494
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

These countries tried everything from cash to patriotic calls to duty to reverse drastically declining birth rates. It didn’t work.

If history is any guide, none of this will work: No matter what governments do to convince them to procreate, people around the world are having fewer and fewer kids.

In the US, the birth rate has been falling since the Great Recession, dropping almost 23 percent between 2007 and 2022. Today, the average American woman has about 1.6 children, down from three in 1950, and significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population. In Italy, 12 people now die for every seven babies born. In South Korea, the birth rate is down to 0.81 children per woman. In China, after decades of a strictly enforced one-child policy, the population is shrinking for the first time since the 1960s. In Taiwan, the birth rate stands at 0.87.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 234 points 11 months ago

My wife and I are well to do in the US, with a good household income that probably puts us in the top 2% or some shit. And to maintain the sort of life that used to be considered “middle class”, we need all of that income for our family of 4. Which means that we both work. We would have liked more kids. But there is only so much time to go around. Fuck are we supposed to do, have another kid and hire a nanny? Fuck is the point of that, we wouldn’t even be parenting.

You want more kids? Give people more time. Which means LESS WORK and BETTER CHILDCARE OPTIONS.

[-] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 71 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] teft@startrek.website 164 points 11 months ago

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

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 112 points 11 months ago

And even if they want to, they can't afford to

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 104 points 11 months ago

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

[-] UsernameHere@lemmings.world 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jonne@infosec.pub 39 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DepthCharge@lemmy.world 89 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] zepheriths@lemmy.world 77 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] zepheriths@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 76 points 11 months ago

Most birds don't lay eggs without a proper nest

[-] Embarrassingskidmark@lemmy.world 74 points 11 months ago

Tried everything...except work life balance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 68 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gargantu8@lemmy.world 62 points 11 months ago

I sure as shit would have more kids if I had parental leave and child care options...

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] greenfish@lemmy.world 61 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Pirasp@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Also the bleak outlook into the future.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 48 points 11 months ago

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...

[-] fireweed@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 46 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 45 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 29 points 11 months ago

Korean here. The problem is the steepness of the trend. We are not ready for such dramatic change over short period. Gradual decrease in population will cause economic downfall for sure. But we can deal with that. But in current speed, it's going to be economic airplane crash. Claiming that it's only bad for the 1% is just delusional at best. The crash will overwhelm any social/economic structure.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 44 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 44 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 43 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] dipshit@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

(it’s the economy and political landscape)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] firewyre@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SquishMallow@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 39 points 11 months ago

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

Go fuck yourselves.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] skybreaker@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] xaxl@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Domille@sh.itjust.works 38 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Eigerloft@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago

Yeah here is my counter offer:

  • universal free childcare, education, and healthcare.
  • 3 day work week
  • double annual salaries
[-] Tosti@feddit.nl 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] radioactiveradio@lemm.ee 37 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] aidan@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Snekeyes@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

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

Not even on the table.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
494 points (97.0% liked)

News

23262 readers
3987 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS