"Society" is richer. Sure, there are REALLY RICH people in America. A few. Most are not. We can't afford social lives, marriage, or kids, or cars, or health, or houses, or retirements or rents.
I always laugh when neoliberals state meaningless statements like that. Yeah, the 'society is richer'-it's just that a huge chunk of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of the population.
Rich country doesn't mean richer families...... Cost of living , both parents NEED to work. The middle class is now borderline poverty. And children are expensive
Both parents to not need to work. Those who think they do are victims of marketers and other propagandists. They don't know what "need" means and don't compare their supposed needs with those of their parents or grandparents. But, this is all to the good. The propaganda system, in effect, is discouraging people who can't think for themselves from reproducing themselves.
The question is, how can some people be literally dirt floor poor and stil have 10 kids, but someone who has access to decent housing and food feels like they can't?
Something often overlooked is that a lot of people grow up with parents who never should have been parents. This is not an uncommon thing. Back when everybody had kids because you basically had to (boomers and older) you have huge numbers of people becoming parents who were simply not cut out to do the job well. So I think part of the drop in people having children is the understanding by younger generations that they do not want to risk ruining someone's life in the way many of their lives were adversely affected by their parents.
Wow aint that the truth! Getting to a place where you can admit that your parents sucked and never should've gotten pregnant with you is a huge step in self healing. Many many people never get there and just repeat the family pattern.
Also, the older people get the more they are aware of the advantages of not having children … society brainwashes people in wanting to have kids … but when people get older they start thinking for themselves … Being a parent isn’t like a cornflakes advert … And one better realises that before becoming a parent
Haha The average salary in Egypt is roughly 303 US Dollars per month, according to the exchange rates in May 2023. Fertility rate 3.31. Your just decadent and will die out Haha. Voltaire saying The rich having 100 kids haha
I have 3 girls and two boys. We were low income, often homeless, carless, and always struggling. Today, only two of my children want and have families; the other three - "no way!" I think this may be because they don't want to struggle so much and bring children into a world which does not support democracy, equal rights, families, education, decent housing, decent jobs, and so forth.
Yep, I think it's funny that social scientists and reporters think we don't know why birthrates are falling. We absolutely do. We are living it. Obviously, there are many reasons,but the big two are: Choice, we are no longer socially obliged to have children Economics: we no longer have an economic incentive to have children. In the past, children were a financial burden, but were also financial help when it came to things like family farms or even working jobs, or caring for elderly parents. Now, children aren't expected (rightfully so) to provide to the family. They are only financial burden, and society does nothing to ease the burden.
@@bookplateorg-ry5flIt's not mentioned in the program because that doesn't serve an agenda they're trying to push. Economic policy of the wealth in the US earnestly believes that the more you oppress people, the more they breed like rabbits. They don't think ahead enough to realize that going below subsistence means a person can't feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, let alone a child. This podcast is stuck in the 1990s idea of how Americans live. That's how insulated the upper class is, and that's why they're only going to make things worse as time goes on, particularly with the methods they (regardless of party affiliation) are using to try and force more births for child labor.
Yep! I'm a single mom of an only child and she watched me struggle to provide for her. She also said "no way!"...she does not want that responsibility. She said a cat is all the extra responsibility she wants....it's hard enough just to take care of yourself now days!
Children are expensive and inconvenient for many people. As soon as women in developing countries get a cell phone they can see how everyone else lives. They can see the freedom enjoyed by single people in the West and they want that for themselves.
@@Wegivesp you mean those countries which are not so ''progressive '' and ''free'' as yours .Dont worry , soon they gonna make you high birt rate , And what was most often baby name given on new born in your democratic paradise ? It was Rendal , or was Mouhamed ??
@@Wegivesp Not really. Birth rates are below replacement in places like Brazil, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Nepal, N. Korea, Bhutan, Malaysia, Costa Rica, etc.
In the internet village, not the real one lol 😂 there’s others in the neighborhood who take off the condom and have daughters who go and get married to some lovable but pudgy guy and together so far produce 2 more kids, who seem spoiled but too soon to know
It's less culture and more economics that's at the back of this. People aren't having kids because it doesn't make sense for them to. We want too much from people and do too little for them in the west and in America in particular. You want young people, or just people, to have kids then try affordable housing, healthcare, education, etc. We have ravaged the commons in order to see a slight increase in quarterly profits and now ponder why nothing will grow.
@@MrCWells3000Nah, it's not. Is this guy pretending that BB generation were doing a lot more despite doing way simpler jobs and being much less educated on average? The reality is the cost of goods have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated.
Easy answer is are we happy ? I mean most people? Do we even want to live or exist in this place ? Do we see a bright future ?… in the past life was by far more miserable but we didn’t have the means to compare our life with others … now the comparison is depressive … you compare yourself to the rich and you feel like you have no chance in life so you just let go
Another reason for the shift in rich countries is that in most rich countries, women have access to those same opportunities. In 3rd world and developing countries, the norms are for women to only stay home and raise children. When given the choice, women want options too.
Exactly. But also means the extinction of the cultures were women have more decision power (a lot of the northern hemisphere). As a man, I was raised in the spirit of equality, but as I grew older I have become to understand: the future belongs to the men from the.. "other" cultures, the Sharia types. So I am training myself to be less invested in the future and well being of my progressive culture. It is being replaced. We won the civilization game, women are equals. Now it's time to make room for the medievals, 'cause they have the demographic advantage.
@@baddolphin1423 Societies founded upon men and women united as fathers and mothers instead of "equals" is going to win in the end... I'm shocked! Shocked! Well... Not that shocked.
@baddolphin1423 the planets likely will not last long enough for us to see that happen. We're approaching extinction for everyone, medievals included. Personally I'm pro-extinction. Men didn't respect women, or Mother Earth. Now we're facing the consequences 🍿
Why not a word on how inhospitable late capitalist neoliberal societies are to families and communities? How school systems are underfunded and falling apart while we spend $1 trillion per year on the military? How paying for health care is a constant worry? How employment is often precarious, and housing costs continue to skyrocket?
Those are all good points (obviously), but it's still interesting, to look beyond that, imo. Because there are countries where these issues aren't nearly as severe and birthrates are just as abysmal. Or even more so. Germany has a worse birth rate than the USA. And while we're struggling atm, for obvious reasons...we had it pretty cushy here for many decades. Many people still decided to opt out of having a family. Or at least a large family. This already happened between 1965 and 1975 btw, when birthrates dropped from 2.5-1.5 in about a decade. Ever since, we've been pretty much stable at that number. There was even a slight uptick between 2010 and 2020. Just from 1.4-1.6, but still. So this clearly had nothing to do with economic factors or all the upheaval and change, we all have been going through these last 20 years or so. The only people here, that have 2+ kids are immigrants and they are usually not better off financially or in any other aspect (job search, housing etc). Except maybe family support. I've thought about this a lot and continue to be puzzled by it.
@@raraavis7782 The lowest birthrate in US history was 1.64. Also, the US birthrate declined significantly from 2010 to 2020 (1.93 to 1.64). You're also wrong about who in America has large families. Have you ever met statistics?
@@kreek22 You missed a key word in what I wrote...which is 'Germany'. I know, I know... it's hard for Americans to comprehend, that there are other countries than theirs in the world *pats head*. No go work on your reading comprehension, before you try to correct others in such an unnecessarily condescending way again.
easy answer that doesn't need an hour of filler: it's expensive and wages are meager. Housing, groceries, utilities, debt payments, car payments, gas, etc. are all through the roof. we can barely afford to be alive and feed our humanity on the side, nevermind create and cultivate an entire human being that'll be totally dependent on us. and our society in general has also become so rigid, vacant, and alienated that it's growing more and more difficult to meet new people and form attachments. We barely have any energy and time between work shifts to be fulfilled as humans, we're often too tired or busy with domestic obligations to go out and meet someone to have a child with. And where would we go, anyhow? the third spaces that would fill those needs are disappearing and so our only options are home, work, and trips to the store where we don't typically want to be social or bothered. Capitalism is killing us.
I have only heard about 10 minutes of this podcast and don’t understand how these two think most working class people have so much financial freedom & ‘time to enjoy’? Rich countries or ‘some rich people in those countries’?
I find it curious that there is no mention of chemicals that are causing fertility problems. Perhaps these effects are more in the future? Has Shanna Swan's research been proven incorrect? I do agree with what is presented here but it seems incomplete.
Pretty sure I read that those under the age of 35 still get pregnant within the first year of trying at a rate of 85%. Fertility itself doesn't seem to be that big of an issue yet. Healthy pregnancies however...lots going on there. Chemicals, microplastics, obesity, malnutrition etc etc etc
Ezra Klein keeps saying things that make me believe he thinks everyone in America is like him and his friends from graduate school. 13% of Americans have a master's degree. ~3% have a doctorate. Is it possible that not everyone is like him? Is it possible that economic numbers in the US don't accurately represent the level of distribution of income and wealth? Maybe the reason why *most* people are choosing to have fewer kids is that this amazing prosperity is actually *not* equally experienced. This is such a fundamental problem with NYT professional opinion-havers. They are a bit myopic. I, myself, have a doctorate in what has turned out to not be a very lucrative profession. I didn't go into it thinking it would make me rich, but I wasn't prepared for this level of precarity. The idea of buying a house, saving for retirement (or just retiring in general), let alone having a kid... These are all wildly unrealistic for me. So even some of us with graduate degrees aren't doing so well.
Still doesn't explain why the poorest Americans have the most kids on average. Or why when Americans where much poorer we had many more kids. I grew up very poor to a mom who had 5 kids, it was perfectly fine and we all did well. She definitely didn't put much time in with us and we didn't do any of expensive activities. My best friends growing up supports his 4 kids and stay at home wife in MA on $75k no problem working construction by my brother in a city working in the media making $125k with a partner making $120k says kids are way to expensive. It's obviously not the money it's that they would have to give up ALOT of spending on travel and career progress to have kids.
@@kyber1fun164 that's very interesting. I did not know that. That makes me curious about why he actively identifies himself (in this interview) as belonging to the group of people that go to grad school? He doesn't talk about himself as a person with "only" a bachelor's degree...
"I, myself, have a doctorate in what has turned out to not be a very lucrative profession. I didn't go into it thinking it would make me rich, but I wasn't prepared for this level of precarity. The idea of buying a house, saving for retirement (or just retiring in general), let alone having a kid... These are all wildly unrealistic for me. So even some of us with graduate degrees aren't doing so well." BINGO! SAME FOR ME! I always did "work hard, play hard", have had a singular goal, with several "backup goals" if the primary goal did not work out, that I "went for", and in some ways, still do. And going for all those goals - all those academic degrees -- was and still is THE BEST DECISION OF MY LIFE! Nevertheless, working hard and being focussed on a goal of life is ZERO guarantee of getting all you had hoped for in return. I've gotten a LOT of what I had hoped for in return (PhD in Mathematics, BChE in chemical engineering, 2 years as a chem eng, eight published papers, have given several talks and poster presentations) but not all I had hoped for.
No, they are still an economic asset. But to billionaires instead of you. They need a new set of everything. A new house eventually s bunch of new cars. Etc etc. child care, education, all the things children can’t do without went through the roof. Only way to win is not to play.
There is some irony that we are concerned about declining birth rates while simultaneously being concerned about the radical loss of jobs due to Artificial Intelligence
This seems very out of touch. Try to look beyond your own social circle. Not everybody has your paycheck. Not everybody has shared home/childcare duties. You can do a search on any social platform and people will tell you why they are putting off having kids.
I assume there are more people like myself who were brought up in a family, because that’s, “what people do”, but from an early age, even with a “good” upbringing, I knew I NEVER wanted to create a new life when I barely figured out how to live my own!🤨 It was crazy to imagine how I’d do any better than my parents did, and I couldn’t imagine being responsible for creating someone less happy than myself running around. 🫤 People do that ALL the time, perhaps most, definitely many parents do it, and it’s MADNESS!
Why on earth would I bring a child into this world? Children are precious, the world is Hell. And why wouldn't we be concerned about food when food chains are collapsing because we have forced climates to such extremes, poisoned and destroyed nature, and gutted resources? Why would I introduce a child into a world in which social media plays such a distorting and leading role? What sort of child should I hope for? A screaming narcissist to become a successful influencer, or a sociopath to climb the heights of the corporate ladder? Or one that has good values, and struggles to earn a good living that properly supports them or their loved ones?
I think that (unconsciously or consciously) this is a core reason for the decline across cultures, along with work/poverty stress, and the inability to find a partner to raise a child with.
@@roysmith5597 That is due to our change in values. We place money and ego/ self above everything else. We subject everything to those two directives. Civilisation is dependent on a united community. We are losing that. Social media has played a big part in that, and reinforcing those negative values.
