OECD 2024 report: 28.3% of Japanese women born in 1975 are childless, compared to 11.9% born in 1955. (and, my writing on the birth rate crisis)

ggx2ac

Member
Expert
(They publish Dark Souls)
It's been a while since we last had a thread on Japan's declining birth rates, referring to the thread by @Ishaan titled: Nikkei Asia: Japan readies "last hope" measures to stop falling births

What is the OECD?
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organisation that works to build better policies for better lives. Our goal is to shape policies that foster prosperity, equality, opportunity and well-being for all. We draw on 60 years of experience and insights to better prepare the world of tomorrow.

The list of Member Countries in the OECD:
Member countries
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Czechia
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Korea
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Mexico
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Slovak Republic
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Türkiye
  • United Kingdom
  • United States

Backstory

I first need to put in chronological order how I ended up finding this report. You can skip this section if you don't care about the context.

The media outlet CNN posted this article recently: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/25/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

The article starts off by citing the Society at Glance 2024 report by the OECD:
London (CNN) —
The world needs more babies.

Falling fertility rates have long been a concern for economists worried that aging societies could diminish the labor force, further exacerbate inflation, upend the consumer culture upon which mature economies depend and overwhelm government programs meant to care for aging populations.

Those changes are now upon us. A new study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says that declining birth rates will permanently alter the demographic makeup of the world’s largest economies over the next decade.

During the article they get a bunch of quotes from different people:
“A reduction in the share of workers can lead to labor shortages, which may raise the bargaining power of employees and lift wages — all of which is ultimately inflationary,” Simona Paravani-Mellinghoff, managing director at BlackRock, wrote in an analysis last year.
(Lol, keep wages down because of inflation but makes no mention of Asset Price Inflation says the person from the company Blackrock that makes money from managing $10T in assets)
“Here are the facts. We are not having enough children, and we have not been having enough children for long enough that there is a demographic crisis, former Google CEO and executive chairman Eric Schmidt said at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit in London last year.

“In aggregate, all the demographics say there’s going to be a shortage of humans for jobs. Literally too many jobs and not enough people for at least the next 30 years,” Schmidt said.

Then I get to the end of the article:
The long-term solution to declining fertility rates, said Stefano Scarpetta, director for employment, labour and social affairs at the OECD, is to promote more gender equality and fairer sharing of work and childrearing. That also means more paid parental leave and financial support.

In the meantime, he said “this is not just a temporary blip.” Companies and governments need to prepare now for what he calls a “low-fertility future.”

As I read the end of the article I thought, "something is off..." these are not solutions at all because these are things already being done and they're not doing enough to solve the birth rate crisis. Why? Because the article is keeping capitalism hidden from this crisis.

That's when I went to search for what the OECD actually said.

OECD Press Release

Press Release: https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/decli...-prosperity-of-future-generations-at-risk.htm

Declining fertility rates put prosperity of future generations at risk​

20/06/2024 - Fertility rates have declined by half in OECD countries over the past 60 years, posing the risk of population decline and serious economic and social challenges for future generations, according to a new OECD report.

The 2024 edition of Society at a Glance shows that the total fertility rate dropped from 3.3 children per woman in 1960 to just 1.5 children per woman in 2022, on average across OECD countries. This is significantly below the “replacement level” of 2.1 children per woman needed to keep population constant in the absence of migration. The total fertility rate is low in Italy and Spain, at 1.2 children per woman in 2022, and lowest in Korea, at an estimated 0.7 children per woman in 2023.

Low fertility rates could lead to population decline starting in the coming decade, with deaths outpacing births for the first time in at least half a century. The number of individuals aged 65 and over for every 100 people of working age is also projected to double from 30 in 2020 to 59 in 2060 across the OECD area.
The resulting shrinking working populations could lead to ageing societies that place significant social and economic pressures on governments, notably to increase expenditures on pension and health services.

A second major trend identified in Society at a Glance is later parenthood, with the average age of women giving birth rising from 28.6 in 2000 to 30.9 in 2022. When comparing women born in 1935 and 1975, the percentage of women without a child about doubled in Estonia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

Personal choices of having children are influenced by a range of factors, including economic and social parenting pressures, as well as changing social attitudes, such as the de-stigmatisation of having no children. Multifaceted policy approaches will be needed to assist people’s decision to have children.

“While OECD countries are using a range of policy options to support families, the economic cost and long-term financial uncertainty of having children continue to significantly influence people’s decision to become parents,” Stefano Scarpetta, Director of the OECD’s Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Directorate, said. “Facilitating parenthood decisions requires comprehensive and reliable support to families. This includes affordable housing, family policies that help reconcile work and family life, and coherence with other public policies that promote access to quality jobs and career progression of women.”

Society at a Glance shows that increased housing costs since the mid-2010s have complicated the formation of long-term relationships and families, with an ever-increasing number of young people in their 20s and 30s living with their parents for financial reasons. Access to more affordable housing would make it easier for young individuals to start families.

With the number of dual-earner households growing, better family policies that help reconcile work and family life would help improve fertility. Historically, higher employment rates among women were linked to low fertility, while they are now positively correlated across the OECD on average.

Countries also need to consider how to adapt their policy strategies to a new “low-fertility future”. This includes a proactive approach to migration and integration and facilitating access to employment for under-represented groups. Increasing productivity would also help mitigate the economic and fiscal consequences of a potentially shrinking workforce.

Oh, look at that. What the press release contains is a lot of information omitted from the CNN article, also, there were plenty of things that the OECD Director Stefano Scarpetta said in quotes, but the only quote used in the CNN article was about the "low-fertility future".

Note: I am still trying to find where the "this is not just a temporary blip" quote came from that is used in the CNN article.

OECD's Society at a Glance 2024 Report Summary

Now you the reader might say, "Hold on, the CNN article didn't link to that press release, what they linked to is the Society at a Glance 2024 report."

This is the link used in that CNN report: https://www.oecd.org/publication/society-at-a-glance/2024/#report

I can't tell if the information that CNN article grabbed came from the full report or the summary of the report.

Let's start with the summary of the report: https://www.oecd.org/publication/society-at-a-glance/2024/

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has halved from 3.3 children per woman in 1960, on average across the OECD, to 1.5 in 2022, below the “replacement level” of 2.1 children per woman. This decline will change the face of societies, communities and families and will potentially have a significant impact on economic growth and prosperity.

This is a funny thing I want to point out, they used data from 1960, a time period long before Neoliberalism took root in the UK and US which then spread worldwide thanks to the Washington Consensus in the 1980s.

If you already read my threads, then you know what causes wealth inequality in a neoliberal world. If you haven't, you can start here: https://www.installbaseforum.com/fo...video-game-industry-economic-stagnation.2417/

Back to reading the OECD report summary:
  • Only 1.5 children per woman in 2022 in the OECD
  • 30.9 (the) Women' mean age at childbirth in 2022 in the OECD
  • 1 out of 2 young adults aged 20-29 live with their parents in 2022 in the OECD

Reminder that the mean is the statistical term for average.

If you go to the link, you will get to look at a few interactive graphs. There is a "Total fertility rate" graph where you can filter the data by country, you then get to look at for example Japan's data and then you wonder why birth rates dropped sharply in 1966. In 1966, it was the year of the "Fire-Horse", it is claimed that women born in the year of the "Fire-Horse" will "have a bad personality and will kill their future husband." more information here.

Moving on, another interactive graph will appear in the OECD report summary, it consists of two graphs. One is titled, "Mean age at which women give birth, 2022 and 2000". For Japan, the mean age in 2000 was 29.6 and in 2022 it is 32.2.

Then, the second graph is "Share of women remaining permanently childless, 1975 and 1955 cohorts" of which I already mentioned the data in the thread title: 28.3% of Japanese women born in 1975 are childless, compared to 11.9% born in 1955.

Here is the part of the summary in the OECD report that I wanted to highlight:

Real and perceived challenges faced by young people could be holding back potential parenting plans

Personal choices on having a child depend on a wide range of factors, such as, economic and financial security, the costs of raising children, social norms, personal and medical conditions, labour market conditions and the family policy environment. Over the past decades, many of these factors have changed. Young people find it more difficult to become financially independent and establish themselves in labour and housing markets: increased housing costs are found to have a negative effect on TFRs.

A succession of global crises (e.g. COVID-19, climate issues concerns, the cost-of-living crisis) has increased (economic) insecurities among younger people, which complicates their transition into parenthood. Young people increasingly find meaning in life outside of parenthood, and there appears to be increased acceptance of not having children.

Read the whole quote, what I underlined is a very important point: "increased housing costs are found to have a negative effect on Total Fertility Rates".

Isn't that funny? That seems to be a very important point to highlight in an article whenever the birth rate crisis is mentioned.

Note: You will remember that I have talked about Asset Price Inflation a lot in my threads you read especially with regards to housing.

I go and check the CNN article again and housing is not mentioned at all.

Let's go back to reading the summary of the OECD report:

Fertility rises when women can combine work and family life on an equal footing with men​

If women are able to combine work and family life, and participate in economic life on an equal footing, this leads to better economic outcomes and higher fertility rates. More options to combine work and family commitments and greater societal emphasis on gender equality have contributed to changing gender roles in families and dual-earner households. Paid parental leave, affordable quality childcare, all help men and women be in employment, all have a positive effect on fertility rates. Financial support towards families, especially when linked to housing, is increasingly important.

In relation to the birth rate crisis, there is a combination of capitalism and patriarchy that affects these Total Fertility Rate statistics.

What I mean by patriarchy is how a society would have roles structured by gender. If a woman has a child, who is going to clean the house, do the cooking and look after the kids? It's a question where the answer is already known in a patriarchal society.

