’ll consider it.
Otherwise, nah. Im good. I enjoy my free time and all the extra money I have due to no kids.
- That's still too cheap.
  There's probably a price that could be paid to encourage a higher birth rate, but I doubt the governments who have attempted such programs were willing to aim high enough.

People who complain about falling birth rates usually want more humans to cheaply exploit as a resource.

In a world with fewer humans, human life and human labors are more valuable.

We should be celebrating declining birth rates, as infinite growth is not possible in a finite system and most of the existential threats we face are due to population pressures.

I celebrate wildly when anyone brings up the topic. Rude, yes, but it gets the point across.
infinite growth is not possible in a finite system
That's one of the real problems. Economists and the people in charge have no idea what a successful zero-growth economy might look like. To me it seems pretty obvious. The economy may not grow in GDP or anything, but automation and tech advances mean that people spend less and less time actively working.
Let's say food production. In the past running a farm required dozens of farm workers. These days with automation one person might be able to do it all by themselves. If current farms produce all the food a country requires, you don't need more farms, and you don't need more farmers. No growth is just fine.
If cars are being made more and more safe, and more and more durable, people can go longer between buying cars. That means fewer cars being made, which means "the economy is slowing down"... but that's a good thing. Unnecessary production is reduced.
Part of the problem is that economies have traditionally been based on borrowing assuming more growth in the future, and having the kids pay for the retirement of the olds. Both those things need to stop. Some borrowing based on things improving in the future is probably smart. Things will probably be more efficient in the future, so there will be more surpluses to pay off debts. But, we shouldn't be borrowing assuming that the economy is going to keep growing at X% per year. As for retirees, have them pay for themselves. That doesn't mean you're assigned a 401(k) at birth and that's all you get when you retire. But, it does mean that a generation pays into a pension system during their lives, then is paid out of that pension system when they retire. It's ridiculous to assume that there's always going to be a pyramid shape to the economy and the big base of the pyramid will support the peak.
A shrinking population wouldn't be a good thing for humanity if it continued until humanity disappeared. But, it's unlikely that will happen. What's probably going to happen is that when the world is less crowded the population will stabilize. The optimum population of the planet might be significantly less than a billion, so it might be that the population growth will go negative for a while.

People are generally depressed and struggling with little help, barely making ends meet, and then they get bitched at for not creating more people to thrust into this thankless meatgrinder. If people felt better about the world that they were bringing people into then maybe they would be more inclined.

We live in a world with an aging population that is happy to reap the benefits of short term thinking, leave it up to the next generation, then get pissed when people aren't giving them a next generation to pay the tab.

(it’s the economy and political landscape)

It's also that people do not need a lot of children anymore, so that some survive to take care of them, when they're old.

Free fucking childcare...

And healthcare
- Europe got both, we are still below replacement rate.

Sure you can. We could limit the work week to 32 hours, pay higher salaries such that homes and goods are affordable again.

That's great for the short term needs, but I'd rather not bring life into the world that will be faced with a dying planet and the extreme geopolitical unrest that comes with that coupled with the likely major but unpredictable disruptions of tech advancing at compounding rates.
We might be heading towards a utopia or a dystopia - but in one direction or another it's going to be getting more extreme.
I take great comfort in the idea that I'll be leaving this world without worrying about a child left behind in a collapsing society nor if that happens earlier on that I'll need to watch their suffering or demise.
There's no amount of money or shortened workweek that would make me give up that comfort given what lies ahead.
- Same here and I'm fortunate enough that my fiancee, non of my brothers or their partners are interested in kids either. Won't be leaving any kids or nephews in this hellscape.

My husband and I chose not to have biological children and there are so many reasons for it. It's not even just one big one - it's multiple huge ones. Lack of support systems for parents and childcare, finances (we are ok for a couple, but there is no way we could comfortably afford even a single child), healthcare costs alone will break you, the future of this planet is not looking so hot (or rather, VERY hot actually), carbon footprint of another child on the planet is huge, and I refuse to bring in another soul to become a slave for our corporate overlords. And I am not even listing any personal reasons, which there also are - these are just things that are happening in the world overall... and the best the politicians can do is pikachu face that there is no population growth. Because, ya know, 8 BILLION of us is not enough.

