Farm work is done with machines nowadays. In my country hundred years ago majority of people were working on agriculture to feed the nation. Now less than 2 % of population is employed on agriculture and number of people in agriculture is still going down.
@@hallooos7585 Why should you put plants which need sunlight in to warehouse? Glasshouses yes, but open farmland is most cost effective. Animals, sadly are in many cases inside in animal consentration camps and treated like machines unable to feel anything.
JB: In developed countries no matter where the family lives, the cost of rising a child is the same. Children are not working bodies until at least 14-15 years old and they shouldn't be either and even then they can only work part time. They should use their time to grow up, develop themselves as individuals and go to school to learn skills or prepare themselves for further education. Furthermore, have you ever in your life seen the kind of machines that nowadays farmers use to work their lands? They are huge and complex and above all extremely expensive. Those machines are dangerous for children and they shouldn't be anywhere near them. In our days, farmers study several years both in classrooms and in the fields to acquire knowledge and skills to do what they do. Maybe there are still some more simple tasks children can perform to alleviate the working load of the parents in the farm or maybe just to help or to learn responsibility but things are different for children now compared to earlier days. Apart from that, children are not liabilities if any, they are great assets. They are our future, our continuation, our time and our blood. We decided to have them even if they weren't planned. They didn't ask to be born and nobody asked them if they wanted to, they didn't have any say in the matter. They came helpless and completely dependent of us, to this world and from the moment we decided to have them they became our responsibility, pride and honor as adults to guide them and follow them into their adulthood. And yes, they are expensive also, so if not for any other reason, you should show them some respect at least for the sheer value they represent.
Cost of living. My grandfather's first job was pumping gas and he managed to buy a new car and get a mortgage for a house as well as had 8 children and his wife didn't have to work, she worked only to keep herself busy. My father worked 40+ hours a week and was barely able to afford a used car and could only rent a home, had 3 children, and my mom had to work occasionally to keep the family afloat. I work more hours then my father, get paid far more (even adjusting for inflation). I haven't driven in almost 20 years let alone owned any car, i don't have children, i don't spend money on anything but bills, no debt at all, and i can barely afford to keep an apartment roof over my head. Even in the last 4 years my rent has almost doubled and i pay more for one day of groceries then i used to in a week and that's after cutting back. There's no way in hell i'd ever consider getting into a relationship let alone have children when i work full time far above minimum wage and it still can barely get by. You can't exist in a first world country anymore if you try to make an honest living and that has more of a demoralizing effect on people then anyone appreciates.
Agreed, cost of living is prohibitively high. I want children, though I have only one because I know that having more will be a financial struggle. Furthermore, in countries where birthrate is low, children products are very expensive, thus making it more complicated. I know why it is expensive: economies of scale. Less buyers - more expensive. And this rabbit hole can go even deeper...
in the past (50 years ago) people got married and had children in the first 5 years after highschool. why? because the could. it was relatively affordable for all classes. today. you can work 10 years of you life and not even be able to afford your own rent. instead you expected to take on thousands of dollars of debt to get a slightly better chance at working fastfood. now its more late 20's early 30's anyone is confidant enough to enter the market but social expectation do not change with it.
The company who payed every employee 75k per year had a baby boom effect on his employees. Nearly everyone who worked there got a baby cause they had a secure workplace, could afford a child and the options to work from home or have parental leave. In todays time most jobs dont pay enough and are very insecure, you never know if you gonna stay with the company for the next 1-2 years or not.
I know which case you are talking about. At that credit card company. It truly is a reflection that at some point wealth is necessary to have a balanced life.
Yep, employment options have become steadily more sh*ttified over the past 3 decades. Eventually everyone is going to work for either Amazon, the Hospitals, Google, the Prison Complex, themselves or the government if this keeps up. The rest will be a few banks, big pharma, Starbucks and a handful of chain restaurants. Oh yes and the liquor stores, some churches, clothing and groceries, other big tech and maybe Home Depot. I think I covered most of it.
In 1989, The Simpsons premiered on tv in the US. Homer had no collage education yet supported his family of three kids and a stay at home wife while living in a two story, four bedroom house with two cars. Today, he and Marge would live with one to zero kids in a one bedroom apartment barely able to pay rent.
I have read very accurate comment on this issue: "Plants have replaced pets, pets have replaced kids." "And the kids?" "They are now like exotic animal, you only have them if you have time and money."
What an interesting observation, and I can agree with it. However, the 'Pet Rock' fad of a few decades ago didn't stay around--perhaps it was too far ahead of its time, and will eventually replace the plants!
@@alejandroruiz2439that's not true though. The very wealthy have vast families. So do he poor. It is the middle section that has few to no children. The stats are clear on this, although you'll have to find them yourself.
We aren't having kids in the US because we can't afford to. My wife and I both have great jobs and still struggled to pay for all the costs of two children, especially when both are in daycare
That's the sad part of reality, since WWII women have been integrated into employment however it's no longer an option for them, it's a requirement now given the cost of living.
Yeah. The reality is the United States needs to levy greater taxes on people who chose not to have children. "Retirement" only makes sense if you have children and a younger generation to support them. If you haven't contributed to this next generation, why think they'll support you in your retirement at the expense of their own families and elders?
@@AtharAfzal It's quite possible, but with a good deal of sacrifice. I don't have a very high paying job, but my wife has (of her own choosing) spent most of the 21 years we have been married taking care of the home and the 3 kids. I did have to pick up a side hustle or two, and we have done without many of the frills we would have otherwise enjoyed. It's not easy, but possible, though I am glad the child-rearing years are largely behind us.
@@hippocleides7105 Sadly, those not saddled with paying their own living expenses are having children, and at a slightly higher frequency, than those who do pay for their own cost of living, however they're already on the social welfare tit and their offspring learn to do the same. It's an ever increasing population that will eventually hit critical mass. When the lowest paid ranks of the working class realized they were poorer for supporting themselves as opposed to taking the benefits of the social welfare state, they switched over and became a liability on the system. They next lowest paid rank does the same, and so and so on. In the not too distant future, a "good paying job" will not be what it seems as taxes, inflation, and all expenses of self support will diminish the quality of life for those sacrificing 40+ hours of their lives per week to sustain themselves. When they realize they cannot live in a better house, drive a better car, eat better food, wear better clothes, etc., etc. than those receiving welfare benefits, the tipping point may be the expense of gasoline for driving to and from work. Needless to say, this can go on for only so long because somebody has to go to work to make the rest of the system work. What happens when social workers quit their jobs to go onto welfare? Police? Medical? Anyone involved in the production and distribution of food or fuel? It's not good.
@@Akalhar oh totally agree, but (1) no one wants to sacrifice (2) pick a side hustle (3) live without the frills - you're family understands and adjusted to the realities of nowadays though and I salute you.
Yep. My own family from Guatemala reflects the radical change in total fertility rate in the undeveloped world over the past 70 to 80 years. My grandparents, born in rural Guatemala, all had 10 to 12 siblings. Most of them died before the age of 10. My parents, born in rural Guatemala, had 5 to 7 siblings. My grandparents had my parents, aunts and uncles starting in their mid-teens. Almost all survived to adulthood (only one died of a ruptured appendix). My generation--my mom had 4 kids. She started having us at 20 years of age, my dad at 23 years of age. We were all born in urban Guatemala--Guatemala City to be exact. No countryside for us. All four of us survived well into adulthood. Now all my siblings are over 30 years old and my sister finally got pregnant at 33 years of age and will soon have the first baby of the next generation. But that is crazy when you think about the fact that by 30, my grandparents, combined, had 14 or so kids. This global demographic change has been an extreme radical shift in such a short span of time!
It's even more drastic for me, my grandfather had 5-8 siblings while my mother only had 4. For this generation, it's only me and my brother for my side of the family
@@someyetiwithinternetaccess1253 Same here except my parents also had 5 - 8 siblings. I'm 43 now with a five year old son my brother has a four year old daughter, he's 40. He might have another kid but I certainly won't.
My family from rural areas in the very northern part of Sweden shares a similar pattern. My maternal grandmother born 1909 had 12 siblings (3 died in childhood or youth) the other grandparents 6-9 I think. My parents born before and after WWII had 5-6 siblings each and most of them moved to urban areas as adults and have 1-2 kids except one uncle who had 4 children. I have 1 sister.
Yup, my grandfather worked alone and financially secured his family (wife and 2 children) with having extra to visit places, while all four of us in our family work and still just seem to manage.
@@lucifer2b666 More industrialization helped the grandparents by increasing jobs and wages. The irony is that the technological progress that capitalism is so good at reduced the well paid jobs over time, until today when the average wage is roughly the same as it was in 1973 in terms of real buying power. But ok.
@@davidz3879 Because they don’t have the proper education, can’t afford contraceptive, and because of having children they are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty if they’re children does the same
@@davidz3879 They have faith and that means they don't concern themselves with consequences when persisting despite the circumstances because they want to believe it will all work out in the end.
I think the two biggest reasons are 1 - It costs so much money to raise kids and most people would rather be able to retire earlier/at all than have kids 2 - There is no longer a stigma about not having kids that might cause some people on the fence to have them
There's definitely no stigma. Most of the people I know around 40 years old don't have kids. We all know why, because we all have similar lives. Most of us aren't married either, a lot of people just have long term romantic partners. Most of the people I know have graduate degrees. There's no point to doing any of the traditional things anymore. No fault divorce and a legal industry designed to extract wealth from unhappy couples has made marriage a negative financial expectation. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child means you'll never retire. I'm not going to work to death just to produce the next generation of labor for the children of the shareholders of my employer.
The thing about stigma is very true. 15 years ago when I got a vasectomy at age 27, people thought I was nuts, and that I would regret it. Now in my 40’s, people are not even surprised I don’t have any kids. It’s no longer a default expectation in the city.
@@aluisious "I'm not going to work to death just to produce the next generation of labor for the children of the shareholders of my employer.", smart thinking!!! Just making children, so that the "supply of slaves" doesn´t drop, isn´t worth it. If you have money, property or a business you can leave behind, it´s worth having children. So that the families work, won´t get lost to the state.
There still is somewhat of a stigma, at least with my family. Whenever I talk to my mom or dad over the phone or go to visit them they at some point will ask when I'll have kids. Honestly not trying to have kids, too much hassle and I rather enjoy doing things without someone else holding me back.
@@mylesgray3470 Yeah. Out of my main group of about 10 from college (all mid 30s now) one has three kids, one has two, two have one kid. One other is married, one in very long term cohabitation relationship, two are engaged (unknown if kids might come but its leaning to unlikely at this point). Thats its.
It's pretty easy to understand, at least in the USA. We just freaking can't afford to have children any more. It's so expensive, no social safety net, and no universal health insurance, pre-K, and a bad public school system. Most millenials are burdened with excessive student debt too.
@@knightshade2654 lack of access to effective birth control and less if any exposure to sexual education. Not to mention many women in those conditions have less of a voice or ability to stand up for themselves, so they're taken advantage of my men more often
Lack of birth control and education. Many girls get pregnant very young who then grow up in broken homes and also have many kids young. It's a vicious negative cycle.
Plus, the demands on mothers is so high. Who can juggle all the demands without losing their minds? Moreover, my friends who are affluent feel poor compare to the other mommies, who have even more money and opportunities for their children. One friend bought a spare condo in one of Chicago's wealthiest neighbors just to ensure her daughter could go to a decent public school. I guess it was less expensive than paying the tuition to one of the city's elite private schools, which costs the same (if not more) than college tuition. It's all too stressful.
I make just over $100k per year, live with my parents being 38 years old and gave up on the idea of having a family a long time ago! A decent home that you don’t have to completely rebuild starts at $700k+, in my area, 1 bedroom rents are $3k+ plus utilities, health insurance is high, childcare is $3k per month and so on. My dad was a delivery driver and mom worked in a factory making barely more than a minimum wage , yet still could afford to buy a house and two new cars every few years just 2 decades ago. Completely unimaginable these days!
@@ossianns Easy, rich people have many time consuming interests, many kids will inconvenience their lifestyle. Poor people have plenty of time to make kids as they barely work and sit on government support, they get cheap housing, free healthcare, free childcare and so on. Middle class gets no help, pays for everything, works a lot and doesn’t have much time and money left to have many kids!
I chose not to have kids for one reason. Mental illness runs in my family. As a parent it's your job to give a child the best chances at growing up into a healthy adult, cant do that if you knowingly pass on undesirable traits such as mental illness.
I’m right there with you. Both my Mom and only sibling, my older brother are schizophrenic and are under the care of the state. This made getting fixed pretty easy for me. No matter who I meet in my life, I don’t want to have children who are likely to suffer a life of insanity.
What kind of mental illness? People just throw these fuckin words around without elaborating at all as to what it means and instead of trying to resolve something they just give up entirely.
Having children is a huge responsibility. It's not something that should be entered into lightly. Not only do you have to raise this living, feeling, breathing human being but you have to provide for them too. And parenting doesn't just end at the age of 18 years old. There is a great deal that goes into being a parent and now that parents are being open about it people can make informed decisions. Plus, not everyone shall be parents and some people just don't want to.
Anti-natalism is becoming more common nowadays as well. Ethical questions are raised when the imposed existence of another sentient lifeform subected to suffering is involved.
@@jackkrell4238 Agreed. This Planet is a predatory and violent place even without humans. If souls exist then the children I might have had are in Heaven thanking me for all of eternity for not doing so.
@@randymillhouse791 That's a bunch of crap and we both know it. If you really believe that then why are you still awake? Take care of business, end it and stop being a hypocrite. You aren't willing to give up yours. Maybe someone could have an extra child if you weren't taking up resources.
@@randymillhouse791 Capitalism is the problem as the bosses seek to hire a single worker and not a family. They seek to pay the lowest wages and work us the longest hours at the fastest pace. We need livable work schedules, social payments for children and 24/7 available childcare.
I feel like "fertility" is the wrong word, "birth" would be more appropriate, since much of the video doesn't discuss sexual health, rather simply the number of children born, and the factors that would lead to the choice to have children. I see the confusion in the comments
yeah, 'fertility rate' is the correct and technical term for this but it is pretty confusing. I don't know why that became the official term. Perhaps in a era where it was assumed people would keep having kids unless fertility is an issue.
@@thelourensfamily8048 Yes, but fertility is a misleading word to use in this context. It makes people think that Italians, Spaniards, Japanese etc. are having very few kids due to being unable to have more, when it's actually due to contraception. It also makes it sound like Nigerians, Somalis etc are having many kids due to being astoundingly healthy, when it's actually due to religious/cultural dogma & irresponsibility.
@@davidz3879 listen to video again? High birth rates are linked to higher poverty, lower social, educational and economical circumstances. Low birth rates are linked to higher levels of education and social/financial circumstance. If a leader wants more children from the masses they oppress the whole society via the oppression of women who give birth to and raise boys as well as girls out of that oppression. Oppression of women is ultimately the oppression of man. Women's equality and the wealth and autonomy of the masses are deeply interrelated and correlated.
I think birth rates have dropped due to economic reasons. Many are struggling to feed themselves, let alone having extra mouths to feed. Most economies rely on workers who work long hours in minimum wage jobs just to pay for food, housing and heating. Most people are taught from a young age to become consumers, to go to school, get a job to buy stuff, have children, work until you retire (if you can afford to retire). People are waking up to this and have stopped having children because why would they want to subject a new generation to the same situation. Working just to pay bills until you die without much else to enjoy because you don't have the time to enjoy life because you are working just to put food on the table is no life.
@@Vapor817 look at the phillapines, they are a Christian county. No birth control allowed. I watched a video on here, these people took them food and toys for the kids quite a few times. The parents have lived under the same bridge for 20 years, had 18 kids and the mom and oldest daughter both pregnant.
Actually if you compare the past to now. We are far more wealthier than people in the past. It's just that people don't want to start families at 18. Then you have modern Amish in Pennsylvania have big families, and Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn have the same amount of children. But the Orthodox Jewish community have technology.
@@TomBradyisinlovewithson y’all are still touting this tired ass argument? bro, look at all the elderly people in nursing homes who don’t have anyone visiting them lmao, having kids doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be there for you “at your bedside” when it’s your time to check out….not to mention, no one is guaranteed to be living to old age anyway, so what’s your point, why do you want everyone to be as miserable as you? also, do you not have literally any other valuable people in your life? no partner, no family, no friends, no one? you just depend on your kids for all your social needs? 🤣
@@TomBradyisinlovewithson you got it written on a paper signed by your child that he/she WILL take care of you when you're old and not leave you in an old-age home? Always the same deathbed argument from you guys. Life is temporary regardless of how long you live, old age weakens you and that brings so many diseases and problems, why even live past the age when you're not even able to do your own things by yourself? I know it hurts the person seeing how helpless they've become when even the one thing they truly own, their body, is fading away
@@TomBradyisinlovewithsonThey'd have nobody anyway if they hated their kid. What kid would be by a parent that only had them for selfish reasons? If pabloescobarchanclas is in a catch22 in which they either don't have kids or have kids and resent them, why do you blame them for picking the first option? Are you daft?
I would adopt or foster children, but some part of me is worried if I had biological children they would have the health problems I have. I also don't see why people keep having more kids when there are some without families.
I would adopt/foster children. I'm an academic/chemical researcher. I enjoy teaching. Yet, my government deems me unfit to do so as I'm neither cis or heterosexual.
I honestly feel sad when people who would actually be good parents (Healthy: Mentally, Emotionally and financially, Self-Aware, etc.,) and wouldn’t mind having kids of their own, forfeit it SOLELY because “there are kids here already or kids without families”. It’s like the quality potential parents sterilize themselves and the ill-fit people of society (poverty-stricken; careless; trauma filled; ignorant) just multiply like roaches, and their distasteful genetics are passed down. Adopting/fostering doesn’t help it only encourages degenerates to keep multiplying and creating more trauma in the world and being comforted to know that their babies will HOPEFULLY be adopted by “good” people. And what if they don’t? The cycle of doom continues. Sad.
One factor that everyone neglect is "family time". No one will disagree that Work-Life balance has gone completely haywire these days. How will people take children when they barely has time for the family, for the child? Just the last night my friend was telling me how exhausting it is to attend his child after the whole day of work. No need to take 5 childrens. But a healthy family with 2-3 child will only return if the cost of living is fare and ppl has time for the child.
My dad was the youngest of nine, I was the oldest of three, my brothers had no children, and I have two. My children have chosen, in my opinion quite smartly, to forego marriage and children until they are well established in their careers. Many of peers also made that choice. They waited and only had one child. It's obscenely expensive to raise a child in the U.S. today.
We live in one of the most expensive places in the world. Metro Vancouver and yet we have three kids. I’m a stay at home mom and homeschool them. I think too many people say they can’t afford kids because they want to live a certain lifestyle. They want the IG home to show off, the constant vacations. The latest gadget for themselves and their children. I think the REAL issue is too many don’t know how to live within their own means and there is very little financial education. We decided from before we married that when we had kids we would not put ourselves in any situation where I would have to leave the home to work. This means we don’t own a house. We rent and we don’t let the social pressures of that get to us. Many of my peers say they can’t afford to have more than one child because they both have to work, because they did decide to buy a house in an incredibly expensive house market. So now they are both slaves to their work in order to pay a mortgage.
Blame the Federal Reserve and central banks who have devalued the US dollar by 98% since it's establishment in 1913. You wonder why you can't afford anything look no further.
Having children would impact women’s career. There are I many hours in a day. Children needs women’s care and attention. Companies demands all employees to be fully engaged. It’s hard to balance both and I often felt exhausted. I lost my job after having my second child. I get to spend more time with my kids. But I still want to get back to the work force.
@@eccehomosexual THIS^^^^^^ If we had more manageable work hours, maybe we’d see people more eager to start families and invest in themselves and idk… maybe even increase productivity ! Obv we should look into the logistics and economics of it too but it’s a good starting point to talk about our crazy work hours
@@eccehomosexual Yes, and that's before computers & robots were there to help out. Something is seriously wrong. We're working more hours than our Grandparents,
I mean, most my friends grew up in poverty, as did I. And now most of my friends have one child at most, or none at all (like me). Because we know raising a kid in dire financial straights where the caregiver(s) are always absent because they have to work all the time and choosing between whether you want to eat dinner or lunch that day is a recipe for unhappy children likely to follow in poverty. No one wants to bring a baby into that trauma. What would be the benefit?
I'm in my 70s. My grandparents had 10+ children as did their contemporaries. And, living in a rural area, everyone in the family helped with chores on the farm, even the smallest though their chores may have only been to take take of chickens. And the older children did more chores and helped take care of their younger siblings. It was similar for my parents generation though they did not have as many children, 5+. Since birth control was not as readily available, women had tubal ligations/hysterectomies to stop having children. And lots of men had vasectomies too. With my generation, my contemporaries tended to have 1-3 children and many chose not to have children due to cost, two incomes becoming a necessity, the high cost of childcare, etc., as well as the availability of effective birth control. With the stagnating of wages, the ever-increasing cost of living, and the need to live in urban areas that are not necessarily child-friendly to facilitate raising a family, I can see why fewer people are chosing to have children.
The real reason is that people dont want to give up their higher standard of living to have kids. Not that people are poorer now. Also in a poor country the only people with incomes are men so women have to attach themselves to a man to live and that tends to create alot of children. In the west many women can just remain single all of their lives and not have kids. Muslim countries are still patriarchal and men have all of the jobs which is why they have higher birthrates.
Being forced to take care of my younger sister is a big reason why I never wanted kids. I wasn’t allowed to be a kid & worry about myself. I had to act like an adult to be responsible for a kid I didn’t have & definitely didn’t want as a sibling 😂. I think it’s pretty selfish of parents to do that. Now that I’m an adult & clearly over it the trauma that is imposed on your body, the risks, school systems potential health risks & child not turning into a productive adult even after you have done all you can on top of being solely responsible because even good men don’t help as much it’s just a no for me lol
@@CoCo-yv3hl for me it's the opposite. I loved taking care and defending my younger sibling. Even though he was 4 years behind he was smart enough to quickly pick up to speed and be competitive enough to play together (eg; multi player videogames). And if the extremely poor could have 10 kids and parents lived a happy life with kids later supporting them in life, then I can have 2-4 kids no problem, especially in a first world country that even gives you a net safety income if your income falls down while raising them. Meaning they won't starve and still be able to go to school and have fun. It's actually very easy at that point. I wouldn't want to have 1 because that life is lonely, and too aged apart also harder (but they do learn limited skills). I've even learned the skills to raise them myself without a need for a father, but it is easier to have a partnership or two to tag team with (occasional family members in cases of traveling emergencies such as Grandma or cousin who'd be delighted). Connection with family members is pretty important. There are signs of when your kid may not be interested in being productive and that is very frequently caused by parental misguidance. Like, letting them have too much free reign on social media, videogames etc. They need to earn the reward not just have it be given freely. Many parents over spoil their kids to the point that it becomes a problem when the kids turn to adults and want stuff handed freely to them like when they were little and they have a harder time coping with that reality. There's also exposure. Some parents don't supervise or know how to set a PG barrier on their kid's phones/tablets/tv when they are little. The proper barrier will let a 5yr old watch Pokemon, but not game of thrones for example. This is a problem as certain behavioral issues can arise from this. I've seen parents give free internet, food, and entertainment reign on their 7yr old and it's not surprising they are having behavioral school issues as well.
my grandfather born in the 30s raised 5 children on a city bus driver salary and he was the sole bread winner. Goodluck finding a place to live yet alone raising a single child on a bus drivers salary today. its simply to expensive to live atleast in the "west".
Well, I'm sure they didn't each have a phone, iPad, Netflix subscription, etc so there's also the cost of all those modern conveniences and experiences
@@RF-lg4rq my grandfather had 12 kids and lived on a farm in Nigeria. Somehow they could afford having all these kids survive into adulthood and contribute to society. I don't think all these people who say they can't afford kids are living hand to mouth huddled in small one bedroom apartments. In the past, they understood that it isn't a question of whether you can afford to have kids, it's whether you can afford not to. Modern society gives the illusion that we can afford not to make significant sacrifices to invest in the next generation. It's just selfishness. We have more than any generation before us has had. We will learn what happens when people en mass depriotize relationships, family, and children. I always mention that for 1000+ years after the society that pyramids collapsed they were surrounded by people without the knowledge or capacity to do what their ancestors did. We're not invulnerable. There are a few things that can cause complete system collapse like what we saw in the bronze age. Declining our population too rapidly is one of them
@@oakinwol I don't think you understand. In the past 50 years household income has increased 16%, while the average household cost increased 190%. Source: (ua-cam.com/video/0sj-8pjt9Xk/v-deo.html timestamp 7:01). Sure your grandfather had 12 kids but by what measure are you using to decide if he could afford them. Could he afford to have 12 kids in the United States right now on an average income all the while paying a mortgage and all the bills that come with home ownership? Feed all 12 of those kids? Clothe all 12 of them etc.
