Too late. People got used to having very small families both because of the tyrannical policy and because it makes more sense with urbanization. Also, you never know when you might have an accident, so if the limit becomes two, you'll still have one and only have two if there is an accident.
Not that the headline is particularly accurate...but where & when has national leadership calling upon women to have more children ever actually worked? (Yes, most of the CCP's brighter members probably understood that it was just performative leadership.)
And if you ruthlessly optimize a society for maximum short-term economic output, mostly via short-term individual rewards...um, yes, that does kinda de-emphasize everything that's needed for the society to have much of a very-long-term future, doesn't it?
Raising kids absolutely sucks 99.9% of the time. Society is constantly riding your ass demanding you follow their every law, desire, and regulation and if you do it right no one gives a shit other than to milk the kid dry in taxes for being raised to be productive. If you do it wrong, well there's a jail cell waiting and you lose all your friends and family and live in terrible guilt. The kid, well perhaps rightly the kid thinks he's owed a proper raising so there's no thanks for providing it.
It's a suckers game and by the time you're free again you're getting old and evolution is ready to wind you down. Knowing what I do now, I wouldn't do it again.
I have two toddlers and it has sucked more than it hasn’t (~7 years). ymmv, n=1, all that jazz. Roughly 8-17% of the population regrets having kids (depending on study [1]), and a substantial cohort simply doesn’t want them [2], so it’s not for everyone.
> And maybe someday, when the money is gone, and the pensions are one fire, they will take care of me.
That's looking less and less likely. Children are more likely to move away, around the world or further from home these days. And unless you move close to them, most likely you will not see them. Statistically, anyways.
I have come the conclusion that kids have basically gone from asset to liability over the last century. And even if they may not express it in these terms or have hard numbers to back it up, people know this intuitively.
In the 1920s there was no social security so having kids to take care of you in your old days was a must, expectations were somewhat low. You could get a lot of kids because making them all share one room was considered fine, they were expected to do a lot of chores, sometimes helping with the family's business even. Contrast that to today: we have financialized everything so you don't need kids, you just need someone to have them, not you specifically. The expectations are high: they need their own bedroom, you have to constantly be behind them (otherwise some busybody will call the cops for neglect), pay for expensive hobbies, tutor them so they can go to a good college (that you're expected to help pay for). Is it really surprising then that people get less or no kids?
Of course this quality over quantity approach may actually be a good thing, I certainly appreciate having been raised that way, unfortunately we have structured our societies to expect infinite growth so until we find a way to resolve these conflicting needs we will keep feeling the pain.
Not saying you're wrong, but I really think you've overlooked the cultural shift towards individualism.
Maybe not so much in the 1920s, but in WW1 men would lie about their age so they'd have the opportunity to fight for the empire. Family, nation and duty came before self-actualisation and security.
I would not dismiss the link with individualism but I am not convinced that it is a cause, if anything I see it as a consequence. When you are raised as part of a large family with several generations in the same house you probably have a much stronger sense of community than a single kid raised by just two parents.
Totally agree, I am not trying to single out specific countries. Now we just need to figure out how to deal with the consequences of that, because so far we have only been relying on bandaids: exhort people to have more kids, offer subsidies (that don't even come close to offsetting the extra costs of course), making it up with immigration.
Peter Zeihan said the same thing. we need kids when the majority of society works on farms. today's kids are more expensive and less helpful.
China is following the same path as the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, South Korea...etc.) and Japan as the Chinese got more wealth. Chinese are unwilling to have more kids plus the One Child policy works too well.
You have it half correct. It's more like Chinese cannot afford to have more kids. There's a reason, as China got poorer the last 3 years, the birthrate dropped sharply
China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty
In his article for the business outlet Yicai, Li cited data from a 2021 research paper by the China Institute of Income Distribution at Beijing Normal University, which placed the number of people living on less than 2,000 yuan ($300) a month at 964 million, or nearly 70 percent of the population.
Checking in briefly as a person whose parents paid for college: I feel as though I owe these people 9/10 or more of everything I own and if push came to shove, I would be happy to pay all of their bills until they die.
Put otherwise, these two people have created quite an asset in me and we aren’t even considering their other children. I doubt very much that any one of their financial or physical assets would go to the lengths to which I would go to protect and aid them.
I can see no benefit at all to having children in this day. Parents are expected to engage with their child at all times, and it's no longer socially acceptable to let a child roam the neighborhood as it was when I was a kid. In the US, job insecurity and ridiculous costs of living make having a child a financial burden.
The pure physical risk of birth in a healthcare system that does not support postpartum healthcare in any way does not seem worth it.
I see both side of the equation here honestly... fyi I have kids, the two for one deal.
On one side, kids are tough. It is a commitment, if you are used to a certain lifestyle of travel and individual activities things are going to get significantly tough. Not impossible, but it will probably be different to accommodate others needs. On top of that my wife career has been pushed aside for a few years to help the kids before kindergarten starts. There is a financial burden, even with state benefits if you are educated (I live in the EU). I see why so many people don't have kids, it just isn't worth it for them.