As a parent with two kids you are spot on about the financial aspect. Kids get hurt/sick a LOT. Their immunity is still developing, so we ended up in the ER almost several times a year. We had good health insurance, but it still broke our bank because of deductibles.

Reducing the world population is the obvious answer to slowing the detrimental effects humankind are having on the earth.

Completely agree and we need to figure out a way to decouple population growth from keeping the economy afloat. It feels like we're approaching the inevitable collapse of the infinite growth pyramid scheme. This isn't rational and was always destined to fail.
- Maybe a Logan's Run situation?
But think of the capitalists! How will the stock market continue to make gains if there are less people?
- It’s worth noting that communists and socialists also depend on population growth to sustain their civilizations as do trees and rabbits and beetles. It’s possible that economic systems don’t really matter all that much here.
  Population collapse isn’t the road to some sustainable future. It is how species go extinct. Perhaps we are on that road, so it goes. But whistling past the graveyard pretending that “Star Trek” is on the other side is silly.
If nothing else, it buys you time to think about solutions before things get catastrophic.
Who’s going to take care of the elderly like you in 40 years?
- Migrants? Robots? More efficient care workers? Themselves? Other elderly people? Having kids because one feels entitled to their future labors doesn't seem fair or reasonable.
- That’s a pyramid scheme
Do you suggest that the world's population revert to a Quaker lifestyle? Seems really boring.
- You probably meant Amish. Quakers lifestyle these days is just being really nice most of the time, in my experience.

You can actually by making the families cost of living and housing needs affordable on one parents income. One off baby bonus bribes and stuff that governments do will never actually work when both parents have to work themselves Into dust just to make ends meet.

People just want fewer kids now, or they want them later. It's not the money, it's that kids are a drag.
- Heck why would anyone want kids? You couldn't ever pay me enough to ever get pregnant and deal with kids. I'm not a brood mare. Religious conservative breeding bs is going the way of the dodo.

“Please have children to fuel our profiteering, war, and labor goals” basically

Go fuck yourselves.

Yeah! Cause we won't fuck each other except with reliable birth control or in lieu of that experiment with butt stuff!
- Anal is at least as old as written history
- Maybe some mouth stuff too?

Yeah here is my counter offer:

universal free childcare, education, and healthcare.
3 day work week
double annual salaries

Purged by creator
- Best regards,
  The US of A
It's not much, but it's a start.

Kids are not affordable or cute or have fur, plus they take time l, a lot of time. For me there's no reason to have kids.

The problem with dogs and cats as a child replacement is you usually outlive them.
- I can live with that, atleast I can take care of them until the end. And it's not like life is certain, I can die before them.
- That can happen with kids too, and it's far worse. At least with pets you know they're only going to live around ___ years.
- That's not a con... why would you make someone exist so they can experience your old age and death. That's fucked.

You actually definitely could, they just didn't offer to pay enough

What could having a kid cost? $10?
- Per kid as a whole? No. Per hour? Possibly.
- I love how well this works for things that are both far too cheap and far too expensive.

When a menial worker complains their menial job doesn't pay enough. Boomers sing "that's not a real job" then expect those same people to have kids to support their greed.

Not to mention that when everyone decided they didn't want to work those jobs, they all threw a fit that no one wanted to work anymore. Wow I can't believe the industry that "isn't a real job" full of "unskilled labor" doesn't have people lining up to work at.
You used to be able to raise kids on that mind of job. Boomers are weird and seem to absorb all information given to them uncritically, so when the narrative changed and retail workers started having to hit food banks, they just rolled with it as if their own past wasn't real.

The optimal strategy for raising a child in the 21st century is to have just one so you can focus all your resources and attention on them for maximum chance of success.

How do you define "success", and why does it matter?
- Health and happiness matters for obvious reasons

I would honestly need twice my salary and a free home to consider it with my girlfriend.