@@oakinwol I am expected to have a smartphone for my job. Fuck, any job is gon a expect you to have a smartphone. My grandparents didn't forego all luxury and convenience even on my grandpa's small pay as a baker.
The short answer is most of us like the financial stability of no kids and the peace of mind of just needing to work and go home, not raise another human being. Slightly longer answer in some countries is when women gained the ability to make their own paychecks prices started to adjust to the dual income households. That is why being single is such a struggle financially for most and being in a couple feels like just enough……the issue is there is not enough room financially to fit children even with two incomes for most families and even with more money those people sometimes still prefer not to have to deal with all the burdens kids bring. No one is home all the time to be with the kids and both incomes are needed to sustain the household, not to mention day care costs and other costs. If countries want more children they just need to turn the dial on cost of living down and bring back the possibility of one income supporting the entire house as the norm……but it’s not happening 😂 Edit: just want to make clear I think it’s great everyone gets to work the issue is the price increase of everything in relation to dual income households and other issues . I’m for households to be comfortably supported by one income as well as two if they choose to have two incomes. I don’t think anyone should lose any rights. Felt it necessary to clarify since there seemed to be some Confusion lol 😂.
Agreed. I think there are too many zoning regulations in most countries, which makes housing harder and more expensive to build, and it also restricts the supply. All of this makes housing a lot more expensive than it should be. I can't help but think this is by design.
Being single isn't much more of a struggle than living with another person. You can have a smaller apartment, spend less on utilities and have more time for side hustles. And of course the flexibility and freedom.
@@itsvmmc smaller apartment depends. In a couple you can still go one bedroom or even studio if you share the same sleeping space. So technically you can look at the same apartments single or in a couple. You can still have time for side “hustles” and other things in a healthy relationship. Extremely successful people don’t have to be single and most often they are not. They are with someone who values what they do. Bills don’t go up dramatically when having a partner. If both are in the same space with the light on it isn’t twice as expensive, same with cooking that pizza for two people. The bills are halved with a partner who shares the burden with you. Most of my friends are single and can barely afford anything working the same job I do. The difference is my house we have two incomes and work together to build while they work to survive. The biggest solution if you are single is to find a reliable roommate but then you likely need at least a two bedroom. In addition this can be a much harder task and one person in this exchange will likely eventually leave due to finding a partner themselves. There is also the possibility someone in the house is single because they are a terrible partner, which means they can be negative help in a similar way to a bad partner in a relationship. I’m not sure how having a good partner would ever be a downside financially. Now having a bad controlling partner who expects you to take care of them and their bills 😂 now that leads to you unable to pursue additional money from other sources and increased difficulty. Don’t pick a leach for a partner and don’t pick someone who wants you to do nothing but spend time with them. Having a good partner and no kids means you still have the time you spend with friends you can give to them and the same time you spend away from friends to pursue whatever you choose. You also might have more money to help achieve what you want sooner and so might your partner. Tldr: being single is only better if you have a bad partner for what you want. A good partner is never a burden long term in a scenario without kids. A 2 v 1 situation feels unfair to the 1 . The 1 needs to be significantly better to overcome the challenge and only a really bad ally could make things less good for you. The 1 can win, it can be done…..but if you could then having another teammate at your level you would be at an astronomical advantage thus reaffirming that having a good partner is the better play. You don’t have to want a good partner but the fact remains it is a massive upside to have one instead of without outside of circumstances both of your control. This would include medical complications and other potentially traumatic and unexpected live occurrences. Okay long ass comment complete, I wonder how many will actually read this monstrosity xD
@@julius43461 lol I mean technically if you can get it to work then it could be extremely beneficial xD but it’s difficult to find one really good partner let alone 2+ who are also into sharing you lmao 🤣
So funny, my mom has a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field yet had 5 kids. Not to mention, she earned that degree while being a teen mom. Truly a statistical anomaly
Wow! Go, Mom! Interested to hear your experience of her as a mom. Role model? Wished she stayed home and baked cookies? Gave a more intellectually enriching environment and life skills?
Some women like to work hard. But I think her having a STEM degree in fact encourages her to have kids, as she has the means to raise the children she births.
@@sarahrosen4985 oh I could go on and on about my mom lol But to keep it short, yes, to all of those things you said (she still did make us cookies sometimes 😛) Somethings I’d add though, is that since we are relatively close in age, when I was a teen (and still today), she was able to relate to me in a lot of ways that parents usually don’t. And a piece of advice she gave me *that I live by* is to “prove the world wrong.” That is to say, don’t let others try to define who you are supposed to be, don’t become solely the result of your environment. Instead make your own path and decide who *you* are. (Then she’d caveat, “but your my child, so you’re at least going to university and working a respectable job.” 😆) Thanks for asking! Sorry if I’m sound disorganized, I’m going on 4 hours of sleep!
Maybe but I would even say that it is a future trend. The most educated individuals are going to end up having the most children since it is a luxiary they can afford. People want rarity and having big families is going to be a new status symbol
As a 40 year old successful, educated, single American without kids, I unfortunately knew that when social media came out around 2005, I would not get married/have kids. I did everything I could, but in the end I could not find someone. It does not make sense to bring a kid into this world without two parents who are in love. I am content with my status.
All countries with positive birth rates are patriarchal. All patriarchies enforce male dominance and female submission. But the West refuses to acknowledge that this is necessary for civilization (and the women report they are happy and aren't on anti-depressants like 1/3 or American women). It's a sad joke.
I can't find anyone either but I'm not content with my status. In fact I'm bitter about it. I'm jealous that other men have a pretty woman to love, have sex with and bring in more income to the home but I don't.
I'm 70 yrs old. Educated, etc. In high school I told my friends that I'd wait to find a divorced woman who's kids have grown up and left the nest. I still have time.
@@drewthompson7457 You are the imbodyment of "Just peak in your 70s, bro." You will never be able to experience having your own family, anymore. Imagine your father had the same mindset.
My grandmother had 8 kids. My mother had 3 kids. I am planning to have 0 kids. I am the very face of this. To be honest with you, it is not even because we 'hate kids', it's literally because we are earning way less than our parents when they were our age and the cost of living in general is higher than it has ever been. I can't even take care of myself, let alone be responsible for another human for a quarter of their lifetime.
@@karolissavickis10 Education. When you are poor, you need to have more children to provide for you at an early age because they are fitter and younger than you and you don't prioritise their education.
Indeed, to put thing in perspective every day about 300,000 people die, and about 600,000 a born... Soon The NWO and now China too will do to Africa what the NWO did for China and The Rest in general - enable MASSIVE POPULATION INFLATION on a grotesquely fake-green industrial scale.. Either that or PULL THE PLUG! -- Here's my take... After WW2 (AKA Nuclear World War 1), The Allied Internazi Winners carried on warring all over the world, in both the Cold War, and extremely HOT Nuclear World War 2 - The Nuclear Test War, 100s of 1000s of nukes exploded... The Internazis went progressively Neo-Liberal, and then full-on Neo-Liberal Globalist from the 80s onward, neo-liberally investing in The Rest's Nazi-like cultures, transferring The West's industrial might & magic to The Rest - who TRIPLED THEIR POPULATIONS in just 40 Years from 2 billion to 6 billion.. -- The US had nuclear supremacy for quite a few years so could have wiped out the Nazi-like Restern Cultures.. Out-Nazid them all, once and for all, for good, while liberating Western children to INHERIT THE EARTH! No joke....... Instead, it chose to demonise its citizens and make them 3rd class citizens in their own lands by 'progressive' Affirmative Action laws, programs and funding.. Thus Native Europeans and Native USians have been Greatly Replaced in huge numbers..
@@PrivateSi yeah the elites are trying so hard to destroy the family, they view is humans like a disease and think we are too many, when that is false, the earth has so much habital land, we already make more than enough food etc. only those people with good familiy values will survive
It is the tradeoff which we all have to bear for a better quality of life. Raising a child is becoming much, much more expensive than before. So the really simple question I always ask myself is, if I can’t even feed myself, why bother marrying?
Well you also have to find someone whom you want to marry and who wants to marry you - and then have a shared vision of having a child or children. And for the woman - that she be young enough to have one or more healthy children. Many women aren't making it to that 1st or 2nd marriage where they still have time to safely bear children. And infertility issues for both men and women is on the rise in the developed world. From the perspective of national fertility rates, it doesn't matter whether parents end up divorcing or have multiple divorces, or simply have children without marriage or even living together - but for many people, the quality of married life and marriage longevity is important enough that they are more careful about whom they marry. And this can be a factor affecting the children who result from these relationships. In terms of net social benefit, societies don't really need more adults in prisons or requiring mental health care and support, or longterm unemployed.
@@SY-ok2dq having more kids won’t result in more imprisonment. Those people WERE someone’s 1 shot child. Aka that wasn’t before the fertility crashed that was after
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Oh I didn't mean to imply that. I'm merely stating that the reason why governments in many countries around the world are trying to get national birth rates to go back up is so that there are more productive, income earning, money saving, working people who can do all the jobs that currently support society, and to be able to draw upon taxes and revenue from those younger generations to a)fund all the functions of government and running a modern state at the current levels of development, and b) to fund the non-income productive lives of seniors over retirement age The welfare of these new, young generations is important to governments only insofar as they maintain stability, and are fit, healthy and able (mentally able, physically able) to do all the work in society and provide revenue. Oh and that includes the need for military personnel. People who spend long periods in prison, or are in and out of prison often, provide less revenue to governments and worse, are a drain on government funds. Families that live in unstable environments, abusive and neglectful conditions - having more children is likely to increase the odds of more kids growing up to be unstable or commit crime, and also raise kids that follow in their footsteps. Naturally, this isn't an outcome for society that we want. And it's a hard life for those children. But from the standpoint of governments needing revenue, it's a minus as a higher birthrate that comes with the downside of more unstable, damaged, or criminal adults in prison or who harm others, is costing more money than is being added to a nation's GDP and taxes. What I meant is that I think there are important positives to people taking some time to decide to marry and have children, and putting more focus on the health, happiness and wellbeing and the economic wellbeing of the fewer children that they have. They have to value their 1 or 2 or 3 children more than if they had 10 babies with 7 or 8 surviving to their 20s or 30s (childbearing/rearing age). I can see a lot of benefits of children having many siblings, but at the same time, when parents only have a few kids, each child gets more individual attention and care, and a feeling of more importance.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se It boils down to the parents and their character (and also their genes, as some things like schizophrenia are I believe, likely to have inherited, genetic factors; maybe alcohol and drug addictions are this way too, in addition to environment), and how they raise their child, as well as other influences outside of parents in their environment, and whether they experience trauma or abuse etc. Anyway, back in the days before contraception, most women just pumped out many kids regardless of whether they wanted them or not, or whether they had the means to support them financially and emotionally. I think it has to be better that parents think about it more, and prepare and plan. And I think it's better that people have more freedom of choice, rather than in some cultures and in the past around the world, where young women (and men) were forced into arranged marriages and women expected to produce children as heirs (often males) and couldn't avoid pumping out babies. But on the other hand, it's now become paradoxically so much harder for people to find someone and to marry and have kids before they're too old, or before they have enough income and security. A lot of men in Western (and now other countries like Japan) are unwilling to get married, and go from one woman to another, or else they mostly retreat from relationships (like in Japan) for various reasons.
When people marry each other it's because they love the person and want to spend their life with them. There will always be money issues throughout your life. There is never a "good" time to settle down, marry and have children. Also raising a child is not as expensive as you think it is, if you have a well paying job providing for your children should not be a problem. You will not be able to afford EVERYTHING but you will be able to take care of at least a few kids.
Because no matter how rewarding it is to raise a child, they make most people less happy. I say this from observing my friends and family who did and did not have children. It's undeniable.
That's what I think too. I only really hear parents complain about their lives and kids, peppered with a couple nice stories. It seems like being stuck in a miserable hole where your life is suddenly no longer yours to live. That just doesn't sound appealing to me
@@PhenixJoe Hey it's not too late to make her proud. I'm not one to say as I've yet achieved anything great in my life. But I'm sure my mom would still be proud of me and glad that she actually raised me and my siblings. I'm sure your mom felt the same way too. Having and not having children both have pros and cons, but in the end i think it's worth having children, and that's why humans have always reproduced. Plus raising children with love and care would surely shape you into a better person, something people without children would never know. That's just my opinion tho. Feel free to disagree
I did some calculations and it seems like the "standard" lifestyle with 2 kids is impossible for the average person in my country because both parents would need to make 1,6x the average wage. The only way you can afford kids is if you sacrifice something (car, savings, mortgage down payment etc.) and even THEN you'll be living paycheck to paycheck. You can really just be financially stable if you live on your own here, and avoid any extra payments.
What country, if I may ask? We have three children, but we started at 27 and 37 (respectively), and I’ve worked in between children. We make many sacrifices to keep them fed, healthy, happy, and their grandparents pay for their schooling.
@@kiwik2951 What sounds like reasonable sacrifices to you may be unpalatable to others, there are billions of people with different perceptions. The trade-offs when you have children are not simply financial, it's a lifelong commitment - of time, energy and goodwill - to something you may not be capable of handling. "Grandparents pay for their schooling" is not likely to be a commonly available resource
The "nuclear family" was invented by Victorian society not counting 20 heads of household staff contributing to childrearing without being counted as family members and accordingly fallacious
Then you are choosing to have material wealth over family.....the joke, however, is that that wealth is built on a system that demands growth and as we hit the demographic crunch those savings and investments are going to rapidly Decrease in value leaving most people poor AND without family.
Fun fact. Giving birth, even in a well-developed country with good healthcare, can still cause severe physical and/or mental trauma for the mother. For some people, including me, it's less I don't want to have kids moreso I just don't want to be pregnant. There's so many children stuck in foster care and they deserve a healthy household to live in
It's almost like people greatly valued that great sacrifice of mind and body to birth the literal future of humanity, and now we see a disconnect between having children and the act of making them. Hook-up culture also sees a drastic decline in people forming long term relationships that would more readily provide care for possible children, since again, sex is divorced from the concept of having children
@@CheffBryanpeople, especially men, have never valued that sacrifice, ever. When a women becomes pregnant, the chance of her partner cheating on her becomes the highest it will ever be. The chance of a woman getting murdered is higher when she is in a relationship, lowest when she is single and HIGHEST when she is pregnant. When a pregnant woman dies of unnatural causes, it is almost always because of the male partner.
In the early 1960's, John Calhoun did a series of rat experiments looking at fertility and behavior when rats in a confined colony were given free access to food and water. Those experiments are described in Wikipedia under the term "behavioral sink". Rat fertility dramatically fell as the population rose, with a fall happening in parallel with a cultural shift. There was plenty of room for more rats, so it wasn't as simple as not enough physical space. Gangs of male rats came together, there was violent conflict, and others confined themselves to a solitary existence, choosing not to breed. Ultimately all rats died. There are parallels to cultural shifts in human populations today.
I live in the US, where housing is expensive, medical is expensive, school is expensive, food is expensive, and taxes are quite high, to say the least. Also, let's not forget that wages barely go up here in the US. It will only get worse in the future. I won't be having kids, because I know I wouldn't have the responsibility to take care of a child. They're expensive to take care of, and it's mentally frustrating of a job as well.
You can't apply that to demographics. Older nations (see Japan as an example) will economically stagnate, then crash. It would be very difficult to run an economy where most of the population is over 65. That means, fewer consumption, fewer consumers, fewer men to enlist in the military to defend the nation etc etc. Even with robotisation, it won't solve everything
@@numericbin9983 If computers can do everything a human can do as well or better, than their is no reason to have humans at all, they'll just be a liability. The most driven nations would kill their population so they can invest everything in automation. However for the demographic problems that Japan is experiencing, there are ways to mitigate them, mainly making caring for the old people more efficient and/or immigration. However, if old people have money, they will consume, especially if they're paying massive medical bills from age-related diseases.
Religion plays its role in certain part of the world with regard to fertility rate. For example, Kerala is considered the most literate state in India but In 2018, 43.80% of the total reported births in the state were to Muslims, 41.61% to Hindus, 14.31% to Christians and 0.25% to others whereas the population of these religion group is 27%, 54% and 18% respectively. Even though people of Kerala belongs to same race, have similar culture and speak one language but there is a stark difference in birth rate.
Interesting example to look into more! Could differences in economic and social opportunities or differences in level of urbanization be part of the explaination?
More than religio it is the economic conditions in which people from each religion are.. you have to see from that perspective as well.. also literacy doesn't equate to knowledge and awareness
@@SmallCirclesForward I don't think lack of economic and social development is the reason behind high birth rate. High birth rate is the reason behind lack of economic and social development. Urbanization could be the reason because muslims who live in rural areas are govern by local madarsas and mosques. They preach that using contraceptives methods are unislamic and haram. Preventing child birth is against god's will. Whereas in urban areas people are more busy in pursuit of their economic goals.
@@molekyyliUnless you are in saddening personal situation, that argument is just bûllshît to me. Our ancestors went through Viruses, WORLD WARS, famines, civil wars. And you are complaining that you have it rough? Life finds a way, despite the roughest of circumstances people still have children because children are a beautiful thing, life is a beautiful thing.
@@safsafmando No, it's certainly not the only reason, but for me, at least, one of the significant ones. A child can't walk away from a bad parent like an adult can from a bad relationship.
What an excellent summary. Both of my sets of grandparents were immigrants to the US and had in excess of 10 births, with several of their children not surviving. My good friend is originally from Poland, and his grandparents all had large families for the benefit of having an internal labor force. There was past religious pressure to have large families. I was raised in a religion that prohibited birth control. That was a real concern for my sister, who is 15 years my senior, but not a concern for me. Religious views have changed over time. My wife and I are educated professionals; we have 4 kids but are outliers in our circle. Raising kids is a very expensive proposition. My wife gave up over 10 years of her career in that pursuit, and I had to make many sacrifices as the family's sole breadwinner. The cost of raising a child in the Western world is astronomical. For instance, a college degree is almost mandatory and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per child. We were very fortunate that we could allocate resources for our children, but it certainly involved a large sacrifice. We were rewarded with great kids who are now adults. With that said, I can understand why some are choosing to not have kids. These individuals are so burdened with debt and uncertainty that their struggles almost seem to be the flip side of the coin of the motivators that caused couples at the turn of the last century to have huge families. At the turn of the 20th century having many children ensured financial stability. At the turn of the 21st century having no children ensured financial stability.
@@ObsidianRadioeven so, in this day in age jobs without a college degree are very low paying, and people with just those jobs can barely get by by themselves (unless their family ends up being a giant money source, which won't happen often) much less with children to keep in mind It's not required technically, but it practically is
I can confirm this. I am someone without a college degree, and life is almost impossible. I am an ex-houswife who became a widow at 32 when my husband died unexpectedly in a car accident at the age of 36. Our son was 3, and I had no marketable skills or work experience and now I am basically SOL. It been 2 years , and although I wanted more children (even lost a pregnancy right before my husband died) and to have a family, my life is so miserable and impossible and already unfair to my existing child. Not to mention the lack of a partner is obviously a factor but even if I met someone im running out of time, and unless my situation improves drastically (not likely in the time I have) i would not be able to justify taking away resources from .y existing child that are already not enough. I have accepted that the family I always wanted will never happen.
@@YonkaLmao This system is gonna have to change. This just isn't right. If we don't get degrees we get lower paying jobs and can barely get by. If we do get degrees we still can't get by because the cost of everything constantly goes up and now we're in thousands of dollars in debt that will take more than a decade to pay off. This is just wrong!!! 😞
@@YonkaLmao I know tradesmen, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc., who make very good money, better than many with college degrees. I'm glad I have an engineering degree, and it has helped me live decently, but I see plenty of examples of those who act very responsibly with the education they have and do well also. What has happened in the US is that States have dramatically reduced their support of education, especially college education. Student debt has thus become far more of a burden for the current generation, and they have my sympathy for that. The savings in State budgets have not necessarily been distributed to offset the increased costs of college.
We don't have finite resources at the moment. We have one small group hoarding massive amounts of resources and using their influence to manipulate the cost of living in order to squeeze as much money as they can from us.
I don't think "fertility rate" is the right wording for the title. It would indicate a change in a woman's ability to give birth. Birth rate would probably fit better.
The Fertility Rate : of a continent or nation . Not a single woman or man . So it makes sense he is talking about the fertility of an Area in general . Not singling out one person like you are
Men don't want children either. They would rather eat taco bell, play video games and watch pronography instead of bettering themselves for a potential family.
@yitzhak shekkelsteingoldmanberg Conservatives are the ones who scream “FREEDUMB” all the time. Whenever somebody practices that freedom outside of the “conservative” or biblical model. You people make it a political debacle.
1) Most nations don't recognize deliberately setting out to non-defensively hurt, harm, or demean others as a human right. 2) The type of freedom most westerners (especially Americans) want is that of a wild coyote roaming the prairies. That's not freedom, that's anarchy.
Not every woman is ready to sacrifice her dreams for the sake of having a child. I am 28 years old, I have a higher education, a stable job, I have been in a relationship with the same man for 6 years, we have been living together for four years, and I have no children. I've made a few percent of my dreams come true, and the child will simply destroy everything that I'm building now. I’m not ready to give up being happy and having a baby, because my happiness does not lie in having children. I’m not alone, all my friends, both female and male of the same age, don’t have children and have completely different goals in life. Values have changed, and people, especially women, now have the opportunity to make their dreams come true, and reproduction is not everyone's goal. Plus, kids are too much of a responsibility, and that's for life. You can't change your mind after giving birth once. Having given birth, you are connected with a whole person for the rest of your life, and personally I’m not ready for this yet.
Replacing family with career or consumerism is incredibly short-sighted and not a choice you can undo once the train has left the station (10 to maybe 15 years)
@@LckD008 heres the thing, a woman is locked to that choice - a male partner can ditch the plan, her and then start a family anytime. At least in theory
I have thought about this so much over the years. I was born in the US in the 70s. My grandparents on both sides had between 10 - 12 siblings but not all survived to adulthood. My grandparents' generation had 5-6 kids themselves, then my parents' generation had between 1-2 kids. In my generation, I know several people who don't have any kids at all. In my lifetime, we went from one person being able to support a family with modest means, to families with multiple people working but still struggling to get by working 50+ hours per week. I'm sure access to birth control played a part. But in larger families, childcare duties were spread out among family members living in the same household; these days, all the communal duties of a household may fall to just one person, and if that person works, they have to pay someone for childcare, cooking, or cleaning which in older times might have been done for free by a family member. Enjoyed the video and the analysis.
Governments around the world LOVE women working. Why? Two reasons: They get to tax the entire population, not just half. The kids get ignored at daycare, so the parents have no influence over their kids and the government takes over influencing them.
Wow. You must've hit a nerve. 3 replies but I see nothing. Something nobody ever seems to want to recognize is that there has been a world wide push from western activists to reduce human reproduction. They have championed policies that decrease productivity and work to create an environment hostile to "breeders" who "irresponsibly" bring more life into the world. This coupled with the effective destruction western mating rules and the lionization of abortion as a heroic act has brought us to the point where western population crash is a very likely possibility in the next few decades. At the same time globalization of the worlds economies has pushed the dirtiest manufacturing work into countries that do not have the worker or environmental protection policies common in the west, effecting local fertility rates & infant mortality. Which has set up the rest of the world for a similar crash. It's not going to go the way those cheering for it think it will, either. We are looking at losing enough of the worlds workforce that there's not going to be enough workers to keep critical systems working. Workers that *cannot* be replaced with robots and AI. And since achievement is based on things other than aptitude or ability there won't be the people needed to make those robots and AI
You just made a perfect case for women not being in the workforce. If I had my way, women would comprise no more than 10% of the workforce, and that would be in nursing, and professional entertainment.
The amount of time you have to sink raising a child is also noteworthy, in poorer societies as long as the child hits double digit he will be able to join the workforce, but in first world some above average job won't even give you a chance to interview if you don't have a college degree, that means parents have to devote 20+ years of their life raising a kid just to have a chance competing with others
Exactly, the standards of raising kids have gone up tremendously. It’s a good thing but it definitely makes it harder to have them. Back in the day many kids didn’t go to school, worked, did not receive medical care, and often slept in overcrowded rooms if they were poor. They went out on their own and didn’t get much supervision. That type of parenting is largely inexcusable today.
Its mostly due to poorer and male dominated societies having all of the jobs done by men. Women therefore have to marry early and marriage often results in pregnancy especially without birth control. Rich countries where women dont have to get married means that alot of times they choose not to have kids. In ancient sparta alot of the wealth ended up concentrating in a few women's hands and that society eventually ceased to have almost any spartan citizens by the end and then got taken over unlike their thriving male dominated neighbours athens, thebes and macedonia.
