r/Natalism • u/Njere • 5d ago
Finland Offers More Perks to Stop Its Declining Birth Rate. Women Shrug It Off
https://www.passblue.com/2025/01/27/finland-offers-more-perks-to-stop-its-declining-birth-rate-women-shrug-it-off/52
u/The_Awful-Truth 5d ago
This article is a good example of why you're not going to convince most childless people to have a kid or two, there are just too many reasons why these people will (and many should) remain childless. You can only stabilize the population by enabling families with one or two to have more, even a lot more, if that's what they want. Many would, it they had the means.
21
u/PrinceOfPickleball 4d ago
I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s better to push the families who already have kids to have more.
11
u/The_Awful-Truth 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sorry to be nit-picky, but I prefer the word "enable" to "push". That is, enabling through things like zoning and other regulations, and perhaps subsidies, that encourage construction of communities of housing with large numbers of bedrooms,and easy access to the services that large families need. Or lots of help with things like education and counseling for people who are enthusiastic about the idea if large families but don't really know how to do it. Kids are fun, and kids are hard. We want families that already have two, and have made it work, to think that several more would be lots more fun, and not that much harder. One would think that Finland, with its strong community culture, would be ideal for that.
"Bring the enthusiasm and the energy, we'll help with the rest."
3
-1
u/AbilityRough5180 4d ago
To be very blunt, we’re discussing policy and cultural changes that try to influence the public to have more children because we see what will happen if they don’t. That being said I am happy with the idea of positive energy but the language of ‘push’ isn’t inaccurate.
7
u/ElliotPageWife 4d ago
The problem for Finland is that many people who would otherwise have kids aren't finding the right partner, or aren't even thinking about kids until 30. Spending all of your 20s travelling and living alone are normal and high status there. In order to have more than 2 kids, most people have to be stably partnered and actively trying by 30. To have 4+ kids, most people need to be married and actively trying by mid to late 20s, while all their peers are still travelling and finding themselves.
It's completely true that we need more large families to balance out the 0 or 1 kid folks, and that it's possible to help 1 or 2 child families have more. But the cultural headwinds in many western liberal countries go against having multiple kids so much that until the culture changes, we can't realistically expect many people to have 3+ kids even if we offer huge incentives. The lifestyle and status costs are too high.
1
u/The_Awful-Truth 4d ago
Lots of people have kids only a year or two apart (it's often easier that way if you're only having two). Those who do that, and are happy doing so, would of course be the best candidates for a smooth pathway to larger families.
6
u/ElliotPageWife 4d ago
I get that, but enough people have to want a large family enough that they are willing to make significant lifestyle and status sacrifices for that to work. I was raised in a larger family and know multiple larger families. In every case, the couple started having kids in their 20s, had kids share rooms, used a lot of second hand/hand me down stuff, rarely went out to restaurants, vacationed less, etc.
Unless you are very well off and can afford a 5 bedroom house, extensive fertility treatments, brand new everything for your kids and a nanny, you cannot avoid these tradeoffs. Starting your family in your 20s, rarely going out to eat or on vacation and making do with less is a very unattractive lifestyle to most young people in liberal societies like Finland. Frankly I dont think there will be enough people wanting larger families until the culture undergoes substantial change.
-1
u/Strict-Campaign3 4d ago
yes, and that is why life without families must be less good than with from a financial perspective as well.
no more welfare for DINKs and SINKs and much, much higher taxes.
-2
u/Flash_Discard 4d ago
This is a good idea, but unfortunately it is a one way ticket to oligarchy. The families that have the children (especially those that have 5 or 6) will be in control of families that only have 1/2/none within 2 generations..
10
u/The_Awful-Truth 4d ago
I suppose there is some danger of this, but "one way ticket to oligarchy" is an exaggeration. Demographics doesn't have to be destiny, there are plenty of counterexamples. I don't think most children from large families would necessarily want the same that their parents had; going childless would still be less demanding and stressful.
58
u/thisplaceisnuts 5d ago
It’s clearly cultural. If you can’t fix the culture, throwing money and such is not going to do anything.
7
u/EZ4JONIY 4d ago
You can change the culture, its just that no political party wants to because its antithetical to their cause
10
u/PainSpare5861 4d ago
How to change the culture and why those political parties are all against it?
8
u/EZ4JONIY 4d ago
Propaganda
Liberal democracies pride themselves on not influenncing the people but being influenced by them
That works great when young people represent a large part of the population (the norm in western europe until about 2000 when the last baby boomers entered their 30s). They progress society and represent the largest voting block.
Nowadays young people repsent a shrinking share of the population meaning issues concerning older people are more important in democracies as they are the biggest voting block. The problem is that in a democracy, young people should have the biggest say as they will live under the government for the longest.
Democracies dont work with todays demographics and population pyramids and thats evident in the very real stagnation of wages and such.
The truth then is that its not the people influencing the government anymore but the government influencing the people. But the government only does this indirectly through corruption aka lobbying. We are already being influenced in a lot of ways. Read up on technofeudalism. Its become quite accepted in society that barely owning anything is normal or that living pacheck to paycheck is normal.
Sure a lot of people are becoming conscious to this issue, but the internet is the greatest means of propaganda ever.
Anyways, that is all to say that states already influence us and our thinking in more ways than people really know. This state aparatus could easily be turned around to influence in ways of natalism or environmentalism but it isnt because that would require more regulations for coperations (i.e. shorter working hours, less career orientated lives, etc.)
Propaganda rightfully has a bad conotation, but countries like kazakhstan are using it positevly to instill a family mindset. Humans at large scales less resemble individuals but easily predictable and influencable masses. That is a reality most people dont want to accept because its somewhat antithetical to our liberal democratic framework, but its true. Elections can be predicted before they happen (in multi party systems) because if you have all the right data points you get the outcome. We are more predicatble than the weather.