Not even on the table.

You absolutely can pay people to do just about anything including having kids.

Give me a credit card that can pay ALL of my bills and i will both adopt a kid and find someone who wants to have one.

The problem is kids are a huge burden when you can barely afford to live your own life let alone provide and be responsible for another human being

Pay people to retire early and you will see a huge boom in population

I've been terrified of pregnancy my entire life and I'm a selfish adult who wants to do what I want.

So yes, nothing the governments do can ever make me want to have kids.

Not even you, Greg Abbott, you dickhole pathetic excuse for a "person". I fucking hate you!

Edit: One of my sentences was exceptionally dark.

I don't think it's selfish to not want kids. With how fucked the world is, maybe we should be thinking about if it's instead selfish to have kids.
I determined from about age 12 that I didn't want kids. 10 years later and I still don't want them, so I removed the possibility of accidentally having them. The government can't make me have kids - seeing as I yeeted my uterus.
Stop saying that. Not having kids is not selfish. Having kids is selfish. You create a human just because you want to own one.
- Or you know.... You like children, want to continue the species, and have the biological drive to procreate.
- Man anti-natalists are a special breed of crazy.
If that's selfish, we should all be selfish. Fuck it we don't owe the world shit. What's it ever done for us?
Not to address your fears specifically, but there's a lot a government (society) can do to make more women feel safer and more comfortable about becoming pregnant and giving birth.
From high quality free healthcare, to maternity (and paternity) leave, to daycare, to schooling - at just a start - there are ways society can look after itself.
That is, I can understand (in a limited, "I'm not you" fashion) your POV.
Oh, also, I do hope you meant to include "want", as is in, "can make you want to have kids". Because government mandated pregnancy is a pretty horrifying concept.
- Countries in Europe got most of that and they are still struggling with getting to the replacement rate.
- Truth, I'll go back and edit it to say "want". It does seem extra dark with the way its written.
  But also, yes, there are a lot more things that society can do to make women feel safer and cared for when having children. And women who do want and choose to have a child should do so with comfort and support, because their body is literally making a human being - which is awesome, even if it's not for me.
  It's just, here in the US, and red states specifically, maternity and infant mortality rates are fucking abysmal considering the level of Healthcare were supposed to be provided. It's unfortunately even worse if you're a WOC. I'm not sure what maternal care looks like in your neck of the woods, but hopefully better then here.
  But I've been just...not materially inclined ever since I was a kid. I've never really felt the draw for it, and luckily found my husband whose cool with that.

Giving birth to someone is the worst thing you can do to them. I'm not taking money for that.

Authorities have hosted several singles mixers in an effort to get young people to pair up.

And who wouldn't want to go to a singles mixer hosted by "the authorities". Sounds fun.

The DMV hosting a singles mixer would be interesting.

Less people means less waste and less fossil fuel consumption. This is not a bad thing.

but, just hear me out here. We need cheap labor. And they need exponentially more cheap labor, because… like… those profits aren’t going to earn themselves.
So please, take the condom off and start banging so I can get myself an even bigger yacht and turn the head-old thing into a helicopter tender.
-corpo douche, maybe.
It is a bad thing if you live in a country with a robust social system that is paid for through taxes and a below-replacement birth rate.
Like, we don't need "more" people, but we need to keep the population stable to make sure the disabled and elderly can live well. Because someone has to bear the cost, and we can't all be Norwegian.
- Sounds like a good reason to tax the wealthy and corporations at a higher rate. You could even have a global proportional tax rate if the will was there.
- we need to keep the population stable
  Then let’s keep it stable at a lower number than it currently is.
- Here's today's friendly reminder that the economy is made up, and can be redesigned to better serve humanity
- There are lots of people who are willing to endure a dangerous journey in order to become part of a stable, safe society in a country that isn't torn up by a war or ruled by despots, kleptocrats or terrorists.
  Somehow when these people reach to a country desperately trying to grow its population (read: have more workforce and taxpayers), we tend to ostracize them, deny them opportunities, make it hard for them to integrate and generally be hostile towards them on both individual and systemic levels. And then scratch our collective heads why we have problems with the "others".
  Curious species the human is. No wonder the extraterrestials from the Galactic Society never visit us and try their hardest to hide their existence from us😞
- “… robots…. We’ll make robots to do all the work. Then we won’t need the stupid poors.”
  -rich guys

Terry Gou, a candidate in next year’s Taiwanese presidential election, has even proposed giving people a free pet if they have a child.

