Empty Planet

[Ssnake]

...and the chads from Niger.

[futon]

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1142583

Same typical solutions stated:

Less work hours, more child care policies, more financial incentives, equilizing gender norms.

 

These solution sets never include the otherside of the problem.

In the past, people had lots of work, low money, less medical care and yet.. they made babies, they made families. 

What's different is the combination of modern tech, market economy, and entertainment. It's not just entertainment. It's not just the market economy. And it's not just advance tech. It's all three combined. People make their livings in competing in the market by making entertainment products with high technology. The result is abundant eye catching incrediably accessible. Young people cannot help but be attracted to these things and becoming fixated on it. After finally getting their fill with one product, with one franchise, there's another 1,000 trying to grab their attention. They try to grab attention by portraying things beyond reality. Beyond the physical world, beyond the existing social construct, beyond the realities of the opposite sex. They get over-idealized necessities from a partner. Their partner becomes these entertainment products.

By the time a young person figures out all of this is just entertainment, 20 years would have passed. 

So they never actualy naturally come upon looking seriously at making a family, irrespective of the money situation. Making a family becomes an after-thought as something to do always later. But later is always delayed to later. 

   

 

[Josh]

I think a bigger impediment in the U.S. is simply the cost of everything: for decades, housing, healthcare, and education have increased at a geometric rate over wages. Kids invoke huge extra costs in all three of those areas. Kids have become too expensive to have, even for those so inclined. I think a huge proportion of couples wait longer to be more financially secure only to either never get there or no longer be fertile when they do.

[futon]

More specifically to the US.. yeah, the credit card and university debt trap. That's true.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, futon said:

...In the past, people had lots of work, low money, less medical care and yet.. they made babies, they made families....

Countries today look dimly on parents sending their 10 y/o to go to work at factory.  

[futon]

Just now, bojan said:

Countries today look dimly on parents sending their 10 y/o to go to work at factory.  

It wasn't a common thing in the 1950s and 60s though was it?

[futon]

One of the big cost in having children in Japan has been high schools.

Tokyo and Osaka will be making those free.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20231206/p2a/00m/0na/005000c

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230826/p2a/00m/0na/016000c

 

Child allowances are also kicking in that are provided from birth through to high school.

https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/politics-government/20230615-116165/

 

University tuition free for households with three or more dependents. Basically, if three kids, the first kid's university is free as all three are dependents. When the first kid graduates from university (and from being a dependent), the free tuition ends. So the other two still have to pay. In the end, a slash of 1/3. Closer to 1/2 if second kid is in university while first is still in University.   

https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/15077602

https://www.komei.or.jp/komechan/education/education202401/

 

Basically, the financial support is really kicking in. Maternity leave terms have generally improved as well. 

5 years from now, if it doesn't improve, it's the entertainment point. 

Edited May 30 by futon

[Josh]

57 minutes ago, bojan said:

Countries today look dimly on parents sending their 10 y/o to go to work at factory.  

US states are trying to get back to that, primarily the red "family friendly" states (notable exception NY). Some are proposing rolling back child labor laws down to 14.

So not 10 yet, but it is a start.   

[Skywalkre]

Many of the proposals in that article have been tried elsewhere in the world... and did nothing to reverse the trend.  They seem like common sense solutions but the fact that they're not working highlights that this problem is far more complicated than we think.

South Korea will be facing some serious issues in several decades (possibly even in my lifetime) as there's no indication the birth rate will ever level out but continue to drop.  Eventually they'll reach a point where they'll struggle to maintain their military in the face of a North Korea that does not have anywhere near as bad of birth rate decline (still below replacement rate but considerably higher than South Korea's).  What will happen when they approach that point? 

I was reading an article a few weeks ago that was explaining one possible outcome - an overburdened youth with massive tax and social pressures that simply leave the country and immigrate to other Western nations that will gladly take them.  This would just accelerate the collapse even faster and you could see a situation where a modern country effectively collapses in on itself in a matter of years.  It's crazy to think about...

[Skywalkre]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I think a bigger impediment in the U.S. is simply the cost of everything: for decades, housing, healthcare, and education have increased at a geometric rate over wages. Kids invoke huge extra costs in all three of those areas. Kids have become too expensive to have, even for those so inclined. I think a huge proportion of couples wait longer to be more financially secure only to either never get there or no longer be fertile when they do.

