Is Japan even doing anything about this? The japanese people are going to disappear if this goes on for long enough. I always assumed the 98% ethnically homogeneous nation would want to prevent such an outcome.
> The fertility rate is high in European countries where family norms are flexible, women feel free to work, pro-child policies are generous and childcare is well organised – in short, in countries that have come to terms with gender equality.
> France is still well below replacement fertility despite all their efforts.
From the article I quoted:
> Since the early 2000s France has consistently topped European rankings. After two decades of decline, in the 1970s-80s, the fertility rate started picking up again in the late 1990s. Since then the country has registered scores just short of the mythical threshold of 2.1 children per woman, which would secure a steady population. Its fertility rate in 2014 was 2.01.
Isn't that rate disproportionately owed to religious immigrants? Seems to me even France mostly relies on a religious drive to have kids, just an imported one. Among the non religious population, the rate is well below replacement and all the extra welfare barely moves the needle.
European countries all have lower birth rates than the US, and poorer people tend to have higher birth rates than richer ones. So it’s not like people are making rational calculations about how much raising kids costs.
It seems like being more religious is more effective at changing minds than any of those policies.
Right, but the point is comparing yourself to a sea of bad is not good. It's still very bad. None of us are actually reproducing above replacement and it's already having massive deleterious effects on our pension plans and when we're allowed to retire with full pension.
That's a conclusion the article came to, but cannot substantiate. for example, Turkey's FR is higher than france despite having stricter family norms, and female workforce participation below average. 'Pro-child' policies are quite a bit up for debate. For example, many religious people would say policies banning public drag performances are pro-child; while perhaps certain secular people would disagree. Without something more to substantiate that condition, it's difficult to understand what's being measured.
"Recovery was fine. Wife up and walking at the end of the first day."
So, exactly like a vaginal birth (speaking from my own experience) ;-)
I don't understand the big fuss - sure it hurts, but it's endurable. And for the child there are benefits to being born vaginally.
Of course, everyone is free to do as they see fit, but I am very happy and proud of my Klingon birth experience :D
How long were you in labour? My niece was in labour for about 35 hours. Coworkers wife was in labour for over 40 hours before resorting to C-section. Most people I know who went natural had a horrible horrible experience. When you hear stories like that, and the complications, etc. natural sounds crazy scary.
For my wife she was scared of natural birth so we elected for C-section and that was far less scary for her and she smashed through it without complaint. But her friend living in France was forced to do natural. If they have a second she’s flying back to Taiwan for the 2nd because the whole experience of natural and the horrible experience of staff at the hospital put her off wanting to do it there again.
In asia, woman are doled on from the moment they enter the hospital. Natural or surgery they stay for 3-5 days in the hospital. Unlike a lot of the west where people are sent home the next day.
Right, and at the rate they are going their population would "disappear" in 500 years or more. I am sure nothing will change between now and then.
These demographic crises arguments are no better than the population bomb arguments of the 1960s. You can project forward and get all kinds of results but over the decades things change.
"Disappear" should not get in quotes. I once wrote a simple simulation of society with low birth rate and was shocked how fast they all went away to zero.
There are probably subgroups of Japanese people with birth rates higher than replacement. There may also be major advantages to having a child in 2100 that are not evident now (vast tracts of unclaimed land to exploit?).
This is like the old saying - statisticians will happily tell you how long your nails will be 40 years from now (with the mild assumption that you won't cut them).
A country of 100M people will change its birth patterns long long long before it "disappears".
The only way populations go to zero is in a Children of Men situation, if the city dwelling populations all choose not to reproduce eventually the country will have a lower population by be more comprised of religious cults with high reproduction rates
They are, actually. Japan is a very good country to raise children in. Basically everything from giving birth, to kindergarden to medical care is completely free for kids.
It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous childrens hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.
Both parents can take up to 1 year of combined childcare leave after a birth (part of that at 60% salary).
There’s “Children’s hall” s scattered across the neighborhoods that are basically a free playroom, toy repository and library for kids up to high school age.
Kindergardens have been sprouting up like trees all over the country. I think the last time I read any stats about it there were like 6000 kids on a waiting list in the entire country. And again, free or mostly free.
Housing is relatively small, but also affordable, even in the 23 wards of Tokyo. If you go outside Tokyo you can find really nice houses for dirt cheap.
At least it’s not for lack of facilities/benefits that Japan isn’t having children.
>> It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous children's hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.
Having lived in US and in a few countries with completely free healthcare, I'd have to correct you that the really weird experience is going to a hospital and getting a 6 figure bill.
A $100k+ bill in the USA would be weird too. Assuming you are insured (86%), most people would get a bill for $3k to $10k (including C section and epidural). Legally, the most it could be is $18k.
> It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous childrens hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.
I would guess that’s only weird if you live in a country with only private medical care.
In a LOT of countries free, at the point of service, medical care is the norm.
I mean, I understand on one level that in lots of places medical professionals would refuse to treat a pregnant woman or a child without a source of funds. On another though it’s seems very alien to me.
I’ve tried to state that in plain, unemotional language but it is a “weird” concept here. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
> I mean, I understand on one level that in lots of places medical professionals would refuse to treat a pregnant woman or a child without a source of funds. On another though it’s seems very alien to me.
You can't be turned away for lifesaving or critical procedures.
If you go to the hospital in labor, or with a gunshot wound, or an infected abscess, etc; they'll treat you (they're legally bound to). You get your bill after services rendered.
At least in California, you can also go to a myriad of clinics for free-cheap preventative services so your toothache doesn't turn into an abscess.
That's interesting. I always thought economics were the number one reason why people don't have more children: it's extremely expensive. Why isn't the birthrate increasing despite all these incentives?
If you want your kids to go to what Japanese people consider good schools (private, extremely hard entrance exam), suddenly things become expensive quite rapidly. Fees for the school, but also tutoring to make them pass the exams in the first place. Then you get to university, and unless you go to a state university, that’s a ton of money again.
This was more to illustrate that it’s not for lack of governmental intervention.
An obvious blocker still existing is that govt don't allow different surnames. Some couples don't marry due to this until pregnancy. Some right wings dislike the idea and they belong to long running ruling party.
Weve been "paying" to take care of our elders in various ways since the beginning of humanity. The only problem is that in our ponzi scheme capitalist culture if someone can't make money they are considered dead weight.
Pretty much every culture ever has considered people who are unable to contribute to the functioning of society to be dead weight (thus why being disabled had been a curse unless you happened to be born into wealth and why female infanticide was so common in much of the world). Being old didn't tend to be as much of an issue in the past as people regularly living past the typical retirement age of ~60 is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Modern societies (especially the so called "ponzi scheme capitalist culture" ones) tend to go far beyond pretty much all past societies to support such people.
Human cannibalism is exceedingly rare (and, if practiced longterm, leads to prion diseases which will decimate the population). A much more common practice is infanticide.
1. a documentary on the last remaining nomadic tribes
2. common sense. Nomadic tribes are nomadic for survival. How are they going to take them along? Carry them on their backs? They have no choice but leave them behind.
Weve been "paying" to take care of our elders in various ways since the beginning of humanity. The only problem is that in our ponzi scheme socialist culture if someone can't make taxable income they are considered dead weight.
That's not all of it. A large amount of people just "fell through" and died in the gutters when they were old, or they lived in some minimum accommodation with minimum food provided by their community, e.g. "poorhouse" ("Armenhaus" - German, a direct translation).
Not even family might protect you: There is a German "Robin Hood" type that really existed whose biography I read. His children refused to let him in when he was old, they did not want to or could not share.
Living with family requires that they had the space, that the family had enough income, that they actually lived together (women especially were married off, if you only had surviving daughters you depended on their husbands).
I wonder if we understand our low birth rates. What if a significant factor is, that after WW2, we all insist both parents work outside fulltime jobs? I feel humanity is like the guy teaching his horse not to eat.
Most concerns about poverty on the internet have little to do with history or concern themselves with becoming well informed about economics beforehand.
I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing.
Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most (for lack of alternatives provided by higher education). They also abort pregnancies a lot, though.
> I feel like it's rather: if given fulfilling alternatives to reproduction, people will choose them over reproducing.
Strong disagree. People are quite hard wired to have kids.
> Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most
Poor people also very not much in control of their lives, practically no health care and poor access to affordable birth control. Partnering up quick gives poor young women at least a dual income household.
We're definitely hard wired to have sex, which used to be the same thing, but now there's birth control. Maybe evolution needs a little more time to dial up our cultural or genetic aversion to birth control...
What is that certain age? I feel there is mostly some kind of social pressure and fear of missing something important in life.
If people could safely get kids at any point in life without any influence from age I'm pretty convinced most would do it much much. Right now from my experience maybe do it because they feel "it's now or never" and "never" is scary because you could be missing out on something great.
If I was genetically engineering people to have kids, I'd make them want to have kids directly. It's a trait that seems to exist already, and dialing it up should be easier than creating something new. I suspect that it will happen by natural selection in a few generations.
Yeah. Prior to birth control, evolution functioned by strengthening the desire to have sex. Since birth control, the trait being selected for is desire to reproduce, not desire for sex. And I suspect that evolutionary change will happen incredibly quickly; birth control is breeding the desire to procreate into our species (as opposed to the desire for intercourse).
Clearly not that hard wired - the birth rate in most Western countries is significantly below replacement. People are obviously deciding not to have kids.
Many of the people I know who don’t have kids look sad and seem to be in a meaning crisis. I used to be one of them until I realized I don’t have to make life perfect for my kids, and my failing parents gave me a difficult life that I’m still happy to have, after all. The decision not to have kids is a bit like the decision not to eat because food is too expensive.
We’re failing as a society if not having kids is the best option for most young adults.