Okay, so your solution for people who don't want children is to give them "children lite"?

Even if you think adopting a pet is a reasonable thing to do at the same time you adopt a child, that's just an insulting small incentive. May as well just offer a free cup of coffee.
- There's no fucking way I can take care of a coffee and a child at the same time. They'll both be cold in minutes.
- A "free" cup of coffee that you need to buy food and pay medical bills for.
According to your quote, it's children plus children lite.
- Children²

reducing work hours in japan lead to a spike in pregnancies. If you want to raise birth rates a 4day work week should be at the top of the list.

Two things:

Life sucks for a lot of people. Younger Gen X, Millenials, Gen Z all have had really hard times. Why would someone want to make their life harder?
The "declining" birth rates are actually returning to pre-Baby Boom levels. This is a fully natural thing.

It may or may not be natural, but it doesn't change the economic reality - if there are more people who can't work (the olds) than who can, the economy is fucked.
It seems like lots if boomers are retiring older - I have no data for that but that's the vibe - but that's not going to last forever, they can't (shouldn't) work until they literally die. The burden on the young (paired with pretty reckless tactics from the capitalists) - the olds are going to get left in the street.
- Boomers won't let go. I worked at a company that used to have upward movement when people retire. Then the boomers just stopped retiring, I left as no where to go. They now have executives 80 years old plus. Boomers got theirs and are so self involved they won't stop.

Well the earth is overpopulated, sounds like the human species as a whole is a lot smarter than politicians and anti social capitalists looking for $$ to numnum

Yeah, I'm definitely no expert on the subject, but we've got too many people, how is less kids a huge issue?
- You want a gradual decline, not a quick one. A quick decline creates all sorts of stability problems (wars) and other terrible stuff like mass starvation and mass die-offs.
  Like braking from 60 mph to a gradual stop, vs hitting a cement pillar at 60mph, haha.

Mandate a 32 hour, 4 day work week? That's one more day per week to think about makin babies?

The real reason why people don't have kids is because they suck. Kids are stupid and annoying. More and more people are waking up to this fact and starting to resist the social pressure."I can actually live my life instead of dedicating all my time and resources to something I don't even need? I'll have two of that please!"

If government wants kids let them raise the kids. Pay women to give birth and then put the kid in public system. Problem solved.

I mean, kids only really suck in a world where both parents have to work 40+ hours a week. You really don't have to dedicate all your time to them, but in a world with less and less community to help raise them and more and more work to grind your energy down, you have to dedicate far too much of your limited free time to them. I would love to be able to raise a kid or two myself. I loved working with kids. We should not be throwing them into some nebulous "public system."
- Yeah, I'm not talking about the public system seriously. It's just to show it's not really about systematic solutions. We can come up with government supported solutions and they would be bad.
  And I totally agree that if you don't have to work raising kids is not that terrible but it's also not really a solution because most people do actually want to work. If you give people a choice between kids and meaningful career a lot of people will still choose career and birth rates will still be low. And a lot of people will still simply choose not to have kids because even when you don't have to work bringing up a kid is actually really really difficult. My friends and co-workers keep having kids and yeah, sleep deprivation, no social life, no time for hobbies, lots of extra expenses, constant infections, hard time travelling even short distance... And that's only the first year or two, before any behavioural issues start or you have to decide if you prefer to give you're 10 yo unrestricted access to the internet or have him excluded from everything his friends do.
You were a kid, though. Adults aren't just spawned, they grow from kids. Everyone seems to be talking about them (and old people, for that matter) as though they are a separate species of being. Kids are just immature people. Of course they suck. You did too, so did I.
But they are also awesome, and grow up to be adults. I had fun having kids. Taking them places, watching them grow and change, the funny things they say and the flashes of insight. Now most of them are adult people. I don't care if they have kids, they should do whatever they want. But I did enjoy the parenting. Sure, it's not convenient, it's life.
As a woman of almost 40 fucking thank you. I'm educated enough to know I don't have to fall for that bs.
People with your argument are stupid and annoying. Kids are great. They deserve better than our society.
- Sorry, I didn't meant to say you're stupid. Some kids are great, I'm sure you're one of them.

