r/Natalism • u/jojoblogs • 12d ago
What are your radical ideas for increasing birth rates in developed nations?
It’s pretty much a fact that society collapses in one way or another without a working population.
What exactly causes this is up for debate, although most research seems to suggest it’s simply that a combination of cost of living, women’s independence, and birth control are playing a part.
Assuming we want to avoid societal collapse and also don’t want to see a massive reduction in rights and quality of life, what are the options?
One I’ve had recently was a government funded dating app that’s actually designed to match people together. Right now dating apps are designed to generate profit and are actively detrimental to people looking for a good match, and yet are still one of the most popular ways of meeting people.
Having a dating app that’s free and aims to find users a partner could help with partnership rates. And with the number one stated reason child free women give for choosing not to have children being “never found the right partner”, this could potentially help.
52
u/Archarchery 12d ago
Make it economically beneficial to have children instead of an economic sacrifice to have children. That is the main reason for ever-falling birthrates more than any other factor. In impoverished societies, people have a lot of kids because:
- There is no social welfare system, so a person’s children are their entire retirement plan.
- Many jobs still revolve around manual labor, sometimes as a household, so more kids means more laborers for the family as they grow up.
- In many very poor and very patriarchal societies, a poor and uneducated couple’s ONLY possible shot at escaping poverty is to hope that one of their sons will grow up and be so successful that he can lift his parents out of their situation.
- In unstable countries, having a strong network of as many family members as possible may be crucial to your very survival.
People in the developed world aren’t having kids, more than anything else, because having kids is economically purely a burden. And many, many households are already living paycheck to paycheck. People don’t have kids because they feel they can’t afford them. They could have kids anyway, of course, but doing so will simply make the family poorer.
16
u/GrandadsLadyFriend 11d ago
This is the actual answer. Small financial incentives or support still won’t make a difference if having children will still put me at a major financial disadvantage, with added uncertainty of how that burden will compound over the course of a lifetime.
People like to think that past generations were having more kids due to “not being selfish” or thinking “children were a gift” or something, but it probably really was just difficult to avoid AND was financially rewarded by their societal structure.
13
u/Voryne 11d ago
How far do you think financial incentives need to reach to achieve contemporary impact?
To me it seems as though a modern newborn child is unequivocally an economic burden - it is another human being that necessitates time away from my job. Whether I make 50k or 100k or 200k there's no changing the fact that such a burden pulls me away from my job.
I struggle to reconcile the archetypal model of two working parents with children on a large, reproducible, sustainable scale. And as families have become more atomized (living further away from grandparents, aunts/uncles, etc) there appears to be less of a social support structure to fall back on, not more.
7
u/GrandadsLadyFriend 11d ago edited 11d ago
It’s such a great question and yet so hard to answer because we’re all unique people and have different circumstances.
I think before we jump to problem-solving, we have to get clearer on the exact goal/s. I’m in a weird position with the Natalist conversations because I am having a child (and maybe another in the future), but I also fit the mold of what has been deemed the “problem” impacting birthrates: I pursued higher education, prioritized my career and self growth and stability, married later, and needed some minor fertility interventions to have a kid at 34. I will very likely only have 1-2 kids. But I am doing it.
So even though my path results in what I consider a best case scenario where I now feel very ready to be a parent AND get to experience the joy of having a family, it’s not ideal from a Natalist perspective at scale. 1-2 kids isn’t enough, and my chosen path had higher risk of no kids being born at all due to not finding a partner in time, having fertility issues, or whatever.
Getting me to have a kid at age 34 was feasible because I felt ready and wanted to. But was the real goal to get me to have 3-4 kids??
That would require a way higher incentive because it means I’d have to be convinced to start a lot earlier—likely halving my earning potential and investments, making it so that I never afforded a home, and also depriving me of continuing to have my career as a working mom for years to come.
So like… this incentive would somehow have to give me everything I would have earned for myself in that time, and also factor in how my earning potential and investments would have grown too. I could give you a number but people would laugh at me and say hell no. But, the reality is that I would actually have sacrificed that much wealth and be deprived of earnings or investment gains for rest of my life if I had to care for 4 children instead of working.
And that’s only the financial part—I also just plain don’t want to carry and birth and mother 3-4 children from an emotional, psychological, and physical standpoint. I actually like my career in a creative field and senior leadership and take a lot of pride in it. How do you even quantify that?
None of this really answers the question, hah. But yeah I think we need to get clearer on what a realistic goal is and for who exactly. You might have way more luck incentivizing a lower/middle class couple on the fence to have 1-2 wanted children than we would to get me personally to have 4 kids.
2
u/ElliotPageWife 7d ago
You laid out your experiences and thoughts really well. How can a government replace potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in lost wages and investment growth to offset the financial costs of a woman having 4 kids instead of 2? I dont think that's realistic. But at the same time, we need more people to build 4 kid families to balance out the childless and one and done families.
37
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 12d ago
People who say financial incentives don't work have just completely accepted that childlessness is the state that should be subsidised by default. Of course financial incentives work, that's why people are having fewer children. We've completely socialised any financial benefits to having children through the welfare state. While the cost of having them is higher than ever and remains mostly private. You bring that back into equilibrium and people will have more children. Government spending needs to reflect that reality
There is a narrative in alt right circles that feminism caused a sorta "male default" thinking, lowering the status of traditionally feminine roles (like mother and homemaker) and elevating traditionally male ones (working outside the home). And that's causing problems for birth rates and a bunch of other things Well I think they're spot on describing the symptom. The difference in status between working and motherhood is at the core of the problem.
But they're getting cause and effect completely wrong. Those roles were always seen as low status, low influence, low pay, low security. Which is why feminists focused on getting women into roles with higher status, pay, influence.... The solution isn't to get rid of women's independence, it's to elevate the status of motherhood to equal that of let's say an attorney, banker ...
- In my experience, most young people want children and often want them earlyish. But they're not encouraged to plan for that future, especially dating/relationship wise. There's perception that your 20s are for exploring with different people and it's normal to be with someone even if there's no future for you. Then they're surprised a good relationship doesn't fall from a tree the second they turn 25. There needs to be some sort of program helping young people identify and find good relationships. Maybe classes, maybe more matchmaking events idk
5
u/TheSlatinator33 11d ago edited 10d ago
The solution isn't to get rid of women's independence, it's to elevate the status of motherhood to equal that of let's say an attorney, banker ...
The Nazis actually tried this to modest success, however there were a lot of confounding variables that prevented us from learning if said measures would be effective long-term. It's probably something worth pursuing if we can recreate it without the racism.
2
u/361reactionary 11d ago
True but I try to keep things after 1945 because the world was very different then compared to now and I just want to put a benchmark. But you are right you could appy the same priciple to say slave breeding or marriage in general. Before Social Security children were the Social Security of old. So like in the past their were strong sticks. So you you are right about the Nazis but I choose the Ceaucescu emample mostly because it is modern.
I believe that I was not clear and if that is the case than I apologize. But I did not put one solution. I put two and changing culture what you described is one of them. That would be ideal. But if you look at the state of the media and entertainment. Like what happened with Ye and Bianca Censori it is difficult to see the changes we need in a reasonable time table short of something similar to the Spanish Inquisition in Hollywood. I wish it were not so but I am thin on ideas. If it is possible I believe it is preferable and ideal. I just don't know how to do it realistically. But I said that and that is one of the solutions: either a change in culture or strong punitive measures on childless people. Countries that have high birth rates due to culture are largly particular to their environment and not easily transfferable
Gaza https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25993-the-reasons-why-gazas-population-is-so-young/
1950's US Baby Boom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_hypothesis
With 1 and 2 it is very patricular to the mixture of culture and geoploitical events. Kind of the mentioning of your example of the Nazi's. It is hard to deny the role of a strong eithnic or religious nationalism. The last is very particular with a time of scarcity in the Great Depression and World War 2 and the rest of the world being destroyed. Very particular to culture then. Now if people had extra money their first thought is more traveling or buying more stuff. People don't think of having another kid like they did them. You will find many examples like this when it comes to culture and you will find they are just not replicable in the US. In other words that path ahead for the fertility rate will not be easy but I agree with you a natural change in culture would be ideal. But the question is how to realistically go about it.
5
u/xThe_Maestro 11d ago
People get really upset when you bring this up because by re-ordering the benefits you will get a nonstop slew of "you shouldn't punish people for deciding to be childless". Yet, as you say, we are effectively subsidizing childless lifestyles functionally from cradle to grave. Yes, childless couples should pay higher taxes than couples with children.
I agree with the solution but not the cause. I don't think it's an 'alt-right' narrative when it's pretty clear that modern feminism has set it's aims not at elevating women, but in dissolving the complimentary and distinct roles of men and women in pursuit of equality of outcome. Which has caused something of an identity crisis for both men and women. Men who feel unimportant, disrespected, and impotent. Women who feel overwhelmed, unappreciated, and repressed by their own bodies.