Having children as the basis of meaning for your life seems to be "turtles all the way down". Having your kids is meaningful because their lives will have meaning? But what's the meaning of their lives? Having grandkids?
The meaning of my kids’ lives is theirs to find. And the meaning I’m talking about is simply something I see. Like I noticed some issues around the lack of meaning I used to have had more or less disappeared. Nothing too logical.
The predominant issue (at least in the US) is that parents have fewer kids. The number of women who have had at least one kid hasn't dropped that much in 45 years.[1]
In 1976, 90% of women between 40-44 have ever given birth. In 2016, it's 86% (up since a low of 80% in 2006).
Actually, the top dogs in a society also have a lot of kids. It's the middle and upper middle classes where the birth rates are killed - in the sweet spot where you have enough money to live comfortably childless but not enough money to outsource the extra labor for kids to others.
I think it was our own paulg that made observation how many kids the rich families in the UK countryside have. And those marriages are generally speaking stable.
>I hadn't noticed this trend in Silicon Valley (where people put off having kids for the sake of their careers), but it's very visible in England, especially in the country. Lots of Range Rovers containing four blond children.
This is something I've observed - the only people I've known with 3 or more kids are either beneficiaries of significant inherited wealth, or living in government housing with very low family income.
I can see why. The cost of having kids is so incredibly high - both in direct terms (cost of childcare, stuff, food) and indirect (need a bigger house to maintain the same level of comfort, need to step back from your career for a few years). For someone on a very low income, the additional government support per child is meaningful. But for mid-high earners, the additional costs of that kid come directly out of your lifestyle.
The battle between capitalism and communism and socialism led us to this point to flip the order of the entire world towards production either motivated by greed or by materialistic philosophy.
This repurposed human beings towards factory like production machines. Now we have a world with social and capitalistic services for those who are unmarried and in their prime times. That is what we sell on billboards and on tv. Old people with family life and a minivan is not the life we talk about anymore.
Probably will get slammed for this but the traditional idea of one spouse working to provide money to live and the other maintaining the home and bears primary responsibility for the kids seems like the most efficient and effective family foundation. I’ve never understood the idea that both parents should be able to work full time AND raise a family. They’re fundamentally at odds with each other.
I agree with your first sentence, but starting with "Probably will get slammed for this" always hamstrings the rest of the post. It sounds superior, like you're painting yourself as the underdog fighting for truth.
In fact, you might be surprised by how many people agree with your first sentence, taken literally. One thing I think is generally misunderstood about this is that the result of the revolution wasn't, "all women should work" (this is usually an uncharitable characterisation made in anger), it was "women should be allowed to work without being shamed". However, there was of course no mirror movement, where men wanted to leave the working world. So, over decades, this naturally caused the market to shift, making life financially harder and harder for those families with only one worker. That's what caused women to have to work. It wasn't an idea.
The article compares data from 1990 and 2020, yet doesn’t mention covid as a confounding variable (while talking a lot about housing).
I think the more telling numbers will be over the next few years. Will there be a post-covid bump and then normalize back to pre-covid levels? Will things just stay the same with incredibly low covid-level birth rates?
Only time will tell, but this article is sloppy. The economist can do better.
> In some places (i.e. the U.S. iirc), COVID actually caused a mild baby boom rather than suppressing childbirths.
Sure. But the response to covid in the US and the response to covid in the Asian countries mentioned was quite different both in an administrative way as well as a cultural way.
My unsolicited and uninformed opinion: Marriage is becoming a status symbol and I personally believe low birth rates are being driven by men more so than women. If you’re a medium to high earning male in NYC, there are so many women to choose from that are pining for commitment (I believe biology plays a factor here). Most of my well to do friends are uninterested in marriage and are just churning through girls.
I am happily married - largely driven by personal values religiously influenced moral principle. For most my friends, the question they pose is what is the benefit of marriage? You tie yourself down to monogamy, give up your personal life and risk losing half of it plus a life of child support and alimony in a divorce.
I don’t have an answer but I think the root cause may be different than increasing access to child care (which certainly helps) on the margin.
Edit for another random anecdote: almost all my Jewish friends in their mid 30s who are well to do are married. Can’t think of one that isn’t. I believe there are cultural correlations that can be drawn.
I’m talking about physical attractiveness. It’s largely up to genetics. You can help a little by going to the gym or dressing nice but it’s not gonna turn a 3 into a 7.
You’re hopeless with this mindset. I wish you the best in one day finding peace & perhaps the realization, that in the grand scheme of things, your opinion on this matter is ‘wrong’ in our modern society.
I don’t have the slightest clue what you look like, but if you have an able body, I promise you I’d trade however you look for the functionality of your body. Seriously, I miss being able to participate in real life so much. I’d gladly become whatever you think a “2” is for a working body.
Sometimes things don’t work out for you. I make a good tech income, literally own my home, I exercise and I’m probably fitter than most people, I have plenty of friends. At best I’ve been on 2-3 dates with the same woman. None have really shown interest in me. I’m not under any illusion, it’s me.
I’m lucky I live in a country where sex work is legal. Otherwise I might still feel suicidal.
I don’t think internet advice or trying to show people how they aren’t that bad of is helpful or even appropriate for HN. Just say “I’m sorry it hasn’t worked out for you”.
Hmm, are there countries with legal sex work and good tech incomes? “Good” meaning SV good.
Anyway, does your target market want a guy with a house and job? That’s what first gen immigrants want. (Or what second-gen’s parents want, which matters too.) The local middle class want that to be assumed and you actually appear to spend all your time on volunteering and hobbies.
There's some genetic component, but you can control how clean you are, how fat you are, and what you are wearing.
Do that and practice talking to women, and then you're attractive.
Some of the guys I know who get the most women are not particularly handsome at all, they just do a lot of talking to women and thus are good at leading the conversion to where it needs to go.
I'm sure you are aware of a subculture of men who go out in town to meet women. All they're doing is practicing a lot.
I’m not attractive either, swear to god, & HN is the last place on the internet I’d be spending the very small & precious amount of energy I have in my days anymore to humblebrag, if I were going to.
I’m also like, 5’6”, but with my posture, probably look 5’5”.
I think if you were perhaps 5’2” as a male, I may slightly sympathize with you & the stigma surrounding male height, but I’ve still met more than a few dudes that short who do just fine.
When you say you’re not attractive that really does nothing for anybody trying to give you advice. Do you have a hideously deformed face from a birth defect or accident? Okay, if so, that’s understandable.
Are you morbidly obese? Okay, if so, that’s understandable - & highly likely to be a personal choice of yours that can be changed within a year.
Otherwise, seriously, I just don’t get it.
If you have a stereotypically ugly face, it really doesn’t matter if you otherwise have decent posture, the other stuff I listed, & some form of job. As cringey as it sounds, it’s otherwise just your mindset. & yeah, I’ve met plenty of people who don’t want to accept or acknowledge this is the reason, or even slightly want to change it. If you don’t want to help yourself, nobody in this world can help you.
& fwiw & the last I’ll comment on it - the thing that gets the most people approaching me, the very last hobby of mine my body barely lets me do, is a style of skateboarding. So if you’re down so bad, maybe try that.
Before that, it was practically… every hobby. This is why I truly genuinely state one interesting hobby. Doing hobby level work in a machine shop/maker space & after hours math meetups in college were probably the other two biggest attractors in my past life. Even hiking works, man. & you don’t even have to like it in the slightest… just pretend you do.
@astrange - thanks for your comment, I saw as I was writing this out & it really hits home more than anything I can further ramble about. I do not know what goes through the minds of those who do not understand this very simple thing.
Only very young women (teens and early twenties) care about the attractiveness of your face. After 23-25 I can confidently say it is the last thing they look at.
Women of all ages look at height, though. So, if you are over 6', you can consider yourself extremely lucky, people are literally breaking their bone legs with a surgery to grow a few inches.
About being lanky. I was also very skinny my whole life, I could eat anything including unhealthy fast food, sodas, etc and never gain weight. I thought that my "metabolism was too fast", that it was genetic, and that I could not change it.
Until this year where I actually wanted a change and went from 130 to 160 lbs (58kg to 72kg). I'm 5'10 (177 cm). And for the first time of my life, I can wear something that actually fits and looks good on me.
> unfortunately have the look/bare bones facial structure of what a stereotypical neo-nazi looks like
This is why you pull girls. Women are not interested in average men at all. They either want the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire.
You’re making the presumption of an actual Aryan Nazi from Germany.
I specifically said Neo-Nazi, which entails having the facial structure of a loser who thinks they’re “muhh master race” - I’m essentially a genetic mutt from the MidWest. I don’t have nice heroin chic cheek bones or a chiseled jaw line or anything. But discussing this is dumb & fruitless, I probably shouldn’t even be replying.
Actually - I’ll give one last piece of advice
>> They either want the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire.
Do not, under any circumstances, align yourself with any woman/human who you’ve learned has a personality like this. It’s that simple. That’s a disgusting personality. Most women are not like this & I’ve typically immediately ghosted the few I’ve ended up meeting that are.
It sounds like you want a girl who’s into that & just want to fantasize that you’re the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire - but you aren’t, & never will be. Not sure why anybody would want to live with a mindset like that.
> I’m a destitute & mostly disabled cripple that hasn’t been able to work in three years, has had no stable income for much longer, & unfortunately have the look/bare bones facial structure of what a stereotypical neo-nazi looks like (imo), yet I still have conventionally attractive women (and… men/others…) approach me, & have very little issue in finding romance/partners if I go out of my way to approach somebody.
I think you might be underestimating yourself slightly.
I'm something of an incel; not so much about sex, but incapable of emotionally bonding to people in general. And at least it seems most people are able to pick up rather quickly on the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with me, and understandably distance themselves.