The following is a joke: So at one point women thought, "I'm not getting paid for cleaning the house, cooking food and looking after kids. This is unpaid work." So what did the government say when asked to provide wages to housewives? "Lol, no."

Now in the present, more women have tertiary education and are choosing to have careers, because of how capitalism works, those women can't easily become mothers because they can't choose a career that has no flexibility in working hours for the many decades they need to raise children from birth and also be a housewife at the same time, they don't have the money to hire a butler/maid that can do all those housewife tasks daily.

Combine this with Asset Price Inflation of housing, you now have both the man and woman of the household needing to hold jobs to be able to pay for debt off a house they purchase meaning that the man can't suddenly become the househusband.

So, then you end up with women who now have children when they are in their 30s or decide not to have children at all. The government then asks women, "Please have children" and the women respond, "Lol, no".

Note: You probably remember I suggested in a thread the idea of having AI Humanoid Robots becoming the new housewives but that as a solution is probably decades away and this report is talking about what will happen in the next decade i.e. more deaths than births in the population.

Going back to the summary of the OECD report:

What can policy makers do?​

1. Promote a fairer sharing of work and childrearing and address housing costs​

The best approach for countries that are concerned about fertility rates remains to promote more gender equality and fairer sharing of work and childrearing. This involves providing paid parental leave, childcare and financial supports, but policy must also have a greater focus on the costs of children, especially housing costs.

2. Prepare for a “lower-fertility future”​

Consider how to change policy to adapt to a “lower-fertility future” as societies are ageing and deaths may well exceed births in the next decade. Population ageing will result in stronger fiscal pressures as government expenditures (including on pensions, health services and services for the elderly) increase along with potentially decreasing public revenues with shrinking working-age populations. Such a policy could involve immigration, supporting longer working lives, bringing more under-represented groups into the labour force, e.g. youth and women, and taking measures to enhance their productivity.

When you look at this, it sounds great that they notice some of the problems that are contributing to decreasing fertility rates. I say this in comparison to what other economists have suggested for how to "solve" the birth-rate crisis such as raising the retirement age to keep the workers at work (because tax revenue): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-europe-can-dodge-birth-rate-hard-landing-2024-02-14/
Economist David Miles at Imperial College London rejects the "timebomb" warning and says falling populations can avoid lower living standards if output per capita is maintained: among other things, if they evolve to work more and better.

"There is a deep flaw in the logic that there is something magical about 65 as the age when work stops," said Miles, who argued that greater life expectancies and lower prevalence of strenuous work in Europe's services-dominated economies made it possible for people to remain in labour markets for longer.

However, when looking at what the OECD suggests to policy makers, you will see that they're keeping the status quo of what got us here. Once again, if you read my threads, you'll understand. The OECD isn't talking about Asset Price Inflation and how the working class pays more in taxes than the rentier (who builds their wealth from owning assets) which results in the wealth inequality we have seen grow since neoliberalism took root in the 1980s.

If the concern is that a government won't be able to continue funding pensions because there are not enough workers to pay taxes then you need to start taxing the rentier more (and also stop the systems that allow a rentier to be created because again, if you haven't read it, just taxing the wealth isn't enough to stop wealth inequality). A statistical reminder from June 2024:
A reminder, the top three billionaires in the world have a combined net worth of approximately $600B and the top ten billionaires have a combined net worth of $1.64T, Forbes currently lists around 2745 billionaires in its real-time billionaires list.

Once more, while the OECD policy suggestions sound good in comparison to other "solutions", they will only serve to keep the status quo of this neoliberal world.

OECD's Society at a Glance 2024 Report

That was the end of the summary of the report, i.e. this link: https://www.oecd.org/publication/society-at-a-glance/2024/

Here is the link to the full report: https://read.oecd.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en?format=html,pdf,read

The full report is obviously much larger than the summary, I have not had time to look at everything. You can view it for free.

Here is what it contains:
  • Tables and Graphs
  • Foreword
  • Acronyms and conventional signs
  • Executive summary
  • Key facts and figures (Infographic)
  1. Fertility trends across the OECD: Underlying drivers and the role for policy.
  2. Interpreting OECD social indicators
  3. Perceptions of social risks and government effectiveness
  4. General context indicators
  5. Self-sufficiency indicators
  6. Equity indicators
  7. Health indicators
  8. Social cohesion indicators

Here is their executive summary from the full report: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites...emContentType=book#execsumm-d1e537-47c5e49d90

You can go and check the rest of the report contents from there.



The OP is long enough, that is my writing on the matter regarding the report from the OECD about the birth rate crisis because there's no substance if the OP just ends at what the thread title said and a link to the source.
 
Don't you need to contextualize how many jobs the billionaires are creating versus before though, to have an understanding of their role?

In our country, inequality is increasing because of immigration, which makes the entire problem kind of a joke to assess.
 
Don't you need to contextualize how many jobs the billionaires are creating versus before though, to have an understanding of their role?

Ah yes, the "billionaires create jobs" just like the "landlords provide housing". Love those neoliberal slogans where somehow the individual billionaire creates the economy while the State "does nothing" because of the "free market".

I already had a thread explaining how GM takes their billions in profits and does stock buybacks ($16B so far for 2023-2024) which gives that $16B to the executives that hold shares and the shareholders.

Those executives took that $16B from the company that the workers created by doing work and the executives enriched themselves. The rentier is leeching off the workers, also those rentiers that run GM had to run off to the US Government to beg to be bailed out for $50B in 2009 which says a lot about the idea of billionaires as job creators when you ignore everything the State does to run an economy and also handles the creation of money.

In our country, inequality is increasing because of immigration, which makes the entire problem kind of a joke to assess.

This statement is too vague to respond to. There are different kinds of inequalities and I'm not going to waste time trying to guess which one you mean for me to puzzle solve your statement that ends with handwaving away the subject.
 
It is a common trend everywhere. When the child mortality goes down and you have a lot of ways to entertain yourself, there is no point to have children - you don't need to work at the farm anymore. Children is a hard and time consuming work. So no social benefits, daycares and stuff will resolve the problem. Plus add to that the fact that people live longer, have children at later years when the fertility drops naturally etc. etc.

There are only two solutions there really - either bring everybody back to middle ages (in a quality of living) or just find a way to grow humans in tubes. Looking at the modern trends we will get both.
 
Ah yes, the "billionaires create jobs" just like the "landlords provide housing". Love those neoliberal slogans where somehow the individual billionaire creates the economy while the State "does nothing" because of the "free market".

I already had a thread explaining how GM takes their billions in profits and does stock buybacks ($16B so far for 2023-2024) which gives that $16B to the executives that hold shares and the shareholders.

Those executives took that $16B from the company that the workers created by doing work and the executives enriched themselves. The rentier is leeching off the workers, also those rentiers that run GM had to run off to the US Government to beg to be bailed out for $50B in 2009 which says a lot about the idea of billionaires as job creators when you ignore everything the State does to run an economy and also handles the creation of money.



This statement is too vague to respond to. There are different kinds of inequalities and I'm not going to waste time trying to guess which one you mean for me to puzzle solve your statement that ends with handwaving away the subject.
Landslords do provide housing and billionaires do create jobs. And so does the state.

If you gonna make any point on this, you need to show which billionaires do what and what it results in. Just saying billionaires take profits means nothing. This is just statistics.

Immigration is the main reason for financial and social inequality in my country.

It is a common trend everywhere.
There are only two solutions there really - either bring everybody back to middle ages (in a quality of living) or just find a way to grow humans in tubes. Looking at the modern trends we will get both.

When the child mortality goes down and you have a lot of ways to entertain yourself, there is no point to have children - you don't need to work at the farm anymore. Children is a hard and time consuming work.
The reason to have a child would be to build a family. It's hard and time-consuming but also more rewarding than anything else and helps you later on. The world is filled with people who never get kids and sit alone and lonely in their apartments.
 
If you gonna make any point on this, you need to show which billionaires do what and what it results in. Just saying billionaires take profits means nothing. This is just statistics.

It's a good thing I never talked about job creation by billionaires in the OP. You made that claim:
Don't you need to contextualize how many jobs the billionaires are creating versus before though, to have an understanding of their role?

You're the one that's supposed to be providing proof of your claim. The burden of proof isn't on me.

Please go ahead.
 
It's a good thing I never talked about job creation by billionaires in the OP. You made that claim:


You're the one that's supposed to be providing proof of your claim. The burden of proof isn't on me.

Please go ahead.
You mocked the "billionaires create jobs" thing as a "neoliberal slogan". I assumed you meant that it is a sham. I guess I was wrong then and we share the same views.

"During the last decade, there has been a substantial shift in the demographic composition of low-income households. Children with an immigrant background increasingly constitute a larger proportion of those at persistent risk of poverty. In 2014 more than half (51 per cent) of all children in households at risk of persistent low-income had an immigrant background."

 
I wonder what effect the year of the fire horse will have in two years time.

The last one - 1966 - caused a significant drop in the birth rate. It will be interesting to see if such superstition persists.

I tried to put a graph into this post, but couldn't see how to. This link shows the drop in 1966.

 
You mocked the "billionaires create jobs" thing as a "neoliberal slogan". I assumed you meant that it is a sham. I guess I was wrong then and we share the same views.
I don't know your views, so I don't agree with your claim that I share them.

If I say that "billionaires create jobs" is a sham, or a myth without providing evidence, you can easily dismiss my claim by saying, "No, you're wrong."

This doesn't change the outcome of your claim that you made. I don't have to prove your claims about billionaires.

If you don't want to provide proof that's fine.
 
I don't know your views, so I don't agree with your claim that I share them.

If I say that "billionaires create jobs" is a sham, or a myth without providing evidence, you can easily dismiss my claim by saying, "No, you're wrong."

This doesn't change the outcome of your claim that you made. I don't have to prove your claims about billionaires.

