Thank you for pointing out the obvious! She says we are richer than our parents - that’s just sooo NOT true! Boomers have nearly all the property and they are getting money from the government on top of it! To buy a house has NEVER been so expensive in US. If you count how many salaries it takes to buy a house for average Joe it is FOUR times more salaries! You have to work FOUR times longer than your parents… and even more so compared to boomers. So what both of these ladies are saying is simply NOT true 😢
We live better than King Charlemagne in most ways, except for one glaring way: land ownership and housing. The average person today can't afford to buy a house and has to rent with roommates.
@@nicolasgirard2808 It is the kind of thing that often gets left out. I often hear about how hunter gatherer times were really hard and people had kids. I said that back in those times, people had agency over their lives. If they were oppressed, they could try to take out the village elder or chief. Good luck successfully ending oppression once Dunbar's number is passed.
Also, don't forget that back in those times, building yourself a home was WAY cheaper. My grandfather just built himself a hone on vacant land (lived in on one of those 3rd world colonies) with no running water or electricity... but it was still his home, and he didn't even bother to buy it lol. Paperwork? What paperwork? The land is just there, and if someone else is living there, just find someplace else. That's what enabled him to have 7 kids: o worries about housing and the FUTURE of housing for his kids (he didn't foresee the dystopia we are living in right now).
"Obviously we can afford children." I think she might be making huge assumptions. From what I can tell, lack of housing affordability is one of the most significant reasons for the decline in birth rates.
It is a part of a complex puzzle. People could buy houses cheap, but still not have baby rabies. I make the point by debunking the"ban adult entertainment" and say "that didn't cause a baby boom in Singapore and South Korea."
The lack of affordable housing is related to the trend of urbanization, wherein everyone crams into cities for job opportunities. If we had more job opportunities out in rural areas and more fully remote jobs, it may increase the birth rate a little bit.
@@nicolasgirard2808 this is noted about countries that are in rapid decline. Japan has been going extinct for years. Many villages turn to empty ghost towns and the major cities keep growing.
”We are so Much Richer than our parents” (q.) ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! The ration of money you need to buy a house compared to wages is FOUR times now, compared to the 70’s ! College has become Crazy expensive and yet it does Not guarantee you a good job as it use too. And the prices of insurance are just Insane! Please, 🙏 PLEASE STOP say that we are richer than our parents. That is simply NOT true!
I've been listening and reading about the population decline research and debates for years now, and I just can't agree that it's a catastrophy. I think most of the people born in human history were unplanned, and women had little choice in how many kids they brought into this world. Many boys and men died in war, many women died in childbith, and many infants didnt live to see their first birthday. I think we are just seeing what happend when women can choose, and people are living longer because of less war and more medical technology. Also, there will always be women who want big families, and there will always be women who want small ones. I do think that if we are being honest, in affluent countries, if you want your child to be in the upper middle class or higher, then you have to pour a lot of resources into raising that child. Therefore, a woman and her partner have to have enough economic stability and resources in order to give that child the best chance possible. That being said, I do think most women would have 2-3 children, but that requires a lot of partner, family and community support and resources, and I just don't see most women having access to all three.
One more thought. After listening to Dr. Pakaluk's solution of bringing motherhood back into the foreground of culture, I don't think that's a bad idea. She is also right that it's going to take more than just giving women money to have kids to do it. I like the doctor's research, and really want her to interview different populations. It appears there is something different in India and Nigeria where child birth rates are not falling. I wonder if the importance on getting married and having children have to do with their high slum and extreme poverty populations. Meaning, the lesson is without a strong family and social bound, you can easily slip into destitution. I wish I could get behind the religion idea as it is obviously where developed countries are still finding people wanting to sacrifice for family and children, but I have no desire to be a believer. However, I'm not naive enough to believe I am without religion. I do believe that we all serve somebody, or something. Like it or not, it may be the Self, or your sense of duty to be a good person (whatever that means to each person), or money, but we all serve something.
@@hschan5976 You're right. while the average is still 2 children per woman, fertility in India has been declining as well. It appears only "developing" countries and event some "failing states" like Venezuela, seem to have "above replacement" birth rates which point more towards women having fewer rights and less access to family planning being more likely the cause for their fertility rates.
As a father of one, I salute to these great women! Do not believe the propaganda for a second that your role and contribution is less than a CEO or Business person.
@@everythingisfine9988 It may be the absolute truth. I only mentioned "some say" because there is no limit to the people who think Reaganomics is great.
We're not paying to subsidize your religion. If people want their kids to go to religious school, you pay for it. The state can not endose or promote your religion! It's literally the First Amendment.
@kupodio216 It's not just about not establishing a religion. They can not promote any single religion, which includes yours. Every Christian nationalist I've encountered doesn't seem to understand the entirety of the First Amendment, what real religious liberty is, or why the First Amendment is anti cristofascist theocracy. It's a lack of true education. Sad!
But....but....but....I thought educating children is THE most important thing, right? Who cares if they get 30 minutes of religious study? Given the self-deleting 💀, school sh00tings and horrendous mental health of kids attending "government schools" I can't see religious schools doing worse. Your comment is pure knee jerk negativity
what the point of having children if I can't even afford a car or a house for my kids ? The richs are freaking out because they see the supply of slaves being thinner over years. FU
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work.
@@viking4476 you do realize that in a capitalist period, all you need for a new golden age of employment is young people starting new businesses, right?
Great episode. I have 4 kids, and am also an economist trying to tackle this issue. I've written several blog posts on the issue and a recent one soecifically on the affordability argument. We're the wealthiest ever, fertility rates go down with income (until the uber-wealthy $1M/yr or so), and rich countries have fewer kids. IDK how many different angles people need to show its not an affordability problem. Really liked the conversation at the end about policy direction. It's a pretty novel approach I haven't heard discussed elsewhere.
If only your parents had said that we wouldn’t be forced to endure such an inane comment. The world today is objectively the best it’s ever been. Don’t blame the world for the fact that you just don’t want kids. Just be honest.
@@Recuper8 a little over a century ago your nephew would have been working a mine by the time he was 5 years old. If you don’t think the present is objectively better than that, something is wrong with you.
My parents had 6 and every attitude you’ve described about large families is true, we were constantly told children are the greatest blessing. And we lived in a 2 bedroom home until the 6th was born, so we were not wealthy.
Why isn't this "economist" discussing housing and childcare???? We live in a 1 bdrm apartment in NYC for $3000, and have no car. In order for us to get a 2 bdrm, it would cost another $1000-1500 a month. Daycare is $1500. We're going to have our baby in our current place and then get something bigger when we need it. How can you expect us to have lots of babies when there are almost no 3 bd apartments and daycare is $1500 on the very low end? Kids aren't expensive but staff and space sure is. My grandparents got to have lots of kids because when they did it, young teachers could buy 3 bd houses. This isn't about vacations. Stop calling us frivolous and selfish when boomer homeowners cranked the price of housing up to where young people can't afford space for their children.