A destitute cripple can still function as a person that other people can enjoy; an ability to empathize, or an enjoyment of company of others is something I think most people have, including you. Some capability of being able to understand, connect, and respond to others.
So please don't put yourself down too much if you have at least that much ability. It seems as if you're still just a normal decent person at the end of the day.
> If you’re a medium to high earning male in NYC, there are so many women to choose from that are pining for commitment (I believe biology plays a factor here).
Marriage isn't biological, it's a social construct. Birth control and abortion are also not natural in that sense but human-made.
Human evolution is biology btw, but evolution doesn't necessarily mean that humans have to reproduce like rabbits until everyone starves to death from overpopulation. There is a reason that the birth rate is generally lower the wealthier and better educated a population is.
I disagree. We live in the most materially abundant country in the most materially abundant time.
It is not a material problem. It is cultural. Society is feeling like a less good joyful place for children. "It takes a village to raise a child". There have never been fewer villages.
Live small with less material and less consumption. Less services too. And you will do just fine. But no. That is not what you have been taught to do. That is not the sacrifice you have been told to make.
I have known that when I start, it will be the smallest of homes with the cheapest of foods and reduced living which means no internet, no cell phone service, no tv. For the simplest of things, I would go to the library or the nearest cafe or use some known Wi-Fi point. And I am ok with starting life like that. How many other people are ok with that?
I am not okay with that because internet and computers are very cheap. A single rental payment is enough to pay for almost two years of 100mbit internet. Three rental payments are enough to pay for a reasonably high end PC which lasts 6 years (no I don't mean a PC with a thousand dollar graphics card).
And we are still talking about a cheap 500€ per month apartment with only one bedroom here. In practice you would pay more. Products made in Asia are a drop in the bucket compared to rent in even the cheapest parts of Germany.
I don't think 500€ is an excessively high rental price, I just disagree that anyone would have to do without these products.
I'm not sure how you can say something like this in good faith
Sure, in raw numbers, maybe that's true
Compared to previous decades where you could get on the housing ladder reasonably easily and support a family with only one full time income, not so much
In the 1800s they had 6-8 people living in a single room in NYC, with no windows and no plumbing.[1]
My grandma (still alive today) grew up in the US without plumbing. She had to use an outhouse.
There's an inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. Wealthy countries are less fertile than poor countries. Within wealthy countries the wealthier people are less fertile than the poorer people.[2]
You can easily get 1950s quality housing and support a family to 1950s quality of life on today's single income. Our parents and grandparents quite simply expected much less from life than we do today.
It is really quite blatantly clear: as societies get wealthier, the fertility falls instead of rising.
You can easily get thrown out of the workforce due to offshoring, AI automation or ageism. Our grandparents didn't need to deal with all that they had strong unions and kept the same job till retirement.
I'd take the 50s if this is the future the elites are planning for us.
Some things got better and some things got worse, we can all find interesting anecdotes. You're saying the average American's story is more closely resembling Larry Page's than the one I described? I'm really not so sure that's true.
Your understanding of the past is very mistaken. Our grandparents had to deal with the same issues.
I live Washington, and frequently travel around the rural areas here. The state is littered with coal mining towns abandoned a century ago, with lumber mills closed before WWII, with towns like Index, WA, which was established in late 19th century, and had its population and industry peak in 1920s-1930s.
Our history is history of dynamism and change, and while some fraction of Americans lived and retired working for the same big factory in Detroit, this has by no means been an universal experience of our ancestors. In fact, if you look at the data, people today move for work less than our ancestors had. Our past was indeed glorious, but it was not a past of wealth and stability.
> In fact, if you look at the data, people today move for work less than our ancestors had. Our past was indeed glorious, but it was not a past of wealth and stability.
Indeed it depends how far you go back. I mostly talk about the baby boomer generation (who are "our" parents in many cases as many people here are 25-50 years old). In general they experienced more financial and occupational stability than us since they had much stronger unions and globalization was only starting.
There was a brief period in American history where workers were quite well off, but it had more to do with the rest of the industrialized world being bombed to pieces than with unions.
When boomers started entering job market en masse in 1970s, they entered the economy of prolonged stagnation and high inflation, saw rationing of fuel, and by no means enjoyed significant stability. When they were buying houses, the nominal price was low, but mortgage rates were 8% at best times, 16% at the worst, making the mortgage payments scarcely more affordable than they are today. When they were entering job markets, the unions were already declining for two decades, and only something like a quarter of people were in a union in 1970.
Really, the boomers only made a killing in last decade or two, resulting from the low interest rates pumping values of assets. They certainly did not have it easy or stable in their youths, when they were forming families. I think your understanding of economic history needs more research.
Our economic position is just as bad and probably worse than the 70s - on top of inflation we have the biggest debt since WW2, much worse demography, weaker unions and AI is just beginning to wreck havoc. Really not great to be middle class now in my eyes.
I do agree though, these comparisons to the past need to be done carefully, there is a lot of nuance.
> You can easily get 1950s quality housing and support a family to 1950s quality of life on today's single income. Our parents and grandparents quite simply expected much less from life than we do today
I'm curious what you think makes a 1950s quality of life? I agree that people expect more material things today, but many of those things e.g. computers are de facto requirements to be a member of society. It seems to me that it is significantly more expensive to afford a good meal or a decent sized apartment.
Qualitatively, I know a large number of people who grew up in the 50s and their experiences of the time are different qualitatively. None of them ever struggled to meet their housing needs as long as they were able-bodied, and then generally only needed 20-40 hours of work (this include lower end work: construction, landscaping, retail).
While I don't have the stats handy* materially we know that during the mid 1900s the bottom 50% of americans owned a higher percentage of private property than in any time in history. Since then, we have reverted to a much more unequal distribution. It's hard to imagine this does not impact the current feeling of people feeling they can barely afford a place to live.
*if you have access to a copy of Capital and Ideology I believe you can find references in chapters 9 and 10
The issue is, your kids will need / expect as much as other kids.
So you might be happy with having little, but it's not going to be easy to send your kids to school and tell them they shouldn't have an iPad or an international holiday so mummy doesn't have to work.
It's even harder to teach them that what one knows, what one does and what one gives, is more important than what one consumes and what one has. But I think it will be worth it.
Materially abundant nowadays means cheap felectronics, clothes and low cost flights. However, supporting family was much easier in the 50s because housing was so much cheaper and much better job security with less education. It’s insane what boomers could afford by their 30s.
People in ye olden days didn't get married because they "felt good and joyful" about raising children, they did it because it was the only way to have sex and the only way to have children, which was not just for fun, but because you needed helping hands on the farm and somebody to take care of you in old age.
It’s funny everyone is oblivious to this, or wants to be. In almost all religions and cultures, universally, having sex outside of marriage is outlawed. In order to have sex, you must get married.
>> When looking into the Maya world of Yucatán, we find that during the 18th century and beginnings of the 19th century, it was the custom for males to marry at age 17 or 18, and females at age 14 or 15.
>> The parents preferred, for their sons, girls from the same social class and town. As well, it was considered petty if the male looked for a companion for himself or his children, rather than obtaining the servces of a professional matchmaker (ah atanzah).
>> Once the matchmaker was selected, the ceremony and the amount of the dowry were discussed. This usually consisted of dresses and other items of little value, which were paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride as a marriage pledge; for her part, the groom’s mother prepared the clothing for her son and for her future daughter-in-law.
What drives you to have children, as a human male, is the desire for sex. Once you remove that, many will pick to not have kids anymore.
So your theory is that extra-marital sex is a modern invention?
I would say your example of the Maya shows more that many old societies had extremely powerful marriage pressure put on what we would consider children or at best adolsecents, who would have been far less able to resist such pressures than today.
I don't see any agency about sex in the citation you give.
Material is cheap, I can get a new TV or a set of tools for a fraction of the price they cost in the past. But actual necessities (education, shelter, healthcare) are incredibly expensive.
I’d be happy to trade my cheap plastic crap from Walmart for a $45000 house and a $1200/y tuition
It is VERY difficult to find marriable woman who would be a good mother. Most NYC women who are "pining for commitment" really do not fit into that category.
> You tie yourself down to monogamy, give up your personal life...
This is a ridiculously one side POV. I don't see marriage as giving up personal life. I see it as starting a personal live. There are so many things in my life I wanted to do "with someone" and by someone I mean someone I was in love with and who was in love with me. I see couples traveling the world, working abroad, supporting each other, having twice as many friends since both side bring in people, having twice as many activities to choose from ("should we go to party A or party B?") etc...
On top of that playing with kids is awesome fun.
Maybe your experience has been having a partner who's not a fit for you and so you wanted out?
You can be a long-term committed couple without being married on paper. You can do all the things you mention.
What's more, you can also have kids without being married on paper!
So I do understand people who don't see the point of getting the government involved and making it a thing that's very complicated to end if it doesn't work out.
> This is a ridiculously one side POV. I don't see marriage as giving up personal life. I see it as starting a personal live.
There is some truth to this though. It's just you personally don't see it that way.
A number of my single friends, 35+, love their life - exactly the way it is. They want a relationship but not bad enough to give up specific aspects that are called 'freedoms'. One of them being able to hook up and many others.
I'm married with children and wouldn't want it any other way, but that's me.
My personal take, yes please do not get married if you don't want to.
> For most my friends, the question they pose is what is the benefit of marriage? You tie yourself down to monogamy, give up your personal life and risk losing half of it plus a life of child support and alimony in a divorce.
I lived in New York for many years and can confirm your experience. However, what interests me more is where all these ideas and decisions are coming from. Is it because it's trendy (Joe is not coming to the party tonight.. he is now, you know, married), which down the line means fear of losing status, or because people are free to choose what they want. I lean towards thinking it's the former (edit: I would rather say it's not the later). When the world is driven by TikTok and Instagram, I believe many people are measuring themselves up to the other people's standards rather than defining their own.