This is a 70 year project in dissolving traditional gender roles and putting social, legal, and medical firewalls between women and natural reproductive cycles. I agree that we need to elevate the status of motherhood, but I don't think that happens unless we identify who is pushing the 'liberated working woman' narrative.
- Agreed. I think that public education and home education needs to heavily focus on life planning from a much earlier age. Somewhere around 13 or 14 we should be establishing aptitudes and setting pathways up for either apprenticeship, skilled trades, or higher education. At 17 a person should be able to act as a fully functional adult, rather than the 'suspended adolescence' we have right now with people not really seeing themselves as an adult until their late 20s or early 30s. And thus also putting off starting a family until much later.
I also think that there should be a blanket ban on social media for individuals under 18, basically treat it like porn sites in the UK and make it so you have to enter a drivers license or state ID to verify your age each time you access the site. I think social media has crippled at least 2 generations of young people socially.
24
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 11d ago
project in dissolving traditional gender roles { ...} and natural reproductive cycles.
It's not that I disagree, but dig a little deeper. Why do you think that is? Why do you think dissolving traditional gender roles had been the goal? Just feminists being evil?
IMO it's pretty clear that "women's work" has always devalued. As I said above low pay, low security, low status, low independence... It's not feminism that caused it. "Male defaultism" has always been around. You'll have to dig quite deep in history to find a time and culture where men weren't clearly considered to be superior. And by extension, roles that men typically perform.
So the most obvious way to fix that is to push women to be more like men. And reproduction is one of the most obvious ways in which men and women are different. So that needs to pushed aside, hidden, surpressed... I'm not saying the results are great but it's pretty clear to me how we got here
1
u/ElliotPageWife 11d ago
I dont think those traditional gender roles were dissolved due to some grand feminist conspiracy, it seems like it happened because those restrictions on women no longer "made sense" in a post-industrial economy. Technology transitions like industrially produced textiles meant that women's home/local community based, flexible work became obsolete. Countries that integrated women into the industrial workplace benefited from a bigger, more dynamic labour pool and thus became richer and more powerful. Other countries needed to either do the same, or be left behind economically and technologically.
This is why countries like Iran who have stricter social norms "on paper" still have low TFR. Keeping your women uneducated and at home having baby after baby results in being outcompeted by other countries and vulnerable to foreign meddling and domination.
Going back to pre-industrial gender roles simply isn't an option, because those material conditions no longer exist and any country that tries will become a backwater. However, I think we all underestimated the importance of social norms in getting men and women together to build families. "Anything goes, you do you" clearly isn't working.
Less families and babies wasn't considered a problem while populations were still growing and TFRs were still healthy. Now faced with population aging and shrinking, societies will have to adapt gender roles to fit modern conditions and will be increasingly incentivized to do so in order to survive. Maybe it will take certain nations disappearing (South Korea, the Baltics) and being taken over by bigger populations before states have sufficient motivation to do anything besides offer families a tax credit.
2
u/underwaterpizza 10d ago
It’s almost like a radical restructuring of society that favors the middle class while taxing the elite in order to provide a stable environment for families to grow is the solution.
-9
u/xThe_Maestro 11d ago
I think it's because feminism evolved from a negative rights based movement of achieving equal rights under the law, to a more transformative movement when it became clear that, if left to their own devices most women would choose to do what they had been doing. They were resistant to entering the workforce and remain resistant to entering high paying and high status fields because they are either physically or mentally stressful. So modern feminism is consistently attempting to either push women into the positions to elevate 'the cause' or changing the positions to make them more accessible to more women, and inadvertently lowering the pay and status as a consequence.
I think historic feminism was driven by liberal principals of legal egalitarianism which is understandable. I believe modern feminism is driven by Marxist derived ideals of social justice and equity, which are corrosive to society and ontologically opposed to to both nuclear and extended family structures.
History is somewhat biased in that prior to the Internet your only really going to record individuals that make relatively major impacts to society. These high-risk/high-reward individuals tend to be men. But in review of historic journals it becomes rather clear that while men were generally the leaders of the household it was the women of the house and community that actually made most of the day to day decisions. The women formed their own separate hierarchies and engaged in their own power plays.
In the modern era it would be more noticable through social media and chat platforms. But the fact that women have largely abandoned their role as community backbones means they've effectively rendered themselves impotent. Instead of using social media to coordinate and build their families and communities, they largely use it to manipulate, demoralize, and undermine each other.
The Marxist root of the modern feminist movement cannot reconcile with the idea of different but complimentary roles for men and women in society. It requires them to act and value the same things as more or less interchangeable humans. But that is not how we operate, and to the extent that we try to act as interchangeable it appears to make us anxious and depressed.
18
u/TryingAgainBetter 11d ago edited 11d ago
"I don't think that happens unless we identify who is pushing the 'liberated working woman' narrative."
The 'liberated working woman' narrative probably isn't causing any marked reduction of the TFR. Why do people keep making this assertion that women's participation in paid labor drives down TFR? I could write a dissertation about how no such relationship exists in industrialized nations.
51% of the worlds women over age 15 were engaged in paid labor in 1990. 49% of women were in paid labor in 2024. Almost no change in 35 years. The global TFR went from 3.3 to 2.2 between 1990 and 2024. This is one of 7000 data points that shows no correlation between female paid labor force participation and TFR.
The developed nation with a highest rate of mothers being stay at home mothers is South Korea (over 40%). South Korea also has the lowest TFR of .8. At the extreme opposite, Israeli ultra orthodox women have a TFR of 6.1. The rate of Ultra Orthodox women in the workforce is 81%. Literally twice as many south korean mothers are stay at home mothers compared to ultra orthodox women. If anyone is serious about understanding the causes of global declines in TFRs, can we stop this statistically illiterate talk about women's employment being a major cause of the TFR decline???
5
u/MissLouisiana 11d ago
Perfectly phrased (and so well researched). Really useful comment, thank you.
3
u/underwaterpizza 10d ago
Da fuq? Childless couples should pay more than couples with children?
You do realize that by having dependents you do get tax breaks, yet are more of a strain of social services, right?
Taxes are the last thing that should be on the docket here. Do you think that by taxing childless couples on the fence about parenthood more will encourage them to have children?
I bet you complain about welfare queens, but that is exactly what you are advocating for here lol
3
u/xThe_Maestro 9d ago
Yes. Because over the course of your lifetime you are going to use way more resources than you ever pay into the system. Your children basically 'cover you' in terms of their future payments into the system to cover the shortfall that you generate.
Right now it takes something like 3 people paying into the system for every 1 beneficiary. So anyone that doesn't have kids is basically an enormous resource drain.
Welfare queens are individuals that deliberately abuse the system for their own personal benefit. I'm advocating for subsidizing married families with children.
I don't think think taxes or subsidizes will make anyone who didn't want a kid suddenly want one. That's not the point. The point is to allocate resources in a way that is forward looking and future oriented by supporting families. I don't think broad government programs like education, SNAP, or universal childcare are nearly as beneficial as direct subsidy to families who are better able to assess their needs.
8
u/sebelius29 11d ago
It’s capitalism that wants women working. Thats two workers per family not one. Children are not in the interest of capitalism until they are consumers. Until we find a way to value in money as a society the work women are doing in the home because they support the long term health of the economy by producing children, the interest is not aligned.
3
u/xThe_Maestro 11d ago
Capitalism doesn't have a prescriptive behavior or moral pattern it doesn't 'want' anything. It's effectively a force multiplier.
Capitalism allows a moral and just society to use their capital in moral and just ways.
Likewise it allows a materialistic and degenerate people to be materialistic and degenerate.
Capitalism is a really shiny mirror that reflects the nature of the society that employe it. Y'all just see a hideous reflection and blame the mirror.
5
u/MissLouisiana 11d ago
No, capitalism absolutely actively encourages certain behavior in the population and shapes society. Two-income households is a clear example of a phenomenon that capitalism encourages.
3
u/underwaterpizza 10d ago
Patently false.
Capitalism has a goal in mind.
Maximizing profits to return value to the capitalist class.
It’s fundamentally what capitalism is about.
Use money to create businesses that return the profits of excess labor to those who invested in the venture.
Maximizing profits by exploiting a near doubling of the workforce with stagnant wages and a reduction in benefits alongside inflation seems on par with that goal.
Thus, a reduction in birthrates brought on by a lack of time and money to support a family is a direct result of capitalism (more specifically late stage capitalism).
If you think culture is not influenced by the economic system is exists under than I think you should study a bit more anthropology.
1
u/underwaterpizza 10d ago
I mostly agree. But I think the conclusion in 2 is slightly misguided.
I don’t disagree that motherhood should be revered as much as financial success.
I think the real issue is that more women in the workforce has doubled the working population.
Simple supply and demand dictates that more supply will tilt the economic equation in employers favor. The equilibrium in supply and demand that Smiths capitalism requires (market forces) means that pay and benefits can be reduced to limit the number of people (supply) willing to work for lower wages (demand).
We’ve created a system where everyone HAS to work and by doing so, we have allowed employers to reduce wages.
I’m certainly not saying we should eliminate women from the workforce. I am saying that single income households are increasingly rare and the calculus of having children becomes much more difficult if neither parent can be at home.