If you don't want to provide proof that's fine.
My views are what I said above, that billionaires create jobs. Bezos and Amazon. Gates and Microsoft.
 
I wonder what effect the year of the fire horse will have in two years time.

The last one - 1966 - caused a significant drop in the birth rate. It will be interesting to see if such superstition persists.

I tried to put a graph into this post, but couldn't see how to. This link shows the drop in 1966.


Here's some key points from that blog I linked in the OP: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/open...w-superstition-impacted-fertility-rates-japan

Sex detection during pregnancy was not available then, so many families avoided having children altogether in 1966.
This kind of superstition seems to have been more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas, because the fertility drop in urban areas was less than in rural areas.
This kind of superstition might have a larger impact for arranged marriages, where parents exchange their son’s or daughter’s photo through their network to search for their child’s future spouse. But things have changed a lot in the last several decades in Japan, including the way to find one's future spouse. Before 1945, arranged marriage consisted of 70% of all marriages, but it came down to half in 1960s, less than 30% in 1980s, and only 5% of all marriages were arranged in 2010.
There are very few arranged marriages in Japan these days. I don’t believe that the curse of the Fire-Horse can do much to love marriages, and I believe there will be very few families who care about this superstition in the next Fire-Horse year of 2026.

Here's data from the World Bank which provides a graph: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=JP

The graph is titled, "Rural population (% of total population) - Japan". In 1966 during the year of the Fire-Horse, 31% of the total population lived in rural areas. In the year 2022, 8% of the total population lives in rural areas.

According to the World Bank, the total population of Japan in 1966 was 98.85M so that means 30.64M people lived in rural areas.

The total population of Japan in 2022 is 125.12M which means that 10M people live in rural areas. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2022&locations=JP&start=1960&view=chart

The expectation then is that the year of the Fire-Horse in 2026 won't have a dramatic difference in birth rates nationally compared to previous years.
 
I think it's very sad that in our modernized, post-industrialized society (whether it's South Korea or Japan or Italy), a dependent is seen as a cost and a burden. That we've created a zero sum system in which to not be part of the workforce is to be seen as opposition to the workforce.

It would be interesting to see social factors that impact our societies and not just a market/economics viewpoint. But yeah, this is one of those issues where every year more and more folks recognize the problem, but nothing is done besides some glib warnings for the future. It's like we're just waiting on the traintracks for the train to hit.

Thanks for the information and POV.
 
Here's some key points from that blog I linked in the OP: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/open...w-superstition-impacted-fertility-rates-japan






Here's data from the World Bank which provides a graph: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=JP

The graph is titled, "Rural population (% of total population) - Japan". In 1966 during the year of the Fire-Horse, 31% of the total population lived in rural areas. In the year 2022, 8% of the total population lives in rural areas.

According to the World Bank, the total population of Japan in 1966 was 98.85M so that means 30.64M people lived in rural areas.

The total population of Japan in 2022 is 125.12M which means that 10M people live in rural areas. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?end=2022&locations=JP&start=1960&view=chart

The expectation then is that the year of the Fire-Horse in 2026 won't have a dramatic difference in birth rates nationally compared to previous years.

Yes, I read that.

I do wonder if, maybe even if people think the superstition is a load of rubbish themselves, they might worry that if they have a daughter that year, she might face some prejudice from other people who do take it seriously in the future. That was the case with my mother-in-law, who waited until the following year to start trying for children.

We'll see.
 
The reason to have a child would be to build a family. It's hard and time-consuming but also more rewarding than anything else and helps you later on. The world is filled with people who never get kids and sit alone and lonely in their apartments.
With people living longer and being able to take of themselves even in 80s, you just don't feel the need for children - plus keep in mind that on the west the relationship between parents and children is quite often relatively strained. I remember talking to my american friend, and he was surprised knowing that I talked to my grandma and my parents every day. Felt that it was a bit too much.

It reminds me of the reasons why I don't want to have pets - I might love animals but I don't want to have a pet because it immediately restricts my ability to move anywhere whether it is going to the office or travel worldwide. I can go to the office and spend there time from 8AM to 8PM for example with no issues, don't need to hire anybody to take care of dogs and so on. Like my friends when they travel for 2-3 days, they ask me to take care of their dogs and I am literally living in their house during those days because they live in a different town.

Children are basically the same by with even less flexibility and more expenses. These days we just have many more ways to entertain ourselves - like in the past vacation was a big event for the family, now - I can go the plane and spend a couple of days in Barcelona without any issues. With children? The first couple of years are just lost. And due to strained relationships you can't even offload the children to grandparents and stuff.
 
The problem with the main argument in this thread "neoliberalism" is that it is not what have caused less children. It sounds like a the regular "capitalism evil" talk.

Feminism and women choice in the combination with machine labour have created less children to be born. Children used to be an asset when it comes to work on the farm. Every time a women get pregnant she is in risk. My wife got horrible pains and felt sick for a very long time for both of our children. For us two kids are enough.

I would highly recommend the book people quake by as it goes into dept of these things. But blaming neoliberalism is insane as even in more socialist countries (my home country Sweden offers a large amount of socialist programs for kids) the rate of children is going down. Simply put due to things like wide spread use of condoms we don't get as many children, because neither men nor women wants it.

Examples of socialist programs aimed at families in Sweden.
* Daycare for the children is almost free.
* Childcare is almost free.
* When a child is born you can be off from work with pay from the government. In total I think you have almost 1.5 years that you can be off. Playing with the numbers you can extend that to almost 2 years.
* The government hands out money for each child every month with more money to the family if you have more children. Even due to that the social norm is around two children per family.

There is also a social norm that leaving a meeting in the middle of a meeting to pick up your children from daycare is not a problem.

This is not about neoliberalism vs socialism. It is about what women values.

I think the only country I know that have turned around the birth rate is Hungary with ridiculous amount of money thrown at women.
 
With people living longer and being able to take of themselves even in 80s, you just don't feel the need for children - plus keep in mind that on the west the relationship between parents and children is quite often relatively strained. I remember talking to my american friend, and he was surprised knowing that I talked to my grandma and my parents every day. Felt that it was a bit too much.

It reminds me of the reasons why I don't want to have pets - I might love animals but I don't want to have a pet because it immediately restricts my ability to move anywhere whether it is going to the office or travel worldwide. I can go to the office and spend there time from 8AM to 8PM for example with no issues, don't need to hire anybody to take care of dogs and so on. Like my friends when they travel for 2-3 days, they ask me to take care of their dogs and I am literally living in their house during those days because they live in a different town.

Children are basically the same by with even less flexibility and more expenses. These days we just have many more ways to entertain ourselves - like in the past vacation was a big event for the family, now - I can go the plane and spend a couple of days in Barcelona without any issues. With children? The first couple of years are just lost. And due to strained relationships you can't even offload the children to grandparents and stuff.
I mean, I don't know how many got "strained relationships" to the point where they can't get a babysitter, but that is a minor thing in the grand scheme.

Not having kids because you want to travel is like not drinking water because you might spill it. It's looking at the trees for the forest. Having a child is the continuation of your legacy and will bring you more joy than a billion trips to Barcelona. I feel your view is also tainted by youth, as you age, having a kid (and a partner) is more and more important to live a full life. Cheap entertainment and traveling are not gonna hold the same weight when you get older. It's not easy to have kids, but I mean, your entire psychology is built around it.

The problem with the main argument in this thread "neoliberalism" is that it is not what have caused less children. It sounds like a the regular "capitalism evil" talk.

Feminism and women choice in the combination with machine labour have created less children to be born. Children used to be an asset when it comes to work on the farm. Every time a women get pregnant she is in risk. My wife got horrible pains and felt sick for a very long time for both of our children. For us two kids are enough.

I would highly recommend the book people quake by as it goes into dept of these things. But blaming neoliberalism is insane as even in more socialist countries (my home country Sweden offers a large amount of socialist programs for kids) the rate of children is going down. Simply put due to things like wide spread use of condoms we don't get as many children, because neither men nor women wants it.

Examples of socialist programs aimed at families in Sweden.
* Daycare for the children is almost free.
* Childcare is almost free.
* When a child is born you can be off from work with pay from the government. In total I think you have almost 1.5 years that you can be off. Playing with the numbers you can extend that to almost 2 years.
* The government hands out money for each child every month with more money to the family if you have more children. Even due to that the social norm is around two children per family.

There is also a social norm that leaving a meeting in the middle of a meeting to pick up your children from daycare is not a problem.

This is not about neoliberalism vs socialism. It is about what women values.

I think the only country I know that have turned around the birth rate is Hungary with ridiculous amount of money thrown at women.
Same here in Norway, the amount of social benefits we give to parents doesn't seem to do much. 40 years ago couples used to get 2 kids when they were in their early 20s, now it's completely normal to wait until you are in your 30s and get one kid.

Apart from the high cost of living, there is something about how people spend so much damn time in the educational system that people don't even consider having kids. It's not unusual here to spend your entire youth going from University to University and various schools. Just trying shit, living on school loans until you find something in your mid or late 20s you might enjoy. People want to be "ready" to have kids, but whoever really is.
 
Same here in Norway, the amount of social benefits we give to parents doesn't seem to do much. 40 years ago couples used to get 2 kids when they were in their early 20s, now it's completely normal to wait until you are in your 30s and get one kid.

Apart from the high cost of living, there is something about how people spend so much damn time in the educational system that people don't even consider having kids. It's not unusual here to spend your entire youth going from University to University and various schools. Just trying shit, living on school loans until you find something in your mid or late 20s you might enjoy. People want to be "ready" to have kids, but whoever really is.

Yeah that sounds like me. First kid when I was 37. Large time in university.