"Marriage - and any other contract - is a deliberate effort to constrain your future actions so that you can make long-term plans that heavily affect other people - your spouse, but also your future children - without them having to constantly worry about you running off to any Siren you hear." [0]
No-fault divorce basically destroyed that institution for the working classes, with divorce rates sky-rocketing in a decade.
Children living with both biological parents:
Affluent families in 1960: 95%
Working class families in 1960: 95%
Affluent families in 2005: 85%
Working class families in 2005: 30%
[1]
> Most of my well to do friends are uninterested in marriage and are just churning through girls.
This is cruel and sad, but I'm not sure falling marriage rates are even the fundamental factor in the overall decline. The problem goes deeper.
> For most my friends, the question they pose is what is the benefit of marriage? You tie yourself down to monogamy, give up your personal life and risk losing half of it plus a life of child support and alimony in a divorce.
I’ll bite: If you do it right, you get to spend every night with the person you love the most in the world.
I’ve been with my wife for 20 years and we still stay up too late at least once a week because we don’t want to stop our conversation. It is the richest, most fulfilling relationship I can imagine.
Beyond companionship, she is the ultimate ally. If I tell her I need her help, she is there for me 100%.
No matter my ups or downs, successes or failures, I have someone I can trust for advice and lean on whenever I need it.
Of course, this reliance goes both ways, but I feel great when I can help her back. My identity has stretched to include being part of this amazing team.
Obviously, there’s a trade off, but for me it was minor. Dating always felt like the worst kind of interviewing to me. I’ll happily take 20 years of shared memories over a rotating cast of fresh faces.
> I’ve been with my wife for 20 years and we still stay up too late at least once a week because we don’t want to stop our conversation. It is the richest, most fulfilling relationship I can imagine.
> Beyond companionship, she is the ultimate ally. If I tell her I need her help, she is there for me 100%.
Congratulations and may it never change for you. I do however have to say that that is not the case for most marriages/ long term monogamous relationships.
If you could somehow set aside social pressure, shared financial burdens, guilt over messing up the kids etc. I think most existing marriages would break down. Few people actually share deep love, friendship and real, freely accepted commitment.
> I personally believe low birth rates are being driven by men more so than women
Tinder says otherwise. Seems like women are rejecting droves of men who aren't in the top 10%-20% of good looks or height (this comes from Tinder's own data as far as I know).
Another problem is there are now more female college graduates than men (in the U.S), and they prefer someone educated.
People that are actually successful using Tinder are definitely NOT looking for marriage/kids. It's a hook-up app.
You are right in your observation that women reject droves of men who aren't in the top 20%, not only in Tinder but in real life too. But OP is also right in his observation. The few males that are at the top have so many choices of women that staying with just one doesn't make too much rational sense.
In the end, we have 80% of males not being able to catch the interest of women, and the remainder 20% that do get female attention are not interested in long term relationships.
My conclusion: Low birth rates are being driven by the 20% of men as a result of the sexual preferences of 95% of women.
Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours talking to a friend of mine who's been in the dating world for several years now. He consistently tells me that he's out there looking for something serious, but in the interim it's become a science experiment and a way to get laid. My takeaway from this conversation is that dating is slowly turning in the least natural interaction between two people. It is constrained by a myriad of childish expectations and focuses almost entirely on personal attraction and not character or any other qualities. It's like a minefield and the more you walk on it the better you get at figuring out the expectations and getting laid, not by any means finding a partner. The saddest thing is that he's one of my many male friends who are perpetually single. Now, I'm a happily married male in my mid-30s and after having that discussion I really have no hope for millennials. We're up for some interesting times in several decades when the lonely, aging millennials will be needing care and there ain't anybody around to provide it.
What if we tend to have less children as we get crowded together, and this is a compensation for over population. Japan has like 10x the population it probably averaged for the last two millennium. Maybe its population could half at that would be OK.
I know, I know. Less growth, less innovations and all the things the economists say. But the innovation per capita would be the same. And probably purchasing power parity would be better.
More population sure raises the value of land, making housing more expensive which sucks for raising a family.
IMO urbanisation and modern tech are a big factor here. If you lived off land in a manner requiring heavy manual labour, then children could really help and provided continuity. Lack of old people’s care was a big encouragement too, and really different generations living together helped with childcare.
> More population sure raises the value of land, making housing more expensive which sucks for raising a family.
Actually this is not so much a problem for the amount of population but of excessive centralization around big cities. The earth, even if we only consider the places with reasonable climate, water and food supply and decent enough orography is pretty much empty.
Everyone agrees that as big cities grow the housing prices increase, but I don't see this happening in small towns far from big cities. Every country is different and obviously there are very good reasons to have some regions not very populated (I'm not saying Lapland should have the same population density as the coast of the Mediterraneum) but in plenty of cases places are unnecessarly crowded.
Spain is a good example of this, Madrid in particular is a city far too expensive for the salaries due to the excessive amount of population. The weather or the land aren't particularly good, it's not that it has massive water supply or anything like that, it's just that there have been centuries of centralization efforts by governments.
Does anyone have an intelligent strategy for investing in a world with low birth rates and an aging population? It's happening everywhere including the USA. I don't think stocks etc. will work in a world without constantly growing GDP.
If we look to Japan as the model and forerunner for what is happening to the rest of the world, what investments worked there the past few decades if any?
Aren't stocks supposed to yield dividends or are people only buying it to speculate on the resale value? If it is the latter, then stocks seem to merely be a volatile gold equivalent: valuable, but not because of having much inherent value.
Stocks paying dividends or stocks increasing in value is functionally the same thing, but taxed differently. Companies for example sometimes have stock buybacks to increase the value. They could also use the money for dividends, but for tax reasons they don't.
Stocks paying dividends is not the same thing as stocks increasing in value. Stocks increasing in value means that the expected income from holding the shock went up. Stock buybacks accomplish that by decreasing the number of shares (with the assumption that the amount paid in dividends stays the same, so the divididends/share goes up.)
The comments above are right that investing makes much less sense in a world without economic growth. Even if companies continue to pay dividends, the US stock market has had 7% real annual growth over the past hundred years and that drives a huge amount of investment.
We will have lots of robots soon. AI is getting exponentially better. I expect GDP to go to levels we have never seen before. I'm not sure how long "AI summer" will last before "AI winter"[1] hits but I think there will be many decades of incredible increases in wealth for the average person globally.
Hmmm I have my doubts about that, sounds like Cathie Wood talk. How will AI increase GDP? Seems like it could reduce GDP just as easily by putting all the writers, artists, coders, out of a job. This estimate is much more modest for AI increases by 2030.
It is pretty simple, really. The size of the economy, GDP and other metrics don't really matter. The real measure is how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service. If that goes to zero, we will be in good shape even if GDP is high or low. Nice to see that the "this-cant-go-on" author knows how to calculate 1.02^N and shocked themselves when typing a somewhat large N into the calculator. The thing they forgot is the size of the economy doesn't mean anything on its own. It isn't a physical thing that will take up all of the space in the universe eventually as the author seems to fear.
This sounds a bit to Keynes in 1930 predicting we will work 15 hours a week in the future.
I don't know what is going to happen, but less young people and an ever-increasing age in the general population requiring services doesn't sound so good of a combination. Even if your metric "how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service" goes down.
I am confused how a person is getting wealthier in this world of yours if either a) there are not enough people to fill jobs due to a decline in population or b) robots do begin to replace high value jobs?
Also, with your 0 coefficient you are assuming infinite wealth? That seems...unreasonable.
Ultimately the author makes a good case if the assumption is that we never make it off Earth. Growth could probably be sustained at an exponential pace if we become interplanetary but it certainly won't happen overnight.
"Wealth" is a measure of how many hours of effort need to be traded for a product or a service. The problem is, we've had jobs and money for so long that something seems fundamental about it. I assure you, there is nothing fundamental about these things: if a Ferrari can be 3D printed in the backyard with stuff lying around on the ground then everyone can have one (OK - you can't call it a Ferrari due to trademark issues - everyone can have a "RRRRari").
If we do ever reach "AI/robo summer" I certainly hope we appreciate it. If we don't, we deserve AI winter.
The only way we've been able to keep people from having cheap products is via regulation. Will governments really regulate that poor people are not allowed to have robots? Maybe, but that is closer to my "AI winter" scenario. My "AI summer" thesis is based on products approaching the cost of raw materials with services approaching the price of electricity.
What magical robots are these haha? I love my Roomba but he still gets stuck pretty much every time he sweeps and that is the most simple robot imaginable.
Health care, pharmacies, old people's homes, pet food and health... You get the idea. Invest in things that will benefit from the fact that the population will get more and more older as time goes by, and everybody will have less babies and more pets. On the long run it is as sure fire a strategy as one can hope for in the world of the future.
> Does anyone have an intelligent strategy for investing in a world with low birth rates and an aging population?
If you read the latest Charles Goodhart's book ageing population would bring period of permanent high inflation. And during high inflation periods trend following (macro) strategies work well [I don't have a link to the paper at the moment]... So this should be rather simple...
Japan seems to be an exception to the rule, there are probably other factors that resulted in deflation during falling population era [I am fan of Richard C. Koo here - 2].
However it is not established yet - there is active discussion going on the topic - falling populations vs inflation/deflation. It is quite interesting actually.
Try Dimitri Kofinas's discussion with Charles Goodhart in this podcast [3] if you can spare an hour...
>If you read the latest Charles Goodhart's book ageing population would bring period of permanent high inflation.
That is illogical. Aging populations save more because the money needs to last throughout retirement and these old people's bodies are no longer in a state where they can enjoy spending their money. Old people also have already fulfilled most of their wishes and have gotten used to their specific standard of living.
