Birth rates are falling in the Nordics below the UK and the US. Are family-friendly policies no longer enough?

[Fatoy]

There's also a fundamental difference between raising kids who will hit the average, and kids who will thrive / succeed.

Most parents want to give their children the widest possible set of opportunities, and those opportunities come at a considerable cost on top of the already high baseline that comes with having kids.

 

[Antrax]

In such articles there's always a line like this: "The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what's going on."
Which begs the question if whoever is responsible for such comments lives in a bubble or just doesn't know what they're talkin about.

You just need to live a normal life nowadays and compare it to how it was 30 years ago than you know why.

Click to shrink...

Well, no; in general, there is less poverty today and more economic freedom than in most time periods in the past, and yet fertility is lower. People living through the Great Depression were having more kids than today, and you can't seriously argue life was better then than now for almost anyone.

Ezra Klein had a recent episode on this, and while they didn't come to an answer per se, I think they got deeper than the usual one-line explanations. Ultimately society (for good or bad) was geared almost entirely toward having as many kids as possible. It was the only way women could gain economic security, churches (seeking followers) would always offer childcare way beyond any daycare center today, there was no retirement or Social Security so your kids were your retirement plan (if you have more, it lessens each of their burden to kick in for your benefit), etc....

Now, women have rights (which is obviously good) so you take a minus to fertility for women who never would've wanted kids but would've been forced into it. Less people are religious (probably good imo) so you need childcare that's run like a business - take a minus there for multiple kids since each one adds a direct cost. We have 401ks and Social Security etc..., so you don't need as many kids to retire - take a minus for multiple kids.

Remember that replacement rate is 2.2 (to account for kids that die before they're at reproductive age). But if you have 3 at roughly similar ages (which most people aim for so siblings are closer), where does the 3rd car seat go? Do you have a 4 bedroom house so all 3 kids eventually get their own room when they're teens? So even in subtle ways, we're oriented around 2 kids at most, which lands at below replacement rates.

Not sure what the answer is, or if it needs one at all. Rates as low as Japan and South Korea are clearly going to cause huge issues, but something like 1.8 paired with more open immigration?

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

If parenthood was that easy and cost zero money & time, I suspect fertility rates would shoot back up.

Click to shrink...

My wife and I are almost 50 and never had kids. I never really wanted them. She started out unsure but after working as a teacher for a couple years noped out as well. But I will say that if it were possible for me to ethically father children without having to take care of them or pay for them, I would have done it, just to pass along the genes and extend the family line, etc. I was an only child, and my wife has a brother but he never had kids either, so both our family lines will end when we kick the bucket.

If you're not wealthy, don't have kids or you risk a lifetime of financial insecurity.

Click to shrink...

In my area of the country, my parents and their parents and most people I know in older generations sacrificed in order to have children, or because they had them. The scrimped and saved and always cooked at home. They went on cheap car trip vacations to local beaches and mountains, where they camped in a tent and ate sandwiches with cold cuts and cooked breakfast on a camp stove. They didn't have financial security. To hear them tell it, they were quite happy. But many people today, including myself, aren't willing to live like that and prefer a freer and more privileged lifestyle.

To be fair, decades ago people would be poor and still have like 10 kids.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. For some this was probably due to a lack of access or knowledge of birth control, but I suspect for others they wouldn't have changed a thing. For generations having kids wasn't as much of a sacrifice because there was not much else to do. There is so much to do now, so much you could buy or experience, and that makes having kids a real decision.

 

[Min]

The idealized life course for more and more modern women unfortunately doesn't line up with biology

Click to shrink...

If this is their idealized life course then I don't see where the unfortunate part comes in?

 

[DarthMasta]

There was a time when women didn't have much choice, and kids were a true investment. They'd help with the farm and take care of you when you got older.

Women have choice now, and kids aren't much of an investment, you'd do better putting all your money in an index fund or whatever and paying strangers to help you.

So, it's just for people who really want kids or have the money that it's not much of a problem. Or who don't think too much about what having kids means for their lives, or care about the kids doing well.