High cost of living in Sweden is a problem, partly based on laws that makes it hard to build more housing and large amount of immigration. Growing population in combination in combination with these laws have created a shortage om homes.
 
Yeah that sounds like me. First kid when I was 37. Large time in university.

High cost of living in Sweden is a problem, partly based on laws that makes it hard to build more housing and large amount of immigration. Growing population in combination in combination with these laws have created a shortage om homes.
Dude, I was the same, didn't get a kid until my late 30's. I have a large University in my town, I took a bachelor's in my early 20s, then went back and took a master's degree in my late twenties for some fucking reason (that I ended up never using for much), and when I think back on it, I struggle to understand what I was doing.

It's like, in your 20s, you can't quite grasp what you are doing, and end up chasing things, and since we got so much potential stuff we can chase in these luxury societies, you end up just chasing things left and right. I couldn't put things into perspective until I got a kid, and then life went into focus because of the responsibility.

I wish I had a kid when I was younger, that would mean the kid would be moving out right about now, instead, I have to take care of the kid far into my goddamn 50s. You don't know these things when you are young, but you essentially stall your 40s and 50s when you get a kid so late. I would love to be in my 40s with my kid already moved out, I'd trade that for my University chasing 20s any day of the week.
 
I think life is hard and expensive as is, and people care less about children because of that. The focus on career and YouTube glamorization of the rich life is also a factor I think. I can tell as someone with 2 kids and a third coming, it is very satisfying to have kids and raising them. I think a 4th kid is not out of the question. It gives a further meaning to life and a satisfaction that you can get no where else.

Back on topic though, raising fertility rate has proven to be hard but it will have to start with making things less expensive, bringing back real wealth (like passive income) and giving people more incentives to have kids. There are a lot of companies that have become too strong and they basically use human data to train AIs or they sell other peoples data as packaged goods to advertisement companies. I think there is an opportunity in this space for governments to make companies pay for that data.
 
Back on topic though, raising fertility rate has proven to be hard but it will have to start with making things less expensive, bringing back real wealth (like passive income) and giving people more incentives to have kids.
There is no incentive that can increase the fertility. Pregnancy as a process is a very taxing and skewed towards women. Only bringing back the society to the middle ages or traditional societies. And we are seeing it from the fertility rate maps - poor, highly religious, "traditional" countries have the high fertility rate. Of course growing humans in tubes is a solution too.

What I wonder is that if eventually some genome groups will disappear altogether due to that.
 
There is no incentive that can increase the fertility. Pregnancy as a process is a very taxing and skewed towards women. Only bringing back the society to the middle ages or traditional societies. And we are seeing it from the fertility rate maps - poor, highly religious, "traditional" countries have the high fertility rate. Of course growing humans in tubes is a solution too.

What I wonder is that if eventually some genome groups will disappear altogether due to that.
I don't think that is the case though. Fertility rates don't have to be like the middle ages and the fertility rates in Japan were fine pretty much until the 80s. No need to overblow things with saying we have to go to the middle ages. There are countries with high fertility rates even today. City life is what hits fertility rates the most.
 
The problem with the main argument in this thread "neoliberalism" is that it is not what have caused less children. It sounds like a the regular "capitalism evil" talk.

Feminism and women choice in the combination with machine labour have created less children to be born. Children used to be an asset when it comes to work on the farm. Every time a women get pregnant she is in risk. My wife got horrible pains and felt sick for a very long time for both of our children. For us two kids are enough.

I would highly recommend the book people quake by as it goes into dept of these things. But blaming neoliberalism is insane as even in more socialist countries (my home country Sweden offers a large amount of socialist programs for kids) the rate of children is going down. Simply put due to things like wide spread use of condoms we don't get as many children, because neither men nor women wants it.

Examples of socialist programs aimed at families in Sweden.
* Daycare for the children is almost free.
* Childcare is almost free.
* When a child is born you can be off from work with pay from the government. In total I think you have almost 1.5 years that you can be off. Playing with the numbers you can extend that to almost 2 years.
* The government hands out money for each child every month with more money to the family if you have more children. Even due to that the social norm is around two children per family.

There is also a social norm that leaving a meeting in the middle of a meeting to pick up your children from daycare is not a problem.

This is not about neoliberalism vs socialism. It is about what women values.

Dude...

I think this might be hard for you to believe but, your country isn't socialist. And social programs (or socialist programs as you claim) are not examples of socialism.

You are essentially pointing out that your country has falling birth rates while it has social programs in a country that is not socialist.
 
I don't think that is the case though. Fertility rates don't have to be like the middle ages and the fertility rates in Japan were fine pretty much until the 80s. No need to overblow things with saying we have to go to the middle ages. There are countries with high fertility rates even today. City life is what hits fertility rates the most.
If we look at the countries by fertility rate map and take a note that 2.1 is considered the replacement rate we can actually see some commonalities between countries that at that level.
2880px-Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg.png


There is an animation even
Total_Fertility_Rate_1950_2100_World_Population_Prospects_2015_United_Nations.gif


Also looking at Japan even in 1960-1970 it hasn't been particularly high either.
image.png


High fertility rates are usually in the places where people even marry children (or very young girls), where women have less rights, where you have highly religious society and so on. Pregnancy is a time consuming and an quite complex process that takes a toll on women, essentially handicapping them for several months.
 
I live in the Netherlands and daycare is state subsidized so you don't pay much but I have to say that if that wasn't the case and I had to pay everything, then I probably would delay making kids or I would have stopped at 1 or 2 max. These kind of programs help keep the fertility rates above dramatically low levels.

If we look at the countries by fertility rate map and take a note that 2.1 is considered the replacement rate we can actually see some commonalities between countries that at that level.
2880px-Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg.png


There is an animation even
Total_Fertility_Rate_1950_2100_World_Population_Prospects_2015_United_Nations.gif


Also looking at Japan even in 1960-1970 it hasn't been particularly high either.
image.png


High fertility rates are usually in the places where people even marry children (or very young girls), where women have less rights, where you have highly religious society and so on. Pregnancy is a time consuming and an quite complex process that takes a toll on women, essentially handicapping them for several months.
It's not about handicapping women. Women are built to have children and I don't know if you have kids or even know what you're talking about but women bond with their child even during pregnancy. It's a beautiful thing. Yes its time consuming and stuff but so is playing video games. Everything in life consumes time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I live in the Netherlands and daycare is state subsidized so you don't pay much but I have to say that if that wasn't the case and I had to pay everything, then I probably would delay making kids or I would have stopped at 1 or 2 max. These kind of programs help keep the fertility rates above dramatically low levels.
It just delays the inevitable. If we look at the current fertility rates (account to wikipedia)

Sweden 1.7
Netherlands 1.6
Finland 1.4
Norway 1.4
Japan 1.3
South Korea 0.9

SK is dramatically low, but I would argue that we will reach that level everywhere in the developed world too as there is a growing schism between young men and women in the west world too. SK just achieved that much faster. Same with Japan. Some countries just achieved that faster but even the countries with generous packages for children are not that far away from them either.

It's not about handicapping women. Women are built to have children and I don't know if you have kids or even know what you're talking about but women bond with their child even during pregnancy. It's a beautiful thing. Yes its time consuming and stuff but so is playing video games. Everything in life consumes time.
Now go and tell women outside that "they are built to have children and how beautiful it is to have children" and so on. I do wonder why you are saying that "playing games" is comparable to "having children".

All in all, no point to debate that - the fact is that if any situation women are less likely to have children than no.
 
I dunno how one can talk about "billionaires creating jobs" on a forum that has recently been discussing repeated and unprecedented game industry layoffs with a straight face. Feels like a textbook example of not reading the room, if you ask me. Because at best, even if you acknowledge that statement as some sort of fact, the reality is the (neo-feudal) Lord giveth and the (neo-feudal) Lord taketh away.


What I said in Ishaan's thread remains as true now as it was then, so I'm just gonna repost and expand on it.
As much as I'm all for pointing out the flaws of capitalism in ensuring humanity is fully capacitated, this is unfortunately not a merely economic problem, it's an issue of societal priorities, as well.

Many millennials and younger looked at the lives of their parents, with the societal roles demanded of them, be it the unhappy fathers that were never home to enjoy family life or the unhappy mothers pressured into being domestic-only societal participants, among MANY other negative possibilities, and collectively said "NOPE" to all of it. And the non-economic material conditions that created that dynamic have not changed enough in their lifetimes to reconsider their position on family life.

I could provide a laundry list of social constructs that have helped lead to the low birth rates even beyond that (like the fixation on blood relation, the social taboos of the single mother, the significance of untreated anxiety and depression in the early 20s leading to a withdrawal from society that is hard to bounce back from).

So long as the Japanese government is only willing to tackle this issue as one that is combatted through favourable economics and things around the margins, their goals will never be properly achieved. And since this topic has been perennial for over a decade now, seems to me like the tactics they're taking are close to exhausted instead of addressing the social conditions that led to how utterly unappealing the lives their parents had appeared to them.
When I say material social conditions, I am talking about patriarchy, yes, but there's more beyond that still.

I have said it before and I will say it again: family law in Japan is broken. The cultural adherence to the primacy of blood relation and antiquated notions on childbirth/parentage are the root evil of so many progressive movements in Japan. And it begins with the koseki.

What is a koseki? It is a family registry that tracks any and all hatching, matching and dispatching births, marriages/adoptions and deaths. And the rules that surround it (and thus family law) deserve a close look. It is your birth certificate, your citizenship/naturalization record, your marriage license, your divorce records, your death certificate, your whole identity. Japan uses it as a form of mandatory census. It is also intrinsically linked to your family, with only a marriage granting a new koseki record (which still ties back to your family, as the family name-bearer must list their original parentage).

By law, no person can be added to a koseki without having the same family name. So right off the top, women are demanded to surrender their family names through marriage.