A young society of under 20 year olds is more likely to cause inflation because every child is a pure consumer that does not produce what they consume for the first 18 years of their life. So the demand for labor is relatively high.
> birth control became commonplace and socially acceptable
Birth control is not a standard practice everywhere. (And its history is ancient, with "social acceptability" involving some cultures and times - as opposed to being some "general state of things".)
The fertility rate in Niger is over 6.5 children per women; that of South Korea is near 1; the rounded quintiles are 1.5 .. 4.0 .
This might be a long shot argument but I think a big issue with what is now making societies bad for having large families is individualism.
People are so different and have a hard time agreeing on things they find it hard to get married. Then those who do find it hard to stay married. Those who marry and have kids have a hard time finding families to be friends with. The world is changing at such a rapid pace, If you have no shared values you will just have too large a range to find points of commonality.
Also in large cities the the density is a problem. Abundance of choice creates paralysis. Choice of partners and lifestyle. Creates more ways to cheat on your spouse without being caught. Life in general is more complex. I believe that there is a lag between rural people moving to cities and low birthrates. They may have more kids due to their families being large but their kids will most likely have less kids. Also large cities seem lonely because you become a replaceable part of it.
Sure I making child care more accessible is great and should be done but I don't think that's the one thing holding people back.
Almost all problems in American cities are caused by lack of density, which causes overcrowding. If you have to drive everywhere or you have roommates dating isn’t as fun.
If anything, the correlation between low birth rates and Individalism (at least the way academics use it) goes the other way. Asian countries have some of the lowest birth rates of the developed world and are culturally the least individualistic. The United States is the most individualistic country in the world, and maintains one of the highest birthrate in the developing world.
Asian culture overall is very much in the opposite of individualistic and not only that but they do share "values", just that those values just like their societies expectations, traditions and norms very outdated and not design with necessarily good intentions in mind.
It's not that people in Asia don't want to get family and all that, it just simply coming down to:
1. The economy has not been adjusted with families in mind (we in the west have barely started).
2. Said traditional 'values' and norms were encouraged at a time when democracy nor universal human rights was a thing, which in the past did cost the country some social cohesion but it endured state stability, today however it just puts obstacles for people to try something new and different.
3. Because of 2 people find easier alternatives to family:
Want a patrner with no consequences?
Simply order a partner as a service.
Want to be sexually fulfilled?
Online porn or sex worker.
This is typical way of looking at social observations without knowing the social context in the first place. For these countries the most dominant reason is very simple: you need to go to big cities to get a job a and you need to have a home to get married and have a child, but the home pricing are so expensive most people can not afford it at least not until very late in their life.
Thinking “hard to agree on the value” is the most laughable reason that I ever heard and just how out of touch that some IT dudes can be. No offense but this is just how far you are from the reality.
Raising children in advanced economies for what we call well off life is really hard. Advanced economy capitalism is enforcing 1 child or none per family much better than China ever did.
First developed country to enact anti anti-natalist policies (restricting birth control, strengthening marriage etc) to win; or you could just drive off the fertility cliff like lemmings with females all working or in edu until 45+.
While the parent commenter is obviously bigoted and being absurd, Vatican City is not a good example, as all citizens must be members of the church, and the majority of those have to take vows of celibacy.
Competitive working life, expensive housing, poor quality childcare, long distance from my and spouse’s parents and the climate change are the main reasons why I seriously consider whether to have another child.
Out of these housing, childcare and distance from parents could be solved simply by companies offering full remote work as an option. Even better if also educational institutions followed. Forcing people to move into cities for work sucks.
People like to criticize it every time someone says it, but anyway here it goes: Idiocracy is a documentary. When the pill was invented, people all of a sudden discovered an easy, "100% effective", way of avoiding having an "unexpected" baby. Guess what: for most of human history, most of the babies were "unexpected". People can try to deny it, but having a kid is a HARD JOB, expensive and, for many people, just not worth it. From a thermodynamic point of view, we are beings that exist in a universe where you are rewarded for expending the least ammount of energy you can. So, we're basically LAZY, on average. Nature "knows" this, so it put sexual pleasure encoded in our genes in order to make us reproduce, even if in every other area of our life, we are rewarded for choosing the easiest alternative. So, "unexpected" babies it was for 99.999999999999999% of human history. Now, everyone who has an IQ of 100 or more is able to avoid those unexpected pregnancies, and so they are doing it. And it leads to the UNAVOIDABLE conclusion that as time passes, the average IQ of the people that keep having babies will be lowered. Natural selection is a law of physics in this universe. Over time, birth rates will start to go up again, be it in 100 years or more, but it will. Since the people of the future will be the descendants of the people that, even today, with easy and effective contraception, choose to still have kids (or simply had no idea how to no to). But I'm pretty sure we're not headed to the Star Trek future, it's Idiocracy from now on. I really don't care. I'm lazy and probably will end my lineage at this point in time anyway.
Lazy and a pricker disturbing our rightful laziness, given the amount of cleanup your position elicits.
You have no idea of "drives", or you would know how some will make having children paramount; you seem to have no idea of the economic choices involved, which made people marry, have children etc.; you also seem oblivious of the positional (ethical) stances, the convinctions inserted in a world view, that have people take such decisions.
> 100% effective
Not even the procedure of sterilization nullifies the chance of pregnancy. This instance of imprecision looks like a recurrent pattern. You said it that you are lazy, but here you are relating.
Not sure why this is being downvoted as it is a spot-on comment. Aren't we starting to live in the idiocrasy already? Young people don't want to study or work hard anymore, it's all about being an influencer, a crypto investor, an only fans model, etc.
Great, this is how it should be. The real problem is trying to artificially induce population growth in highly developed and consuming countries, rather than allowing them to naturally peak and reach a sustainable level.
It's fitting that this article is from "economist.com" because mostly, the only people who care so much about this are "economists".
Find me an environmentalist who is worried about there being less people because frankly, I doubt they exist.
Yes, having less people in a relatively short amount of time won't be without issue, but I do feel like the people who seemed most worried about low birth rates are politicians and economists.
We need to keep the consumers coming right?
I'm optimistic because while there is obviously going to be issues with there being less people on earth, it feels like the planet could do with a rest.
There are a lot of people who don't particularly worry about economic growth, but do worry that the ponzi schemes that are called social security and pensions in most countries will collapse.
How though? What is required for elderly care to work? In my mind its a problem of free housing, and having a cyclic workforce of part-time volunteers (e.g. like military service). That or robots.
People don't work for free, regardless of government. Somebody has to pay for the people constructing and maintaining the housing and providing the care.
The issue is old people vote. If they are a majority, they’ll elect people who manage society for the short term. Of course this phenomenon of short term governance isn’t limited to the population pyramid.
One of the manifestations of the phenomenon of representatives working for the old generation where I live is housing. You see old people living in big houses for free, while the younger generation only has shared housing for crazy prices as a solution. Also with mobility: this old generation won’t let go of their cars although they move around only for leisure, but the city has become too dense for car-centric mobility. The elders don’t care, as they stay at home during peak hour.
You underestimate how much workforce needed for elderly care industry. Some people need to quit job to care their parents, that become a problem. It steals workforce from other industry.
If they are indeed Ponzi schemes, it would be better for them to collapse sooner rather than later, since the accompanying damage is only going to increase with time.
I assume environmentalists like technological advancement? And a population who can afford or contribute to a tax base where the government can support R&D for more green technologies?
How about medical care? Do environmentalists like advances in cancer care? And a system where the population has the money to access them?
Or social security? Paying money to retirees so they can live in relative comfort?
Population declines are a major issue. In some Asian countries the number of workers per retiree is going from 20 to 1, down to 2 to 1 if the population declines continues.
Growth means more money. Not just for things like consumer items you so distain, but also social programs that keep people healthy and in relative comfort.
The competition starts from kindergarten, parents are competing with each other for things like:
1. How many English words your kid know already?
2. How many classic poetries they can recite?
3. Mathematics above requirement
etc.
It is a rat race and it is suffocating. And in East Asian system, one failed academic assessment is pretty much a failure and deemed useless, you will be discriminated in so many aspects of your life.
And it is curve based system, so no matter how hard you try, 50% will never go to college anyway.
And ofc, this system will accompany you all they way through your career as well.
People are always looking for something they can compare against, pick the winner and loser, and judge you upon it.
As a result, having kids and raising them up to societal standard costs big money, people choose to have none or one and invest everything they can to that one kid.
I've lived in Japan for nearly a decade on and off now, and have never heard of parents comparing their children's TOEIC scores, nor talking about classic poetry. School level competition exists, but I don't think these are the points they focus on. Those seem more like China specific things.
科挙 was somewhat imported but it seems that now there are just less competition compared to China/Korea (except richer parents in metropolis). Perhaps that's part of a reason why their birth rate is lower.
Kids are expensive. If you can barely pay rent (forget about getting buying something with a mortgage) and living expenses, then how possibly could you raise children? Add to that many people working very long and sometimes uncertain hours. It's a perfectly rational outcome for people to realize they don't have the resources for kids and so they remain childless.
256 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 255 ms ] threadAlso improving the whole idea of what a family is: Want to be unmarried and have a child? Go for it. But have the supports available to make it work.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/21/france-populat...
The article states the opposite of your claims:
> The fertility rate is high in European countries where family norms are flexible, women feel free to work, pro-child policies are generous and childcare is well organised – in short, in countries that have come to terms with gender equality.
The United States has had a higher fertility rate than France and Europe for many years despite having a notoriously porous social safety net.
The stats may change but whereas Europe has been below 2 for a long time, that's a more recent development in the United States.
"High" is very relative, France is still well below replacement fertility despite all their efforts.