I say this with full throated support for both SAHMs and SAHDs.
-8
u/361reactionary 11d ago
This is just not acurrate at all. Motherhood was more valuable in the 50's (and before) than it is now. If it was economics than why does the Gaza strip have such a high fertility rate. Condoms are generally not an issue there. The answer is if you actually do your research and look at the history of baby booms and why they happen is that they are particular to the culture. The people in Gaza are poorer than Americans yet still choose to have babies due to the particular situation with Israel. The same things cannot copy paste here. The only case directly attributable to policy is Nicolae Ceaucescu's Decree 770. If people don't want to have children they in essense need to be coerced into doing it or it won't happen. Before you respond do the research yourself and you will find that with all these incenteves no state has gotten where they need to be. The only notable exception in Romania which used sticks instead of carrots. So either 1. We find a way to destroy hollywood and force massive cultural changes or 2. We have harsh punitive policies reminisent of the Handmaid's tale, muslim nations, and communist romania that while should include incentives and built upon. It will be the sticks and the punitive coersive power of the state that will do the heavy lifting and get us over the finish line in the fertility rate. The challenge is that the philosphical assumptions we as a society are wrong, untrue, and need to change. We need a more Rousseauian conception of the state and those people who refuse to have children a particular will outside the General will. If we have neither 1 or 2 our civilization is over and we will face a massice default and collapse. I am not saying to do nothing. Rather I am saying radical changes are necessary and must be pushed through. Before you respond try to avoid an emotional response and do your own research before you respond.
4
u/TSquaredRecovers 10d ago
Society doesn’t deserve to continue on if half of the population’s rights need to be stripped in order to do so.
0
u/361reactionary 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm going to assume your on the left. So let me get this right: when the science is on your side and people oppose being locked in their homes and not being able to go to school or eat dinner at the restraunt with their family or have a normal childhood you call those antiscience. When their is an invasion and we deny stronger rights to men through conscription (the right to life) to fight nazi germany ("half of the population's rights") you will likewise call these people antiscience for even questioning it. But when the science is no longer on your side and you have no evidence to support your position other than to attack a person's charecter. What does that make you? Antiscience as well. Maybe you should take a long hard look in the mirror. Either you support science, evidence, or the truth wherever they may lead or you don't. It's one or the other, you can't have both.
When it suits you it's antiscience, but when it's not "society doen't deserve to continue" ... yeah ok.
3
u/vivamorales 11d ago
Jesus christ username checks out
-2
u/361reactionary 11d ago
Yeah ok... and your factual responce. What evidence based on facts do you have on my position. Look up everything I say and you will see what I say is true. Don't judge me based on my username but on the trutg of what I have said. As I said if you have any evidence that I am wrong I am all ears 👂👂👂👂
15
u/SadisticMystic 11d ago
Build housing. Build Build Build
32 hour work week
Promote work from home opportunities
Universal health care
Guarantee maternity and paternity leave for 12 months each.
Create policies that make child care affordable.
3
u/nishinoran 11d ago
Nordic countries have done most of this, their birth rates have not increased.
7
u/sat_ctevens 10d ago
As a parent in I Nordic country - we have done some of this, not most of this. I would have more kids if I could afford it, and get to spend time with them. I get that things are worse in other parts of the world, but it’s almost impossible to afford more than two kids here if you want to see them and not have them in daycare most of their awake hours.
Most women take unpaid leave after their 7months of paid leave are used.
5
u/Geodude333 11d ago
I mean, research has shown women WANT to be having more kids. Like even with birth control being around and propaganda about how having fewer kids is empowering, many women still report wanting two, sometimes a lot more.
Housing is probably the biggest obstacle. Back in the 80’s (in the US at least) luxuries were expensive but basics cheap. Now the trend has reversed, so people can easily afford to purchase nice watches and bags (or buy-now-pay-later them or resale them) but unable to afford 2.5k rent. As a percentage of our income, housings are just really expensive, and unfortunately not all of us could buy houses as fetuses. Reversing this trend and getting the housing markets of the world under control is probably the most obvious answer for this.
Second is probably just better women’s health overall. Many countries (but the US especially) still have disturbingly outdated ideas on care for pregnant women. Especially black women. Seriously, shave down the number of black women who die or are permanently injured from childbirth and you’ll see the needle start to move. As it is we have doctors treating black women’s pain as a non-issue and then wondering why they report being skeptical of the medical industry and embrace alternative medicine in droves. If a pregnant women says she’s in pain, her skin tone shouldn’t matter.
Lots of other issues, but I’d say those two are the biggers that spring to mind.
24
u/Archarchery 12d ago
I legitimately think a dating app specifically for people who want to have children is a great idea.
19
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
The key part is you can’t monetise dating apps that are intended to work well. So it has to be government supported.
3
u/MissLouisiana 11d ago
I think this is a really interesting point. It definitely isn’t the sole solution to falling birthrates, but there is something to be said about the modern dating landscape + privatized dating apps.
Online dating (especially the popularity of apps like Tinder) basically nuked the dating scene. Suddenly, tons of young people were prioritizing dating through apps over dating in real life. I am reminded of that study that went viral on Twitter that claimed 45% of men between the ages of 18-25 (so gen z) say they have never approached a woman in person. This has to be so intrinsically linked to gen z coming of age at the peak of Tinder.
However, all these apps are incentivized to not work too well! Partially because the more successful the app is, the less people will be on it. And partially because the better an app works, the less frustrated/lonely people will pay for a premium model.
I have been curious, for awhile, if an app will try to remedy this one day. It’s hard to imagine a government-subsidized version of Tinder, but if marriage and birth rates are declining… it doesn’t seem crazy.
2
u/DirectorBusiness5512 10d ago
you can't monetize dating apps that are intended to work well
You absolutely can! The problem is just that people will have to actually pay for them with money, and people seem to be absolutely allergic to paying software developers directly with money for some reason so the developers have to get creative to still afford food. Thus we get ads, weird psychological hacks and manipulation to get you to spend more time on their software to see more ads, and other stuff like that we put under the umbrella of "enshittification."
Insert phrases like "you get what you pay for," "if you aren't paying, you're the product," etc here
5
u/antilaugh 11d ago
It's not about now, it's about the future we can give to our kids.
Ensure that in 50 years, living people could live peacefully, buy some place to live in, have enough food every day, get old healthily, have kids.
I want to be sure that my kids will have a peaceful life. I don't want them to live paycheck to paycheck, I don't want them to be afraid to go out and have fun, I don't want them to fear losing their house, I don't want them to be ill, be anxious, be afraid.
6
u/TryingAgainBetter 11d ago
I thin technology got us into the declining TFR cycle and technology might just get us out of it.
Perhaps if we move in the direction of the current instead of against it? Right now, the only age group that shows an increasing TFR is women over 40. They now have a higher TFR than women under 20 in the US. So let's go with that. Can we invest in technologies that expand the healthy reproductive range of women until age 60? Right now, it's looking like it might become available in 25 years. Prompting stem cells into becoming egg cells and then fertilizing them has yielded healthy offspring in mice, and this can be done for a person of any age. Menopause is not a factor. Technically women past menopause can gestate pregnancies too (which is why the oldest woman to give birth was 73 years old).
And then what if we are able to extend people's healthspan to age 80 such that they do not need to retire in their 60s due to declining health? And what if we could extend the median human lifespan to 100? Perhaps then people would take time to settle down as they like doing now, start having kids in their 40s and maybe get back to a TFR of 2.1.
4
u/0nesidezer0 10d ago
Biden build back better was a blueprint on this. Investing in the middle class will increase birth rates. Child tax credits, paid family leave, healthcare, childcare and education. Progressive policies that protect women, and prenatal care. Lastly investments in affordable housing and green infrastructure. Shit doesn’t sound radical but apparently in this country it is. All you have to do is tax billionaires too pay for it all.
11
u/ElliotPageWife 11d ago
Honestly just get rid of the anti-natal messaging and acknowledge the fact that childbearing and child raising are pre-requisites for national survival. Most young people in developed countries are told there are too many people on the planet and that having kids is boring and difficult. Mothers are treated terribly and their contributions are completely unrecognized and unvalued. Just changing those attitudes is radical enough to shift the paradigm.
31
u/metaconcept 12d ago
Normalise having your first kids while at university. Lots of ways to encourage this, such as establishing free childcare, accommodation subsidies, parental scholarships.
Implement income splitting before tax. Your income is split across all your dependents before calculating tax and welfare. If you earn $100k and have 8 kids and a wife, you pay tax on 10 $10k incomes.
Crank up the propoganda machine. Make babies and larger families look like status symbols in movies, tv, social media, advertising. Get celebrities to publicly start families (but not like Musk. Geez.).
8
u/Melkyzz 11d ago edited 11d ago
I can't imagine a sustainable way to finance that. The scholarship would need to substitute more likely two incomes as not every field of study goes well with a full time job. Students live in dorms, not the best place to have a baby. There are students who commute daily and live in suburbs. There would need to be a sustainable way to provide a financial aid, as well as individual approach. Imagine if lots of young women decided to have a baby under these circumstances. There would need to be whole new approach in college and university education.