I have a stable job and a good chunk of savings and I still feel wholly inadequate of raising a child. I know some of it is just me being selfish

Absolutely not selfish of you. And I say this as a parent. Absolutely no one should have a child that doesn't want a child. It is incredibly hard work, it is expensive, and no child should feel unloved or neglected. This is one of many reasons I think abortion should be legal and affordable.
- I would much rather someone be aborted than be raised in a house by people who don't really want them, arent prepared to care for them, and can't afford to raise them.
It’s not selfish of you. Children need attention and time. Society has been so focused on maximizing productivity that it has taken away the time needed to raise children. There are many people that have enough money for a child but not enough time for a child.

Good. Lowering the birth rate at the global scale = more resources per person.

for a little while.
I agree with you, but also what are we going to do when there are a ton of old people who need to be taken care of, and there aren't enough young people to take care of them?
- They will suffer. And I'm willing to be among them as it's worth it long term. The alternative of infinite growth isn't a realistic possibility in a world with finite resources.
- You'll see AI stepping in on a lot of areas where there's decreased labor supply.
  And a bonus for when you are old - AI is going to be far less likely to secretly be a sadistic fuck going into an industry with a vulnerable population in order to torture you when you have dementia and can't tell anyone about the regular abuse.
  You'd be surprised at how often that kind of stuff happens when "young people take care of old people."
- We also have that problem and you don't fix it by making more furore old people. That's what AI is for.
- We can kill ourselves. Honestly you think the world wont be on fire for other reasons by then? Lol
- Ættestup 👌

They tried EVERYTHING, except...

How much cash? Is it drastically less than the increase in the cost of living since birth rates started to drop? I'll bet that it's as little as possible while still technically not being zero, and I'll bet it's taxed as earned income.

I grew up lower middle class or more likely upper lower class, my parents both worked and owned a house but it was tough to make ends meet when they were getting older and my dad couldn't move as easily because of injuries.

I still grew up with parents that were home from work everyday, good food, lights, heat and internet were never cut off. I couldn't do what my parents did for me. I have a great job, my partner is much better educated has the opportunity to get much more important jobs and we earn more than 135k a year but it would be impossible to raise kids, even just one as well as my parents raised me and my sister.

Why would I want to raise a child in a worse environment than I grew up in? I can see why immigrants come in and have a family. Their next generation will likely have a far better life in Canada than in their home countries. I welcome others to have a better life here than back in their home countries and have kids here.

gestures broadly

I can't imagine signing anyone else up for this. Not until the trajectory turns in a positive direction

My feelings exactly.

Ensuring families have access to Child Healthcare, parents have time to parent their kids, kids have capable and loving parents and communities have programs to ensure the wellbeing of the children is SOCIALISM!

-Pro Life Republicans trying to Save The Children

Rightoids: we need to boost our population
Also rightoids: best we can do is make abortion illegal and encourage teen pregnancy

I'd be happy to have kids if you paid me! In fact, not having enough money is literally the whole fucking reason behind many of us not having kids! Businesses have lost the ideal that if you make your workers prosperous, they will make your company prosper. People can't even afford rent, let alone children now!

I have 4 friends in their mid to late 30s who have had to move back in with their parents this year because they can no longer afford to live on their own. Meanwhile, I've got relatives asking all the time, so when are you and the Mrs going to have a kid? I'm having to decide between my own medical bills, food, utilities and you want me to add a child to that? Go ahead and start paying me. Cause right now, in this economic climate, that's the only way it's gonna work!