Cost certainly plays some role... but there are countries out there that have very generous programs to help new parents that offset the cost and guarantee time home with the kid while their job waits for them along with far better income equity across the socioeconomic spectrum.  Those countries and programs haven't done anything to reverse the trend.

I think the issue is more cultural.  In those countries where they seemingly give parents everything... the parents are still losing out on progression in their career.  They might come back after a year to a job waiting for them... but now all their colleagues, who they're competing with, have a year advantage on them.  Hell, even if we paid money to new parents I bet we wouldn't see a change because for so many women today they define themselves by their career and a kid, no matter what, means that career never goes as far as it could without them (take the 'wage gap' in the US... from what I've heard it's no longer men make more than women but everyone makes more than women with kids).

Another issue seems to be the conditions folks are willing to have for their kids.  I have a friend up in UT that I visit regularly and he points out what many LDS families are willing to put up with compared to the rest of the country.  Far more kids than your average American family (2.8 vs 2.06 from a quick search), which means far less for the kids... but they're ok with that.  Even with the pressure and culture of their church, though, the family sizes have been shrinking over the years (as a kid here in the Valley every LDS family I knew had 4+).  This friend of mine is LDS and has all of two kids (borderline scandalous from what he's told me) but given his career and where he lives he's around a lot of families (many non-LDS) who are far wealthier than him.  There seems to be this pressure he and his wife put on themselves to spend so much on their kids (activities, music lessons, play dates, etc.).  They're constantly running around from sunrise til after sunset shuffling the kids from activity to activity with barely a breather for anyone.  But... is that really necessary?  Does it truly benefit the kids?

There's some paradox (the name escaped me) that sociologists have apparently noted where with an increase in living conditions like we have across the world, our expectations of what we think is baseline jumps up at a faster rate than is realistic.  This apparently helps explain why so many people, with lives and conveniences so far above what folks had just a few decades ago, are more miserable.  I imagine this plays a role in wanting to have kids as well.  By all accounts, even in America (just look at the LDS members in UT) you can still have a decent size family and everyone will be fine.  However, for so many of us, that's not acceptable... for 'reasons'.

Edited May 30 by Skywalkre

[bojan]

10 hours ago, futon said:

It wasn't a common thing in the 1950s and 60s though was it?

Not here, but they were still expected to stay alone at home while parents were working (generally as soon as they started school at 6-7), be able to warm up a cooked meal for themselves and their siblings, take care of younger siblings, including diaper changes if needed, contribute toward maintenance of the house etc, most of which would invite visit from child services today.

[urbanoid]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

I think a bigger impediment in the U.S. is simply the cost of everything: for decades, housing, healthcare, and education have increased at a geometric rate over wages. Kids invoke huge extra costs in all three of those areas. Kids have become too expensive to have, even for those so inclined. I think a huge proportion of couples wait longer to be more financially secure only to either never get there or no longer be fertile when they do.

I've recently had a discussion about that and the interesting bit that came up was that the US 1% have 2.2 kids on average. US 1% is 800k+ household annual income, maybe at the time when the statistics were made it was less, like 500-600k, but still far more than enough to raise kids. 

For comparison, the total US TFR was over 3.5 in 1960. 

The aspirations grew too, people want to 'live a little' as young adults in their 20s, also far, far more people pursue higher education, in case of women they may think it would be worth it to put said education to some use, hence the prospect of having kids is pushed yet further away. And if the people do have kids, most likely they'll have 1 or 2, instead of 3-4 like 50-60 years ago. 

LKY said after retirement that if he was in charge he would give a bonus worth 2 years average salary only to prove that it would barely make a change, because the reasons for low birth rates are mostly social.

Below there's also an example of South Korea, that spent a shitload of money on incentives only to see the birth rates diving, to the point where they are the lowest in the developed word.

 

 

[sunday]

LKY also had this thought on immigration

So perhaps it is not so far fetched the statement about Feminism being cancer.

Edited May 30 by sunday

[urbanoid]

He didn't really hint at feminism, unless we count 'educating women' as feminism. The hint was more towards taking women's (equal) rights away to solve the problem, but he didn't appear willing to support such a move and tbh neither am I. The other theoretical solution would be to take pensions away, so people would be forced to have kids so someone takes care of them in the old age - for the record, I would be unwilling to do that either.

I do agree with him about immigration, I'm unwilling to accept... culturally incompatible ones even as Poland's TFR hit the new low of 1.15 in 2023. 

 

[Ssnake]

If we were really serious about pushing the fertility rate, the answer is rolling blackouts in the evening hours. We're not doing this because, OMG, you can't do that!