Why isn't a falling population considered a good thing, at this point -- if not a miraculous blessing? For two decades now, a commonly quoted statistic is that if all 8 billion humans enjoyed Americans' material consumption levels we'd need 4 or 5 more planets to supply the resources. Needless to say, this is not going to happen -- and Indeed, our planetary resource base is rapidly declining, both in quantity and quality, and we are likely polluting our oceans, aquifers, and atmosphere beyond repair. Why not celebrate the falling birthrate and reform our societies to support a smaller global population?
Conventional wisdom is usually dumb. There is no shortage of resources, with one possible exception--a mineral important in food production. You've probably never heard of it due to conventional wisdom entrapment. You've also failed to understand basic principles of economics, like catallaxy and automatic market-based information systems.
"Why isn't a falling population considered a good thing, at this point -- if not a miraculous blessing?" Answer: “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” ― Voltaire
28.04 this is one of the most important parts of this podcast. I often feel like, in discussions of birth rate, no one is speaking to women of childbearing age. And that not enough politicians or policy wonks are talking to mothers. I cannot speak for men, though. It seems to me that the world is a very difficult place for men. I think men appear to be very isolated and very pressured to perform and make money without any semblance of what we call a work-life balance. And by the way, I'm old enough to remember that the phrase work-life balance didn't emerge an American popular culture until a certain number of women had entered the workforce and someone still had to do the grocery shopping and cook dinner. When I talk to young women - women in college and women on the cusp of graduating from high school - I'm met with a group of young people who feel simultaneously pressured to be able to support themselves, and demonized for doing so. When I talk to young women who have ended their relationships, I hear the heartbreaking consequences of our country's decision to not really offer good sex education to young people. Young men's sex education is pornography. And the younger women in my life report being choked, slapped and hit during sex with their partners, and being shocked and terrified by it. Now, this wonderland we call the internet has lifted a Greek chorus of caterwauling voices. Yes, there are the many "men are trash!" posts. But what's more disturbing to me is the sheer volume of young male voices on the internet criticizing girls for their academic achievements and interest in a career. And that same volume of young male voices insisting that a woman's moral obligation, her biological purpose on Earth, boiled down to keeping men fed, clothed, stroked, sexually satisfied, and fed. These are young men who appear to think that women shouldn't have any voice in our civic institutions. I'm of the age where I understand that my father was born into poverty on a tobacco farm in rural Kentucky. He was the youngest of five children, but who knows how many pregnancies his mother lost before she dropped dead of a stroke when my father was only 10 years old? I look back just one generation and see how all of my parents female siblings drastically reduced the number of pregnancies they experienced. And here we have all of these young men deciding that the proper thing to do is to get women pregnant, young, and breed them into misery and uterine prolapse. So I can well imagine why so many women do not want to replace the current social and political system that is treating them as a punching bag.
Society would rather die than talk to women. Look at the low retention in nursing and education. People automatically jump to conclusions, like making it easier for foreigners to get certified, rather than asking why we can't retain the nurses and teachers who are already here? Instead of interpreting low fertility as a young woman happiness defect, it is immediately framed as a pension problem.
Thank you for this eloquent comment. It is a very difficult time to be a woman, or a man. We are in a social dystopia. It can be undone if we identify it as the problem to solve. It will be undone once circumstances change and we become valuable to one another again. But until then, everything to do with bonding and child-rearing will likely continue to decline.
When has the world been in a better state? The 20th century? Cold War, Vietnam, segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa? WWII? WWI? The Spanish Flu? The 19th century? Slavery still legal? Charles Dickens level poverty? The 18th century? Medieval times? Roman Republic? Han Dynasty? Bronze Age Fertile Crescent? Human prehistory? The world has never been better than it is now. In terms of life expectancy, eradication of diseases, education levels, equality, human rights... This is the best time there's ever yet been to have kids. Oh, woe to our kids, they'll never know the bliss of being born on a medieval fiefdom.
Can't we switch this around and ask why would anyone want to have kids? In high income society, having kids is a lot of unpaid work frankly. Kids do not materially contribute to the economic stability of a household. From a practical standpoint, kids are a burden. There are going to be people that enjoy that work so they're okay with that. A lot of people do not enjoy child care or the idea of child care. It's hard just to take care of yourself and deal with the economic uncertainty of yourself. Why would you take on even more uncertainty with a child unless you really wanted to? In the past people didn't think about it. By the time they looked up they already had three kids and a wife. I think now people have the opportunity to mature a little bit and when they actually think about having kids they make the choice that it doesn't make sense.
Business got too used to the idea that having children was immutable human nature, and that the labor force would naturally be replenished without them needing to do anything to incentivize it. They have always pursued profit by paying their employees as little as possible, and by paying as little in tax as possible. Eventually they will discover that this state of affairs is ending, and that parents require monetary compensation for the value they are creating for society.
I come from two lines of huge families. My grandmother on one side had 13-14 children, on the other she had 9, 7 surviving infanthood. My parents had a lot of kids. And then there's me, who's had 3 with one living. There's a couple things that fit what you mention (they married young, pressures kept them in said marriages, and they didn't have access or believe in most contraceptives). One big thing that's different is the cultural emphasis and beliefs around what children are. There is language around babies that emphasizes their positives more than their negatives. Children are seen as blessings and purpose. A fundamental aspect to growing and maturing. That's lost on later gens that may have already come from smaller families or having had that values transmitted to them (or did and rejected them). In my family lines, almost everyone assumes they'll have children and there's a disproportionate number who have larger than average families or are aiming for that. I believe that's strongly tied to a cultural heritage that values children and family.
Not all people can, not all people should. You need a license to catch fish or drive. The idea it’s a right over sovereignty of another human for 18 years with no qualification seems insane in some way too, not that I would change that. You are somehow not doing your duty to your ilk on an organic level by not replicating if you can. Yet thoughtlessly copulating does nothing for humanity. I dunno. I would like to have one child but I just never grew up enough in the right way where I could see that. Maybe there’s other way to pass on what I’ve learned and benefit humanity.
Interesting stuff. I’m in Japan with a family of 2 daughters and though born in the USA, They’ve been here since kindergarten. The distribution of people is a way to help solve this issue. The society that willingly encourages others who are flexible and willing to contribute will benefit greatly by the diversity. There’s a fear of “ losing cultural identity”. What does this REALLY mean, if the society faces economic collapse 😢
I agree, without the neccerity you probably should even only have a child if you love to be a parent, including all the work as the thing you would love to do most. I wounder if people have enogh exposure to healthy loveing families who share chores for example tho, because maybe not? A lot of ppl don't seem to belive that's possible for them
We here in the US are doing better? How? Our life expectancy is down compared to other developed countries. The next generation will be poorer than the current one. I have two children. Only one of them wants to bring a child into the world. My sister also chose not to have children. I know many women who chose not to have children. What's the point? Life expectancy decline, decline in standard of living and climate change. What do they have to look forward to?
"rich country" means NOTHING. The ONLY QUANTIFIABLE meaning of "rich" is HOW MUCH QUALITY OF LIFE (which INCLUDES access to advanced technology) do you get in exchange for HOW MUCH HARD LABOR you do. Money is just an INTERMEDIARY between what goods and services you get versus how much goods and services you produce.
@BerthaUbley The Nordic countries are wealthy countries with low inequality and extremely robust social benefits and redistribution schemes (including funding many government programs intended to increase the birth rate) and yet they too are struggling mightily with very low birth rates well below population replacement levels. So, less wealth concentration and more sharing is not necessarily the magic answer to increasing the birth rate.
@@MaxPower-11 those countries have spread the wealth around to the entire country. I am familiar with their policies. And those who have the birthrate have increased.
It’s selfishness to have kids that are not securely provided for. And who is selfish? The woman?? Are you a woman or man? Did you dream growing up of DOING SOMETHING, having agency in the larger world beyond raising kids? More women working is helpful to the world. There’s nothing that positive about having kids-we are overconsuming. Let’s wait till we’re all comfortable and the fish aren’t disappearing from the sea at an alarming rate before we call people “selfish.” Are you a Republican? Are you pro-capitalism? Selfishness. Greed. Promoting the rich getting richer and not helping (women and men) raise their kids or contributing to their education or even feeding them adequately. Please. If you’re a man you don’t even have the right to talk about this. Women have been virtually slaves since the advent of agriculture, without recourse to education, birth control, the right to have non-menial jobs, and women had to keep having kids their entire adult lives with little recourse to leaving their husbands. Don’t talk to us about selfishness.
It is not just ''cultural'' The problems are that housing has become insanely expensive in most developed countries. Unnecessarily so and also jobs have become less secure. Rules on the Job market has changed, but even more so the job culture has changed. We now have what I would call a ''hire and fire'' culture where employers try to find '' the perfect'' employee and if it turns out they are somehow human and not perfect then they are fired, instead of investing in the employees and letting them grow.
@@searose6192I live in THE cheapest state in the union and it's still an impossibility to have kids. Why? Because cheap state means low wages means difficulty providing for children. You people think it's soooo easy but never use any logic. It'd be funny if the stupidity wasn't so tragic.
You dont want kids then. Question. Why would you want to bring a child into this cruel world and what will you be bringing them here for? To gamble with thier life. Even if you have money its still not a good idea.
@@searose6192 Probably for the same reason why no one else would do this, there simply aren’t good jobs available in the cheaper areas of the country. So, why bother moving to those places if there’s nothing there.
No duh. The question is whether that feeling has always existed, and if it hasn't, why does it exist now? If it has, why has it changed how people are actually having kids?
@@CJ-re7bxit always existed but people didn’t have a way to resist it back then because they didn’t have reliable access to birth control at all. People never wanted to have as many children they were having. Now that we have options to control fertility that’s obvious.
Thank you for pointing out that families have more money because women are working. Working women are going to have fewer kids. Society requires 2 income families but no support for childcare.
For sustainability reasons there are over 7 billion too many people on our planet, so the only people making claims that the fertility rate is too low are nationalists (like Putin) trying to protect their own power, corporatists who need more wage slaves to do their work and consume their products, and theocrats who need more followers to increase their power. For the rest of the people on the planet, slowly decreasing populations will increase wages, increase resource availability per capita, and generally increase the quality of life. AI automation will serve to increase the benefits of a lower population. So don't let anyone convince you that a slowly decreasing population is a problem.
46:05 I have memories of waiting outside of San Francisco restaurants that didn't take reservations when I was a kid. We were expected to wait. We brought a book. It was fine.
im missing the point, are we just sharing our memories here, I remember when Golden Eye came out on Nintendo 64 in 1999, best game especially for inviting friends over to play
An excellent conversation. As a Canadian certainly childcare and maternity leave being offered at a reasonable amount is so important to make having not only the first but additional children being possible. It's never easy but support is so important in an expensive world. Doing volunteer work like a Guide or Scout leader is important work for the community but tough when both parents are overworked and overwhelmed
Sometimes I feel all this talk is corporations and companies desperate to beat that bottom line every year. We did absolutely fine with 2 billion people on the planet …only 100 years ago. This is not a finite planet. We will be just fine. Don’t let anyone scare you that more is better. It is just NOT true🌎☀️💙
We were fine at 2 billion because we were not declining. 2 billion people with high birth rates and growing lifespan is a very different outlook and scenario even from 8 billion people with below replacement birth rates.
I believe in quality over quantity. The goal should not be to have more people, it should be to have more people not in poverty or prison and who have disposable income. Why should I want the birth rate to be high when I do not know what quality of life the babies will have? CNN had a woman write an opinion piece that she will not have kids because climate change is so bad that she thinks "kids" are better off not being born. By "not being born," I mean not being conceived. I do not mean being conceived and aborted. She said that the purpose of having kids is to give them opportunities, not to have to tell them about how bad the world is.
Women now have the ability to NOT have children!!! It is false to assume that children are a positive for them! Pregnancy has a high physical price, and men do not equally share long-term personal cost of child care!
Maybe we're doing parenting wrong? No kidding! What we think is normal has only existed for a couple generations! Moving somewhere with no support network and doing everything yourself in your little castle only works in an age of unprecedented prosperity.
The cost is simply atronmus. Just the thoght of paying in money for all the labour that wouldn't tradtionally be paied but done by the wife/support network. That's hours upon hours. In places where children can't safly play alone around the nighberhood even more money that you pay essentialy for lacking a safe community. And every of those is taxed as a buiness and as a person themselves (the wage needs to be enogh after taxes)- just as much as the parents will be taxed. So a lot of money plus a lot of taxes on top
@@kreek22they demeaned woman’s roles as homemaker & mother. Exhorted them to get a job, a career. Then used them to drive down men’s wages & Cleverly made it this feminist agenda. Whereas it was a capitalist agenda. People respond to stimulus & it worked. & they got the end result too. Now 1 man working 40 hours a week in a middle class job can’t dream of bringing up a 2-4 child family in a decent house, have a car & go 1-2 holidays a year. Woman are unhappy, men are lost. The rich get richer & they find more ways to nickel and dime us. But oh dear. We decided not to play anymore. 🤷🏻♂️
It is because in the rich societies people invest too much time in their kids. I was born during Ceausescu's regime in Romania, and then the parents would not spend that much time with their kids. We were going alone to school, come back from school alone and ate what was left for us in the fridge to eat. My both parents were working including on Saturdays. If we would some sport, or take music lessons, the same, we would go alone or with our friends. We spent most our time with our friends outside, not with our parents.