@@jessa5388 the problem is living in NYC's dystopian hell hole. For the same cost of your current rent in a mortgage in Kansas, you could have a 2 acre plot and a 7000 sq foot house.
You chose to live in the most expensive city. You decided the “Sex in the City” lifestyle was more important. If kids are that low on your list, then please stay in NYC
@TedSeeber No work for me or my husband in KS. I need a 3 bedroom apartment near my job, not unemployment near no family. I think this is a very reasonable thing to need.
It's not necessarily just money. Parenthood is a great choice, and so is not being a parent. Some people just prefer to make the other choice. Chocolate or strawberry? Nothing wrong with either. It takes all sorts to make the world go around.
@@Steelblaidd Meh. We're still adding 80 million to the population every year. I don't see a reason to activate my anxiety levels yet. EDIT: And IMHO, even if we do run out of sorts to make the world go around, it is better than having unwanted children.
Its unbelievable listening to these middleclass christian ladies...they seemed unable to think outside their circle...what about the cost of living, houseprices, childcare...the dilemma women face after having a collegedegree at age 25 to start a career and reduce their debt or starting a family..the ladies went to church..met a nice well educated christian white male with a stable high income and with a desire to marry and to take care of you and your beautiful healthy kids for the rest of your life.....dream on ladies...
Over work in China is dropping population rapidly. Now industry is moving to other countries including the US. Won't last, pop will continue to drop. Children need a massive investment in time for education and attention. It's the nature of the new labor market that requires "advanced skills". Nobody can really give that kind of attention kids need and still pay all their bills if they have more than two kids (max). And two kids doesn't grow population. It would still decline. Need to have more than that to account for accidental death and people choosing not to have kids. Exception for rich people. But by definition there are a few of them. So it doesn't really help overall
"The cost of children is your time - both night and day" 👍 That is exactly right. I never thought about it like that, but it is true. And you have to pretend that everything is great, never loose a day at work, evne if the child has been crying all night and all you want to do is sleep :) And later, you always have tomake sure someone is at home to look after the child, before you do something outside the home
Prove that. Often times repeated but not true. Rural people farmers, are closest to the reproduction of nature. They see first hand the beauty of new life, and in that view they tend to see Gods hand. They are very likely to open their hearts to Gods creation in their own lives as well and thus have children. And once you get past the challenge of adjusting to the first couple, the real beauty of children shines through. As my father always said, "you will never regret the children you have." Free labor???? I farmed. Children would not provide enough free labor to pay for their keep, if thats how we looked at it.
@@Myfreddiemac Hiring people is expensive. They are only there 8-10 hours a day. Not working 7 days a week. And not available all the time. Unlike children who are always there.Even on Sundays and holidays . Can be ordered without fighting back. Lowering the cost of raising children compared to parents who work in an office.
GOOD! I never ever thought we need more people and cars out and about. I want there to be wide open spaces filled with nature, not pavement and concrete everywhere. This should be celebrated
I am a woman with 5 kids. I love my kids and I’m glad I have them. My husband never pressured me to have them. None were really planned, and it’s honestly something I kind of regret. I wish we had had the forethought to plan better, but we came from a poor background where money and knowledge were scarce. We have struggled a lot trying to get our s* together for our kids and we’ve come a long way. But this discussion is something that angers something deep within me. I love my kids, and I am so happy they’re in our lives, but I know for a fact our lives would be easier with less kids. I don’t begrudge other women one bit for choosing to remain childless or having two or less. It is extremely hard to give kids a good quality of life these days without significant income. Having kids is a sacrifice some are willing to make. And most people will not answer you honestly because they don’t want to look weak or go against religious beliefs. For some reason it’s taboo for women to desire some personal comfort and respite. Having more than two these days is very difficult. Women are also not considered property any more and women exercise more autonomy than ever. None of these things are bad. There was a need to have lots of kids a long time ago, it’s not necessary now. It’s completely fine if the population dips. That is normal in the ebbs and flows of history.
@@Ravenelvenlady thank you ♥️ that’s very kind of you. We’re trying! I also forgot to mention the complete lack of support the majority of mothers, including myself, deal with today. Grandparents are so uninvolved and primarily interact to have something to brag about on FB. In our situation, I’m a single mom 5 days a week because my husband’s a truck driver and gone during his work week. The grandparents don’t come by, even though there are no restrictions and they’re retired. They all have an open invitation, just always have something better to do.
@@lccp690 I did. Read the whole thing. And the sentiment seemed to be that your life would be “easier” without so many kids and that you wished you had thought about that before having them. Which means you value ease in your life over your children.
The world has just gotten so crazy these days with wars and conflicts overseas and worldwide poverty and starvation. It hurts my soul to think about every day and I don't think it's right to put that on any children I could have.
There are declining birth rates in Japan and some European countries, but how do you account that in my lifetime the world went from 3 billion to the current population which is close to 8 billion?
When I attended my MBA classes, the calculus professor presented a derivative on population growth. In that derivative (which must only have constants within the derivative) was a 'constant' for 'the % of the population that would have children'. I questioned the constant as being a variable, example, people can now choose to be on contraception. Professor told me to accept without questioning. That is how they tell you the number of people in the world. by that derivative. Test: China had 1Billion people in 1979. They implemented 1 child per couple. If we assume that some had more children than 1, and we use the 1.25 per couple. Per their numbers, they had about 250million females within reproductive age in the 80 and 90s, that means, at 1.25 per couple there would be 281 million births. 1/2 male so you have 140 million females to reproduce the next generation. At 1.25 births per female, that gives you 175million births. Today the population clock suggests there are 1.4Bilion in China. 1980 = 1Billion plus the 2 birthed generations (281million and 170million) = 1.45 billion but only if NO ONE DIED. But if you consider a normal death rate, they likely have 750million total people in China. Or 1/2 a billion fewer than the population experts suggest. My calculations involve biology and math. India is in a similar fate. So the population experts are likely more than a billion over estimated in India and China combined There is not likely over 5 Billion and most of them are over 50 years of age Today China likely has 87 million females in their reproductive age range. China will not recover from the population collapse for over 100 years. They will likely go to war to conquer females to include in their population.
Because people are stupid. There’s no population decline. They are in a panic because of a decline in how fast the population is expanding. Two percent population growth of five billion in 1987 equals plus 100 million people. Now that the population is 8.1 billion, the addition of 100 million people is “only” 1.2 percent growth. They see this as a collapse. Which is ridiculous.
In 1950, 1 in 4 babies died world wide, it's now 1 in 20. Life expectancy in 1950 was 46 world wide it's now 73. We are not going to do that again, thus the decline will be rapid.
People live longer which gooses the numbers. The 8 bil number is a UN projection that has over estimated population growth. We aren't at 8 billion people.
If i make "a lot" of money while "increasing" my availability to parent, i will have more kids. I want to be able to provide the resources and emotional support to raise leaders. I want them to be happy and have dignity in this world. They will *NOT* be a servants to oligarchs
What people need to understand is that it is not a problem of reducing the number of people, it's the fact that there will be more old retired people compared to young ones. If you think that having kids takes a lot of money and time, enjoy looking after 3-6 old people, most of which won't even be related to you Right now countries have 2-4 working people per 1 retired person, with a low birth rate that can flip really hard and you can have only 1 working person per 3-7 retired people.