We'll either tech ourselves out of the problem, or society will change so that having kids is easier / more worthwhile than not.

 

[NativeTongue]

Does Nordic culture value children? You can have all the financial incentives you want, but if people dont want children it isn't going to matter

 

[Dice]

I mean, we're not even talking about perpetual growth here, we're talking about replacement level.

Click to shrink...

Replace what? We're already in the billions level. IF it's about sustaining tax dollars for a nation, then I just don't think that's enough incentive. I'd argue it's great we can do more with less people.

 

[T002 Tyrant]

Provide Universal Basic Income and make sure corporations don't raise their prices, maybe people will be able to afford children?

 

[Dice]

Provide Universal Basic Income and make sure corporations don't raise their prices, maybe people will be able to afford children?

Click to shrink...

UBI isn't a real solution, no government is just going to offer free money if they can avoid it, and major companies aren't going to help fund it. A few places around the world have tried it, but with mixed results (people ARE happier, but since they're not WAY more productive with it, or it's still too little money, it's potentially a dead-end).

We barely help poor people now, what makes you think we'll help a whole population? :/

Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map

Which countries have experimented with basic income — and what were the results?

www.vox.com

 

[nded]

This is probably just a thing we're going to have to learn to live with rather than "solve".

 

[Sean C.]

Replace what? We're already in the billions level.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and when the elderly massively outnumber the young that is a major financial and labour problem.

 

[DimpleSan]

Replace what? We're already in the billions level. IF it's about sustaining tax dollars for a nation, then I just don't think that's enough incentive. I'd argue it's great we can do more with less people.

Click to shrink...

The entire world's economic system is based around a sustained or growing population. I'm not just talking about money, everything in society is built with this in mind. Economics is about the distribution of scarce resources. With a low or nonexistent birth rate, we will eventually have more old people than young people. There will be a greater proportion of work and effort put into just taking care of the elderly, imagine 1 young person for every 4 elderly people. It would completely wreck society. Can the human race get through it? Yes, but only after a period of death and suffering. The same as climate change. We can just ignore climate change but it will disrupt a hell of a lot of people and areas of the world. To be worried about the effect of climate change on the human race, but not worried about falling population, would be hypocritical since they both will cause major problems, falling population probably more so.

 

[Dice]

The entire world's economic system is based around a sustained or growing population. I'm not just talking about money, everything in society is built with this in mind. Economics is about the distribution of scarce resources. With a low or nonexistent birth rate, we will eventually have more old people than young people. There will be a greater proportion of work and effort put into just taking care of the elderly, imagine 1 young person for every 4 elderly people. It would completely wreck society. Can the human race get through it? Yes, but only after a period of death and suffering. The same as climate change. We can just ignore climate change but it will disrupt a hell of a lot of people and areas of the world. To be worried about the effect of climate change on the human race, but not worried about falling population, would be hypocritical since they both will cause major problems, falling population probably more so.

Click to shrink...

🤷‍♀️

Hopefully it means we have governments willing to put more resource for elder care (which would makes sense since governments is often made up of older peoples lol).

Like even with green initiatives... I've always secretly wishes that these "crisis areas" would mean more expanded efforts to open jobs and obtain funding in these areas. If eldercare were a better paid and more appreciated gig, I think you'd see more people working in it. (This is mostly me just spit-balling).

 

[Kyougar]

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

Click to shrink...

Exactly.
I have no children and for the first 15 years of my working life, I was living day to day and there were some days where I had to eat toast with ketchup. How do you raise kids with that kind of money?
And you can't forget the financial burden of separating with the child's mother if you don't have full custody (or never were together with the mother). As a low-income worker, your life is basically over. That scares away many men from having children or even relationships.

In my 2 decades of working low-income, married men (under 40) with children were a rarity among my colleagues. The unmarried or divorced men who had to pay child support were the next bigger group and "scared" the majority of men without children. Even 20 to 30-something colleagues without children, that would be considered handsome were mostly single.