What you describe was true for most American children until around 25 years ago. But, the American birthrate dropped below replacement 50 years ago. Romania, though not rich, has had a low birthrate for 30 years.
Unions and Marxists are JUSTIFIED forms of collectivism: they fight to INCREASE equality of labor and wealth produced by that labor. Unlike nationalism or tradition or culture, which actively fight against equality of choice, freedom, when doing so goes against their nationalistic or monarchist or theocratic delusions and ideologies.
Unions and Marxists are JUSTIFIED forms of collectivism: they fight to INCREASE equality of labor and wealth produced by that labor. Unlike nationalism or tradition or culture, which actively fight against equality of choice, freedom, when doing so goes against their nationalistic or monarchist or theocratic delusions and ideologies. FYI: far too many "Communists" turned out to be Communist in name only: fanatical fascist rightwing dictators.
I'm genX and my parents clearly did not like being parents and told us not to have kids because they ruin your life. My mom also said she'd have been a better parent to my brother if she hadn't had me. She said she didn't regret having me, but that conversation happened when I was 12ish. Spoiler alert. Neither of us had kids and now my mom complains about not having grandkids. But we do both have step children she takes no interest in. Gen X parents were struggling.
The fact lower birthrates are advertised as a "problem" is an indication of how unsustainable the system is. The economy (as "designed") needs growth to support the rules by which the system is working. But when there is a 69% decline in monitored vertebrate wildlife populations since 1970, global warming, inequality at an unprecedented level it just seems we are ruining it. All these economic systems are studied in isolation based of some idea that we are going to continue indefinitely into infinity with a million more houses each year each with the latest "tech" like the microwave in the 80's. Look up behavioral sink. Don't have kids. All will be well. Think about just being a good uncle or aunt to your siblings kids. Think about having only half the population right now on this earth with all the resources we have - we'd have a paradise.
Big picture, I agree. But, in the meantime, who is going to pay for my Social Security. I am a Baby Boomer, and my generation did not have enough children
@@johnstewart7025you prepaid for it into pension funds and savings. Ask yourself how the investment banks and government gambled and squandered away. They also to us the planet was dangerously overpopulated and we were all doomed by climate change. If we now need more people then why are we killing thousands and thousands of civilians in the ongoing 'forever wars'?
I have always thought that the historical western cultural assumption of female submission to a male partner in marriage has deterred family development. I believe we would have a more functional society if more men would approach marriage as a partnership relationship rather than a patriarchal one. You see the remnants of historical violence against women in war, in rape and murder, and in partner violence both physical and psychological. The feeling of the country currently of the need to establish or return to laws that reinforce the patriarchy by controlling reproductive rights, by controlling whether a woman can leave a marriage while pregnant, allowing partner violence to go unchecked, and making no fault divorce a thing of the past makes not having children understandable. I'm 66. I had two aunts who escaped marriages by leaving while pregnant while at the same time abandoning already born children. Making laws that allow religious standards to apply to modern day life will result in more women who do not choose to marry simply because it is a trap they've seen play out in real time.
I'm 35, no kids. Before that, I'd need to actually have a partner. Before that, I'd actually need to date someone. Before that, I'd actually need to ask someone out. Before that, I'd need to move out of my parents house. Before that, I'd actually need to have an income. Before that, I'd actually need to have a job. Before that, I'd actually need to have work authorization. Before that I'd actually need my immigration status to change. 20 years and counting.
@@kreek22 The dude immigrated for a reason. I'm just going to guess, he didn't want to starve to death. Word on the street, it's an uncomfortable way to go
There's no mystery here. Once a country's economic model reaches a point where child labor is no longer a benefit and women reach a minimum education level where they are empowered to control their fertility, the fertility rates dropped. From that point on children become a luxury good and people only have them when they feel wealthy enough to have them without impacting their careers and lifestyle. The only way to grow the birth rate is to remove access to birth control or start paying parents LOTS of money to have kids, such that they start perceiving children as an economic benefit again.
Aargh! Countries' birthrates are not plummeting. Countries don't have babies. Women do. When women are permitted to make their own decisions (even when in consultation with their husbands or other partners) then they often choose to have fewer children and concentrate their efforts in other areas. Income and education contribute to this liberation, but it is the liberation itself that allows women to pick their own priorities. No public policy can reverse this trend except subordinating women again to the will of men through coercion. And we're not going back to those days! So, public policy should focus on how to make our societies adapt to a lower birthrate, not on the impossible goal of stimulating birthrates.
I hope you are correct. Authoritarian governments can restrict the sale of contraceptives. Project 2025 advocates a ban on abortion across the US and reduced availability of contraceptives especially the contraceptive pill. It was written by conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Christians.
Fascinating discussion but oh my so much privilege being shown! Having kids being fun? Historicly they just happened. Kids were just part of life. And then they were useful for hunting, gathering, farmering. Starting in at least the 70s we started hammering it home that if you had kids before you graduated college you had ruined your life and your chances. I think people really took to heart that kids ruin lives. Now, im all for sex education and I have three kids myself, so I can say that kids make life more: hilarious, stressful, satisfying, and anger inducing. But they certainly don't make it easier.
And, sadly, especially in western countries, you can’t necessarily rely on children to look after you in your old age. Many people in aged care homes don’t have visitors. 😔
Education is why birthrates are falling. Women all over the world have become better educated. What's disturbing is the push in America to force women to have children. It's especially disturbing when the US doesn't have the best support for children. Get them born is all important but once the child is here, there's little for them.
Parenthood done well is an exercise in self-sacrifice. Some people are not motivated to make that sacrifice if given a choice, and they shouldn’t have kids.
Exactly. It is an exercise in loving someone other than yourself, and of living for something that continues beyond your own life. This does not compute for many folks today, so they should not have kids. And for those who do not want to harm the world through greater population --because they love something other than themselves, and value life continuing beyond their own-- they should not have kids.
I went from really wanting children and looking forward to motherhood to being sad, but relieved I never had kids. The older I get, the longer the list grows. The vilification of parents by much of psychology. Not being able to take on any more stress. The ease of breaking apart a family because something younger shakes their naughty bits at one of the parents. The super high expectations of what children need piled on top of the whole culture of self. Not having enough temporal freedom to do things (necessary and desired). I could go on and on. Still… I do wish I’d had 2 kids.
Maybe people are finally hearing. Earth needs to decrease its human load and its up to us to replace our budgets to lower population. Return us to a balance of loving the earth , our only home.😊
@@tomwirt319 & Limits to growth. 1972 book. We should have listened. We should have instead tried to have more people live well. Instead of just having ridiculous amounts of more people.
8 Billion people. On the Earth. And anyone who is concerned about too few people are just nuts. When we get down to 2 billion, then it is time to start to think of that. Not enough land, food, water, energy, and climate change. All caused by over population. And then there is the value of the individual. The more there are, the more a person becomes replaceable. This is just a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
Completely true. Too bad this is still a tiny minority viewpoint. Edit: 2 billion is still fantastically high. The average for 99% of our specie's history was between 4-10 *million*. Why? Because that is the actual carrying capacity.
How can this generation have families when they can't even move out of their parents home!!! They can't afford to work and barely pay for a car payment and insurance!!!!! Are you kidding!!
Because women have increased the amount of time they spend at work without men equally increasing the amount of time they spend on children and the home. It’s bad enough that the “village” isn’t there to help. Statistically (look it up) men are not doing their share. Even in households where women work the same or more hours than the man. I’m surprised the only time this came close to being addressed is the brief discussion of men not taking parental leave even, when it’s an option.
It’s not just the cost of childcare, it’s all the costs of starting a family which have increased ten fold in the past 40 years. Education, healthcare, housing, childcare. These were largely subsidized for the boomer generation and they decided that it was economically diligent to remove those subsidies, for better or worse
Obviously childcare was not subsidized, but it wasn’t as necessary due to a single non degreed income being adequate to cover all the costs of starting a large family
The only broad subsidy, besides WW2 vets, is mortgage interest deduction and property tax. Those are still in effect. And still nothing equivalent for the poor.
We live in Uganda. We love our kids and have extended family help as well as land for them to play around in. Not everyone has a big family but it's normal to have one and grandmothers expect to be very involved and live with or next to the grandchildren.
That's one of the norms humans relied on for hundreds of thousands of years. The tribe concept is not moving away from our families of origin and getting support in child rearing. Now that so many people move far away from families, and culture is isolating more, parents don't get a break from kids and kids don't get a break from parents.
Yeah, land for them to play around now. But thanks to all the large families, it soon will be gone. Don’t wait until your country is so crowded that nobody can afford kids, like Japan. Have fewer kids now, and give future generations a decent life.
A conversation between two people who don’t know that humans don’t naturally live in couples but in tribes - and that returning to tribal living is the only road to a higher birth rate.
The low birth rate is only a threat under the current capitalistic system, which needs to change for various reasons, I don’t need to elaborate or go into, which weren’t really addressed inherent, but perhaps the ultra wealthy need to start paying taxes, and start lowering the COL for starters……in my opinion !
Real estate prices are part of the problem. It's too expensive to find a house someplace you can hope to find a job (a city or large town) I posit America simply doesn't have enough cash to have a bunch of kids. I also ask the question, what if successful women were willing to marry less successful men, who (are you sitting down?) are willing to stay home with the kids until they start high school, say? You know, that bank manager being willing to marry that handsome bartender? I'd posit these two factors have a lot to do with why people aren't having more kids.
I'm personally not willing to marry a man with a lower IQ than mine. It's not about how much money he has or even his status per se, but about how much I can truly look up to him and respect him. Because being a wife (in the more traditional sense anyway) very much involves giving up your autonomy to be the primary caretaker for your husband, children, and home and to nurture their prosperity. To sustain such a sacrifice, I'd need to be able to respect my husband. It's hard to spend significant amounts of time with let alone respect and submit to people you don't think are as intelligent as you. And because a man's job is a rough indicator of his intellectual capabilities, I'm usually unwilling to even consider men in certain careers. I think it's more pragmatic than some men realize.
Men in that position can feel “less than” their partners and become abusive and dangerous. Yeah, not all of them. But as a woman, I would be very, very cautious choosing a partner who earned less income than me.
Getting richer? Everything you hear now, is cost of living is higher than ever. People are barely managing. The "middle class", is drastically shrinking, leaving the poor, or uber wealthy. I'm still getting the impression, that single men are going to be punished for being single, unattached, not paying for children, by getting taxed more, in the near future.
You aren't being taxed more than a married man with children. The average married man with children simply has to spend all of his money on his children. ;-)
Because efforts to slow population growth has worked. In my grandmother's lifetime the population grew from 1-8 billion! That's unsustainable. Population shrinkage is the best news for people and the planet in centuries. Instead of maintaining populations within countries with babies, allow immigration so people in countries without enough resources can have better lives and also sustain societies.
When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point has come. Oswald Spengler
Yet, the life expectancy in most countries continues to rise. Did you know the sun inflicts radiation upon the entire earth every day? I'm surprised anything can survive on this planet.
ding din ding! here i thought i was the only one who figured it out. its in organs and arteries. plastic massively reduces the ability to have kids and clogged arteries is the reason for nearly all deaths.
I wonder how the birth rate tracks with the proportion of people in a country that can afford a living that has a lawn. Who wants to raise kids in an apartment with just asphalt outside?
I thought about this comment a while, as a person who's given birth twice in the last four years. Yes, actuallly it *was* horrific and primitive. And beautiful. And quiet and loud, and special and ordinary, and life-sucking and life-giving, all at the same time. In a way, a birth is a microcosm of the whole human experience, concentrated into a few hours. And yes, it's a lot to handle that weight.
The fertility rate of women who have children is about 2.6. It was roughly 2.6 in 1972. The difference is 5-6 times as many women are not having children now vs 1972. I wish the demographer could have discussed this point. Disappointing interview over all because she did not say anything that was particularly insightful.
Or, fix the decline in the public welfare. That was one of the points of self governance, in the declaration of independence: "promote the general welfare".
@@buzoff4642 People who have more money will have fewer children. It's not a lack of welfare that is driving this. Quite the contrary. Children were necessary to survive in old age in the past. Today they are not.
study after study show wealthier people have less kids than poorer people. Being poor never stopped anyone from having a million kids. Look around the world. Higher wages are absolutely NOT a predictor of having children, in fact it’s the opposite.