Pay me. If you want me to raise your future workers. Pay me enough to live and raise them. It used to be possible to support a family of 7 on one income with a house and two cars in the driveway. People can barely keep their heads above water nowadays on two incomes. Since it requires two incomes, there is no time for child raising. The government doesn’t provide guarantees of time off to have them, doesn’t provide daycare so you can keep your job, and doesn’t provide healthcare. No, instead we write blank checks to the Pentagon and give the rich tax cuts.

I agree with most the points others in this thread make about the economy having gotten worse such that it discourages more kids.. I have a decent job and if I had a second child I think I would never have a chance at retirement.

I am also curious about rising infertility.... My wife and I had go through ivf to even have one child.. This after 7 years of trying..

Several of our peers and friends have struggled with this as well.. It could just be a coincidence but we only know around 20 other couples outside of work and at least 6 of them have not been able to produce children naturally.

It could be due to microplastics/pollution affecting sperm counts.
First thing I found: https://news.sky.com/story/human-penises-are-shrinking-because-of-pollution-warns-scientist-12255106
- Yeah I started suspecting something like find could be impacting younger generations fertility rates as well but most the people I have known had issues on the woman's end.. Like endomitriosis causing blockages etc. I haven't spent a lot of time researching it myself but I wouldn't be surprised that not only are we economically disadvantaged but the rampant pollution is also driving lower birth rates for those who even try

At least in the USA and I presume other places, having a child is not only an increasingly insurmountable financial burden, but also society and school are actively anti-discipline to the point you can't even stop a kid from running wild and dominating the household. I am constantly amazed at parents who seem completely unable to keep their children from running amok and bothering people or destroying things in public, skipping school, eschewing homework, and disrupting class, yelling, punching, and kicking their own parents, etc.

Why anyone should want to subject themselves to a lifetime of hassle and heartache is the question. I have one kid and he is pretty awesome, but he was raised before the Internet and smartphones became the world's nannies. If I were of childbearing age, I would get my tubes tied if I could get somebody to do it.

Not to mention climate change is probably going to doom any child born now to life in a physical and political hellscape.

but also society and school are actively anti-discipline to the point you can't even stop a kid from running wild and dominating the household
This is my only grievance with what you said. Wtf are you smoking. Yes, the method of discipline has changed but the only kids running wild and dominating the household are the ones where the parents aren't doing their damn job.
Source - am parent of 3 kids under 13 and none of them run wild or dominate my household because a household isn't a goddamn democracy it's a dictatorship.
- It varies by region or state. Some places you can discipline pretty easily, others your ex will use your any discipline at all as a reason to take your kids away.

Here's the core problem: people can't afford to have kids. Until economies are restructured so that a family can reasonably and rationally survive on a single income, you aren't going to see birthrates rise.

Alternatively, you could ban any and all forms of birth control, and institute a state-religion that tied into your economic system, so that people had huge economic incentives to appear outwardly devout. Handmaid's Tale, et al.

We had vast universal childcare during the commie period where I grew up. That made it possible for two working parents to have children. The population grew steadily throughout the whole period, until the fall of the regime. It's been in free fall since then.
- IMO it's better to have a parent taking care of their children--I'm agnostic on whether that should be a mom or a dad in a traditional heterosexual, nuclear family--because that seems to help children develop better emotionally. Childcare in general is more impersonal. BUT the system that your country had under communism is still better than what we have in the US right now.
Subsidized child care for younger ages (under first grade at public school) would be a good alternative too. We don't need every job to be able to support a family of 4. When women joined the workforce during wartime and maintained that working position, the economy and jobs shifted to paying less because less was needed and we had a larger paid workforce. With that said, that means that a 2 income household should be able to afford kids, and it cannot without external help from other family.
Shortly after I had my first kiss in late high school my mother got drunk and informed me I would receive no help or support if I went and got myself pregnant. Here I am 15 years later, married and aiming for a kid, and I know her words will be true today too.
Some families are able to live closer to each other and help each other raise kids, but the modern economy doesn't allow for people to stay in the same area as easily. Almost every job requires you to move to a different state hundreds of miles each time, every few years. And most people need to change jobs due to stagnant wages, it's the only way to receive a raise.
- We don’t need every job to be able to support a family of 4.
  Yes, but also no. IMO, every job should at a bare minimum pay a living wage, by which I mean a wage that allows a person to live reasonably: healthy food, reliable transportation, a single bedroom apartment, the ability to do things that for entertainment, healthcare, and the ability to have a realistic retirement savings plan. While a single job may not--strictly speaking--need to be able to support a family of 4, each job should be able to support at least two people, assuming that you want each family to have at least two children.
  Subsidized child care only goes so far, esp. when one or both parents are working jobs that aren't 9-5.
  OTOH, I think that a significant reduction in the human population, particularly in the most developed countries, is probably a good thing. Even if that means that the remainder need to pay sharply higher taxes (oh no, won't someone think of the Republicans! :'( ).