Theres also the impact wealth has on birth control ETA theres a few times the phrase "how many children a woman chooses to have" without taking into account that poorer countries have higher r*pe stats. Its not just that, higher educated women tend to be better off. Theres also stigma around periods in poor countries resulting in girls missing valuable schooling. There are MANY more factors that go into birth rates than how many kids a woman wants. And putting the onus squarely on them is doing a disservice to the examination of the economics involved.
Tbh, it is not just rural and city issue that affects fertility rates. For me not having children is my non-confidence vote on how the future is heading. For example, the generation before me invested in CDO and mortgage-backed securities for short term gains instead of investing in space stations or cities on mars or the moon. It is the fact that in my teens, I knew it took 2 people working right now to pay for our current retirees of our retirement plans. I also knew this was going to increase to 3:1 when I retire and if I did have kids they see it in a 5:1. Government-backed mandatory pyramid scheme go figure and no one has the bravery to say it out loud and end the program. Governments are currently spending money from future taxpayers, aka your kids, without their consent but they will be left with the bill. The main reason why I don't want kids: I know my kids would be more worst off than I am.
I am a woman in my 60s, who heard about OVER population throughout my childbearing years, and chose to be childfree. There must be, to some approximation, a world population level that will be sustainable with the majority of people having sufficient resources to live comfortably. I was always under the impression that lowering or stabilizing population was a good thing, now it's worrying?
the worrying part is less the population itself and more the ratio between young and old people. with life expectancies becoming longer and birthrates going down, there are going to be fewer and fewer workers to support the growing elderly population. automation is a solution but there is going to have to be a pretty radical industrial revolution for it to make a difference
Only worrying if your main priority is accumulating wealth, but anyone that thought an infinite growth economic model was sustainable, is definitely not playing with a full deck.
@@chriswatson1698 unless you wanna work until you're like 80, retirement is only going to become longer than childhood as the average lifespan increases. plus there's that bit about how children become more independent over time and grow up into working adults while old people can only grow older and become more dependent on medical infrastructure to keep them alive.
I keep hearing: "a woman chooses..." but this phrase applies far less than you might think in poor areas and families (in all nations), due to different conditions based on culture. Some cultures see women and having the sole purpose of having and raising children. If a woman is imprisoned by a culture who sees her as nothing other than a baby factory, that is what she will become. Or in other "first-world" countries where birth control is not easy to access if you are poor, but your country is seen as having regular and consistent access to such products.
Yea it kind of bothers me too. On the one hand you have poor women having a lack of access to education and contraceptives... on the other you have women forced to remain in education until their 20's.... then move away from family and friends to find a job, maybe find a husband. And even then they have to have two incomes to support the household, leaving less time for the mom or dad to actually care for the child. It's not actually a wealth issue. People aren't not having kids because they have money. Its because the neo-liberal economies of developed countries isolates and forces people's attention on labor rather than relationships and community. Nobody is being empowered. It's just wage slavery of a different color.
@@Soletestament you have probably heard those rich countries like in hongkong or arab countries who hire nannies from 3rd world.. and then those nannies ended up becoming much closer to their employer's children than their own. shit is sad.
@@Soletestament Really? Please help understand the neo conservative view of a how a woman is a baby making machine to stay home change diapers, serve husband, and have no clout of money of her own.
Yes, finally someone else that made this remark as well. I had a whole rant with other aspects as well - Child hoarding really was a WTF? What did he say? I started with mentioning the link to 1960's and the birth control and access to this. He does mention it briefly at the end of the video, but man did his linguistics bother me...choice... And that comes from a gay man, even I seem to know more about female cultural aspects, it really bothered me. Also tying in women voting rights and women rights in general to this, from 19th century starting onward. Also shouldn't it be birth rate, not fertility rate?!? I can be fertile with out having children. He is talking about the births of children.
I think that people in poor countries most of the times don't choose to have so many children,they just do, because of lack of acces to education & birth control methods.Also religion and tradition play a big part in imposing a model to be followed,not questioned,leaving little choice to the individual,especially for women !
It's also that people in poorer countries live in rural regions and are more dependent on agriculture, wherein children aren't a liability but a neccessiety
You are implying that poor women CHOOSE to have more children - only partly true! If a woman has access to birth control and some education, most will limit their family size. Also, if we EVER achieve reasonable, fair lifestyles for everyone on the planet - we need A LOT FEWER PEOPLE to make it sustainable. This planet is dying right now. It breaks my heart, but I couldn't honestly advise anyone to bring a child into the world that this one is heading for.
The entire population of the world can fit in Texas. Population is not our problem, lifestyle is. If you live in a city, you are responsible for the degradation of our Earth. Until people take personal responsibility for their role and make choices to stop contributing to the problem it will keep getting worse. And the absolute WORST thing to do is encourage urban living.
Of religious societies it is a miracle of which is expected to work to spread your “legacy”, in secular modernity it is an imposed affliction of which you burden them the world with.
Some things were missed such as a crashing marriage and birth rate combination, where many are giving up on marriage. There is also a large movement of men who have decided that marriage is no longer worth it and this is also having an impact on birth rates in developed countries. More woman are deciding to have children later as well.
@Woodtschak I have read and watched a lot of it online, SANDMAN lol comes to mind. I moved to Thailand, I no longer have to worry about the woke west. Funny thing is, I seem to practice being MGTOW only in the west :-)
Nowadays it's possible for both men and women to have children outside of marriage. Also adoption is more flexible in some countries where both single men and women are eligible too. Compared to past generations, men and women of our time are more knowledgeable, independent individuals, capable of living alone taking care of them selves and their children if they have some. We live in a very different way than people did 30-50 ago and before that time. We have traditional married couples, same gender couples (married or not) and single individuals of both genders living alone or as couples. We (men and women as well) don't need to get married to survive as adults. But in some countries couples planning to have children get married for practical reasons. Also, something that is surprisingly missing in this fertility conversation is the financial issue. Everybody is talking about the fertility rate and how many children born per woman and the consequences and bla bla bla. Nobody's is talking about the cost of rising a child until adulthood. 18 years supporting another person, paying education, clothing, medical care etc. I personally have known several women who specifically decided not to have children because they knew they couldn't afford them. So more than fertility rates and children per woman, I would love to hear more about what governments are going to do to lessen the economic burden of the parents and specially women who offer a lot of their health, time and money (advancement, career opportunities etc and when for some reason they can't work thus not earning money) during gestation and child rearing only to get the shortest straw when they have to retire and even before that.
@@lavinamontoya8164 Woman usually get less in retirement because of career choices, many woman aren't having children but still have less retirement because they aren't going into careers such as STEM that pay higher wages, (the whole biology thing, men love things woman love people so choice people career choices, nurses, educators etc which usually pay less than STEM fields) . As for finance, it's a good point, I too have heard of couples not wanting children because of the financial stress. And affordability issues, housing being no.1 where gov and vested interests have force house prices up so high. Example, in New Zealand in the 70s-80s housing was about 3-4 times earnings, now it's about 10 times earnings, just crazy, people can't even afford food or power let alone children. I think those stats are similar in the western world in general.
It's funny how a lot of books and movies from the 1900s were about dystopic futures where the world's population grew to fast but the actual future looks like the whole world is going to suffer from shrinking populations and increased burdens on children to take care of older people m
Decreasing fertility rate causes the population to age up meaning there wont be many children or young people anymore. Society will collapse at that point.
But they were right on. Ours is a dystopic reality because of the population explosion. It's true that we can't speak of massive food shortages, but we have destroyed the natural environment, dramatically reduced biodiversity, and disrupted the climate to accomodate our immense needs. Now our cities and villages get flooded or destroyed by tornados, wild fires devastate thousands of houses and endless acres of forest, but apparently no one told you that this is not normal. This is the insanity that we created. The whole of humanity could be reaping the results of the technological advancements of the 19th and 20th century in quite a global state of satisfaction if it wasn't for the overpopulation insanity.
@@borthwey The world is far from overpopulated. Are certain areas overpopulated? Absolutely, but on a global level it's not even close. All human beings on earth could fit on the ground level of NYC alone.
Hell if Im that old person. I'll just commit suicide when I cant work anymore. The gen x and boomers freaking out about how the world will sustain itself with fertility crash are overlooking the fact that most of us millenials are barely hanging onto the mortal realm by a thread as it is. I wouldnt worry too much about supporting us, especially with how shitty everything keeps getting.
@@Jukestar It's not just the money. Not everyone is happy with gubment injection laws in order for a kid to go to school or daycare. All the risk is being shifted to parents by politicians and bureaucrats who have no downside risk if kids get injured.
@@Jukestar The only way I could start a family at this point is adoption. I will be too old for any seed to be any good from me when I could afford it. I would be old enough to be a grandfather, likely. I do not want to raise a child in a place where they are disappointed for their birthday because I could not afford to celebrate it because the cost of living is ridiculous!
When you consider the modern conveniences we have compared to our ancestors, it is fascinating that we find children to be such a hindrance to our lifestyle. Comfort and leisure are relatively new phenomenon for the typical citizen. If we adjust our standards we can certainly enjoy children and the legacy they bring. Our family has lived on a single income for 15 years and we have more than the average number of children in our area. Our home is small, but our children are absolutely loved, well fed, enjoy a wonderful education, participate in sports and youth activities, and live full lives with siblings who will share a deep bond when we are gone. The rates of depression in women have steadily increased as the birthrates have declined. While I would not suggest this is a single factor, I do think the modern stressors on women are greater than when women were better able to afford greater time with their children. As our parents enter their twilight years we hear stories of acquaintances virtually alone in this world as they age. Our parents will be surrounded by children, grandchildren, and perhaps great-grandchildren as they enter that final period of dependency. They will not lack for a home, care, transportation, and support as they grow older. Perhaps they will not see their final days in a lavish home, but they will be surrounded by the love of those who will remember them and share their legacy for generations. And when it is all said and done, you can't take it with you. I wish no one I'll and hope any reader has many friends if they are without children. But I urge those young enough to consider whether free time or material goods now is worth ending a legacy later.
@@eurekahope5310the point is, the cost of living crisis around the world is the worst we've ever had in human history. We'd have to go back to Victorian England standards of living if we wanted to birth children and have the time to raise them
Children are expensive. They are a liability. Children were used for taking care of the parent as they get older. That tradition no longer hold today and there are options for retirement. Depending of where you are, living is costly.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 , it’s not about attitude, it’s about reality. You know the saying, it takes a village to raise a child? Because it’s costly, burdensome, etc…. Remember the teen who sued her parents because they took her phone away from her or the other one where the parents didn’t provided finances for college. Is that not a liability or is that about attitude?! You have a child and it’s disabled. Now what?! I know, it’s the attitude. The 100k+ debt, the mental and physical stress, etc… you have from taking care of the child makes you the happiest person in the world. God bless.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 In villages people have more kids because they are work force. In cities kids are POTENTIAL future work force. We just need more wars and 120 years life expectancy. There can't be world peace we need more deaths and more new people
One of the problems we'll face is that those options may not stay viable. Retirement ages are being pushed back, social security is at risk for shortfall and may be unable to give full benefits, and the industry that is supposed to care for the vulnerable elderly has staffing issues.
I am in my late thirties and I have one child, a young toddler. My wife and I are able to afford everything we need *without* help from the social welfare system, but we both grew up in households which had some measure of government support; as such, I can never completely embrace "only have kids you can afford". I became a first time parent much later than the average age for previous generations, but I realise that I would have been completely unready for it in my twenties.
"that I would have been completely unready for it in my twenties." if you weren't tax like fuck to help others who cant afford kids you wouldnt have any struggle as long as you work and have head on your shoulders! 200 years ago most kids were born in POOREST families and there was NO SOCIAL BENEFITS. So wealth is NOT a problem
Not ONE person unfortunate enough to be born escapes suffering or causing suffering. Sentient life is a construct of the most unimaginable, incomprehensible evil there is. To reproduce is the most vile, immoral crime/sin possible. Try asking people why they wanna have kids and I guarantee none of those reasons have the child's wellbeing in mind. ALL of the reasons are for the parent's own fulfillment. I'll never understand why anyone would choose to bring kids in a world where people die every moment. Having kids is purely a selfish desire, no one has kids for the sake of the children, they do it for their own wants and "needs". Breediot losers are THE root of ALL evil and ALL problems. THE root cause of ALL of your past, current and future problems were, are and will be your breediot parents. You do not owe anything to your breediot parents, THEY owe you everything since they forced upon you the ‘wonders’ and the ‘gift(s)’ of ‘life’. Work like a slave, retire right into the grave.
@@bartz4439 It's very clear you didn't watch the video my guy. Countries with high taxes and social safety nets like Sweden have higher birth rates than religious countires like Greece and Portugal that have low taxes (Kinda, Greeks wouldn't pay taxes even if they were lowered) and much smaller social safety nets.
Quality of life is another aspect. Many people including me believe that its unethical to bring another life into this world with so much suffering, pain and injustice.
Umm, I had my first child at 37 and pregnant with my second at 40. Not ideal by any means, but the first time it was financially viable. A lot of couples can't afford children and a lot of women don't want to look after a man child and kids.
Because the world gets richer. People who live in good conditions prefer to travel and make career than to have children. The highest fertility rate is always in poor countries In the most developed countries it is also expensive to have children, this can be a reason too ofc
I’d argue it’s both the world getting richer and poorer, the middle class is disappearing, poor people in wealthy countries can’t afford kids, rich people don’t want them.
Salaries have not kept pace with the cost of cars and homes. Ironically you usually need to live in an expensive city for the employment opportunities. Canada provides around $500 a month for your kid from birth to about age 6 and that helped us a lot. Still, trying to make things work with multiple kids these days is hard, and contributing to women’s lack of career progression because it’s often such a logistical challenge to have both parents working and also figure out child care.
Regarding women working, that's one reason why a single salary is insufficient to comfortably allow for raising a family. Same thing with immigration and outsourcing work abroad - as labor becomes for plentiful, the value of the labor diminishes. Whenever you see the companies talking about how much they value those groups of people, it's not because they care about those people, it's because they want to pay their employees less. If they actually did care about those people, they wouldn't be exploiting them like that.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 Wrong as more people are employed the output of labor increases. The problem isn't women immigrants or foreign workers working it's what the labor is being used to produce which is profits, the imperialist war industry and luxuries for the rich. It is the world capitalist system of production and trade which is failing as the bosses quest for profits is causing these problems. As giant industries are built by reducing labor time the profit rates inevitably declines. That is because our labor is the source of the profit while the fixed capital investment rises and the living labor in the production process declines. This is how industry and finance capital the most parasitic of capitals become to big to fail.
@@kimobrien. But more people _aren't_ employed. The amount of jobs isn't increasing. In some cases, employers are cutting jobs and burdening their remaining employees with a heavier work load with only a slight increase in pay that doesn't keep up with the rate of inflation (if even that) so that they can keep even more money. The demand for labor is not changing in accordance with the supply, and that is what is causing the diminishing value of labor. I don't disagree that capitalism is a flawed economic system, but people wouldn't be better off under communism (I see your profile picture just as you see my name). Fundamentally, a nation and its state must be comprised of at least a supermajority of a single ethnic group in order to be successful - the bond between blood and soil is imperative. We see now the result of once powerful nation-states collapsing under the weight of immigrants who don't care one way or another whether the country lasts or not.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 As I stated the more employed or more working the greater the output. The Federal Reserve bank keeps economic stats. The stats show that productive capacity is going unused as a percentage used in the US and it has been declining overall since this was first measured in about 1968. Their is no specific bond between any nations blood and soil that is just made up nonsense by Adolf Hitler. The productivity of labor has been rising while wages have been stagnant since 1973. Supply and demand only applies when the two are different when supply equals demand it says nothing about the difference in prices between what is for sale. The capitalist seek to pay the lowest wages, work you at the fastest rate and the longest hours to make the biggest profits. This results in the decline of wages to the minimum need to get you back to work for the next pay period it doesn't include the time needed to form a family and raise children. The capitalist seek to eliminate higher paid skilled labor with lower paid unskilled labor and machines. They build giant industries which go into decline because the capital value rises but the labor employed declines resulting in a declining rate of profit since the profits come from our unpaid labor. They use the central bank and the printing of money to create inflation as a way to increase the value of property and cut the value of wages without having to issue the old fashion wage cut.
Personally, I think that as a species we are just reaching the equilibrium point of our population's growth rate. With so many countries being overpopulated and impoverished, it's interesting to see how our species seems to be advancing towards economic stability while the fertility rate of humans is also coming more in line with what we as a species seems to be able to support. I don't consider the decline in the fertility rate to be a bad thing, quite the opposite, I think it showcases how we as a species are sort of maturing, so to speak.
If roughly men and women represent each 50% of the populaton and every woman has a single child, that means the population will decline by 50% in one generation. While some people think this is okay, this is a huge problem, because the populational decrease is exponential, young people will be rare and every nation will have plenty of elders. Economies will collapse and the human race has a threat to simply become endangered. (I know it sounds absurd, but the possibility is right there). This is truly scary.
@@NightfurWoW what changes to the planet, in a negative way, if the human species no longer existed? Not trying to be some doomer, but damn.. Why do we think we're so much more special, than all the other life that would go on just fine, if not better, without humans destroying the environment?
@@itcanwait You've got it backwards. Human life being special isn't something to be proven or disproven through argumentation; it is something that is a given for other arguments.
@@NightfurWoW One generation of that might hurt but I doubt governments and capitalist companies would stand-by as the number of workers and amount of consumers decline so drastically. The corporations would be pressuring the governments to incentivize child-birth and some might even take it upon themselves. Once the problem has been noticed they still have 2-3 generations to find solutions before it really becomes an issue. Retirement will basically disappear and technology will also be more advanced allowing for an older workforce. Having children or not mostly comes down to time and money. If governments and corporations do a well enough job at allowing people more of both of those things then birth rates will rise which will ultimately be in their best interest.
@@NightfurWoW It is only scary, because our whole society and enormous economy build on idea of a constant population grows and overconsumption. In order to maintain world economy as we know it the birth rate worldwide should be 1.7. Currently it is 1.4 China lifted one child policy mainly because the current birthrate would not be able to satisfy China's demand for manufacturing workers in a few decades.
I live on Culiacan Sinaloa México, and thank God,I dont hear any kids crying anymore, not because I dont like them,is because I hate it to see them suffering.
I don't have kids. When I was a kid I didn't like children or babies or dolls. When I found out where babies came from, I was horrified about pregnancy and birth! Not one thing appealed to me about any of it. (Sex was great...not pregnancy!). Education for women prevents unwanted births. (Unwanted births are great for cheap labor for corporations...that's why they promote anti-abortion and poverty wages. ). America wants to suppress sex education, prevent abortion, abolish laws against child-marriage. I would have not survived an unwanted birth because my alternative would have destroyed my own future as well. NO way I would become a brood-mare for the state! Or some fantasy church beliefs that others hold over humanity. At 70, I consider my greatest success in my life was to NOT have children. I am not "childless"...I am "child-free". My generosity to myself was that I left enough room for women who actually *want* children have more resources.
Marriage is the way to satisfy social expectations. For boomers, the philosophy behind is having families equivalent to having best of the life. But nowadays, everyone realises marriage or being single is just the attribute , not a must.
@@kwanlamchong9452 Well Chinese boomers are different from the western ones. But your boomers are right without realising it. Low birth rates means that you'll have 4-7x retired elders for each 1x working person in the future. And you'll have to take care of them directly, or have 50% of the workforce work in retirement homes and the taxes would be sky high, while productivity will be very low.
1. Cost too much money. 2. Take up too much time. 3. Parents will need to spend enormous amounts on a child that might turn out "bad". 5. Children are ungrateful and demanding. 6. Don't have time for kids. 7. Already hold down 2 (or more jobs). 7. They had a hideous upbringing with unresolved issues with their toxic parents so decide not to pass on this drama to kids.
That was an excellent summary of population dynamics in the last century. Very straight-forward, and only a slight bias visible. Thank you for producing this video.
I like how this video wasn't all doom and gloom like most videos about population decline are. You recognized that by 2100, most children will be living to adulthood. That will be incredible.
So how wonderful will it be when civilizations die out due to no children? People say, That will never happen. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. It's happening now in many places. Japan is giving people houses and jobs to come live there. Many towns in Europe are offering free houses if you will love in it because they are becoming ghost towns.
It's what called in evolutionary biology - an evolutional bottleneck - the small amount of succesfully procreating people will inherit the living space left after large amount of unborn people. This will create a large humanitarian crisis, the oversaturation of population with old people who are unable to work but need care, and when crisis will resolve itself the genetic properties of human population will change beyond recognition. It won't be humanity we know now and there's no telling of what exactly will be different about it.
Now we have to talk about character.... On paper, we won't see a population decline. But that doesn't take injustice or crime into consideration. The movie Idiocracy already touched on this.
Here in Italy the native population is falling precipitously, and it is expected that within thirty years almost 80% of the population will be fifty years old and above. During the pandemic and the consequent lockdown in the country, births increased a bit, as couples spent more time together at home; consequently, 2020 and 2021 were the most "fertile" years of the last decade for Italy, demonstrating that the blame for the exponential decline in births is also attributable to an extremely frenetic urban lifestyle. Apart from this, it is evident how the improving lifestyle has led to a decrease in pregnancies by simply looking at the generational history of individual families: my great-grandparents each had between five and eight brothers/sisters alive (for that that it has come down to us, their mothers had also carried out a dozen pregnancies, but between the 19th and 20th centuries it was easy to have spontaneous abortions or lose the child shortly after birth due to precarious medical conditions); my grandparents all had between eight and twelve siblings (30s-50s), while my parents (70s) both had only one brother/sister. I have two brothers (early 2000). Basically, here in Italy, there has been a sudden drop in births since the 1960s, that coincide with the "economic miracle" of the time. Everyone worked, even the women, and while the countryside and mountains depopulated, the urban agglomerations expanded exponentially, sometimes quintupling - up to ten times - their population in a few decades; there was simply no more time, nor reason, to have children: adults worked and stayed away from home all day, while the children had to study (compulsory school attendance up to the age of sixteen was introduced and the working minors were banned up to the age of fourteen). I am in the fifth year of high school (yes, here the high school lasts five years instead of four) and in my class of eighteen students I am the only one who has two siblings: all my classmates are only-children or have only one brother. Also noteworthy, the parents are all very old. They are on average between fifty and sixty years old, while my parents are forty (they married and had me when they were twenty-three and twenty-seven years old respectively), and as is well known, both for women and for men, with the advanced age, it is difficult to have abundant and healthy offspring - and this also explains the increase in genetic diseases in the Italian population.
The biggest underlying issue in all these cases is not having a reasonable business supported system for childcare. The reason to have children they forgot was love; they traded it for an unfulfilling urban dream.
They will replace the population with immigrants. Same with all of Europe and North America. The Europe and USA and Canada we know today will cease to exist. It will be Mexico 2.0 and India/China 2.0 in USA and Canada. And Middle east and Africa 2.0 in Europe. White people will be that sporadic person you'd see on the street. Probably beaten up because racism against whites is OK and no one around to stop it. Glad as a White person I won't be around in the later decades of this century.
We have many IVF centers in India. We see rising cases of male infertility too. Though this might not be significant contributor but nonetheless it is there
@@Pix3lB well there are a lot of factor like plastic contamination, chemical in the water (for exemple the Gange, well know to be full of textiles industries rejection), there's also the moral issues (moral influe greatly over testosterone production and thus on sperm production.) ...
@@Pix3lB Not just "using" but eating: we have thrown away so much plastic in Nature that both ALL our water reserve and soil is filled with plastic particle... Hourray!
I'm genX and the only child in my family. When my parents grew older I took care of them financially and although I lived on a different continent I always found time to communicate with them several times a week. It went without sayng that children have to care for their aging parents. I raised 3 kids, now I'm getting older. We live in the same country yet I do not raise my hopes too high: they are so deep into their own worlds - and phones - that unless I call them they can go for months not talking to me, they don't care. Sometimes I think I would be better off if I didn't have children and redirected the time and money I spent on my family to my personal development and enjoyment. Yet the hope is still there like a tiny pilot light.
how old are your children if I may ask? I heard and seen many times that children choose to avoid their parents in their teens and twenties to self-actualize and build up their own lives, but become more connected once they reach their 30s and gain stability in their own lives
Why is the world less fertile? Because now women have the economic, political, and psychological power to say "NO!" Want more kids? Give birth to them yourselves.
Every animal reproduces often except humans are doing. Are humans smarter or are they just unnatural? If the schools are better and payed motherhood exist would it rise the the fertility rate?
There are two kinds of people on this planet, those who love people and use things and those who use people to love things. In the end it may come down to service to others in this case the unborn or self serving behaviour of what's in it for me.
*Women have no more choice now than they used to.* We still don't get to choose, the difference is only in what we are forced into and who is doing the forcing.