Exactly. For women, especially, having children is the #1 risk factor for financial ruin (because they tend to end up with the caregiving responsibilities if the couple is unmarried or the marriage breaks up).
@@bagofdoom7693 for real. I'm not saying financial worries play no role but your question makes it plain that it can't be as simple as "can't afford it".
@@bagofdoom7693 Traditional culture remains strong in much of black Africa. Men are proud of having many children and pressure their wives into producing them. They also try to prevent their wives from accessing birth control. Quantity prevails over quality in this male-mediated competition for status. The most developed black African countries have the lowest birth rates: S Africa, Botswana, Kenya are all in the 2.5-3.0 range.
Why do people think it's imperative that everyone actually wants to have children if only the conditions are right. It's not at all surprising that a large portion of the society just doesn't want to have children. Just as they don't want to say live in the countryside, be religious or vegetarian or ascribe to any number of lifestyle choices one can make. Having children as a life goal is a social construct. The more this construct is openly questioned the larger percentage of people who break away from it. Now, many people genuinely want to have children, it's their dream, it's their goal and a way to fill good about their life and that's fine. Many don't, especially people who already feel fulfilled by the life they are living without children. It's a weird blind spot that people with children have that somehow they cannot imagine not wanting to have children at all. You don't have to be pessimistic to not want children. You don't have to be blocked by the govt policy to not want children. You don't have to be rich or poor to not want to have children. You can just not want to have children, it's as simple as that. Even somehow Sex and the City was capable of grasping this uncomplicated concept.
a lot of people are satisfied with porn over finding a mate. a lot of people are having a hard time supporting themselves even basic needs such as paying bills and buying food. a lot of people are barely surviving alone, let alone find a mate and have a child. women want nothing to do with a man who is barely surviving.
You talked about Israel. I'm an atheist Jew from Israel. A lot of things that you talked about that makes more kids a problem exists in Israeli secular society. The family is extremely important to as and we have support from the extended family. We also have communities within secular societies. My community is secular. When I gave birth, I got hot meals for my family for two weeks. For two weeks me and my husband didn't have to cook. In addition, we give our kids more autonomy. Maybe it's part of having a community. I know I don't need to look at my kids all the time becouse if they have a problem, they can ask for help from other adults in the community.
How do you define "Jew"? I though Judaism is a religion: a set of beliefs. Anyone can choose to be a Jew or not. Like defining yourself as a comic book reader or not. And I thought Jewish religion was believing gods exist. Atheist is believing no gods exist.
Hello...Worldometer, 271,000 babies just since this morning. That's more the worlds remaining population of elephants, we increased in humans in just two days. There is no fertility crisis........
Great discussion. One thing: there have been multiple studies on having children and its effect on happiness. I'm surprised the guest in this episode didn't know that.
Job stability and immigration is the driver. Immigration is causing massive job instability. Companies can hire/layoff as immigration provides an endless supply of labor and supress wages.
It's easy to find a scapegoat to blame. Immigration becomes necessary when you have an ageing population not having enough children. The bigger issue is an economic and social structure where couples are isolated from their "village", mother and father both have to work to make ends meet, and a world that is increasingly competitive. Those are real pressures that will drive down birth rates. Immigration has little to do with it.
@@mary_puffin you must be naive, I’ve heard some white people say that they don’t want to bring children into a multiracial society. When people look at the quality of immigrants jumping over the border, do you really think they would want their children to grow up with such people
There are alot of good answers and perspectives in the comments about not wanting kids, but I remember one that stuck with me and continues to stick with me. Historically, population sizes has always been a tricky subject. Too low, and parts of the economy/government/society that relies on high population suffers (social pay-in programs, job market from the owner's perspective, military recruitment and retention are a few examples). If the population is too high, then food availability starts to become strained, water sources become strained (in the U.S were about to permanently drain most of our aquifers), changes in the employment rate have larger effects since employment rates are percentage based. On top of all of that, more people means more waste, trash, pollution, larger, dirtier, and more inefficient cities, etc. Its always been my belief that alot of the world could see long-term benefits from a negative birthrate for a couple years, as long as those nations are willing to put up with the short-term side effects born from economic structures that rely on growth (including population growth). Usually arguments against this come from a religious mindset or a racial "us vs them" replacement theory mindset and none of that helps with the argument of "how do we solve the problems of a high population
@@knightofkorbin888 I said what I said. and if men didn't hate women so much, women wouldn't be most unsafe in their own homes. and certainly wouldn't die at the hands of men so often. but take solace that there will be less men born as the birth rate declines. amen.
I appreciate that there are practical problems associated with falling populations, but surely it *is* a good thing from an environmental perspective. Each new person consumes a *lot* of resources, and contributes a lot to pollution. Every human life is important, every person matters, but that doesn’t make it important for *everybody* to reproduce and make more of them.
My children are 25, 20 and 16. They grew up on a cul-de-sac in a gated community. Packs of kids roaming the neighbourhood, moms tag teamed each other in 100's of ways. But I noticed that by the time my youngest was walking to school and playing in the park, the community was more nervous of the free range concepts. Same neighbours, same street, nothing had really changed, but parents were being told good parenting requires eyes on the children at all times. Thats exhausting for parents and super restrictive for kids. As Hillary Clinton kept saying, "it takes a village", 'cause its way too hard to do almost anything on our own.
Sorry, you’re dead wrong. Study after study shows poorer people have more kids than wealthier people, within the country and globally. The countries with the worst birth rates are the wealthiest. High wages don’t predict more kids, it’s actually the opposite.
Children and people are dying NOW for many reasons, much of it connected to overpopulation. NOW! Deaths due to hunger, people living in squalor on dumps. The poor are not contributing much to pollution because they can't afford to. As countries gain monetarily, they will pollute more! Look at the wars over land now. As people gain the ability to have a more prosperous life they want what people have who are prosperous! That life style is unsustainable for most and will lead to conflict as it is happening in parts of the world. Fights over land over jobs....
They're time consuming, resource draining parasites. I don't know why anyone would want one. I like my time and higher standard of living with very few obligations and no gratuitous sleep deprivation..
@BerthaUbley Life would be different. We'd have to depend on ourselves as opposed to the instant gratification system. We'd probably move to a more Amish lifestyle, though hopefully without the religion.
@BerthaUbley I'm looking forward to less traffic, cheaper rent, more open space. Also, most of us are living in poverty. It people are so concerned about low population, maybe they should move to a favela. Oh, and I'm living OK with a low yearly salary, because I DON'T have any 'dependents'. . .since the last cat died.
If republicans want more babies, why don’t they offer more government support for families? Universal childcare, universal parental leave, universal preschool, a k-12 system that is not last in developed country world rankings, government-sponsored egg freezing for women who want to have a career, universal healthcare- or at least a public option. Just have a birth in the country is beyond the reach of most families unless they’re on welfare.
"When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point has come." Oswald Spengler
If you live on the farm, there is guarantee job for your family but when you move to the city, job is no longer a guaranteed and if your kids failed to get a job due to bad market, you continue to carry the financial burden
As income rises, typically disposable income also rises and it is this disposable income that opens up a full range of possibilities as to how to spend your time. Time is the same for everyone. 24 hrs in a day. But when you have DISPOSABLE income, only then do you get exponentially more choices on to spend those hours.
No fault, on demand divorce makes having children highly dangerous for a woman. She can be forced into single parenthood and poverty at any time, against her will and on no grounds at all. Alimony and child support is half the living standard of a person with a productive, contributing partner. No one with whom to share the expenses and domestic labour.
"Society" is richer.
Sure, there are REALLY RICH people in America. A few.
Most are not. We can't afford social lives, marriage, or kids, or cars, or health, or houses, or retirements or rents.
I always laugh when neoliberals state meaningless statements like that. Yeah, the 'society is richer'-it's just that a huge chunk of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of the population.
Yeah, she’s divorced from reality. These two are the epitome of why the election played out the way it did.
Rich country doesn't mean richer families...... Cost of living , both parents NEED to work. The middle class is now borderline poverty. And children are expensive
Both parents to not need to work. Those who think they do are victims of marketers and other propagandists. They don't know what "need" means and don't compare their supposed needs with those of their parents or grandparents.
But, this is all to the good. The propaganda system, in effect, is discouraging people who can't think for themselves from reproducing themselves.
The question is, how can some people be literally dirt floor poor and stil have 10 kids, but someone who has access to decent housing and food feels like they can't?
@@CJ-re7bx psychology, created by culture
@@kreek22 wow, I wish I thought of that. You're a genius.
@@CJ-re7bx I know.
Something often overlooked is that a lot of people grow up with parents who never should have been parents. This is not an uncommon thing. Back when everybody had kids because you basically had to (boomers and older) you have huge numbers of people becoming parents who were simply not cut out to do the job well. So I think part of the drop in people having children is the understanding by younger generations that they do not want to risk ruining someone's life in the way many of their lives were adversely affected by their parents.
Agree 100%
Wow aint that the truth! Getting to a place where you can admit that your parents sucked and never should've gotten pregnant with you is a huge step in self healing. Many many people never get there and just repeat the family pattern.
I am one of those people you describe and I am over 50!
Yep definitely a pessimistic society won't have kids! I see it in my own family.
Also, the older people get the more they are aware of the advantages of not having children … society brainwashes people in wanting to have kids … but when people get older they start thinking for themselves … Being a parent isn’t like a cornflakes advert … And one better realises that before becoming a parent
The comforts of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor, Voltaire.
Haha The average salary in Egypt is roughly 303 US Dollars per month, according to the exchange rates in May 2023. Fertility rate 3.31. Your just decadent and will die out Haha. Voltaire saying The rich having 100 kids haha
Voltaire would've known. What a dead hypocrite he is.
@@mikewilliams6025 Truth is truth.
UA-cam income iniquality
While simultaneously berating the poor, as cover for the rich's resentment over their dependency on them.
I have 3 girls and two boys. We were low income, often homeless, carless, and always struggling. Today, only two of my children want and have families; the other three - "no way!" I think this may be because they don't want to struggle so much and bring children into a world which does not support democracy, equal rights, families, education, decent housing, decent jobs, and so forth.
Yep, I think it's funny that social scientists and reporters think we don't know why birthrates are falling. We absolutely do. We are living it. Obviously, there are many reasons,but the big two are:
Choice, we are no longer socially obliged to have children
Economics: we no longer have an economic incentive to have children. In the past, children were a financial burden, but were also financial help when it came to things like family farms or even working jobs, or caring for elderly parents.
Now, children aren't expected (rightfully so) to provide to the family. They are only financial burden, and society does nothing to ease the burden.
"Often homeless" That's very rare for American families. It's also odd that you chose to have 5 children, given your exigent circumstances.
I was surprised that this was not mentioned in the program. I did not have children because of that, and I am talking 50 years ago.
@@bookplateorg-ry5flIt's not mentioned in the program because that doesn't serve an agenda they're trying to push. Economic policy of the wealth in the US earnestly believes that the more you oppress people, the more they breed like rabbits. They don't think ahead enough to realize that going below subsistence means a person can't feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, let alone a child. This podcast is stuck in the 1990s idea of how Americans live. That's how insulated the upper class is, and that's why they're only going to make things worse as time goes on, particularly with the methods they (regardless of party affiliation) are using to try and force more births for child labor.
Yep! I'm a single mom of an only child and she watched me struggle to provide for her. She also said "no way!"...she does not want that responsibility. She said a cat is all the extra responsibility she wants....it's hard enough just to take care of yourself now days!
Children are expensive and inconvenient for many people. As soon as women in developing countries get a cell phone they can see how everyone else lives. They can see the freedom enjoyed by single people in the West and they want that for themselves.
What they need is more cowbell. Someone call Will Ferrell.
you are dellusional , enjoy in your western ''freedom'' soon gonna be even more freedom.
Except it is the developed countries births are down.
@@Wegivesp you mean those countries which are not so ''progressive '' and ''free'' as yours .Dont worry , soon they gonna
make you high birt rate , And what was most often baby name given on new born in your democratic paradise ? It was Rendal , or was Mouhamed ??
@@Wegivesp Not really. Birth rates are below replacement in places like Brazil, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Nepal, N. Korea, Bhutan, Malaysia, Costa Rica, etc.
If you’re a single parent you’re pretty much on your own. There is no village to help. Better to stay childless.
In the internet village, not the real one lol 😂 there’s others in the neighborhood who take off the condom and have daughters who go and get married to some lovable but pudgy guy and together so far produce 2 more kids, who seem spoiled but too soon to know
And why the family became so unstable? Why there is no longer any viliage or community?
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 are you involved in the personal lives of your neighbors? Because that's what it takes
How about pick a good man, then don't divorce him?
