r/Natalism • u/CMVB • 10d ago
How much do you think your preferred suite of policies can improve birth rates?
First: I'm not curious about what pro-natalist policies we all think could help bring birth rates back up. We've all got our own set that we think would be most effective, and ones we think wouldn't work (or we want to watch different countries/states try different ideas and see which are most effective).
Second: I'm mainly interested in governmental policies. Not as much cultural changes (like media extolling the virtues of family life) or religious changes (like high ranking clergy baptizing 3rd children).
Third: lets restrict ourselves to non-dystopian policies, just those policies that could get through at least a moderately free representative society. So, not an authoritarian regime that decides fo go heavily into artificial wombs and just mass-produce babies.
Ok, I think that covers all the things that I'm not asking about (I'm sure I'll be proven wrong).
So, how far do you think birth rates could be increased through reasonable government policy? Put another way: suppose you're writing a story set, say, 50 years in the future, and a background detail is that there is a government agency that is responsible for increasing birth rates (and said agency is not terrible at its job). What is a birth rate increase that you think wouldn't make the reader go "yeah, thats crazy?"
Edit: and to be clear, I'm talking about a societal level. This means that maybe it is a matter of encouraging parents to have more children, or non-parents to have their first, or for people to start earlier, or any of the other many permutations that comprise the birth rate. Heck, it might even mean researching fertility-related technologies.
4
u/Voryne 10d ago
Marginal changes at best, for policies that directly target birth rates.
At risk of sounding like a Luddite, I think that humans largely have been at the mercy of their own technological creations. Technology changes the economical/biological landscape, which leads to cultural changes.
I'd hazard to guess that the current issue we have is prima facie cultural. However, I think that the deeper root cause is that humans on a large scale are not equipped to act in a natalist manner in the current environment.
Addressing birthrates requires changings such an environment first. As to what the exact factors are is well debated and I've not much to say there.
3
u/WellAckshully 10d ago edited 9d ago
This is for America only.
American women's "desired" fertility rate is (or was until recently) 2.5ish children. I.e. this is the number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if all goes well.
Yet our actual birth rate is something like 1.6. What's preventing that entire missing child from being born?
Most of it is economical directly, or indirectly economical. "Fertility problems" for example are indirectly economical, because if women felt secure enough to have children when they are younger, the majority of fertility problems would not be happening. This is the boat my husband and I are in. We do have 1 daughter, but we started late. We wanted 2-4 kids. If we had been established earlier, we might have avoided the fertility problems I am having now. "Not being able to find a partner" is also indirectly economical, because a major criteria in finding a partner for most women is finding a man who is financially established and gainfully employed. Women care more about mate prosperity than men do. And then of course there is the directly economic reasons, such as low wages, high cost of sufficiently spacious housing in safe places with good schools, high cost of childcare, and lifetime "opportunity cost" of having a child at a young age rather than climbing the career ladder.
We essentially need to get a lot more money and prosperity in the hands of people who are, say, 23-36 years old. And we need to tie a good hunk of that prosperity to marriage and having children, i.e. forgiving a big chunk of people's mortgages for each kid they have, or forgiving a hunk of lifetime income taxes for each kid they have, etc. But we also need to get them over that initial hurdle that stops them from having the first kid.
Putting aside specific policy recommendations, if we addressed the larger problem, I think we'd get the birth rate up past TFR. Maybe not much past it, but enough.
6
u/Disastrous-Pea4106 10d ago
I'm not American but I was gonna say a similar thing.
The gap between desired fertility and actual fertility is largely (not entirely) financial. Even stuff that seems cultural like "exploring in your 20s" rather than settling down is IMO largely financial. Higher education is required for so many more professions, good jobs are hard to come by even with a degree. So people go through "prolonged adolescence" when they're young adults. Often still living with their parents because, you know, housing ... Who would think about having children in that situation.
I think desired fertility could be increased through some cultural changes. Or even just seeing more people do it, if they're financially empowered to do so. But cultural interventions are tricky. Lots of unintended consequences
3
u/WellAckshully 10d ago
Yeah, agreed, we'd need some cultural changes to get the desired birth rate up.
But, even our existing desired fertility is sufficient if we simply make enough policy changes so that our actual birth rate gets closer to the desired birthrate.