Also by the law as of the early 2000s, trans people cannot re-assign their genders on their koseki without a confirmed diagnosis of gender dysphoria by 2 separate psychiatrists and must be sterile/infertile. So children after gender transition are apparently a sacrifice Japan is willing to make in the race to fix the birth rate.

This system produces a number of other irregularities.
Like when Japan, as part of keeping the integrity of koseki records, found that 230,000 elderly listed as alive and above the age of 100 on their koseki could not be found alive. Some were neglected and found dead in their homes decades after they passed, some wandered off from the family home and were simply never seen again, some were never buried/cremated because the family could not afford funerary arrangements, some were murdered, some deaths were simply never recorded so that the younger family members could commit pension fraud. This issue led to a crisis of conscience for the nation.
But there are issues that are related to the koseki issue tangentially, because the rigidity of it, family law and societal convention in Japan leads to other issues, and a lot of that has to do with the primacy of blood relation I mentioned.

There's the matter of adoption... HOO BOY. Despite there being an average of 40,000 orphaned children in Japan at any given moment, over 80% of them remain wards of the state and only 600-700 per year are given "special adoption". What is that? It's what we would simply call "adoption" in the West, but in Japan, one must jump through several hoops to claim parentage of a child not of blood relation (married couple, over the age of 25, 6 months trial housing of the child, birth parent must either sign their rights to the child away or have them revoked by the state). It has only existed since th 1980s, and before 2020, it was restricted only to children under the age of 6 (raised to age 15 as of 2020). That change barely increased the number of such special adoptions.

Many (usually older) family members openly and vehemently discourage special adoption for any reason, up to and including threats of excommunication. And yes, that includes adoption by couples who cannot conceive by their own means, too. And... guess what? Children who grow up in an orphanage or institution are less likely to have families of their own, given negative associations to the idea. OOPS?

As you can imagine, not only does all this make it legally and socially challenging to adopt an orphan, it highly complicates surrogacy. In fact, children born to a woman who is not the maternal mother are difficult to register on a koseki without a lengthy court case (as the carrier of the child is automatically deemed the birth parent, as science has advanced further than the rules around koseki have), no Japanese OBGYN will be likely to perform a surrogacy-related IVF (their trade society has prohibited the practice) and the Ministry of Health suggested making the practice illegal in the early 2000s. No progress on this topic has been made since a report requested by the Ministries of Health and Justice suggested that it must be trialed, regulated and be processed as a case-specific special adoption. So we can cross off yet more potential children that the Japanese government considers an unacceptable means of birth... at least for now.

But there's also "regular adoption", which is literally a stroke of a pen on the koseki away, where a blood relative adopts a child without capable or living guardians. If any of y'all have watched anime in the past 3-4 decades, you'll know this usually entails children either being parentified by being forced into self-sufficiency by being raised by grandparents or a target of abuse from family members who felt the orphan was a burden foisted upon them. How often this occurs is not well-recorded, but it's common enough that it became a trope. Can't imagine those childhoods have folks lining up to have a family, either.

And then there's the queer folks. As you might have guessed, with surrogacy out of the picture for most and same-sex marriage being non-lawful in most of Japan (despite persistent majority support by citizens), they're ruled out as parents, as well, adoptive or otherwise, while the government maligns queer people for being "un-(re)productive" or some such brainrot.

I could literally go on and on about this subject, but I'm tired and I've said enough. Either way, you can see what I mean about how the koseki, family law and Japanese cultural/social prohibitions on all manner of alternative family planning methods should have anyone questioning how serious the Japanese government or its people are about tackling the nation's fertility crisis, because every rock you turn over is screaming that they're very clearly not. So they can spare me their tears about their incoming population crisis, frankly.
 
Dude...

I think this might be hard for you to believe but, your country isn't socialist. And social programs (or socialist programs as you claim) are not examples of socialism.

You are essentially pointing out that your country has falling birth rates while it has social programs in a country that is not socialist.

No if Sweden was a 100% socialist country I would must likely not live here because it would be a shit hole with no development. Which is what happens every time someone tries.

I live in a social democratic country where all parties agrees on that schools (including universities) and health care should be payed through the tax system. Exactly how the health care etc should be organised is up for debate.

But yes Sweden don't have a 100% planned economy but it is not like we don't have government intervention. Grey scales exist and in many areas Sweden are a socialist country in other we have more capitalism rules. Financial compensation for women are one are where we are very socialist. Another is that in Sweden is it very common for men to take parental leave almost as long as the women.

This is again not a question about neoliberalism. It has to do with womens rights and what women prioritise. Your analysis seems to start at "I think the capitalistic system is crap so I will paint everything I don't like on it'.
 
in this time having a child means throwing away my own life. everything is more expensive, and money is harder to get, jobs are harder to get, men are becoming more and more radical.
and in general higher rates of education especially sex ed will reduce risk of accidental pregnancy, which sure is not a negligible factor in child birth rates.
its a lot of time working and taking care of a toddler that will get themselves killed if left alone for than 20 minutes.
i'd rather further my own goals first, unless im a millionaire theres no way I can secure a child's comfort and safety in society in this economy.
the trappings of a patriarchal society means that when it comes time to have a child, its my dreams that are expected to just sit on the sideline.
all this plus further sexism in the world (especially in korea) as populations get more and more radicalized agaisnt those with lower standing in society will alwasy be an ugly trapping that more and more women dont want to be in. a child isnt always a postive change, or something that will never be regretted, and for me, its better not to feel that for now, maybe that will change in the future, but currently i dont really care, i have many things to do still yet.


everywhere in the devloped world has thier own reasons and underlying culture, however the end result of it all is the same in every country. the more rights, education and freedom a woman has the less children she has. the same likely goes for men but I dont know enough to comment about it, nor am i man so i dont have any firsthand expereince.
 
in this time having a child means throwing away my own life. everything is more expensive, and money is harder to get, jobs are harder to get, men are becoming more and more radical.
and in general higher rates of education especially sex ed will reduce risk of accidental pregnancy, which sure is not a negligible factor in child birth rates.
its a lot of time working and taking care of a toddler that will get themselves killed if left alone for than 20 minutes.
i'd rather further my own goals first, unless im a millionaire theres no way I can secure a child's comfort and safety in society in this economy.
the trappings of a patriarchal society means that when it comes time to have a child, its my dreams that are expected to just sit on the sideline.
all this plus further sexism in the world (especially in korea) as populations get more and more radicalized agaisnt those with lower standing in society will alwasy be an ugly trapping that more and more women dont want to be in. a child isnt always a postive change, or something that will never be regretted, and for me, its better not to feel that for now, maybe that will change in the future, but currently i dont really care, i have many things to do still yet.


everywhere in the devloped world has thier own reasons and underlying culture, however the end result of it all is the same in every country. the more rights, education and freedom a woman has the less children she has. the same likely goes for men but I dont know enough to comment about it, nor am i man so i dont have any firsthand expereince.
I feel like this posting is a good example of the cause of the problem with declining birth rates: Overthinking things.

The whole financial responsibility argument imo falls flat once you acknowledge that it's first and foremost the poorest people who have the highest birth rates still. The thing to understand here imo is: Your child will NEVER tell you "I'd rather not have been born than be poor". As long as you as a parent treat your child with the care of a parent, it will be happy to be alive, no matter whether you can afford a new iphone or a used android phone.

Secondly, the whole "I'd have to give up my own dreams" is already the wrong mindset. When you want a child, it should be BECAUSE it is part of your dream. If you look at having a child as some "dream crusher", then, uh, yeah, better don't have one.

Just 15 minutes ago, my sister-in-law was here for a visit downstairs and I went and spent a couple minutes just staring at my youngest niece, not even half a year old. She's adorable, just like my two older nieces (2 and 4, I think). I'm absolutely not well off financially, but if I ever am lucky enough to find a gf, I wouldn't hesitate one second to have children. Has that always been my goal in life, my driving force? Nah, not at all. But that's the thing: Children are not something that should be overthought. They're a source of happiness for most people and while there's a 1000 objective points to be made against having children in this day and age, I feel like focusing too much on levelheadedness is counterproductive. Just answer the one question in your head, for yourself: "Do I want children?" - most of us will be able to instantly answer with yes or no, and that's all that's necessary. But don't hesitate to have children because your paycheck isn't high enough. It will work out itself somehow.

PS: Sorry if I went too tangential to the topic, but I'm still under the spell of my youngest niece as of typing this ^^
 
So you're saying billionaires are samaritans who "create jobs" as a benefit for poor people?
I never said that. But to refuse to acknowledge that very rich people create jobs is completely ludicrous, no matter how many problems come with it. You absolutely have to have the state and the wealthy work in tandem, some times it goes too much over in one direction, but without billionaires, we would be sitting on walkie-talkies and typewriters right about now.
 
So you're saying billionaires are samaritans who "create jobs" as a benefit for poor people?

I don't know what he is saying, but yes billionaire's do create jobs, they also destroys jobs. I am working for a large corporation which was created by a very rich man once upon a time. He did it for greed and that he had an idea but he created jobs that was more valuable than working on a smal farm. Henry Ford created a lot of jobs but he also destroyed a lot of jobs. Was their a net gain? I don't know.
 
I never said that. But to refuse to acknowledge that very rich people create jobs is completely ludicrous, no matter how many problems come with it. You absolutely have to have the state and the wealthy work in tandem, some times it goes too much over in one direction, but without billionaires, we would be sitting on walkie-talkies and typewriters right about now.
You cannot be serious.

No society needs billionaires. Billionaires are the cancer of the world. They're the driving force behind the rising divide between rich and poor. Their wealth is working for them, making them richer by the minute, while poor people become poorer, more and more having to rely on welfare systems.