If you gamble on your financial future with a potential partner that also wants to have children, the internet seems a better alternative.

How do you solve something like that?

 

[Antrax]

If this is their idealized life course then I don't see where the unfortunate part comes in?

Click to shrink...

That line is saying the ideal (go to school, get established in your career, have a few years of childfree experiences, then have kids) isn't possible because you run out of time.

A stat came up on the Ezra Klein episode I mentioned above that people who want kids when surveyed say that they want about 2.7 kids on average, but are only having like 1.5. That's partially an age thing; if you start having kids at 22, you have plenty of time to have 3 or 4 if you want. If you start at 35, you might only have time for 1 or 2

 

[shintoki]

I don't think most want to give up their freedoms without kids. No incentive is going to change that.

 

[barbarash22]

If you're suggesting things were better 30 years ago, as a general rule they were not.

Click to shrink...

Well, no; in general, there is less poverty today and more economic freedom than in most time periods in the past, and yet fertility is lower. People living through the Great Depression were having more kids than today, and you can't seriously argue life was better then than now for almost anyone.

Click to shrink...

I didn't mean things were better, just that things were different, that's why I said if you lived for a few decades you should at least know a few reasons, just by living:
- Society overall was different in many ways
- It was possible for a working class father to earn a living for the whole family and still live well. At least it was so with my family and in my country (my mother stayed at home and they still had three kids). Overall people might have more money nowadays and we have less poverty, but how expensive everything is, such a thing is near impossible today for normal working class people.
- Less distractions back then (media, etc.)
- Less eductational standards (now everyone wants to study and won't have kids at early ages, which tightens the fertility window)
- More mental pressure nowadays (bleak future, more work pressure.....)
- etc....

I was born in the 80s and for me a lot of the differences and causes are obvious, so it just wondered how people who write such articles don't know how that could be.
There obviously are also different reasons for different countries when it comes to low fertility, but even then you quickly come up with various reasons, if you take a closer look at korean society, for example.

 

[Ceerious]

There will be no unifying approach for improving birth rates that can be applied in all countries. The need to have children may actually be somewhat reduced by great social benefits. Such as:

1. Children in economically disadvantaged areas, particularly those dominated by agriculture, will be able to share the family's financial burden at a younger age. In economically developed areas with good educational facilities, children's schooling will be extended, delaying their entry into society to give economic value. Even if society can share the financial expense of childcare, the emotional toll on parents must be considered. You still have to look after your children until they can stand on their own feet. For countries with good education benefits, this time period may even be longer.

This is one of the reasons why even the better-off middle class may not want children. While they can afford it financially, they can't possibly escape the responsibility of parenting. But extremely wealthy people can, because they hire 138 nannies with smart kitchens, offloading the responsibility and easing the emotional toll, allowing them to focus on the stock market.

2. In relation to the previous point, the longer people are educated and the later they enter society, the less time they have biologically to be able to bear children.

3. Where public pension insurance and senior care services are good enough, the need to rely on the next generation to care for the elderly is greatly reduced. Not to mention that many caregivers in rich countries are from the third world.

4. As AI technology advances and our reliance on human labor decreases, society's need for children will dwindle even more.

This is not a trend that can be reversed with some miracle policy. Human reproductive culture will change with technological advances, economic trends, and climate changes.

 

[Dice]

I don't think most want to give up their freedoms without kids. No incentive is going to change that.

Click to shrink...

To me: That's the final rub. What can you even do about that? lol

No help is gonna change the sacrifice of nearly two decades of having a dependent (especially while western life seems to strive for independence). It takes FOREVER to rear a human baby (god knows I've wished humans were like baby deer that start walking soon after being born lol).

Maybe it's why the "ipad parenting" took off, and even before then... Toys, movies, games... It just helps leave parents alone for a while. Life is tough and a life of convenience is often just too appealing.