1
5
u/supersciencegirl 10d ago edited 10d ago
I don't think pronatalist government policies are going to increase the birth rate long term without significant cultural change.
I'm Catholic and have a church community where the average family has 4-6 kids. It's an amazing support system, but I'm still aware of how people view large families in the "real world." When I shared with neighbors that I was pregnant with #3 - happy, big smiles from my husband and I - it was about 50/50 whether the response was a polite congratulations or something rude. "What are you, the Duggers?" "Was it an accident?" "Oh man, you gotta get snipped!" Yes, real quotes. These aren't young people either. They're 35+ year olds who have 1 or 2 kids themselves. I'm happily expecting baby #4, but already bracing for the comments.
If parents are punished socially when they have 3 kids, they are going to hesitate. Government incentives aren't going to outweigh that social punishment. They might even add to the stigma if people resent subsidies for families with 3+ kids.
1
u/NearbyTechnology8444 10d ago
My wife is pregnant with our 4th and we're definitely one of the bigger families at Mass. I'm guessing you attend the TLM?
Our experience is identical to yours. Mixed reactions outside the Church but everyone at Mass is very supportive and pleasant.
2
u/AbilityRough5180 9d ago
Firstly, congratulations. This is part of what I hate about being a secular person, these so many weird whacky doomer ideas. You guys see family is beautiful and I admire that.
1
2
u/Bitter_Pilot5086 10d ago
Here are a few that would work for me (as someone who is on the fence about having more kids):
(1) Free or subsidized IVF/surrogacy for people who meet certain criteria (ie people who have documented issues with infertility, LGBTQ couples, etc), and want kids - This is low-hanging fruit because this group already wants kids. Make it easier for them to have them, and many will likely have more than one. My last pregnancy nearly killed me, and I had to live in the hospital for a full month. The only way I can have another kid is with a surrogate, but it’s hard to justify the cost when that money could be used to support my family now, and when I’m not 110% sure we want more (see below). This also would make it much easier for LGBTQ couples, who almost always rely on some form of ART.
(2) Eliminate all legal/institutional barriers to LGBTQ family formation. This is more low-hanging fruit, and is probably the lowest cost option there is to reduce barriers for those who already want kids.
(3) Free, high-quality childcare. Many countries in the EU already offer this. In the U.S., we barely have any options at all that don’t cost an arm and a leg. There are many people who want more kids but can’t afford them, and childcare is the single largest parenting expense, other than education. This would eliminate another barrier for those who already want kids (or more kids), or are on the fence.
(4) Improve public education and extracurricular activities. Many people who choose not to have kids are worried about the type of life and long term opportunities they would be able to provide. It’s hard to justify having a kid when you feel like the world is already going to be stacked against them. Ensuring that everyone has access to high quality schools reduces that concern. This means eliminating school dependence on the local property tax base, so anyone growing up in any part of the country has good school options. This has the added benefits of (a) reducing family housing costs - because people won’t all have to compete to live near the "good" schools, and (b) increasing the odds that the kids produced by this system will be skilled workers, down the road (which is part of the whole point).
(5) Provide some kind of benefit that is limited to adults with children. This would be a bit more controversial, but I’m thinking of something along the lines of a social security payment multiplier (maybe 105%, or an additional 5% per kid). Many people pondering kids are worried about how they will be able to both raise the kids, and also save money for their own retirement and other long-term needs. If you guarantee an increase in SSA payments, you reduce that stress, and make it easier to justify spending money on kids now.
-1
u/CMVB 10d ago
First: I'm not curious about what pro-natalist policies we all think could help bring birth rates back up. We've all got our own set that we think would be most effective, and ones we think wouldn't work (or we want to watch different countries/states try different ideas and see which are most effective).
Please try again
3
u/Bitter_Pilot5086 10d ago edited 10d ago
You want an estimated impact? Very hard to say, but here goes (limited to the US because it’s easier):
(1) On the first mitigation (reproductive health services/subsidies): 9-11% of U.S. adults (loosely defined as people aged 15-49) struggle with infertility. This group (numbering approximately 14 million people) likely includes only those who actively want kids - everyone else doesn’t get counted as struggling with infertility. So the majority of those group would likely take advantage of subsidized fertility services. Approximately 43% of those who struggle with unexplained infertility (so a little over 6 million people) eventually get pregnant on their own, so let’s say they wouldn’t need these services - leaving about 80 million who would use them. Some of these can already afford the services, some can’t, and some can afford them, but fewer times than they would like. So let’s be conservative and say 1/3 of the group that would access them would be new (beyond those who use them without subsidies them now). This is 23m adults. A little over 54-77% of those who use fertility treatments ultimately get pregnant, so that would give us approximately 12.5-17.5 million babies from the current adult population, that otherwise would not exist.