@@phillipm5148that’s like having another baby to take care of
It's less culture and more economics that's at the back of this. People aren't having kids because it doesn't make sense for them to. We want too much from people and do too little for them in the west and in America in particular. You want young people, or just people, to have kids then try affordable housing, healthcare, education, etc. We have ravaged the commons in order to see a slight increase in quarterly profits and now ponder why nothing will grow.
Brilliantly said.
@@MrCWells3000Nah, it's not. Is this guy pretending that BB generation were doing a lot more despite doing way simpler jobs and being much less educated on average? The reality is the cost of goods have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated.
@@BOSSDONMAN "pretending that BB generation were doing a lot "
I think you misread spider's post.
Why is it that birthrates are highest in the poorest parts of the world and lowest in the most advanced and developed parts of the world?
@ The countries with the highest fertility rates also tend to have the highest child mortality rates.
Easy answer is are we happy ? I mean most people? Do we even want to live or exist in this place ? Do we see a bright future ?… in the past life was by far more miserable but we didn’t have the means to compare our life with others … now the comparison is depressive … you compare yourself to the rich and you feel like you have no chance in life so you just let go
Oh dear...I have been feeling like this too! ❤❤
Life was not “far more miserable” , there was less hedonistic pleasure, and a lot more eudamonia.
When someone feels like they can't win, then they simply don't play the game.
@@searose6192 no Life was miserable like hell just cleaning up ur aas after you take a shet was a serious job
since the dawn of time, people have always compared their riches to others. wth are you talking about?
Another reason for the shift in rich countries is that in most rich countries, women have access to those same opportunities. In 3rd world and developing countries, the norms are for women to only stay home and raise children. When given the choice, women want options too.
Really? U would prefer wage slavery instead of cooking and cleaning
Exactly. But also means the extinction of the cultures were women have more decision power (a lot of the northern hemisphere).
As a man, I was raised in the spirit of equality, but as I grew older I have become to understand: the future belongs to the men from the.. "other" cultures, the Sharia types.
So I am training myself to be less invested in the future and well being of my progressive culture. It is being replaced. We won the civilization game, women are equals. Now it's time to make room for the medievals, 'cause they have the demographic advantage.
@@baddolphin1423 Societies founded upon men and women united as fathers and mothers instead of "equals" is going to win in the end... I'm shocked! Shocked! Well... Not that shocked.
@@baddolphin1423 Sharis law country have also a law birth rites
@baddolphin1423 the planets likely will not last long enough for us to see that happen. We're approaching extinction for everyone, medievals included. Personally I'm pro-extinction. Men didn't respect women, or Mother Earth. Now we're facing the consequences 🍿
Why not a word on how inhospitable late capitalist neoliberal societies are to families and communities? How school systems are underfunded and falling apart while we spend $1 trillion per year on the military? How paying for health care is a constant worry? How employment is often precarious, and housing costs continue to skyrocket?
Good points, all!
Those are all good points (obviously), but it's still interesting, to look beyond that, imo. Because there are countries where these issues aren't nearly as severe and birthrates are just as abysmal. Or even more so.
Germany has a worse birth rate than the USA. And while we're struggling atm, for obvious reasons...we had it pretty cushy here for many decades. Many people still decided to opt out of having a family. Or at least a large family. This already happened between 1965 and 1975 btw, when birthrates dropped from 2.5-1.5 in about a decade. Ever since, we've been pretty much stable at that number. There was even a slight uptick between 2010 and 2020. Just from 1.4-1.6, but still.
So this clearly had nothing to do with economic factors or all the upheaval and change, we all have been going through these last 20 years or so.
The only people here, that have 2+ kids are immigrants and they are usually not better off financially or in any other aspect (job search, housing etc). Except maybe family support. I've thought about this a lot and continue to be puzzled by it.
The drop in the sixties would be birth control I would think
@@raraavis7782 The lowest birthrate in US history was 1.64. Also, the US birthrate declined significantly from 2010 to 2020 (1.93 to 1.64). You're also wrong about who in America has large families. Have you ever met statistics?
@@kreek22
You missed a key word in what I wrote...which is 'Germany'. I know, I know... it's hard for Americans to comprehend, that there are other countries than theirs in the world *pats head*. No go work on your reading comprehension, before you try to correct others in such an unnecessarily condescending way again.
easy answer that doesn't need an hour of filler: it's expensive and wages are meager. Housing, groceries, utilities, debt payments, car payments, gas, etc. are all through the roof. we can barely afford to be alive and feed our humanity on the side, nevermind create and cultivate an entire human being that'll be totally dependent on us. and our society in general has also become so rigid, vacant, and alienated that it's growing more and more difficult to meet new people and form attachments. We barely have any energy and time between work shifts to be fulfilled as humans, we're often too tired or busy with domestic obligations to go out and meet someone to have a child with. And where would we go, anyhow? the third spaces that would fill those needs are disappearing and so our only options are home, work, and trips to the store where we don't typically want to be social or bothered. Capitalism is killing us.
Move to N Korea and get some good old school communism. You might lose your Y-tube access, but that's a benefit to the rest of us.
Left a comment like this on the 1st section of the page. It’s so obvious & these 2 have no idea 🤦🏻♂️
I have only heard about 10 minutes of this podcast and don’t understand how these two think most working class people have so much financial freedom & ‘time to enjoy’? Rich countries or ‘some rich people in those countries’?
"easy answer that doesn't need an hour of filler: it's expensive and wages are meager" I know, right?
It's hilarious that your 'easy answer' doesn't even mention how motherhood is hugely detrimental to women, in ways that society could easily change
I find it curious that there is no mention of chemicals that are causing fertility problems. Perhaps these effects are more in the future? Has Shanna Swan's research been proven incorrect? I do agree with what is presented here but it seems incomplete.
Good point. Why are sperm counts and testosterone levels dropping?
Ya they say cocaine is in coke. Thus, why its called "coke" and addictive.
Pretty sure I read that those under the age of 35 still get pregnant within the first year of trying at a rate of 85%. Fertility itself doesn't seem to be that big of an issue yet. Healthy pregnancies however...lots going on there. Chemicals, microplastics, obesity, malnutrition etc etc etc
Ezra Klein keeps saying things that make me believe he thinks everyone in America is like him and his friends from graduate school.
13% of Americans have a master's degree. ~3% have a doctorate. Is it possible that not everyone is like him? Is it possible that economic numbers in the US don't accurately represent the level of distribution of income and wealth? Maybe the reason why *most* people are choosing to have fewer kids is that this amazing prosperity is actually *not* equally experienced.
This is such a fundamental problem with NYT professional opinion-havers. They are a bit myopic.
I, myself, have a doctorate in what has turned out to not be a very lucrative profession. I didn't go into it thinking it would make me rich, but I wasn't prepared for this level of precarity. The idea of buying a house, saving for retirement (or just retiring in general), let alone having a kid... These are all wildly unrealistic for me. So even some of us with graduate degrees aren't doing so well.
The smart opinionators (eg, the execrable Ezra) at the Times are not myopic, they're strategic liars. But, there are some dumbos on the payroll.
Still doesn't explain why the poorest Americans have the most kids on average. Or why when Americans where much poorer we had many more kids. I grew up very poor to a mom who had 5 kids, it was perfectly fine and we all did well. She definitely didn't put much time in with us and we didn't do any of expensive activities. My best friends growing up supports his 4 kids and stay at home wife in MA on $75k no problem working construction by my brother in a city working in the media making $125k with a partner making $120k says kids are way to expensive. It's obviously not the money it's that they would have to give up ALOT of spending on travel and career progress to have kids.
You know Ezra never went to grad school, right?
@@kyber1fun164 that's very interesting. I did not know that. That makes me curious about why he actively identifies himself (in this interview) as belonging to the group of people that go to grad school? He doesn't talk about himself as a person with "only" a bachelor's degree...
"I, myself, have a doctorate in what has turned out to not be a very lucrative profession. I didn't go into it thinking it would make me rich, but I wasn't prepared for this level of precarity. The idea of buying a house, saving for retirement (or just retiring in general), let alone having a kid... These are all wildly unrealistic for me. So even some of us with graduate degrees aren't doing so well."
BINGO! SAME FOR ME! I always did "work hard, play hard", have had a singular goal, with several "backup goals" if the primary goal did not work out, that I "went for", and in some ways, still do. And going for all those goals - all those academic degrees -- was and still is THE BEST DECISION OF MY LIFE!
Nevertheless, working hard and being focussed on a goal of life is ZERO guarantee of getting all you had hoped for in return. I've gotten a LOT of what I had hoped for in return (PhD in Mathematics, BChE in chemical engineering, 2 years as a chem eng, eight published papers, have given several talks and poster presentations) but not all I had hoped for.
i can't even afford to keep a dog anymore. kids? you are out of your mind.
For real. If someone is actually writing, for a living in new york, they are out of fucking touch with this topic.
So, you're homeless. But, have internet access. Sure.
@@kreek22 So, you're thoughtless. I didn't say I was homeless, or lacked internet access. Nice gem of a non sequiter strawman combo comment though.
People lived for thousands of years under much harsher conditions and yet brought much more kids.
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 Those people are not us, so what point are you trying to make?
This misses something obvious, in poor countries children are an economic asset. In rich countries they’re an economic liability.
Yes! Poor countries use their kids as slave labor. Send child protective services in there and the birthrate would drop to zero.
They mentioned this.
On farms children are an asset
In urban areas they are a liability
I could never afford them…🤷♂️
No, they are still an economic asset. But to billionaires instead of you. They need a new set of everything. A new house eventually s bunch of new cars. Etc etc. child care, education, all the things children can’t do without went through the roof. Only way to win is not to play.
There is some irony that we are concerned about declining birth rates while simultaneously being concerned about the radical loss of jobs due to Artificial Intelligence
We?
This seems very out of touch. Try to look beyond your own social circle. Not everybody has your paycheck. Not everybody has shared home/childcare duties. You can do a search on any social platform and people will tell you why they are putting off having kids.
Straight up.
Look at healthcare.
exactly, should include someone outside their circle, this seems too narrow for such a wide discussion
I assume there are more people like myself who were brought up in a family, because that’s, “what people do”, but from an early age, even with a “good” upbringing, I knew I NEVER wanted to create a new life when I barely figured out how to live my own!🤨
It was crazy to imagine how I’d do any better than my parents did, and I couldn’t imagine being responsible for creating someone less happy than myself running around. 🫤
People do that ALL the time, perhaps most, definitely many parents do it, and it’s MADNESS!
Why on earth would I bring a child into this world? Children are precious, the world is Hell. And why wouldn't we be concerned about food when food chains are collapsing because we have forced climates to such extremes, poisoned and destroyed nature, and gutted resources? Why would I introduce a child into a world in which social media plays such a distorting and leading role? What sort of child should I hope for? A screaming narcissist to become a successful influencer, or a sociopath to climb the heights of the corporate ladder? Or one that has good values, and struggles to earn a good living that properly supports them or their loved ones?
I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to make this argument, look around you... You live better than a king from 500 years ago.
@@gravisan I can't imagine anyone dumb enough not to look around and not understand the validity of the argument. But I guess you prove it.
@@bec5250 All I can see is a cry-baby.
I think that (unconsciously or consciously) this is a core reason for the decline across cultures, along with work/poverty stress, and the inability to find a partner to raise a child with.
@@roysmith5597 That is due to our change in values. We place money and ego/ self above everything else. We subject everything to those two directives. Civilisation is dependent on a united community. We are losing that. Social media has played a big part in that, and reinforcing those negative values.
Why isn't a falling population considered a good thing, at this point -- if not a miraculous blessing? For two decades now, a commonly quoted statistic is that if all 8 billion humans enjoyed Americans' material consumption levels we'd need 4 or 5 more planets to supply the resources. Needless to say, this is not going to happen -- and Indeed, our planetary resource base is rapidly declining, both in quantity and quality, and we are likely polluting our oceans, aquifers, and atmosphere beyond repair.
Why not celebrate the falling birthrate and reform our societies to support a smaller global population?
Read your last sentence, that's why
Conventional wisdom is usually dumb. There is no shortage of resources, with one possible exception--a mineral important in food production. You've probably never heard of it due to conventional wisdom entrapment. You've also failed to understand basic principles of economics, like catallaxy and automatic market-based information systems.
"Why isn't a falling population considered a good thing, at this point -- if not a miraculous blessing?"
Answer:
“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.”
― Voltaire
Agree 💯
Because ALL these media are extremist conservative or centrist biased. OPPOSED to allowing OTHER VOICES OTHER OPINIONS be heard such as ANTINATALIST.
28.04 this is one of the most important parts of this podcast. I often feel like, in discussions of birth rate, no one is speaking to women of childbearing age. And that not enough politicians or policy wonks are talking to mothers.