Jobs would exist without billionaires, and it is also billionaires who keep pushing for automation in order to reduce the workforce. Which in an ideal world would be a positive, because people not having to work is great. Except in a world where the government isn't balancing out the lost jobs and the monetary needs of people, this doesn't work. It's what's huge part of the criticism against AI art: artists losing jobs, losing their means of life. Big publishers save money and less work needs to be done - but also at the cost of people who are now out of business and no longer know how to survive without social welfare.

New jobs, new companies are being created by non-billionaires all the time. To insinuate that we need billionaires is just insane to me.

#fckCapitalism
 
I feel like this posting is a good example of the cause of the problem with declining birth rates: Overthinking things.

The whole financial responsibility argument imo falls flat once you acknowledge that it's first and foremost the poorest people who have the highest birth rates still. The thing to understand here imo is: Your child will NEVER tell you "I'd rather not have been born than be poor". As long as you as a parent treat your child with the care of a parent, it will be happy to be alive, no matter whether you can afford a new iphone or a used android phone.

Secondly, the whole "I'd have to give up my own dreams" is already the wrong mindset. When you want a child, it should be BECAUSE it is part of your dream. If you look at having a child as some "dream crusher", then, uh, yeah, better don't have one.

Just 15 minutes ago, my sister-in-law was here for a visit downstairs and I went and spent a couple minutes just staring at my youngest niece, not even half a year old. She's adorable, just like my two older nieces (2 and 4, I think). I'm absolutely not well off financially, but if I ever am lucky enough to find a gf, I wouldn't hesitate one second to have children. Has that always been my goal in life, my driving force? Nah, not at all. But that's the thing: Children are not something that should be overthought. They're a source of happiness for most people and while there's a 1000 objective points to be made against having children in this day and age, I feel like focusing too much on levelheadedness is counterproductive. Just answer the one question in your head, for yourself: "Do I want children?" - most of us will be able to instantly answer with yes or no, and that's all that's necessary. But don't hesitate to have children because your paycheck isn't high enough. It will work out itself somehow.

PS: Sorry if I went too tangential to the topic, but I'm still under the spell of my youngest niece as of typing this ^^
I think the post you quoted pretty much shows how people in the developed world think and I think there is also a tipping point for poor and rich countries wherein poor countries people have extra kids to provide for the family in richer countries people want to give their all to their child and give them the best education because that is what is demanded from the workforce these days. One child is already expensive to maintain these days if you want the best for them.
 
You cannot be serious.

No society needs billionaires. Billionaires are the cancer of the world. They're the driving force behind the rising divide between rich and poor. Their wealth is working for them, making them richer by the minute, while poor people become poorer, more and more having to rely on welfare systems.

Jobs would exist without billionaires, and it is also billionaires who keep pushing for automation in order to reduce the workforce. Which in an ideal world would be a positive, because people not having to work is great. Except in a world where the government isn't balancing out the lost jobs and the monetary needs of people, this doesn't work. It's what's huge part of the criticism against AI art: artists losing jobs, losing their means of life. Big publishers save money and less work needs to be done - but also at the cost of people who are now out of business and no longer know how to survive without social welfare.

New jobs, new companies are being created by non-billionaires all the time. To insinuate that we need billionaires is just insane to me.

#fckCapitalism
This isn't really saying anything though, I see this sort of argument all the time on Twitter or whatever, but to judge what a billionaire does, you need to show their output and impact, not just angry explotatives.

As I mentioned earlier, the driving force behind the rich and the poor in my country is immigration. It's adding both new workers but also creating large poor classes. I'm not sure what it is in your country.

Ultimately, this is a matter of the state governing.

No one has said anything about jobs not existing without billionaires, this isn't black and white.

The entertainment industry is driven by capitalism, we wouldn't be sitting here without it. Of course, it's problematic, as we are currently seeing with the layoffs, but it's a large organism and there is a lot more to it than that.

Very wealthy people drive too much innovation and build too many companies to be replaceable. They need the freedom that money brings to be able to do that. I don't think you understand how much stuff you own and eat comes from an initiative from extremely wealthy people. Capitalism brought us out of the dark ages, we just need to adjust it to large populations.
 
I feel like this posting is a good example of the cause of the problem with declining birth rates: Overthinking things.

The whole financial responsibility argument imo falls flat once you acknowledge that it's first and foremost the poorest people who have the highest birth rates still. The thing to understand here imo is: Your child will NEVER tell you "I'd rather not have been born than be poor". As long as you as a parent treat your child with the care of a parent, it will be happy to be alive, no matter whether you can afford a new iphone or a used android phone.

Secondly, the whole "I'd have to give up my own dreams" is already the wrong mindset. When you want a child, it should be BECAUSE it is part of your dream. If you look at having a child as some "dream crusher", then, uh, yeah, better don't have one.

Just 15 minutes ago, my sister-in-law was here for a visit downstairs and I went and spent a couple minutes just staring at my youngest niece, not even half a year old. She's adorable, just like my two older nieces (2 and 4, I think). I'm absolutely not well off financially, but if I ever am lucky enough to find a gf, I wouldn't hesitate one second to have children. Has that always been my goal in life, my driving force? Nah, not at all. But that's the thing: Children are not something that should be overthought. They're a source of happiness for most people and while there's a 1000 objective points to be made against having children in this day and age, I feel like focusing too much on levelheadedness is counterproductive. Just answer the one question in your head, for yourself: "Do I want children?" - most of us will be able to instantly answer with yes or no, and that's all that's necessary. But don't hesitate to have children because your paycheck isn't high enough. It will work out itself somehow.

PS: Sorry if I went too tangential to the topic, but I'm still under the spell of my youngest niece as of typing this ^^
If they weren’t born they wouldn’t ask anything at all.


And yes, the poorest have the msot kids, and oftentimes those kids are out to work immediately or sold off for marriage or have a high miscarriage or fatality rate, is that reall an ideal.

I’ve searched up the data but I decided not to include it because I think it’s somewhat disengenius,

Those are poor people in terrible cloning conditions plagued by famine and inequality, they lead the worse lives imaginable, and that why education and help is so important.

The ideal isn’t 4 kids a woman, that’s awful it used to be like that around the world but thankfully modern medicine means less kids and women die due to it, protection is more easily atianable and so on,

The lives of African, Arabian, Afghanistan and so on women are not something that should be sued as a see look at them, they’re poor and they have children, they don’t have a choice.

Life isn’t a depressing pile of misery there, but not is it rainbows and roses, there’s lots of richer better parts including some really nice places, but there’s war, diesieses and so on, no one shoudl have to worry about war or that in there day to day.

The three largest contributing factors are

Per our world in data.

Furthermore the correlation between quality of life and birth rate can be clearly seen on these two graphs




The biggest outlier is china, however they had the 1 child policy and due to a patriarchal structure killed the girl’s and kept the boys, which led them to their current population disaster, and furthermore despite not the greatest quality of life within china that doesn’t necessarily equate to wealth or economy, china and other non standard capitalist societies all have their outliers.

Point is, I refuse to give birth to a child that needs to be put to work, nor one that won’t be able to live offf of what little work there is to find now if you aren’t a specialist.

I want the best for my child, having a child that suffers because of neeed for extra labour is desperation derived of awful living conditions that are slowly going away from our world thankfully.

The last in my country used to be the same, 7 children 2 die put the rest on the farm.

If I’m to have a child I will give them opportunities , and until I can via connections or wealth I won’t have one.

I’m not having a child for me, if I’m having one it’s for them.

And until I can garuntee they won’t have to worry about an economic crash or severe overtime and increasingly expensive education with little stipends or job opportunities I won’t have one.

is this a problem of capitalism yes, and capitalism has made this world very ruthless,

Happy to be alive is rich, check out any mental health statistics, kids younger and more than ever are succumbing to depression, sure the majority aren’t. But I don’t wanna bet on my kid being the majority
 
If they weren’t born they wouldn’t ask anything at all.


And yes, the poorest have the msot kids, and oftentimes those kids are out to work immediately or sold off for marriage or have a high miscarriage or fatality rate, is that reall an ideal.

I’ve searched up the data but I decided not to include it because I think it’s somewhat disengenius,

Those are poor people in terrible cloning conditions plagued by famine and inequality, they lead the worse lives imaginable, and that why education and help is so important.

The ideal isn’t 4 kids a woman, that’s awful it used to be like that around the world but thankfully modern medicine means less kids and women die due to it, protection is more easily atianable and so on,

The lives of African, Arabian, Afghanistan and so on women are not something that should be sued as a see look at them, they’re poor and they have children, they don’t have a choice.

Life isn’t a depressing pile of misery there, but not is it rainbows and roses, there’s lots of richer better parts including some really nice places, but there’s war, diesieses and so on, no one shoudl have to worry about war or that in there day to day.

The three largest contributing factors are

Per our world in data.

Furthermore the correlation between quality of life and birth rate can be clearly seen on these two graphs




The biggest outlier is china, however they had the 1 child policy and due to a patriarchal structure killed the girl’s and kept the boys, which led them to their current population disaster, and furthermore despite not the greatest quality of life within china that doesn’t necessarily equate to wealth or economy, china and other non standard capitalist societies all have their outliers.

Point is, I refuse to give birth to a child that needs to be put to work, nor one that won’t be able to live offf of what little work there is to find now if you aren’t a specialist.

I want the best for my child, having a child that suffers because of neeed for extra labour is desperation derived of awful living conditions that are slowly going away from our world thankfully.

The last in my country used to be the same, 7 children 2 die put the rest on the farm.

If I’m to have a child I will give them opportunities , and until I can via connections or wealth I won’t have one.

I’m not having a child for me, if I’m having one it’s for them.