I’m from Botswana. My grandfather had 14 children on a farm between two women. My aunts and uncles had on average 3, and ranged from 2-5. One of my sisters has 3 kids, me and my other sister only have 1 and my other sister doesn’t want kids. I love having a huge family and wish I could continue that. But now living in the US, I couldn’t afford that and it wouldn’t be responsible. Without a family network to help raise kids, I’m choosing to only have one child.
As an experienced parent of a 6 and 4 year old. I can say the first 6 years of the childs life is super critical and you will need to sacrifice everything. I quit 2 jobs that they couldn't accomodate my most needed only closings schedule since my wife works 4am to 2pm and i used to work 3pm to 1130pm. I had to quit that because company didnt want to accommodate that schedule anymore. (New management) so i quit to be able to be there for my kids. I started gig apps and i can say from the time both kids are in school a lot of time opens up to work more. So the first 5 to 6 years are the roughest and almost broke us up economically and emotionally but we are all still together and morgage still gets paid every month. Sometimes we need to let the internet go or dont buy as much food. But this in 2 months time both of my kids will be on school! And i will be able to almost double my salary. Survive the first 5 to 6 years it will get better! And the kids become a little more independent.
It took me 5 years to save $100K. I never wanted to have children. Knew that at age 16. I honestly have no idea why people bother with doing it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Absolutely agree. I have been blessed to stay home with all three of our children, and do not plan on having a “job” until our youngest is in school. He is only 4 months old so I have some time 💙
@@randymillhouse791For many, it's deeply cultural, with a strong desire to pass on the family lineage and legacy to a new generation. Others want to have someone to care for them in their old age.
I think the trend you see is 1) Choice (birth control availability, decline of male-dominated society, women becoming financially independent, broadening of acceptable roles for women in society), and 2) Desire for self-actualization. There are a lot of psychologically complicated reasons for not wanting children. Most people I talk to want a higher quality of life, time for themselves and their own interests, freedom (in many forms), a truly pleasurable life, or a life of purpose or adventure. There also seems to be increased desire to "do it right" if they do have kids--something that certainly has been less of a concern in the past.
I wonder how these people you talk about will keep up their quality of life without children present in their old age? Retirement homes? Where there will never be enough staff, since nobody is having children anymore?
Why are you acting as if having children bars people from a life of freedom, pleasure, or purpose? It's this type of thing that puts people off of having children. How about we instead point out that most people who have children say they don't regret having them? How about we point out that more people regret not having had more children than they ended up having than regret having had children at all? Or that people who have children are happier than those who don't? This is sort of tangential, but there is no decline is society being male dominated to any significant degree. The most important roles in society are filled by men, as they need to be, because if they weren't civilization would regress.
I think you are missing a very large piece of the puzzle... We are losing our ability to reproduce. Our fertility, especially in the more developed countries, is down 40-50%, and thats just since the 90s. Probably due to the amount of synthetic hormones we are dumping into our environment. If we ban them, the plastic industry won't exist anymore. So, it's obscured information that very few of us know about. To keep the monetary economy from collapsing. Our species survival is not guaranteed. We are potentially sacrificing our species ability to survive for the monetary economy. Really let that sink in. What's worse, it may already be too late. That may already be something we can't reverse. Even if we stopped creating those chemicals right now, today, they are already in the water supply. 99% of ALL life on this planet contains some level of forever chemicals, the chemicals mimicking female hormones. They are already everywhere. It will take time to get them out. Time... we may not have. Especially if we continue to pretend it's not a problem. It's like any addict out there, a problem can only be solved if the existence of the problem is acknowledged first. Edit: i am talking about our actual fertility, not our "social" fertility. Not whether we "choose" to have children, whether we are physically capable of having children.
I always wanted to be a mom.I had three sons and couldn't have been happier. Having a child is a blessing.My firstborn joined the Army during the war, and he never came back the same, and I was with him every step of the way while he got help through the VA. At 27, he died, and it was the hardest thing I have ever been through. Yes, there are challenges with children, but there have always been challenges in life. I feel people miss out on a beautiful experience of having a child.
Fine look at this issue. You did a good job of explaining how correlative factors should not be mistaken for causal. In the era of electronic media, specifically television, mass populations are shown realities and value systems beyond their own surroundings. This creates choices, and makes people think about consequences. And people think about the quality of their lives, not merely quantities.
@@kintsuki99 Education? Sure. There is that. But now I would be curious to see those "fertility rates" based on (01) race when factoring in (02) abortion and (03) government "assistance" based "finanicial aid" from government(s) because left standing alone, in no specific context whatsoever, it sounds as if you are saying "smart women," i.e., those with "education," choose to have fewer children, if any, meaning only stupid, i.e., "uneducated," people are breeding. And psst: That last cheap shot is exactly what I am watching play out here in 2022 meaning now only this: Yeah, I was born in '52 when yep, "women should be barefoot and pregnant," what would prove to be last days before women "entered the workforce" and started to "choose" between family and jobs/careers. And here I am now and now what I see are a whole bunch of "uneducated" women having lots and lots of babies while those with "education" are having fewer as well as having those abortions. I see no happy endings...for anyone....
The ladies of the west were looking to radically limit this well before the electronic age began. Again born in ‘50 saw this evolve from the baby boom until now. We were catholic so originally choice was so called rhythm now 95% of catholic women use artificial BC. Jews immediately used BC pills and abortion second or was legal in 73. Again well before the tech you cite. Ancient Romans had an abortifacient that was so overused it’s supply disappeared and modem forensic medical anthropologists are still unable to identify it. No tech then for sure
@@kintsuki99 Which is why it's so important to give them education and stop population growth as soon as possible, because it's from population growth that all the greatest and most unsurmountable problems in this planet derive.
@@kintsuki99 No. Giving people in general education. I don't know if you think alike, but I think that having a child is a mutual decision. If the man doesn't want it, there will be no child. If the woman doesn't want it, there will be no child either.
Maybe births are dropping but the quality of life is rising in most places like in the indigenous areas of Mexico people used to have like 10 children and in some cases half of them would die before adulthood and nowadays they have 3 or 4 but they survive past adulthood.
@@chriswatson1698 That is nonsensical. You either have enough to feed your family, or you don't. You can have one child and struggle to have enough, or you have 10 and have plenty to go around. Additionally, children contribute, they don't only cost.
A higher living standard does result from having fewer children, all other things being equal. However, a higher living standard is a case of gobbling up the earth's finite resources at a faster and faster rate.
@@searose6192 You are incorrect. Even in undeveloped countries, babies can't contribute until they are five or six years old. And babies limit their mothers' contribution to the economy, by requiring their attention. So you think that in very poor households, a family of ten children will eat as well as a family of one child? Seriously? That is nonsensical.
A weird thing is that when talking about culture, religion and how these are connected to birthrate, the author doesn't mention an important aspect, which is marriage. The idea of marriage has changed drastically during the 20th century. In simple words, it has become less indestructible. I'm not arguing if this is a good or bad thing, but one consequence is that a married woman's position has become less stable. And the practice of living together without being married has become more common. It increased the risk for women to be left with children without a man's support. So they are more reluctant to have children. Simple as that. People usually don't talk about that, but I know so many life examples.
And that works for the man too. "She took the kids" was one of the '90s first memes. Now is a widespread reality. A man today thinks 5 times over before "creating a family". Why risk losing my money and freedom over something so volatile as a marriage?
This was a big reason I avoided having kids. I had a terrible fear of single motherhood bc I endured it as a child with my mother. I wasn’t sure marriage was beneficial after what I saw growing up.
@@alexandrameas4436 simple. divorce and get a giant debt on your shoulders. your life will become the life of a slave. your only purpose will become to work and work and work just to pay off your debts. no much freedom when your life is just your job
True. I would not want to have a child in a family where my man did not fully, wholeheartedly commit and receive a blessing and doesn't see how serious work marriage is. When we join this unity, we must compromise, be honest, make decisions together (many men don't want to give up this freedom). I grew up with my dad running away to his friends, having fun, while mom was doing everything and gave her health away. The fact that this is the kind of lack of responsibility I could experience from my man when having a child would be soul crushing. You could end up just always alone with the baby, because of selfish, immature, proud men that don't know what they want and decide to just breed for the sake of breeding without doing the work of the father role. I think many women are terrified of this. Also reason being why many women that did want a normal family, start having mental illnesses or just give up too when the child is born.
In the 1900s less children survived. The infant mortality rate was 165 per 1,000 in 1900. In 1997 it was 7 per 1,000 in 1997. The chances that a newborn survives childhood have increased from 50% to 96% globally, and that is just the birth rate. The health of older children has also improved. Diseases that had carried off thousands of children in 1900 were practically eliminated by 2000: diphtheria, and pertussis, measles. In the 1800s over 46 percent of children didn't make it to their fifth birthday.
Death rate depended on which country. Generally in most places it was just over 300 out of every 1000 did not make it to age 5. Things got a lot better after about 1920 for many parts of the world. In the UK, survival improved during the late Victorian era.. Subsaharan Africa started to improve after 1955. Losing 1/3 of children before age 5 was 'normal' until relatively recently. Prior to the Small pox vaccine, it was not unusual for a family to lose all of their children to this disease in a matter of a few days. People didn't know anything about hygiene and babies were not breastfed for long enough because mothers had to go back to the field or do other labour. Babies died of diarrhoeal illnesses from being fed contaminated food. This was very common. When women gave birth every 15 months, it was a miracle if all of the children survived. Educated women, even in the early 1800s, would space their babies approximately 4 years apart. The death rate was extremely low. But uneducated women had no other options than to get pregnant frequently. Generally they would stop giving birth in their late 30s which is now when many women begin to procreate having one or two children.
@@gabriellakadar Also the uk invented and mandated the smallpox vaccine in the late 1700s and developed the germ theory to stop contaminated water which stopped cholera.
Back in the early 70's I read a paper regarding the effects of over crowding on mice population. The researchers first introduced mice into a roomy environment. The mice behaved normally and were procreating. Gradually the researchers brought the walls in, reducing the area of their enviornment. Eventually the mice stopped reproducing. Maybe this is a natural response to overcrowding. Maybe it's built into our systems, when it gets crowded to quit having offspring to save the species?
@@jesschavez2802 The idea of using the universe 25 as an example of how our society is falling is dumb, 1- first of all we do not live in a society where everything is given to us like the mice in that experiment, nobody is giving all the food, water and shelter all the members of the society need 2- there is no proof that population density is a factor in the fertility rate, the principal factors are better education and child mortality no matter if you live in Mumbai, Hong Kong or in one of the lost small towns of the United States. If the child mortality is lower than the population is stable or declines. This is the complete opposite in the experiment where the mortality of the newborns was super high at the end of the experiment with 96%, it's not that the rats decided to not have new hatchlings they killed them when those were born 3- Even if it is really funny to make the comparison with the "beautifuls" and the incels these two are very different, first of all the beautifuls scape female mice because they were agresive and attacked them, in real life women are not attacking men and that's not the reason why incels never have a couple. Also, most incels are not practicing homosexuality as a replace 4- Denser areas do not have higher levels of violent crimes than rural areas if you adjust it to population, nor they have a significant difference in fertility if you look at areas with similar incomes and education levels And finally, that experiement was never replicated after the 80's and was used to critice cities like San francisco or the none existing Gotham(Batman's citie) by saying they were too dense and that was the reason why those had "sexual deviants" (in Gotham obviously referring to the joker)
I think the biggest part is: Most women don't want kids. In my family, the average amount of kids (in my generation) is 3-4, that's if they got kids, and it stays consistent across all generations, only thing increasing is the amount of women who choose to... not have kids.
I don't. My patience & energy are too low to be forced to care for someone else every day for yrs and yrs and yrs. Only to be finished when I'm too old to enjoy my life. Plus, I like sleeping in on weekends. Kids don't let you do that.
Right you are! I am one of these women. I just don't want children. I have seen women of my age with kids....and guess what? The financial pressure is so huge that they tell me how lucky I am to be childless.
When I was a boy I dreamt of having a big family. But as I realised in what kind of world we live (brutal economy, mass killing weapons and environmental destruction worldwide) I started struggling and ended up with the decision that I don't want to expose any human being to this sh*thole that we created in decadence and eager. I feel sorry for the young people of today. We completely messed it all up
I am the same. I never even thought I would live past 40. Never saw the point in having kids. I am an old fart now, but the years have shown me that I was right. I see the wreckage of awful families all around every day. I am not happy about it either. But it would be worse if I had children.
The hard fact is, unless you're willing to live hand-to-mouth in a First World country with an inevitable financial disaster coming that will require savings you don't have, both parents need to work full-time if they want to raise their kids with any kind of financial security... and there is very little job security nowdays. It used to be you could set down roots and work 30-40 years at the same company, if not the same industry. Now that isn't going to happen. Japan used to have jobs for life after WWII to encourage people to rebuild and start families. That pretty much ended by the end of the 1980s and the birthrate has plummeted to the point where Japan is filled with empty homes.
Nobody is starving in first world countries. They can have as many children as they like. They just dot want to. Why do you think foreigners breed like rats in the west.
In my case, I will be childfree for two reasons: 1) I'm barely scraping by financially, after paying off my bills and for food I don't have much left over. 2) I have SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder), my Auditory and Olfaction (Smell) are the worst. And if it gets to be too much, I will literally shut down and be unable to do anything. Two of my siblings have children and I love them to pieces, but I also am glad that I can hand the children back to their parents when I'm done.
I am also child free for 2 reasons: 1: I have the money but do not want children to consume my free time and money. 2: The human species is far too overpopulated and I refuse to add to that.
Try Eastern Europe, where the wages are 3x lower than in the west lol. For people who have kids, I can't even describe the financial instability in their lives.
Very interesting and very true. My great-grandfather in rural Colombia had 9 children, of which two died before 12 years old. As violence increased, my grandmother and her siblings fled their farm in the 1950s to live in the city. There my grandmother could only afford to have two children (one of them my mother), who could only afford to have me. I'm a University educated professional who's nearly 40 and never wanted to have children (and never will).
The demographic shift will be very pronounced in Colombia. This country is very similar to North America due to our cultural affinity. Families will very soon be a thing of the past, or at least a rarity. Let’s not forget we’re one of the most unequal countries in the world
I'm from India, fertility rate does depends on whether you live in Urban or Rural areas, my great grandfather lived in a city and had only two children, my grandfather and his younger brother, then my grandfather had 3 children one of them being my father, and my grandfather's younger brother had 2 children, now my father has only one child that's me, now if I see my mother's family, my mother said that my maternal grandfather who lived in village had 3 siblings, and my mother has 4 siblings. I noticed that my father's family that has been living in city for generations have had less children, while my mother's family that has lived in rural areas have had many childrens.
I feel like the wording of how many children a woman will "choose" to have is a bit off. A lot of the time this isn't a choice and that's why education and access to health care as well as mor support for women culturally will make a big difference.
What you talking about more support culturly for women? Women already have the world wrapped around their fingers and yet they act like children it's men who work nonstop like slaves/robots and expected to sacrifice everything in order to make others happy...
Having kids isn’t some key to happiness as all the worlds cultures pump into womens heads. It’s a load of bullshit and one can live single or married and no kids with being extremely happy and fulfilled.
@@myown2101 It is. Marriage is a pull/push game where if I work out and is frugal with money, she does so too. If she cooks, I wash the dishes. Ya know. All the time I see couples, ones either slim whilst the other is a obese toad.
So I've been seeing people saying the cost of living is too high and there is no longer a stigma for women to have kids, but one thing I've not seen talked about a lot that is my reason and many others I've heard from for not having kids is we don't want to have kids and have them grow up in this chaotic and hate filled world we live in nowadays. To me it seems like bringing life into a world that is violent, selfish, and racist is one of the cruelest things you can do.
In the past large families were more common, but something that often gets overlooked is that not everyone started a family: a lot of catholics became nuns/monks, in many farmer families only the eldest son could afford to get married, servants might never save up enough money to start their own household (these people might have had some illigitimate children though)
@@kelseymathias3881 I think zoning policies in a lot of countries (deliberately?) make housing more expensive than it needs to be. It's a form of population control that isn't talked about nearly enough.
@@mysticaltyger2009 I still won't give up on the free market system to provide housing at all levels, without gov't interference mucking it all up and creating a population of poor people, which is what we have now to a large extent.
I'm glad you're mentioning that's because that is so true about the past, I knew many people who are older never even had children but they usually has a lot of siblings, wasn't as big of a deal that some people didn't have children, especially women oddly enough
@@mysticaltyger2009 think it's only does have some impact for sure, but also think it's related to investment developers cater to the upper middle-class and Rich, and they seldom for the working-class and middle-class, they sort of correlate with each, developers want to make as much money as possible, many governments want as much tax revenue as possible, so they rely on high property taxes, this also there is a discouragement to building apartments, accessory dwelling due to the fact that they don't get any property taxes. There's also a lot of bad stereotypes about the poor, and often lie they are forgotten so the problem isn't just zoning I love a lot of urban content but they aren't completely right. Simply building more housing will not lead to to more affordable housing, getting rid of some of the zoning laws I do think will help for sure. I do see them building a lot around the world, it's just that they're building more for luxury, this means a bigger footprint of pollution, etc. We live in a time where there are a lot of homes, mansions and buildings, there there's even the controversy of the billionaire row, where most of it sets empty is skyscraper in the sky, cater to the ultra-rich, is nothing more than an investment You have entire ghost cities in China they have plenty of housing, more than even what they would need, but things are made cheap, but have expensive price roll the appearance of lux, much like how a high end brand will sell poor quality but the mark up value is way higher. Personally I think we're heading for a housing bubble specifically caused by building oversaturation of "luxury" (again not talking about quality,) because many of the time they said empty and are just use as a investment,
Which makes sense ..a woman at 18-25 with 3 -5 children will have no life outside being a mother wife cook maid laundress personal assistant nurse maid and hostess.
That is true today. I was born in1959 and felt that way growing up in Texas. IMO, impoversized uneducated women started huge families at an early age and like Miss Mary Mary commented (I'm paraphrasing) they were domestics with little chance of advancement in life.
Growing up i always pictured myself having children. My parents had 3 kids, so i pictured myself with three. I had a very romanticised view on having kids. I saw children as a symbol of love, the greatest kid you could ever give to someone, and the symbol of you and the person youve vowed to spend the rest of your life with, becoming one flesh. But now as a 25 year old woman my views on children are changing. A part of me is still considering motherhood, but a bigger part of me is looking at my student loan debt, the rising cost of living, the drop in the number of jobs being created per year, and the number of jobs being replaced with automation. Im looking at rapid climate change. Im also looking at myself and my desires. I want to be able to travel the world someday, not have my body alter faster due to giving birth, im thinking about my hobbies, my love for reading and writing. Im thinking about how much i enjoy peace and quiet, as well as not having a massive expense like children draining my meager resources. Theres a lot of reasons for not wanting to have children. Thanks to the rapid advancement in technology and medicine, if i ever change my mind and decide to have kids, i should realistically be able to have 1 or 2 in my 40s if i so choose. But honestly, if i ever decide to have kids it would only be if i have a lot of money ($300,000-$500,000) in both liquid and asset form to support them and have something to pass down to them. But rn as a broke 25 year old college student still living with her parents, having children is not my priority.
You are speaking for millions, female & male, in your age group who now find themselves in the same situation. They live in all the countries where it now takes about 20 years of schooling, and many more years to pay that off, just to guarantee a slightly above middle-class standard of living. There is nothing extravagant about your expectations. Similarly, most in that group are not asking to live like millionaires. But, in most first World countries, we may have reached a point where only millionaires can afford to raise children.
On a farm a child is an asset. In a city a child is a financial liability.
Farm work is done with machines nowadays. In my country hundred years ago majority of people were working on agriculture to feed the nation. Now less than 2 % of population is employed on agriculture and number of people in agriculture is still going down.
@@rickrandom6734 only in the west in 3rd world countries it’s still human and animal labor
@@rickrandom6734 Yup farms in the future would be smaller and in a warehouse where employees are trained like a scientist to work for a company
@@hallooos7585 Why should you put plants which need sunlight in to warehouse? Glasshouses yes, but open farmland is most cost effective. Animals, sadly are in many cases inside in animal consentration camps and treated like machines unable to feel anything.
JB: In developed countries no matter where the family lives, the cost of rising a child is the same. Children are not working bodies until at least 14-15 years old and they shouldn't be either and even then they can only work part time. They should use their time to grow up, develop themselves as individuals and go to school to learn skills or prepare themselves for further education. Furthermore, have you ever in your life seen the kind of machines that nowadays farmers use to work their lands? They are huge and complex and above all extremely expensive. Those machines are dangerous for children and they shouldn't be anywhere near them. In our days, farmers study several years both in classrooms and in the fields to acquire knowledge and skills to do what they do. Maybe there are still some more simple tasks children can perform to alleviate the working load of the parents in the farm or maybe just to help or to learn responsibility but things are different for children now compared to earlier days.
Apart from that, children are not liabilities if any, they are great assets. They are our future, our continuation, our time and our blood. We decided to have them even if they weren't planned. They didn't ask to be born and nobody asked them if they wanted to, they didn't have any say in the matter. They came helpless and completely dependent of us, to this world and from the moment we decided to have them they became our responsibility, pride and honor as adults to guide them and follow them into their adulthood. And yes, they are expensive also, so if not for any other reason, you should show them some respect at least for the sheer value they represent.
Cost of living.
My grandfather's first job was pumping gas and he managed to buy a new car and get a mortgage for a house as well as had 8 children and his wife didn't have to work, she worked only to keep herself busy.
My father worked 40+ hours a week and was barely able to afford a used car and could only rent a home, had 3 children, and my mom had to work occasionally to keep the family afloat.
I work more hours then my father, get paid far more (even adjusting for inflation). I haven't driven in almost 20 years let alone owned any car, i don't have children, i don't spend money on anything but bills, no debt at all, and i can barely afford to keep an apartment roof over my head.
Even in the last 4 years my rent has almost doubled and i pay more for one day of groceries then i used to in a week and that's after cutting back. There's no way in hell i'd ever consider getting into a relationship let alone have children when i work full time far above minimum wage and it still can barely get by.
You can't exist in a first world country anymore if you try to make an honest living and that has more of a demoralizing effect on people then anyone appreciates.
👍
Well said!
Agreed, cost of living is prohibitively high. I want children, though I have only one because I know that having more will be a financial struggle. Furthermore, in countries where birthrate is low, children products are very expensive, thus making it more complicated. I know why it is expensive: economies of scale. Less buyers - more expensive. And this rabbit hole can go even deeper...
You need to move lmao. Go somewhere else cheaper, plenty of cheap spots in the US.
in the past (50 years ago)
people got married and had children in the first 5 years after highschool. why? because the could. it was relatively affordable for all classes.
today. you can work 10 years of you life and not even be able to afford your own rent. instead you expected to take on thousands of dollars of debt to get a slightly better chance at working fastfood. now its more late 20's early 30's anyone is confidant enough to enter the market but social expectation do not change with it.
The company who payed every employee 75k per year had a baby boom effect on his employees. Nearly everyone who worked there got a baby cause they had a secure workplace, could afford a child and the options to work from home or have parental leave.
In todays time most jobs dont pay enough and are very insecure, you never know if you gonna stay with the company for the next 1-2 years or not.
I know which case you are talking about. At that credit card company. It truly is a reflection that at some point wealth is necessary to have a balanced life.
Yep, employment options have become steadily more sh*ttified over the past 3 decades. Eventually everyone is going to work for either Amazon, the Hospitals, Google, the Prison Complex, themselves or the government if this keeps up. The rest will be a few banks, big pharma, Starbucks and a handful of chain restaurants. Oh yes and the liquor stores, some churches, clothing and groceries, other big tech and maybe Home Depot. I think I covered most of it.
Yep and if you’re only able to find a job at the hospital, you’d better be a doctor or a nurse or you can forget about a decent paying position
Job insecurity is a bigger issue than pay, if you have job security, you'll eventually manage to live within your means
If they barely pay enough for rent how do they expect birth rates to increase
In 1989, The Simpsons premiered on tv in the US. Homer had no collage education yet supported his family of three kids and a stay at home wife while living in a two story, four bedroom house with two cars.
Today, he and Marge would live with one to zero kids in a one bedroom apartment barely able to pay rent.
I have read very accurate comment on this issue:
"Plants have replaced pets, pets have replaced kids."
"And the kids?"
"They are now like exotic animal, you only have them if you have time and money."
Or crazy.
Stranglely enough highly educated and wealthy people have the lowest birthrates all over the world. The poorer they are the more children they have.
What an interesting observation, and I can agree with it. However, the 'Pet Rock' fad of a few decades ago didn't stay around--perhaps it was too far ahead of its time, and will eventually replace the plants!
@@alejandroruiz2439”The rich richer and the poor have children.”
@@alejandroruiz2439that's not true though. The very wealthy have vast families. So do he poor. It is the middle section that has few to no children. The stats are clear on this, although you'll have to find them yourself.