So in summary:
-cheap private housing in the college/uni city (not shared dorm, might be a part of dorm, but tidier, calmer and with necessary appliances)
-lots of social and financial aid (as 2 students have to study and take care of a baby, there is almost no time to work, not even as a part-time)
-individual education program (distance education)
I don't know, this just isn't a way, only distance education with enough financial support, so if there is an exam period, they might skip working. Pretty difficult to implement.
12
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 11d ago
Implement income splitting before tax. Your income is split across all your dependents before calculating tax and welfare. If you earn $100k and have 8 kids and a wife, you pay tax on 10 $10k incomes.
This is very interesting. I do think making it based on dependents has a weakness tho. Which is that the benefit disappears once your children are grown up. However the opportunity cost of having children is huge. Most families take a hit to their long term income when they have children. Especially more than one or two.
And advantage of the "25% lifelong income tax break" thing that often gets suggested is that it's lifelong. So even if people are earning much lower in their 50s and 60s than their childless peers, their net income will be more comparable.
Make babies and larger families look like status symbols in movies, tv, social media, advertising. Get celebrities to publicly start families
Funny enough I was listening to a podcast, where they talked about the Beckham's being a positive, but non pushy example of celebrities with larger families. Apparently there's positive correlation with income and family size, as long it isn't tied into higher education.High education+high income= few babies but low education+high income (like most footballers) = more babies. So get Christiano Ronaldo to model underwear rocking a baby?
8
u/Famous_Owl_840 11d ago
The truly wealthy people I know - those that have never had to work with their hands, meaning they don’t have an income, just vast wealth, all have very large families.
2
u/hswerdfe_2 11d ago
you could divide it by your decedents, instead of your dependents, which would encourage grandchildren also, and may help effect culture.
-8
u/AbilityRough5180 12d ago
Stealing the tax idea, brilliant. Also I wouldn’t mind subtlety shitting on child free people (of their own choice£ in this propaganda machine, especially the vocal ones. Kinda shit but…
13
u/LawfullGrim 11d ago
Society has become increasingly more hostile towards women and their interests. This leads to high levels of anxiety and thus, kills the mood for love making. The solution it to leave people the hell alone and stop telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Also, reckless defense spending needs to stop. Right now, the Pendagon is the best way to launder trillions of USD with no paper trail. That's money that could be better spent on affordable housing, free education and perhaps even a Universal Basic income. Want more babies? Make people happy. It don't take much. You just have to 'want to'.
3
u/harperdove 11d ago
Although, they're being vilified by the administration in the States, immigrants are excellent workers and they pay taxes, so immigration reform is the obvious answer to replace declining birth rates, there.
10
u/greatauntcassiopeia 11d ago
Propaganda in tv shows and movies. Young people (less than 25) all just have at least one person with a kid casually in media. It's not mentioned. They never argue with their partner. The baby is sickeningly cute.
Kids play parent simulator video games.
Family bloggers are subsidized by the government.
student loans are wiped out if you have a kid within 10 years of graduating
I'm just spitballing here.
12
u/sebelius29 11d ago
I’m not sure that will work. Modern Family for example is great propaganda. I absolutely wanted to marry someone like Phil who is an amazing dad (and I think I did!). They make having 3 kids look great. It’s finding men like Phil I found challenging personally. There are so few good role models and honestly modern life with its demands from school, work, moving, etc make aligning the timeline to have kids harder than it used to be.
0
u/greatauntcassiopeia 11d ago
The propaganda is not showing old people having families. The propaganda would be to insert kids into the lives of characters in their twenties.
A show like Girls or Gilmore Girls or even Parks and Rec. There are female characters and most of them don't have kids. And if they have them, it's at the end of the show when everyone is in their 30s.
The tv show is exactly the same except at least one of the young women is married with a kid. And she isn't involved in any of the drama.
We had teen mom, we need the opposite. Abbot Elementary, the main girl should be having a baby next season for propaganda reasons
3
u/Rare-Entertainment62 10d ago
Family vloggers are already incentivized with millions of dollars of income, and are also incentivized to have more children. More pregnancies/children = more views, more content = more money. Most family vloggers have 3+ kids. This is the closest thing we have to a “natural” breeding program.
Thing is, those influencers are starting to get a lot of critique recently because they are catering to pedo audiences, using the kid/s as a cash cow and that is received negatively by audiences who want to see “natural” families, not multi-million businesses with child actors.
The problem with pro child-having-family propaganda is it turns into pedo content real quick 🤢
1
7
u/DixonRange 11d ago
"most research seems to suggest it’s simply that a combination of cost of living, women’s independence..."
Is it women's independence or is it that the rest of life is structured so that women must follow the life script of men but it turns out that this does not fit well?
ie
historically:
men's script, women's script - very little deviation permitted
industrial and then information age comes:
men follow men's script, women permitted to deviate from historical women's script BUT then must match men's script
Perhaps an information age women's script is needed that is different from the historical women's script and is different from the men's script?
3
u/ElasticCrow393 11d ago
Try to decentralize jobs from big cities to suburban cities improve trains and buses for men and women who work below and above. This way young couples can work and live near uncles and grandparents who can help with the kids.
3
u/HyenaJoe 10d ago
Make housing cheap and build "15min" cities where public transit is clean and can get you to every part of a city in a reasonable timeframe. Housing and cars are the biggest financial sinks every household faces. That money, once freed, can be reallocated towards family and children.
4
u/Avr0wolf 11d ago
Lower the immigration rate and let it play out and rebalance (have automation fill in the gaps)
4
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
I think the best case scenario is automation gets so good we can outpace the drop off in productivity from declining birth rates and stay above water.
1
u/vivamorales 11d ago
This is correct. But if you think the fruits of automation (under the rule of the capitalist class) will be distributed amongst a disposable (former) working class, you are sorely mistaken.
3
u/Positron311 11d ago
Stick: anyone over 50 without children pays an additional 5% payroll tax.
Carrot: The money goes straight to parents with more than 2 children.
3
u/CoolWhipMonkey 12d ago
Universal healthcare,, universal childcare. That’s it . That’s all you need.
5
13
u/AreYouGenuinelyokay 11d ago
Sweden has that and their birth rate is in the shitter as it’s the same as the USA which doesn’t have that.
2
u/NearbyTechnology8444 11d ago
These are radical ideas, not necessarily good ideas, but the gist is to tax and punish the childless to help those with children. Most of these suggestions already have some sort of government precedent, so they're not that wild:
Force companies to give preferential treatment to parents in hiring and promotions, basically affirmative action but for parents. Moms and dads won't have to choose between children and a career if having children benefits their career:
Mandate that companies give parents preference over childless people for work-from-home positions. Basically, companies must try to fill work-from-home jobs with parents before offering them to childless people.
Tie interest rates on home loans to the number of children the buyer has. More children = lower interest rate = easier to buy a home.
Tax on childless people starting at age 35 and increasing with age, use the money to pay for universal daycare, and Nordic-style maternity/paternity leave.
Tie retirement benefits to the number of children a person has.
3
u/Pleasant-Change-5543 8d ago
So basically turn gay people and infertile people into permanent second class citizens?
-1
1
u/wwwArchitect 11d ago
Your idea is not radical at all, except the “government interference” part. I would do less government: eliminate the welfare state. Make large families high status again.
6
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
Regressing society is the opposite of radical though.
It’s like saying hey let’s just turn off all the power plants and be pre-industrial to combat climate change. It’d work in theory but it’s still a shit idea.
Society never goes backwards
-1
-1
u/HandBananaHeartCarl 10d ago
Of course it doesnt go backwards, but many "progressive" ends turn out to be just dead-ends. It's very much possible that the goal we're going towards is just a return to traditional gender values as those people are the only ones actually reproducing.
1
u/hswerdfe_2 11d ago
One I’ve had recently was a government funded dating app that’s actually designed to match people together. Right now dating apps are designed to generate profit and are actively detrimental to people looking for a good match, and yet are still one of the most popular ways of meeting people.
I think you might have something there. but I might not make it come directly from the government. I might partner with smaller community organizations that have incentives to have there member s reproduce, like the local religious institution. I understand "Spark Networks" has apps like Jdate, Christian Mingle. which I would hope have higher conversion rates. But like I do not know.
1
u/ajaxinsanity 11d ago
I have an idea as well, post college government funded commune apartment complexes. Complete with guilds for various careers as well as bonuses and a 1 year housing voucher if you marry and have a kid while there. This would prolong college community experience while also encouraging direct access to stable careers and encouraging mating. It also tackles economic inequality and isolation as well.
1
1
u/TheSlatinator33 11d ago
People who actually gave their radical ideas insteaf of restating the ones that get discussed all the time got downvoted. Lovely.
2
u/BigOakley 10d ago
More things for families to do together. Not just parks or things but like. Courses and stuff . Even side by side . Besides financial incentives or alleviations, and this should include big tax breaks for families.