 

[Spagward]

For me a big unsung factor is the lack of community. It was probably pretty nice to have a kid when you lived in a town you've been in your whole life that has extended family in it. Lots of avenues for interaction and care. The first world drive towards hyper focusing the economy on a handful of urban metros has destroyed this. The last thing on my mind when bouncing between engineering jobs near NYC, near Austin, near Boston, etc. is "I should have a kid." Why? So the kid can live in my generic new build apartment building hundreds of miles away from the rest of their developmental and support system?

We have a society of worker drones and consumers and raising children does not mesh well with that.

 

[mehm]

I think it is mostly that the younger generations just don't want to give up their consume focused lifestyle than anything else. I have two toddlers and there just isn't "me-time" anymore. You completely give up yourself for at least 10 or more years until the kids are a bit more independent. After all the joy and happines in being a father there is sometimes sadness that I can't consume my hobbys like I used to. In this consumerist society that we now live in there are not few people that just don't want to give up that. They don't want to give up themselves.

And I can completely understand that. 100 years ago this was a non-issue. There was nothing in life besides eventually earning your bread and reproducing. Imagine someone 100 years ago deciding not to have children. What would that person have gained other than more boredom in life?

 

[prophetvx]

Meaning the global human birthrate will stay above 1.0 till around 2100, whereupon it will go below 1.0?

Click to shrink...

1.0 as in replacement, ie for every person that dies, only 1 person is born? Yes that's the expectation. Birthrates are currently in the 17's out of 1,000 people annual. In comparison in the 1950's, it was around 35. It's been steadily declining at a relatively consistent rate since. Currently global population is still growing with those numbers and as I said, expected to peak at around 10.5-11 billion at which point you are at the replacement level of population and no longer "growth".

 

[fixing ranger]

I think it is mostly that the younger generations just don't want to give up their consume focused lifestyle than anything else. I have two toddlers and there just isn't "me-time" anymore. You completely give up yourself for at least 10 or more years until the kids are a bit more independent. After all the joy and happines in being a father there is sometimes sadness that I can't consume my hobbys like I used to. In this consumerist society that we now live in there are not few people that just don't want to give up that. They don't want to give up themselves.

And I can completely understand that. 100 years ago this was a non-issue. There was nothing in life besides eventually earning your bread and reproducing. Imagine someone 100 years ago deciding not to have children. What would that person have gained other than more boredom in life?

Click to shrink...

Fertility rates in the US are very low during the last 50 years. So if by younger generations you mean starting with baby boomers, then maybe, but I think it is a stretch.

People (especially women) just have more opportunities to do something else instead, and a big number of them choose to do so, and it is a 100% universal trend.

 

[Pau]

And I can completely understand that. 100 years ago this was a non-issue. There was nothing in life besides eventually earning your bread and reproducing. Imagine someone 100 years ago deciding not to have children. What would that person have gained other than more boredom in life?

Click to shrink...

I really don't think people 100 years ago, or ever, had children because they were bored and needed something to occupy their time. Women literally were not given a choice until recently.

 

[Divvy]

Isaac Asimov "predicted*" that humanity would end up sending their babies to luxury nurseries then to luxury boarding schools. Then the children go to university dorms and then strike out on their own and get their own houses. At no point do they ever live with their parents (except maybe on optional vacations) and at no point do the parents ever spend anything on the child, except for birthday presents and the like. Maybe? Haven't re-read the book in decades.

If parenthood was that easy and cost zero money & time, I suspect fertility rates would shoot back up. But it's a hard sell...not living with your children. ever. Except on vacations. It goes against our one-kid at a time ultra-protective mammalian instincts as a human species.

Yet that is the most cost effective way of doing things. Solo and Duo parenting are extremely inefficient. That's why we say it takes a village, because a village increases efficiency a lot. Yet, we have no more villages. Well something's gotta give. People love money too much and kids are too much of a money sink these days.

* in The Naked Sun, great science fiction book

Click to shrink...

Why would any significant amount of people voluntarily suffer through pregnancy if they end up having little to do with their child? This system feels like it puts a huge burden on women to propagate the species for no actual personal gain? It'd make way more sense if people just donated their sperm, eggs or embryos to an incubation facility or something.

