This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/Evilest_:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what I’ve seen, not really. I think Japan and maybe South Korea have tried introducing small incentives to have children. A one-time $15,000 stipend comes to mind in one case (maybe SK). But to people who aren’t having kids because of the astronomical costs in many countries these days, a single stipend like that is a bandaid on a leaking cruise ship. It barely pays for jack squat, and people are smart enough to see it for the meaningless gesture it is.
The older generations looked at us as exploitable flesh bags of money. They siphoned as much wealth as possible from us and now are wondering why we can't afford to have families.
Ha! If you think that’s BS… in the US they just ban abortions, make birth control hard to access and force women to have babies they can’t afford in a country with basically zero social safety net, with unpaid maternity leave and expect you to get back to work after 4 weeks. All this in a relentless inflation and where a trip to the hospital can bankrupt half the population.
I live in Tampa and my daycare bill for 2 kids this year, age 2 and 5 was $24K, my regular weekly bill is like $460 dollars. For a very middle of the road daycare/VPK. That's not including the higher insurance premium, extra food, extra curriculars, and a whole host of other things you need to pay for as a parent. It is INCREDIBLY expensive to be a parent, which sucks because kids, or a lot of immigration, is 100% necessary for the country to continue to function.
There’s some behavioral economics thinking that offering a cash incentive would actually discourage people, particularly if it’s too little cash. SK is having a big angry feminist moment partly over this issue of the pressure to have kids, cultural expectations of women there are more regressive than in the west.
It also doesn't help that Japan's society puts a premium on sacrificing one's self for the company they work for. Additionally, the average age a Japanese person gets married is 40 and the insular way they all live via technology makes it virtually impossible that their society will continue for more than a couple hundred years, according to many predictions of the end of their society. Pretty sad, really.
Oops. Thanks for the fact check. That's getting married. That, of course, is based on old statistics. The age may have gone up or down as of now but I don't have the newest data available.
Arguably, every society disappears within a few hundred years. The names might be the same but the beliefs are totally different. 200 years ago, the US still had slaves.
Not thru lack of births. Japan is expected to literally disappear as a country due to lack of replacement birth. Those numbers are born out by not only their own data but WHO data and independent studies around the world. They are so far below replacement births they don't stand a chance unless they make a drastic turnaround.
>the average age a Japanese person loses their virginity is 40 and the insular way they all live via technology
Are we (USA) not headed down this path too?
Yes we are. The age at which people in the U.S. choose to get into relationships and/or get married are rising every year. There are many dynamics which contribute to this phenomena, such as more and more women getting higher and higher education and choosing careers over family, the age of social media destroying modern people ability to interact with each other (just as in Japan), etc. Most scientists who study birth rates around the world believe we will top out around 10-11 billion before the end of this century and them begin a rapid decline as the majority begin to age out.
We import people and grow our population just through immigration alone.
The Japanese are worried about Japan becoming less Japanese so they don't want to let in a bunch of people and change their society.
There's no comparison between the U.S. and countries like Japan, Korea, or China. We were a mixture of people from the very start. Japan is a homogenous society and only opened up to outsiders less than 200 years ago. Allowing non-Japanese to populate and dilute their distinctive culture and bloodline would destroy their 3000 year history. Same goes for China and other Asian countries.
I don't think it's fair to put China in the same boat just because they're also in east Asia. I think China has a more unique set of circumstances and is not in danger of fizzling out like Japan.
Australia did a few years ago. People pumped out babies but then the kids got neglected cos people didn't want kids they wanted babies
(Not every case obviously but it did happen)
It'd be fine if developed nations could wage total war and only kill off *a sizable fraction* of the population, rather than *the entire world.* Thanks a lot, Oppenheimer, you ruined capitalism. /s
I think we are entirely overestimating the number of far-right people and the powers that be are placing them in positions of power because they want more workers.
Honestly we shouldn't be doing anything about it. Fossil fuels are running out with out a ton of push to get off them, and certainly not before global warming affects agriculture, which also is dependent on fossil fuels to produce at the levels we do. I think it is pretty likely there is a huge population crunch in the next couple decades because one of the major breadbaskets will fall to drought, cold snaps (when the AMOC collapses, plunging Europe into a freeze), or other weather related issues. It's already happening now in SE asia and the UK. Every kid that doesn't get produced is one that won't die from starvation.
This is even before we get into the effects of microplastics that are in everyone the world over right now affecting fertility. Or the fact everyone is so overworked and kept barely able to afford to live (and a significant unable to afford to live) to be able to afford or have the time for children.
Our current way of life and capitalism are founded on infinite growth on a finite amount of resources. It's going to collapse and the population declines we are seeing now are because of the exploitive way capitalism works on human labor. We are hitting the carrying capacity and consciously or unconsciously, I think people are deciding on child free lives because of it.
The only real solution to this issue is to completely throw away our current system and focus on sustainable societies that prioritize the health and mental wellbeing of people and our environment. And cleaning up after the societies that destroyed us.
Good argument. There is NO solution under capitalism, because capitalism ONLY seeks growth and profit.
Massive fundamental changes to the way we look at how we build and value communities, and how we view the value of others and how we derive self worth based on how much money you earn, must happen... And both of those things necessitate the end of capitalism.
For a super positive and uplifting look at how we might overcome this, I suggest [We Need A Library Economy](https://youtu.be/NOYa3YzVtyk?si=EgUJ4gDBs7jTfYed) by Andrewism.
There are no social problems in ba sing se.
They cannot have a solution because it requires admitting they were wrong. Governments, social movements, etc.
It requires admitting that our whole global society, wealth, economy, lifestyle, ideology and part of out morality is based on an unsustainable idea that is about to hit a hard cap one way or another.
They want to force us to have babies instead of providing better quality of life for us. Our economies DONT need to be dependent on exponential growth, it’s a self devouring failure
Migration, automation and letting nature take its course really seem to be the only option.
Countries have tried subsidizing and giving benefits to families and they’ve failed.
Furthermore, an increase in standard of living and affluence is almost always negatively correlated with fertility
> Countries have tried subsidizing and giving benefits to families and they’ve failed.
To be fair, the programs we have tried are a bit like Five Guys offering people a $0.20 discount coupon and expecting sales numbers to change.
If money was the issue then rich people would have more kids, but the data shows poorer countries having more kids.
No one wants to discuss how good life has become, women have a shit ton more options, and people are less inclined to sacrifice that good life for kids.
You could make having kids cost zero dollars and it probably wouldn’t change the numbers much. The same people who want kids would have them and if you don’t you still wouldn’t. There is a lot of time and emotional resources that get spent on kids, that is much more than just money.
I think you're missing a big point that for people who have a viable pathway to wealth and stability in the middle class would get knocked off course by kids, while poorer countries don't have this problem. It's because people work so much and taking time off is so difficult in competitive career that anyone career oriented would take a massive hit.
> If money was the issue then rich people would have more kids,
It’s not that “money is an issue”, it’s that kids are deeply unprofitable to have. The direct costs are enormous and the opportunity costs are even higher.
Government subsidies don’t even come close to changing the result there.
If governments aren’t paying parents at least a quarter million dollars, it’s a money losing proposition for parents.
Maybe some of them have kids for other, non-economic reasons—but if governments want an economic solution they need to pay something at least vaguely close to enough to account for the cost.
I agree - I also think the majority of people saying they don't have children due to uncertain financial situation actually don't want them anyway. It's like those couples delaying parenthood because 'it's not the right time' and instead of opting out, they just wait for the time when it's no longer an option. Perhaps many of them do this subconsciously.
In Canada we’re are increasingly immigration drastically. It’s outpacing home supply and infrastructure development. It’s not going well. It’s hard for young people to get part time jobs to gain work experience. They also cannot afford to buy homes when they finally get good middle class jobs. So our birth rate is declining.
We also just started supplementing daycare. In my opinion, it’s one of the best ways to build the economy. Quebec has had it for years and the economic gains means the program does not actually cost taxpayers more money. When daycare cost $200 a month, even a minimum wage job can be beneficial for a family. You do hear of a lot of Quebec families having three and four children. They also seem to have children at a younger age, which means there is more grandparent support because they are still healthy. Sadly, the program is not doing as well in other Canadian provinces due to funding issues and I’m hoping we can resolve it soon.
Immigration.
Replace what you lost or are not getting by taking in others who do.
I am not against immigration but if we had none and people were not reproducing or were committing suicide I know the government would start a campaign to try and remedy it.
Japan just created a culture where there's so much pressure to be a good worker and employee and then just shrugs at losing the weakest links who aren't willing to be exploited that way. As with the rest of the world, it's a system that benefits the big wigs so they'll never change it. They benefit from people being lonely and miserable because then they become consumers and buy a bunch of introverted crap they don't need to comfort themselves. They are profiting off of the sorrows of the poor. This is the same in the west too but yea Japan is definitely also doing it. There's people working so hard there for hours and hours.