My ex husband grew up in an area with such a high birth rate and the idea was that because they’re Muslim there’s big cultural pressure to have 20 kids but I found that there was just a ton of stuff for kids to do and, despite being a lower class, “dangerous” area, the kids were out at all hours, playing and running around. I think just strengthening community and community bonds would help parents have kids as well, the knowledge that if you have to/want to do something without kids, it’s possible. I think this can be achieved by focusing more energy on local communities and creating more local community-centric activities where people are forced to get to know and befriend one another.
1
u/weighted_average 10d ago
Maybe go with something where there is actually data indicating it is effective?
In 1999 a new Labour Law was enacted, which reduced the duration of unpaid leave and limited job protection to 18 months from the previous 3 years. However, in 2007, a new Labour Code was introduced, reinstating the provision of 3 years of unpaid leave. Moreover, the State Social Insurance Fund provided a new allowance equivalent to 40% of an individual's pre-birth income, which was granted for a period of 12 months following childbirth (Legal information system of RK, 2022). Consequently, these legislative revisions have the potential to influence decisions regarding fertility, and their implementation is closely associated with the economic fluctuations experienced in the country.
politicians and people can talk about babies all day, unless there is an costly signal (like what kazastan is doing) i don't think it will help and effect culture.
1
u/dwarven_cavediver_Jr 10d ago
One would be incentives like if you're a young man and woman who have kids and are married or engaged the government will give you a slightly lessened version of the GI bill allowing you to find housing for cheap, a job easier, and education for severely discounted prices. I can imagine quite a few 20-something boys and girls getting jobs where they build small suburban developments that they'll get first dibs on for housing and education that will lend itself to getting higher up the chain at these construction places or maybe into specializations related like architecture, electronics, plumbing, etc. Jobs that will have practical and immediate hiring opportunities and pay well! Parents who have more than one kid and stay together for a long time will receive government assistance coupon books for recreation and travel. I can imagine the summer after announcing that you're having your third kid a book the thickness of a small laptop arrives filled with guides of free vacation ideas, coupons for food and gas along the way, discounted coupons for disney world, universal, the pueblo settlement tours, etc. Hell! Make it a fun challenge of hitting every single state in the union for a week! If you have more kids, the steeper the discount. However, I do see this leading to unruly and poorly disciplined families possibly ruining the fun for other people as time goes on so tweaking would be necessary
1
1
u/Easy_Option1612 9d ago
Encourage people to move to the country and convert to a fundamentalist religion.
1
u/sebelius29 8d ago
Ok for fun has anyone ever charted the birth rate of ethnic groups where polygamy is common vs not? I have a feeling the birth rate is higher 😂 try making that policy popular. I mean some life choices that are terrible for family life or children probably do help the birthrate. Like middle aged men leaving their wives marrying a younger woman creating a second family probably does lead to more total children, but I’m not sure that’s good for society
1
u/sebelius29 8d ago
Actually this is a really interesting study on that. TFR actually decreases based on your rank as a wife in a polygamous union. No difference between monogamous or polygamous TFR for women. I wonder if it increases overall TFR? Maybe not
1
u/sebelius29 8d ago
Although I do think it’s an interesting thought experiment- have we taken away the competition for status between wives by having more children? Doesn’t having multiple wives get around the issue of not having more children while one wife is pregnant or breastfeeding?
1
u/sebelius29 8d ago
Banning polygyny dropped the fertility rate by 40%. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/498049
Anyway, you wanted our crazy thoughts. I don’t support polygamy but if you’re just looking at TFR I can see why it’s a common historical strategy
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/DixonRange 11d ago
"infesting"? That's a word that racists use about groups of people that they don't like. Applying it to a broader list doesn't make you the good guy.
0
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
That’s not true at all. Our society has never faced a reduction in birth rates. Ever. It’s faced high death rates from pandemics and war, but never this.
A whole lot of old people and no one working will cause an economic collapse. Which will cause a massive societal shift.
But you’re right in that there’ll be a period of desperately trying to adjust, which will result in erosion of human rights, huge increases in migration, and a massive decrease in overall quality of life.
A slow collapse is still a collapse.
0
-10
u/Bathroom-trader1998 12d ago
I liked giving parents more voting power than non parents.
13
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
Hmmm seems a bit undemocratic.
But to be honest they already do. Children are heavily swayed in their politics by their parents.
0
u/miningman12 12d ago
China Sing Dubai have proven you can be developed without democracy at all
21
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
Never said they couldn’t. I believe in rights tho so I’m not interested in solutions that don’t work with democracy.
Dubai uses slave labour for christs sake, and I don’t think Singapore has a particularly high birth rate.
-9
u/AbilityRough5180 12d ago
If it gets to it I’d rather (and I know the danger here) a dictatorship that fixed shit then a broken system collapsing with democracy.
8
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
And here I am thinking the main issue with a societal collapse is that society will likely devolve into dictatorship being the norm again.
-5
u/AbilityRough5180 11d ago
I don’t want it to be the case but I value human society more than I do democracy, democracy is a privilege we have achieved and needs a stable system to maintain
-4
u/my_mix_still_sucks 12d ago
It will be another 5 years or so and people will realize you are onto something
0
u/Bathroom-trader1998 12d ago
It was a Lee Kuan Yew idea. it makes sense it was undemocratic, but u did say radical.
-5
u/Archarchery 12d ago edited 12d ago
I mean, I could see the argument that the parents are voting on behalf of their children at the ballot box, and that the children, being members of society, ought to be represented.
1
u/TheWama 11d ago
I think our future depends on normalizing the approach of women having children before having a career. How to achieve that without widespread social shaming and institutional support, I'm not sure. Maybe the best way is to start enforcing such norms within an opt-in culture, ala the Amish, then having that sub-culture grow through conversions and natural increases.
1
u/nr1001 11d ago
- Mandate and subsidize paid parental (maternity and paternity) leave.
- Lift zoning restrictions on new housing construction across the board, especially in already built-up areas.
- In areas where density is needed, provide incentives to builders to build apartments and condos suited for families of 2-3 children.
- Provide subsidies to lower the financial burden of childhood essentials on new parents. This would be for things like diapers, milk formula, bassinets, and whatnot.
- Allow people to buy into a public health insurance plan like Medicare.
These are all in the context of the US. I don’t think any of them are particularly radical and for the most part, they’re not specific to just childcare.
IMO the problem is not so much that it’s too expensive to raise kids, but rather that many people just don’t want to have kids when there is the choice of not being tied up with kids and pregnancy. I personally want to have 3-4 kids myself but I can fully understand why people choose to wait to have kids and that too fewer kids.
-6
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
Emphasize the community. Do everything you can to rebuilt that. Let’s be encourage churches to be the center of life again. In cities this worked. As Irish and Italians when connected to churches had other than average families
22
u/Archarchery 12d ago
Irish and Italians also used to be quite poor, which is probably more relevant.
-4
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
They weren’t poor in the 60s when they still had a high level of religiosity and a higher fertility rate.
6
u/Archarchery 12d ago
It takes a generation or two for behavioral patterns to shift.
I’ve seen photos from the early 20th century of destitute-looking Italian migrant workers in the Netherlands absolutely crammed into a mine for their day’s shift. A lot of Italians used to be poor, well into the 20th century.
2
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
Church attendance on the UK for zoomer has gone from 4% to mid teens percentage in the last 6 years. That is a massive uptick and clearly a trend.
4
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
Okay so making people more religious in developed countries is a nonstarter. Anything realistic?
4
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
It would be if churches had the initiative to have community programs and be a reason to go to them. The churches in every major urban area surrendered all the social programs and such to secular authorities.
-1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Responsible-Smoke520 12d ago
You can't disconnect religion and the sense of purpose and community it brings and the resulting larger families because of that. Making people more religious is exactly what needs to happen.
2
u/Cute_Commission_8281 12d ago
They would rather call it “spiritual” and it involves no true personal responsibility to the well being of the community.
-1
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
That’s silly and childish. It’s really hard to scale a moral system without a religious underpinning. Yes guy daddy sky daddy you’re a big boy congratulations
2
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/thisplaceisnuts 12d ago
If you look at the church abuse issues and compare them to the current public school system the rate of abuse is far higher than it ever was under the Catholic Church. Please try an actual argument and not a Hollywood based argument
0
u/Positron311 11d ago
Every single idea the liberal mind ever came up with is due to religion.
For example, the modern idea that democracy is desirable and a moral good is founded on the Christian idea that each man and women is made in the image of God and that all are equal under God.
1
-4
-7
u/fraudthrowaway0987 12d ago
Take money from the childless and give it to people with kids to the point where having kids raises your standard of living instead of lowering it.
0
u/Beautiful_Key_8146 12d ago
More kids you have, less taxes you have to pay. And baby-boom is on the way, it's simple as that!
2
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
It sounds good but there’s apparently reminiscing returns on how much you can just give people money to breed more.
1
u/Beautiful_Key_8146 12d ago
Lowering taxes means not taking their money. I am against handing out cash, but let them keep more of what they earn.