We aren't having kids in the US because we can't afford to. My wife and I both have great jobs and still struggled to pay for all the costs of two children, especially when both are in daycare
That's the sad part of reality, since WWII women have been integrated into employment however it's no longer an option for them, it's a requirement now given the cost of living.
Yeah. The reality is the United States needs to levy greater taxes on people who chose not to have children. "Retirement" only makes sense if you have children and a younger generation to support them. If you haven't contributed to this next generation, why think they'll support you in your retirement at the expense of their own families and elders?
@@AtharAfzal It's quite possible, but with a good deal of sacrifice. I don't have a very high paying job, but my wife has (of her own choosing) spent most of the 21 years we have been married taking care of the home and the 3 kids. I did have to pick up a side hustle or two, and we have done without many of the frills we would have otherwise enjoyed.
It's not easy, but possible, though I am glad the child-rearing years are largely behind us.
@@hippocleides7105 Sadly, those not saddled with paying their own living expenses are having children, and at a slightly higher frequency, than those who do pay for their own cost of living, however they're already on the social welfare tit and their offspring learn to do the same. It's an ever increasing population that will eventually hit critical mass. When the lowest paid ranks of the working class realized they were poorer for supporting themselves as opposed to taking the benefits of the social welfare state, they switched over and became a liability on the system. They next lowest paid rank does the same, and so and so on. In the not too distant future, a "good paying job" will not be what it seems as taxes, inflation, and all expenses of self support will diminish the quality of life for those sacrificing 40+ hours of their lives per week to sustain themselves. When they realize they cannot live in a better house, drive a better car, eat better food, wear better clothes, etc., etc. than those receiving welfare benefits, the tipping point may be the expense of gasoline for driving to and from work. Needless to say, this can go on for only so long because somebody has to go to work to make the rest of the system work. What happens when social workers quit their jobs to go onto welfare? Police? Medical? Anyone involved in the production and distribution of food or fuel? It's not good.
@@Akalhar oh totally agree, but (1) no one wants to sacrifice (2) pick a side hustle (3) live without the frills - you're family understands and adjusted to the realities of nowadays though and I salute you.
Yep. My own family from Guatemala reflects the radical change in total fertility rate in the undeveloped world over the past 70 to 80 years. My grandparents, born in rural Guatemala, all had 10 to 12 siblings. Most of them died before the age of 10. My parents, born in rural Guatemala, had 5 to 7 siblings. My grandparents had my parents, aunts and uncles starting in their mid-teens. Almost all survived to adulthood (only one died of a ruptured appendix). My generation--my mom had 4 kids. She started having us at 20 years of age, my dad at 23 years of age. We were all born in urban Guatemala--Guatemala City to be exact. No countryside for us. All four of us survived well into adulthood. Now all my siblings are over 30 years old and my sister finally got pregnant at 33 years of age and will soon have the first baby of the next generation. But that is crazy when you think about the fact that by 30, my grandparents, combined, had 14 or so kids. This global demographic change has been an extreme radical shift in such a short span of time!
It's even more drastic for me, my grandfather had 5-8 siblings while my mother only had 4. For this generation, it's only me and my brother for my side of the family
@@someyetiwithinternetaccess1253 Same here except my parents also had 5 - 8 siblings. I'm 43 now with a five year old son my brother has a four year old daughter, he's 40. He might have another kid but I certainly won't.
Perhaps the numbers who survived until adulthood should be compared.
@@joachimfrank4134 actually, most if not all of my grandfather's siblings survived into adulthood
My family from rural areas in the very northern part of Sweden shares a similar pattern. My maternal grandmother born 1909 had 12 siblings (3 died in childhood or youth) the other grandparents 6-9 I think. My parents born before and after WWII had 5-6 siblings each and most of them moved to urban areas as adults and have 1-2 kids except one uncle who had 4 children. I have 1 sister.
People aren’t stupid….having kids in this day and age is EXPENSIVE .
Because my grandparents had 3 times bigger apartment than mine. They also paid for it less than me, even with inflation.
Yup, my grandfather worked alone and financially secured his family (wife and 2 children) with having extra to visit places, while all four of us in our family work and still just seem to manage.
Yup, capitalism has a tendency to do that.
Tends to happen when you double the labor market (womens rights)
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 Actually capitalism is what helped the grandparents but ok.
@@lucifer2b666 More industrialization helped the grandparents by increasing jobs and wages. The irony is that the technological progress that capitalism is so good at reduced the well paid jobs over time, until today when the average wage is roughly the same as it was in 1973 in terms of real buying power.
But ok.
Cost of housing is a major contributor. Without a house there cannot be a functional family.
100% True, housing and childcare need to be subsidised by governments. No children, no future
But in religious, poor countries they have loads of kids no matter what.
@@davidz3879 Because they don’t have the proper education, can’t afford contraceptive, and because of having children they are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty if they’re children does the same
@david23 that has more to do with lack of education in general, and lack of access to contraceptives for the women.
@@davidz3879 They have faith and that means they don't concern themselves with consequences when persisting despite the circumstances because they want to believe it will all work out in the end.
Childcare is 1300 a month where I live. That alone is a contraceptive.
In Germany it is like 80 € per month for the Kindergarten
Because we have a welfare system
And the question still remains: Even if you can afford childcare (welfare or not), why would you have a child, so strangers can raise it?
In the US bay area, childcare works out to be at least 2500 per month.
How about staying home and taking care of your own kids? What a radical idea
@@Magdalena287 Ideal. But most families are not able to survive with one income.
I think the two biggest reasons are
1 - It costs so much money to raise kids and most people would rather be able to retire earlier/at all than have kids
2 - There is no longer a stigma about not having kids that might cause some people on the fence to have them
There's definitely no stigma. Most of the people I know around 40 years old don't have kids. We all know why, because we all have similar lives. Most of us aren't married either, a lot of people just have long term romantic partners. Most of the people I know have graduate degrees.
There's no point to doing any of the traditional things anymore. No fault divorce and a legal industry designed to extract wealth from unhappy couples has made marriage a negative financial expectation. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child means you'll never retire. I'm not going to work to death just to produce the next generation of labor for the children of the shareholders of my employer.
The thing about stigma is very true. 15 years ago when I got a vasectomy at age 27, people thought I was nuts, and that I would regret it. Now in my 40’s, people are not even surprised I don’t have any kids. It’s no longer a default expectation in the city.
@@aluisious "I'm not going to work to death just to produce the next generation of labor for the children of the shareholders of my employer.", smart thinking!!!
Just making children, so that the "supply of slaves" doesn´t drop, isn´t worth it.
If you have money, property or a business you can leave behind, it´s worth having children. So that the families work, won´t get lost to the state.
There still is somewhat of a stigma, at least with my family. Whenever I talk to my mom or dad over the phone or go to visit them they at some point will ask when I'll have kids. Honestly not trying to have kids, too much hassle and I rather enjoy doing things without someone else holding me back.
@@mylesgray3470 Yeah. Out of my main group of about 10 from college (all mid 30s now) one has three kids, one has two, two have one kid. One other is married, one in very long term cohabitation relationship, two are engaged (unknown if kids might come but its leaning to unlikely at this point). Thats its.
It's pretty easy to understand, at least in the USA. We just freaking can't afford to have children any more. It's so expensive, no social safety net, and no universal health insurance, pre-K, and a bad public school system. Most millenials are burdened with excessive student debt too.
Why do poor people in the US have the most children, then?
just get more immigrants problem solved
@@knightshade2654 yeah idk somehow they cant afford it. Must suck not owning all the latest games systems as soon as they come out.
@@knightshade2654 lack of access to effective birth control and less if any exposure to sexual education. Not to mention many women in those conditions have less of a voice or ability to stand up for themselves, so they're taken advantage of my men more often
Lack of birth control and education. Many girls get pregnant very young who then grow up in broken homes and also have many kids young. It's a vicious negative cycle.
In my experience, i can't afford children (netherlands). If we want higher fertility rates, expanding benefits for raising kids would help
I bet government doesn't want you to have children either, they are planning on Lab fetuses as adopties
@@Pyka4 would still be too expensive
@@shadeblackwolf1508 the Great Reset is coming that won't happen.
Plus, the demands on mothers is so high. Who can juggle all the demands without losing their minds? Moreover, my friends who are affluent feel poor compare to the other mommies, who have even more money and opportunities for their children. One friend bought a spare condo in one of Chicago's wealthiest neighbors just to ensure her daughter could go to a decent public school. I guess it was less expensive than paying the tuition to one of the city's elite private schools, which costs the same (if not more) than college tuition. It's all too stressful.
stop two income households.
I make just over $100k per year, live with my parents being 38 years old and gave up on the idea of having a family a long time ago! A decent home that you don’t have to completely rebuild starts at $700k+, in my area, 1 bedroom rents are $3k+ plus utilities, health insurance is high, childcare is $3k per month and so on. My dad was a delivery driver and mom worked in a factory making barely more than a minimum wage , yet still could afford to buy a house and two new cars every few years just 2 decades ago. Completely unimaginable these days!
Then why aren’t rich people having children? How do you explain that
Rich and poor families have children except middle classes.
@@ossianns Easy, rich people have many time consuming interests, many kids will inconvenience their lifestyle.
Poor people have plenty of time to make kids as they barely work and sit on government support, they get cheap housing, free healthcare, free childcare and so on.
Middle class gets no help, pays for everything, works a lot and doesn’t have much time and money left to have many kids!
Damn that's horrible, would you be able to make the same in another place? I'd look into moving.
You should save up while with your parents then move to a different part if the country where it's cheaper.
I chose not to have kids for one reason. Mental illness runs in my family. As a parent it's your job to give a child the best chances at growing up into a healthy adult, cant do that if you knowingly pass on undesirable traits such as mental illness.
That's very wise of you, not everyone thinks ahead.
I’m right there with you. Both my Mom and only sibling, my older brother are schizophrenic and are under the care of the state. This made getting fixed pretty easy for me. No matter who I meet in my life, I don’t want to have children who are likely to suffer a life of insanity.
You seem more mentally sane than most politicians, perhaps they should have children free diet too
What kind of mental illness? People just throw these fuckin words around without elaborating at all as to what it means and instead of trying to resolve something they just give up entirely.
Same here
Having children is a huge responsibility. It's not something that should be entered into lightly. Not only do you have to raise this living, feeling, breathing human being but you have to provide for them too. And parenting doesn't just end at the age of 18 years old. There is a great deal that goes into being a parent and now that parents are being open about it people can make informed decisions. Plus, not everyone shall be parents and some people just don't want to.
Anti-natalism is becoming more common nowadays as well. Ethical questions are raised when the imposed existence of another sentient lifeform subected to suffering is involved.
@@jackkrell4238 Agreed. This Planet is a predatory and violent place even without humans. If souls exist then the children I might have had are in Heaven thanking me for all of eternity for not doing so.
@@randymillhouse791 That's a bunch of crap and we both know it. If you really believe that then why are you still awake? Take care of business, end it and stop being a hypocrite. You aren't willing to give up yours. Maybe someone could have an extra child if you weren't taking up resources.
@@blackbette07 'and we both know it.' Another stellar Trumpian argument point.
@@randymillhouse791 Capitalism is the problem as the bosses seek to hire a single worker and not a family. They seek to pay the lowest wages and work us the longest hours at the fastest pace. We need livable work schedules, social payments for children and 24/7 available childcare.
I feel like "fertility" is the wrong word, "birth" would be more appropriate, since much of the video doesn't discuss sexual health, rather simply the number of children born, and the factors that would lead to the choice to have children. I see the confusion in the comments
yeah, 'fertility rate' is the correct and technical term for this but it is pretty confusing. I don't know why that became the official term. Perhaps in a era where it was assumed people would keep having kids unless fertility is an issue.
Yes, fertility is being able to reproduce, birth is reproducing. They are 2 different things.
Birth rate refers to the actual number of births year to year in a country. Fertility rate refers to how many children each woman has on average.
@@thelourensfamily8048 Yes, but fertility is a misleading word to use in this context. It makes people think that Italians, Spaniards, Japanese etc. are having very few kids due to being unable to have more, when it's actually due to contraception. It also makes it sound like Nigerians, Somalis etc are having many kids due to being astoundingly healthy, when it's actually due to religious/cultural dogma & irresponsibility.
@@davidz3879 listen to video again? High birth rates are linked to higher poverty, lower social, educational and economical circumstances. Low birth rates are linked to higher levels of education and social/financial circumstance. If a leader wants more children from the masses they oppress the whole society via the oppression of women who give birth to and raise boys as well as girls out of that oppression. Oppression of women is ultimately the oppression of man. Women's equality and the wealth and autonomy of the masses are deeply interrelated and correlated.
I think birth rates have dropped due to economic reasons. Many are struggling to feed themselves, let alone having extra mouths to feed. Most economies rely on workers who work long hours in minimum wage jobs just to pay for food, housing and heating. Most people are taught from a young age to become consumers, to go to school, get a job to buy stuff, have children, work until you retire (if you can afford to retire). People are waking up to this and have stopped having children because why would they want to subject a new generation to the same situation. Working just to pay bills until you die without much else to enjoy because you don't have the time to enjoy life because you are working just to put food on the table is no life.
Yes! Exactly! Wish I could like this 1 million times! 💯💯💯💯💯💯
that's the intuitive answer but it doesn't explain why the poorest people have the most kids.
@@Vapor817 they dont know better
@@Vapor817 look at the phillapines, they are a Christian county. No birth control allowed. I watched a video on here, these people took them food and toys for the kids quite a few times. The parents have lived under the same bridge for 20 years, had 18 kids and the mom and oldest daughter both pregnant.
@@Vapor817 because they have different view in life plus do you see their living conditions.
Because houses cost $600k, rent is $2000 a month, and jobs pay $15 an hour. That's the reason.
The cost of childcare in a young married couples budget is a big factor.
Fertile young couples can’t afford to have a kid, while economically stable couples are often too old to readily have kids
Easy solution to that: one stay home to raise the children.
@@searose6192 "We don't have enough money"
"One of you, leave your job"
Logic 100
Actually if you compare the past to now. We are far more wealthier than people in the past. It's just that people don't want to start families at 18. Then you have modern Amish in Pennsylvania have big families, and Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn have the same amount of children. But the Orthodox Jewish community have technology.
Lol maybe mum should look after kids and live with their means.
i’m not having kids because i enjoy my money, quiet, freedom, and serenity. plain and simple.
You’ll enjoy having no one by your bedside when your dying and being alone and miserable at 70
@@TomBradyisinlovewithson y’all are still touting this tired ass argument? bro, look at all the elderly people in nursing homes who don’t have anyone visiting them lmao, having kids doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be there for you “at your bedside” when it’s your time to check out….not to mention, no one is guaranteed to be living to old age anyway, so what’s your point, why do you want everyone to be as miserable as you? also, do you not have literally any other valuable people in your life? no partner, no family, no friends, no one? you just depend on your kids for all your social needs? 🤣
@@TomBradyisinlovewithson you got it written on a paper signed by your child that he/she WILL take care of you when you're old and not leave you in an old-age home?
Always the same deathbed argument from you guys. Life is temporary regardless of how long you live, old age weakens you and that brings so many diseases and problems, why even live past the age when you're not even able to do your own things by yourself? I know it hurts the person seeing how helpless they've become when even the one thing they truly own, their body, is fading away
@@TomBradyisinlovewithsonThey'd have nobody anyway if they hated their kid. What kid would be by a parent that only had them for selfish reasons? If pabloescobarchanclas is in a catch22 in which they either don't have kids or have kids and resent them, why do you blame them for picking the first option? Are you daft?
@@TomBradyisinlovewithsonsame mindset as op here, but my retirement provision is a firearm. no suffering in old folks home
I would adopt or foster children, but some part of me is worried if I had biological children they would have the health problems I have. I also don't see why people keep having more kids when there are some without families.
I would adopt/foster children. I'm an academic/chemical researcher. I enjoy teaching. Yet, my government deems me unfit to do so as I'm neither cis or heterosexual.
@@runakovacs4759 what country?
@@Dimitri88888888 Hungary/Magyarország. Although, by our recent political behaviour, Russia Minor is also a fitting name!
@@runakovacs4759 i think you are heterosexual you just happen to hate men perhaps?
I honestly feel sad when people who would actually be good parents (Healthy: Mentally, Emotionally and financially, Self-Aware, etc.,) and wouldn’t mind having kids of their own, forfeit it SOLELY because “there are kids here already or kids without families”. It’s like the quality potential parents sterilize themselves and the ill-fit people of society (poverty-stricken; careless; trauma filled; ignorant) just multiply like roaches, and their distasteful genetics are passed down. Adopting/fostering doesn’t help it only encourages degenerates to keep multiplying and creating more trauma in the world and being comforted to know that their babies will HOPEFULLY be adopted by “good” people. And what if they don’t?
The cycle of doom continues. Sad.
One factor that everyone neglect is "family time". No one will disagree that Work-Life balance has gone completely haywire these days. How will people take children when they barely has time for the family, for the child? Just the last night my friend was telling me how exhausting it is to attend his child after the whole day of work. No need to take 5 childrens. But a healthy family with 2-3 child will only return if the cost of living is fare and ppl has time for the child.
My dad was the youngest of nine, I was the oldest of three, my brothers had no children, and I have two. My children have chosen, in my opinion quite smartly, to forego marriage and children until they are well established in their careers. Many of peers also made that choice. They waited and only had one child. It's obscenely expensive to raise a child in the U.S. today.
My mom spends $140 a week to send my nephews to daycare and that is considered insanely cheap.
In our area, daycare was AUD $110 dollars per day or $70 USD. So for 5 days, that’s $350 USD / $550 AUD PER WEEK
@@elibaker8849 You realize that for many people, daycare isn't a choice.
We live in one of the most expensive places in the world. Metro Vancouver and yet we have three kids. I’m a stay at home mom and homeschool them. I think too many people say they can’t afford kids because they want to live a certain lifestyle. They want the IG home to show off, the constant vacations. The latest gadget for themselves and their children. I think the REAL issue is too many don’t know how to live within their own means and there is very little financial education. We decided from before we married that when we had kids we would not put ourselves in any situation where I would have to leave the home to work. This means we don’t own a house. We rent and we don’t let the social pressures of that get to us. Many of my peers say they can’t afford to have more than one child because they both have to work, because they did decide to buy a house in an incredibly expensive house market. So now they are both slaves to their work in order to pay a mortgage.
Blame the Federal Reserve and central banks who have devalued the US dollar by 98% since it's establishment in 1913. You wonder why you can't afford anything look no further.
Having children would impact women’s career. There are I many hours in a day. Children needs women’s care and attention. Companies demands all employees to be fully engaged. It’s hard to balance both and I often felt exhausted. I lost my job after having my second child. I get to spend more time with my kids. But I still want to get back to the work force.
Why?
Each household should be working 40 hours a week instead of 80. In the 50s when one man supported the household 40 hours was enough.
Raising your kids is quite likely the most important thing you'll ever do.
@@eccehomosexual THIS^^^^^^ If we had more manageable work hours, maybe we’d see people more eager to start families and invest in themselves and idk… maybe even increase productivity ! Obv we should look into the logistics and economics of it too but it’s a good starting point to talk about our crazy work hours
@@eccehomosexual Yes, and that's before computers & robots were there to help out. Something is seriously wrong. We're working more hours than our Grandparents,
I mean, most my friends grew up in poverty, as did I. And now most of my friends have one child at most, or none at all (like me). Because we know raising a kid in dire financial straights where the caregiver(s) are always absent because they have to work all the time and choosing between whether you want to eat dinner or lunch that day is a recipe for unhappy children likely to follow in poverty. No one wants to bring a baby into that trauma. What would be the benefit?
I'm in my 70s. My grandparents had 10+ children as did their contemporaries. And, living in a rural area, everyone in the family helped with chores on the farm, even the smallest though their chores may have only been to take take of chickens. And the older children did more chores and helped take care of their younger siblings. It was similar for my parents generation though they did not have as many children, 5+. Since birth control was not as readily available, women had tubal ligations/hysterectomies to stop having children. And lots of men had vasectomies too. With my generation, my contemporaries tended to have 1-3 children and many chose not to have children due to cost, two incomes becoming a necessity, the high cost of childcare, etc., as well as the availability of effective birth control. With the stagnating of wages, the ever-increasing cost of living, and the need to live in urban areas that are not necessarily child-friendly to facilitate raising a family, I can see why fewer people are chosing to have children.
@annistar9693 thank you. I sometimes think that many people do not see these things, not because they cannot but, rather because they refuse to. Sigh.
The real reason is that people dont want to give up their higher standard of living to have kids. Not that people are poorer now. Also in a poor country the only people with incomes are men so women have to attach themselves to a man to live and that tends to create alot of children. In the west many women can just remain single all of their lives and not have kids. Muslim countries are still patriarchal and men have all of the jobs which is why they have higher birthrates.
Education leads to fewer children as well.
Being forced to take care of my younger sister is a big reason why I never wanted kids. I wasn’t allowed to be a kid & worry about myself. I had to act like an adult to be responsible for a kid I didn’t have & definitely didn’t want as a sibling 😂. I think it’s pretty selfish of parents to do that. Now that I’m an adult & clearly over it the trauma that is imposed on your body, the risks, school systems potential health risks & child not turning into a productive adult even after you have done all you can on top of being solely responsible because even good men don’t help as much it’s just a no for me lol
@@CoCo-yv3hl for me it's the opposite. I loved taking care and defending my younger sibling. Even though he was 4 years behind he was smart enough to quickly pick up to speed and be competitive enough to play together (eg; multi player videogames).
And if the extremely poor could have 10 kids and parents lived a happy life with kids later supporting them in life, then I can have 2-4 kids no problem, especially in a first world country that even gives you a net safety income if your income falls down while raising them. Meaning they won't starve and still be able to go to school and have fun. It's actually very easy at that point.
I wouldn't want to have 1 because that life is lonely, and too aged apart also harder (but they do learn limited skills). I've even learned the skills to raise them myself without a need for a father, but it is easier to have a partnership or two to tag team with (occasional family members in cases of traveling emergencies such as Grandma or cousin who'd be delighted). Connection with family members is pretty important.
There are signs of when your kid may not be interested in being productive and that is very frequently caused by parental misguidance. Like, letting them have too much free reign on social media, videogames etc. They need to earn the reward not just have it be given freely. Many parents over spoil their kids to the point that it becomes a problem when the kids turn to adults and want stuff handed freely to them like when they were little and they have a harder time coping with that reality.
There's also exposure. Some parents don't supervise or know how to set a PG barrier on their kid's phones/tablets/tv when they are little. The proper barrier will let a 5yr old watch Pokemon, but not game of thrones for example. This is a problem as certain behavioral issues can arise from this. I've seen parents give free internet, food, and entertainment reign on their 7yr old and it's not surprising they are having behavioral school issues as well.
my grandfather born in the 30s raised 5 children on a city bus driver salary and he was the sole bread winner. Goodluck finding a place to live yet alone raising a single child on a bus drivers salary today.
its simply to expensive to live atleast in the "west".
Well, I'm sure they didn't each have a phone, iPad, Netflix subscription, etc so there's also the cost of all those modern conveniences and experiences
@@oakinwol yep thats the reason people are having fewer children netflix and iPhones....
@@RF-lg4rq my grandfather had 12 kids and lived on a farm in Nigeria. Somehow they could afford having all these kids survive into adulthood and contribute to society. I don't think all these people who say they can't afford kids are living hand to mouth huddled in small one bedroom apartments. In the past, they understood that it isn't a question of whether you can afford to have kids, it's whether you can afford not to. Modern society gives the illusion that we can afford not to make significant sacrifices to invest in the next generation. It's just selfishness. We have more than any generation before us has had. We will learn what happens when people en mass depriotize relationships, family, and children. I always mention that for 1000+ years after the society that pyramids collapsed they were surrounded by people without the knowledge or capacity to do what their ancestors did. We're not invulnerable. There are a few things that can cause complete system collapse like what we saw in the bronze age. Declining our population too rapidly is one of them
@@oakinwol I don't think you understand. In the past 50 years household income has increased 16%, while the average household cost increased 190%.
Source: (ua-cam.com/video/0sj-8pjt9Xk/v-deo.html timestamp 7:01).
Sure your grandfather had 12 kids but by what measure are you using to decide if he could afford them. Could he afford to have 12 kids in the United States right now on an average income all the while paying a mortgage and all the bills that come with home ownership? Feed all 12 of those kids? Clothe all 12 of them etc.
@@oakinwol I am expected to have a smartphone for my job. Fuck, any job is gon a expect you to have a smartphone. My grandparents didn't forego all luxury and convenience even on my grandpa's small pay as a baker.
The short answer is most of us like the financial stability of no kids and the peace of mind of just needing to work and go home, not raise another human being.