I cannot speak for men, though. It seems to me that the world is a very difficult place for men. I think men appear to be very isolated and very pressured to perform and make money without any semblance of what we call a work-life balance. And by the way, I'm old enough to remember that the phrase work-life balance didn't emerge an American popular culture until a certain number of women had entered the workforce and someone still had to do the grocery shopping and cook dinner.
When I talk to young women - women in college and women on the cusp of graduating from high school - I'm met with a group of young people who feel simultaneously pressured to be able to support themselves, and demonized for doing so. When I talk to young women who have ended their relationships, I hear the heartbreaking consequences of our country's decision to not really offer good sex education to young people. Young men's sex education is pornography. And the younger women in my life report being choked, slapped and hit during sex with their partners, and being shocked and terrified by it.
Now, this wonderland we call the internet has lifted a Greek chorus of caterwauling voices. Yes, there are the many "men are trash!" posts. But what's more disturbing to me is the sheer volume of young male voices on the internet criticizing girls for their academic achievements and interest in a career. And that same volume of young male voices insisting that a woman's moral obligation, her biological purpose on Earth, boiled down to keeping men fed, clothed, stroked, sexually satisfied, and fed. These are young men who appear to think that women shouldn't have any voice in our civic institutions.
I'm of the age where I understand that my father was born into poverty on a tobacco farm in rural Kentucky. He was the youngest of five children, but who knows how many pregnancies his mother lost before she dropped dead of a stroke when my father was only 10 years old?
I look back just one generation and see how all of my parents female siblings drastically reduced the number of pregnancies they experienced. And here we have all of these young men deciding that the proper thing to do is to get women pregnant, young, and breed them into misery and uterine prolapse.
So I can well imagine why so many women do not want to replace the current social and political system that is treating them as a punching bag.
All of this! All of it.
THIS.
Society would rather die than talk to women. Look at the low retention in nursing and education. People automatically jump to conclusions, like making it easier for foreigners to get certified, rather than asking why we can't retain the nurses and teachers who are already here? Instead of interpreting low fertility as a young woman happiness defect, it is immediately framed as a pension problem.
Thank you for this eloquent comment. It is a very difficult time to be a woman, or a man. We are in a social dystopia. It can be undone if we identify it as the problem to solve.
It will be undone once circumstances change and we become valuable to one another again.
But until then, everything to do with bonding and child-rearing will likely continue to decline.
Why would people want to bring children into the world when it is in such a bad state and only getting worse? It's actually cruel.
Compared to what?
@@YadraVoat that's it. No need to compare
When has the world been in a better state? The 20th century? Cold War, Vietnam, segregation in the US, apartheid in South Africa? WWII? WWI? The Spanish Flu? The 19th century? Slavery still legal? Charles Dickens level poverty? The 18th century? Medieval times? Roman Republic? Han Dynasty? Bronze Age Fertile Crescent? Human prehistory?
The world has never been better than it is now. In terms of life expectancy, eradication of diseases, education levels, equality, human rights... This is the best time there's ever yet been to have kids.
Oh, woe to our kids, they'll never know the bliss of being born on a medieval fiefdom.
The Left is depressed and childless.
The Right is angry and not childless.
The future is therefore not hard to predict.
Agree 💯
Can't we switch this around and ask why would anyone want to have kids? In high income society, having kids is a lot of unpaid work frankly. Kids do not materially contribute to the economic stability of a household. From a practical standpoint, kids are a burden.
There are going to be people that enjoy that work so they're okay with that. A lot of people do not enjoy child care or the idea of child care. It's hard just to take care of yourself and deal with the economic uncertainty of yourself. Why would you take on even more uncertainty with a child unless you really wanted to?
In the past people didn't think about it. By the time they looked up they already had three kids and a wife. I think now people have the opportunity to mature a little bit and when they actually think about having kids they make the choice that it doesn't make sense.
Business got too used to the idea that having children was immutable human nature, and that the labor force would naturally be replenished without them needing to do anything to incentivize it. They have always pursued profit by paying their employees as little as possible, and by paying as little in tax as possible. Eventually they will discover that this state of affairs is ending, and that parents require monetary compensation for the value they are creating for society.
I come from two lines of huge families. My grandmother on one side had 13-14 children, on the other she had 9, 7 surviving infanthood. My parents had a lot of kids. And then there's me, who's had 3 with one living. There's a couple things that fit what you mention (they married young, pressures kept them in said marriages, and they didn't have access or believe in most contraceptives). One big thing that's different is the cultural emphasis and beliefs around what children are. There is language around babies that emphasizes their positives more than their negatives. Children are seen as blessings and purpose. A fundamental aspect to growing and maturing. That's lost on later gens that may have already come from smaller families or having had that values transmitted to them (or did and rejected them). In my family lines, almost everyone assumes they'll have children and there's a disproportionate number who have larger than average families or are aiming for that. I believe that's strongly tied to a cultural heritage that values children and family.
Not all people can, not all people should.
You need a license to catch fish or drive.
The idea it’s a right over sovereignty of another human for 18 years with no qualification seems insane in some way too, not that I would change that.
You are somehow not doing your duty to your ilk on an organic level by not replicating if you can.
Yet thoughtlessly copulating does nothing for humanity.
I dunno. I would like to have one child but I just never grew up enough in the right way where I could see that. Maybe there’s other way to pass on what I’ve learned and benefit humanity.
Interesting stuff. I’m in Japan with a family of 2 daughters and though born in the USA, They’ve been here since kindergarten. The distribution of people is a way to help solve this issue. The society that willingly encourages others who are flexible and willing to contribute will benefit greatly by the diversity. There’s a fear of “ losing cultural identity”. What does this REALLY mean, if the society faces economic collapse 😢
I agree, without the neccerity you probably should even only have a child if you love to be a parent, including all the work as the thing you would love to do most. I wounder if people have enogh exposure to healthy loveing families who share chores for example tho, because maybe not? A lot of ppl don't seem to belive that's possible for them
We here in the US are doing better? How? Our life expectancy is down compared to other developed countries. The next generation will be poorer than the current one. I have two children. Only one of them wants to bring a child into the world. My sister also chose not to have children. I know many women who chose not to have children. What's the point? Life expectancy decline, decline in standard of living and climate change. What do they have to look forward to?
"rich country" means NOTHING. The ONLY QUANTIFIABLE meaning of "rich" is HOW MUCH QUALITY OF LIFE (which INCLUDES access to advanced technology) do you get in exchange for HOW MUCH HARD LABOR you do. Money is just an INTERMEDIARY between what goods and services you get versus how much goods and services you produce.
rich for a few, poor for many
Quality of life does NOT mean access to advanced technology. If anything, tech diminishes eudamonia.
Becoming rich wasn't the cause. Not sharing and the concentration of wealth. Not spreading the wealth among the masses. Selfishness. Greed.
Nonsense. The Nordic countries prove you are wrong.
@BerthaUbley The Nordic countries are wealthy countries with low inequality and extremely robust social benefits and redistribution schemes (including funding many government programs intended to increase the birth rate) and yet they too are struggling mightily with very low birth rates well below population replacement levels. So, less wealth concentration and more sharing is not necessarily the magic answer to increasing the birth rate.
@@MaxPower-11 those countries have spread the wealth around to the entire country. I am familiar with their policies. And those who have the birthrate have increased.
It’s selfishness to have kids that are not securely provided for. And who is selfish? The woman?? Are you a woman or man? Did you dream growing up of DOING SOMETHING, having agency in the larger world beyond raising kids? More women working is helpful to the world. There’s nothing that positive about having kids-we are overconsuming. Let’s wait till we’re all comfortable and the fish aren’t disappearing from the sea at an alarming rate before we call people “selfish.” Are you a Republican? Are you pro-capitalism? Selfishness. Greed. Promoting the rich getting richer and not helping (women and men) raise their kids or contributing to their education or even feeding them adequately. Please. If you’re a man you don’t even have the right to talk about this. Women have been virtually slaves since the advent of agriculture, without recourse to education, birth control, the right to have non-menial jobs, and women had to keep having kids their entire adult lives with little recourse to leaving their husbands. Don’t talk to us about selfishness.
It is the cause. There's only one way to get rich: take far too much from far too many in exchange for far too little.
It is not just ''cultural'' The problems are that housing has become insanely expensive in most developed countries. Unnecessarily so and also jobs have become less secure. Rules on the Job market has changed, but even more so the job culture has changed. We now have what I would call a ''hire and fire'' culture where employers try to find '' the perfect'' employee and if it turns out they are somehow human and not perfect then they are fired, instead of investing in the employees and letting them grow.
I want kids, but i can barely afford to house myself 😞
Why not move somewhere cheaper?
@@searose6192I live in THE cheapest state in the union and it's still an impossibility to have kids. Why? Because cheap state means low wages means difficulty providing for children. You people think it's soooo easy but never use any logic. It'd be funny if the stupidity wasn't so tragic.
You dont want kids then. Question. Why would you want to bring a child into this cruel world and what will you be bringing them here for? To gamble with thier life. Even if you have money its still not a good idea.
@@searose6192
Probably for the same reason why no one else would do this, there simply aren’t good jobs available in the cheaper areas of the country. So, why bother moving to those places if there’s nothing there.
This world is insane and a complete suffering why would you want to bring anyone else into this madness, why.
for satanic purposes , and for couple of billions more,
Exactly
spot on!
Lots of people dont like or want kids
No duh. The question is whether that feeling has always existed, and if it hasn't, why does it exist now? If it has, why has it changed how people are actually having kids?
@@CJ-re7bx child abuse, child neglect, and child homicide as always existed. Of course everyone did not always like children. No duh!
@@CJ-re7bxit always existed but people didn’t have a way to resist it back then because they didn’t have reliable access to birth control at all. People never wanted to have as many children they were having. Now that we have options to control fertility that’s obvious.
it would help if men really wanted to get married. most men dont want to get married
@maryanncrody4867 Not true. The men that most women want to marry don't want to marry them.
Thank you for pointing out that families have more money because women are working. Working women are going to have fewer kids. Society requires 2 income families but no support for childcare.
For sustainability reasons there are over 7 billion too many people on our planet, so the only people making claims that the fertility rate is too low are nationalists (like Putin) trying to protect their own power, corporatists who need more wage slaves to do their work and consume their products, and theocrats who need more followers to increase their power. For the rest of the people on the planet, slowly decreasing populations will increase wages, increase resource availability per capita, and generally increase the quality of life. AI automation will serve to increase the benefits of a lower population. So don't let anyone convince you that a slowly decreasing population is a problem.
46:05 I have memories of waiting outside of San Francisco restaurants that didn't take reservations when I was a kid. We were expected to wait. We brought a book. It was fine.
I have memories of growing up in Oklahoma when it was a natural paradise with a billion fewer fences
@@garyjohnson8327 OK hasn't been a natural paradise since the buffalo roamed.
im missing the point, are we just sharing our memories here, I remember when Golden Eye came out on Nintendo 64 in 1999, best game especially for inviting friends over to play
An excellent conversation. As a Canadian certainly childcare and maternity leave being offered at a reasonable amount is so important to make having not only the first but additional children being possible. It's never easy but support is so important in an expensive world. Doing volunteer work like a Guide or Scout leader is important work for the community but tough when both parents are overworked and overwhelmed
Sometimes I feel all this talk is corporations and companies desperate to beat that bottom line every year. We did absolutely fine with 2 billion people on the planet …only 100 years ago. This is not a finite planet. We will be just fine. Don’t let anyone scare you that more is better. It is just NOT true🌎☀️💙
We were fine at 2 billion because we were not declining. 2 billion people with high birth rates and growing lifespan is a very different outlook and scenario even from 8 billion people with below replacement birth rates.
I believe in quality over quantity. The goal should not be to have more people, it should be to have more people not in poverty or prison and who have disposable income. Why should I want the birth rate to be high when I do not know what quality of life the babies will have?
CNN had a woman write an opinion piece that she will not have kids because climate change is so bad that she thinks "kids" are better off not being born. By "not being born," I mean not being conceived. I do not mean being conceived and aborted. She said that the purpose of having kids is to give them opportunities, not to have to tell them about how bad the world is.
Women now have the ability to NOT have children!!! It is false to assume that children are a positive for them! Pregnancy has a high physical price, and men do not equally share long-term personal cost of child care!
Make housing with several bedrooms in a townhouse affordable, and this will get fixed. Also, get the men to do more in terms of child care
Or make men taller
Make men millionaires with muscles and 7 foot tall? Sure.
Make women fit, young and agreeable? Misoginyst!
Maybe we're doing parenting wrong? No kidding! What we think is normal has only existed for a couple generations! Moving somewhere with no support network and doing everything yourself in your little castle only works in an age of unprecedented prosperity.
Moving away from grandma, then putting the women to work is an excellent recipe for demographic decline.