Meanwhile very religious groups like the Amish have much higher fertility rates without any of those interventions.
Maybe a deep belief that god wants you to have kids is just much more effective than any policy?
From the article I quoted:
> Since the early 2000s France has consistently topped European rankings. After two decades of decline, in the 1970s-80s, the fertility rate started picking up again in the late 1990s. Since then the country has registered scores just short of the mythical threshold of 2.1 children per woman, which would secure a steady population. Its fertility rate in 2014 was 2.01.
It seems like being more religious is more effective at changing minds than any of those policies.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
The recovery for c-section is way longer than natural child birth. They are literally cutting open your abdominal muscles to access the baby.
We did elective C-section for both our kids. Recovery was fine. Wife up and walking at the end of the first day.
So, exactly like a vaginal birth (speaking from my own experience) ;-) I don't understand the big fuss - sure it hurts, but it's endurable. And for the child there are benefits to being born vaginally.
Of course, everyone is free to do as they see fit, but I am very happy and proud of my Klingon birth experience :D
For my wife she was scared of natural birth so we elected for C-section and that was far less scary for her and she smashed through it without complaint. But her friend living in France was forced to do natural. If they have a second she’s flying back to Taiwan for the 2nd because the whole experience of natural and the horrible experience of staff at the hospital put her off wanting to do it there again.
In asia, woman are doled on from the moment they enter the hospital. Natural or surgery they stay for 3-5 days in the hospital. Unlike a lot of the west where people are sent home the next day.
These demographic crises arguments are no better than the population bomb arguments of the 1960s. You can project forward and get all kinds of results but over the decades things change.
Had a nice population bulge initially.
A country of 100M people will change its birth patterns long long long before it "disappears".
It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous childrens hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.
Both parents can take up to 1 year of combined childcare leave after a birth (part of that at 60% salary).
There’s “Children’s hall” s scattered across the neighborhoods that are basically a free playroom, toy repository and library for kids up to high school age.
Kindergardens have been sprouting up like trees all over the country. I think the last time I read any stats about it there were like 6000 kids on a waiting list in the entire country. And again, free or mostly free.
Housing is relatively small, but also affordable, even in the 23 wards of Tokyo. If you go outside Tokyo you can find really nice houses for dirt cheap.
At least it’s not for lack of facilities/benefits that Japan isn’t having children.
As an American, that delivery is comparatively cheap and extravagant, but it's hardly free.
Having lived in US and in a few countries with completely free healthcare, I'd have to correct you that the really weird experience is going to a hospital and getting a 6 figure bill.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
I didn't mean only going to hospital for labor and birth.
I would guess that’s only weird if you live in a country with only private medical care.
In a LOT of countries free, at the point of service, medical care is the norm.
I mean, I understand on one level that in lots of places medical professionals would refuse to treat a pregnant woman or a child without a source of funds. On another though it’s seems very alien to me.
I’ve tried to state that in plain, unemotional language but it is a “weird” concept here. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
You can't be turned away for lifesaving or critical procedures.
If you go to the hospital in labor, or with a gunshot wound, or an infected abscess, etc; they'll treat you (they're legally bound to). You get your bill after services rendered.
At least in California, you can also go to a myriad of clinics for free-cheap preventative services so your toothache doesn't turn into an abscess.
This was more to illustrate that it’s not for lack of governmental intervention.
That or your private pension holder might go for some risky investment.
Modern societies (especially the so called "ponzi scheme capitalist culture" ones) tend to go far beyond pretty much all past societies to support such people.
The US hasn’t. Almost all of our social programs are aimed at the elderly; they’re the ones who vote!
2. common sense. Nomadic tribes are nomadic for survival. How are they going to take them along? Carry them on their backs? They have no choice but leave them behind.
Not even family might protect you: There is a German "Robin Hood" type that really existed whose biography I read. His children refused to let him in when he was old, they did not want to or could not share.
Living with family requires that they had the space, that the family had enough income, that they actually lived together (women especially were married off, if you only had surviving daughters you depended on their husbands).
Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most (for lack of alternatives provided by higher education). They also abort pregnancies a lot, though.
Strong disagree. People are quite hard wired to have kids.
> Poor people are ironically some of the hardest-working in Western societies, and they also reproduce the most
Poor people also very not much in control of their lives, practically no health care and poor access to affordable birth control. Partnering up quick gives poor young women at least a dual income household.
We're definitely hard wired to have sex, which used to be the same thing, but now there's birth control. Maybe evolution needs a little more time to dial up our cultural or genetic aversion to birth control...
If people could safely get kids at any point in life without any influence from age I'm pretty convinced most would do it much much. Right now from my experience maybe do it because they feel "it's now or never" and "never" is scary because you could be missing out on something great.
Condoms, the pill, and the spiral are quite affordable, compared to the costs and mayhem on personal life an unplanned pregnancy causes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_Japan
We’re failing as a society if not having kids is the best option for most young adults.
In 1976, 90% of women between 40-44 have ever given birth. In 2016, it's 86% (up since a low of 80% in 2006).
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/18/theyre-...
In response to Matt Yglessias -https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1538234746416812033
>I hadn't noticed this trend in Silicon Valley (where people put off having kids for the sake of their careers), but it's very visible in England, especially in the country. Lots of Range Rovers containing four blond children.
I can see why. The cost of having kids is so incredibly high - both in direct terms (cost of childcare, stuff, food) and indirect (need a bigger house to maintain the same level of comfort, need to step back from your career for a few years). For someone on a very low income, the additional government support per child is meaningful. But for mid-high earners, the additional costs of that kid come directly out of your lifestyle.
This repurposed human beings towards factory like production machines. Now we have a world with social and capitalistic services for those who are unmarried and in their prime times. That is what we sell on billboards and on tv. Old people with family life and a minivan is not the life we talk about anymore.
In fact, you might be surprised by how many people agree with your first sentence, taken literally. One thing I think is generally misunderstood about this is that the result of the revolution wasn't, "all women should work" (this is usually an uncharitable characterisation made in anger), it was "women should be allowed to work without being shamed". However, there was of course no mirror movement, where men wanted to leave the working world. So, over decades, this naturally caused the market to shift, making life financially harder and harder for those families with only one worker. That's what caused women to have to work. It wasn't an idea.
I think the more telling numbers will be over the next few years. Will there be a post-covid bump and then normalize back to pre-covid levels? Will things just stay the same with incredibly low covid-level birth rates?
Only time will tell, but this article is sloppy. The economist can do better.
Sure. But the response to covid in the US and the response to covid in the Asian countries mentioned was quite different both in an administrative way as well as a cultural way.
Covid was at least worth a mention if not more.
I am happily married - largely driven by personal values religiously influenced moral principle. For most my friends, the question they pose is what is the benefit of marriage? You tie yourself down to monogamy, give up your personal life and risk losing half of it plus a life of child support and alimony in a divorce.
I don’t have an answer but I think the root cause may be different than increasing access to child care (which certainly helps) on the margin.
Edit for another random anecdote: almost all my Jewish friends in their mid 30s who are well to do are married. Can’t think of one that isn’t. I believe there are cultural correlations that can be drawn.
Often other people are not good at telling you what you need to do to get there though.
I don’t have the slightest clue what you look like, but if you have an able body, I promise you I’d trade however you look for the functionality of your body. Seriously, I miss being able to participate in real life so much. I’d gladly become whatever you think a “2” is for a working body.
I’m lucky I live in a country where sex work is legal. Otherwise I might still feel suicidal.
I don’t think internet advice or trying to show people how they aren’t that bad of is helpful or even appropriate for HN. Just say “I’m sorry it hasn’t worked out for you”.
Anyway, does your target market want a guy with a house and job? That’s what first gen immigrants want. (Or what second-gen’s parents want, which matters too.) The local middle class want that to be assumed and you actually appear to spend all your time on volunteering and hobbies.
It’s not that important though. The real part is keeping the relationship going, not finding it.
Also, have you seen Pete Davidson? He looks like a drowned rat.
In particular, taller women don’t care.
Do that and practice talking to women, and then you're attractive.
Some of the guys I know who get the most women are not particularly handsome at all, they just do a lot of talking to women and thus are good at leading the conversion to where it needs to go.
I'm sure you are aware of a subculture of men who go out in town to meet women. All they're doing is practicing a lot.
I’m also like, 5’6”, but with my posture, probably look 5’5”. I think if you were perhaps 5’2” as a male, I may slightly sympathize with you & the stigma surrounding male height, but I’ve still met more than a few dudes that short who do just fine.
When you say you’re not attractive that really does nothing for anybody trying to give you advice. Do you have a hideously deformed face from a birth defect or accident? Okay, if so, that’s understandable.
Are you morbidly obese? Okay, if so, that’s understandable - & highly likely to be a personal choice of yours that can be changed within a year.
Otherwise, seriously, I just don’t get it.
If you have a stereotypically ugly face, it really doesn’t matter if you otherwise have decent posture, the other stuff I listed, & some form of job. As cringey as it sounds, it’s otherwise just your mindset. & yeah, I’ve met plenty of people who don’t want to accept or acknowledge this is the reason, or even slightly want to change it. If you don’t want to help yourself, nobody in this world can help you.
& fwiw & the last I’ll comment on it - the thing that gets the most people approaching me, the very last hobby of mine my body barely lets me do, is a style of skateboarding. So if you’re down so bad, maybe try that.
Before that, it was practically… every hobby. This is why I truly genuinely state one interesting hobby. Doing hobby level work in a machine shop/maker space & after hours math meetups in college were probably the other two biggest attractors in my past life. Even hiking works, man. & you don’t even have to like it in the slightest… just pretend you do.
@astrange - thanks for your comment, I saw as I was writing this out & it really hits home more than anything I can further ramble about. I do not know what goes through the minds of those who do not understand this very simple thing.