Slightly longer answer in some countries is when women gained the ability to make their own paychecks prices started to adjust to the dual income households. That is why being single is such a struggle financially for most and being in a couple feels like just enough……the issue is there is not enough room financially to fit children even with two incomes for most families and even with more money those people sometimes still prefer not to have to deal with all the burdens kids bring. No one is home all the time to be with the kids and both incomes are needed to sustain the household, not to mention day care costs and other costs.
If countries want more children they just need to turn the dial on cost of living down and bring back the possibility of one income supporting the entire house as the norm……but it’s not happening 😂
Edit: just want to make clear I think it’s great everyone gets to work the issue is the price increase of everything in relation to dual income households and other issues . I’m for households to be comfortably supported by one income as well as two if they choose to have two incomes. I don’t think anyone should lose any rights. Felt it necessary to clarify since there seemed to be some
Confusion lol 😂.
Agreed. I think there are too many zoning regulations in most countries, which makes housing harder and more expensive to build, and it also restricts the supply. All of this makes housing a lot more expensive than it should be. I can't help but think this is by design.
Being single isn't much more of a struggle than living with another person. You can have a smaller apartment, spend less on utilities and have more time for side hustles. And of course the flexibility and freedom.
@@itsvmmc smaller apartment depends. In a couple you can still go one bedroom or even studio if you share the same sleeping space. So technically you can look at the same apartments single or in a couple.
You can still have time for side “hustles” and other things in a healthy relationship. Extremely successful people don’t have to be single and most often they are not. They are with someone who values what they do.
Bills don’t go up dramatically when having a partner. If both are in the same space with the light on it isn’t twice as expensive, same with cooking that pizza for two people. The bills are halved with a partner who shares the burden with you.
Most of my friends are single and can barely afford anything working the same job I do. The difference is my house we have two incomes and work together to build while they work to survive. The biggest solution if you are single is to find a reliable roommate but then you likely need at least a two bedroom. In addition this can be a much harder task and one person in this exchange will likely eventually leave due to finding a partner themselves. There is also the possibility someone in the house is single because they are a terrible partner, which means they can be negative help in a similar way to a bad partner in a relationship.
I’m not sure how having a good partner would ever be a downside financially. Now having a bad controlling partner who expects you to take care of them and their bills 😂 now that leads to you unable to pursue additional money from other sources and increased difficulty. Don’t pick a leach for a partner and don’t pick someone who wants you to do nothing but spend time with them.
Having a good partner and no kids means you still have the time you spend with friends you can give to them and the same time you spend away from friends to pursue whatever you choose. You also might have more money to help achieve what you want sooner and so might your partner.
Tldr: being single is only better if you have a bad partner for what you want. A good partner is never a burden long term in a scenario without kids.
A 2 v 1 situation feels unfair to the 1 . The 1 needs to be significantly better to overcome the challenge and only a really bad ally could make things less good for you. The 1 can win, it can be done…..but if you could then having another teammate at your level you would be at an astronomical advantage thus reaffirming that having a good partner is the better play. You don’t have to want a good partner but the fact remains it is a massive upside to have one instead of without outside of circumstances both of your control. This would include medical complications and other potentially traumatic and unexpected live occurrences.
Okay long ass comment complete, I wonder how many will actually read this monstrosity xD
@@rykersixx So, the obvious solution is to make polygamy great again.
BTW I struggled with the last paragraph 😂.
@@julius43461 lol I mean technically if you can get it to work then it could be extremely beneficial xD but it’s difficult to find one really good partner let alone 2+ who are also into sharing you lmao 🤣
So funny, my mom has a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field yet had 5 kids. Not to mention, she earned that degree while being a teen mom. Truly a statistical anomaly
Wow! Go, Mom! Interested to hear your experience of her as a mom. Role model? Wished she stayed home and baked cookies? Gave a more intellectually enriching environment and life skills?
Some women like to work hard. But I think her having a STEM degree in fact encourages her to have kids, as she has the means to raise the children she births.
@@sarahrosen4985 oh I could go on and on about my mom lol
But to keep it short, yes, to all of those things you said (she still did make us cookies sometimes 😛)
Somethings I’d add though, is that since we are relatively close in age, when I was a teen (and still today), she was able to relate to me in a lot of ways that parents usually don’t.
And a piece of advice she gave me *that I live by* is to “prove the world wrong.”
That is to say, don’t let others try to define who you are supposed to be, don’t become solely the result of your environment. Instead make your own path and decide who *you* are.
(Then she’d caveat, “but your my child, so you’re at least going to university and working a respectable job.” 😆)
Thanks for asking! Sorry if I’m sound disorganized, I’m going on 4 hours of sleep!
Maybe but I would even say that it is a future trend. The most educated individuals are going to end up having the most children since it is a luxiary they can afford. People want rarity and having big families is going to be a new status symbol
Being a teen mom ain't a good thing 💀
As a 40 year old successful, educated, single American without kids, I unfortunately knew that when social media came out around 2005, I would not get married/have kids. I did everything I could, but in the end I could not find someone. It does not make sense to bring a kid into this world without two parents who are in love. I am content with my status.
All countries with positive birth rates are patriarchal. All patriarchies enforce male dominance and female submission. But the West refuses to acknowledge that this is necessary for civilization (and the women report they are happy and aren't on anti-depressants like 1/3 or American women). It's a sad joke.
I can't find anyone either but I'm not content with my status. In fact I'm bitter about it. I'm jealous that other men have a pretty woman to love, have sex with and bring in more income to the home but I don't.
I'm 70 yrs old. Educated, etc. In high school I told my friends that I'd wait to find a divorced woman who's kids have grown up and left the nest. I still have time.
@@drewthompson7457 what job do u do to earn money?
@@drewthompson7457 You are the imbodyment of "Just peak in your 70s, bro." You will never be able to experience having your own family, anymore. Imagine your father had the same mindset.
My grandmother had 8 kids. My mother had 3 kids. I am planning to have 0 kids. I am the very face of this. To be honest with you, it is not even because we 'hate kids', it's literally because we are earning way less than our parents when they were our age and the cost of living in general is higher than it has ever been. I can't even take care of myself, let alone be responsible for another human for a quarter of their lifetime.
then why rich countries tend to have less kids than poor?
@@karolissavickis10 Because the more educated a population, the fewer children they have.
@@karolissavickis10 Education. When you are poor, you need to have more children to provide for you at an early age because they are fitter and younger than you and you don't prioritise their education.
@@karolissavickis10 The "country" might be rich, that does not mean that individual citizens benefit from it.
@@karolissavickis10 ;) the same reason why poor countries have high death rate for children and rich don't.
I wish more people were into demographics, its a good way of seeing how the world will be in the future.
Breeding like rats
@@niranjansrinivasan4042 not really current world wide fertility rate is 2.5
@@Muslim-og3vc 2.5? Na, its far less ⬇
Indeed, to put thing in perspective every day about 300,000 people die, and about 600,000 a born... Soon The NWO and now China too will do to Africa what the NWO did for China and The Rest in general - enable MASSIVE POPULATION INFLATION on a grotesquely fake-green industrial scale.. Either that or PULL THE PLUG!
--
Here's my take... After WW2 (AKA Nuclear World War 1), The Allied Internazi Winners carried on warring all over the world, in both the Cold War, and extremely HOT Nuclear World War 2 - The Nuclear Test War, 100s of 1000s of nukes exploded... The Internazis went progressively Neo-Liberal, and then full-on Neo-Liberal Globalist from the 80s onward, neo-liberally investing in The Rest's Nazi-like cultures, transferring The West's industrial might & magic to The Rest - who TRIPLED THEIR POPULATIONS in just 40 Years from 2 billion to 6 billion..
--
The US had nuclear supremacy for quite a few years so could have wiped out the Nazi-like Restern Cultures.. Out-Nazid them all, once and for all, for good, while liberating Western children to INHERIT THE EARTH! No joke....... Instead, it chose to demonise its citizens and make them 3rd class citizens in their own lands by 'progressive' Affirmative Action laws, programs and funding.. Thus Native Europeans and Native USians have been Greatly Replaced in huge numbers..
@@PrivateSi yeah the elites are trying so hard to destroy the family, they view is humans like a disease and think we are too many, when that is false, the earth has so much habital land, we already make more than enough food etc. only those people with good familiy values will survive
It is the tradeoff which we all have to bear for a better quality of life. Raising a child is becoming much, much more expensive than before. So the really simple question I always ask myself is, if I can’t even feed myself, why bother marrying?
Well you also have to find someone whom you want to marry and who wants to marry you - and then have a shared vision of having a child or children. And for the woman - that she be young enough to have one or more healthy children. Many women aren't making it to that 1st or 2nd marriage where they still have time to safely bear children. And infertility issues for both men and women is on the rise in the developed world.
From the perspective of national fertility rates, it doesn't matter whether parents end up divorcing or have multiple divorces, or simply have children without marriage or even living together - but for many people, the quality of married life and marriage longevity is important enough that they are more careful about whom they marry.
And this can be a factor affecting the children who result from these relationships. In terms of net social benefit, societies don't really need more adults in prisons or requiring mental health care and support, or longterm unemployed.
@@SY-ok2dq having more kids won’t result in more imprisonment. Those people WERE someone’s 1 shot child. Aka that wasn’t before the fertility crashed that was after
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se Oh I didn't mean to imply that.
I'm merely stating that the reason why governments in many countries around the world are trying to get national birth rates to go back up is so that there are more productive, income earning, money saving, working people who can do all the jobs that currently support society, and to be able to draw upon taxes and revenue from those younger generations to a)fund all the functions of government and running a modern state at the current levels of development, and b) to fund the non-income productive lives of seniors over retirement age
The welfare of these new, young generations is important to governments only insofar as they maintain stability, and are fit, healthy and able (mentally able, physically able) to do all the work in society and provide revenue. Oh and that includes the need for military personnel. People who spend long periods in prison, or are in and out of prison often, provide less revenue to governments and worse, are a drain on government funds.
Families that live in unstable environments, abusive and neglectful conditions - having more children is likely to increase the odds of more kids growing up to be unstable or commit crime, and also raise kids that follow in their footsteps. Naturally, this isn't an outcome for society that we want. And it's a hard life for those children. But from the standpoint of governments needing revenue, it's a minus as a higher birthrate that comes with the downside of more unstable, damaged, or criminal adults in prison or who harm others, is costing more money than is being added to a nation's GDP and taxes.
What I meant is that I think there are important positives to people taking some time to decide to marry and have children, and putting more focus on the health, happiness and wellbeing and the economic wellbeing of the fewer children that they have. They have to value their 1 or 2 or 3 children more than if they had 10 babies with 7 or 8 surviving to their 20s or 30s (childbearing/rearing age). I can see a lot of benefits of children having many siblings, but at the same time, when parents only have a few kids, each child gets more individual attention and care, and a feeling of more importance.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se It boils down to the parents and their character (and also their genes, as some things like schizophrenia are I believe, likely to have inherited, genetic factors; maybe alcohol and drug addictions are this way too, in addition to environment), and how they raise their child, as well as other influences outside of parents in their environment, and whether they experience trauma or abuse etc.
Anyway, back in the days before contraception, most women just pumped out many kids regardless of whether they wanted them or not, or whether they had the means to support them financially and emotionally. I think it has to be better that parents think about it more, and prepare and plan. And I think it's better that people have more freedom of choice, rather than in some cultures and in the past around the world, where young women (and men) were forced into arranged marriages and women expected to produce children as heirs (often males) and couldn't avoid pumping out babies.
But on the other hand, it's now become paradoxically so much harder for people to find someone and to marry and have kids before they're too old, or before they have enough income and security. A lot of men in Western (and now other countries like Japan) are unwilling to get married, and go from one woman to another, or else they mostly retreat from relationships (like in Japan) for various reasons.
When people marry each other it's because they love the person and want to spend their life with them. There will always be money issues throughout your life. There is never a "good" time to settle down, marry and have children. Also raising a child is not as expensive as you think it is, if you have a well paying job providing for your children should not be a problem. You will not be able to afford EVERYTHING but you will be able to take care of at least a few kids.
Because no matter how rewarding it is to raise a child, they make most people less happy. I say this from observing my friends and family who did and did not have children. It's undeniable.
That's what I think too. I only really hear parents complain about their lives and kids, peppered with a couple nice stories. It seems like being stuck in a miserable hole where your life is suddenly no longer yours to live. That just doesn't sound appealing to me
Is it rewarding for a child to be brought into this shit show?
Try asking your mom then
@@arep1030 I already feel bad for what my mom went through raising her three kids.
@@PhenixJoe Hey it's not too late to make her proud. I'm not one to say as I've yet achieved anything great in my life. But I'm sure my mom would still be proud of me and glad that she actually raised me and my siblings. I'm sure your mom felt the same way too. Having and not having children both have pros and cons, but in the end i think it's worth having children, and that's why humans have always reproduced. Plus raising children with love and care would surely shape you into a better person, something people without children would never know. That's just my opinion tho. Feel free to disagree
I did some calculations and it seems like the "standard" lifestyle with 2 kids is impossible for the average person in my country because both parents would need to make 1,6x the average wage. The only way you can afford kids is if you sacrifice something (car, savings, mortgage down payment etc.) and even THEN you'll be living paycheck to paycheck. You can really just be financially stable if you live on your own here, and avoid any extra payments.
What country, if I may ask? We have three children, but we started at 27 and 37 (respectively), and I’ve worked in between children. We make many sacrifices to keep them fed, healthy, happy, and their grandparents pay for their schooling.
@@kiwik2951 What sounds like reasonable sacrifices to you may be unpalatable to others, there are billions of people with different perceptions. The trade-offs when you have children are not simply financial, it's a lifelong commitment - of time, energy and goodwill - to something you may not be capable of handling. "Grandparents pay for their schooling" is not likely to be a commonly available resource
The "nuclear family" was invented by Victorian society not counting 20 heads of household staff contributing to childrearing without being counted as family members and accordingly fallacious
Yup, politicians and the wealthy are screwing the masses. Pick up your arms, their is going to be a mother of all wars over this.
Then you are choosing to have material wealth over family.....the joke, however, is that that wealth is built on a system that demands growth and as we hit the demographic crunch those savings and investments are going to rapidly Decrease in value leaving most people poor AND without family.
Fun fact. Giving birth, even in a well-developed country with good healthcare, can still cause severe physical and/or mental trauma for the mother. For some people, including me, it's less I don't want to have kids moreso I just don't want to be pregnant. There's so many children stuck in foster care and they deserve a healthy household to live in
And in the US it costs an average of 10k in hospital costs to just have the baby.
It's almost like people greatly valued that great sacrifice of mind and body to birth the literal future of humanity, and now we see a disconnect between having children and the act of making them. Hook-up culture also sees a drastic decline in people forming long term relationships that would more readily provide care for possible children, since again, sex is divorced from the concept of having children
@@CheffBryanpeople, especially men, have never valued that sacrifice, ever.
When a women becomes pregnant, the chance of her partner cheating on her becomes the highest it will ever be.
The chance of a woman getting murdered is higher when she is in a relationship, lowest when she is single and HIGHEST when she is pregnant.
When a pregnant woman dies of unnatural causes, it is almost always because of the male partner.
What about c sections? (Speaking as someone born via c-section)
@@nechdaught3412 What about them?
In the early 1960's, John Calhoun did a series of rat experiments looking at fertility and behavior when rats in a confined colony were given free access to food and water. Those experiments are described in Wikipedia under the term "behavioral sink". Rat fertility dramatically fell as the population rose, with a fall happening in parallel with a cultural shift. There was plenty of room for more rats, so it wasn't as simple as not enough physical space. Gangs of male rats came together, there was violent conflict, and others confined themselves to a solitary existence, choosing not to breed. Ultimately all rats died. There are parallels to cultural shifts in human populations today.
Hmm… interesting-although a bit disturbing.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
I know about 'mouse utopia' experiment. Was there something similar done with rats too?
@@justsomedude8324 Good point, I believe he did experiments with both species.
Only incels attempt to link rat behaviour to human psychology...
i remember there was a video about this
I live in the US, where housing is expensive, medical is expensive, school is expensive, food is expensive, and taxes are quite high, to say the least. Also, let's not forget that wages barely go up here in the US. It will only get worse in the future. I won't be having kids, because I know I wouldn't have the responsibility to take care of a child. They're expensive to take care of, and it's mentally frustrating of a job as well.
I hope the world of the future will be a world of quality than quantity.
You can't apply that to demographics. Older nations (see Japan as an example) will economically stagnate, then crash. It would be very difficult to run an economy where most of the population is over 65.
That means, fewer consumption, fewer consumers, fewer men to enlist in the military to defend the nation etc etc. Even with robotisation, it won't solve everything
@@numericbin9983 If computers can do everything a human can do as well or better, than their is no reason to have humans at all, they'll just be a liability. The most driven nations would kill their population so they can invest everything in automation. However for the demographic problems that Japan is experiencing, there are ways to mitigate them, mainly making caring for the old people more efficient and/or immigration. However, if old people have money, they will consume, especially if they're paying massive medical bills from age-related diseases.
@@numericbin9983 the idea that anything including economics should grow endlessly is suicidal. Infinite growth is impossible on finite planet
This doesn’t apply to demographics my guy.
Every person available to produce, think, invent, clean and solve problems make the world better.
Religion plays its role in certain part of the world with regard to fertility rate. For example, Kerala is considered the most literate state in India but In 2018, 43.80% of the total reported births in the state were to Muslims, 41.61% to Hindus, 14.31% to Christians and 0.25% to others whereas the population of these religion group is 27%, 54% and 18% respectively. Even though people of Kerala belongs to same race, have similar culture and speak one language but there is a stark difference in birth rate.
Interesting example to look into more! Could differences in economic and social opportunities or differences in level of urbanization be part of the explaination?
All Abrahamic religions told their adherents to fill the earth. The holy book writers definitely wanted their religion to dominate
More than religio it is the economic conditions in which people from each religion are.. you have to see from that perspective as well.. also literacy doesn't equate to knowledge and awareness
@@SmallCirclesForward I don't think lack of economic and social development is the reason behind high birth rate. High birth rate is the reason behind lack of economic and social development. Urbanization could be the reason because muslims who live in rural areas are govern by local madarsas and mosques. They preach that using contraceptives methods are unislamic and haram. Preventing child birth is against god's will. Whereas in urban areas people are more busy in pursuit of their economic goals.
@@dobronx5270 YOU DESTROYED A SICKULAR GIRL NIICE
A lot of people just don't want to pass along the trauma they endured...
That's certainly one of the biggest reasons for me.
@@molekyyli i am feeling the same man.. but i cannot say its the ONLY reason
@@molekyyliUnless you are in saddening personal situation, that argument is just bûllshît to me.
Our ancestors went through Viruses, WORLD WARS, famines, civil wars. And you are complaining that you have it rough?
Life finds a way, despite the roughest of circumstances people still have children because children are a beautiful thing, life is a beautiful thing.
@@jamalperkins-6107 they might have passed on bad coping skills. We don't have to have or want kids.
@@safsafmando No, it's certainly not the only reason, but for me, at least, one of the significant ones. A child can't walk away from a bad parent like an adult can from a bad relationship.
What an excellent summary. Both of my sets of grandparents were immigrants to the US and had in excess of 10 births, with several of their children not surviving. My good friend is originally from Poland, and his grandparents all had large families for the benefit of having an internal labor force.
There was past religious pressure to have large families. I was raised in a religion that prohibited birth control. That was a real concern for my sister, who is 15 years my senior, but not a concern for me. Religious views have changed over time.
My wife and I are educated professionals; we have 4 kids but are outliers in our circle. Raising kids is a very expensive proposition. My wife gave up over 10 years of her career in that pursuit, and I had to make many sacrifices as the family's sole breadwinner. The cost of raising a child in the Western world is astronomical. For instance, a college degree is almost mandatory and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per child. We were very fortunate that we could allocate resources for our children, but it certainly involved a large sacrifice. We were rewarded with great kids who are now adults. With that said, I can understand why some are choosing to not have kids. These individuals are so burdened with debt and uncertainty that their struggles almost seem to be the flip side of the coin of the motivators that caused couples at the turn of the last century to have huge families. At the turn of the 20th century having many children ensured financial stability. At the turn of the 21st century having no children ensured financial stability.
College degrees are not mandatory. You and many others have been conditioned to think that they are.
@@ObsidianRadioeven so, in this day in age jobs without a college degree are very low paying, and people with just those jobs can barely get by by themselves (unless their family ends up being a giant money source, which won't happen often) much less with children to keep in mind
It's not required technically, but it practically is
I can confirm this. I am someone without a college degree, and life is almost impossible. I am an ex-houswife who became a widow at 32 when my husband died unexpectedly in a car accident at the age of 36. Our son was 3, and I had no marketable skills or work experience and now I am basically SOL. It been 2 years , and although I wanted more children (even lost a pregnancy right before my husband died) and to have a family, my life is so miserable and impossible and already unfair to my existing child. Not to mention the lack of a partner is obviously a factor but even if I met someone im running out of time, and unless my situation improves drastically (not likely in the time I have) i would not be able to justify taking away resources from .y existing child that are already not enough. I have accepted that the family I always wanted will never happen.
@@YonkaLmao This system is gonna have to change. This just isn't right.
If we don't get degrees we get lower paying jobs and can barely get by. If we do get degrees we still can't get by because the cost of everything constantly goes up and now we're in thousands of dollars in debt that will take more than a decade to pay off.
This is just wrong!!! 😞
@@YonkaLmao I know tradesmen, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc., who make very good money, better than many with college degrees. I'm glad I have an engineering degree, and it has helped me live decently, but I see plenty of examples of those who act very responsibly with the education they have and do well also. What has happened in the US is that States have dramatically reduced their support of education, especially college education. Student debt has thus become far more of a burden for the current generation, and they have my sympathy for that. The savings in State budgets have not necessarily been distributed to offset the increased costs of college.
We can’t expect perpetual growth in a world of finite resources.
We don't have finite resources at the moment.
We have one small group hoarding massive amounts of resources and using their influence to manipulate the cost of living in order to squeeze as much money as they can from us.
@@zerosen1972a slave world on a prison planet
@@zerosen1972 The reason they hoard them is because they are finite.
@@zerosen1972resources are always finite, it’s just how much we have left.
@@streddaz we have a lot left, but it wont matter if a small number of people get most of it
I don't think "fertility rate" is the right wording for the title. It would indicate a change in a woman's ability to give birth. Birth rate would probably fit better.
I agree it can be confusing, but fertility rate is the commonly accepted term
Technically fertility rate in the West in males is on the decline too.
@@davidmarshall9708 Due to chemicals placed in food...it's all by design for population control.
The Fertility Rate : of a continent or nation . Not a single woman or man . So it makes sense he is talking about the fertility of an Area in general . Not singling out one person like you are
Men don't want children either.
They would rather eat taco bell, play video games and watch pronography instead of bettering themselves for a potential family.
We say that we love freedom, but when people exercise their freedom, we complain about it.
Freedom is just another word for being a slave to your own image of freedom.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are in opposition to each other.
@yitzhak shekkelsteingoldmanberg Conservatives are the ones who scream “FREEDUMB” all the time. Whenever somebody practices that freedom outside of the “conservative” or biblical model. You people make it a political debacle.
When we say "freedom" we actually mean "MY freedom". We're all just a bunch of petty tyrants at heart.
1) Most nations don't recognize deliberately setting out to non-defensively hurt, harm, or demean others as a human right.
2) The type of freedom most westerners (especially Americans) want is that of a wild coyote roaming the prairies. That's not freedom, that's anarchy.
Not every woman is ready to sacrifice her dreams for the sake of having a child. I am 28 years old, I have a higher education, a stable job, I have been in a relationship with the same man for 6 years, we have been living together for four years, and I have no children. I've made a few percent of my dreams come true, and the child will simply destroy everything that I'm building now. I’m not ready to give up being happy and having a baby, because my happiness does not lie in having children. I’m not alone, all my friends, both female and male of the same age, don’t have children and have completely different goals in life. Values have changed, and people, especially women, now have the opportunity to make their dreams come true, and reproduction is not everyone's goal.
Plus, kids are too much of a responsibility, and that's for life. You can't change your mind after giving birth once. Having given birth, you are connected with a whole person for the rest of your life, and personally I’m not ready for this yet.
Sister ❤️ what's your opinion on the philosophy of antinatalism?
Replacing family with career or consumerism is incredibly short-sighted and not a choice you can undo once the train has left the station (10 to maybe 15 years)
@@YBM2007that's alright. They don't want to be on that train anyways.
@@LckD008 heres the thing, a woman is locked to that choice - a male partner can ditch the plan, her and then start a family anytime. At least in theory
@@YBM2007 that's alright. They don't want to be on that train anyways.