The cost is simply atronmus. Just the thoght of paying in money for all the labour that wouldn't tradtionally be paied but done by the wife/support network. That's hours upon hours. In places where children can't safly play alone around the nighberhood even more money that you pay essentialy for lacking a safe community.
And every of those is taxed as a buiness and as a person themselves (the wage needs to be enogh after taxes)- just as much as the parents will be taxed. So a lot of money plus a lot of taxes on top
And the last time we had that was when?
@@StopWhining491 Probably the silent generation.
@@kreek22they demeaned woman’s roles as homemaker & mother. Exhorted them to get a job, a career. Then used them to drive down men’s wages & Cleverly made it this feminist agenda. Whereas it was a capitalist agenda. People respond to stimulus & it worked. & they got the end result too. Now 1 man working 40 hours a week in a middle class job can’t dream of bringing up a 2-4 child family in a decent house, have a car & go 1-2 holidays a year.
Woman are unhappy, men are lost. The rich get richer & they find more ways to nickel and dime us. But oh dear. We decided not to play anymore. 🤷🏻♂️
It is because in the rich societies people invest too much time in their kids. I was born during Ceausescu's regime in Romania, and then the parents would not spend that much time with their kids. We were going alone to school, come back from school alone and ate what was left for us in the fridge to eat. My both parents were working including on Saturdays. If we would some sport, or take music lessons, the same, we would go alone or with our friends. We spent most our time with our friends outside, not with our parents.
What you describe was true for most American children until around 25 years ago. But, the American birthrate dropped below replacement 50 years ago.
Romania, though not rich, has had a low birthrate for 30 years.
Unions and Marxists are JUSTIFIED forms of collectivism: they fight to INCREASE equality of labor and wealth produced by that labor. Unlike nationalism or tradition or culture, which actively fight against equality of choice, freedom, when doing so goes against their nationalistic or monarchist or theocratic delusions and ideologies.
Unions and Marxists are JUSTIFIED forms of collectivism: they fight to INCREASE equality of labor and wealth produced by that labor. Unlike nationalism or tradition or culture, which actively fight against equality of choice, freedom, when doing so goes against their nationalistic or monarchist or theocratic delusions and ideologies.
FYI: far too many "Communists" turned out to be Communist in name only: fanatical fascist rightwing dictators.
I'm genX and my parents clearly did not like being parents and told us not to have kids because they ruin your life. My mom also said she'd have been a better parent to my brother if she hadn't had me. She said she didn't regret having me, but that conversation happened when I was 12ish. Spoiler alert. Neither of us had kids and now my mom complains about not having grandkids. But we do both have step children she takes no interest in. Gen X parents were struggling.
The fact lower birthrates are advertised as a "problem" is an indication of how unsustainable the system is. The economy (as "designed") needs growth to support the rules by which the system is working. But when there is a 69% decline in monitored vertebrate wildlife populations since 1970, global warming, inequality at an unprecedented level it just seems we are ruining it. All these economic systems are studied in isolation based of some idea that we are going to continue indefinitely into infinity with a million more houses each year each with the latest "tech" like the microwave in the 80's.
Look up behavioral sink. Don't have kids. All will be well. Think about just being a good uncle or aunt to your siblings kids. Think about having only half the population right now on this earth with all the resources we have - we'd have a paradise.
Big picture, I agree. But, in the meantime, who is going to pay for my Social Security. I am a Baby Boomer, and my generation did not have enough children
@@johnstewart7025you prepaid for it into pension funds and savings. Ask yourself how the investment banks and government gambled and squandered away. They also to us the planet was dangerously overpopulated and we were all doomed by climate change. If we now need more people then why are we killing thousands and thousands of civilians in the ongoing 'forever wars'?
I have always thought that the historical western cultural assumption of female submission to a male partner in marriage has deterred family development. I believe we would have a more functional society if more men would approach marriage as a partnership relationship rather than a patriarchal one. You see the remnants of historical violence against women in war, in rape and murder, and in partner violence both physical and psychological.
The feeling of the country currently of the need to establish or return to laws that reinforce the patriarchy by controlling reproductive rights, by controlling whether a woman can leave a marriage while pregnant, allowing partner violence to go unchecked, and making no fault divorce a thing of the past makes not having children understandable.
I'm 66. I had two aunts who escaped marriages by leaving while pregnant while at the same time abandoning already born children. Making laws that allow religious standards to apply to modern day life will result in more women who do not choose to marry simply because it is a trap they've seen play out in real time.
I'm 35, no kids. Before that, I'd need to actually have a partner. Before that, I'd actually need to date someone. Before that, I'd actually need to ask someone out. Before that, I'd need to move out of my parents house. Before that, I'd actually need to have an income. Before that, I'd actually need to have a job. Before that, I'd actually need to have work authorization. Before that I'd actually need my immigration status to change. 20 years and counting.
Or...you could return whence you came and embrace your heritage in the land of your ancestors. And have children.
That's waytoomany steps. I'd head home and marry a local girl; she'd probably be a better mother than anything you'll get here.
Yeah you could do all that if you're not killed or thrown to jail right from the airport upon returning to your homecountry.
Bothy husband and I were still living with our parents when we met. Go out there and start dating!
@@kreek22 The dude immigrated for a reason. I'm just going to guess, he didn't want to starve to death. Word on the street, it's an uncomfortable way to go
There's no mystery here. Once a country's economic model reaches a point where child labor is no longer a benefit and women reach a minimum education level where they are empowered to control their fertility, the fertility rates dropped. From that point on children become a luxury good and people only have them when they feel wealthy enough to have them without impacting their careers and lifestyle. The only way to grow the birth rate is to remove access to birth control or start paying parents LOTS of money to have kids, such that they start perceiving children as an economic benefit again.
this is the most important comment that i've come across
If they remove birth control, lots of us will stop having sex with men altogether. Then they legalize rape
@@Mt0428 good more cookie for hot guys
Aargh! Countries' birthrates are not plummeting. Countries don't have babies. Women do. When women are permitted to make their own decisions (even when in consultation with their husbands or other partners) then they often choose to have fewer children and concentrate their efforts in other areas. Income and education contribute to this liberation, but it is the liberation itself that allows women to pick their own priorities. No public policy can reverse this trend except subordinating women again to the will of men through coercion. And we're not going back to those days! So, public policy should focus on how to make our societies adapt to a lower birthrate, not on the impossible goal of stimulating birthrates.
I hope you are correct. Authoritarian governments can restrict the sale of contraceptives. Project 2025 advocates a ban on abortion across the US and reduced availability of contraceptives especially the contraceptive pill. It was written by conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Christians.
Because the loss exceeds the gains
Natural selection never stops selecting, regardless of how the selection environment shifts.
@@kreek22 true, ive thought about this concept from time to time.
If you think we need more people, I would like to hear your views on what you think people are for.
Fascinating discussion but oh my so much privilege being shown! Having kids being fun? Historicly they just happened. Kids were just part of life. And then they were useful for hunting, gathering, farmering. Starting in at least the 70s we started hammering it home that if you had kids before you graduated college you had ruined your life and your chances. I think people really took to heart that kids ruin lives. Now, im all for sex education and I have three kids myself, so I can say that kids make life more: hilarious, stressful, satisfying, and anger inducing. But they certainly don't make it easier.
And, sadly, especially in western countries, you can’t necessarily rely on children to look after you in your old age. Many people in aged care homes don’t have visitors. 😔
Education is why birthrates are falling. Women all over the world have become better educated. What's disturbing is the push in America to force women to have children. It's especially disturbing when the US doesn't have the best support for children. Get them born is all important but once the child is here, there's little for them.
Parenthood done well is an exercise in self-sacrifice. Some people are not motivated to make that sacrifice if given a choice, and they shouldn’t have kids.
Exactly. It is an exercise in loving someone other than yourself, and of living for something that continues beyond your own life. This does not compute for many folks today, so they should not have kids.
And for those who do not want to harm the world through greater population --because they love something other than themselves, and value life continuing beyond their own-- they should not have kids.
I went from really wanting children and looking forward to motherhood to being sad, but relieved I never had kids. The older I get, the longer the list grows.
The vilification of parents by much of psychology. Not being able to take on any more stress. The ease of breaking apart a family because something younger shakes their naughty bits at one of the parents. The super high expectations of what children need piled on top of the whole culture of self. Not having enough temporal freedom to do things (necessary and desired). I could go on and on.
Still… I do wish I’d had 2 kids.
We aren't vilifying parents. It is simply a fact that many parents are really, really bad parents.
Maybe people are finally hearing. Earth needs to decrease its human load and its up to us to replace our budgets to lower population. Return us to a balance of loving the earth , our only home.😊
Go look up t he 1970 book by James Lovelock "GAIA THEORY"
@@tomwirt319 & Limits to growth. 1972 book. We should have listened. We should have instead tried to have more people live well. Instead of just having ridiculous amounts of more people.
"loving the earth" is meaningless unfalsifiable garbage. The earth does not feel pain. Only individual sentient beings do.
The more you know, the more you question the idea of bringing a child into a world on the brink of ecological devastation.
8 Billion people. On the Earth. And anyone who is concerned about too few people are just nuts. When we get down to 2 billion, then it is time to start to think of that. Not enough land, food, water, energy, and climate change. All caused by over population. And then there is the value of the individual. The more there are, the more a person becomes replaceable. This is just a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
Completely true.
Too bad this is still a tiny minority viewpoint.
Edit: 2 billion is still fantastically high. The average for 99% of our specie's history was between 4-10 *million*. Why? Because that is the actual carrying capacity.
Its too expensive to have children.
How can this generation have families when they can't even move out of their parents home!!! They can't afford to work and barely pay for a car payment and insurance!!!!! Are you kidding!!
Because women have increased the amount of time they spend at work without men equally increasing the amount of time they spend on children and the home. It’s bad enough that the “village” isn’t there to help. Statistically (look it up) men are not doing their share. Even in households where women work the same or more hours than the man.
I’m surprised the only time this came close to being addressed is the brief discussion of men not taking parental leave even, when it’s an option.
Exactly which part of house work do men don't pick up?
It’s not just the cost of childcare, it’s all the costs of starting a family which have increased ten fold in the past 40 years. Education, healthcare, housing, childcare. These were largely subsidized for the boomer generation and they decided that it was economically diligent to remove those subsidies, for better or worse
Obviously childcare was not subsidized, but it wasn’t as necessary due to a single non degreed income being adequate to cover all the costs of starting a large family
The only broad subsidy, besides WW2 vets, is mortgage interest deduction and property tax. Those are still in effect. And still nothing equivalent for the poor.
We live in Uganda. We love our kids and have extended family help as well as land for them to play around in. Not everyone has a big family but it's normal to have one and grandmothers expect to be very involved and live with or next to the grandchildren.
The grandmother effect is important. Without grandmothers, childcare is more expensive and lower quality.
That's one of the norms humans relied on for hundreds of thousands of years. The tribe concept is not moving away from our families of origin and getting support in child rearing. Now that so many people move far away from families, and culture is isolating more, parents don't get a break from kids and kids don't get a break from parents.
thats not the reality in USA, grandparents aren't nearly as involved, also its way more expensive here to have a family than in Uganda
Yeah, land for them to play around now. But thanks to all the large families, it soon will be gone. Don’t wait until your country is so crowded that nobody can afford kids, like Japan. Have fewer kids now, and give future generations a decent life.
In the U.S. we hate our kids and dont have extended family and no land. A lot of us are homeless.
More forests, fewer humans, let the planet recover for a bit.
A conversation between two people who don’t know that humans don’t naturally live in couples but in tribes - and that returning to tribal living is the only road to a higher birth rate.
The low birth rate is only a threat under the current capitalistic system, which needs to change for various reasons, I don’t need to elaborate or go into, which weren’t really addressed inherent, but perhaps the ultra wealthy need to start paying taxes, and start lowering the COL for starters……in my opinion !
Real estate prices are part of the problem. It's too expensive to find a house someplace you can hope to find a job (a city or large town) I posit America simply doesn't have enough cash to have a bunch of kids.
I also ask the question, what if successful women were willing to marry less successful men, who (are you sitting down?) are willing to stay home with the kids until they start high school, say? You know, that bank manager being willing to marry that handsome bartender?
I'd posit these two factors have a lot to do with why people aren't having more kids.
I'm personally not willing to marry a man with a lower IQ than mine. It's not about how much money he has or even his status per se, but about how much I can truly look up to him and respect him. Because being a wife (in the more traditional sense anyway) very much involves giving up your autonomy to be the primary caretaker for your husband, children, and home and to nurture their prosperity. To sustain such a sacrifice, I'd need to be able to respect my husband. It's hard to spend significant amounts of time with let alone respect and submit to people you don't think are as intelligent as you. And because a man's job is a rough indicator of his intellectual capabilities, I'm usually unwilling to even consider men in certain careers. I think it's more pragmatic than some men realize.