@@nicolejennings8389 Either that or enjoy being over-taxed to oblivion to do so, to the point you won't have money to do anything but work, eat and sleep. Or are you suggesting mustached men tactics from about 80-90 years ago(censored)?
So what you are saying that the problem isn't having too few children, but having too many old people? The world is overpopulated, the XX.century population boom was a mistake. We won't solve the problem by keeping up that population number.
That's a component but it's a small component. It's a small component because it is only relevant if people are actively trying and wanting to have children. People are actively trying not to have kids. Not having babies is the goal for vast amounts of people and in that case.....difficulty reproducing is a benefit.
What a fantastic discussion! Opened my eyes to a few things. I was one of those outliers who had 5 children and an unwanted career. I can’t say the 5 were a specific choice. Being a serious cradle Catholic I was simply open to life. I also had a rather unpredictable cycle so there were a few surprises. All I ever wanted was to be a stay-at-home mom but being married to a sailor dictated otherwise. As frugal as we were, being sent back and forth across the country to high-cost areas made it impossible, so I went back on active duty as well. I certainly got the looks being in uniform with a trail of “ducklings.” 😅 When I was pregnant with my 4th, people at work who didn’t know me assumed I had established my career and was now starting a family. 😂😂😂I had WAY too much fun setting them straight. I just told them I had a baby for every rank I attained. Going from that to home schooling all of them plus extras was an amazing experience as well. It wasn’t the life I had desired but with God’s Grace we made it happen. I’m now blessed with 18 grandchildren and I’m happy to help with their education as well!
I watched at least 10 videos on declining population and they could never explain why lower population is bad except for there won't be people to take care of the old ones. Why would it be bad for younger people? "2 kids are hard, because it's too few." Yeah because if you have more kids you can just use them to take care of the little ones you wanted. Seen it so many times. Mom and dad going out, having fun and the bigger kids have to be the parents all the time. There are multiple reasons why people are nit having kids. Way more money needed to give a proper education and upbringing to kids, young people can not afford housing, we have so much ro do instead of raising kids, hard to find a stable partner.
Yes, it was common to make older siblings raise younger ones. Maybe in earlier eras, it didn't deter the older ones from going childfree. Many chose to be childfree because they said they were an unpaid babysitter and said that they already spent enough time raising kids. Tom Leykis was saying this years before the reddit childfree existed.
I am sorry...YOU may be able to afford children and have the energy and time to raise them, also to have been fortunate enough to find good partners so on, there is a vast majority that are struggling in one or all of those issues. You are talking about an era where people had farms and gardens, also little to no taxes, medical insurance did not exist health care didn't' cost everything you owned, not to mention the women stayed at home. There are women even single ones that take on a full time job and raise kids, many times not by choice. No one can successfully give a 100% to both family and career, yet it is expected. These are the choices, the choice of having nothing left at the end of the day, and then giving your child over to day care and public school to raise them so they can go to work. This is also in the other country's you mention what you fail to realize or research is the expectations of careers for women there. If you made better points later on I am sorry but could only take about 10 minutes of listening.
The blonde ladies speech pattern of interrupting with “hmmm” and “yes” until she gets her say is low key rude as hell and disrespectful to the other lady who is still making her point.
It's a matter of health and longevity, not wealth per se. People nowadays live longer, women don't die in over 50% of births. Even some homeless people live longer than the majority of serfs and slaves in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. So with more people living past their opportunity to have kids you end up with more people living at the same time, hence the "population growth". If one couple has 2 children and those children have 2 children each, you have about 20 years when the 3 generations live on this planet at the same time, enough to be counted, consume and even produce income at the same time. So 8 people (not counting their spouses) from the same family live at the same time, inflating the numbers. But further down the line, if the third generation has only one child, or one of the children decides not to have children the decline isn't immediately, but occurs when the previous generations disappear. The decline is a problem because it involves subsidizing old people who stop producing. And this is a vicious circle (see Japan). If you have to finance and take care of grandparents into their 90s, the resources, housing, taxes and TIME left to go dating, work, have kids, raise kids is not enough. You either change children's diapers, or those of parents/grandparents.
I do not trust the government okay, it is not a just, or efficient system, but what i trust significantly less is any church leadership, not that im sure they dont have some good intentions. But ultimately religion is going to try to change others, and in some ways they have the right to try, but not through politics, that is what is so disturbing about politics today. It is way too religious and religion creates distinction and division and as a country that is the last thing we need
I know so many women around my age ..44.. that don't have any kids, I'd have to stop and count them all up but there's a lot! And the ones that did mostly just had 1...
One note. She did not give BIRTH to six children, she birthed two then adopted the rest. So she is not "quietly" having a lot of children because other women birthed the majority of her children.
But maybe thinking that children are a woman's issue is part of the problem. Almost all children are conceived through insistence of the father, maybe he should be the primary responsible. :)
Chances are, everyone knows someone who's a parent and doing really badly at it. It could be many things: they're addicted to alcohol or drugs, they might beat their partner or their children, they might be lazy ne'er-do-wells who take more than they give to the family, they might be unfaithful to their partner, they might be neglectful of their children. In the olden days, wives/mothers couldn't do a damn thing about any of that - they were almost completely reliant on their man for financial support, and if he knocked her up, then she could only hope that she survived childbirth. But times have changed. Women have more of a say in determining the course of their lives. Quelle horreur!
There is no population decline. There’s a decline in how fast the population is increasing. A part of this is statistics. Way back in 1987 when the world population was “only” five billion, a 2 percent population growth was adding 100 million people. In 2024 there are 8.1 billion people, to get same addition of 100 million people is now only 1.2 percent growth. Every day there’s around 150,000 more births than deaths. The population is still growing.
Yes but it's only increasing now because we figured out how to have near zero baby deaths, and increase the life expectancy to near 80. We are not going to do that again. So when it declines it will be rapid, just do the math.
The World population is Growing because of a few Countries, Mostly in Africa. Right now, the Rich Countries only grow due to Immigration. And if those Immigrants don't have an above replacement birthrate, Then those rich countries are relying on poor Countries having enough kids to immigrate to them. That is not good for *those* Countries, either. And those Countries also have a shrinking birthrate too. It's just still over replacement for now will not be for long.
The real issue for folks who don't give a hang about morality or common good or anything similar is: When the welfare pyramid loses some few more people at the bottom the whole welfare state GOES DOWN THE DRAIN.
So we get stuck in a pyramid scheme with a duty to try to prop up the pyramid scheme? Screw that, pyramid schemes are inherently unethical and are doomed to fail anyway.