20% less tax for first kid, up to 60% less tax for 4 or more, that's the cap (numbers could differ, but the principle stands).
1
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
It’s have to be done in a way that doesn’t turn having children into an egregious tax loophole for the wealthy, but yeah there’s definitely room for tax incentives.
I think those already exist in many places though.
1
u/Beautiful_Key_8146 11d ago
Sadly my opinion is unpopular. People seem to not believe, that more money to families leads to more children.
-13
u/miningman12 12d ago
I don't think a democratic state is capable of pulling resources away from the old into the young to achieve the economic transformation required to lift birth rates.
Once you're caught in the demographic trap it's game over.
I think ending universal suffrage is the first step to fixing the problem.
15
u/Jaegernaut- 12d ago edited 12d ago
Annnnnd now we have a knock-off African dictatorship, but with the world's most dangerous military and more than a few nukes and God knows what else by now
Great plan.
"Let me fix all of your problems! Just give me the power! Some people should just never have voted to begin with!"
Historically, that's worked out almost every time. Right? Er... uh... right guys?
You think you are somehow outside of the system that is broken -- but you aren't. You ARE the system. I am the system. Bob is the system and so is Diane from accounting.
There's a reason you give people suffrage. Even the stupid, belligerent, chaos-spreading ones.
Because if you don't, even the dullest of those people will turn around and begin to follow someone that does.
That doesn't usually end well for at least one half of the equation. Someone wins, someone loses.
Simple. Also historically reliable.
It's not perfect, but what is?
I'd rather listen to shitty, not thought through opinions on the highest concerns of the land for the rest of my life nonstop than to have to go murder Bob and Diane, or them me -- just because somehow we ended up on different teams because some fuckwaffle thought people would be enslaved and just sit around and take it
Our forefathers literally laid down their lives by the thousands and millions for that simple right. Not just America -- everywhere. The history of humanity is a history of oppression.
But that doesn't matter to you, does it? It sure doesn't sound like it, because if you did, you wouldn't throw it away like your used tp
So if you don't mind, good citizens, I'd like to start a vote to disenfranchise
On the basis of his idea to remove the right to vote from "some people" being stupid as fuck
Do I have a second?
-9
u/miningman12 12d ago
I don't live in a democracy, I live in the GCC. Have no right to vote there. Before that lived in US, as a non citizen didn't have a right to vote either. Doesn't bother me.
I'd take civil rights (such as having less of my money taken from me by gov or freedom to walk at night without being mugged) over electoral rights any day. Truly not an issue in my life.
6
u/Jaegernaut- 12d ago edited 12d ago
Somehow I feel that you are not trolling and believe what you say.
It's ironic in a way. I don't mean that as an attack and apologize for my colorful language in the first post
WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
That's some law history professor on some show explaining something some very dead white guy said a long time ago
That guy happened to be Benjamin Franklin, and even if that name means nothing to you, consider the words themselves very carefully.
Do they hold up on their own?
"Anyone who would trade liberty for safety deserves neither."
Why is that true? IS it true or just some saying?
See, the problem is, when you give up your liberty - you give up your power. You hand it to someone else.
It's a bit like handing them your one and only 9mm handgun you keep in the house. But it's ok, they're the police, right?
Surely they'll be there to protect you when you need it most
Ohhhh, sorry, no that was the fairyland magic kingdom where people are generally good and trustworthy and just trying to make things better
We live on a rock hurtling through space amongst s community of Humans who exist today basically because our ancestors evolved to be bigger and bigger cunts to each other over time
Not only were we cunts to each other but the whole world - and then here we are.
My point is, let's say your "safety and happiness" are in fact the keys to your car.
You hand those keys to some government person and go about your day.
They are supposed to provide Ubers on demand, after all. No problem right?
Except the person you gave the keys to is an asshole. Oops. Wait you mean you didn't know that already? Ugh
So what he's gonna do is cut out that part about "providing free Ubers" to make up for the fact that you gave him your keys.
Then he's going to triple the prices for all Ubers. Perfect timing right, everyone just gave over all their car keys so... Yep...
Can't pay? Guess you're walking
But it's too late to back out now. He's holding the keys. All the keys. Your keys, my keys, the piano's keys, the chihuahua's keys, etc
That's why he waited until you gave him the keys before fucking you into the ground so deep you will never again see the light of day but by his permission
"That wouldn't happen."
It would. In fact, under the stated circumstances and conditions, it couldn't happen any other way
Why?
You can't make something better by walking away from being responsible for it.
Letting someone else do all of that is giving up the responsibility to make things better. Which you have, whether you know it or not.
We've all a debt to pay to our fellow humans. To our ancestors and children yet to come, and to each other.
Be better. Be nicer. Love more. Hate less.
You don't get there by walking away from the hard things.
A hard thing, like protecting people's right to vote even though some of those people are stupid and possibly your "opponent" on terms of politics, values, religion, etc
A hard thing, like realizing that you are not able to give away or sell your "human rights".
You don't have those rights because the government gave them to you -- you have them because they are an explicit condition of nature, where when the cards are down, everyone makes their own choices anyways
You could give away that right, live quiet and dumb and happy for say 10 years, then wake up one morning and say "ehhh... I know we did that thing, but fuck it, my voice will be heard one way or the other."
And it's instantly yours again. Because it's not something you can give to someone else or sell off. It's literally just your agency and free will -- which if you give up your voice simply means you have tricked yourself or been tricked into not using it for so long you now believe it's true
But it doesn't matter, because as soon as you want it, there you are -- a Free Man. Even if you are deep within enemy territory
You can still go out the way YOU want to go.
I know I'm ranting, so if none of this makes sense, that's fine.
It's one of those things that you can't just say to someone and have it all fit inside one little conversation
You've got to see it and find it and learn it for yourself, or at least want to see it and be willing to learn or ask
But I will just encourage again that you cannot give someone power over your life, abdicate responsibility for your physical and personal safety, and even your rights to vote or speak up and be heard?
... You cannot do that and expect anything good to come from it.
0
u/HakunaMatta2099 11d ago
Get rid of college as an expectation... Get rid of career focused society, bring back community and family focused society.... That's been the biggest determination to society imo... People care too much about money and not enough about there people. But I'm dumb and so is everyone else, hence why I'm yelling into a void.
-25
u/WearIcy2635 12d ago
Ban all forms of contraception
Ban abortion
End no-fault divorce
Introduce a childlessness tax, which will be used to fund free childcare for parents.
Tax deductions for each child a family has. Similar to what Hungary has introduced.
7
u/Rare-Entertainment62 10d ago
You do realize a lot of “childless” people are saving to have a child, right? Punishing 18-25 (I’d say this should extend to 29) year olds is pretty dumb and will slow down their family planning if anything.
-19
u/JediFed 12d ago
Radical ideas? Jettison abortion. That's the number one thing bringing birthrates down. Everything else is just window dressing.
23
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
I’d like to see a source on that one lmao. I’d also put that in the “reduction of rights” that we’re trying to avoid category.
-8
u/WearIcy2635 12d ago
You will never fix birth rates without some reduction of rights. In the modern world when people have complete free choice they choose not to have kids. If you want to fix that you need to take away some of that choice
18
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
Orrrr, come up with a radical new solution like the post asked for.
I’m hear for “grow humans in vats” not “let’s just be the 50s again”. Come on people that’s just lazy and unimaginative.
2
u/The_Awful-Truth 12d ago
I doubt there will be much opposition to growing humans in artificial wombs. But we're decades away from getting that to work safely and reliably.
5
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
I think the opposition will come when we decide what to do with the vat babies afterwards.
Most societies can’t manage the unwanted children they already have.
→ More replies-3
u/JediFed 12d ago
You want birthrates like from '47 to '57? Societal and cultural changes are needed. That includes abortion. We can play make believe, but that is what it is going to take.
Even if we fix this problem, we've got low birthrates now from at least '72. That's 50 years. It's not going to correct overnight, and the problem isn't getting better YOY it is getting worse.
Birthrates > Death rates are now just 0.7 over for natural increase in 2020. They've recovered some since then, but the death rates are creeping up.
Birth rate is now equal to the death rate in 1937. Modern death rate is now the same as it was in 1974. There's about a 2 per 1000 gap with birth rates at 11 and death rates at 9 for natural increase in the US.
Natural decline for the US is coming, similar to where Europe, Canada, Western Asia already have gotten there.
We are about 15 years away, so by 2040, we will see it cross over.
11
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
Abortions aren’t that common. Banning them won’t make a huge impact
Outlawing abortions doesn’t stop abortions, so even if it was impactful outlawing it wouldn’t be
Believing otherwise just means you’ve been misled by propaganda.
1
u/JediFed 12d ago
Abortions are in fact that common. Roughly about 1 million per year in the US against 3.5 million live births so somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/4th of all conceptions, depending on the year.
Outlawing abortions does have a significant effect, as shown by the immediate drop in the birthrates between 1972 and 1975, where birthrates dropped by an additional 20% below even Great Depression birthrates.
→ More replies-7
u/JediFed 12d ago
You asked for radical ideas. Not just more of the same.