 

[cyress8]

It can take 20+ years of supporting your child before you can have back some financial freedom and that's if they grow up to be completely independent. Kinda makes sense some people want to hold off.

 

[Tuppen]

People not understanding how the population in the world can keep growing if we're not having children should watch this video.

https://www.gapminder.org/videos/the-rapid-growth-of-the-world-population-when-will-it-slow-down/

 

[WereSalamander]

I really don't think people 100 years ago, or ever, had children because they were bored and needed something to occupy their time. Women literally were not given a choice until recently.

Click to shrink...

Additionally children were necessary to help around the farm, earn extra income, and help take care of parents when they got older.

It seems like the more free and prosperous people become the more they see children as a burden rather than benefit.

We cannot and should not go backwards as a society. Instead we should be changing our societies to not depend on an assumption of ever-increasing growth in both wealth and population.

 

[deathkiller]

Seems like it's Trevor/Carol on a mass scale?


View: https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA?si=-almrS-9RaLeXrsb

Click to shrink...

Except according to the article men of lower education are the most likely to be childless:

Nearly 40 per cent of Finnish men with low education are now childless at the age of 45 (and probably for life)

Click to shrink...

 

[Prax]

Maybe this is just nature's way lol.

Maybe societies are reaching a point where no incentives are good enough to make us have more children. We'll just have to rely on robots and sustainable renewables for a while for eldercare and economic stability.

Maybe we'll reach a peak population then decline to a point where the humans that are alive have the biological and emotional urges to have many children again.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

For better or worse the community sense of society is unraveling. Churches fall apart but with that also support structures and a general sense that a society looks after its children. Other people's kids are nuisances, might as well not start on your own. In many ways I supported a greater individualism, but I feel like we've gone too far and its making way for pervasive dread. I hope I'm not becoming an old conservative. I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way.

Click to shrink...

No, you are not old and conservative. You are older and wiser. The things we want most as humans are best fulfilled by a tight knit community of other humans in our immediate proximity. This is the condition/prerequisite we failed to realize was most important for community to work as intended. We are focusing too much on people having the same ideological make-up and values and have lost all sense of proximal community...i.e., community for the everyday borne out of necessity. Social media networks are mostly a net negative for most. I understand that for marginalized individuals, finding a supportive community can be bolstered using social media. But for the vast majority of everyone else, social media is a major hindrance to social development and proximal community building.

The truth is that our technology, as designed and deployed for the benefit of fewer and fewer people, is controlling and addicting us. We are no longer in control. Our time and energy is harvested for the benefit of these few. The metaphor that the Matrix presented is happening. It's just that a hyper exploitative class of people are the "machines".

The favorite tool of those few to make us all self isolate from one another is hyper political/ideological polarization pushed via infotainment media and social media platforms. The incessant firehose of FUD puts everyone in bunker mode...and well the paranoia makes everyone stay away from each other. And this collective misery that seemingly is arising from the ether is the result.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

I can't comment on the overall picture, but I do think there are several positive feedback loops in effect that have exacerbated trends. None of these would be initially causative, but would kick in once trends were established.

Less people having kids means less economies of scale for products and services that are involved. This makes it more expensive for those that do have children and acts as a disincentive.

Less people having kids meant workers had more spare money, which meant markets could raise prices on many types of things because people could pay. This sometimes meant regular inflation or real estate prices going higher, but it also meant higher end versions of products becoming mainstream (thousand dollar smart phones for example). But once the market calibrates itself to 0 or 1 child households as the median, those that want to have kids have a harder time, and also people deciding to have kids face a tougher decision on how much of their lifestyle they'll have to give up.

As fewer children are born and more families have no or few children, various societal pressures on people to have kids have been substantially reduced on account of this being normal. Less cultural pressure, less kids, which means even less pressure in the future, etc.

 

[mentok15]

There has to be small subsections of society still having children beyond replacement rates. Given time they will become larger and larger proportion of society and become the largest, overall birthrates will then increase again.