And until I can garuntee they won’t have to worry about an economic crash or severe overtime and increasingly expensive education with little stipends or job opportunities I won’t have one.

is this a problem of capitalism yes, and capitalism has made this world very ruthless,

Happy to be alive is rich, check out any mental health statistics, kids younger and more than ever are succumbing to depression, sure the majority aren’t. But I don’t wanna bet on my kid being the majority
First of all, your pov is perfectly valid if it makes sense to you, so I want to makes sure that I'm not saying you're objectively wrong or anything.

Just two things I'd like to add:

1) Admittedly, I make the mistake of assuming everyone who's got the time to participate in a specialist dicussion forum like IB either stems from a well-off country or is individually relatively well-off. Since you keep bringing up all these example of misery, I assume you're from a less well-off region? Sorry for my narrow minded position then.

2) Child labor, child trafficking and other criminal shit aside, just looking at poor financials: I'm 100% your child would love you even if you weren't well-off. Just needed to say that, because I really believe you're overthinking some things. A lot of people do, hence the declining birth rates. Everyone wants everything to be "perfect", but children kinda are the antithesis to "perfect", they're always somewhat of a wildcard, you never know what's gonna happen. Really, I'm of two minds here and I agree with a lot of what you said. But at the end of day, I believe having a child should be an emotional decision first and foremost. All the rest will fall in place some way or another. But then, I'm also a Hunter X Hunter-fan, so maybe don't listen to me, lol :D
 
If they weren’t born they wouldn’t ask anything at all.


And yes, the poorest have the msot kids, and oftentimes those kids are out to work immediately or sold off for marriage or have a high miscarriage or fatality rate, is that reall an ideal.

I’ve searched up the data but I decided not to include it because I think it’s somewhat disengenius,

Those are poor people in terrible cloning conditions plagued by famine and inequality, they lead the worse lives imaginable, and that why education and help is so important.

The ideal isn’t 4 kids a woman, that’s awful it used to be like that around the world but thankfully modern medicine means less kids and women die due to it, protection is more easily atianable and so on,

The lives of African, Arabian, Afghanistan and so on women are not something that should be sued as a see look at them, they’re poor and they have children, they don’t have a choice.

Life isn’t a depressing pile of misery there, but not is it rainbows and roses, there’s lots of richer better parts including some really nice places, but there’s war, diesieses and so on, no one shoudl have to worry about war or that in there day to day.

The three largest contributing factors are

Per our world in data.

Furthermore the correlation between quality of life and birth rate can be clearly seen on these two graphs




The biggest outlier is china, however they had the 1 child policy and due to a patriarchal structure killed the girl’s and kept the boys, which led them to their current population disaster, and furthermore despite not the greatest quality of life within china that doesn’t necessarily equate to wealth or economy, china and other non standard capitalist societies all have their outliers.

Point is, I refuse to give birth to a child that needs to be put to work, nor one that won’t be able to live offf of what little work there is to find now if you aren’t a specialist.

I want the best for my child, having a child that suffers because of neeed for extra labour is desperation derived of awful living conditions that are slowly going away from our world thankfully.

The last in my country used to be the same, 7 children 2 die put the rest on the farm.

If I’m to have a child I will give them opportunities , and until I can via connections or wealth I won’t have one.

I’m not having a child for me, if I’m having one it’s for them.

And until I can garuntee they won’t have to worry about an economic crash or severe overtime and increasingly expensive education with little stipends or job opportunities I won’t have one.

is this a problem of capitalism yes, and capitalism has made this world very ruthless,

Happy to be alive is rich, check out any mental health statistics, kids younger and more than ever are succumbing to depression, sure the majority aren’t. But I don’t wanna bet on my kid being the majority

China is somewhat more complicated then patriarchy! By cultural norm it is the responsibility of the first born male to take care of the parents at old age. So when you introduced the one child policy you removed the pension and safety net for the parents if they didn't get a boy. The result was what you see in the statistics. China population will most likely collapse in the next 30-50 years.
 
First of all, your pov is perfectly valid if it makes sense to you, so I want to makes sure that I'm not saying you're objectively wrong or anything.

Just two things I'd like to add:

1) Admittedly, I make the mistake of assuming everyone who's got the time to participate in a specialist dicussion forum like IB either stems from a well-off country or is individually relatively well-off. Since you keep bringing up all these example of misery, I assume you're from a less well-off region? Sorry for my narrow minded position then.

I assume by specifying South Korea means she lives(?) there:

the trappings of a patriarchal society means that when it comes time to have a child, its my dreams that are expected to just sit on the sideline.
all this plus further sexism in the world (especially in korea)
 
Last edited:
No if Sweden was a 100% socialist country I would must likely not live here because it would be a shit hole with no development. Which is what happens every time someone tries.

I live in a social democratic country where all parties agrees on that schools (including universities) and health care should be payed through the tax system. Exactly how the health care etc should be organised is up for debate.

According to what you have said, the last thing you would want is for your nation to become socialist because that is what the ideal for social democracy is, that the long-term goal of a social democracy is to transition into socialism.

Therefore, you are saying that you will leave your country once it has achieved that goal. If you don't want that to happen, then your country has to continue running under capitalism.

But yes Sweden don't have a 100% planned economy but it is not like we don't have government intervention. Grey scales exist and in many areas Sweden are a socialist country in other we have more capitalism rules. Financial compensation for women are one are where we are very socialist. Another is that in Sweden is it very common for men to take parental leave almost as long as the women.

It turns out the "socialism is when the government does stuff" meme is true. By your logic, the US would become a socialist country the more social programs they create. Likewise, the US becomes "less socialist" the less social programs they have.

No matter how many social programs your country has, that doesn't mean your country is socialist. It's very strange that you're adamant about wanting your country to be identified as socialist while in the same breath claim that you'll leave the country if they have "too much socialism".

You live under capitalism.

This is again not a question about neoliberalism. It has to do with womens rights and what women prioritise.

It's a good thing the point I make about the birth rate crisis is that I think it's a combination of capitalism and patriarchy that affects total fertility rates like I mentioned in my OP.

What I say regarding neoliberalism is that it exacerbates the issue. Can I end up being wrong about what the real cause is? Sure.

Your analysis seems to start at "I think the capitalistic system is crap so I will paint everything I don't like on it'.

Capitalism is crap, I can actually say that because I live under it. Unlike you who pretends to live under socialism but when faced with the decision to actually live under socialism, you would prefer capitalism which is what you have already been living under your whole life.
 
Gonna input something a little bit:

1. Having kid has more risk than satisfying rewards. Example, kid with serious health issues. And rise them to just not to be “lonely old people later” is cruel and selfish. I can handle dying alone in a hole than bet on my kids that they will score on life as good as mine, and I barely score it.

2. Gate and Bezoz just monopoly the business and create “less” jobs, imagine world with more than few OSs and a lot of online book shops instead of just one.
 
The problem with the main argument in this thread "neoliberalism" is that it is not what have caused less children. It sounds like a the regular "capitalism evil" talk.

Feminism and women choice in the combination with machine labour have created less children to be born. Children used to be an asset when it comes to work on the farm. Every time a women get pregnant she is in risk. My wife got horrible pains and felt sick for a very long time for both of our children. For us two kids are enough.

I would highly recommend the book people quake by as it goes into dept of these things. But blaming neoliberalism is insane as even in more socialist countries (my home country Sweden offers a large amount of socialist programs for kids) the rate of children is going down. Simply put due to things like wide spread use of condoms we don't get as many children, because neither men nor women wants it.

Examples of socialist programs aimed at families in Sweden.
* Daycare for the children is almost free.
* Childcare is almost free.
* When a child is born you can be off from work with pay from the government. In total I think you have almost 1.5 years that you can be off. Playing with the numbers you can extend that to almost 2 years.
* The government hands out money for each child every month with more money to the family if you have more children. Even due to that the social norm is around two children per family.

There is also a social norm that leaving a meeting in the middle of a meeting to pick up your children from daycare is not a problem.

This is not about neoliberalism vs socialism. It is about what women values.

I think the only country I know that have turned around the birth rate is Hungary with ridiculous amount of money thrown at women.
Feminism and women are not a monolith or to be even remotely blamed for declining fertility rates. That's drinking the patriarchal kool-aid and the go to for many right-wing politicians. I was planning to respond last night because this had impeccable timing because I was having a discussion over discord about my annoyance of western anime and game fans who see anything to do with family or babies in media as any sort of "have sex" Shinzo Abe meme/propaganda when in reality he blamed female independence and LGBTQ+ for declining birthrates in Japan.

There are plenty out there who would like to meet someone, get married, have children, but simply can't because of lack of autonomy, money, and time. Money especially being the biggest factor for even basic survival to have food and water. Nobody is living comfortably these days. Even married couples are not having kids and it's for the same reasons.

Housing crisis in various countries where cost of living is high to astronomical also prevents people from ever moving upward to establish a stable foundation for a family as well. You do everything you possibly can to move up in the world for even a fraction of stability and that prevents you from ever being able to think about other things. Career first, everything else comes later with the hope it's not too late when you finally have that moment of reprieve to do what you want to do.

I live in the US and we're also seeing yearly fertility rate declines. I am poor, I am under the lowest annual income bracket, I'm not even married or have a girlfriend. I am disabled though and if I ever were to one day get married while still on disability, they would cut my disability checks in half or completely because my government and health care system would then see me as having a source of income from my spouse. Did you know disability income and how much you're allowed to save is capped in the US unlike some other countries? But only if you have a pre-existing condition. Some have to spend that money immediately, others can at least have a bank account to save up to 2k USD and anything saved above that limit is seen as income and can have your disability checks reduced or taken away if you're not careful, unless your state supports a special program that allows you to have separate accounts, one for disability and one for income if you're working. I can't even have a pet and I love and adore animals, but I feel it would be entirely unfair to own a dog or cat because I don't have a way to give them the home they deserve to have. A not at all uncommon sentiment I have seen and heard, even from close friends, and plenty others for not having children.