It is valid to ask "are you done", actually. A bit inappropriate when it comes to children for sure, but we should ask it much more when it comes to money. I'm financially independent since 3 years. I asked myself when I would be done making money. And I came to a number that would be enough. If more would do this, the world would be a better place I think. And I'm not even a millionaire. Quite far from it actually. If children was something I wanted, then I'd certainly have the time for it. I wish the world was more friendly towards people who want to raise a family. But I also think it's about priorities. For individuals as well as society. Unfortunately, however much governments try to bring the number of births up, they put a lot more focus on making people work and consume. Those goals are opposite to each other. Governments have to choose. More children, or more work and consumption.
To want children is to be like God. To have a role in the Creator's intent to populate the world with many unique, senscient beings and to learn all the skills required to make it a beautiful endeavor, such as forgiveness, generosity, sacrificial love, understanding, mercy, friendship, cheerfulness, thanksgiving, hospitality, celebration, skillful craftsmanship of clothing, homes, food, etc. seems to me to be the most beautiful of purposes. Of course we fail in many ways, but still, it's more worthwhile than entertainment, wealth and power as our highest goals.
Nonsense. Kids need advanced skills. That takes time and a ton of attention. Having more kids than you can give attention to, guaranteeing them poor paying employment outlook
I saw my husband wanting more children as reflecting some attributes of God the Father/ Creator and took it seriously to include in discerning. I also saw the way that women are made with monthly fertility as some innate goodness to also move my hopes into maybe having ‘ one more’ .
I listened to this yesterday in the car. It was an amazing conversation! There was so much in there that I wanted to shout yes! As a college educated woman, my life's regret is that I didn't have more than 4 children. You are right, going from 2 to 3 was easier than 1 to 2 and from 3 to 4 even easier. The demands were great AND WONDERFUL. I was just getting better at it and it was over. That was just my story but it is a story that isn't told.
The UN recently released their newest forecasts and projected peak human population in the mid 2080's at about 10.8 billion. I will tell you that the UN has a long history of making the most optimistic/best case scenario forecasts on this front and then revising things down a year or two later. So that makes this a good upper bound because it's probably not going to be better than that. I have heard more than one demographer estimate that peak population is likely to between the 2050's and 2060's with 10 billion being on the high end and a few of them questioning if 9 billion is even in the cards. I saw one economist from Washington University give a presentation and his model was projecting a worst case scenario of peak population in the 2040's at about 8.8 billion. To be clear he wasn't predicting that, just saying that that was (as far as he could tell) the worst case scenario.
Cost of living. The nation's are not rich just a few people in each rich nation has all the money and power. Why have kids I can't afford just so they can be the next generation of wage slaves. The reasons you are giving are the reasons why rich people are not having kids.
We are wealthier because we work all the hours God sends and don’t have to pay for kids childcare/education/medical/cloths/accommodation/food/entertainment etc. I chose not to have kids as I HATE KIDS.
Children are a form of immortality. You are more willing to sacrifice, to die for your child, because they will live on and hopefully have children of their own.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa and in return they are not immortal and can instead be selfish, because they have no investment in the future beyond their own life. JD Vance was right.
@julianskinner3697 that is only a recent development, and one that comes from destroying families instead of creating them. If you do not keep a good relationship and give your parents input into your life, do not provide for your children and sacrifice for them, how do you expect to build generational wealth? Maybe it was your parents or grandpatents who failed to discover this little secret: that children and family are the only secure investment this world has to offer.
@@TedSeeberthat’s pretty disrespectful when I know a lot of people who would desperately love to have children and can’t afford it. I couldn’t care less about having children and I’ve successfully avoided it so far but I feel horrible for them.
I'm 35 and have no kids.....I have never been on a vacation and I work a lot....I can't afford kids.
I read that too fast and thought you had 35 kids.
Please take a holiday. No job is so important that you can’t get away from it for even just a few days.
Good because there is waaaay to many ppl on this planet.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious! She says we are richer than our parents - that’s just sooo NOT true! Boomers have nearly all the property and they are getting money from the government on top of it! To buy a house has NEVER been so expensive in US. If you count how many salaries it takes to buy a house for average Joe it is FOUR times more salaries! You have to work FOUR times longer than your parents… and even more so compared to boomers. So what both of these ladies are saying is simply NOT true 😢
Free health insurance plus food stamps and help with housing if you do have kids
We live better than King Charlemagne in most ways, except for one glaring way: land ownership and housing. The average person today can't afford to buy a house and has to rent with roommates.
@@nicolasgirard2808 It is the kind of thing that often gets left out.
I often hear about how hunter gatherer times were really hard and people had kids. I said that back in those times, people had agency over their lives. If they were oppressed, they could try to take out the village elder or chief. Good luck successfully ending oppression once Dunbar's number is passed.
@@skylinefeveryeah I know. People during hunter gatherer times had agency over their life unlike now where people have chained you to a rock. 🤡
Also, don't forget that back in those times, building yourself a home was WAY cheaper. My grandfather just built himself a hone on vacant land (lived in on one of those 3rd world colonies) with no running water or electricity... but it was still his home, and he didn't even bother to buy it lol. Paperwork? What paperwork? The land is just there, and if someone else is living there, just find someplace else. That's what enabled him to have 7 kids: o worries about housing and the FUTURE of housing for his kids (he didn't foresee the dystopia we are living in right now).
Not if you are married.
"Obviously we can afford children."
I think she might be making huge assumptions. From what I can tell, lack of housing affordability is one of the most significant reasons for the decline in birth rates.
Everybody says that. And back when housing was more affordable, we were still below the replacement rate. We’ve been there since the early 1970s.
It is a part of a complex puzzle. People could buy houses cheap, but still not have baby rabies.
I make the point by debunking the"ban adult entertainment" and say "that didn't cause a baby boom in Singapore and South Korea."
I think this would also help people start having babies earlier in their lives!
The lack of affordable housing is related to the trend of urbanization, wherein everyone crams into cities for job opportunities. If we had more job opportunities out in rural areas and more fully remote jobs, it may increase the birth rate a little bit.
@@nicolasgirard2808 this is noted about countries that are in rapid decline. Japan has been going extinct for years. Many villages turn to empty ghost towns and the major cities keep growing.
”We are so Much Richer than our parents” (q.) ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! The ration of money you need to buy a house compared to wages is FOUR times now, compared to the 70’s ! College has become Crazy expensive and yet it does Not guarantee you a good job as it use too. And the prices of insurance are just Insane! Please, 🙏 PLEASE STOP say that we are richer than our parents. That is simply NOT true!
I've been listening and reading about the population decline research and debates for years now, and I just can't agree that it's a catastrophy. I think most of the people born in human history were unplanned, and women had little choice in how many kids they brought into this world. Many boys and men died in war, many women died in childbith, and many infants didnt live to see their first birthday. I think we are just seeing what happend when women can choose, and people are living longer because of less war and more medical technology. Also, there will always be women who want big families, and there will always be women who want small ones. I do think that if we are being honest, in affluent countries, if you want your child to be in the upper middle class or higher, then you have to pour a lot of resources into raising that child. Therefore, a woman and her partner have to have enough economic stability and resources in order to give that child the best chance possible. That being said, I do think most women would have 2-3 children, but that requires a lot of partner, family and community support and resources, and I just don't see most women having access to all three.