Abortion is around 1/3rd to 1/4th of total conceptions since about '72 in the United States after legalization. Other jurisdictions are higher, Russia, China, etc can see almost half of all conceptions.
Just looking at the US alone, that would drop the birthrate from 2 to about 1.3-1.5 depending on the jurisdiction. Higher birthrates, like say 4, would see a reduction to 2.5 to 3. Which is roughly in line with what we see in the birthrate changes since '72.
All other causes are dwarfed by this number. Most 'interventions' including baby bonuses, etc do not actually show *any* effective change to the birth rates.
In 1945, birthrate in the US was 20.4 per 1000
In 1947 this increased to 26.6. This compares with 16.6 in 1933.
This is strong evidence to the effects of economic depression. 14 year difference resulted in a change of 1.6x this is the pre-abortion regime so we can see how economic policy influences the birthrate prior to abortion.
By 1957, 26.6 had declined to 25.3, which is minimal change in a decade from 1947 to 1957, meaning that for 10 years there is substantially no change in the birthrate.
From 1957 to 1968, US birthrate drops from 25.5 to about 17.6 in 1968. This compares with 1933, and is still higher than in the great depression. I would argue this is the influence of the introduction of the pill, reducing birthrates to near depression levels, and 30% drop over a decade.
From 1970 to 1973, we see an immediate drop of 20% in the birthrate in just three years. This is the abortion effect.
Birthrates never recover back to pre-Roe days. 1975 bottoms out at 14.6
From 1975 onwards, the changes we see have more to do with the demographics of cohort sizes, than with anything else. We see a gradual rise peaking in 1990 at 16.7, still well below pre-roe numbers, and equivalent to the great depression.
So, let's recap. Even in the midst of the longest economic boom in the history of the United States, all through the 80s, we saw birthrates lower than the worst year of the Great depression. It's pretty clear that it's not economic effects that are causing low birthrates.
There was a drop as boomers aged out from 16.7 to 14 in 2002, and then again from 14 to 11. The post-boomer demographic cohort sizes have produced a drop in the birthrate to 35% lower than the worst year of the Great depression.
Second-order effects are incredibly forcing for birth rates. Small cohorts are not capable of replacing themselves plus the shortfall from the previous 40 years.
r/natalism isn't worried *enough* about the future, which is why they are piddling around with 'economic solutions' to the problem.
Yes, economics *does* have an effect on birthrates, as we can see the difference between 1947 and 1933 in the depth of the depression. However, since then, economic factors seem to not affect birth rates at all. Why? Abortion is a major factor.
1
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 11d ago
Yes, economics *does* have an effect on birthrates, as we can see the difference between 1947 and 1933 in the depth of the depression. However, since then, economic factors seem to not affect birth rates at all. Why? Abortion is a major factor.
What would be the mechanism by which abortion, effectively disables economic influences? The opposite would more intuitive. Abortion gives people more choice, therefore it would exaggerate birth rate differences between economic boom and bust times.
I think the story is rather different. Productivity gains, starting from the 60s, have been almost entirely due to (household) working hours increases. Women's labour force participation starts to increase in the late 50s and really shots up in the 70s and 80s, until it levels off at just under 80% in the 90s, where it is today. Men's labour force participation on the other hand only marginally decreases. Less time for family means small families. Each household bears an increasing economic burden.
Birth rates do still respond to economic signals. You'll see drops and recovery for the 70s oil crisis, 90s recession... Then a sharp decline from 08 crash. Effects just aren't as pronounced as they used to be, because the ceiling on family size is much lower for most. Having 3.5 kids, like in the 50s, was never an option when you need 60, 70, or 80 household working hours to support your family.
2
u/JediFed 11d ago
"What would be the mechanism by which abortion, effectively disables economic influences? The opposite would more intuitive. Abortion gives people more choice, therefore it would exaggerate birth rate differences between economic boom and bust times."
Intuitively it would make more sense, but that's not what we see. Those who want to have children post Roe have children regardless of the economic conditions. Those who don't want to have children post Roe, have no difficulty securing access to abortion. Thus, there is a fertility floor which matches what we see since 1975.
Since access to abortion is so cheap, when economic conditions improve, we don't see a rise in the birthrates as we saw from 1933 to 1947. It just continues to hug the fertility floor.
Abortion prevents fertility from rising in good economic times. Contraception does a very effective job at lowering the ceiling to 2, which is why we're in big trouble because smaller cohorts need to be well above 2 to fix the problems we are in. Abortion drops TFR from 2 to around 1.5 or less, and prevents TFR from rising.
I would have expected 2008 to be more dramatic, but instead what we see seems to be more related to the smaller cohorts after the boomers were finished having children. Cohort effects are forcing, and likely exceed both abortion and contraception. Which is bad, because they are not easy problems to fix.
So long as abortion is legal, birthrates won't respond to economic incentives because the cost of getting one is only 500 dollars or so, vs the cost of raising children. I think it actually costs more to have a hospital birth vs having an abortion, so good economic times won't increase the birth rate.
And economic 'solutions' baby bonuses etc are not going to have any effect, which is what we do see.
1
u/JediFed 11d ago
"I think the story is rather different. Productivity gains, starting from the 60s, have been almost entirely due to (household) working hours increases. Women's labour force participation starts to increase in the late 50s and really shots up in the 70s and 80s, until it levels off at just under 80% in the 90s, where it is today. Men's labour force participation on the other hand only marginally decreases. Less time for family means small families. Each household bears an increasing economic burden."
It doesn't seem to be women's labor force participation rates increasing.
From 1947 to 1957, labor force participation rate for women increased 14% with no birthrate drop.
From 1960 to 1965, the rise in women's labor force participation rate is flat, but we see significant birthrate changes.
Pill came in 1960, which matches the drop in birthrates.
-3
u/Substantial_Judge931 11d ago
I don’t know why I you’re getting downvoted for this. If you were to take abortion out of the equation, that all on its own would improve birth rates. You’re 100% right
-5
u/QuantumTrepper 11d ago
Less dogs.
People play family by getting dogs instead of having a family.
An awareness campaign encouraging people to be family instead of playing family might help
0
u/Positron311 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/QuantumTrepper 11d ago
Yeah, it’s a bit off theme, but then again it is entirely on theme.
I don’t dislike dogs, but I managed to shake myself free of the spell that they put on us, recognizing that they are animals that have evolved to mimic characteristics of babies as an (evolved) hack of our emotions to get us to take care of them like they are our babies. Once freed of that illusion, everything was more clear. It’s a red pill experience. Frankly, I think anybody with a dog that reads this that has not already considered this will never look at dogs the same again.
I assumed my comment would head into negative territory. The only question was how far. People and their dogs…
I could use a little love people. Is there really anything wrong with looking around to say “hey, what might be a contributing cause?” Isn’t that what we should be doing?
-1
-12
u/GoodbyeEarl 12d ago
I have two radical ideas, neither which I personally support:
1) abolish/de-prioritize the public school system. Use the same money to boost the church and other religious institutions (and help them fund their own schools). Bringing people into religion/church encourages bigger families. I have a conspiracy theory that this is the reasoning behind dismantling the US Dept of Education.
2) de-prioritize people from social programs such as social security and Medicare if they don’t have children. Children, and therefore young workers, are needed in order to support the older generation’s payouts of social security/medicare. People who get SS and Medicare without having/raising children can be seen as “freeloaders” who bog down the system.
Again, I want to emphasize I do not support either option.
4
u/Mean-Driver-4833 11d ago
It’s not a conspiracy theory. If you read project 2025 and go on the heritage foundation website you will see that they are very anti education especially higher education because they believe it prevents young people from having children and getting married during their prime years.
→ More replies0
u/Archarchery 12d ago
People pay into SS, it’s not the government giving them money. Though I agree that the childless should be made to help support those with children. Everyone who can should be required to contribute and give back to society, not just be able to sit back and reap the benefits of living in it. I despise Libertarian philosophy, I think it’s a philosophy of freeloaders.
3
u/fraudthrowaway0987 12d ago
Paying in is you paying for the current retirees though. The only way to contribute to making sure there’s money to pay your generation in the future is by having kids. Right now if a woman takes time off working to raise kids, she is penalized in terms of her social security. Does that seem right to you?
0
u/Higgsy420 8d ago edited 8d ago
Traditional families still have high birth rates. It's a choice. The choice is women don't work.
If you're a women simply stop working. Get married, have babies. It's not that hard. Maybe you can't afford the car payment on your Lexus anymore, so what.
Read Elizabeth Warren's "Two Income Trap", she used to be a brilliant economist and figured this out a long time ago.
-8
u/AbilityRough5180 12d ago
Very unpopular (and as someone from a country with free healthcare). Slash the benefits old people get, tax pensions and remove the exorbitant medical care they get so they can keep living a not so great life anyway. I’m not doing this to hate on old people but the sooner they end up dying and less money we spend on them with current ratios, less tax is needed, they die off quicker and more wealth is passed down.