But it'd do wonders nine months later. TV, computers, lights on are what's killing the birth rate. You want more babies? Just eliminate all the distractions from sex as the traditional evening entertainment.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

If we were really serious about pushing the fertility rate, the answer is rolling blackouts in the evening hours. We're not doing this because, OMG, you can't do that!

But it'd do wonders nine months later. TV, computers, lights on are what's killing the birth rate. You want more babies? Just eliminate all the distractions from sex as the traditional evening entertainment.

Powerbank sales go BRRR

[sunday]

Contraception and abortions too.

[urbanoid]

15 minutes ago, sunday said:

Contraception and abortions too.

Smuggled contraceptives and underground abortions go BRRR as well, both likely far more risky than the ones available today. To 'really' ban abortion in one European country you'd have to close its borders as well and ban international travel, as it's easily available abroad. 

Poland has a near-total ban on abortion and having one in Czechia is a matter of a weekend trip (or a day trip, depending where you live in PL) and ~500 EUR for the procedure alone, which is 15-20 minutes or so. 

Edited May 30 by urbanoid

[Ssnake]

Sure, that's an obvious factor, but assuming that we're unwilling to give up on at least the contraceptives and allow for abortions within certain limits (wherever you draw the line), the obvious dial to turn is the frequency of getting it on. Career preservation, income loss compensation, better day care for children - I think these are all secondary and tertiary factors. We had lots of babies in the past when there were no solutions to all that. Then we got better contraceptives, liberalization of abortion, and much improved electronic entertainment as a triple whammy, and politics is merely rearranging the deck chairs on an ocean liner on an accelerated trajectory to the sea bottom.

[sunday]

Well, let's see how Hungarian policies work...

[urbanoid]

8 minutes ago, sunday said:

Well, let's see how Hungarian policies work...

Not very well for now and honestly I don't expect them to. Oh, they will have some relatively minor effect, but not the one that would solve the problem.

Quote

Number of children born in Hungary at historic low in 2023 Hungary’s population stood at an estimated 9,580,000 at the end of 2023, the Central Statistical Office (KSH) said on Friday. The natural decrease of the population was 42,000 for the year, the difference between 85,200 live births and 127,200 deaths. The number of live births fell by 3.7 percent and the fertility rate slipped to 1.50 percent from 1.52 percent. The number of deaths dropped by 6.8 percent. Preliminary data show that in the month of December, 6,565 children were born and 11,727 people died, with the number of births down 12 percent year on year, while deaths fell by 7.2 percent, and marriages by 4.1 percent. According to THIS chart, 6,565 is the lowest number ever in Hungary concerning the number of newborns per year.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/here-is-hungarys-population-at-end-2023/

https://dailynewshungary.com/here-is-hungarys-population-at-end-2023/

[Skywalkre]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The other theoretical solution would be to take pensions away, so people would be forced to have kids so someone takes care of them in the old age - for the record, I would be unwilling to do that either.

Where do folks think the money from these pensions come from?  One way or the other, the way things are going, they are going away.  Unfortunately by the time it becomes a serious problem the solution will be decades away.  How's that one joke go... "you can make nine women pregnant but that doesn't mean you get a baby in a month"?

[Skywalkre]

A reminder that about a year ago urbanoid had some insight here into the one country that seems to actually be turning things around, the Czech Republic, and the reasons seem to be entirely cultural.

Problem is, cultural solutions take time... a lot of time.  Here in the US that would require multiple administrations/Congresses/heads of government agencies to stay on the same page for an extended period of time on an issue that could easily get sidetracked by identity politics.

In short, here in the US (and UK and Canada... we seem to share many of the same issues)... we're fucked.

[Skywalkre]

My feed this morning had this short interview about the issue:

Interesting to note the first thing she says is the impact this will have on the economy in the near future as we're facing an imminent decline in the working age population here.  Considering how much the almighty dollar drives everything in this country maybe an economic hiccup/slowdown/stagnation could be the impetus for everyone to start looking at this in a serious light.  As the above vid points out, so many folks out there are still under this false impression that overcrowding is the issue we're facing.

[DB]

15 hours ago, futon said:

It wasn't a common thing in the 1950s and 60s though was it?

Prior to the 1960s, there was no contraceptive pill. People might baulk at that being decisive, on the grounds that condoms were available, but the ability of women to take more control outside of "the heat of the moment" must carry a lot of weight.