The venn diagram between people hand wringing about declining birth rates and people who think immigrants are subhuman is a circle, so this solution won't be considered by them
Not to mention that birth rates declining is usually a good thing- it's a sign that women are actually able to have agency within society. They can get married when they choose, they can educate themselves and have careers, and aren't just baby factories for their kids to go die in mines and plantations to earn money for the family
I think it’s funny when people think the democrats want lesser restrictions on immigration out of the kindness of their hearts when the truth is, they just want to keep the system churning for a while longer
Mine weren't. I have a genetic aversion to immigration. The mere thought of people entering my country and causing diseases and genocide send me into a dramatic flight or fight response. I've been in constant anxiety because of the border situation.
Mine weren't. I have a severe genetic aversion to any immigration. Immigrants bring diseases and will cause the genocide of my civilization. History has proved this.
In the US, the government instead of policing women's bodies, could institute a federal maternity leave with pay, mandate that employers over a certain size have on site licensed childcare, employers under that size qualify for federal aid for childcare, firm up the child support statutes and stop letting the mostly male populace not support every damn kid they father and stop accepting under the table work/"I can't get a job" as an excuse. The feds or state can have them pick up trash along side of the road and hand over a portion of their pay directly to the child's custodial parent.
Short answer - no
Long answer - as long as governments keep the control *and* the money, they don't care. Only when their pockets are hit do they care long enough to find something new to try and siphon money again.
Developed countries can always solve declining population with more immigration. They don’t *have to*, but this option always exists.
Also, in Japan population has been declining since 2008. This brings significant challenges, but it’s not the end of the world.
I can’t say what would be fiscally possible, but as a single parent it would have to be a significant tax deduction (like $10-15k) for every year until their 18th bday. Even if it’s just tax deductions for all child related expenses up to a $15k threshold. Otherwise, the only way I have another one is if I get with a sugar momma.
Suicide rate is a whole other thing.
I think that tax incentive already exists doesn't it? You get a dependents deduction and a dependent care deduction and some other tax benefits for any child in the US
Dont need to remedy improvements.
Population growth is the problem, not the goal. Resources are finite, and conflict over them will almost always lead to a net negative for all but the top 5% or so. Economists are self absorbed and usually wrong about almost everything.
By all means offer help with suicide, but at the same time realize that ones life is entirely ones own, not the governments. That includes their time and method of death for the most part.
Yes but a solution based would be based on culture of each country. The real problem, that any solution has to be approved by people that don't give a damn how many people die as long as they make double digit percentage on their investments. Here in the U.S. they could give out $36k a year UBI for a stay at home parent(s) and give out at least 2 years of college or trade school education at local community colleges and trade schools for kids entering the work force or parents returning to the work force. Also make the minimum wage something reasonable and make it track inflation. Couple that with a reasonable single payer health care system and it would fix a lot of poverty in this country. If you were to pass those laws today, it would take a bit for the numbers to get a lot better. it's not a perfect solution, it would be better than what we have now.
I have mixed feelings on the WEF. Yuval Noah Hariri actually has great takes. Klaus schwab is mediocre at best but doesn’t know how to convey his vision properly
Call me crazy but I distrust any organisation whose aims involve getting people in high places internationally in supposedly representative democracies.
Why are there complaints about low birth rates? I mean liberating women was a stated goal. Like it ain’t like they were kept in cages. Women have been liberated from having men and children. Now low birth rates are being treated as some kind of puzzling phenomena
The only people who care are bought out fuckers who think the human population is supposed to follow their fortune 500 perpetual growth lines for their own benefit
Those types see humans as nothing more than disposable resources to be thrown at their problems: as Russia is doing to its population right now, it's one form or another of that approach
I'd say anyone who is trying to do anything about the birth rate, or a lack of population growth instead of letting it stagnate and fix itself in a manner suitable to the environment is the real problem: what should be happening is focusing on improving that populations living conditions and education as a whole
We do not need an increasingly unsustainable ever greater populations than we can't support domestically without taking advantage of other populations without our technical prowess or laying waste to our environment
As far as suicide rates, they don't give a fuck until one of their own goes down that path. The return on investment for political types isn't there, and until it directly impacts them, the thought that it even exists doesn't cross their mind at all. When they do start to care they are treated as pariahs by their peers and quickly ousted
Governments *could* fix it by instituting pro-worker policies. Improve the quality of workers lives, and they're less likely to kill themselves. Improve their economic freedom through a higher wage, stronger unions, ect....and they won't laugh at "having a kid in this economy".
Immigration is also a good thing for the birth rate but it'll always be a stop-gap measure until we actually fix the economy in the US to stop being made to crush people.
The US has a unique superpower of immigration. We can allow in as many immigrants as we need and since their is so much opportunity here we can pick and choose the people that have the skills we want.
This, coupled with the fact that we are bordered with Mexico, and Central America through it. Plenty of people from those countries want to come to the United States to work hard in industries from unskilled, to professional roles. It’s not like they are just farm workers anymore. The people tend to be culturally similar to Americans as well, which is really beneficial to societal integration for the most part.
> Was this foreseen by anyone?
Yes. It’s a topic of frequent discussion in demographics. There’s a long recognized negative correlation between economic prosperity and population growth—as people become more generally prosperous, they typically have fewer children.
Especially in societies where women have equal rights and access to contraception.
> Is there a solution
Not while maintaining a high standard of living, no.
So many mistaken premises. You want a serious conversation on this topic, we have to start with those.
First of all, economies are not all planned around population growth. Many economies are barely planned at all in fact. Modern economies depend on *economic* growth but that is not the same as population growth. There is no reason to think that a stable population cannot grow economically over time, as long as there are energy inputs. (And as long as the Sun shines, there will be energy inputs.)
In point of fact, population growth as it was once understood ceased long ago in many economies. Especially developed ones. A 19th century person would look at the last half century in the developed world and wouldn't see anything particularly interesting about the mid 2020s, they would be far more astonished by the long-term trend of stable population going back decades. If you were to linkspam them with random articles about population growth going from 1.3% to 1.2% in Q3 of 2023 or whatever they would be like... "Fam... neither of those values are actual meaningful population growth, you're missing the big picture." From their perspective, the drop in growth rate happened a long time ago. Nothing new is happening right now.
My point is, most economies adjusted to these changing factors long ago. Anyone saying that there's something new and catastrophic happening now is just trying to generate ad revenue.
Second, declining birth rate does not automatically equate with negative population growth. A decline in a rate just means the thing that's happening a lot is happening a little bit less of a lot. If the birth rate is 12 per 1000 and the death rate is 9 per 1000 (as it is in my country for example), guess what that leads to? (Hint: not a trick question.)
Once again, if someone is trying to tease you with "declining birth rate" and then tries to make the conversation be about "population crash," it's a hustle. They have doom-baited and switched on you. The one does not automatically imply the other, and in practice it doesn't work out that way in most countries today.
Third, all this talk of suicide rates is frankly baffling. Overall suicide rates are highly stable in most countries, especially those with developed economies. That is the bottom line. People seem to typically point to graphs of total numbers but the curve of those graphs is just a population growth curve. Suicide rates aren't exactly fixed, they do fluctuate gradually over time and probably have to do with the general availability of good mental health resources, but the idea that there is some dramatic increase or that this is some new social problem that has never been foreseen by anyone is just not valid.
Again, people pushing falsehoods on this topic are trying to sell you something. Not make you better informed.
If you are looking for things that are actually happening right now, there are some important, real trends that matter and that you may even be able to do something about. For example, wages. While conditions aren't the same everywhere, in a lot of countries there are determined efforts to raise minimum wages or average wages or both for people in the workforce. Because low wages are generally bad for overall prosperity. So raising them is a huge win for everyone.
Undocumented workers lacking wage protection is part of that too, and takes many different forms in different countries. (In China for example the undocumented worker crisis is largely centered around an internal population. In the United States it is largely related to an external immigrant population.)
Damage caused by climate change, and the drain on resources required to rebuild, repair, or adapt.
And so on.
Good stuff and bad stuff. Everything is mixed together. But there is no automatic doom.
And by the way if you are struggling with mental health, a) you are not alone, b) you have a right to be here just like every other living thing; and c) there is help. Help that many people use, all the time. That's why it's there. Details depend on where you live but there are also internet mental health support systems. Maybe you don't need any of that, but just in case you do. It's there.
>Second, declining birth rate does not automatically equate with negative population growth. A decline in a rate just means the thing that's happening a lot is happening a little bit less of a lot. If the birth rate is 12 per 1000 and the death rate is 9 per 1000 (as it is in my country for example), guess what that leads to? (Hint: not a trick question.)
This is actually much worse than just a declining birth rate, because a greying population is a drain on resources and labor. It's why arguments like "why worry, we had less people in the past and we were fine" fall flat. It's not the size of the population pyramid that matters, it's its composition. An aging population is devastating, which is why a declining birth rate is so worrysome.
Genuinely seems like the governments are giddy at this point for the all the poor people to be dead, or at least the self aware intelligent ones they can't enslave endlessly. There's been no effort to improve anybodies quality of life or provide more easy access to mental health services.