(idk I'm speaking shit form a very simple version of selective pressure)

 

[Jokerman]

If you're suggesting things were better 30 years ago, as a general rule they were not.

Click to shrink...

Depends what country you are referring to. If you look outside the USA many countries had better standards of living back then.

 

[Dannepannepuff]

Any individualistic society that have problems keeping up with housing needs will see birthrates go down.
And at least in Sweden that is a big factor, plus the economic situation obviously

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

People don't want the hassle of kids anymore. They want to pocket their money, enjoy their youth, and then maybe get to it later. Society is changing, and birth rates are going to decline as a result. We're also becoming a bit more isolated which doesn't help when it comes to folks meeting each other

 

[andymoogle]

This is not at all an issue we should care about. Climate change will lead to more and more people being displaced. Let's focus on helping them and give people a new home in rich countries where climate change will do less damage.

Of course, this isn't going to happen. It's more likely we will go full fascism than allowing more immigrants. And none of the rich countries are truly prepared for climate change.

 

[Dragon Puncher]

A little weird calling this "the nordics", when Finland has the clear worst birthrates here and have had for some time. In 2023 Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Norway all had birthrates above the European average (Norway on the cusp though, some statistics have them just below).

Not that the birthrates are great now, but they aren't much different and actually often a bit higher than they were in the mid 90's. Except in Finland where there has been a clear decline. This suggests to me that it is a results of specific Finnish circumstances and not the Nordic Model.

 

[Sloth Guevara]

a huge factor is housing for me tbh. Don't want to have a big family in a small apartment. So one kid it is.

Most people who are able to own their property in my circle all got help from their family helping out.
People with out that help are left behind.

 

[niaobx]

I think it is mostly that the younger generations just don't want to give up their consume focused lifestyle than anything else. I have two toddlers and there just isn't "me-time" anymore. You completely give up yourself for at least 10 or more years until the kids are a bit more independent. After all the joy and happines in being a father there is sometimes sadness that I can't consume my hobbys like I used to. In this consumerist society that we now live in there are not few people that just don't want to give up that. They don't want to give up themselves.

And I can completely understand that. 100 years ago this was a non-issue. There was nothing in life besides eventually earning your bread and reproducing. Imagine someone 100 years ago deciding not to have children. What would that person have gained other than more boredom in life?

Click to shrink...

are you implying that people 100 years ago didnt have hobbies because there were no video games or tv?

 

[akintheuite]

I keep seeing in this thread people talking about finances..I believe it has nothing to do with Finance. The developed world is richer than it has ever been, and the fertility rates are lower than ever. It is a cultural thing. People in developed societies has simply decided that children are too much of a hassle, and they will rather do something else with their time. The thing is, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Eventually, this will have a massive impact on society (see already all the issues countries are having with immigration..you don't want to have kids, but at the same time you don't want immigrants.. so where will all the workers come from?) Funny enough, when you suggest robots and AI, the same people who don't want kids are the same who also rail against AI and robots saying it's so impersonal and lacking the human touch. At some point, if the rates continue their trend, there will be like 1 worker for every 5 elderly, and that is not simply a sustainable society..it simply is not; with that kind of age distribution ratio, modern society cannot function and will inevitably collapse.

There will have to be a cultural change from the anti-natalist thinking that seems to permeate the developed countries because if they continue on this path, their societies will collapse (and no immigration is not a permanent solution because the people will revolt if immigrants begin to make up too much of the society). i mean I doubt all the Japanese-loving weebs worldwide will like the country as much if it became a country of 98% immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa( which is really the only region of the world that can really supply immigrants now as it's the only region with a surplus of young people)

 

[Jimbobsmells]

If you want a long form read on this there is plenty online such as this https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate. It discusses multiple factors which are likely contributing.

Important to note this is not a Nordic or even western only problem. Asian countries, such as Korea, China and Singapore are famously below replacement rate and depending on the stats, some are even below 1 child per family.

On the other hand Africa is where the growth is, Nigeria, Niger, Somalia, etc. Most of Africa is over 4 births per family.

