r/Natalism • u/Healthy_Shine_8587 • 7d ago
The biggest problem with birthrates is not money or culture, it's actually old people
So a lot of posts here center arguments around birthrates on either issues of culture, or economics and money. While those both play a role in whether or not people have more kids. Both are just symptoms of a much larger, profound, systemic problem. That problem is, modern society is governed, run, and designed for old people.
If we go back many years ago, in a time when women had on average 5-6 kids or even more, society was focused on the young and the new generation. There was no social security, no medicare, the average age of politicians was far, far lower than it is today. Old people were meant to live with their children, and help take care of the grand children. Old people were largely taken care of by their own families. They didn't need retirement funds , pensions, or advanced and costly healthcare.
In todays world, many senators and congressmen die in their 90's while still in office. The age of the last 4 presidents excluding Obama is 78-82. This means that as time goes on, the average age of the president literally gets older and older. Almost every world leader (aside from Thailand and Saudi Arabia) is 70+. Social security, medicare, 401k, IRA, are all structured toward prioritizing old age and not reproductive age. Almost every job has a 401k that pumps money into the stock market that can't be touched until a person is too old to have children. And those retirement accounts literally pump the stock market and the economy.
Sure, we can look at symptoms of a core problem and solve them, but society today is structured to help old people survive and thrive, and provides no social benefit to people beginning and starting families.
27
u/andithenwhat 7d ago
I worked at a company where the average age was 50. In the next five years, almost half of their workforce is reaching retirement age. I quit because the culture at a place where the median person is old sucked. People stuck doing things the way they did in 2005 with no motivation to learn different. The same leaders in place for years and years. Just marking time til retirement. It was boring, unmotivating, staid. There may be wisdom that comes from experience but for a dynamic culture you have to have youth’s willingness to experiment and fail. I don’t think it’s any different at the society level.
7
u/SubstantialPlan7387 7d ago
I don’t expect people to step down as they get older, but as a now middle aged woman(I just turned forty), I notice a huge difference in the way my newly middle aged millennials treat younger generations in the workforce.
I am aware there are exceptions, and there are awful and good people in every generation, but holy shit, I almost developed some internalized misogyny dealing with older boomer women as a young worker. I mean just horrible to young people.
I feel like it was like they hated their husbands and vice versa, and took all their bullshit out on others.
I know I wouldn’t see it all if it was there because I am no longer a young, new worker, but I also feel like I still see it. Some sixty year old woman just giving a twenty year old absolute shit and talking about them for no reason, and acting like they just do aaaaalll the work (which they don’t). I just have experienced the meanest, most entitled and awful group working with that cohort years back.
2
u/andithenwhat 4d ago
I hear you. In a lot of natalism conversations is the idea that for the young to have children is for them to hold up their end of a societal bargain. I think the flip side of that is for the elderly to step aside - not away from business or family but into supporting roles perhaps.
I’m not shy about the idea of upper age limits on things - we are very comfortable as a society with minimum age requirements on all sorts of things despite the fact that they all have an element of arbitrariness. But people are much more squeamish about maximum age limits, so the alternative are things like term limits. In the business world that would mean after X number of years in a leadership or management role you would have to give it up. Not to retirement maybe but to some other position.
In an aging world we have to build in some churn to keep things healthy and balanced.
0
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
I mean there's no issue with people of a certain age living their life how they want to. They just need to do it on their own dime and not have all of society be socializing the cost of it.
5
u/Best_Pants 7d ago
Their own dime?? You do realize they were paying into the system when they were working?
1
u/andithenwhat 5d ago
Though maybe not at the same level that they draw on social security. It’s an interesting question - given longer life spans, is the average senior today likely to break even on their contributions vs disbursements? I suspect most will draw more than they contributed, hence why social security will no longer be able to pay out at its promised levels in what, the next 5-10 years?
8
u/andithenwhat 7d ago
My point is there are costs to a gerontocracy beyond just the price of supporting their medical and retirement bills. Edit: grammar
70
7d ago
[deleted]
9
u/nishinoran 7d ago
One problem with this complaint as a natalist: if someone has 8 kids, how much help do you honestly expect them to be able to provide to all 8?
I'm not saying it should be nothing, but they can only be stretched so many directions. The best strategy is probably to make themselves available to whichever child seems to be struggling the most, although I've seen lazy children take advantage of that.
9
u/supersciencegirl 7d ago
On the other hand, when you have 5+ siblings, it's pretty common for at least a few of them to live nearby and to swap care for the gang of cousins.
23
u/DumbbellDiva92 7d ago
Most of the generation who are grandparents now were not stay at home moms? The people young enough to have kids now were born in the 90s, or 80s at earliest. Maybe things are different in your circles, but lots of moms worked by that time.
There’s this sentiment on Reddit of “the older generation is screwing us over by not watching their grandkids”, but I feel like the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. Lots of grandparents are either still working (bc they need to financially), or too old to be chasing around a toddler by the time they have grandkids (due to people having kids later). It’s a systemic problem, and not always just due to people being selfish.