What's your dental like? Honest question. Is it tied to work, or can you freely go get a checkup without much worry? Here in the US, it depends on the company you work for if they have a dental plan, so they cover it for you. Otherwise, dental work is expensive just like our hospital bills. And you can die if you don't take care of your teeth. It's a legitimate thing. Once a cavity has made its way to your nerve it can become an infection and then possibly spread into the rest of your body and can kill you if not severely harm you which is why it's important to have regular checkups. Teeth, my man. an important bodily part you use every single day to sustain yourself is not even part of basic healthcare here in the US. A several hundred-dollar bill or more depending on the type of dental work that most people cannot afford. My cousin at the moment is trying to scrounge up at minimum $150 for dental work for their 4-year-old. They even started taking donations in hopes for help with that.

We don't have a lot of protections or social programs for women either, especially not good ones like the ones like you mentioned because ours are significantly reduced or non-existent because the US is an ultra-capitalist society that favors money over human lives. They see human lives as assets more than human beings.

EDIT: Late edit because I was made a huge mistake on the dental work price! my cousin's daughter needs $800!
 
Last edited:
Housing crisis in various countries where cost of living is high to astronomical also prevents people from ever moving upward to establish a stable foundation for a family as well. You do everything you possibly can to move up in the world for even a fraction of stability and that prevents you from ever being able to think about other things. Career first, everything else comes later with the hope it's not too late when you finally have that moment of reprieve to do what you want to do.

I live in the US and we're also seeing yearly fertility rate declines. I am poor, I am under the lowest annual income bracket, I'm not even married or have a girlfriend. I am disabled though and if I ever were to one day get married while still on disability, they would cut my disability checks in half or completely because my government and health care system would then see me as having a source of income from my spouse. Did you know disability income and how much you're allowed to save is capped in the US unlike some other countries? But only if you have a pre-existing condition. Some have to spend that money immediately, others can at least have a bank account to save up to 2k USD and anything saved above that limit is seen as income and can have your disability checks reduced or taken away if you're not careful, unless your state supports a special program that allows you to have separate accounts, one for disability and one for income if you're working. I can't even have a pet and I love and adore animals, but I feel it would be entirely unfair to own a dog or cat because I don't have a way to give them the home they deserve to have. A not at all uncommon sentiment I have seen and heard, even from close friends, and plenty others for not having children.

What's your dental like? Honest question. Is it tied to work, or can you freely go get a checkup without much worry? Here in the US, it depends on the company you work for if they have a dental plan, so they cover it for you. Otherwise, dental work is expensive just like our hospital bills. And you can die if you don't take care of your teeth. It's a legitimate thing. Once a cavity has made its way to your nerve it can become an infection and then possibly spread into the rest of your body and can kill you if not severely harm you which is why it's important to have regular checkups. Teeth, my man. an important bodily part you use every single day to sustain yourself is not even part of basic healthcare here in the US. A several hundred-dollar bill or more depending on the type of dental work that most people cannot afford. My cousin at the moment is trying to scrounge up at minimum $150 for dental work for their 4-year-old. They even started taking donations in hopes for help with that.

We don't have a lot of protections or social programs for women either, especially not good ones like the ones like you mentioned because ours are significantly reduced or non-existent because the US is an ultra-capitalist society that favors money over human lives. They see human lives as assets more than human beings.
The problem is that all of that assumes a certain standard of living. If you look at places where people are living with a lot of children - they have much worse living standards. Even your description of dental care could be considered a luxury for a lot of these people. Hell, I saw people having 3 children where their apartment looked like a public toilet. Also in those areas you also have a relatively strong family cohesion where people keep their children with parents and grandparents and stuff.
 
Last edited:
"Not having kids because you want to travel is like not drinking water because you might spill it. It's looking at the trees for the forest. Having a child is the continuation of your legacy and will bring you more joy than a billion trips to Barcelona. I feel your view is also tainted by youth, as you age, having a kid (and a partner) is more and more important to live a full life. Cheap entertainment and traveling are not gonna hold the same weight when you get older. It's not easy to have kids, but I mean, your entire psychology is built around it."

"The reason to have a child would be to build a family. It's hard and time-consuming but also more rewarding than anything else and helps you later on. The world is filled with people who never get kids and sit alone and lonely in their apartments."

But you're assuming that everybody thinks the same way as you. People find different things rewarding. I don't give a damn about my legacy, and neither do I need children for a fulfilling life. The drinking water analogy is just ludicrous.

I think the number of people who actually regret having children is probably higher than people imagine. People who wish they hadn't had them keep it to themselves because it generally isn't socially acceptable to say so. I imagine it's the minority of parents, especially mothers, but I bet it's more than people expect.
 
There's multiple reasons I can think of with this issue. I think the biggest problem is the constant negativity about having a child (not limited to Japan). We all know negativity spreads faster and gets more engagement. That's why most articles, news, youtuber videos are filled with negativity. The reason is simple, people don't like seeing others happier than them. This is my motto "Everything has a pro and a con". Having a kid has its own pro and cons. If we only focus on the cons, it's no surprise people starts to avoid it. Once again, there's a lot of reason to talk about for this topic. People might say money, I disagree although that can be a part of it obviously. As I grew older, I realized money is not that much of an issue. If money was the issue, why is the fertility rate higher in rural areas, or countries in Africa. It's the motivation, or demand you might say.
 
Gonna input something a little bit:

1. Having kid has more risk than satisfying rewards. Example, kid with serious health issues. And rise them to just not to be “lonely old people later” is cruel and selfish. I can handle dying alone in a hole than bet on my kids that they will score on life as good as mine, and I barely score it.

2. Gate and Bezoz just monopoly the business and create “less” jobs, imagine world with more than few OSs and a lot of online book shops instead of just one.
The entire lifecycle of human beings is based on kids and parents taking care of each other, this is the biological meaning of life that we are built for. Children are not gonna grow up, look at their parents, and think "I wish I was unborn, this is cruel!", or "There was a risk I could be unhealthy born, why did they have me!". I can't even imagine getting a kid, looking at it, and going "I am so cruel and selfish for having you!" lol. If you are a normal parent, you, your kid, and your entire family will be better off with the kid. Your kid will likely love you for having them, and you will love them back, and thus life is worth living.

Without people like Gates and Bezos. You wouldn't even have any modern OS.

"Not having kids because you want to travel is like not drinking water because you might spill it. It's looking at the trees for the forest. Having a child is the continuation of your legacy and will bring you more joy than a billion trips to Barcelona. I feel your view is also tainted by youth, as you age, having a kid (and a partner) is more and more important to live a full life. Cheap entertainment and traveling are not gonna hold the same weight when you get older. It's not easy to have kids, but I mean, your entire psychology is built around it."

"The reason to have a child would be to build a family. It's hard and time-consuming but also more rewarding than anything else and helps you later on. The world is filled with people who never get kids and sit alone and lonely in their apartments."

But you're assuming that everybody thinks the same way as you. People find different things rewarding. I don't give a damn about my legacy, and neither do I need children for a fulfilling life. The drinking water analogy is just ludicrous.

I think the number of people who actually regret having children is probably higher than people imagine. People who wish they hadn't had them keep it to themselves because it generally isn't socially acceptable to say so. I imagine it's the minority of parents, especially mothers, but I bet it's more than people expect.
I don't assume that everyone is like me, but I do assume that the vast majority of human beings will have far better lives with children because it's built into our DNA to think about and take care of kids. With women especially, their body produces kids, and their entire psychology is built around having and taking care of offspring. It's as natural as a wolf howling, and it's suppressing your own nature to ignore it. We are so many we don't need to have children in theory because of our sheer numbers, we don't live in tribes anymore, but that doesn't mean we aren't creatures built to have kids and that it's still a core function of our psychology.
 
Nobody mention that the Free and Open-Source Linux OS wasn't created by a billionaire and how 96% of the top 1 million web servers run on Linux.

Also, nobody mention that the internet which was funded using taxpayer money was created by the US government and would have never been created by private enterprise because they only care about the short-term profit.
 
Also, nobody mention that the internet which was funded using taxpayer money was created by the US government and would have never been created by private enterprise because they only care about the short-term profit.
probably because it would require unholy amount of money to do that? it is like funding the NASA program - required a lot of money in 20th century. But now we have SpaceX and some other companies create by private investors. Same with Tesla for example.

And they we can go black to plants and factories and so on....That were not created out of the goodwill. Maybe if it would be better if everybody was just farming. At least there would not be "billionaires".
 
Last edited:
Nobody mention that the Free and Open-Source Linux OS wasn't created by a billionaire and how 96% of the top 1 million web servers run on Linux.

Also, nobody mention that the internet which was funded using taxpayer money was created by the US government and would have never been created by private enterprise because they only care about the short-term profit.
Linux would not be popular without the commercialized internet, there are a gazillion things that are not made by billionaires, but to say that the software and hardware push in the '90s and 2000s were not pushed by super-wealthy companies is factually false.

The devices we use and the software we use on them are heavily influenced by people outside of the bondage of the state with massive bank accounts and big ambitions, the birth of GNU is built on the idea of freedom of creativity and freedom from state or corporate altogether.
 
probably because it would require unholy amount of money to do that? it is like funding the NASA program - required a lot of money in 20th century. But now we have SpaceX and some other companies create by private investors. Same with Tesla for example.

The point being is there would be no Amazon without the state, just like there is no SpaceX without the state.

There is no nation where a "free market" exists. All the private enterprise can't exist without the State just like GM who needed that $50B bailout.

Billionaires are not gods.
 
Back
Top Bottom