I have thought about this so much over the years. I was born in the US in the 70s. My grandparents on both sides had between 10 - 12 siblings but not all survived to adulthood. My grandparents' generation had 5-6 kids themselves, then my parents' generation had between 1-2 kids. In my generation, I know several people who don't have any kids at all. In my lifetime, we went from one person being able to support a family with modest means, to families with multiple people working but still struggling to get by working 50+ hours per week. I'm sure access to birth control played a part. But in larger families, childcare duties were spread out among family members living in the same household; these days, all the communal duties of a household may fall to just one person, and if that person works, they have to pay someone for childcare, cooking, or cleaning which in older times might have been done for free by a family member. Enjoyed the video and the analysis.
Correction: why WHITE people stopped having kids
If people stopped believing in Evolution, they would value life higher.
Governments around the world LOVE women working. Why? Two reasons:
They get to tax the entire population, not just half.
The kids get ignored at daycare, so the parents have no influence over their kids and the government takes over influencing them.
Wow. You must've hit a nerve. 3 replies but I see nothing.
Something nobody ever seems to want to recognize is that there has been a world wide push from western activists to reduce human reproduction. They have championed policies that decrease productivity and work to create an environment hostile to "breeders" who "irresponsibly" bring more life into the world. This coupled with the effective destruction western mating rules and the lionization of abortion as a heroic act has brought us to the point where western population crash is a very likely possibility in the next few decades.
At the same time globalization of the worlds economies has pushed the dirtiest manufacturing work into countries that do not have the worker or environmental protection policies common in the west, effecting local fertility rates & infant mortality. Which has set up the rest of the world for a similar crash.
It's not going to go the way those cheering for it think it will, either. We are looking at losing enough of the worlds workforce that there's not going to be enough workers to keep critical systems working. Workers that *cannot* be replaced with robots and AI. And since achievement is based on things other than aptitude or ability there won't be the people needed to make those robots and AI
You just made a perfect case for women not being in the workforce. If I had my way, women would comprise no more than 10% of the workforce, and that would be in nursing, and professional entertainment.
The amount of time you have to sink raising a child is also noteworthy, in poorer societies as long as the child hits double digit he will be able to join the workforce, but in first world some above average job won't even give you a chance to interview if you don't have a college degree, that means parents have to devote 20+ years of their life raising a kid just to have a chance competing with others
That's true, lack of enforced child labor laws and the labor intensive farm life in poorer countries makes extra hands an asset.
Exactly, the standards of raising kids have gone up tremendously. It’s a good thing but it definitely makes it harder to have them. Back in the day many kids didn’t go to school, worked, did not receive medical care, and often slept in overcrowded rooms if they were poor. They went out on their own and didn’t get much supervision. That type of parenting is largely inexcusable today.
Don't focus on "above average." It's impossible for the average person to get an above average job.
Its mostly due to poorer and male dominated societies having all of the jobs done by men. Women therefore have to marry early and marriage often results in pregnancy especially without birth control. Rich countries where women dont have to get married means that alot of times they choose not to have kids. In ancient sparta alot of the wealth ended up concentrating in a few women's hands and that society eventually ceased to have almost any spartan citizens by the end and then got taken over unlike their thriving male dominated neighbours athens, thebes and macedonia.
Theres also the impact wealth has on birth control
ETA theres a few times the phrase "how many children a woman chooses to have" without taking into account that poorer countries have higher r*pe stats. Its not just that, higher educated women tend to be better off. Theres also stigma around periods in poor countries resulting in girls missing valuable schooling. There are MANY more factors that go into birth rates than how many kids a woman wants. And putting the onus squarely on them is doing a disservice to the examination of the economics involved.
we need more good people, quality over quantity.
Tbh, it is not just rural and city issue that affects fertility rates. For me not having children is my non-confidence vote on how the future is heading. For example, the generation before me invested in CDO and mortgage-backed securities for short term gains instead of investing in space stations or cities on mars or the moon.
It is the fact that in my teens, I knew it took 2 people working right now to pay for our current retirees of our retirement plans. I also knew this was going to increase to 3:1 when I retire and if I did have kids they see it in a 5:1. Government-backed mandatory pyramid scheme go figure and no one has the bravery to say it out loud and end the program. Governments are currently spending money from future taxpayers, aka your kids, without their consent but they will be left with the bill.
The main reason why I don't want kids: I know my kids would be more worst off than I am.
Agreed with ya
I prefer to left humanity extincted than torturing themselves.
You can live in retirement by living in one of your children’s home
I am a woman in my 60s, who heard about OVER population throughout my childbearing years, and chose to be childfree. There must be, to some approximation, a world population level that will be sustainable with the majority of people having sufficient resources to live comfortably. I was always under the impression that lowering or stabilizing population was a good thing, now it's worrying?
the worrying part is less the population itself and more the ratio between young and old people. with life expectancies becoming longer and birthrates going down, there are going to be fewer and fewer workers to support the growing elderly population.
automation is a solution but there is going to have to be a pretty radical industrial revolution for it to make a difference
It's a good thing
Only worrying if your main priority is accumulating wealth, but anyone that thought an infinite growth economic model was sustainable, is definitely not playing with a full deck.
@@Vapor817 But there will be fewer dependent children for the workers to educate and support.
@@chriswatson1698 unless you wanna work until you're like 80, retirement is only going to become longer than childhood as the average lifespan increases. plus there's that bit about how children become more independent over time and grow up into working adults while old people can only grow older and become more dependent on medical infrastructure to keep them alive.
I keep hearing: "a woman chooses..." but this phrase applies far less than you might think in poor areas and families (in all nations), due to different conditions based on culture. Some cultures see women and having the sole purpose of having and raising children. If a woman is imprisoned by a culture who sees her as nothing other than a baby factory, that is what she will become. Or in other "first-world" countries where birth control is not easy to access if you are poor, but your country is seen as having regular and consistent access to such products.
Yea it kind of bothers me too. On the one hand you have poor women having a lack of access to education and contraceptives... on the other you have women forced to remain in education until their 20's.... then move away from family and friends to find a job, maybe find a husband. And even then they have to have two incomes to support the household, leaving less time for the mom or dad to actually care for the child. It's not actually a wealth issue. People aren't not having kids because they have money. Its because the neo-liberal economies of developed countries isolates and forces people's attention on labor rather than relationships and community. Nobody is being empowered. It's just wage slavery of a different color.
@@Soletestament you have probably heard those rich countries like in hongkong or arab countries who hire nannies from 3rd world.. and then those nannies ended up becoming much closer to their employer's children than their own. shit is sad.
@@Soletestament Really? Please help understand the neo conservative view of a how a woman is a baby making machine to stay home change diapers, serve husband, and have no clout of money of her own.
@@Soletestament Of all the people here you said it best. It's the soullessness of capitalism that is killing the birth rate.
Yes, finally someone else that made this remark as well.
I had a whole rant with other aspects as well - Child hoarding really was a WTF? What did he say?
I started with mentioning the link to 1960's and the birth control and access to this.
He does mention it briefly at the end of the video, but man did his linguistics bother me...choice...
And that comes from a gay man, even I seem to know more about female cultural aspects, it really bothered me. Also tying in women voting rights and women rights in general to this, from 19th century starting onward.
Also shouldn't it be birth rate, not fertility rate?!? I can be fertile with out having children. He is talking about the births of children.
I think that people in poor countries most of the times don't choose to have so many children,they just do, because of lack of acces to education & birth control methods.Also religion and tradition play a big part in imposing a model to be followed,not questioned,leaving little choice to the individual,especially for women !
It's also that people in poorer countries live in rural regions and are more dependent on agriculture, wherein children aren't a liability but a neccessiety
You are implying that poor women CHOOSE to have more children - only partly true! If a woman has access to birth control and some education, most will limit their family size. Also, if we EVER achieve reasonable, fair lifestyles for everyone on the planet - we need A LOT FEWER PEOPLE to make it sustainable. This planet is dying right now. It breaks my heart, but I couldn't honestly advise anyone to bring a child into the world that this one is heading for.
The entire population of the world can fit in Texas. Population is not our problem, lifestyle is. If you live in a city, you are responsible for the degradation of our Earth. Until people take personal responsibility for their role and make choices to stop contributing to the problem it will keep getting worse. And the absolute WORST thing to do is encourage urban living.
Of religious societies it is a miracle of which is expected to work to spread your “legacy”, in secular modernity it is an imposed affliction of which you burden them the world with.
We do not need fewer people on the planet, the planet is not dying.
If you need help ending a few people I gotchu
Some things were missed such as a crashing marriage and birth rate combination, where many are giving up on marriage. There is also a large movement of men who have decided that marriage is no longer worth it and this is also having an impact on birth rates in developed countries. More woman are deciding to have children later as well.
marriage is also not required to have children
@@silkcitysocialist420 Agreed but many people want to be married before having children.
@Woodtschak I have read and watched a lot of it online, SANDMAN lol comes to mind. I moved to Thailand, I no longer have to worry about the woke west. Funny thing is, I seem to practice being MGTOW only in the west :-)
Nowadays it's possible for both men and women to have children outside of marriage. Also adoption is more flexible in some countries where both single men and women are eligible too.
Compared to past generations, men and women of our time are more knowledgeable, independent individuals, capable of living alone taking care of them selves and their children if they have some.
We live in a very different way than people did 30-50 ago and before that time. We have traditional married couples, same gender couples (married or not) and single individuals of both genders living alone or as couples. We (men and women as well) don't need to get married to survive as adults. But in some countries couples planning to have children get married for practical reasons.
Also, something that is surprisingly missing in this fertility conversation is the financial issue. Everybody is talking about the fertility rate and how many children born per woman and the consequences and bla bla bla. Nobody's is talking about the cost of rising a child until adulthood. 18 years supporting another person, paying education, clothing, medical care etc. I personally have known several women who specifically decided not to have children because they knew they couldn't afford them. So more than fertility rates and children per woman, I would love to hear more about what governments are going to do to lessen the economic burden of the parents and specially women who offer a lot of their health, time and money (advancement, career opportunities etc and when for some reason they can't work thus not earning money) during gestation and child rearing only to get the shortest straw when they have to retire and even before that.
@@lavinamontoya8164 Woman usually get less in retirement because of career choices, many woman aren't having children but still have less retirement because they aren't going into careers such as STEM that pay higher wages, (the whole biology thing, men love things woman love people so choice people career choices, nurses, educators etc which usually pay less than STEM fields) . As for finance, it's a good point, I too have heard of couples not wanting children because of the financial stress. And affordability issues, housing being no.1 where gov and vested interests have force house prices up so high. Example, in New Zealand in the 70s-80s housing was about 3-4 times earnings, now it's about 10 times earnings, just crazy, people can't even afford food or power let alone children. I think those stats are similar in the western world in general.
It's funny how a lot of books and movies from the 1900s were about dystopic futures where the world's population grew to fast but the actual future looks like the whole world is going to suffer from shrinking populations and increased burdens on children to take care of older people m
Decreasing fertility rate causes the population to age up meaning there wont be many children or young people anymore. Society will collapse at that point.
But they were right on. Ours is a dystopic reality because of the population explosion. It's true that we can't speak of massive food shortages, but we have destroyed the natural environment, dramatically reduced biodiversity, and disrupted the climate to accomodate our immense needs. Now our cities and villages get flooded or destroyed by tornados, wild fires devastate thousands of houses and endless acres of forest, but apparently no one told you that this is not normal. This is the insanity that we created. The whole of humanity could be reaping the results of the technological advancements of the 19th and 20th century in quite a global state of satisfaction if it wasn't for the overpopulation insanity.
@@borthwey The world is far from overpopulated. Are certain areas overpopulated? Absolutely, but on a global level it's not even close. All human beings on earth could fit on the ground level of NYC alone.
@@reecebrauer7289 just human, yes. But their food, cloth, electronic, etc, no
Hell if Im that old person. I'll just commit suicide when I cant work anymore. The gen x and boomers freaking out about how the world will sustain itself with fertility crash are overlooking the fact that most of us millenials are barely hanging onto the mortal realm by a thread as it is. I wouldnt worry too much about supporting us, especially with how shitty everything keeps getting.
could you imagine both being able to afford to have a kid, and also having the time to raise one?
You'd legit have to be upper-class at this point.
@@Jukestar It's not just the money. Not everyone is happy with gubment injection laws in order for a kid to go to school or daycare. All the risk is being shifted to parents by politicians and bureaucrats who have no downside risk if kids get injured.
@@Jukestar The only way I could start a family at this point is adoption. I will be too old for any seed to be any good from me when I could afford it. I would be old enough to be a grandfather, likely.
I do not want to raise a child in a place where they are disappointed for their birthday because I could not afford to celebrate it because the cost of living is ridiculous!
When you consider the modern conveniences we have compared to our ancestors, it is fascinating that we find children to be such a hindrance to our lifestyle. Comfort and leisure are relatively new phenomenon for the typical citizen. If we adjust our standards we can certainly enjoy children and the legacy they bring. Our family has lived on a single income for 15 years and we have more than the average number of children in our area. Our home is small, but our children are absolutely loved, well fed, enjoy a wonderful education, participate in sports and youth activities, and live full lives with siblings who will share a deep bond when we are gone. The rates of depression in women have steadily increased as the birthrates have declined. While I would not suggest this is a single factor, I do think the modern stressors on women are greater than when women were better able to afford greater time with their children. As our parents enter their twilight years we hear stories of acquaintances virtually alone in this world as they age. Our parents will be surrounded by children, grandchildren, and perhaps great-grandchildren as they enter that final period of dependency. They will not lack for a home, care, transportation, and support as they grow older. Perhaps they will not see their final days in a lavish home, but they will be surrounded by the love of those who will remember them and share their legacy for generations.
And when it is all said and done, you can't take it with you.
I wish no one I'll and hope any reader has many friends if they are without children. But I urge those young enough to consider whether free time or material goods now is worth ending a legacy later.
@@eurekahope5310the point is, the cost of living crisis around the world is the worst we've ever had in human history. We'd have to go back to Victorian England standards of living if we wanted to birth children and have the time to raise them
Children are expensive. They are a liability. Children were used for taking care of the parent as they get older. That tradition no longer hold today and there are options for retirement. Depending of where you are, living is costly.
Obviously people with that attitude shouldn't have children.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 , it’s not about attitude, it’s about reality. You know the saying, it takes a village to raise a child? Because it’s costly, burdensome, etc….
Remember the teen who sued her parents because they took her phone away from her or the other one where the parents didn’t provided finances for college. Is that not a liability or is that about attitude?!
You have a child and it’s disabled. Now what?! I know, it’s the attitude. The 100k+ debt, the mental and physical stress, etc… you have from taking care of the child makes you the happiest person in the world. God bless.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 In villages people have more kids because they are work force. In cities kids are POTENTIAL future work force. We just need more wars and 120 years life expectancy. There can't be world peace we need more deaths and more new people
One of the problems we'll face is that those options may not stay viable. Retirement ages are being pushed back, social security is at risk for shortfall and may be unable to give full benefits, and the industry that is supposed to care for the vulnerable elderly has staffing issues.
@@TheSnoopyclone Thanks for your comment. I don't agree but appreciate your articulate response.
I am in my late thirties and I have one child, a young toddler. My wife and I are able to afford everything we need *without* help from the social welfare system, but we both grew up in households which had some measure of government support; as such, I can never completely embrace "only have kids you can afford".
I became a first time parent much later than the average age for previous generations, but I realise that I would have been completely unready for it in my twenties.
Good luck with next one ❤🎉
"that I would have been completely unready for it in my twenties."
if you weren't tax like fuck to help others who cant afford kids you wouldnt have any struggle as long as you work and have head on your shoulders!
200 years ago most kids were born in POOREST families and there was NO SOCIAL BENEFITS.
So wealth is NOT a problem
Not ONE person unfortunate enough to be born escapes suffering or causing suffering. Sentient life is a construct of the most unimaginable, incomprehensible evil there is. To reproduce is the most vile, immoral crime/sin possible. Try asking people why they wanna have kids and I guarantee none of those reasons have the child's wellbeing in mind. ALL of the reasons are for the parent's own fulfillment. I'll never understand why anyone would choose to bring kids in a world where people die every moment.
Having kids is purely a selfish desire, no one has kids for the sake of the children, they do it for their own wants and "needs".
Breediot losers are THE root of ALL evil and ALL problems.
THE root cause of ALL of your past, current and future problems were, are and will be your breediot parents. You do not owe anything to your breediot parents, THEY owe you everything since they forced upon you the ‘wonders’ and the ‘gift(s)’ of ‘life’.
Work like a slave, retire right into the grave.
@@szymonbaranowski8184 assuming that there is a next one. There is no shame in having only one.
@@bartz4439 It's very clear you didn't watch the video my guy. Countries with high taxes and social safety nets like Sweden have higher birth rates than religious countires like Greece and Portugal that have low taxes (Kinda, Greeks wouldn't pay taxes even if they were lowered) and much smaller social safety nets.
Quality of life is another aspect. Many people including me believe that its unethical to bring another life into this world with so much suffering, pain and injustice.
Pretty much. Especially with world war 3 right around the corner. Definitely not a time to be having a child.
Umm, I had my first child at 37 and pregnant with my second at 40. Not ideal by any means, but the first time it was financially viable. A lot of couples can't afford children and a lot of women don't want to look after a man child and kids.
Because the world gets richer. People who live in good conditions prefer to travel and make career than to have children. The highest fertility rate is always in poor countries
In the most developed countries it is also expensive to have children, this can be a reason too ofc
Time and prices on major reason
A lot of people are struggling financially everywhere and don't see why they should have a child if they can't give it a good life.
I’d argue it’s both the world getting richer and poorer, the middle class is disappearing, poor people in wealthy countries can’t afford kids, rich people don’t want them.
Salaries have not kept pace with the cost of cars and homes. Ironically you usually need to live in an expensive city for the employment opportunities.
Canada provides around $500 a month for your kid from birth to about age 6 and that helped us a lot. Still, trying to make things work with multiple kids these days is hard, and contributing to women’s lack of career progression because it’s often such a logistical challenge to have both parents working and also figure out child care.
Regarding women working, that's one reason why a single salary is insufficient to comfortably allow for raising a family. Same thing with immigration and outsourcing work abroad - as labor becomes for plentiful, the value of the labor diminishes. Whenever you see the companies talking about how much they value those groups of people, it's not because they care about those people, it's because they want to pay their employees less. If they actually did care about those people, they wouldn't be exploiting them like that.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 Wrong as more people are employed the output of labor increases. The problem isn't women immigrants or foreign workers working it's what the labor is being used to produce which is profits, the imperialist war industry and luxuries for the rich. It is the world capitalist system of production and trade which is failing as the bosses quest for profits is causing these problems. As giant industries are built by reducing labor time the profit rates inevitably declines. That is because our labor is the source of the profit while the fixed capital investment rises and the living labor in the production process declines. This is how industry and finance capital the most parasitic of capitals become to big to fail.
The governments wanted women to work...so they could tax the entire population, not just half.
@@kimobrien. But more people _aren't_ employed. The amount of jobs isn't increasing. In some cases, employers are cutting jobs and burdening their remaining employees with a heavier work load with only a slight increase in pay that doesn't keep up with the rate of inflation (if even that) so that they can keep even more money.
The demand for labor is not changing in accordance with the supply, and that is what is causing the diminishing value of labor.
I don't disagree that capitalism is a flawed economic system, but people wouldn't be better off under communism (I see your profile picture just as you see my name). Fundamentally, a nation and its state must be comprised of at least a supermajority of a single ethnic group in order to be successful - the bond between blood and soil is imperative. We see now the result of once powerful nation-states collapsing under the weight of immigrants who don't care one way or another whether the country lasts or not.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 As I stated the more employed or more working the greater the output. The Federal Reserve bank keeps economic stats. The stats show that productive capacity is going unused as a percentage used in the US and it has been declining overall since this was first measured in about 1968. Their is no specific bond between any nations blood and soil that is just made up nonsense by Adolf Hitler. The productivity of labor has been rising while wages have been stagnant since 1973. Supply and demand only applies when the two are different when supply equals demand it says nothing about the difference in prices between what is for sale.
The capitalist seek to pay the lowest wages, work you at the fastest rate and the longest hours to make the biggest profits. This results in the decline of wages to the minimum need to get you back to work for the next pay period it doesn't include the time needed to form a family and raise children. The capitalist seek to eliminate higher paid skilled labor with lower paid unskilled labor and machines. They build giant industries which go into decline because the capital value rises but the labor employed declines resulting in a declining rate of profit since the profits come from our unpaid labor.
They use the central bank and the printing of money to create inflation as a way to increase the value of property and cut the value of wages without having to issue the old fashion wage cut.
Personally, I think that as a species we are just reaching the equilibrium point of our population's growth rate. With so many countries being overpopulated and impoverished, it's interesting to see how our species seems to be advancing towards economic stability while the fertility rate of humans is also coming more in line with what we as a species seems to be able to support. I don't consider the decline in the fertility rate to be a bad thing, quite the opposite, I think it showcases how we as a species are sort of maturing, so to speak.
If roughly men and women represent each 50% of the populaton and every woman has a single child, that means the population will decline by 50% in one generation. While some people think this is okay, this is a huge problem, because the populational decrease is exponential, young people will be rare and every nation will have plenty of elders. Economies will collapse and the human race has a threat to simply become endangered. (I know it sounds absurd, but the possibility is right there).
This is truly scary.
@@NightfurWoW what changes to the planet, in a negative way, if the human species no longer existed? Not trying to be some doomer, but damn.. Why do we think we're so much more special, than all the other life that would go on just fine, if not better, without humans destroying the environment?
@@itcanwait You've got it backwards. Human life being special isn't something to be proven or disproven through argumentation; it is something that is a given for other arguments.
@@NightfurWoW One generation of that might hurt but I doubt governments and capitalist companies would stand-by as the number of workers and amount of consumers decline so drastically. The corporations would be pressuring the governments to incentivize child-birth and some might even take it upon themselves. Once the problem has been noticed they still have 2-3 generations to find solutions before it really becomes an issue. Retirement will basically disappear and technology will also be more advanced allowing for an older workforce. Having children or not mostly comes down to time and money. If governments and corporations do a well enough job at allowing people more of both of those things then birth rates will rise which will ultimately be in their best interest.
@@NightfurWoW It is only scary, because our whole society and enormous economy build on idea of a constant population grows and overconsumption. In order to maintain world economy as we know it the birth rate worldwide should be 1.7. Currently it is 1.4 China lifted one child policy mainly because the current birthrate would not be able to satisfy China's demand for manufacturing workers in a few decades.
I live on Culiacan Sinaloa México, and thank God,I dont hear any kids crying anymore, not because I dont like them,is because I hate it to see them suffering.
I don't have kids. When I was a kid I didn't like children or babies or dolls. When I found out where babies came from, I was horrified about pregnancy and birth! Not one thing appealed to me about any of it. (Sex was great...not pregnancy!). Education for women prevents unwanted births. (Unwanted births are great for cheap labor for corporations...that's why they promote anti-abortion and poverty wages. ). America wants to suppress sex education, prevent abortion, abolish laws against child-marriage. I would have not survived an unwanted birth because my alternative would have destroyed my own future as well. NO way I would become a brood-mare for the state! Or some fantasy church beliefs that others hold over humanity. At 70, I consider my greatest success in my life was to NOT have children. I am not "childless"...I am "child-free". My generosity to myself was that I left enough room for women who actually *want* children have more resources.
Marriage is the way to satisfy social expectations. For boomers, the philosophy behind is having families equivalent to having best of the life. But nowadays, everyone realises marriage or being single is just the attribute , not a must.
No mate, boomers were the second generation to defy the family unit.
@@rattlehead999 I am thinking about the Chinese culture. In Chinese society, marriage seems like the milestone for most of the boomers.
@@kwanlamchong9452 Well Chinese boomers are different from the western ones.
But your boomers are right without realising it. Low birth rates means that you'll have 4-7x retired elders for each 1x working person in the future. And you'll have to take care of them directly, or have 50% of the workforce work in retirement homes and the taxes would be sky high, while productivity will be very low.
attitude you mean
@@vetiarvind yeah, thx
1. Cost too much money. 2. Take up too much time. 3. Parents will need to spend enormous amounts on a child that might turn out "bad". 5. Children are ungrateful and demanding. 6. Don't have time for kids. 7. Already hold down 2 (or more jobs). 7. They had a hideous upbringing with unresolved issues with their toxic parents so decide not to pass on this drama to kids.
All perfectly valid reasons
you forgot number 8 they wont be living your home at 18 and will live with you forever because of cost of living they can't make it on there own
That was an excellent summary of population dynamics in the last century. Very straight-forward, and only a slight bias visible. Thank you for producing this video.
I like how this video wasn't all doom and gloom like most videos about population decline are. You recognized that by 2100, most children will be living to adulthood. That will be incredible.
huh
So how wonderful will it be when civilizations die out due to no children?