It worked when Australia did this back in the mid 2000. But it probably wouldn't today, with today's cost of living, job and childcare shortages.

i think to maintain the population, a couple needs to have to have 2.4 kids or something. there's no way im doing that it sounds like it sucks. fuck the future of humanity I don't give a shit

Humanity will be better off with a lower population.
The freak out around less people is the theory of dependence on labor replacement.
But the variables of that equation are about to change dramatically as a result of tech advancements.
Within a generation, it won't matter if there's billions less people because there will be billions more virtual laborers to offset the decrease.
Rich people are freaking out about birth rates for increasingly obsolete reasons.
I'm done after 2. I can't afford more. I can barely afford this,and I have a pretty good job.
I'm still eligible for financial aid at the hospital.
Maintaining the population shouldn't be the goal. Humans are a plague and there's already too many of us.
The population of the world has fucking TRIPLED since ww2. We're rats
Thanks for letting us all know you're opinions on the future are highly sus.
Lol
- isn't Jesus wonderful?

Yeah that is bull. There is a number you can pay me to have another kid I assure you. If you got money for a plane that can't fly in the rain and a border fence that fell down you got money to pay for babies.

Like is it necessary to have replacement? I’m just think it’s not such a bad thing if population shrinks a bit, I’m only referring to the US. Like I think we find ourselves in a housing and inflation crisis because our parents and our parents parents had a bunch of kids. Am I the only person thinking a decline in population isn’t such a bad thing? Could it be possible to have a flat population?

You are not the only one. We stopped at one because there are too many people. When I was born there were almost half the number of people there are today. I'm 43. In 1980 I don't think there was an "oh my god we don't have enough people" vibe.
Especially in a time where we are all worried about our future on this planet, more people means more sources of pollution. More people want a car, more people getting on planes, more people consuming goods and throw away items.
Seems like sometimes less is more.
- P.s. If the trend hadn't changed, we'd have been on track for around 16 billion in 50 years.

We have more than enough people.

I would love to have kids, a couple, one girl one boy. But not in this fucked up system.

There are so many reasons why we won't have kids. 1: money, we can't afford what we have now! How the hell we gonna pay 300000 and more over at least 18 years for a kid? 2: older gens have told us we're worthless and lazy. 3: the current political climate and actual climate, why the fuck would we want to bring a child into this bullshit system?

This is good from an employment perspective as we move to AI and automation, replacing 2.4 million US jobs by 2030. We are getting to the point where you will need to work in a specialized trade or be highly educated in a specialized field if you want a paycheck. All low-skill jobs will be replaced by AI or automation.

For no amount of money would O give up all my free time and sleep

I was gonna do a Victoria 3 joke about activating the +10% birthrate bonus if your government is liked by the major religious group but I don't know if many will understand it here.

This mentions row v wade and abortion and I saw just the other day the birth rate is going up in the red states. Now is the birth rate going up faster than the death rate in the red states?

For whatever reason the death rate was higher in the red states versus the blue after 2020 and I'm not sure if it has gone down pre 2020 levels

Russia going through this right now. Their demo is getting old and is getting worse.