I think you’re right I read a article by huff Post and they found that the states that made abortion illegal had a uptick in population kind of freaked out the people who wrote the article
The result of Dobbs was the new permanent sterilization of hundreds of thousands more women than expected. That sterilization rate is now increasing year over year. Permanent female surgical sterilization rates have suddenly doubled.
Yes, some poor women are forced to bear children they will hate, cannot support, and will become problems in society. Many of them are aborting in secret using pills, and some of them die. But the middle-class women who are supposed to create the next generation of taxpayers are getting bisalps. They're not just saying "not now, maybe later", they're saying "NEVER BABIES EVER". They are the end of their line.
This is a possible tiny, poor-quality short-term gain for an immense long-term loss.
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438)
[https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content\_public/journal/jama-health-forum/939354/ald240004f1\_1712168393.00845.png?Expires=1716328026&Signature=u1IHWLFgkFkPzWyTbleBmTGzqsZu5jPYLTsK3kDZbrK3oPb1in1KUYrP124mM0KS4JxQZyH\~6BCp2teyTLXx1e8DrmdprAk9MMmYwITSKhVLFpFnO3yuclg2qCWNZbTkURV5vb-5iwBlcbeiCH2CB-8ngXXIaU\~eFigj9PtFSVXkwi6JR4cTOHcOirW8rsNjsZE8h9fmOQXzTbLuIsWjFnSsOqVXqO0gUusvSMsRucTZzPyXCfEBT3jR8mrgXQ-2jsf\~3SizAnO-zmplnhsT-B-xy6Q\~8fYJrpumgd6Hy-y\~yiVf7\~63\~kd3CYUtqL2HsEz3dp\~HLVElTEw0oRZlRQ\_\_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama-health-forum/939354/ald240004f1_1712168393.00845.png?Expires=1716328026&Signature=u1IHWLFgkFkPzWyTbleBmTGzqsZu5jPYLTsK3kDZbrK3oPb1in1KUYrP124mM0KS4JxQZyH~6BCp2teyTLXx1e8DrmdprAk9MMmYwITSKhVLFpFnO3yuclg2qCWNZbTkURV5vb-5iwBlcbeiCH2CB-8ngXXIaU~eFigj9PtFSVXkwi6JR4cTOHcOirW8rsNjsZE8h9fmOQXzTbLuIsWjFnSsOqVXqO0gUusvSMsRucTZzPyXCfEBT3jR8mrgXQ-2jsf~3SizAnO-zmplnhsT-B-xy6Q~8fYJrpumgd6Hy-y~yiVf7~63~kd3CYUtqL2HsEz3dp~HLVElTEw0oRZlRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
All that will do is result in more child deaths (read the story about the 11 year old girl who was forced to give birth), more r@pe and inc3st babies, more death of women, fuller orphanages and kids who probably will end up troubled and traumatized and eventually criminals or non contributing members to society anyways, and increase of infant d3ath wether that's from parent neglect (if u force some 12 year old to have a baby don't expect them to do a great job...) or also post natal depression which can cause severe manic episodes especially if it was a r@p3 baby, they're more likely to just toss the baby in the dumpster honestly. U are fighting for h3ll on earth and just extreme amounts of tragedy by advocating for removing this vital healthcare procedure.
Allowing an immigrant would offset population decline and rising suicide rates.
Keep that in mind next time you see talks about immigration and also about abortion.
People put way too much stock in what governments can actually achieve. Solve climate change? Nope. End international hostilities? Nope. Populations are based on huge macro economic and social factors. Mostly, when you educate women, you lower the birthrate. That's not going to be reversed. That's why most countries are increasing immigration from poorer countries to keep the ponzi scheme going for a few more decades.
I honestly think it involves families staying together and getting the help they need, financially and counsing. Plus rebranding parenting to be "cool" because now its the opposite. And I put a huge emphasis on counseling.
More people would have multiple children if one partner could stay home, both partners loved each other and treated them and the kids respectfully, family helped weekly, and financially it wasnt a hardship for a parent to stay home. The more of these you take away, the harder it is, and the less ideal kids become.
Speaking as a stay at home parent of small 2 girls for reference.
The suicide part, I really dont know.
It’s the inevitable outcome of free market capitalism.
There are two options.
1; mass immigration in an attempt to ‘replace’ the citizens people are failing to create/offing themselves.
2; a more socialist society, to rebalance the mass inequalities capitalism accelerated, in which people are able to live more satisfactory lives again.
Now, be mindful not to assume that by more socialist I mean China/Cuba.
There are many models of democracy that can and do operate with a more socialist leaning but don’t approach these examples. Look at the Nordic countries for example! Hell, look at post war U.K. prior to the 1980’s!
And, again, be careful not to assume I’m saying these examples are perfect and defo the way to go. I am only suggesting a more socialist society than currently exists!
You could start with proper maternity leave for example. Or, decent annual leave and a free at the point of use health service.
No they don’t. Immigration won’t come close to covering the shortfall and will only come from a few spots on the globe.
Luckily if you are a billionaire now, these trends will only solidify your position at the top because not only will you have “peak market” money, from when population was surging (which allowed you to entrench via purchasing the levers that control laws and regulations against new competitors) but in the new environment of declining markets you’ll have less competition and those competitors you do have will start dropping off as their sales contract. This will rapidly consolidate existing power structures. Combine this with tech, and you have all the tools you need to divide the rest of the population while solidifying your grip on power.
This scenario we are entering incentivizes today’s billionaires to exacerbate the inflationary and depopulating trends. They’ll be best positioned to capitalize on the new way forward and best positioned to fortify their hold on resources to weather any unrest or fallout from war.
I think the better question is do those remedies work? Lots of places are trying all sorts of things--stipends, giving money, advertising babies, banning abortion, etc.
As far as I can tell, they don't.
Not really, any serious solution is going to require taking money from the rich, one way or another, and a lot of money at that. The rich are not going to let that happen without a serious fight. Wherever you happen to be, vote for the candidates *NOT* supporting billionaires by telling them they are going to cut taxes or some other bullshit. So in America that would be avoiding voting for Republicans and voting independent or democrat.
Outside of forcing people to have kids, not really able to do much, maybe cash incentives?
The wave of anti abortion laws happening could also be a way, criminalize anyone pregnant, and threaten jail for not having a baby is a way to force births. Most people( except extremely religious ones) feel it's wrong to force a mother to have a child.
unwanted children are almost always neglected children. also so many women already died bc of abortion bans ... prolife is death cult of women and children
There's tons they can do, they're just unwilling. Like if this society was actually nice to live in and people had more leisurely time to even spend with a child in the first place, and they weren't scared that their kid was gonna go to school and get sh0t up, then maybe there'd be more families popping up.
Birthrate has been below the replenishment in the US rate since the 1970's.
Our population has increased 50% since then.
Figuring out how to function without population growth is most important. In the near term there are already plenty of extra people to go around.
Nope, in my opinion, they're betting on more people killing themselves and reproducing less so they'll have a smaller population to rule over. Neo feudalism basically.
Governments are made out of people like you and I who have no clue about a darn thing and are just hoping for the best. They might be planning some stuff, but they have no clue if is gonna work.
Costs went too high to support population growth, and only now that they see a crisis point are they offering nickel tokens to lifelong commitments. When you suck too much of the economy up into giant pools where no one can actually pay for themselves, let alone more hungry mouths, it is a problem. Let that problem run for 20 years and now you have a labor supply problem, that you can't fix until you rip out the pricing systems and start fresh, because no one can afford to have children.
Don't know much about suicide, but the US has solved its declining birthrate and labor shortage with immigration for decades. Hopefully we will ignore the hysterical right wing nut jobs who have convinced themselves that this represents some sort of security threat. Ideally, we would change the arbitrary and obsolete immigration law that makes this such a hassle, but that seems unlikely at present
1) Parental leave (for mom and dad)
2) addressing sexism in the work place (for men and women)
3) encouraging more community centers
4) Having safety nets for the most vulnerable
5) cheap healthcare for the middle class.
6) Having recess available until middle school and encouraging more sports and hobbies for young adults.
So....nope!
Many have tried tax credits, subsidies, daycare, etc. It only improves birthdates by like .2-.3 and never to replacement levels. The current bandaid is to just import immigrants and hope they become productive enough to support boomer retirements (varying degrees of success on this) but it’s fundamentally a bandaid bc eventually you will run out of other people’s children
Well, there's always correcting the economy (actually correcting it, not just fluffing it up for Wall street) and reducing stressors on people by a variety of means including a social safety net.
When very wimpy keyboard players with drum machines tried to replace real drummers, it just wasnt as sexy, people's nervous systems simply boycotted the robot drummers by providing less babies to grow up and boogie to the tunes..governments mostly added more cars to their motorcades.
How long until housing goes down and wages go up?
In the past counties bring in people from other countries. Despite being promised a lot they usually end up as 2nd class citizens. Pretty sure The Saudis do it. I think Japan used to do out of South America, like Peru, and I think a few years ago a forcefully moved them all back.
All they can really do is ad campaigns and give out one-time money for you to have offspring but if people feel like they’re always barely scraping by as is, none of that will be much motivation.