One more thought. After listening to Dr. Pakaluk's solution of bringing motherhood back into the foreground of culture, I don't think that's a bad idea. She is also right that it's going to take more than just giving women money to have kids to do it. I like the doctor's research, and really want her to interview different populations. It appears there is something different in India and Nigeria where child birth rates are not falling. I wonder if the importance on getting married and having children have to do with their high slum and extreme poverty populations. Meaning, the lesson is without a strong family and social bound, you can easily slip into destitution. I wish I could get behind the religion idea as it is obviously where developed countries are still finding people wanting to sacrifice for family and children, but I have no desire to be a believer. However, I'm not naive enough to believe I am without religion. I do believe that we all serve somebody, or something. Like it or not, it may be the Self, or your sense of duty to be a good person (whatever that means to each person), or money, but we all serve something.
@@Mary-Mar But India's birthrate has been falling.
@@hschan5976 You're right. while the average is still 2 children per woman, fertility in India has been declining as well. It appears only "developing" countries and event some "failing states" like Venezuela, seem to have "above replacement" birth rates which point more towards women having fewer rights and less access to family planning being more likely the cause for their fertility rates.
As a father of one, I salute to these great women! Do not believe the propaganda for a second that your role and contribution is less than a CEO or Business person.
One thing she ignores inequality, yes we are richer now The only problem is that wealth is with a few people.
More "Line go up mean thing get gud" nonsense arguments.
I have noticed it's mostly wealthy people talking about this.
@@lisa6356 Some say the opulence of the wealthy depends on the supply of the poor.
Some say? It's the truth. Besides the environment, this is the other bonus of decreasing population. It will narrow the income gap over time
@@skylinefever You can say that again.
@@everythingisfine9988 It may be the absolute truth. I only mentioned "some say" because there is no limit to the people who think Reaganomics is great.
@@everythingisfine9988 Except the people having kids are not those getting educations.
We're not paying to subsidize your religion. If people want their kids to go to religious school, you pay for it. The state can not endose or promote your religion! It's literally the First Amendment.
Yes look it up. It's about not establishing a state religion.
@kupodio216 It's not just about not establishing a religion. They can not promote any single religion, which includes yours. Every Christian nationalist I've encountered doesn't seem to understand the entirety of the First Amendment, what real religious liberty is, or why the First Amendment is anti cristofascist theocracy. It's a lack of true education. Sad!
An in return the woke mind virus, technically not a religion, can infiltrate its philosophy into the void left by religion-less education instead
But....but....but....I thought educating children is THE most important thing, right?
Who cares if they get 30 minutes of religious study?
Given the self-deleting 💀, school sh00tings and horrendous mental health of kids attending "government schools" I can't see religious schools doing worse.
Your comment is pure knee jerk negativity
EXACTLY, kaybrown7733!
what the point of having children if I can't even afford a car or a house for my kids ? The richs are freaking out because they see the supply of slaves being thinner over years. FU
No one had a car or modern house 200 years ago. These are luxuries.
Immigration
@@lemoneyesalt5513 you re stupid
@@matheenarif8645 from where? Mars?
@lemoneyesalt5513 the quality of life that people expect has risen. There's no going back on that
Negative growth can be a good thing. For example, for Serbia, where I live. If we didn't have that for the last thirty years, as well as immigration, we would have 50% unemployment. We wouldn't have anything to eat, like in Africa. Now we even bring people from abroad India, Bangladesh, Nepal to work.
How do you know unemployment would be 50%? If there are more people there would be more jobs.
@@derek4412 because current industrial production and gdp is two times lesser than in 1989.
Do you mean two-thirds less? Something can be two times more, but not two times less.
@@derek4412 yes, something like that. Economy in 1989 was much better than now. That communist period we golden age
@@viking4476 you do realize that in a capitalist period, all you need for a new golden age of employment is young people starting new businesses, right?
Great episode. I have 4 kids, and am also an economist trying to tackle this issue. I've written several blog posts on the issue and a recent one soecifically on the affordability argument.
We're the wealthiest ever, fertility rates go down with income (until the uber-wealthy $1M/yr or so), and rich countries have fewer kids. IDK how many different angles people need to show its not an affordability problem.
Really liked the conversation at the end about policy direction. It's a pretty novel approach I haven't heard discussed elsewhere.
I don't want to bring any babies into this dump... the world is a dump...
It's been so much worse though.
Agreed.
If only your parents had said that we wouldn’t be forced to endure such an inane comment. The world today is objectively the best it’s ever been. Don’t blame the world for the fact that you just don’t want kids. Just be honest.
@cawheeler27 I was trying to find an example of indoctrination to teach my nephew about it. Then I came across your comment. Thank you so much!
@@Recuper8 a little over a century ago your nephew would have been working a mine by the time he was 5 years old. If you don’t think the present is objectively better than that, something is wrong with you.
My parents had 6 and every attitude you’ve described about large families is true, we were constantly told children are the greatest blessing.
And we lived in a 2 bedroom home until the 6th was born, so we were not wealthy.
Why isn't this "economist" discussing housing and childcare???? We live in a 1 bdrm apartment in NYC for $3000, and have no car. In order for us to get a 2 bdrm, it would cost another $1000-1500 a month. Daycare is $1500. We're going to have our baby in our current place and then get something bigger when we need it. How can you expect us to have lots of babies when there are almost no 3 bd apartments and daycare is $1500 on the very low end? Kids aren't expensive but staff and space sure is.
My grandparents got to have lots of kids because when they did it, young teachers could buy 3 bd houses.
This isn't about vacations. Stop calling us frivolous and selfish when boomer homeowners cranked the price of housing up to where young people can't afford space for their children.
Unless your rich, living in NYC is a bad financial decision.
@@jessa5388 the problem is living in NYC's dystopian hell hole. For the same cost of your current rent in a mortgage in Kansas, you could have a 2 acre plot and a 7000 sq foot house.
You chose to live in the most expensive city. You decided the “Sex in the City” lifestyle was more important. If kids are that low on your list, then please stay in NYC
@weidchar1646 so i should quit my job and then the person who takes my job is also not able to afford children? Not a solution.
@TedSeeber No work for me or my husband in KS. I need a 3 bedroom apartment near my job, not unemployment near no family. I think this is a very reasonable thing to need.
It's not necessarily just money. Parenthood is a great choice, and so is not being a parent. Some people just prefer to make the other choice. Chocolate or strawberry? Nothing wrong with either. It takes all sorts to make the world go around.
@@MargaretCraigie the problem is, is if people don't have kids we run out of sorts to make the world go round.
@@Steelblaidd Meh. We're still adding 80 million to the population every year. I don't see a reason to activate my anxiety levels yet.
EDIT: And IMHO, even if we do run out of sorts to make the world go around, it is better than having unwanted children.
@@MargaretCraigie I always make the point by saying "What was the upside to communist Romania?"