Perfect time to send 100s of thousands of men in the prime of their lives to die in some pointless war.

As someone who doesn't have and never wanted kids, I'd hate this but...

If a country really wants a sustainable birth rate, it needs to make it painful to not be a parent. Already, non-parents have to pay for public schools they'll never use, and so-on. But, that's a minor expense compared to raising a kid. A country that made it a true priority to keep the population up could do so much more.

Jobs could be required to give 3 weeks additional vacation to parents every year so they could spend it with their children, while non-parents didn't get that time. Taxes could be significantly higher for non-parents vs. parents. Workplaces could get tax breaks based on the number of parents they employ. There could be tax incentives for workplaces that hire new parents. Retirement benefits could be based on the number of kids you raised, capping out at max benefits for 3 kids.

Of course, if any modern country tried that, a lot of people who never want kids would emigrate. But, if you ran an authoritarian country like China or North Korea and could control immigration, you'd definitely get people opting into having kids instead of enjoying a child-free life.

Already, non-parents have to pay for public schools they'll never use, and so-on.
Alternatively, you're paying for the schooling that you did use so that the people following you still have the same access you did. Whether you spawned them or not is irrelevant, unless you plan to just close the door behind you.
- Also (in theory) paying to educate those that will be voting for your government. And like, a thousand other reasons. Public school is good for society regardless of if you have kids
- Great point.
You don't need to penalize the non-parents to entice people to have kids.
But it needs incredible systemic change to do that. The first one would be climate change policies and programs that will at the minimum stop the current trajectory we are in, and at best reverse it.
Second, we need to reign in the extremely greedy corps and make them pay their fair share. In a not so distant past, when the economy wasn't doing well, companies would cut their profits before raising prices. Today, this is practically unheard of. The margins must be kept at all cost, the rest be damned.
Third, create decent safety nets. Right now, our social policies are eroding pretty much everywhere. Some countries more than the others.
Then, we can start thinking about policies that favor the patents.
We have enough resources and technologies to solve all of our problems, but since society is lead by greedy conmans in the pocket of corporations, until that changes, people won't be comfortable having kids.
- You don’t need to penalize the non-parents to entice people to have kids.
  Maybe, maybe not. In the past there were enough people who wanted to have kids that if you just made it easy, they'd do it. But, it could be that the modern world is different enough that you really do need to incentivize people to become parents and even punish them if they don't. Especially in a place like South Korea, it sounds like it's going to be very hard to convince anybody that they should become parents.
  the extremely greedy corps
  Extremely greedy corps are run by people, and their profits flow to people. It's really not about corporations, it's about people.
  society is lead by greedy conmans in the pocket of corporations
  Society is led by rich people who own corporations or massive amounts of shares in corporations. Again, corporations aren't the problem, it's people.
Ah so let's have people having kids stuffing them in the basement just to get benefits like foster parents do now. Lol nah kids should not be used to get free shit and having kids should not get yoy free shit.

Not enough money. Too tough a situation.

having kids is immoral in this time period i believe.

we are vastly over populated act like it.

We want kids, but we can't biologically conceive, as much as we've tried. Surrogacy starts at like, $30k. Start paying for that, a year of paid parental leave for both parents, and real universal Healthcare, and we have a solid start.

Or perhaps fund adoptions? Those are just as expensive!
- We're also in a same sex relationship, so that strikes a lot of adoptions right off... Even so, just for legal reasons, I'd prefer surrogacy. I just want a happy little family someday :)

BRB, Imma go do my part to satisfy the "population replacement rate" by getting pregnant with 2.1 children. That last one-tenth of a child is gonna be tricky though.

if the main argument to have a kid is so they can enter the workforce why the hell would i want to have one?

I have 13 kids from five different women but I never get recognized, pat on the back, absolutely nothing. To top it off I’m stuck working for cash. Has anyone thought about fighting for men’s rights?

*tax dodging deadbeat rights
Wear a condom. Well it's too late now but NEXT TIME!!