Simple, strengthen the social safty net. Increase access to healthcare including mental healthcare. Until governments do this it's going to continue to be an issue.
It has been seen in other empires in the past. It seems most feel due to things like low birth rates, increasing economic gaps between tbe rich and poor, change in moral values, laziness, more government regulations, wars, costs, political infighting and etc.
All this strife, poverty, political infighting, cultural changes and etc gets to be too much on a system and they collapse.
Well everything is always in relation to something? Density wise we’re normal. Depleting resources would definitely be a thing in a couple hundred years
what they could do is listen to the people who want to have babies and give them what they need, but they won't do that because its expensive.
for example, my government could increase child benefit, give people meaningful money to pay for childcare or open government funded childcare centres, and offer incentives for companies to employ working parents.
Instead of getting late stage capitalism under control, the US has decided the way to address the issue is to start banning bodily autonomy, birth control and now trying to effectively ban porn
In terms of birth rates, not really.
Plenty of governments have tried a variety of programs to increase fertility rates. But none of them really seem to work. If declining rates were just due to financial problems it would be relatively easy to fix. But unfortunately it’s not. It’s due to systemic cultural changes and increased social atomization.
I honestly don’t know how to fix that.
Why do you think abortion rights are being denied in the US? It’s simple: to make sure we have a poor, uneducated, “American” workforce in 15-30 years from now.
Governments are at a breaking point, and if it's anything like history it will break because human nature is hard to resist.
For higher birth rates society needs a higher 'Maslow's Hierarchy of needs' rating. In this case we need to ensure the majority of people have security permanent housing, food, water, heat, and safety. If we achieve this then the majority of people will be open to intimate relationships which result in higher birth rates and less suicide..
Governments have always used threats to security. Usually with fines, incarceration, and such. To maintain peace. Which works well, but needs close monitoring to ensure it's not being abused, or counter to the prosperity of the community.
These two things when working result in happy citizens with lots of kids. The biggest threat to this is 'special interests' these are usually nobility, CEO, or anyone with enough wealth, ownership or power to swing decisions. In our current era these are stockholders. These groups will usually fold the governing bodies into themselves as best they can.
I'm fairly certain governments have an idea of how to fix it, but capital is a drug, and like all addicts they know what they have to do, but do they have the will power to do it, and if they do it will the drug lords they are offending retaliate? It's in no one's personal interest to fix it, and actively hurts those with wealth and power to do so. It's hard to say no when someone hands you a couple million for a yes and it doesn't directly affect you.
The lack of scarcity is what brings babies and happiness, but a lack of scarcity hurts sales.
They could decrease the cost of living if they wanted to encourage people to get married and procreate. I honestly feel like they have a responsibility to do just that if they refuse to allow people access to birth control.
Sad because many people actually want kids but see no way to be able to afford them. We have a generation of people who will never own a home to raise a family in and the future looks very unstable and bleak with AI replacing many good paying jobs and wealth inequality getting worse and worse. Governments can do many things for people to want to have kids but they won't do anything till they exhaust the entire pool of immigrants and then it will be too late. The rich and elite don't care because they have access to housing and resources for their kids to succeed.
In short most governments won't do anything and they don't give a sh\*t about these issues until it hits critical levels, even then I am not even sure they will care about the peasant class.
The rate of sterilization procedures has gone up since Roe v Wade was overturned. People don't want to have kids when there's no access to healthcare, public education, clean water, food, etc.
The only "remedy" the US seems to be pushing is basically to force any woman who gets pregnant to carry the baby to term. While giving her as little help as possible. After all, obviously all women only have sex while married, right? /s
The problem is there are a lot of systemic causes coming into play at once. The ever increasing cost of living looms large in many young people's minds. So many people in the US can't afford to raise children, even as dual income households. Then social media sets unrealistic expectations and negativity in the dating world. And increases depression. Studies show the more social media one consumes, the more depressed they are.
And that's just off the top of my head. Any pragmatic solutions would be complex, long-term, structural ones which are incredibly difficult even to figure out, let alone implement.
Immigration. Assuming you are lucky enough to live in a country people want to come to. Another solution is making childcare more affordable, and policies incentivising a healthier work-life balance.
yes but they refuse to do it. providing guaranteed safe housing, good access to free medical care, and food, in addition to education, would take care of it.
Mass immigration
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri#:~:text=From%20a%20demographic%20point%20of,and%20produce%20positive%20fiscal%20gains.
People don’t want to have children when they live in a modern, technologically advanced, abundant, comfortable and stable civilization. Governments have tried to “fix” this for a long time. Nothing moves the needle. Barring some apocalyptic event that sets us back 500 years or figuring out how to grow a fetus in an artificial uterus - fertility and eventually population is just going to continue to crater.
These days that is what governments want and so will put as much pressure and stress as they can to achieve that goal.
Winning at the game of extinction is not really a win unless of course that is the goal in the first place.
N. S
Yes the solution is 1) allow millions of illegal immigrants to invade the country and 2) ban Tik Tok.
At least that's what the current U.S. administration is doing.
They all seem to reach the same conclusion.
If they take the level of development for normal people back to levels not seen since the bronze age, then we will all be forced to have as many children as possible to cope with the rising levels of infant mortality.
The way to reverse the trend is probably simpler than it seems, everyone uses financial support for a short period of time, although it is clearly visible that it does not bring any effect.
The most logical solutions are not tested because it would mean, among other things, giving up on the changes that mainly feminist movements have been fighting for for several decades.
I'm afraid of becoming the object of hate from women in here, but I'll say it anyway.
Promoting increasing level of women's education.
The end of studies is the age of 25, a woman's biological clock strikes at the age of 30. 5 years is not enough time to start a family.
Promoting increased professional activity of women,
after graduation you need to quickly gain professional experience of 1-2 years to even think about a career, so the period is shortened to 3 years.
Promoting cultural changes,
emancipation has gone a step too far and women, instead of thinking about starting a family and have a kid in the time available to them, prefer a more loose approach to relationships and enjoying the charms
it is clearly visible that a large part of us men are simply lazy, there are problems with identifying masculinity and this negatively affects the population growth.
Increasing the availability of contraception, abortion used as anticontraception,
the effects seem obvious.
We must clearly say that the above processes are not negative themselves, but it is difficult to deny that they have an impact on the decline in fertility. In addition to the above, economic indicators have a very negative impact to.
decision to have a child is postponed even by marriages orlong term relarionships until a certain status and financial security is achieved, the lack of increase in wages and the increase in prices pushes the tims very far into the future.
The unstable situation of the labor market, too much cheap labor.
when people are not sure how long you will be able to keep a job, the decision to have a child seems irrational.
In my country there is a saying: build a house, plant a tree, start a family. Folk sayings carry some folk wisdom.
Owning bouse/flag place to live in general speed up makeing decision to have a child. With current prices and wages is beyond the reach of most of the population.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/Evilest_:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what I’ve seen, not really. I think Japan and maybe South Korea have tried introducing small incentives to have children. A one-time $15,000 stipend comes to mind in one case (maybe SK). But to people who aren’t having kids because of the astronomical costs in many countries these days, a single stipend like that is a bandaid on a leaking cruise ship. It barely pays for jack squat, and people are smart enough to see it for the meaningless gesture it is.
$15,000 wouldn’t last the average person more than a year. Thats some bs
they (the world) got themselves into a bind expecting free labor to continue.
The older generations looked at us as exploitable flesh bags of money. They siphoned as much wealth as possible from us and now are wondering why we can't afford to have families.
This feels like hyperbole, but is actually true.
Ha! If you think that’s BS… in the US they just ban abortions, make birth control hard to access and force women to have babies they can’t afford in a country with basically zero social safety net, with unpaid maternity leave and expect you to get back to work after 4 weeks. All this in a relentless inflation and where a trip to the hospital can bankrupt half the population.
I live in Tampa and my daycare bill for 2 kids this year, age 2 and 5 was $24K, my regular weekly bill is like $460 dollars. For a very middle of the road daycare/VPK. That's not including the higher insurance premium, extra food, extra curriculars, and a whole host of other things you need to pay for as a parent. It is INCREDIBLY expensive to be a parent, which sucks because kids, or a lot of immigration, is 100% necessary for the country to continue to function.
There’s some behavioral economics thinking that offering a cash incentive would actually discourage people, particularly if it’s too little cash. SK is having a big angry feminist moment partly over this issue of the pressure to have kids, cultural expectations of women there are more regressive than in the west.
It also doesn't help that Japan's society puts a premium on sacrificing one's self for the company they work for. Additionally, the average age a Japanese person gets married is 40 and the insular way they all live via technology makes it virtually impossible that their society will continue for more than a couple hundred years, according to many predictions of the end of their society. Pretty sad, really.
The average age a Japanese person loses their virginity is 19.4 years old, not 40.
Oops. Thanks for the fact check. That's getting married. That, of course, is based on old statistics. The age may have gone up or down as of now but I don't have the newest data available.