Its unbelievable listening to these middleclass christian ladies...they seemed unable to think outside their circle...what about the cost of living, houseprices, childcare...the dilemma women face after having a collegedegree at age 25 to start a career and reduce their debt or starting a family..the ladies went to church..met a nice well educated christian white male with a stable high income and with a desire to marry and to take care of you and your beautiful healthy kids for the rest of your life.....dream on ladies...
Say that it is true. Then they are doing exactly what they should do: Returning that wealth to the World by propagating it to tons of new children.
So the people who rent property might have to reduce their prices. Oh, the horror.
Don't need the guilt...
I don’t have any kids and I think that would be just fine if the world population went down to 20 or 30,000
Here in the Rust Belt, the children moved away because the jobs moved to China. Free trade destroyed us, not lack of children.
Over work in China is dropping population rapidly. Now industry is moving to other countries including the US. Won't last, pop will continue to drop. Children need a massive investment in time for education and attention. It's the nature of the new labor market that requires "advanced skills". Nobody can really give that kind of attention kids need and still pay all their bills if they have more than two kids (max). And two kids doesn't grow population. It would still decline. Need to have more than that to account for accidental death and people choosing not to have kids.
Exception for rich people. But by definition there are a few of them. So it doesn't really help overall
Yeah but is it really the government's job to give economic handouts by blocking free trade?
@@nicolasgirard2808 Free trade is a handout to the rich. There is no right to trade outside your own country. That’s a privilege.
@@nicolasgirard2808 There is no right to move capital in and out of your country, either. That is also a privilege.
@@blafonovision4342 are you a communist? Personally I believe in individual freedom to conduct trade and control your own finances.
Fascinating, heartfelt, intelligent, outside of my worldview.
"The cost of children is your time - both night and day" 👍
That is exactly right. I never thought about it like that, but it is true.
And you have to pretend that everything is great, never loose a day at work, evne if the child has been crying all night and all you want to do is sleep :)
And later, you always have tomake sure someone is at home to look after the child, before you do something outside the home
When you live in a rural area, children are free labor. When you live in Apartment Children are expensive furniture
Prove that. Often times repeated but not true.
Rural people farmers, are closest to the reproduction of nature. They see first hand the beauty of new life, and in that view they tend to see Gods hand. They are very likely to open their hearts to Gods creation in their own lives as well and thus have children. And once you get past the challenge of adjusting to the first couple, the real beauty of children shines through. As my father always said, "you will never regret the children you have."
Free labor???? I farmed. Children would not provide enough free labor to pay for their keep, if thats how we looked at it.
@@Myfreddiemacurbanisation is the strongest predictor of reduced birthrates. Statistics don't lie.
Just wait until my wife finds out we have been way overpaying for our children.
Most rural people are not farmers lol
@@Myfreddiemac Hiring people is expensive. They are only there 8-10 hours a day. Not working 7 days a week. And not available all the time.
Unlike children who are always there.Even on Sundays and holidays . Can be ordered without fighting back.
Lowering the cost of raising children compared to parents who work in an office.
GOOD! I never ever thought we need more people and cars out and about. I want there to be wide open spaces filled with nature, not pavement and concrete everywhere. This should be celebrated
I am a woman with 5 kids. I love my kids and I’m glad I have them. My husband never pressured me to have them. None were really planned, and it’s honestly something I kind of regret. I wish we had had the forethought to plan better, but we came from a poor background where money and knowledge were scarce. We have struggled a lot trying to get our s* together for our kids and we’ve come a long way. But this discussion is something that angers something deep within me. I love my kids, and I am so happy they’re in our lives, but I know for a fact our lives would be easier with less kids. I don’t begrudge other women one bit for choosing to remain childless or having two or less. It is extremely hard to give kids a good quality of life these days without significant income. Having kids is a sacrifice some are willing to make. And most people will not answer you honestly because they don’t want to look weak or go against religious beliefs. For some reason it’s taboo for women to desire some personal comfort and respite. Having more than two these days is very difficult. Women are also not considered property any more and women exercise more autonomy than ever. None of these things are bad. There was a need to have lots of kids a long time ago, it’s not necessary now. It’s completely fine if the population dips. That is normal in the ebbs and flows of history.
Thank you for sharing your story and expressing such empathy. If you have raised kids to be like you, the world is much better for it. ❤
@@Ravenelvenlady thank you ♥️ that’s very kind of you. We’re trying! I also forgot to mention the complete lack of support the majority of mothers, including myself, deal with today. Grandparents are so uninvolved and primarily interact to have something to brag about on FB. In our situation, I’m a single mom 5 days a week because my husband’s a truck driver and gone during his work week. The grandparents don’t come by, even though there are no restrictions and they’re retired. They all have an open invitation, just always have something better to do.
So which one of your kids do you wish didn’t exist so you could have a few more vacations and dinners out? This is sick.
@@aham586 lol you clearly didn’t read what I wrote.
@@lccp690 I did. Read the whole thing. And the sentiment seemed to be that your life would be “easier” without so many kids and that you wished you had thought about that before having them. Which means you value ease in your life over your children.
The world has just gotten so crazy these days with wars and conflicts overseas and worldwide poverty and starvation. It hurts my soul to think about every day and I don't think it's right to put that on any children I could have.
24:24 intentionality is wise. Bringing blessings into curse situations is foolish!
I often joke "Go ask how blessed the Casey Anthonys are."
There are declining birth rates in Japan and some European countries, but how do you account that in my lifetime the world went from 3 billion to the current population which is close to 8 billion?
When I attended my MBA classes, the calculus professor presented a derivative on population growth. In that derivative (which must only have constants within the derivative) was a 'constant' for 'the % of the population that would have children'. I questioned the constant as being a variable, example, people can now choose to be on contraception. Professor told me to accept without questioning.
That is how they tell you the number of people in the world. by that derivative.
Test: China had 1Billion people in 1979. They implemented 1 child per couple.
If we assume that some had more children than 1, and we use the 1.25 per couple.
Per their numbers, they had about 250million females within reproductive age in the 80 and 90s,
that means, at 1.25 per couple there would be 281 million births. 1/2 male so you have 140 million females to reproduce the next generation. At 1.25 births per female, that gives you 175million births.
Today the population clock suggests there are 1.4Bilion in China.
1980 = 1Billion plus the 2 birthed generations (281million and 170million) = 1.45 billion but only if NO ONE DIED.
But if you consider a normal death rate, they likely have 750million total people in China. Or 1/2 a billion fewer than the population experts suggest.
My calculations involve biology and math. India is in a similar fate. So the population experts are likely more than a billion over estimated in India and China combined
There is not likely over 5 Billion and most of them are over 50 years of age
Today China likely has 87 million females in their reproductive age range. China will not recover from the population collapse for over 100 years. They will likely go to war to conquer females to include in their population.
Because people are stupid. There’s no population decline. They are in a panic because of a decline in how fast the population is expanding. Two percent population growth of five billion in 1987 equals plus 100 million people. Now that the population is 8.1 billion, the addition of 100 million people is “only” 1.2 percent growth. They see this as a collapse. Which is ridiculous.