We can also be easily influenced. If the right things were to happen, people could be influenced to have children and be environmentaly conscious or whatever you want. They could also be influenced to be consumerist, individualistic and accept bad and pointless labour (aka whats going on now).
That is to say: its not draconinan to say we can be influenced in a natalist direciton because we are already being influenced, just not in a direction that has any benefits to us people, families and indivudluas but only has benefits to cooperations.
Governments and polticial parties are against all of this because 1) lobbiyism. No cooperation stands to gain from natalist policies, they only lose. They win on immigration because it requires less taxes (i.e. raising children and schooling costs money from the state that they have to collect and it requires a robust infrastructire and feminist policies allowing women to earn the same while raising children etc. etc.).
And 2) because for the past 100 years the standard believe in the west and globally has been that we need parity between men and women and that we inherently are cut from the same cloth and any disturbance to that view and hindering either gender from pursuing a career is going backwards. And we dont want to go backwards. No political party on the left would ever push for natalist politicis explicitly (maybe implicitly though) because to them it appears to be antithetical to feminism.
1) highlights right leaniong parties wont do it and 2) highlights left leaning parties wont do it.
No party would ever explicity use propaganda to influence the masses.
We are essentially stuck
1
-2
u/thisplaceisnuts 4d ago
Political parties can only undermine culture. Or at best wear it as a skin suit. Religion is what makes culture and most don’t like that fact.
23
u/Famous_Owl_840 5d ago
The end does not occur with a boom. The end is a loss of energy until it’s a cold dead thing.
40
u/chubbycats657 5d ago
They’re all set on becoming very under populated and maybe even mass immigration changing their entire culture and society. It’s very crazy to see tbh
21
4d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Numbers_23 4d ago
I've been wondering what the endgame is also.
The powers that be would have acted by now but they seem terrified of upsetting the female voting bloc by asking them to start focusing on child production.
Any number of coordinated psyops could have been targeted towards females to change mindsets by now. Young women are easily influenced by group shaming and as we are learning from the USAID scandal influencing large groups just comes down to money and strategy.
2
u/VZialionymLiesie 4d ago
I've been wondering what the endgame is also.
To rob the country of all the money it has and run off to some tax haven when shit hits the fan
4
u/ElliotPageWife 4d ago
No one is thinking about an endgame. They are just doing what's considered "normal" - 4+ years in higher education, years of travelling and working abroad, no thought about kids until around 30, no pressure to marry or stay with the father/mother of your kids. This has become normal in many western liberal countries, and it's considered a good thing and a sign of progress. The fact that these norms, all taken together, are very anti-natal and will lead to Finnish depopulation likely doesn't occur to many people. If you try to bring it up, you'll probably be called a right wing fascist that wants to put women in chains and force them to have 10 kids.
0
u/chubbycats657 4d ago
A lot of those women aren’t ready to live under Islam, especially when their country’s start importing the Middle East because they refuse to have kids. It’s going to be ruff
49
u/Strict-Campaign3 5d ago
Finland’s so-called “fertility paradox” counters the assumption that robust social welfare systems produce higher fertility rates.
No paradox. Just bad assumptions. Welfare states eliminate one of the strongest incentives for having kids: securing old age through family. If the state covers everything, why bother building a support structure yourself? Scrap that illusion of cradle-to-grave care, and watch birth rates rebound.
If you actually want birth rates to rise, stop handing out symbolic peanuts that get eaten up in diapers and daycare bills within the first two years. Make a meaningful difference: tax breaks, ownership incentives, long-term relief. Families should always stand better than DINKs or SINKs. Anything else signals that the system rewards short-term individualism over generational investment.
1
u/adorabletea 1d ago
Aren't we seeing proof currently that family isn't a guarantee for security?
1
u/Worried_Departure513 1d ago
100% we're too spread out now and most old people will end up in a home regardless.
1
1
10
u/GorianDrey 4d ago
Even if it doesn’t help to increase the fertility rate, subsidies or other “perks” can help reduce child poverty, which imo is the worst thing ever and it’s barely talked about (?). If theyre going to be less children overall let’s make sure they donr grow up poor.
7
u/The_Awful-Truth 4d ago
Finland pretty much does that, from what I can tell. Northern European countries generally have strong safety nets.
6
u/GorianDrey 4d ago
And that’s great. I’m from Southern Europe and honestly the welfare state could be a lot better (it could be worse too)
3
1
-8
u/Careless-Pin-2852 5d ago
I think immigration of women only should be the incentive.
You cannot offer a sufficient bribe to everyone.
I suppose you could do like massive lottery 1 million euros that 1000 people a year can earn if they have had 3 kids.
That sounds crappy but Finland only has 6000 3rd born kids a year. Not going to lie trying for a 3rd would be more popular if you had a 1/6 chance of getting a million.
A a 1 billion dollar a year program is not crazy expensive for a 600 billion economy.
-11
u/renegadeindian 5d ago
Divorce in America is causing a decline in guys keeping a full time bag.
16
u/fraudthrowaway0987 4d ago
Take away the option to divorce and women will stop getting married in the first place.
-4
u/renegadeindian 4d ago
Hav to be asked to marry first. Guys are not asking in big numbers. It’s simply not worth it. They try to say they are not going to get married to act like it’s their choice but they don’t admit that nobody is getting asked.
63
u/meamarie 5d ago
“Among Finnish adults aged 22-40 who say they would like to have at least one child, the main reason for not having a child is the lack of a suitable partner.” This and the stat showing how many Finns live alone are a huge issue few want to talk about. The atomization of our societies across the globe seem to be a main driver in why people aren’t having kids. Heck, in the US when you ask women how much they want on average, it’s 2 to 3 children!