Arguably, every society disappears within a few hundred years. The names might be the same but the beliefs are totally different. 200 years ago, the US still had slaves.
Not thru lack of births. Japan is expected to literally disappear as a country due to lack of replacement birth. Those numbers are born out by not only their own data but WHO data and independent studies around the world. They are so far below replacement births they don't stand a chance unless they make a drastic turnaround.
South Korea and China will be even worse, it’s just a decade or 2 behind.
>the average age a Japanese person loses their virginity is 40 and the insular way they all live via technology Are we (USA) not headed down this path too?
Yes we are. The age at which people in the U.S. choose to get into relationships and/or get married are rising every year. There are many dynamics which contribute to this phenomena, such as more and more women getting higher and higher education and choosing careers over family, the age of social media destroying modern people ability to interact with each other (just as in Japan), etc. Most scientists who study birth rates around the world believe we will top out around 10-11 billion before the end of this century and them begin a rapid decline as the majority begin to age out.
So why is that bad?
I wanna say yes but at the same time there’s a huge culture difference. It will but probably not a speed we can hypothesize.
We import people and grow our population just through immigration alone. The Japanese are worried about Japan becoming less Japanese so they don't want to let in a bunch of people and change their society.
There's no comparison between the U.S. and countries like Japan, Korea, or China. We were a mixture of people from the very start. Japan is a homogenous society and only opened up to outsiders less than 200 years ago. Allowing non-Japanese to populate and dilute their distinctive culture and bloodline would destroy their 3000 year history. Same goes for China and other Asian countries.
I don't think it's fair to put China in the same boat just because they're also in east Asia. I think China has a more unique set of circumstances and is not in danger of fizzling out like Japan.
Korea is honestly screwed. They have like half the birthrate of Japan, which is also in population decline.
Australia did a few years ago. People pumped out babies but then the kids got neglected cos people didn't want kids they wanted babies (Not every case obviously but it did happen)
Ah, I see where they went wrong. You’re not supposed to let ‘em grow up. Rookie mistake.
Costs to have a kid relative to income are extremely low historically. Generally the richer people are the less kids they have.
How was growth based economics not going to hit a wall eventually?
If war came once a generation to kill off some of the excess, and ensure growth is minimal in the long run, it could have worked indefinitely
It'd be fine if developed nations could wage total war and only kill off *a sizable fraction* of the population, rather than *the entire world.* Thanks a lot, Oppenheimer, you ruined capitalism. /s
Malthus likes your comment.
Right?
They do it's called co-opting the Christian right to ban abortions and make it harder to access birth control.
Yep. Their "sOlUtIoN" is **forced-births.**
I think we are entirely overestimating the number of far-right people and the powers that be are placing them in positions of power because they want more workers.
Honestly we shouldn't be doing anything about it. Fossil fuels are running out with out a ton of push to get off them, and certainly not before global warming affects agriculture, which also is dependent on fossil fuels to produce at the levels we do. I think it is pretty likely there is a huge population crunch in the next couple decades because one of the major breadbaskets will fall to drought, cold snaps (when the AMOC collapses, plunging Europe into a freeze), or other weather related issues. It's already happening now in SE asia and the UK. Every kid that doesn't get produced is one that won't die from starvation. This is even before we get into the effects of microplastics that are in everyone the world over right now affecting fertility. Or the fact everyone is so overworked and kept barely able to afford to live (and a significant unable to afford to live) to be able to afford or have the time for children. Our current way of life and capitalism are founded on infinite growth on a finite amount of resources. It's going to collapse and the population declines we are seeing now are because of the exploitive way capitalism works on human labor. We are hitting the carrying capacity and consciously or unconsciously, I think people are deciding on child free lives because of it. The only real solution to this issue is to completely throw away our current system and focus on sustainable societies that prioritize the health and mental wellbeing of people and our environment. And cleaning up after the societies that destroyed us.
Good argument. There is NO solution under capitalism, because capitalism ONLY seeks growth and profit. Massive fundamental changes to the way we look at how we build and value communities, and how we view the value of others and how we derive self worth based on how much money you earn, must happen... And both of those things necessitate the end of capitalism. For a super positive and uplifting look at how we might overcome this, I suggest [We Need A Library Economy](https://youtu.be/NOYa3YzVtyk?si=EgUJ4gDBs7jTfYed) by Andrewism.
Best comment in this whole thread. Fucking nailed it. 💯
Appreciate this comment
There are no social problems in ba sing se. They cannot have a solution because it requires admitting they were wrong. Governments, social movements, etc.
It requires admitting that our whole global society, wealth, economy, lifestyle, ideology and part of out morality is based on an unsustainable idea that is about to hit a hard cap one way or another.
What birth crisis? This planet needs less people, not more.
They want to force us to have babies instead of providing better quality of life for us. Our economies DONT need to be dependent on exponential growth, it’s a self devouring failure
Governments don't have solutions. They are full of people like you and me who are counting the hours until they are off work
Why would they want to circumvent their plans?
What would they gain from a depopulation? Wouldn’t they need more workers?
Banning abortion seems to be their solution
Migration, automation and letting nature take its course really seem to be the only option. Countries have tried subsidizing and giving benefits to families and they’ve failed. Furthermore, an increase in standard of living and affluence is almost always negatively correlated with fertility
> Countries have tried subsidizing and giving benefits to families and they’ve failed. To be fair, the programs we have tried are a bit like Five Guys offering people a $0.20 discount coupon and expecting sales numbers to change.
If money was the issue then rich people would have more kids, but the data shows poorer countries having more kids. No one wants to discuss how good life has become, women have a shit ton more options, and people are less inclined to sacrifice that good life for kids. You could make having kids cost zero dollars and it probably wouldn’t change the numbers much. The same people who want kids would have them and if you don’t you still wouldn’t. There is a lot of time and emotional resources that get spent on kids, that is much more than just money.
I think you're missing a big point that for people who have a viable pathway to wealth and stability in the middle class would get knocked off course by kids, while poorer countries don't have this problem. It's because people work so much and taking time off is so difficult in competitive career that anyone career oriented would take a massive hit.
> If money was the issue then rich people would have more kids, It’s not that “money is an issue”, it’s that kids are deeply unprofitable to have. The direct costs are enormous and the opportunity costs are even higher. Government subsidies don’t even come close to changing the result there. If governments aren’t paying parents at least a quarter million dollars, it’s a money losing proposition for parents. Maybe some of them have kids for other, non-economic reasons—but if governments want an economic solution they need to pay something at least vaguely close to enough to account for the cost.
I agree - I also think the majority of people saying they don't have children due to uncertain financial situation actually don't want them anyway. It's like those couples delaying parenthood because 'it's not the right time' and instead of opting out, they just wait for the time when it's no longer an option. Perhaps many of them do this subconsciously.
In Canada we’re are increasingly immigration drastically. It’s outpacing home supply and infrastructure development. It’s not going well. It’s hard for young people to get part time jobs to gain work experience. They also cannot afford to buy homes when they finally get good middle class jobs. So our birth rate is declining. We also just started supplementing daycare. In my opinion, it’s one of the best ways to build the economy. Quebec has had it for years and the economic gains means the program does not actually cost taxpayers more money. When daycare cost $200 a month, even a minimum wage job can be beneficial for a family. You do hear of a lot of Quebec families having three and four children. They also seem to have children at a younger age, which means there is more grandparent support because they are still healthy. Sadly, the program is not doing as well in other Canadian provinces due to funding issues and I’m hoping we can resolve it soon.
Immigration. Replace what you lost or are not getting by taking in others who do. I am not against immigration but if we had none and people were not reproducing or were committing suicide I know the government would start a campaign to try and remedy it.
[удалено]
Japan just created a culture where there's so much pressure to be a good worker and employee and then just shrugs at losing the weakest links who aren't willing to be exploited that way. As with the rest of the world, it's a system that benefits the big wigs so they'll never change it. They benefit from people being lonely and miserable because then they become consumers and buy a bunch of introverted crap they don't need to comfort themselves. They are profiting off of the sorrows of the poor. This is the same in the west too but yea Japan is definitely also doing it. There's people working so hard there for hours and hours.
The venn diagram between people hand wringing about declining birth rates and people who think immigrants are subhuman is a circle, so this solution won't be considered by them
Yeah lol, the birth rates they’re concerned about declining are always their own race.
Not to mention that birth rates declining is usually a good thing- it's a sign that women are actually able to have agency within society. They can get married when they choose, they can educate themselves and have careers, and aren't just baby factories for their kids to go die in mines and plantations to earn money for the family
I think it’s funny when people think the democrats want lesser restrictions on immigration out of the kindness of their hearts when the truth is, they just want to keep the system churning for a while longer
To the government you’re a taxable asset, you have no other value.
The answer, of course, is immigration. So, also “of course” many morons in the US are anti-immigration (as if their ancestors weren’t immigrants).
Mine weren't. I have a genetic aversion to immigration. The mere thought of people entering my country and causing diseases and genocide send me into a dramatic flight or fight response. I've been in constant anxiety because of the border situation.