@@MyfreddiemacI’ve never considered this. Do you really think india is overestimating as well?
In 1950, 1 in 4 babies died world wide, it's now 1 in 20.
Life expectancy in 1950 was 46 world wide it's now 73.
We are not going to do that again, thus the decline will be rapid.
People live longer which gooses the numbers.
The 8 bil number is a UN projection that has over estimated population growth. We aren't at 8 billion people.
$300,000. Want kids? I hope you're counting the cost!🤔
If i make "a lot" of money while "increasing" my availability to parent, i will have more kids. I want to be able to provide the resources and emotional support to raise leaders. I want them to be happy and have dignity in this world. They will *NOT* be a servants to oligarchs
What people need to understand is that it is not a problem of reducing the number of people, it's the fact that there will be more old retired people compared to young ones.
If you think that having kids takes a lot of money and time, enjoy looking after 3-6 old people, most of which won't even be related to you
Right now countries have 2-4 working people per 1 retired person, with a low birth rate that can flip really hard and you can have only 1 working person per 3-7 retired people.
What makes you think we will drop our lives to take care of the elderly?
@@nicolejennings8389 Either that or enjoy being over-taxed to oblivion to do so, to the point you won't have money to do anything but work, eat and sleep.
Or are you suggesting mustached men tactics from about 80-90 years ago(censored)?
Yep. Paying for health care and state pensions is going to be ... hard.
@@alanj9978 impossible even, considering the rents...
So what you are saying that the problem isn't having too few children, but having too many old people? The world is overpopulated, the XX.century population boom was a mistake. We won't solve the problem by keeping up that population number.
Is any talking about endocrine disruption. Is fertility going down? Are there more unviable pregnancies? Is sperm count down?
Testosterone is way down. Endocrine disorders are high. It is a variety of factors.
That's a component but it's a small component. It's a small component because it is only relevant if people are actively trying and wanting to have children. People are actively trying not to have kids. Not having babies is the goal for vast amounts of people and in that case.....difficulty reproducing is a benefit.
@@austinduke8876 there is also the "if we can't have it, we don't want it". We make up reasons, not consciously
What a fantastic discussion! Opened my eyes to a few things. I was one of those outliers who had 5 children and an unwanted career. I can’t say the 5 were a specific choice. Being a serious cradle Catholic I was simply open to life. I also had a rather unpredictable cycle so there were a few surprises. All I ever wanted was to be a stay-at-home mom but being married to a sailor dictated otherwise. As frugal as we were, being sent back and forth across the country to high-cost areas made it impossible, so I went back on active duty as well. I certainly got the looks being in uniform with a trail of “ducklings.” 😅 When I was pregnant with my 4th, people at work who didn’t know me assumed I had established my career and was now starting a family. 😂😂😂I had WAY too much fun setting them straight. I just told them I had a baby for every rank I attained. Going from that to home schooling all of them plus extras was an amazing experience as well. It wasn’t the life I had desired but with God’s Grace we made it happen. I’m now blessed with 18 grandchildren and I’m happy to help with their education as well!
Had 2 and got snipped. Each additional child would have gotten diminishing time and resources...
Responsible 👏 simple economics
Decrease supply, increase value (quality of life)
Increase supply, treated like cattle
@@everythingisfine9988 We do not want our children treated like cattle, may I suggest let us not call them "supply" to begin with.
I watched at least 10 videos on declining population and they could never explain why lower population is bad except for there won't be people to take care of the old ones. Why would it be bad for younger people?
"2 kids are hard, because it's too few." Yeah because if you have more kids you can just use them to take care of the little ones you wanted. Seen it so many times. Mom and dad going out, having fun and the bigger kids have to be the parents all the time.
There are multiple reasons why people are nit having kids. Way more money needed to give a proper education and upbringing to kids, young people can not afford housing, we have so much ro do instead of raising kids, hard to find a stable partner.
💯 . Young people don't want to raise their kids how they themselves were raised .
Yes, it was common to make older siblings raise younger ones. Maybe in earlier eras, it didn't deter the older ones from going childfree.
Many chose to be childfree because they said they were an unpaid babysitter and said that they already spent enough time raising kids. Tom Leykis was saying this years before the reddit childfree existed.
I am sorry...YOU may be able to afford children and have the energy and time to raise them, also to have been fortunate enough to find good partners so on, there is a vast majority that are struggling in one or all of those issues. You are talking about an era where people had farms and gardens, also little to no taxes, medical insurance did not exist health care didn't' cost everything you owned, not to mention the women stayed at home. There are women even single ones that take on a full time job and raise kids, many times not by choice. No one can successfully give a 100% to both family and career, yet it is expected. These are the choices, the choice of having nothing left at the end of the day, and then giving your child over to day care and public school to raise them so they can go to work. This is also in the other country's you mention what you fail to realize or research is the expectations of careers for women there. If you made better points later on I am sorry but could only take about 10 minutes of listening.
The blonde ladies speech pattern of interrupting with “hmmm” and “yes” until she gets her say is low key rude as hell and disrespectful to the other lady who is still making her point.
It's cultural so.e cultures give these encouraging cues while someone else is talking. It's not rude at all.
It's a matter of health and longevity, not wealth per se. People nowadays live longer, women don't die in over 50% of births. Even some homeless people live longer than the majority of serfs and slaves in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. So with more people living past their opportunity to have kids you end up with more people living at the same time, hence the "population growth". If one couple has 2 children and those children have 2 children each, you have about 20 years when the 3 generations live on this planet at the same time, enough to be counted, consume and even produce income at the same time. So 8 people (not counting their spouses) from the same family live at the same time, inflating the numbers. But further down the line, if the third generation has only one child, or one of the children decides not to have children the decline isn't immediately, but occurs when the previous generations disappear. The decline is a problem because it involves subsidizing old people who stop producing. And this is a vicious circle (see Japan). If you have to finance and take care of grandparents into their 90s, the resources, housing, taxes and TIME left to go dating, work, have kids, raise kids is not enough. You either change children's diapers, or those of parents/grandparents.
I do not trust the government okay, it is not a just, or efficient system, but what i trust significantly less is any church leadership, not that im sure they dont have some good intentions. But ultimately religion is going to try to change others, and in some ways they have the right to try, but not through politics, that is what is so disturbing about politics today. It is way too religious and religion creates distinction and division and as a country that is the last thing we need
I know so many women around my age ..44.. that don't have any kids, I'd have to stop and count them all up but there's a lot! And the ones that did mostly just had 1...
Let the oligarchy reproduce.
One note. She did not give BIRTH to six children, she birthed two then adopted the rest. So she is not "quietly" having a lot of children because other women birthed the majority of her children.
I'm glad she interviewed women. These are issues I have always wondered about in our current culture. Interesting conversation.