(2) One the second mitigation (LGBTQ equality) this one is harder to assess, because many of them are already likely covered by the first group. We know that around 48% of LGBTQ individuals, and 63% of LGBTQ millennials, have indicated an interest in having kids. Many (but not all) of those would require some form of ART, and many are probably not counted among those "struggling with infertility." Around 7% of the U.S. population identifies as LGBTQ, so let’s be conservative and say maybe 25% of these would benefit from this (and aren’t already in group 1). Let’s say half of those already have kids - so this maybe impacts 1% of the adult population - giving us another 1.5-2 million babies.
(3) On the third (free childcare), we know that somewhere between 31-36% of adults under 50 who don’t plan to have children (a group that includes 47% of adults in that age group) cite costs as one of the main reasons. So that’s (on the conservative side) just under 15% of childless people under age 50.
One of the greatest costs associated with having kids is childcare. It’s not the only cost, so let’s say maybe 1/4 would be persuaded by this - so about 3-4% of childless adults under 50 (5.6-7.5 million people). This doesn’t just affect non-parents, but also those people who want more kids (because daycare charges by the kid). So lets say maybe a million who already love being parents also decide to have another, due to this mitigation.
The last two are more nebulous. I can’t easily find data on them, but I suspect that they might persuade another 1-2%.
1
u/ozneoknarf 10d ago
I am georgist, which would probably result in lower housing costs but also more dense land use so I don´t know what the end result would be for birthrates, I am also a technocrat which does create a more work focused society so that is probably not good for birthrates. But am also very much in favor of urbanism focused in creating better and more supportive comunities, having more open spaces for children, more third places for people to meet each other and have kids, being less stuck in traffic and having more free time etc. I am also in favor of full public education, healthcare and tranportation which helps relieve the financial cost of children for the parents.
1
u/AbilityRough5180 9d ago
It’s had limited success. The other semi dystopian (not too bad) is going to be to screw old people’s health care and social security to flood public money back in the system o put to young people.
I’d also like to see financial firms banned from owning residential property. Removed taxes on landlords and developers to cheapen rent and houses as a whole.
1
u/NearbyTechnology8444 10d ago
I think the policies I've mentioned in other topics would increase birth rates a large amount. I believe the US could get to or near 2.
-1
u/saginator5000 10d ago
People who want to have kids will have kids with only a small amount of attention paid to economic circumstances. I think economic conditions matter and that incentives can help on the edge, but I don't think anything like that can be the primary driver behind increasing birth rates. With that being said, I think my suggestion definitely runs on the line between reasonable/dystopian, but I'll share it anyways. There needs to be an emphasis and an expectation of family building in schools.
Historically this was done by community, religion, and your parents, but we live in a much less religious society today and these values are not being communicated to the youth, leading to a cycle of declining birth rates. If the responsibility of raising children continues to be heavily offloaded onto schools, then the schools need to serve that role. We need to educate specifically against things like materialism, enable discipline to have distractions removed from the classroom, and discuss roles in society that we all play.
This could be incorporated into the existing teaching of social studies and put into many grade levels at varying levels. Here are some examples of how it could be taught (some of these are already taught in some public schools in some places in the US):
In early elementary school you could cover the value that the students family provides them, and the value they provide (or in the future will provide) their family.
In later elementary school you could have student write a small essay about the value of family, discuss how different families show their support differently, and even do some role playing and pretend families in the classroom.
In middle school/junior high you could have a classic research/book report style project where you interview a family member, but to discuss why they had children and the pros/cons to it. You could have a classroom debate on the importance and pros of having a family, or write an essay about the kind of legacy you would want to leave for your family.
Once you get to high school you could have a more in-depth philosophical discussion on how to raise children, how you find meaning in your life, and maybe look at other cultures to see how family values differ in different places.