At the same time, kids are great and I have no regrets even though we are parenting them through the "terrible twos". I love them so much, they are a driving force in my life. I find it somewhat scary that I had a child free mindset in uni. On top of that I have increasing skepticism about pensions going into the future... there is just too many old people around. What money is going to be left when I get old? _probably none_. The kids are my backup plan, of course I cant count on them, its their life too, but those chances are better than the possibility of dying alone in some cheap care facility or worse.
I may sounds biased because I would benefit from such a scheme, but if governments _want_ kids for economic stability, then make it worth it for parents to have kids! The pressure to work now days is exhausting for society, like cutting down a forest without planting new trees.
human worth, value of family can actually be measured in $¥€ now with the added benefit of being able to opt out.
But there is another, less savvy controlling idea among the would-be-parents, that is: family through marriage is shaky at best. Mate selection is a wild ride.
30 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadAnd if you ruthlessly optimize a society for maximum short-term economic output, mostly via short-term individual rewards...um, yes, that does kinda de-emphasize everything that's needed for the society to have much of a very-long-term future, doesn't it?
It's a suckers game and by the time you're free again you're getting old and evolution is ready to wind you down. Knowing what I do now, I wouldn't do it again.
I love my son but caring for a child from nine a.m. to eleven p.m. is exhausting.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8294566/
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s...
Its really not as bad as most people make it out to be. I even got 2 for 1 type deal. Sure there are bad days, but most are good.
And maybe someday, when the money is gone, and the pensions are one fire, they will take care of me.
That's looking less and less likely. Children are more likely to move away, around the world or further from home these days. And unless you move close to them, most likely you will not see them. Statistically, anyways.
In the 1920s there was no social security so having kids to take care of you in your old days was a must, expectations were somewhat low. You could get a lot of kids because making them all share one room was considered fine, they were expected to do a lot of chores, sometimes helping with the family's business even. Contrast that to today: we have financialized everything so you don't need kids, you just need someone to have them, not you specifically. The expectations are high: they need their own bedroom, you have to constantly be behind them (otherwise some busybody will call the cops for neglect), pay for expensive hobbies, tutor them so they can go to a good college (that you're expected to help pay for). Is it really surprising then that people get less or no kids?
Of course this quality over quantity approach may actually be a good thing, I certainly appreciate having been raised that way, unfortunately we have structured our societies to expect infinite growth so until we find a way to resolve these conflicting needs we will keep feeling the pain.
Maybe not so much in the 1920s, but in WW1 men would lie about their age so they'd have the opportunity to fight for the empire. Family, nation and duty came before self-actualisation and security.
This has happened in virtually every country that has moved from the farms to the cities.
In farms, kids are added labor - in the city, not so much.
Other than that, your kids will make other people rich
Peter Zeihan said the same thing. we need kids when the majority of society works on farms. today's kids are more expensive and less helpful.
China is following the same path as the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, South Korea...etc.) and Japan as the Chinese got more wealth. Chinese are unwilling to have more kids plus the One Child policy works too well.
China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty
In his article for the business outlet Yicai, Li cited data from a 2021 research paper by the China Institute of Income Distribution at Beijing Normal University, which placed the number of people living on less than 2,000 yuan ($300) a month at 964 million, or nearly 70 percent of the population.
https://www.newsweek.com/china-article-censorship-1-billion-...
Either don’t send your kids to college or don’t expect society to pay for them then
Put otherwise, these two people have created quite an asset in me and we aren’t even considering their other children. I doubt very much that any one of their financial or physical assets would go to the lengths to which I would go to protect and aid them.
In the US we could increase the child tax credit, provide subsidized day care, reduce higher education costs, and build more housing.
Not sure how you’d go about it in China as their costs and structure is different.
The pure physical risk of birth in a healthcare system that does not support postpartum healthcare in any way does not seem worth it.
On one side, kids are tough. It is a commitment, if you are used to a certain lifestyle of travel and individual activities things are going to get significantly tough. Not impossible, but it will probably be different to accommodate others needs. On top of that my wife career has been pushed aside for a few years to help the kids before kindergarten starts. There is a financial burden, even with state benefits if you are educated (I live in the EU). I see why so many people don't have kids, it just isn't worth it for them.
At the same time, kids are great and I have no regrets even though we are parenting them through the "terrible twos". I love them so much, they are a driving force in my life. I find it somewhat scary that I had a child free mindset in uni. On top of that I have increasing skepticism about pensions going into the future... there is just too many old people around. What money is going to be left when I get old? _probably none_. The kids are my backup plan, of course I cant count on them, its their life too, but those chances are better than the possibility of dying alone in some cheap care facility or worse.
I may sounds biased because I would benefit from such a scheme, but if governments _want_ kids for economic stability, then make it worth it for parents to have kids! The pressure to work now days is exhausting for society, like cutting down a forest without planting new trees.
human worth, value of family can actually be measured in $¥€ now with the added benefit of being able to opt out.
But there is another, less savvy controlling idea among the would-be-parents, that is: family through marriage is shaky at best. Mate selection is a wild ride.
Always has been, look at any agrarian culture.