But maybe thinking that children are a woman's issue is part of the problem. Almost all children are conceived through insistence of the father, maybe he should be the primary responsible. :)
Chances are, everyone knows someone who's a parent and doing really badly at it. It could be many things: they're addicted to alcohol or drugs, they might beat their partner or their children, they might be lazy ne'er-do-wells who take more than they give to the family, they might be unfaithful to their partner, they might be neglectful of their children. In the olden days, wives/mothers couldn't do a damn thing about any of that - they were almost completely reliant on their man for financial support, and if he knocked her up, then she could only hope that she survived childbirth.
But times have changed. Women have more of a say in determining the course of their lives.
Quelle horreur!
I really enjoyed watching this video. Thank you for making it. My wife and I have four kids and we hope to have more.
Summary of presentation: Women, quit being selfish. Don't think about it. Just be breeders, the more the better.
34:24 Thank you for bringing up the importance of the supportive husbands.
In 50 years it's going to look like Detroit everywhere.
There is no population decline. There’s a decline in how fast the population is increasing. A part of this is statistics. Way back in 1987 when the world population was “only” five billion, a 2 percent population growth was adding 100 million people. In 2024 there are 8.1 billion people, to get same addition of 100 million people is now only 1.2 percent growth. Every day there’s around 150,000 more births than deaths. The population is still growing.
True the population is still increasing and has not reached its inflexion point yet. It will though.
Yes but it's only increasing now because we figured out how to have near zero baby deaths, and increase the life expectancy to near 80. We are not going to do that again. So when it declines it will be rapid, just do the math.
~2050 global population will begin declining
The World population is Growing because of a few Countries, Mostly in Africa.
Right now, the Rich Countries only grow due to Immigration.
And if those Immigrants don't have an above replacement birthrate, Then those rich countries are relying on poor Countries having enough kids to immigrate to them.
That is not good for *those* Countries, either.
And those Countries also have a shrinking birthrate too. It's just still over replacement for now
will not be for long.
Youre right but at some point in the next 20-50 years the population of the world will decline and it will decline faster than its incline
This talk could have been done in 5 minutes. I wasted my time
The real issue for folks who don't give a hang about morality or common good or anything similar is: When the welfare pyramid loses some few more people at the bottom the whole welfare state GOES DOWN THE DRAIN.
So have babies to inherit our debt. Awesome plan!
There is no moral duty to reproduce.
So we get stuck in a pyramid scheme with a duty to try to prop up the pyramid scheme?
Screw that, pyramid schemes are inherently unethical and are doomed to fail anyway.
What is the morality of propping up a pyramid scheme?
Uf you have brought life into this dump, that's on you,.,
It is valid to ask "are you done", actually. A bit inappropriate when it comes to children for sure, but we should ask it much more when it comes to money. I'm financially independent since 3 years. I asked myself when I would be done making money. And I came to a number that would be enough. If more would do this, the world would be a better place I think. And I'm not even a millionaire. Quite far from it actually.
If children was something I wanted, then I'd certainly have the time for it. I wish the world was more friendly towards people who want to raise a family. But I also think it's about priorities. For individuals as well as society. Unfortunately, however much governments try to bring the number of births up, they put a lot more focus on making people work and consume. Those goals are opposite to each other. Governments have to choose. More children, or more work and consumption.
To want children is to be like God. To have a role in the Creator's intent to populate the world with many unique, senscient beings and to learn all the skills required to make it a beautiful endeavor, such as forgiveness, generosity, sacrificial love, understanding, mercy, friendship, cheerfulness, thanksgiving, hospitality, celebration, skillful craftsmanship of clothing, homes, food, etc. seems to me to be the most beautiful of purposes. Of course we fail in many ways, but still, it's more worthwhile than entertainment, wealth and power as our highest goals.
Amen 🙏 🙏 🙏 😊😊
LOL, your skiy Daddy destroyed lives..didn't you read his book?
Nonsense. Kids need advanced skills. That takes time and a ton of attention. Having more kids than you can give attention to, guaranteeing them poor paying employment outlook
Is He going to pay my bills? Last time i looked, that's my responsibility. I'm not taking on more expenses
One and done.
I saw my husband wanting more children as reflecting some attributes of God the Father/ Creator and took it seriously to include in discerning. I also saw the way that women are made with monthly fertility as some innate goodness to also move my hopes into maybe having ‘ one more’ .
I listened to this yesterday in the car. It was an amazing conversation! There was so much in there that I wanted to shout yes! As a college educated woman, my life's regret is that I didn't have more than 4 children. You are right, going from 2 to 3 was easier than 1 to 2 and from 3 to 4 even easier. The demands were great AND WONDERFUL. I was just getting better at it and it was over. That was just my story but it is a story that isn't told.
Not getting any better,,.whole lor worse...
This is the reason we have less kids: we are aelfish and thats it
Like this comment if you refuse to be edified.
Based on the predictions, when might we see the world population peak??
The UN recently released their newest forecasts and projected peak human population in the mid 2080's at about 10.8 billion. I will tell you that the UN has a long history of making the most optimistic/best case scenario forecasts on this front and then revising things down a year or two later. So that makes this a good upper bound because it's probably not going to be better than that.
I have heard more than one demographer estimate that peak population is likely to between the 2050's and 2060's with 10 billion being on the high end and a few of them questioning if 9 billion is even in the cards.
I saw one economist from Washington University give a presentation and his model was projecting a worst case scenario of peak population in the 2040's at about 8.8 billion. To be clear he wasn't predicting that, just saying that that was (as far as he could tell) the worst case scenario.
@6:45 but do you have health insurance? and do you own a home? and are you secure in your job?
p.s. king charlemagne was a violent man and a despot.
Cost of living. The nation's are not rich just a few people in each rich nation has all the money and power. Why have kids I can't afford just so they can be the next generation of wage slaves. The reasons you are giving are the reasons why rich people are not having kids.
Great conversation.
You need to reactivate lebenborns. Or clone little bastards by AI
We are wealthier because we work all the hours God sends and don’t have to pay for kids childcare/education/medical/cloths/accommodation/food/entertainment etc.
I chose not to have kids as I HATE KIDS.
But you were one. I hope you are not one still.
Children are a form of immortality. You are more willing to sacrifice, to die for your child, because they will live on and hopefully have children of their own.
What about people who choose not to have children. So they don't have to sacrifice in the first place
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa and in return they are not immortal and can instead be selfish, because they have no investment in the future beyond their own life.
JD Vance was right.
No he was weong
Parents are not immortal, nor are they entitled to more say in our decisions. @TedSeeber
@julianskinner3697 that is only a recent development, and one that comes from destroying families instead of creating them. If you do not keep a good relationship and give your parents input into your life, do not provide for your children and sacrifice for them, how do you expect to build generational wealth?
Maybe it was your parents or grandpatents who failed to discover this little secret: that children and family are the only secure investment this world has to offer.
@@TedSeeberthat’s pretty disrespectful when I know a lot of people who would desperately love to have children and can’t afford it. I couldn’t care less about having children and I’ve successfully avoided it so far but I feel horrible for them.
Great job Erika?
Oops meant!!