Women of all ages look at height, though. So, if you are over 6', you can consider yourself extremely lucky, people are literally breaking their bone legs with a surgery to grow a few inches.
About being lanky. I was also very skinny my whole life, I could eat anything including unhealthy fast food, sodas, etc and never gain weight. I thought that my "metabolism was too fast", that it was genetic, and that I could not change it.
Until this year where I actually wanted a change and went from 130 to 160 lbs (58kg to 72kg). I'm 5'10 (177 cm). And for the first time of my life, I can wear something that actually fits and looks good on me.
This is why you pull girls. Women are not interested in average men at all. They either want the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire.
I specifically said Neo-Nazi, which entails having the facial structure of a loser who thinks they’re “muhh master race” - I’m essentially a genetic mutt from the MidWest. I don’t have nice heroin chic cheek bones or a chiseled jaw line or anything. But discussing this is dumb & fruitless, I probably shouldn’t even be replying.
Actually - I’ll give one last piece of advice
>> They either want the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire.
Do not, under any circumstances, align yourself with any woman/human who you’ve learned has a personality like this. It’s that simple. That’s a disgusting personality. Most women are not like this & I’ve typically immediately ghosted the few I’ve ended up meeting that are.
It sounds like you want a girl who’s into that & just want to fantasize that you’re the tar-heroin injecting bass player, violent serial killer or the billionaire - but you aren’t, & never will be. Not sure why anybody would want to live with a mindset like that.
I think you might be underestimating yourself slightly.
I'm something of an incel; not so much about sex, but incapable of emotionally bonding to people in general. And at least it seems most people are able to pick up rather quickly on the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with me, and understandably distance themselves.
A destitute cripple can still function as a person that other people can enjoy; an ability to empathize, or an enjoyment of company of others is something I think most people have, including you. Some capability of being able to understand, connect, and respond to others.
So please don't put yourself down too much if you have at least that much ability. It seems as if you're still just a normal decent person at the end of the day.
NYC is well known for having more women than men.
Here’s my take.
Stuff is expensive. Marriage is a lot of responsibility. It’s not 1950 anymore. Shit changes.
Human evolution is biology btw, but evolution doesn't necessarily mean that humans have to reproduce like rabbits until everyone starves to death from overpopulation. There is a reason that the birth rate is generally lower the wealthier and better educated a population is.
It is not a material problem. It is cultural. Society is feeling like a less good joyful place for children. "It takes a village to raise a child". There have never been fewer villages.
Not to mention the time commitment. My friends lives were never the same after they had a kid.
It’s a no for me dog. At least rn.
I have known that when I start, it will be the smallest of homes with the cheapest of foods and reduced living which means no internet, no cell phone service, no tv. For the simplest of things, I would go to the library or the nearest cafe or use some known Wi-Fi point. And I am ok with starting life like that. How many other people are ok with that?
And we are still talking about a cheap 500€ per month apartment with only one bedroom here. In practice you would pay more. Products made in Asia are a drop in the bucket compared to rent in even the cheapest parts of Germany.
I don't think 500€ is an excessively high rental price, I just disagree that anyone would have to do without these products.
Sure, in raw numbers, maybe that's true
Compared to previous decades where you could get on the housing ladder reasonably easily and support a family with only one full time income, not so much
My grandma (still alive today) grew up in the US without plumbing. She had to use an outhouse.
There's an inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. Wealthy countries are less fertile than poor countries. Within wealthy countries the wealthier people are less fertile than the poorer people.[2]
[1] https://youtu.be/RL7BECNn-RI?t=151
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
It is really quite blatantly clear: as societies get wealthier, the fertility falls instead of rising.
Larry Page's grandpa was an autoworker, and had to carry around a pipe with a hunk of lead on it to avoid getting beaten up by his employer.
https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-pages-grandfather-kept...
I live Washington, and frequently travel around the rural areas here. The state is littered with coal mining towns abandoned a century ago, with lumber mills closed before WWII, with towns like Index, WA, which was established in late 19th century, and had its population and industry peak in 1920s-1930s.
Our history is history of dynamism and change, and while some fraction of Americans lived and retired working for the same big factory in Detroit, this has by no means been an universal experience of our ancestors. In fact, if you look at the data, people today move for work less than our ancestors had. Our past was indeed glorious, but it was not a past of wealth and stability.
Indeed it depends how far you go back. I mostly talk about the baby boomer generation (who are "our" parents in many cases as many people here are 25-50 years old). In general they experienced more financial and occupational stability than us since they had much stronger unions and globalization was only starting.
When boomers started entering job market en masse in 1970s, they entered the economy of prolonged stagnation and high inflation, saw rationing of fuel, and by no means enjoyed significant stability. When they were buying houses, the nominal price was low, but mortgage rates were 8% at best times, 16% at the worst, making the mortgage payments scarcely more affordable than they are today. When they were entering job markets, the unions were already declining for two decades, and only something like a quarter of people were in a union in 1970.
Really, the boomers only made a killing in last decade or two, resulting from the low interest rates pumping values of assets. They certainly did not have it easy or stable in their youths, when they were forming families. I think your understanding of economic history needs more research.
I'm curious what you think makes a 1950s quality of life? I agree that people expect more material things today, but many of those things e.g. computers are de facto requirements to be a member of society. It seems to me that it is significantly more expensive to afford a good meal or a decent sized apartment.
Qualitatively, I know a large number of people who grew up in the 50s and their experiences of the time are different qualitatively. None of them ever struggled to meet their housing needs as long as they were able-bodied, and then generally only needed 20-40 hours of work (this include lower end work: construction, landscaping, retail).
While I don't have the stats handy* materially we know that during the mid 1900s the bottom 50% of americans owned a higher percentage of private property than in any time in history. Since then, we have reverted to a much more unequal distribution. It's hard to imagine this does not impact the current feeling of people feeling they can barely afford a place to live.
*if you have access to a copy of Capital and Ideology I believe you can find references in chapters 9 and 10
So you might be happy with having little, but it's not going to be easy to send your kids to school and tell them they shouldn't have an iPad or an international holiday so mummy doesn't have to work.
Not like life in America today is better than 99% of the rest of the world past and present. Spoiled people.
>> When looking into the Maya world of Yucatán, we find that during the 18th century and beginnings of the 19th century, it was the custom for males to marry at age 17 or 18, and females at age 14 or 15.
>> The parents preferred, for their sons, girls from the same social class and town. As well, it was considered petty if the male looked for a companion for himself or his children, rather than obtaining the servces of a professional matchmaker (ah atanzah).
>> Once the matchmaker was selected, the ceremony and the amount of the dowry were discussed. This usually consisted of dresses and other items of little value, which were paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride as a marriage pledge; for her part, the groom’s mother prepared the clothing for her son and for her future daughter-in-law.
What drives you to have children, as a human male, is the desire for sex. Once you remove that, many will pick to not have kids anymore.
I would say your example of the Maya shows more that many old societies had extremely powerful marriage pressure put on what we would consider children or at best adolsecents, who would have been far less able to resist such pressures than today.
I don't see any agency about sex in the citation you give.
I’d be happy to trade my cheap plastic crap from Walmart for a $45000 house and a $1200/y tuition
This is a ridiculously one side POV. I don't see marriage as giving up personal life. I see it as starting a personal live. There are so many things in my life I wanted to do "with someone" and by someone I mean someone I was in love with and who was in love with me. I see couples traveling the world, working abroad, supporting each other, having twice as many friends since both side bring in people, having twice as many activities to choose from ("should we go to party A or party B?") etc...
On top of that playing with kids is awesome fun.
Maybe your experience has been having a partner who's not a fit for you and so you wanted out?
What's more, you can also have kids without being married on paper!
So I do understand people who don't see the point of getting the government involved and making it a thing that's very complicated to end if it doesn't work out.
There is some truth to this though. It's just you personally don't see it that way.
A number of my single friends, 35+, love their life - exactly the way it is. They want a relationship but not bad enough to give up specific aspects that are called 'freedoms'. One of them being able to hook up and many others.
I'm married with children and wouldn't want it any other way, but that's me.
My personal take, yes please do not get married if you don't want to.
I lived in New York for many years and can confirm your experience. However, what interests me more is where all these ideas and decisions are coming from. Is it because it's trendy (Joe is not coming to the party tonight.. he is now, you know, married), which down the line means fear of losing status, or because people are free to choose what they want. I lean towards thinking it's the former (edit: I would rather say it's not the later). When the world is driven by TikTok and Instagram, I believe many people are measuring themselves up to the other people's standards rather than defining their own.
No-fault divorce basically destroyed that institution for the working classes, with divorce rates sky-rocketing in a decade.
Children living with both biological parents:
Affluent families in 1960: 95%
Working class families in 1960: 95%
Affluent families in 2005: 85%
Working class families in 2005: 30%
[1]
> Most of my well to do friends are uninterested in marriage and are just churning through girls.
This is cruel and sad, but I'm not sure falling marriage rates are even the fundamental factor in the overall decline. The problem goes deeper.
[0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/theres-a-time-for-ever...
[1] https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1178310819332984832
I’ll bite: If you do it right, you get to spend every night with the person you love the most in the world.
I’ve been with my wife for 20 years and we still stay up too late at least once a week because we don’t want to stop our conversation. It is the richest, most fulfilling relationship I can imagine.
Beyond companionship, she is the ultimate ally. If I tell her I need her help, she is there for me 100%.
No matter my ups or downs, successes or failures, I have someone I can trust for advice and lean on whenever I need it.
Of course, this reliance goes both ways, but I feel great when I can help her back. My identity has stretched to include being part of this amazing team.