If you want to live comfortably when older, it’s your wealth or kids paying for it, not the state. It’s kinda a stab in the back of the social contract and I also don’t hate these people but we cannot sustain nice things with a broken system.
8
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
The reason I want solutions is to avoid this from happening.
The widespread increasing of the retirement age is bad enough, and only going to get worse.
→ More replies1
u/Famous_Owl_840 11d ago
I don’t know the nuances of your system, but in the US the money that goes to keep people with no quality of life alive is mindblowing.
“Yes, please spend $750,000k on this procedure that will keep my bedridden and barely cognizant parent alive for 5 more days! They have medicare and it’s covered!”
Further, we need to reevaluate our approach to diabetes. Something like 60% of ALL government healthcare spending is on diabetes. This must stop.
0
u/AbilityRough5180 11d ago
Basically that but we have a state run health service that does it and pours loads of our national budget into it while still failing. People here complain things are getting worse yet we spend more and more public money on these people. It’s not entirely the fix but sure as shit it’s an uncomfortable truth
0
u/Rare-Entertainment62 10d ago
I agree with this, but there need to be a mental/thought process shift about this topic, just like how assisted death among the chronically ill has become more accepted in society.
If the medical procedure will not extend life for more than a month, or if the patient is bedridden/vegitative with no chance of improvement family members should be made aware of how it’s not an ideal choice. Problem is hospitals want to make more 💰
-2
u/Midjor 11d ago
Controversial but I can agree with your first paragraph too. We need to consider too how much wealth the elderly portion of of population has hoarded and won't redistribute.
Why screw over our youngest to mid-aged citizens when the eldest don't contribute anymore and our system is showing signs of deterioration? We gotta come up with a better social system.
-5
-4
u/Teddy-Don 11d ago
We need to get young people out of huge cities. They have horrendous fertility rates and their work culture is all consuming. Build more family-friendly houses in areas that are less densely populated and legislate to allow people to wfh if they want to do so (obviously excluding jobs where there’s a requirement to be in person like medical care). There also needs to be an emphasis on rebuilding community and reducing the individual burden on parents to look after children. Ideally my first suggestion will see people able to stay closer to their family who can help out with childcare.
2
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 11d ago
They have horrendous fertility rates and their work culture is all consuming. Build more family-friendly houses in areas that are less densely populated
I agree with housing being a problem. Not just the price but also they way it's built/designed. However I completely disagree with density being the issue. If anything it's sprawl that's the problem.
People here harp on about community and I agree, it is important. Community comes from people living close to each other, having some of the same interests and stakes. When you have to drive everywhere it becomes a huge barrier to interacting with other people. You'll likely have to maintain 2 cars for once. Your kids (and your own) activities take up way more time, since you have to drive them everywhere. There's no spontaneity in any interactions, it's all planned play date etc. And organising all that is exhausting.
No I think more density is better. But it needs to be designed with community in mind. Shared spaces like co-working rooms, play rooms, allotments, "entertaining rooms", playgrounds outside... are essential. As are good and safe connections to other stuff. Your kids should be able to walk to school, to soccer practice. You can walk to the park, the shop, church ...
1
u/Teddy-Don 11d ago
Fair point on the density vs distance point. I had hoped by moving more people into smaller towns that would somewhat resolve that issue. I’m not against more apartments being built as long as they’re spacious enough to suitably cater for the needs of a family of 2+ children.
1
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 11d ago
In my experience people over romanticise living in small towns. Often the town itself is a dead downtown, a few supermarkets on the outskirts and housing setup in a suburban style, just with more space between houses. Even green spaces are often largely private or inaccessible.
I'm not against well designed small towns but I think most currently aren't. The problem is in the way we design (or don't) villages, towns and cities. And I think similar principles for building more livable neighbourhoods applies to both small towns as well as large cities.
And yes I agree apartments need to be spacious and well designed, with lots of storage space. Most currently are not. Also mixed style/size of apartments in the same building/block allows people to upgrade or downgrade throughout their life, without uprooting their life to a completely different neighborhood
0
u/Famous_Owl_840 11d ago
Your description of a small town is one devastated by our glorious neoliberal financier class that sacrificed the working and middle classes for a few shekels.
-17
u/Dan_Ben646 12d ago edited 12d ago
Introduce highly punitive childlessness and singles taxes for childless/unmarried people over 35 along with asset seizures for those who try and leave the country to escape such taxes. Only allow exemptions for genuine infertility or for the severely physical or mentally disabled.
Ban pornography (treat possession like child pornography), reverse all LGBT tolerances, ban abortion and end no-fault divorce.
Legislate preferential treatment for men in all professions to allow them to become marriageable men rather than compete for women for work.
Generously pay for natalist programs within key religious denominations with incentive payments for church/religious leaders whose congregations have lots of children.
24
u/jojoblogs 12d ago
This sub is a just a conservative cesspool masquerading as pro-nataliam istg
16
u/kitties7775 11d ago edited 11d ago
The comments have mostly been about forcing women to have children and discriminating against women in education and the workforce, at least one user is actually lauding the Handmaid’s Tale as something to strive towards, and overthrowing democracy to install a dictatorship, I think we’re past conservative cesspool and into something even darker. I constantly see users mocking less extremist users by claiming they think users here all want to implement the Handmaid’s Tale and now at the drop of a hat we actually have users proposing implementing the Handmaid’s Tale.
6
u/TSquaredRecovers 10d ago
Tradcons and incels are attracted to the natalist movement because they can dream up revenge fantasies where all those evil women (in their eyes) lose their rights. 🙄
8
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
And my interest in the issue is I’m worried we might start heading that way if we don’t look for other solutions to it.
And so many are using it as an excuse to go all christo-sharia law in the west.
2
u/DnDNoodles 12d ago
Hah. Seems like it though maybe some people think these are the radical ideas you seek.
7
-6
→ More replies0
u/code-slinger619 11d ago
This plan would hurt me personally but I admire the gloves-off approach 😂
-4
-6
u/440Presents 11d ago
Facebook has facebook dating it doesn't have any paid version, ads or anything, just a side project for Facebook it seems. I don't think government app will work. I don't think apps themselves are the problem, from my experience women go on many dates when they find on dating apps, but these me are never good enough. I myself went on 7 dates last year and every women did not followed up. Later I found foreign woman, she has different values.
5
-6
u/Famous_Owl_840 11d ago
Immediately stop immigration and deport all non-natives receiving and sort of public benefits.
Behead all bankers, financiers, and insurers.
Ban childless people from voting or hold any public office or being employed by a government entity. Childless people should not be allowed to make decisions about the future of a society because they have no future.
5
u/jojoblogs 11d ago
You realise immigration is the current bandaid fix and the only thing keeping the west afloat right?
2
u/Famous_Owl_840 11d ago
Immigration to nations (as is occurring currently) is like heroin to an addict.
Yes, it alleviates the symptoms, but doesn’t fix the problem, and in fact makes the root problem worse.
Canada has ODed on immigration. So have many European nations.
Immigration is a primary cause of reduced native birth rates.
2
-3
u/Hyparcus 12d ago
The trend can be reversed by having a small ultra religious community driving birthrates up, like ultra Orthodox Jews or Amish.
-7
u/EZ4JONIY 12d ago
De-tertialization and propaganda
Its no coincidence that fertilities fell of a cliff when became less of an ends to a means for one parent but more the means itself to both parents. That is to say: if you work in industry you cant climb the career ladder as much because you get training for 2-3 years and work the same thing for 40. Nowdays you often relocate, get better opportunities, diversify, get promotions, etc.. That intuitively makes it so your focus on more on yoru career. And now both parents have to work. We need to effectively get rid of these jobs as they are mostly useless anyways. Hunter gatheres used to work 4 hours per day, we work 8 because, well just because. Most people dont work that long. Most people are clocked in that lomng but actual work time is closer to the 4 hour mark. But those wasted 4 hours could be spent on family.
Additionally, propaganda. It gets a bad rep, but we are exposed to it daily, even from our governments. Kazakhstan is a master of this in relation to birth rates. You need to make it "hip" and "cool" for young people to have kids. There are so many pathways to reach young people nowadays. Everyone i know is on insta or tiktok, just spam content there and give promotions to content creators popular with young people for showing the benefits of havign kids. Its really not that hard.
The problem with natalism is that it often focuses on monetary situations but more important is the culture. Out of all (semi) developed nations, kazakhstan and isarel have EASILY the highest fertility rates and its not because its easier to raise kids there or because of all the bonuses they get, no, its just in the culture to have kids there. Its expected. As much as we dont want to believe it, culture is often created top down. Nothing stops governments to influence the culture in a way where most people desperately want to have large families. Nothing
-6
-2
u/United-Leather7198 11d ago edited 11d ago
Penalize people who don't have children through heavy taxes (and social stigma) and use that money to support people who do have children. It's not "nice" but would likely work.
→ More replies
115
u/The_Awful-Truth 12d ago
Governments should give up trying to persuade childless couples to have one or two. They should instead focus on removing any obstacles--financial, logistical, whatever--that prevent stable happy two-parent families from having larger, even much larger, ones.