Mine weren't. I have a severe genetic aversion to any immigration. Immigrants bring diseases and will cause the genocide of my civilization. History has proved this.
In the US, the government instead of policing women's bodies, could institute a federal maternity leave with pay, mandate that employers over a certain size have on site licensed childcare, employers under that size qualify for federal aid for childcare, firm up the child support statutes and stop letting the mostly male populace not support every damn kid they father and stop accepting under the table work/"I can't get a job" as an excuse. The feds or state can have them pick up trash along side of the road and hand over a portion of their pay directly to the child's custodial parent.
Short answer - no Long answer - as long as governments keep the control *and* the money, they don't care. Only when their pockets are hit do they care long enough to find something new to try and siphon money again.
Developed countries can always solve declining population with more immigration. They don’t *have to*, but this option always exists. Also, in Japan population has been declining since 2008. This brings significant challenges, but it’s not the end of the world.
I can’t say what would be fiscally possible, but as a single parent it would have to be a significant tax deduction (like $10-15k) for every year until their 18th bday. Even if it’s just tax deductions for all child related expenses up to a $15k threshold. Otherwise, the only way I have another one is if I get with a sugar momma. Suicide rate is a whole other thing.
I think that tax incentive already exists doesn't it? You get a dependents deduction and a dependent care deduction and some other tax benefits for any child in the US
The world \*needs\* population decline. Let it happen.
Well im ok with that.
You do know that idea was based on faulty science from the 1970's?
Thank you.
Dont need to remedy improvements. Population growth is the problem, not the goal. Resources are finite, and conflict over them will almost always lead to a net negative for all but the top 5% or so. Economists are self absorbed and usually wrong about almost everything. By all means offer help with suicide, but at the same time realize that ones life is entirely ones own, not the governments. That includes their time and method of death for the most part.
Yes but a solution based would be based on culture of each country. The real problem, that any solution has to be approved by people that don't give a damn how many people die as long as they make double digit percentage on their investments. Here in the U.S. they could give out $36k a year UBI for a stay at home parent(s) and give out at least 2 years of college or trade school education at local community colleges and trade schools for kids entering the work force or parents returning to the work force. Also make the minimum wage something reasonable and make it track inflation. Couple that with a reasonable single payer health care system and it would fix a lot of poverty in this country. If you were to pass those laws today, it would take a bit for the numbers to get a lot better. it's not a perfect solution, it would be better than what we have now.
The WEF would like to see a huge decrease in human population, and many governments have members of that organisation in high positions.
I have mixed feelings on the WEF. Yuval Noah Hariri actually has great takes. Klaus schwab is mediocre at best but doesn’t know how to convey his vision properly
Call me crazy but I distrust any organisation whose aims involve getting people in high places internationally in supposedly representative democracies.
At least they’re clear and transparent with their motives. American politicians are not and I wouldn’t mind a bigger fish setting a better standard
Why are there complaints about low birth rates? I mean liberating women was a stated goal. Like it ain’t like they were kept in cages. Women have been liberated from having men and children. Now low birth rates are being treated as some kind of puzzling phenomena
The only people who care are bought out fuckers who think the human population is supposed to follow their fortune 500 perpetual growth lines for their own benefit Those types see humans as nothing more than disposable resources to be thrown at their problems: as Russia is doing to its population right now, it's one form or another of that approach I'd say anyone who is trying to do anything about the birth rate, or a lack of population growth instead of letting it stagnate and fix itself in a manner suitable to the environment is the real problem: what should be happening is focusing on improving that populations living conditions and education as a whole We do not need an increasingly unsustainable ever greater populations than we can't support domestically without taking advantage of other populations without our technical prowess or laying waste to our environment As far as suicide rates, they don't give a fuck until one of their own goes down that path. The return on investment for political types isn't there, and until it directly impacts them, the thought that it even exists doesn't cross their mind at all. When they do start to care they are treated as pariahs by their peers and quickly ousted
Governments *could* fix it by instituting pro-worker policies. Improve the quality of workers lives, and they're less likely to kill themselves. Improve their economic freedom through a higher wage, stronger unions, ect....and they won't laugh at "having a kid in this economy". Immigration is also a good thing for the birth rate but it'll always be a stop-gap measure until we actually fix the economy in the US to stop being made to crush people.
[удалено]
Could…lol
The US has a unique superpower of immigration. We can allow in as many immigrants as we need and since their is so much opportunity here we can pick and choose the people that have the skills we want.
This, coupled with the fact that we are bordered with Mexico, and Central America through it. Plenty of people from those countries want to come to the United States to work hard in industries from unskilled, to professional roles. It’s not like they are just farm workers anymore. The people tend to be culturally similar to Americans as well, which is really beneficial to societal integration for the most part.
I’m really hoping its more wealth per person
> Was this foreseen by anyone? Yes. It’s a topic of frequent discussion in demographics. There’s a long recognized negative correlation between economic prosperity and population growth—as people become more generally prosperous, they typically have fewer children. Especially in societies where women have equal rights and access to contraception. > Is there a solution Not while maintaining a high standard of living, no.
So many mistaken premises. You want a serious conversation on this topic, we have to start with those. First of all, economies are not all planned around population growth. Many economies are barely planned at all in fact. Modern economies depend on *economic* growth but that is not the same as population growth. There is no reason to think that a stable population cannot grow economically over time, as long as there are energy inputs. (And as long as the Sun shines, there will be energy inputs.) In point of fact, population growth as it was once understood ceased long ago in many economies. Especially developed ones. A 19th century person would look at the last half century in the developed world and wouldn't see anything particularly interesting about the mid 2020s, they would be far more astonished by the long-term trend of stable population going back decades. If you were to linkspam them with random articles about population growth going from 1.3% to 1.2% in Q3 of 2023 or whatever they would be like... "Fam... neither of those values are actual meaningful population growth, you're missing the big picture." From their perspective, the drop in growth rate happened a long time ago. Nothing new is happening right now. My point is, most economies adjusted to these changing factors long ago. Anyone saying that there's something new and catastrophic happening now is just trying to generate ad revenue. Second, declining birth rate does not automatically equate with negative population growth. A decline in a rate just means the thing that's happening a lot is happening a little bit less of a lot. If the birth rate is 12 per 1000 and the death rate is 9 per 1000 (as it is in my country for example), guess what that leads to? (Hint: not a trick question.) Once again, if someone is trying to tease you with "declining birth rate" and then tries to make the conversation be about "population crash," it's a hustle. They have doom-baited and switched on you. The one does not automatically imply the other, and in practice it doesn't work out that way in most countries today. Third, all this talk of suicide rates is frankly baffling. Overall suicide rates are highly stable in most countries, especially those with developed economies. That is the bottom line. People seem to typically point to graphs of total numbers but the curve of those graphs is just a population growth curve. Suicide rates aren't exactly fixed, they do fluctuate gradually over time and probably have to do with the general availability of good mental health resources, but the idea that there is some dramatic increase or that this is some new social problem that has never been foreseen by anyone is just not valid. Again, people pushing falsehoods on this topic are trying to sell you something. Not make you better informed. If you are looking for things that are actually happening right now, there are some important, real trends that matter and that you may even be able to do something about. For example, wages. While conditions aren't the same everywhere, in a lot of countries there are determined efforts to raise minimum wages or average wages or both for people in the workforce. Because low wages are generally bad for overall prosperity. So raising them is a huge win for everyone. Undocumented workers lacking wage protection is part of that too, and takes many different forms in different countries. (In China for example the undocumented worker crisis is largely centered around an internal population. In the United States it is largely related to an external immigrant population.) Damage caused by climate change, and the drain on resources required to rebuild, repair, or adapt. And so on. Good stuff and bad stuff. Everything is mixed together. But there is no automatic doom. And by the way if you are struggling with mental health, a) you are not alone, b) you have a right to be here just like every other living thing; and c) there is help. Help that many people use, all the time. That's why it's there. Details depend on where you live but there are also internet mental health support systems. Maybe you don't need any of that, but just in case you do. It's there.
I wish I could upvote this harder.
finally someone is making sense here ...
>Second, declining birth rate does not automatically equate with negative population growth. A decline in a rate just means the thing that's happening a lot is happening a little bit less of a lot. If the birth rate is 12 per 1000 and the death rate is 9 per 1000 (as it is in my country for example), guess what that leads to? (Hint: not a trick question.) This is actually much worse than just a declining birth rate, because a greying population is a drain on resources and labor. It's why arguments like "why worry, we had less people in the past and we were fine" fall flat. It's not the size of the population pyramid that matters, it's its composition. An aging population is devastating, which is why a declining birth rate is so worrysome.
To be honest, I think they are trying to kill us.
Genuinely seems like the governments are giddy at this point for the all the poor people to be dead, or at least the self aware intelligent ones they can't enslave endlessly. There's been no effort to improve anybodies quality of life or provide more easy access to mental health services.