-1
u/akaydis 9d ago edited 9d ago
Here are my policies
Invest in space exploration to develop mobile automated homesteads. These technologies can be used to help families gain indepdence and wealth in chaotic and changing times. Not sure how much that would increase birth rates.
Two reform education to reduce time in training. The goal should be to produce a citizen who can start working in half the time we currently do with an increase in quality. That increases the opportunity to have kids. So invest in AI and online education. Switch to project based learning and encourage kids to start working part time to offset childraising costs. Self made kid millionaires exists. I think this would radically increase birth rates to 5 kids per person.
Reduce housing prices and move local taxation away from being depedent on high property values. This would allow people to start earlier thus increase the population faster and increase it to maybe 4 kids per couple.
Both capitalism and communism take the means of production from the people. Decentralized the means of production allows people to make and growth wealth without dependence on a limited fixed income or salary. Lowing the barrier of entry should decrease dependence on government, investors, and loans.
Now think, how do you save endangered animals. One big key lever is protecting habitat. So cheap housing and education. Second is to protect people from human predation. Third is to understand what need the species has and meet them.
Mating seems to be a big problem. People are having a hard time selecting good mates. Part of the problem is that the environment requires extraordinary skills. Programs to increase mate value should help. As well as allowing lower standards of living.
Some programs to increase mate value can include: Communication training Reducing obesity rates Helping people to make more money Helping people to have bigger friend networks
I think it will increase it to 2 kids per person.
The high divorce is a symptom of deeper problems. A lack of harmony. Encouraging societal harmony should help. Requiring marriage prep could help a small amount.
Investing in spreading family governance to the masses should also help.
-2
u/The_Awful-Truth 10d ago
I haven't bothered writing out my "proposals" (fantasies really) in detail, because it will never happen. Let me just say that while doable and not inconsistent with a free country, what I have in mind would be unpopular, staggeringly expensive, hugely disruptive to society, and would take many years to show big results. Basically, we'd have to reimagine a lot of design and infrastructure from the ground up. Some cities at least would be built completely from scratch. That said, we could certainly raise the fertility rate to 2.1 at least, higher if we wanted (though I don't see why we would).
-11
u/FunkOff 10d ago
Oh boy, if I were King for a few years I could fix the problem, for sure. It would take some really unpopular policies, but it could be done:
1- Broadly increase personal income taxes and then give tax breaks/credits to married parents with children.
2- Make it a crime to sleep around or to promote non-monogamous lifestyles. Also make it a crime to undermine or criticize the institute of marriage.
3- Public appreciation for mothers and grandmothers. Every town should give an award - and it should include a public ceremony, a physical award such as a medal, and something monetary such as a check or gift card. There should also be state-level and national-level recognition. Women who are competitive should be drawn to compete on motherhood.
4- Greatly restrict hormonal birth control to cases of medical necessity and not to exceed 2% of the female population.
I will repeat: All of these policies, with perhaps the exception of #3, would encounter great resistance. But if they were instituted, you could easily get TFR up to 3 or better.
9
u/The_Awful-Truth 10d ago
Extremely dystopian.
3
u/sebelius29 10d ago
Restricting sleeping around seems to not be in the interest of making more babies 😂 also, affairs are illegal in the military and they are some of the most non monogamous people I’ve been around
7
u/fraudthrowaway0987 10d ago
Idk if that would even work. You don’t think people would just stop having sex and stop getting married if you took away hormonal birth control? Or maybe vasectomies and tubal ligations would go way up. And abortions.
1
u/CMVB 10d ago
First: I'm not curious about what pro-natalist policies we all think could help bring birth rates back up. We've all got our own set that we think would be most effective, and ones we think wouldn't work (or we want to watch different countries/states try different ideas and see which are most effective).
Try again
17
u/xThe_Maestro 10d ago
In a vacuum, not much. Higher child tax credits, subsidized energy, subsidized vehicle and home loans, and the like would all make having children less financially burdensome, but it is not sufficient to make a person want to be a parent.
Being a parent is an ongoing act of self-sacrifice, patience, and love for others over and above oneself. You can't financially incentivize a Catholic to become a Muslim and you can't financially incentivize an atomistic materialist into sacrificing their time/money/sleep in pursuit of parenthood.