Men in that position can feel “less than” their partners and become abusive and dangerous. Yeah, not all of them. But as a woman, I would be very, very cautious choosing a partner who earned less income than me.
Getting richer? Everything you hear now, is cost of living is higher than ever. People are barely managing. The "middle class", is drastically shrinking, leaving the poor, or uber wealthy. I'm still getting the impression, that single men are going to be punished for being single, unattached, not paying for children, by getting taxed more, in the near future.
You aren't being taxed more than a married man with children. The average married man with children simply has to spend all of his money on his children. ;-)
Do they mention capitalism even once? Now gonna listen to the garbage. You guys can update me
Because efforts to slow population growth has worked. In my grandmother's lifetime the population grew from 1-8 billion! That's unsustainable. Population shrinkage is the best news for people and the planet in centuries. Instead of maintaining populations within countries with babies, allow immigration so people in countries without enough resources can have better lives and also sustain societies.
Not a bad thing. Capitalism is way depressing.
Agree 💯
soon they gonna change in techno feudalism with fashism.
It’s not a bad thing that people like YOU aren’t having kids. Normal people should be having kids though.
Uh, living in North Korea is NOT depressing? 🙄🙄
Typical self hating leftist
When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point has come.
Oswald Spengler
We're eating plastic. Might have something to do with it.
Yet, the life expectancy in most countries continues to rise. Did you know the sun inflicts radiation upon the entire earth every day? I'm surprised anything can survive on this planet.
The water's toxic the air is toxic the food is toxic, the government is toxic, yeah let me bring another human being into this world, lmao!!!!
Certainly doesn't help
but that is nt important what you eat , its important MOLSANTO to make couple billions more ,
ding din ding! here i thought i was the only one who figured it out. its in organs and arteries. plastic massively reduces the ability to have kids and clogged arteries is the reason for nearly all deaths.
I wonder how the birth rate tracks with the proportion of people in a country that can afford a living that has a lawn. Who wants to raise kids in an apartment with just asphalt outside?
Giving birth is a horrific and primitive experience. Once is too often.
Exactly
Soon breathing will be considered primitive
I thought about this comment a while, as a person who's given birth twice in the last four years. Yes, actuallly it *was* horrific and primitive. And beautiful. And quiet and loud, and special and ordinary, and life-sucking and life-giving, all at the same time. In a way, a birth is a microcosm of the whole human experience, concentrated into a few hours. And yes, it's a lot to handle that weight.
Yes , and many women have life long problems resulting from childbirth, especially incontinence or prolapse problems.
Stupid primitive people (and all those animals) giving horrific births. Once they become advanced.........
57:21 who the hell doesn't have that system? It's a game of "breed your own exit liquidity"
The fertility rate of women who have children is about 2.6. It was roughly 2.6 in 1972. The difference is 5-6 times as many women are not having children now vs 1972. I wish the demographer could have discussed this point. Disappointing interview over all because she did not say anything that was particularly insightful.
But she was pretty
1. Change the divorce laws.
2. Change the hiring laws.
3. Change the child support laws.
Change them to what?
Now we know why you don't have a girlfriend. ;-)
Or, fix the decline in the public welfare. That was one of the points of self governance, in the declaration of independence: "promote the general welfare".
@@buzoff4642 People who have more money will have fewer children. It's not a lack of welfare that is driving this. Quite the contrary. Children were necessary to survive in old age in the past. Today they are not.
@@lepidoptera9337 What is this presumption, more money/fewer kids, based on?
Missing several key aphrodisiacs - Job insecurity, inflation, wage stagnation, social discouragement
study after study show wealthier people have less kids than poorer people. Being poor never stopped anyone from having a million kids. Look around the world. Higher wages are absolutely NOT a predictor of having children, in fact it’s the opposite.
Is this in part an implicit consequence of highly valuing the individual, both the parent and the child?
Because no one can afford it. Simple.
Exactly. For women, especially, having children is the #1 risk factor for financial ruin (because they tend to end up with the caregiving responsibilities if the couple is unmarried or the marriage breaks up).
Because people, especially women, are victims of rising expectations, otherwise known as running on the hamster wheel.
Why does africa which i would assume is mostly poorer than america have so many births?
@@bagofdoom7693 for real. I'm not saying financial worries play no role but your question makes it plain that it can't be as simple as "can't afford it".
@@bagofdoom7693 Traditional culture remains strong in much of black Africa. Men are proud of having many children and pressure their wives into producing them. They also try to prevent their wives from accessing birth control. Quantity prevails over quality in this male-mediated competition for status. The most developed black African countries have the lowest birth rates: S Africa, Botswana, Kenya are all in the 2.5-3.0 range.
Why do people think it's imperative that everyone actually wants to have children if only the conditions are right. It's not at all surprising that a large portion of the society just doesn't want to have children. Just as they don't want to say live in the countryside, be religious or vegetarian or ascribe to any number of lifestyle choices one can make. Having children as a life goal is a social construct. The more this construct is openly questioned the larger percentage of people who break away from it. Now, many people genuinely want to have children, it's their dream, it's their goal and a way to fill good about their life and that's fine. Many don't, especially people who already feel fulfilled by the life they are living without children. It's a weird blind spot that people with children have that somehow they cannot imagine not wanting to have children at all.
You don't have to be pessimistic to not want children. You don't have to be blocked by the govt policy to not want children. You don't have to be rich or poor to not want to have children. You can just not want to have children, it's as simple as that. Even somehow Sex and the City was capable of grasping this uncomplicated concept.
a lot of people are satisfied with porn over finding a mate. a lot of people are having a hard time supporting themselves even basic needs such as paying bills and buying food. a lot of people are barely surviving alone, let alone find a mate and have a child. women want nothing to do with a man who is barely surviving.
They can live in a millionaires harem
@@teaadvice4996crazy that you think that’s the only alternative
ANTINATALISM
1.7 is not below replacement rate.
1.0 would be AT replacement rate.
.9 would be BELOW replacement rate.
Math.
You talked about Israel. I'm an atheist Jew from Israel. A lot of things that you talked about that makes more kids a problem exists in Israeli secular society.
The family is extremely important to as and we have support from the extended family. We also have communities within secular societies. My community is secular. When I gave birth, I got hot meals for my family for two weeks. For two weeks me and my husband didn't have to cook.
In addition, we give our kids more autonomy. Maybe it's part of having a community. I know I don't need to look at my kids all the time becouse if they have a problem, they can ask for help from other adults in the community.
How do you define "Jew"? I though Judaism is a religion: a set of beliefs. Anyone can choose to be a Jew or not.
Like defining yourself as a comic book reader or not. And I thought Jewish religion was believing gods exist.
Atheist is believing no gods exist.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 it’s because you’ve been fooled, Jews are a race, they’re a tribe of people
Hello...Worldometer, 271,000 babies just since this morning. That's more the worlds remaining population of elephants, we increased in humans in just two days. There is no fertility crisis........
Bacteria in a finite petri dish...
Don't have kids and have a good life, have kids and suffer
Great discussion. One thing: there have been multiple studies on having children and its effect on happiness. I'm surprised the guest in this episode didn't know that.
Job stability and immigration is the driver. Immigration is causing massive job instability. Companies can hire/layoff as immigration provides an endless supply of labor and supress wages.
It's easy to find a scapegoat to blame. Immigration becomes necessary when you have an ageing population not having enough children. The bigger issue is an economic and social structure where couples are isolated from their "village", mother and father both have to work to make ends meet, and a world that is increasingly competitive. Those are real pressures that will drive down birth rates. Immigration has little to do with it.
Nope. If anything, we have too few workers nowadays, not too many, even with immigration.
@@mary_puffin you must be naive, I’ve heard some white people say that they don’t want to bring children into a multiracial society. When people look at the quality of immigrants jumping over the border, do you really think they would want their children to grow up with such people
There are alot of good answers and perspectives in the comments about not wanting kids, but I remember one that stuck with me and continues to stick with me.
Historically, population sizes has always been a tricky subject. Too low, and parts of the economy/government/society that relies on high population suffers (social pay-in programs, job market from the owner's perspective, military recruitment and retention are a few examples).
If the population is too high, then food availability starts to become strained, water sources become strained (in the U.S were about to permanently drain most of our aquifers), changes in the employment rate have larger effects since employment rates are percentage based. On top of all of that, more people means more waste, trash, pollution, larger, dirtier, and more inefficient cities, etc.
Its always been my belief that alot of the world could see long-term benefits from a negative birthrate for a couple years, as long as those nations are willing to put up with the short-term side effects born from economic structures that rely on growth (including population growth).
Usually arguments against this come from a religious mindset or a racial "us vs them" replacement theory mindset and none of that helps with the argument of "how do we solve the problems of a high population
Misogyny is ending the world and ppl refuse to just accept that fact. Men don’t want to be better partners so 4b all the way.
Men also need to get taller
*Misandry.
@@knightofkorbin888 I said what I said. and if men didn't hate women so much, women wouldn't be most unsafe in their own homes. and certainly wouldn't die at the hands of men so often. but take solace that there will be less men born as the birth rate declines. amen.
" we obviously have more money now"
No. That may seem obvious from you bubble but it is not obvious nor the understanding of most young people.
I appreciate that there are practical problems associated with falling populations, but surely it *is* a good thing from an environmental perspective. Each new person consumes a *lot* of resources, and contributes a lot to pollution. Every human life is important, every person matters, but that doesn’t make it important for *everybody* to reproduce and make more of them.
My children are 25, 20 and 16. They grew up on a cul-de-sac in a gated community. Packs of kids roaming the neighbourhood, moms tag teamed each other in 100's of ways. But I noticed that by the time my youngest was walking to school and playing in the park, the community was more nervous of the free range concepts. Same neighbours, same street, nothing had really changed, but parents were being told good parenting requires eyes on the children at all times. Thats exhausting for parents and super restrictive for kids. As Hillary Clinton kept saying, "it takes a village", 'cause its way too hard to do almost anything on our own.
It is the economy. Simple as that. Low wages, High inflation , Housing too expensive... These 2 seems out of touch.
So why does every dollar or wealth you accumulate decrease your chance of having children? Explain that to me.
It is not economic, it is cultural.
Scandinavian countries provide generous family benefits and pay packages; yet their fertility rates are still plummeting.
Sorry, you’re dead wrong. Study after study shows poorer people have more kids than wealthier people, within the country and globally. The countries with the worst birth rates are the wealthiest. High wages don’t predict more kids, it’s actually the opposite.
Let's go back to 3 billion earthlings, capital-gasm be damned.
Because this life is BS.. simple as that
Children and people are dying NOW for many reasons, much of it connected to overpopulation. NOW!
Deaths due to hunger, people living in squalor on dumps. The poor are not contributing much to pollution because they can't afford to. As countries gain monetarily, they will pollute more!
Look at the wars over land now. As people gain the ability to have a more prosperous life they want what people have who are prosperous! That life style is unsustainable for most and will lead to conflict as it is happening in parts of the world. Fights over land over jobs....
They're time consuming, resource draining parasites. I don't know why anyone would want one. I like my time and higher standard of living with very few obligations and no gratuitous sleep deprivation..
@BerthaUbley Life would be different. We'd have to depend on ourselves as opposed to the instant gratification system. We'd probably move to a more Amish lifestyle, though hopefully without the religion.
@BerthaUbley I'm looking forward to less traffic, cheaper rent, more open space. Also, most of us are living in poverty. It people are so concerned about low population, maybe they should move to a favela. Oh, and I'm living OK with a low yearly salary, because I DON'T have any 'dependents'. . .since the last cat died.
@@petuniawigglebottom3392 If you live in a western country you will never live to see that because they will just bring in more people from over seas.
If republicans want more babies, why don’t they offer more government support for families? Universal childcare, universal parental leave, universal preschool, a k-12 system that is not last in developed country world rankings, government-sponsored egg freezing for women who want to have a career, universal healthcare- or at least a public option. Just have a birth in the country is beyond the reach of most families unless they’re on welfare.
Most women don't live on farms where they used to be equated with the livestock.
And horses
"When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point has come."
Oswald Spengler
If you live on the farm, there is guarantee job for your family but when you move to the city, job is no longer a guaranteed and if your kids failed to get a job due to bad market, you continue to carry the financial burden
Anti-abortion puts them right back there: breeding stock.
As income rises, typically disposable income also rises and it is this disposable income that opens up a full range of possibilities as to how to spend your time. Time is the same for everyone. 24 hrs in a day. But when you have DISPOSABLE income, only then do you get exponentially more choices on to spend those hours.
No fault, on demand divorce makes having children highly dangerous for a woman. She can be forced into single parenthood and poverty at any time, against her will and on no grounds at all. Alimony and child support is half the living standard of a person with a productive, contributing partner. No one with whom to share the expenses and domestic labour.