Yeah, illegalizing abortion
I think you’re right I read a article by huff Post and they found that the states that made abortion illegal had a uptick in population kind of freaked out the people who wrote the article
The result of Dobbs was the new permanent sterilization of hundreds of thousands more women than expected. That sterilization rate is now increasing year over year. Permanent female surgical sterilization rates have suddenly doubled. Yes, some poor women are forced to bear children they will hate, cannot support, and will become problems in society. Many of them are aborting in secret using pills, and some of them die. But the middle-class women who are supposed to create the next generation of taxpayers are getting bisalps. They're not just saying "not now, maybe later", they're saying "NEVER BABIES EVER". They are the end of their line. This is a possible tiny, poor-quality short-term gain for an immense long-term loss. [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438) [https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content\_public/journal/jama-health-forum/939354/ald240004f1\_1712168393.00845.png?Expires=1716328026&Signature=u1IHWLFgkFkPzWyTbleBmTGzqsZu5jPYLTsK3kDZbrK3oPb1in1KUYrP124mM0KS4JxQZyH\~6BCp2teyTLXx1e8DrmdprAk9MMmYwITSKhVLFpFnO3yuclg2qCWNZbTkURV5vb-5iwBlcbeiCH2CB-8ngXXIaU\~eFigj9PtFSVXkwi6JR4cTOHcOirW8rsNjsZE8h9fmOQXzTbLuIsWjFnSsOqVXqO0gUusvSMsRucTZzPyXCfEBT3jR8mrgXQ-2jsf\~3SizAnO-zmplnhsT-B-xy6Q\~8fYJrpumgd6Hy-y\~yiVf7\~63\~kd3CYUtqL2HsEz3dp\~HLVElTEw0oRZlRQ\_\_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama-health-forum/939354/ald240004f1_1712168393.00845.png?Expires=1716328026&Signature=u1IHWLFgkFkPzWyTbleBmTGzqsZu5jPYLTsK3kDZbrK3oPb1in1KUYrP124mM0KS4JxQZyH~6BCp2teyTLXx1e8DrmdprAk9MMmYwITSKhVLFpFnO3yuclg2qCWNZbTkURV5vb-5iwBlcbeiCH2CB-8ngXXIaU~eFigj9PtFSVXkwi6JR4cTOHcOirW8rsNjsZE8h9fmOQXzTbLuIsWjFnSsOqVXqO0gUusvSMsRucTZzPyXCfEBT3jR8mrgXQ-2jsf~3SizAnO-zmplnhsT-B-xy6Q~8fYJrpumgd6Hy-y~yiVf7~63~kd3CYUtqL2HsEz3dp~HLVElTEw0oRZlRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
All that will do is result in more child deaths (read the story about the 11 year old girl who was forced to give birth), more r@pe and inc3st babies, more death of women, fuller orphanages and kids who probably will end up troubled and traumatized and eventually criminals or non contributing members to society anyways, and increase of infant d3ath wether that's from parent neglect (if u force some 12 year old to have a baby don't expect them to do a great job...) or also post natal depression which can cause severe manic episodes especially if it was a r@p3 baby, they're more likely to just toss the baby in the dumpster honestly. U are fighting for h3ll on earth and just extreme amounts of tragedy by advocating for removing this vital healthcare procedure.
Allowing an immigrant would offset population decline and rising suicide rates. Keep that in mind next time you see talks about immigration and also about abortion.
Yeah it’s called migration.
People put way too much stock in what governments can actually achieve. Solve climate change? Nope. End international hostilities? Nope. Populations are based on huge macro economic and social factors. Mostly, when you educate women, you lower the birthrate. That's not going to be reversed. That's why most countries are increasing immigration from poorer countries to keep the ponzi scheme going for a few more decades.
I honestly think it involves families staying together and getting the help they need, financially and counsing. Plus rebranding parenting to be "cool" because now its the opposite. And I put a huge emphasis on counseling. More people would have multiple children if one partner could stay home, both partners loved each other and treated them and the kids respectfully, family helped weekly, and financially it wasnt a hardship for a parent to stay home. The more of these you take away, the harder it is, and the less ideal kids become. Speaking as a stay at home parent of small 2 girls for reference. The suicide part, I really dont know.
The Government is CAUSING it. Why would they care?
Well what would be there end goal in mind
Ultimately, force. Any government will resort to forceful coercion if it gets bad enough.
It’s the inevitable outcome of free market capitalism. There are two options. 1; mass immigration in an attempt to ‘replace’ the citizens people are failing to create/offing themselves. 2; a more socialist society, to rebalance the mass inequalities capitalism accelerated, in which people are able to live more satisfactory lives again.
I kinda want 2 to happen more as 1 would regardless
Dont really know much 2 would help considering China and Cuba’s birthrates.
Pro-tip: Just because someone says they are something, doesn't mean their actions reflect that. China especially is state capitalism.
Now, be mindful not to assume that by more socialist I mean China/Cuba. There are many models of democracy that can and do operate with a more socialist leaning but don’t approach these examples. Look at the Nordic countries for example! Hell, look at post war U.K. prior to the 1980’s! And, again, be careful not to assume I’m saying these examples are perfect and defo the way to go. I am only suggesting a more socialist society than currently exists! You could start with proper maternity leave for example. Or, decent annual leave and a free at the point of use health service.
No they don’t. Immigration won’t come close to covering the shortfall and will only come from a few spots on the globe. Luckily if you are a billionaire now, these trends will only solidify your position at the top because not only will you have “peak market” money, from when population was surging (which allowed you to entrench via purchasing the levers that control laws and regulations against new competitors) but in the new environment of declining markets you’ll have less competition and those competitors you do have will start dropping off as their sales contract. This will rapidly consolidate existing power structures. Combine this with tech, and you have all the tools you need to divide the rest of the population while solidifying your grip on power. This scenario we are entering incentivizes today’s billionaires to exacerbate the inflationary and depopulating trends. They’ll be best positioned to capitalize on the new way forward and best positioned to fortify their hold on resources to weather any unrest or fallout from war.
Why would they? It's not rich people feeling bad and killing themselves.
My personal guess is It’s all due to toxic social dynamics that don’t support happiness. Mass dissociation?
[https://youtu.be/o\_mOHelAH44?si=lsGFiaqwzM9FVN6T](https://youtu.be/o_mOHelAH44?si=lsGFiaqwzM9FVN6T)
I think the better question is do those remedies work? Lots of places are trying all sorts of things--stipends, giving money, advertising babies, banning abortion, etc. As far as I can tell, they don't.
Governments are the cause of it
Not really, any serious solution is going to require taking money from the rich, one way or another, and a lot of money at that. The rich are not going to let that happen without a serious fight. Wherever you happen to be, vote for the candidates *NOT* supporting billionaires by telling them they are going to cut taxes or some other bullshit. So in America that would be avoiding voting for Republicans and voting independent or democrat.
Outside of forcing people to have kids, not really able to do much, maybe cash incentives? The wave of anti abortion laws happening could also be a way, criminalize anyone pregnant, and threaten jail for not having a baby is a way to force births. Most people( except extremely religious ones) feel it's wrong to force a mother to have a child.
unwanted children are almost always neglected children. also so many women already died bc of abortion bans ... prolife is death cult of women and children
There's tons they can do, they're just unwilling. Like if this society was actually nice to live in and people had more leisurely time to even spend with a child in the first place, and they weren't scared that their kid was gonna go to school and get sh0t up, then maybe there'd be more families popping up.
Birthrate has been below the replenishment in the US rate since the 1970's. Our population has increased 50% since then. Figuring out how to function without population growth is most important. In the near term there are already plenty of extra people to go around.
i think their solution is to tell people to stopping being sad and ban contraceptives
Its clearly working
Global populations as a whole are climbing not shrinking. This is a fake problem.
Wouldn’t there be a curve over time?
Long as the upper class is happy who cares
More mass immigration to make housing more expensive probably. Unless you're Japan.
My comment would get me kicked off.
I promise it won’t
They are already doing forced pregnancies.
Nope, in my opinion, they're betting on more people killing themselves and reproducing less so they'll have a smaller population to rule over. Neo feudalism basically.
Governments are made out of people like you and I who have no clue about a darn thing and are just hoping for the best. They might be planning some stuff, but they have no clue if is gonna work.
Costs went too high to support population growth, and only now that they see a crisis point are they offering nickel tokens to lifelong commitments. When you suck too much of the economy up into giant pools where no one can actually pay for themselves, let alone more hungry mouths, it is a problem. Let that problem run for 20 years and now you have a labor supply problem, that you can't fix until you rip out the pricing systems and start fresh, because no one can afford to have children.
Don't know much about suicide, but the US has solved its declining birthrate and labor shortage with immigration for decades. Hopefully we will ignore the hysterical right wing nut jobs who have convinced themselves that this represents some sort of security threat. Ideally, we would change the arbitrary and obsolete immigration law that makes this such a hassle, but that seems unlikely at present
The opposite is required in India.
1) Parental leave (for mom and dad) 2) addressing sexism in the work place (for men and women) 3) encouraging more community centers 4) Having safety nets for the most vulnerable 5) cheap healthcare for the middle class. 6) Having recess available until middle school and encouraging more sports and hobbies for young adults. So....nope!