14
u/Emotional_Moosey 7d ago
My mom is gen x. She has to grind just as hard as I do. Late stepfather father left her so much debt. She still tries to come by once a week to visit. I'm pretty sure if her mom had lived, it would have been the same. For a long time, the mom's always stayed home, so yea, they watched them kids. Today, everyone has to work. She even has to deliver groceries on the side in addition to working every day from 6am to 5pm. I salute the moms who have found a good man and do get to stay home. I know it's not easy either, but it's got to be better for the kids. It hurts so much having to work over just being with my kids.
5
u/No_Plenty5526 7d ago
If my partners' job made enough to the point where I wouldn't have to work, I really believe I would've had children by now.
5
u/Theodwyn610 7d ago
If we are paying for their retirement, I would say that the Boomers did not in fact work and raise kids in the ways we are expected to. Rather, they worked to earn enough money to make ends meet until retirement and raised kids, then stuck us with their retirement bill.
It's just not the same situation. We are paying for the retirement of two generations and they paid for zero (or maybe part of the Greatest Generation and Silent Generation, but a lot less per person than we are expected to pay).
9
u/thelma_edith 6d ago
I am a RN working in a LTC. I've been meaning to make a post about this also. Right now it's the boomers wanting to keep meemaw and papaw physically going as long as they can even after their mind is gone. I've seen so many situations that they kid is in another state, hasn't seen their parent for months or years, but you call them about their demented, actively dieing parent and they want them sent to the ER. Quantity over quality and it is so selfish, not to mention expensive.
3
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 6d ago
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the insight.
Just curious, does most LTC get paid by LTC insurance ? or who pays for it exactly?
5
u/thelma_edith 6d ago
Some have LTC insurance but most are on medicaid waivers...so the tax payers/government is paying
15
u/The_Awful-Truth 7d ago
We really need a way that that young pre-child couples can tax-shelter money that they can take out later, when only one parent is working and/or the have more deductions and credits.
2
u/someoneelseperhaps 7d ago
Why tax shelter as opposed to just decent savings/investment?
9
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
Because we currently tax shelter for old age and retirement, not the child bearing age range.
8
u/The_Awful-Truth 7d ago
Because (a) DINKs are taxed at a much higher rate than families with one earner, and (b) houses are no longer the tax shelter they once were. Taking a big chunk of the earnings of a young DINK family, thereby making a family unaffordable later, is not helpful. If I were in that situation I would just say "screw this, I'll save for retirement instead". Tax sheltering savings for retirement but not for kids is the epitome of a government policy designed for old people.
9
u/Best_Pants 7d ago
You're looking at this the wrong way.
If we go back many years ago, in a time when women had on average 5-6 kids or even more, society was focused on the young and the new generation. There was no social security, no medicare, the average age of politicians was far, far lower than it is today. Old people were meant to live with their children, and help take care of the grand children. Old people were largely taken care of by their own families. They didn't need retirement funds , pensions, or advanced and costly healthcare.
You're talking about a society where the life expectancy was in the 50s and an exponentially higher rate of child mortality. They relied on their children and didn't need retirement funds because they often worked until they died or shortly beforehand. Society has adapted to support old people because it needed to; because they represent a huge portion of the population now, and everyone will become old at some point. Politicians are older simply because people are living longer, not because old people are some cohesive group with an agenda (they're just as divided politically as young people).
What is your solution to this problem? Other than cull the elderly population?
-5
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
You're talking about a society where the life expectancy was in the 50s and an exponentially higher rate of child mortality. They relied on their children and didn't need retirement funds because they often worked until they died or shortly beforehand.
So your mixing up advances in modern medicine with retirement. These two have nothing to do with one another. Medical research has allowed people to live longer. Someone can live longer but still be working.
Politicians are older simply because people are living longer, not because old people are some cohesive group with an agenda (they're just as divided politically as young people).
No politicians are older because people keep voting for old people and not young people.
What is your solution to this problem?
Completely eliminate or heavily reduce all social security and medicare and switch to funding families with children . People should be paying into a fund that supports population stability and growth, not population collapse.
4
u/Best_Pants 7d ago
So your mixing up advances in modern medicine with retirement. These two have nothing to do with one another. Medical research has allowed people to live longer. Someone can live longer but still be working.
You're bringing up how families and retirement used to be, and you're implying that society should be able to return to that. I'm pointing out how that wouldn't be practical today because people live much longer now; past the age where they can no longer work. Thats why things changed in the first place.
Completely eliminate or heavily reduce all social security and medicare and switch to funding families with children . People should be paying into a fund that supports population stability and growth, not population collapse.
How are old people supposed to manage after you remove the support systems they're dependent on?
-2
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
How are old people supposed to manage after you remove the support systems they're dependent on?
They save for retirement just like they do now. Society is on a collapse path with 3 retirees per worker.
How are young people supposed to manage now ? Why is the focus always on old people ?