Obviously, there’s a trade off, but for me it was minor. Dating always felt like the worst kind of interviewing to me. I’ll happily take 20 years of shared memories over a rotating cast of fresh faces.
> Beyond companionship, she is the ultimate ally. If I tell her I need her help, she is there for me 100%.
Congratulations and may it never change for you. I do however have to say that that is not the case for most marriages/ long term monogamous relationships.
If you could somehow set aside social pressure, shared financial burdens, guilt over messing up the kids etc. I think most existing marriages would break down. Few people actually share deep love, friendship and real, freely accepted commitment.
I hope this isn’t true (I don’t know any statistics that support or disprove this), that’d be incredibly sad.
Luckily, I’m happily married and childless.
Tinder says otherwise. Seems like women are rejecting droves of men who aren't in the top 10%-20% of good looks or height (this comes from Tinder's own data as far as I know). Another problem is there are now more female college graduates than men (in the U.S), and they prefer someone educated.
You are right in your observation that women reject droves of men who aren't in the top 20%, not only in Tinder but in real life too. But OP is also right in his observation. The few males that are at the top have so many choices of women that staying with just one doesn't make too much rational sense.
In the end, we have 80% of males not being able to catch the interest of women, and the remainder 20% that do get female attention are not interested in long term relationships.
My conclusion: Low birth rates are being driven by the 20% of men as a result of the sexual preferences of 95% of women.
Marriage helps to raise kids … isn’t that the answer ?
Don't think you can so easily pin one of the two as the drivers.
I know, I know. Less growth, less innovations and all the things the economists say. But the innovation per capita would be the same. And probably purchasing power parity would be better.
Right now we still need warm young bodies to stack shelves, care for old people, reap crops and so on.
With ageing populations you have no less old people but far less young uns to do the work. Also less surplus to do novel stuff too.
Oh and Japan is not keen on immigration either.
Young people mostly just play Nintendo and drink high-balls in Tokyo.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2020/04/04/food/urban-agri...
IMO urbanisation and modern tech are a big factor here. If you lived off land in a manner requiring heavy manual labour, then children could really help and provided continuity. Lack of old people’s care was a big encouragement too, and really different generations living together helped with childcare.
Actually this is not so much a problem for the amount of population but of excessive centralization around big cities. The earth, even if we only consider the places with reasonable climate, water and food supply and decent enough orography is pretty much empty.
Everyone agrees that as big cities grow the housing prices increase, but I don't see this happening in small towns far from big cities. Every country is different and obviously there are very good reasons to have some regions not very populated (I'm not saying Lapland should have the same population density as the coast of the Mediterraneum) but in plenty of cases places are unnecessarly crowded.
Spain is a good example of this, Madrid in particular is a city far too expensive for the salaries due to the excessive amount of population. The weather or the land aren't particularly good, it's not that it has massive water supply or anything like that, it's just that there have been centuries of centralization efforts by governments.
https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost-decades-30-ye...
If we look to Japan as the model and forerunner for what is happening to the rest of the world, what investments worked there the past few decades if any?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPN628BIS
https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-ea...
The comments above are right that investing makes much less sense in a world without economic growth. Even if companies continue to pay dividends, the US stock market has had 7% real annual growth over the past hundred years and that drives a huge amount of investment.
[1] skynet or extreme centralization of power
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics/publicat...
>The greatest economic gains from AI will be in China (26% boost to GDP in 2030) and North America (14.5% boost)
I think of this article when I hear about decades of incredible growth on top of the already many decades of incredible growth.
https://www.cold-takes.com/this-cant-go-on/
I don't know what is going to happen, but less young people and an ever-increasing age in the general population requiring services doesn't sound so good of a combination. Even if your metric "how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service" goes down.
Also, with your 0 coefficient you are assuming infinite wealth? That seems...unreasonable.
Ultimately the author makes a good case if the assumption is that we never make it off Earth. Growth could probably be sustained at an exponential pace if we become interplanetary but it certainly won't happen overnight.
If we do ever reach "AI/robo summer" I certainly hope we appreciate it. If we don't, we deserve AI winter.
For the owners of the robots, yes. People who are de-skilled and pushed out of the workforce not so much.
Unless of course all those people starve to death. Then the average person is an owner of robots.
Need some food:
$ robo make garden
If you read the latest Charles Goodhart's book ageing population would bring period of permanent high inflation. And during high inflation periods trend following (macro) strategies work well [I don't have a link to the paper at the moment]... So this should be rather simple...
Japan seems to be an exception to the rule, there are probably other factors that resulted in deflation during falling population era [I am fan of Richard C. Koo here - 2].
However it is not established yet - there is active discussion going on the topic - falling populations vs inflation/deflation. It is quite interesting actually.
Try Dimitri Kofinas's discussion with Charles Goodhart in this podcast [3] if you can spare an hour...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Great-Demographic-Reversal-Societies-...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Grail-Macroeconomics-Lessons-Rec...
[3] https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/charles-goodhart-demographi...
That is illogical. Aging populations save more because the money needs to last throughout retirement and these old people's bodies are no longer in a state where they can enjoy spending their money. Old people also have already fulfilled most of their wishes and have gotten used to their specific standard of living.
A young society of under 20 year olds is more likely to cause inflation because every child is a pure consumer that does not produce what they consume for the first 18 years of their life. So the demand for labor is relatively high.
Perhaps it would be wiser to read Goodhart's argument first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goodhart
Birth control is not a standard practice everywhere. (And its history is ancient, with "social acceptability" involving some cultures and times - as opposed to being some "general state of things".)
The fertility rate in Niger is over 6.5 children per women; that of South Korea is near 1; the rounded quintiles are 1.5 .. 4.0 .
People are so different and have a hard time agreeing on things they find it hard to get married. Then those who do find it hard to stay married. Those who marry and have kids have a hard time finding families to be friends with. The world is changing at such a rapid pace, If you have no shared values you will just have too large a range to find points of commonality.
Also in large cities the the density is a problem. Abundance of choice creates paralysis. Choice of partners and lifestyle. Creates more ways to cheat on your spouse without being caught. Life in general is more complex. I believe that there is a lag between rural people moving to cities and low birthrates. They may have more kids due to their families being large but their kids will most likely have less kids. Also large cities seem lonely because you become a replaceable part of it.
Sure I making child care more accessible is great and should be done but I don't think that's the one thing holding people back.
It's not that people in Asia don't want to get family and all that, it just simply coming down to:
1. The economy has not been adjusted with families in mind (we in the west have barely started).
2. Said traditional 'values' and norms were encouraged at a time when democracy nor universal human rights was a thing, which in the past did cost the country some social cohesion but it endured state stability, today however it just puts obstacles for people to try something new and different.
3. Because of 2 people find easier alternatives to family:
Want a patrner with no consequences? Simply order a partner as a service.
Want to be sexually fulfilled? Online porn or sex worker.
Etc.
Thinking “hard to agree on the value” is the most laughable reason that I ever heard and just how out of touch that some IT dudes can be. No offense but this is just how far you are from the reality.
Out of these housing, childcare and distance from parents could be solved simply by companies offering full remote work as an option. Even better if also educational institutions followed. Forcing people to move into cities for work sucks.
You have no idea of "drives", or you would know how some will make having children paramount; you seem to have no idea of the economic choices involved, which made people marry, have children etc.; you also seem oblivious of the positional (ethical) stances, the convinctions inserted in a world view, that have people take such decisions.
> 100% effective
Not even the procedure of sterilization nullifies the chance of pregnancy. This instance of imprecision looks like a recurrent pattern. You said it that you are lazy, but here you are relating.
Find me an environmentalist who is worried about there being less people because frankly, I doubt they exist.
Yes, having less people in a relatively short amount of time won't be without issue, but I do feel like the people who seemed most worried about low birth rates are politicians and economists.
We need to keep the consumers coming right?
I'm optimistic because while there is obviously going to be issues with there being less people on earth, it feels like the planet could do with a rest.
One of the manifestations of the phenomenon of representatives working for the old generation where I live is housing. You see old people living in big houses for free, while the younger generation only has shared housing for crazy prices as a solution. Also with mobility: this old generation won’t let go of their cars although they move around only for leisure, but the city has become too dense for car-centric mobility. The elders don’t care, as they stay at home during peak hour.
How about medical care? Do environmentalists like advances in cancer care? And a system where the population has the money to access them?
Or social security? Paying money to retirees so they can live in relative comfort?
Population declines are a major issue. In some Asian countries the number of workers per retiree is going from 20 to 1, down to 2 to 1 if the population declines continues.
Growth means more money. Not just for things like consumer items you so distain, but also social programs that keep people healthy and in relative comfort.
I mean we can have technological advancement with fewer people. But it’s likely going to be slower and fewer people can afford it.
The competition starts from kindergarten, parents are competing with each other for things like:
1. How many English words your kid know already?
2. How many classic poetries they can recite?
3. Mathematics above requirement
etc.
It is a rat race and it is suffocating. And in East Asian system, one failed academic assessment is pretty much a failure and deemed useless, you will be discriminated in so many aspects of your life.
And it is curve based system, so no matter how hard you try, 50% will never go to college anyway.
And ofc, this system will accompany you all they way through your career as well.
People are always looking for something they can compare against, pick the winner and loser, and judge you upon it.
As a result, having kids and raising them up to societal standard costs big money, people choose to have none or one and invest everything they can to that one kid.
But this is 100% to other Asia's advanced economies, those with Chinese ethnicity majority or heavily influenced by Confucianism historically.
China/HK/Taiwan/Singapore/Korea
No one can escape this.
Japan is actually an oddball here, I think Japan had never imported the 科举 system from China, that might be the key
I would say becoming advanced economy, then quickly aging and losing vitality is the critical flaw with East Asia model.
They exploit their populace so much they don’t want to reproduce anymore