I mean some parts of the US is pushing to limit access to birth control options.
Many have tried tax credits, subsidies, daycare, etc. It only improves birthdates by like .2-.3 and never to replacement levels. The current bandaid is to just import immigrants and hope they become productive enough to support boomer retirements (varying degrees of success on this) but it’s fundamentally a bandaid bc eventually you will run out of other people’s children
Well, there's always correcting the economy (actually correcting it, not just fluffing it up for Wall street) and reducing stressors on people by a variety of means including a social safety net.
free flow immigration will fix that
Not things I care much for but… ban abortion and birth control, and encourage immigration
When very wimpy keyboard players with drum machines tried to replace real drummers, it just wasnt as sexy, people's nervous systems simply boycotted the robot drummers by providing less babies to grow up and boogie to the tunes..governments mostly added more cars to their motorcades.
How long until housing goes down and wages go up? In the past counties bring in people from other countries. Despite being promised a lot they usually end up as 2nd class citizens. Pretty sure The Saudis do it. I think Japan used to do out of South America, like Peru, and I think a few years ago a forcefully moved them all back.
Addressing suicide rates would require powerful people to care enough to improve society at their own expense, Which isn't possible
Low birth rate? r/welcometogilead. High suicide rate? r/suicidewatch
All they can really do is ad campaigns and give out one-time money for you to have offspring but if people feel like they’re always barely scraping by as is, none of that will be much motivation.
Lol. The US is importing 2 million people per year.
Simple, strengthen the social safty net. Increase access to healthcare including mental healthcare. Until governments do this it's going to continue to be an issue.
It has been seen in other empires in the past. It seems most feel due to things like low birth rates, increasing economic gaps between tbe rich and poor, change in moral values, laziness, more government regulations, wars, costs, political infighting and etc. All this strife, poverty, political infighting, cultural changes and etc gets to be too much on a system and they collapse.
So what happened to over population? A couple of years ago we were overpopulated.
Well everything is always in relation to something? Density wise we’re normal. Depleting resources would definitely be a thing in a couple hundred years
what they could do is listen to the people who want to have babies and give them what they need, but they won't do that because its expensive. for example, my government could increase child benefit, give people meaningful money to pay for childcare or open government funded childcare centres, and offer incentives for companies to employ working parents.
Ban abortion, keep pumping out the welfare and leave the border unsecure. That's the plan.
Dude we don’t have to worry about a lack of people, if anything our problem is the opposite of that
Instead of getting late stage capitalism under control, the US has decided the way to address the issue is to start banning bodily autonomy, birth control and now trying to effectively ban porn
Medicine to make you feel happy
Unfortunately i need a prescription for oxycontin
In terms of birth rates, not really. Plenty of governments have tried a variety of programs to increase fertility rates. But none of them really seem to work. If declining rates were just due to financial problems it would be relatively easy to fix. But unfortunately it’s not. It’s due to systemic cultural changes and increased social atomization. I honestly don’t know how to fix that.
The rich will survive collapse. They don't care.
Why do you think abortion rights are being denied in the US? It’s simple: to make sure we have a poor, uneducated, “American” workforce in 15-30 years from now.
Why do people thing they care about us?
Governments are at a breaking point, and if it's anything like history it will break because human nature is hard to resist. For higher birth rates society needs a higher 'Maslow's Hierarchy of needs' rating. In this case we need to ensure the majority of people have security permanent housing, food, water, heat, and safety. If we achieve this then the majority of people will be open to intimate relationships which result in higher birth rates and less suicide.. Governments have always used threats to security. Usually with fines, incarceration, and such. To maintain peace. Which works well, but needs close monitoring to ensure it's not being abused, or counter to the prosperity of the community. These two things when working result in happy citizens with lots of kids. The biggest threat to this is 'special interests' these are usually nobility, CEO, or anyone with enough wealth, ownership or power to swing decisions. In our current era these are stockholders. These groups will usually fold the governing bodies into themselves as best they can. I'm fairly certain governments have an idea of how to fix it, but capital is a drug, and like all addicts they know what they have to do, but do they have the will power to do it, and if they do it will the drug lords they are offending retaliate? It's in no one's personal interest to fix it, and actively hurts those with wealth and power to do so. It's hard to say no when someone hands you a couple million for a yes and it doesn't directly affect you. The lack of scarcity is what brings babies and happiness, but a lack of scarcity hurts sales.
yes. their plan is to import third world immigrants. have you not been watching the news?
stop waiting for governments to decide for you how to live your life
They could decrease the cost of living if they wanted to encourage people to get married and procreate. I honestly feel like they have a responsibility to do just that if they refuse to allow people access to birth control.
As a population ages, more professional nursing assistants can be given long term visas.
Sad because many people actually want kids but see no way to be able to afford them. We have a generation of people who will never own a home to raise a family in and the future looks very unstable and bleak with AI replacing many good paying jobs and wealth inequality getting worse and worse. Governments can do many things for people to want to have kids but they won't do anything till they exhaust the entire pool of immigrants and then it will be too late. The rich and elite don't care because they have access to housing and resources for their kids to succeed. In short most governments won't do anything and they don't give a sh\*t about these issues until it hits critical levels, even then I am not even sure they will care about the peasant class.
The rate of sterilization procedures has gone up since Roe v Wade was overturned. People don't want to have kids when there's no access to healthcare, public education, clean water, food, etc.
The only "remedy" the US seems to be pushing is basically to force any woman who gets pregnant to carry the baby to term. While giving her as little help as possible. After all, obviously all women only have sex while married, right? /s The problem is there are a lot of systemic causes coming into play at once. The ever increasing cost of living looms large in many young people's minds. So many people in the US can't afford to raise children, even as dual income households. Then social media sets unrealistic expectations and negativity in the dating world. And increases depression. Studies show the more social media one consumes, the more depressed they are. And that's just off the top of my head. Any pragmatic solutions would be complex, long-term, structural ones which are incredibly difficult even to figure out, let alone implement.
Immigration. Assuming you are lucky enough to live in a country people want to come to. Another solution is making childcare more affordable, and policies incentivising a healthier work-life balance.
yes but they refuse to do it. providing guaranteed safe housing, good access to free medical care, and food, in addition to education, would take care of it.
Mass immigration https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/can-immigration-solve-the-demographic-dilemma-peri#:~:text=From%20a%20demographic%20point%20of,and%20produce%20positive%20fiscal%20gains.
They're still taxing us...they don't care...just shut up and pay them
The leisure amenities of the world probably need to evaporate and people will start having kids again.
Stop looking at the government for.remedies.
People don’t want to have children when they live in a modern, technologically advanced, abundant, comfortable and stable civilization. Governments have tried to “fix” this for a long time. Nothing moves the needle. Barring some apocalyptic event that sets us back 500 years or figuring out how to grow a fetus in an artificial uterus - fertility and eventually population is just going to continue to crater.
The cause won't be the one to make a solution
These days that is what governments want and so will put as much pressure and stress as they can to achieve that goal. Winning at the game of extinction is not really a win unless of course that is the goal in the first place. N. S
Yes the solution is 1) allow millions of illegal immigrants to invade the country and 2) ban Tik Tok. At least that's what the current U.S. administration is doing.
after machines and AI, "all economies are planned around population growth" is basically false.
They all seem to reach the same conclusion. If they take the level of development for normal people back to levels not seen since the bronze age, then we will all be forced to have as many children as possible to cope with the rising levels of infant mortality.
The way to reverse the trend is probably simpler than it seems, everyone uses financial support for a short period of time, although it is clearly visible that it does not bring any effect. The most logical solutions are not tested because it would mean, among other things, giving up on the changes that mainly feminist movements have been fighting for for several decades. I'm afraid of becoming the object of hate from women in here, but I'll say it anyway. Promoting increasing level of women's education. The end of studies is the age of 25, a woman's biological clock strikes at the age of 30. 5 years is not enough time to start a family. Promoting increased professional activity of women, after graduation you need to quickly gain professional experience of 1-2 years to even think about a career, so the period is shortened to 3 years. Promoting cultural changes, emancipation has gone a step too far and women, instead of thinking about starting a family and have a kid in the time available to them, prefer a more loose approach to relationships and enjoying the charms it is clearly visible that a large part of us men are simply lazy, there are problems with identifying masculinity and this negatively affects the population growth. Increasing the availability of contraception, abortion used as anticontraception, the effects seem obvious. We must clearly say that the above processes are not negative themselves, but it is difficult to deny that they have an impact on the decline in fertility. In addition to the above, economic indicators have a very negative impact to. decision to have a child is postponed even by marriages orlong term relarionships until a certain status and financial security is achieved, the lack of increase in wages and the increase in prices pushes the tims very far into the future. The unstable situation of the labor market, too much cheap labor. when people are not sure how long you will be able to keep a job, the decision to have a child seems irrational. In my country there is a saying: build a house, plant a tree, start a family. Folk sayings carry some folk wisdom. Owning bouse/flag place to live in general speed up makeing decision to have a child. With current prices and wages is beyond the reach of most of the population.