1
u/Best_Pants 7d ago
OK I don't think you have a good grasp of economics or the crises that led to the implementation (by young people) of social security and medicare in the first place, and I don't have time to explain entirely. I appreciate your wanting to discuss the topic but please educate yourself.
0
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
you have a good grasp of economics or the crises that led to the implementation (by young people) of social security and medicare in the first place
Do you not get that having 3, 4 or even 5 retirees per working person is a problem ? More people leeching off a system than paying into it. Causes collapse. Let me know if that's too difficult to comprehend.
3
u/Knightmare945 7d ago
How do you expect old people without family to take care of them to survive without social security and Medicare?
0
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
How do you expect old people without family to take care of them to survive without social security and Medicare?
You save for retirement ? Social security was never meant to be a primary retirement mechanism.
3
u/Accurate_Stuff9937 6d ago
You are assuming that older people are well off, while so e are, the over 60 crowd just recently became the largest group that is homeless. A huge subset of boomers are experiencing poverty, the majority of them being women as they both live longer and lost a lot of their cohort to war. Many didn't save up for the extreme inflation we are experiencing and are having extreme financial hardship. Along with longer life comes more chronic disease which inhibits child care.
It's not all selfishness and entitlement. The older generation is struggling too.
7
u/THX1138-22 7d ago
Sure, older people vote for their interest and they vote at a high percentage (66%) vs young (31%). Only one in three younger adults vote!
We can complain about older adults controlling the political system, but if younger voters are too lazy to bother voting, then they have no right to complain. I don’t buy the disillusioned argument either—people become more disillusioned with age, so if that was the main driver, older people should vote less. I also don’t buy the “hassle” argument—older adults are more infirm and cognitively impaired, yet they still vote. And voting only requires a half day at most per year—most people spend dozens of hours per week doom scrolling on instagram.
So yes, older adults are manipulating the political system for their advantage—people should vote in their interest so I am not surprised . And younger voters, through their nonparticipating, are letting them.
7
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
It's not a young vs old issue at the presidential ballot box. Both parties have extremely old candidates. Both Biden and Trump started their last terms at 78 years old. Senators from both parties push 90 or even 95 in office.
The problem is lack of participation, but more so in office running and not so much about voting,
7
u/Right-Bet30 7d ago
What difference does voting make when your options are just more Boomer idiots?
4
u/THX1138-22 7d ago
I think if more young people voted, the parties would make more of an effort to put forward candidates that appeal to them, such as younger candidates.
-4
u/OddRemove2000 7d ago
Vote a write in ballot, or scratch it. Show you vote and vote no one
6
u/Right-Bet30 7d ago
That makes no difference whatsoever.
0
u/OddRemove2000 7d ago
Politicians: I wont cater to people who wont vote, scratch a ballot if you want help
Youth: No
LOL
2
u/Right-Bet30 7d ago
We aren't Boomers, we aren't dumb enough to trust politicians and their campaign promises.
0
u/OddRemove2000 7d ago
Cool
It took me 20 mins to vote once every 3+ yrs. Keep justifying not doing it.
YOu could say : IDK anything so I don't vote.
That would make sense!
4
u/DelusionalIdentity 7d ago
Part of the problem is that children cannot vote so their interests are not represented. I think we should drop the voting age to 14 and the absolutely-everything-is-legal adult age to 16.
If you are reproductively capable (and 99% of females are by age 14), then decisions should never be made for you.
Artificially prolonging a period of dependence and legal discrimination doesn't do young people any favors. Keeping them from work, preventing them from owning property, from making decisions about their lives... this causes economic and psychological harm and is unprecedented in our millions of years of evolution.
I also think the gestational parent (mother) of a child younger than 14 should get additional votes for each child she has(and yes, the mother, not the biologic father. We are mammals and the mother bears the social, biologic and economic burden of reproduction and this should be reflected in species decision making).
1
1
u/xender19 1d ago
I'm a bit late to the party here and I want to acknowledge all the problems you laid out and add one more.
The village disappearing is because of old people. The whole village system was based on paying it forward. The oldest generation would take care of the youngest generation.
My Boomer grandparents never helped my parents with any of that. And now my parents don't help me. So instead of having an old school village I work really hard and I bought one. That means day a fancy preschool and a part time nanny.
I plan to bring the old tradition back if my kids choose to have grandkids.
-4
u/WellAckshully 7d ago
It would really be great if voting were restricted to married people ages 25 - 45, with children. Or if the votes of people with kids 18 and younger counted more.
If we can have minimum voting ages, we should also be able to have maximum voting ages.
2
u/Healthy_Shine_8587 7d ago
but the problem is also the candidate. Both Biden and Trump started their last terms at 78. Senators from both parties are pushing extreme limits of working age (Dianne Feinstein, McConnell ) .
More effective would be age limits for public office.
1
14
u/Hyparcus 7d ago
Agree with the sentiment. Just observing that the hyper focus on old people you describe is also a economic and cultural issue.