 

[Rahvar]

A little weird calling this "the nordics", when Finland has the clear worst birthrates here and have had for some time. In 2023 Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Norway all had birthrates above the European average (Norway on the cusp though, some statistics have them just below).

Not that the birthrates are great now, but they aren't much different and actually often a bit higher than they were in the mid 90's. Except in Finland where there has been a clear decline. This suggests to me that it is a results of specific Finnish circumstances and not the Nordic Model.

Click to shrink...

It is worth pointing out than Finland has a far, far smaller immigrant population compared to other Nordic countries.

 

[mehm]

are you implying that people 100 years ago didnt have hobbies because there were no video games or tv?

Click to shrink...

Of course there were hobbies. But people were not hanging on them as if their life depended on it. The addiction to a certain lifestyle is far higher now than it ever was. Can I ever let go of movies, video games and other activities? No. I am hanging onto them with my dear life even though I have children. And there are enough people out there who don't want any interruptions to this lifestyle. And it is ok. Nothing wrong with admitting to that. My father had hobbies too but he would always say that there are far more important things in life. I think this changed. People actually value their own life and longings now.

 

[Kernel]

I always wanted kids and my son is one of biggest the joys in my life. Even though he's 12 and teenage years are coming.

It's a hard job but I still find it immensely rewarding watching him grow up.

 

[MrKlaw]

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

Click to shrink...

Yep. From a work/life balance it feels like both parents working part time jobs so they're equally available for the children and not entirely polarised in roles would make sense. But capitalism right? Oh our standard of living has gone up? yes this small sliver as you got the benefits of dual income before it became normalised and prices corrected. Everyone else is now equally fucked.

 

[Motorcycle Dork]

Capitalism is incompatible with reproduction.

It annoys the hell out of me when many assume women/FAB liberation is the sole reason for low birth rates. Yes it has played a part but revoking the rights of women/FAB is not going to solve the problem.

People (who are open to) are willing to having children if there is supportive economic and social conditions. This means both parents shouldn't have to be forced to work fulltime, younger generations should be able to afford homeownership rather than compete with wealthy pensioners or rich foreigners for assets. And there should be guarantees that parents can take time off work to care for their children without fear of losing their jobs.

UK and USA have higher birthrate because of young immigrant families; as well as the USA's depraved abortion ban but that will have severe consequences.

So even if countries like Norway with supportive family-friendly policies face declining populations. This shouldn't be viewed negatively, a declining population can be managed through immigration strategically via replacing the working force with migrants, but we know how unpopular that policy is, and neoliberalist countries take it too far prioritising immgrants for cheap labour rather than replacing sectors that have shortages i.e state care and health.

However, hypercapitalist countries like the USA, UK, South Korea, and Japan - immigration only serves as a temporary fix, a feeble bandaid, it won't solve the demographic crisis. These countries face deeper issues that deter young people (who are open to) from having children, including high living costs, misogynistic policies and attitudes, and asset hoarding by wealthy older generations.

Having children is both bloody expensive and time consuming. People (who are open to) will not risk having children, especially in countries that fail to provide adequate incentives or address other pressing matters such as housing shortages, restricting reproductive rights, inequitable distribution of wealth, climate change, and widespread violence (mass shootings, wars). Moreover, we should definitely respect the rights of individuals who choose not to have children and accept soft declines in populations will be inevitable.

 

[Jimbobsmells]

Capitalism is incompatible with reproduction.

Click to shrink...

We have to seize the means of reproduction!

 

[akintheuite]

Capitalism is incompatible with reproduction.

It annoys the hell out of me when many assume women/FAB liberation is the sole reason for low birth rates. Yes it has played a part but revoking the rights of women/FAB is not going to solve the problem.

Click to shrink...

This blaming capitalism for everything in the world is getting tiresome..lol ..Capitalism did not make women (and many men) not want to have kids, a shift to individualism did. It is a cultural change, not an economic one.

 

[Motorcycle Dork]

We have to seize the means of reproduction!

Click to shrink...

Damn right we do!