People say, That will never happen. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. It's happening now in many places. Japan is giving people houses and jobs to come live there. Many towns in Europe are offering free houses if you will love in it because they are becoming ghost towns.
They already do, we're not in the middle ages.
It's what called in evolutionary biology - an evolutional bottleneck - the small amount of succesfully procreating people will inherit the living space left after large amount of unborn people. This will create a large humanitarian crisis, the oversaturation of population with old people who are unable to work but need care, and when crisis will resolve itself the genetic properties of human population will change beyond recognition. It won't be humanity we know now and there's no telling of what exactly will be different about it.
Now we have to talk about character....
On paper, we won't see a population decline. But that doesn't take injustice or crime into consideration.
The movie Idiocracy already touched on this.
Here in Italy the native population is falling precipitously, and it is expected that within thirty years almost 80% of the population will be fifty years old and above. During the pandemic and the consequent lockdown in the country, births increased a bit, as couples spent more time together at home; consequently, 2020 and 2021 were the most "fertile" years of the last decade for Italy, demonstrating that the blame for the exponential decline in births is also attributable to an extremely frenetic urban lifestyle. Apart from this, it is evident how the improving lifestyle has led to a decrease in pregnancies by simply looking at the generational history of individual families: my great-grandparents each had between five and eight brothers/sisters alive (for that that it has come down to us, their mothers had also carried out a dozen pregnancies, but between the 19th and 20th centuries it was easy to have spontaneous abortions or lose the child shortly after birth due to precarious medical conditions); my grandparents all had between eight and twelve siblings (30s-50s), while my parents (70s) both had only one brother/sister. I have two brothers (early 2000). Basically, here in Italy, there has been a sudden drop in births since the 1960s, that coincide with the "economic miracle" of the time. Everyone worked, even the women, and while the countryside and mountains depopulated, the urban agglomerations expanded exponentially, sometimes quintupling - up to ten times - their population in a few decades; there was simply no more time, nor reason, to have children: adults worked and stayed away from home all day, while the children had to study (compulsory school attendance up to the age of sixteen was introduced and the working minors were banned up to the age of fourteen). I am in the fifth year of high school (yes, here the high school lasts five years instead of four) and in my class of eighteen students I am the only one who has two siblings: all my classmates are only-children or have only one brother. Also noteworthy, the parents are all very old. They are on average between fifty and sixty years old, while my parents are forty (they married and had me when they were twenty-three and twenty-seven years old respectively), and as is well known, both for women and for men, with the advanced age, it is difficult to have abundant and healthy offspring - and this also explains the increase in genetic diseases in the Italian population.
The biggest underlying issue in all these cases is not having a reasonable business supported system for childcare. The reason to have children they forgot was love; they traded it for an unfulfilling urban dream.
@@fractalelf7760 absolutely true
just take in more immigrants they will increase the population.
They will replace the population with immigrants. Same with all of Europe and North America. The Europe and USA and Canada we know today will cease to exist.
It will be Mexico 2.0 and India/China 2.0 in USA and Canada. And Middle east and Africa 2.0 in Europe.
White people will be that sporadic person you'd see on the street. Probably beaten up because racism against whites is OK and no one around to stop it.
Glad as a White person I won't be around in the later decades of this century.
Bro, high school lasts 6 years in Australia
We have many IVF centers in India. We see rising cases of male infertility too. Though this might not be significant contributor but nonetheless it is there
I only know one couple who didnt use IVF for kids (im 38). It is definitely a factor imo.
Female fertility decreasing due to late child bearing makes sense.Male infertility is quite strange.
@@Pix3lB well there are a lot of factor like plastic contamination, chemical in the water (for exemple the Gange, well know to be full of textiles industries rejection), there's also the moral issues (moral influe greatly over testosterone production and thus on sperm production.) ...
@@redwolfungry Yeah could be,the amount of plastics we use contains estrogen like hormones,that could be an issue as well.
@@Pix3lB Not just "using" but eating: we have thrown away so much plastic in Nature that both ALL our water reserve and soil is filled with plastic particle... Hourray!
I'm genX and the only child in my family. When my parents grew older I took care of them financially and although I lived on a different continent I always found time to communicate with them several times a week. It went without sayng that children have to care for their aging parents. I raised 3 kids, now I'm getting older. We live in the same country yet I do not raise my hopes too high: they are so deep into their own worlds - and phones - that unless I call them they can go for months not talking to me, they don't care. Sometimes I think I would be better off if I didn't have children and redirected the time and money I spent on my family to my personal development and enjoyment. Yet the hope is still there like a tiny pilot light.
how old are your children if I may ask?
I heard and seen many times that children choose to avoid their parents in their teens and twenties to self-actualize and build up their own lives, but become more connected once they reach their 30s and gain stability in their own lives
@@juannaym8488 32, 26, 18
Why is the world less fertile? Because now women have the economic, political, and psychological power to say "NO!" Want more kids? Give birth to them yourselves.
Every animal reproduces often except humans are doing. Are humans smarter or are they just unnatural? If the schools are better and payed motherhood exist would it rise the the fertility rate?
Amen
There are two kinds of people on this planet, those who love people and use things and those who use people to love things.
In the end it may come down to service to others in this case the unborn or self serving behaviour of what's in it for me.
@@iandaniel2153 You are welcome to go risk your life and future with a pregnancy, Ian.
*Women have no more choice now than they used to.* We still don't get to choose, the difference is only in what we are forced into and who is doing the forcing.
I’m from Botswana. My grandfather had 14 children on a farm between two women. My aunts and uncles had on average 3, and ranged from 2-5. One of my sisters has 3 kids, me and my other sister only have 1 and my other sister doesn’t want kids.
I love having a huge family and wish I could continue that. But now living in the US, I couldn’t afford that and it wouldn’t be responsible. Without a family network to help raise kids, I’m choosing to only have one child.
OMG 😻 I didnt know white Botswanans 🇧🇼👩🏻 existed?!
@@redfoxsecurity3334relax
As an experienced parent of a 6 and 4 year old. I can say the first 6 years of the childs life is super critical and you will need to sacrifice everything. I quit 2 jobs that they couldn't accomodate my most needed only closings schedule since my wife works 4am to 2pm and i used to work 3pm to 1130pm. I had to quit that because company didnt want to accommodate that schedule anymore. (New management) so i quit to be able to be there for my kids. I started gig apps and i can say from the time both kids are in school a lot of time opens up to work more. So the first 5 to 6 years are the roughest and almost broke us up economically and emotionally but we are all still together and morgage still gets paid every month. Sometimes we need to let the internet go or dont buy as much food. But this in 2 months time both of my kids will be on school! And i will be able to almost double my salary. Survive the first 5 to 6 years it will get better! And the kids become a little more independent.
Yes! ❤ What you said is vitally important. Sacrifice the first 5 years, when it matters most. 😊
It took me 5 years to save $100K. I never wanted to have children. Knew that at age 16. I honestly have no idea why people bother with doing it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
@@randymillhouse791 Means after you die world will forget about you and none of your genetic material will remain, as if you never existed.
Absolutely agree. I have been blessed to stay home with all three of our children, and do not plan on having a “job” until our youngest is in school. He is only 4 months old so I have some time 💙
@@randymillhouse791For many, it's deeply cultural, with a strong desire to pass on the family lineage and legacy to a new generation. Others want to have someone to care for them in their old age.
I think the trend you see is 1) Choice (birth control availability, decline of male-dominated society, women becoming financially independent, broadening of acceptable roles for women in society), and 2) Desire for self-actualization. There are a lot of psychologically complicated reasons for not wanting children. Most people I talk to want a higher quality of life, time for themselves and their own interests, freedom (in many forms), a truly pleasurable life, or a life of purpose or adventure. There also seems to be increased desire to "do it right" if they do have kids--something that certainly has been less of a concern in the past.
I wonder how these people you talk about will keep up their quality of life without children present in their old age? Retirement homes? Where there will never be enough staff, since nobody is having children anymore?
I think it is more about money. Who is having children if they can't afford a house?
Why are you acting as if having children bars people from a life of freedom, pleasure, or purpose? It's this type of thing that puts people off of having children. How about we instead point out that most people who have children say they don't regret having them? How about we point out that more people regret not having had more children than they ended up having than regret having had children at all? Or that people who have children are happier than those who don't?
This is sort of tangential, but there is no decline is society being male dominated to any significant degree. The most important roles in society are filled by men, as they need to be, because if they weren't civilization would regress.
I think you are missing a very large piece of the puzzle...
We are losing our ability to reproduce.
Our fertility, especially in the more developed countries, is down 40-50%, and thats just since the 90s. Probably due to the amount of synthetic hormones we are dumping into our environment. If we ban them, the plastic industry won't exist anymore. So, it's obscured information that very few of us know about. To keep the monetary economy from collapsing.
Our species survival is not guaranteed. We are potentially sacrificing our species ability to survive for the monetary economy.
Really let that sink in.
What's worse, it may already be too late. That may already be something we can't reverse. Even if we stopped creating those chemicals right now, today, they are already in the water supply. 99% of ALL life on this planet contains some level of forever chemicals, the chemicals mimicking female hormones. They are already everywhere. It will take time to get them out. Time... we may not have. Especially if we continue to pretend it's not a problem. It's like any addict out there, a problem can only be solved if the existence of the problem is acknowledged first.
Edit: i am talking about our actual fertility, not our "social" fertility. Not whether we "choose" to have children, whether we are physically capable of having children.
I always wanted to be a mom.I had three sons and couldn't have been happier. Having a child is a blessing.My firstborn joined the Army during the war, and he never came back the same, and I was with him every step of the way while he got help through the VA. At 27, he died, and it was the hardest thing I have ever been through. Yes, there are challenges with children, but there have always been challenges in life. I feel people miss out on a beautiful experience of having a child.
Fine look at this issue. You did a good job of explaining how correlative factors should not be mistaken for causal.
In the era of electronic media, specifically television, mass populations are shown realities and value systems beyond their own surroundings. This creates choices, and makes people think about consequences. And people think about the quality of their lives, not merely quantities.
No.
The thing the mostly affects fertility is giving women education.
@@kintsuki99
Education? Sure. There is that.
But now I would be curious to see those "fertility rates" based on (01) race when factoring in (02) abortion and (03) government "assistance" based "finanicial aid" from government(s) because left standing alone, in no specific context whatsoever, it sounds as if you are saying "smart women," i.e., those with "education," choose to have fewer children, if any, meaning only stupid, i.e., "uneducated," people are breeding.
And psst: That last cheap shot is exactly what I am watching play out here in 2022 meaning now only this:
Yeah, I was born in '52 when yep, "women should be barefoot and pregnant," what would prove to be last days before women "entered the workforce" and started to "choose" between family and jobs/careers.
And here I am now and now what I see are a whole bunch of "uneducated" women having lots and lots of babies while those with "education" are having fewer as well as having those abortions.
I see no happy endings...for anyone....
The ladies of the west were looking to radically limit this well before the electronic age began. Again born in ‘50 saw this evolve from the baby boom until now. We were catholic so originally choice was so called rhythm now 95% of catholic women use artificial BC. Jews immediately used BC pills and abortion second or was legal in 73. Again well before the tech you cite. Ancient Romans had an abortifacient that was so overused it’s supply disappeared and modem forensic medical anthropologists are still unable to identify it. No tech then for sure
@@kintsuki99 Which is why it's so important to give them education and stop population growth as soon as possible, because it's from population growth that all the greatest and most unsurmountable problems in this planet derive.
@@kintsuki99 No. Giving people in general education. I don't know if you think alike, but I think that having a child is a mutual decision. If the man doesn't want it, there will be no child. If the woman doesn't want it, there will be no child either.
Maybe births are dropping but the quality of life is rising in most places like in the indigenous areas of Mexico people used to have like 10 children and in some cases half of them would die before adulthood and nowadays they have 3 or 4 but they survive past adulthood.
Soon they will have only one, and then only some people will have one. And then....
As David Attenborough observed: "mothers know better than anyone else, that children eat better when there are four people at the table, not ten"
@@chriswatson1698 That is nonsensical. You either have enough to feed your family, or you don't. You can have one child and struggle to have enough, or you have 10 and have plenty to go around. Additionally, children contribute, they don't only cost.
A higher living standard does result from having fewer children, all other things being equal. However, a higher living standard is a case of gobbling up the earth's finite resources at a faster and faster rate.
@@searose6192 You are incorrect. Even in undeveloped countries, babies can't contribute until they are five or six years old. And babies limit their mothers' contribution to the economy, by requiring their attention.
So you think that in very poor households, a family of ten children will eat as well as a family of one child? Seriously? That is nonsensical.
A weird thing is that when talking about culture, religion and how these are connected to birthrate, the author doesn't mention an important aspect, which is marriage. The idea of marriage has changed drastically during the 20th century. In simple words, it has become less indestructible. I'm not arguing if this is a good or bad thing, but one consequence is that a married woman's position has become less stable. And the practice of living together without being married has become more common. It increased the risk for women to be left with children without a man's support. So they are more reluctant to have children. Simple as that. People usually don't talk about that, but I know so many life examples.
And that works for the man too. "She took the kids" was one of the '90s first memes. Now is a widespread reality. A man today thinks 5 times over before "creating a family". Why risk losing my money and freedom over something so volatile as a marriage?
This was a big reason I avoided having kids. I had a terrible fear of single motherhood bc I endured it as a child with my mother. I wasn’t sure marriage was beneficial after what I saw growing up.
@@_d-- I get with money, but not with freedom. How can you lose freedom?
@@alexandrameas4436 simple. divorce and get a giant debt on your shoulders. your life will become the life of a slave. your only purpose will become to work and work and work just to pay off your debts. no much freedom when your life is just your job
True. I would not want to have a child in a family where my man did not fully, wholeheartedly commit and receive a blessing and doesn't see how serious work marriage is. When we join this unity, we must compromise, be honest, make decisions together (many men don't want to give up this freedom). I grew up with my dad running away to his friends, having fun, while mom was doing everything and gave her health away. The fact that this is the kind of lack of responsibility I could experience from my man when having a child would be soul crushing. You could end up just always alone with the baby, because of selfish, immature, proud men that don't know what they want and decide to just breed for the sake of breeding without doing the work of the father role. I think many women are terrified of this. Also reason being why many women that did want a normal family, start having mental illnesses or just give up too when the child is born.
very happy to hear this, I believe world populations should be about 20 percent of what it is now, achieved naturally via education
Totally agree! Glad someone think like me.
This is the solution. The problem is for some reason most people can't envision the solution
In the 1900s less children survived. The infant mortality rate was 165 per 1,000 in 1900. In 1997 it was 7 per 1,000 in 1997. The chances that a newborn survives childhood have increased from 50% to 96% globally, and that is just the birth rate. The health of older children has also improved. Diseases that had carried off thousands of children in 1900 were practically eliminated by 2000: diphtheria, and pertussis, measles. In the 1800s over 46 percent of children didn't make it to their fifth birthday.
Death rate depended on which country. Generally in most places it was just over 300 out of every 1000 did not make it to age 5. Things got a lot better after about 1920 for many parts of the world. In the UK, survival improved during the late Victorian era.. Subsaharan Africa started to improve after 1955.
Losing 1/3 of children before age 5 was 'normal' until relatively recently. Prior to the Small pox vaccine, it was not unusual for a family to lose all of their children to this disease in a matter of a few days.
People didn't know anything about hygiene and babies were not breastfed for long enough because mothers had to go back to the field or do other labour. Babies died of diarrhoeal illnesses from being fed contaminated food. This was very common.
When women gave birth every 15 months, it was a miracle if all of the children survived.
Educated women, even in the early 1800s, would space their babies approximately 4 years apart. The death rate was extremely low.
But uneducated women had no other options than to get pregnant frequently. Generally they would stop giving birth in their late 30s which is now when many women begin to procreate having one or two children.
@@gabriellakadar Also the uk invented and mandated the smallpox vaccine in the late 1700s and developed the germ theory to stop contaminated water which stopped cholera.
Back in the early 70's I read a paper regarding the effects of over crowding on mice population.
The researchers first introduced mice into a roomy environment. The mice behaved normally and were procreating.
Gradually the researchers brought the walls in, reducing the area of their enviornment. Eventually the mice stopped reproducing.
Maybe this is a natural response to overcrowding. Maybe it's built into our systems, when it gets crowded to quit having offspring to save the species?
We are not mice
This is why cities are bad, farming families around the world have a higher rate of children.
No locus is more appropied
@@elciervoparaguayo3756 no one said we were. But we are still mammals and adapt with our environment
@@jesschavez2802 The idea of using the universe 25 as an example of how our society is falling is dumb,
1- first of all we do not live in a society where everything is given to us like the mice in that experiment, nobody is giving all the food, water and shelter all the members of the society need
2- there is no proof that population density is a factor in the fertility rate, the principal factors are better education and child mortality no matter if you live in Mumbai, Hong Kong or in one of the lost small towns of the United States. If the child mortality is lower than the population is stable or declines. This is the complete opposite in the experiment where the mortality of the newborns was super high at the end of the experiment with 96%, it's not that the rats decided to not have new hatchlings they killed them when those were born
3- Even if it is really funny to make the comparison with the "beautifuls" and the incels these two are very different, first of all the beautifuls scape female mice because they were agresive and attacked them, in real life women are not attacking men and that's not the reason why incels never have a couple. Also, most incels are not practicing homosexuality as a replace
4- Denser areas do not have higher levels of violent crimes than rural areas if you adjust it to population, nor they have a significant difference in fertility if you look at areas with similar incomes and education levels
And finally, that experiement was never replicated after the 80's and was used to critice cities like San francisco or the none existing Gotham(Batman's citie) by saying they were too dense and that was the reason why those had "sexual deviants" (in Gotham obviously referring to the joker)
I think the biggest part is: Most women don't want kids.
In my family, the average amount of kids (in my generation) is 3-4, that's if they got kids, and it stays consistent across all generations, only thing increasing is the amount of women who choose to... not have kids.
let me guess, you cant back it up with sources?
I don't. My patience & energy are too low to be forced to care for someone else every day for yrs and yrs and yrs. Only to be finished when I'm too old to enjoy my life. Plus, I like sleeping in on weekends. Kids don't let you do that.
Right you are! I am one of these women. I just don't want children. I have seen women of my age with kids....and guess what? The financial pressure is so huge that they tell me how lucky I am to be childless.
When I was a boy I dreamt of having a big family. But as I realised in what kind of world we live (brutal economy, mass killing weapons and environmental destruction worldwide) I started struggling and ended up with the decision that I don't want to expose any human being to this sh*thole that we created in decadence and eager.
I feel sorry for the young people of today. We completely messed it all up
I am the same. I never even thought I would live past 40. Never saw the point in having kids. I am an old fart now, but the years have shown me that I was right. I see the wreckage of awful families all around every day. I am not happy about it either. But it would be worse if I had children.
@@eddenoy321child free policy
@@eddenoy321 what job do u do
The hard fact is, unless you're willing to live hand-to-mouth in a First World country with an inevitable financial disaster coming that will require savings you don't have, both parents need to work full-time if they want to raise their kids with any kind of financial security... and there is very little job security nowdays. It used to be you could set down roots and work 30-40 years at the same company, if not the same industry. Now that isn't going to happen. Japan used to have jobs for life after WWII to encourage people to rebuild and start families. That pretty much ended by the end of the 1980s and the birthrate has plummeted to the point where Japan is filled with empty homes.
Nobody is starving in first world countries. They can have as many children as they like. They just dot want to. Why do you think foreigners breed like rats in the west.
Ponzi Scheme !
In my case, I will be childfree for two reasons:
1) I'm barely scraping by financially, after paying off my bills and for food I don't have much left over.
2) I have SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder), my Auditory and Olfaction (Smell) are the worst. And if it gets to be too much, I will literally shut down and be unable to do anything.
Two of my siblings have children and I love them to pieces, but I also am glad that I can hand the children back to their parents when I'm done.
You have alot of selfless love in you. I hope your health gets better and you have a very happy life.
I am also child free for 2 reasons:
1: I have the money but do not want children to consume my free time and money.
2: The human species is far too overpopulated and I refuse to add to that.
@@jerryterwase9027dude, sensory processing disorder doesn’t exactly “get better”….it’s just a thing people live with.
@@xkimopye i agree on number 1
Try Eastern Europe, where the wages are 3x lower than in the west lol. For people who have kids, I can't even describe the financial instability in their lives.
Very interesting and very true. My great-grandfather in rural Colombia had 9 children, of which two died before 12 years old. As violence increased, my grandmother and her siblings fled their farm in the 1950s to live in the city. There my grandmother could only afford to have two children (one of them my mother), who could only afford to have me. I'm a University educated professional who's nearly 40 and never wanted to have children (and never will).
The demographic shift will be very pronounced in Colombia. This country is very similar to North America due to our cultural affinity. Families will very soon be a thing of the past, or at least a rarity. Let’s not forget we’re one of the most unequal countries in the world
Who would want to bring a child into the world today with the way things are...? 😳
True we're in the end of days
Depends on region or area you live in. Some people have the right environment while others simply do not. take time and a lot of planing.
The world has always sucked.
Bcs breeders are narcissists. They like gambling their kids' lives.
I'm from India, fertility rate does depends on whether you live in Urban or Rural areas, my great grandfather lived in a city and had only two children, my grandfather and his younger brother, then my grandfather had 3 children one of them being my father, and my grandfather's younger brother had 2 children, now my father has only one child that's me, now if I see my mother's family, my mother said that my maternal grandfather who lived in village had 3 siblings, and my mother has 4 siblings. I noticed that my father's family that has been living in city for generations have had less children, while my mother's family that has lived in rural areas have had many childrens.
go and check muslim colonies in India, you will find 80-100 people living in a 1000 Square feet house.
they has 10-12 child per wife.
@@theexposer5303 lol
@@theexposer5303 yes they are exploding
I feel like the wording of how many children a woman will "choose" to have is a bit off. A lot of the time this isn't a choice and that's why education and access to health care as well as mor support for women culturally will make a big difference.
What you talking about more support culturly for women? Women already have the world wrapped around their fingers and yet they act like children it's men who work nonstop like slaves/robots and expected to sacrifice everything in order to make others happy...
I'm actually thinking of not having children.
For me it depends if I'm wealthy with a perfect wife. Divorce rate is already HIGH, I don't wanna be another statistic.
Having kids isn’t some key to happiness as all the worlds cultures pump into womens heads. It’s a load of bullshit and one can live single or married and no kids with being extremely happy and fulfilled.
@@henryjohnson-ville3834 Yeah... Those not perfect wifes are to blame )))))))
Best decision of my life!
@@myown2101 It is. Marriage is a pull/push game where if I work out and is frugal with money, she does so too. If she cooks, I wash the dishes. Ya know. All the time I see couples, ones either slim whilst the other is a obese toad.
So I've been seeing people saying the cost of living is too high and there is no longer a stigma for women to have kids, but one thing I've not seen talked about a lot that is my reason and many others I've heard from for not having kids is we don't want to have kids and have them grow up in this chaotic and hate filled world we live in nowadays. To me it seems like bringing life into a world that is violent, selfish, and racist is one of the cruelest things you can do.
I feel really sorry for children who are born now into this mad mad mad world
Right?
i think it was always mad, just getting madder
Yes. Plus the planet is dying anyway. Who wants to doom their kids to a live action Mad Max.
Mad mad mad mad world is a great film. Check it out if you haven’t already!
@@abubakrakram6208 Coming soon to a reality near you
In the past large families were more common, but something that often gets overlooked is that not everyone started a family: a lot of catholics became nuns/monks, in many farmer families only the eldest son could afford to get married, servants might never save up enough money to start their own household
(these people might have had some illigitimate children though)
Now fewer young people will ever be able to own their own home, and so may feel discouraged about marrying and having a family.
@@kelseymathias3881 I think zoning policies in a lot of countries (deliberately?) make housing more expensive than it needs to be. It's a form of population control that isn't talked about nearly enough.
@@mysticaltyger2009 I still won't give up on the free market system to provide housing at all levels, without gov't interference mucking it all up and creating a population of poor people, which is what we have now to a large extent.
I'm glad you're mentioning that's because that is so true about the past, I knew many people who are older never even had children but they usually has a lot of siblings, wasn't as big of a deal that some people didn't have children, especially women oddly enough
@@mysticaltyger2009 think it's only does have some impact for sure, but also think it's related to investment developers cater to the upper middle-class and Rich, and they seldom for the working-class and middle-class, they sort of correlate with each, developers want to make as much money as possible, many governments want as much tax revenue as possible, so they rely on high property taxes, this also there is a discouragement to building apartments, accessory dwelling due to the fact that they don't get any property taxes.
There's also a lot of bad stereotypes about the poor, and often lie they are forgotten so the problem isn't just zoning I love a lot of urban content but they aren't completely right.
Simply building more housing will not lead to to more affordable housing, getting rid of some of the zoning laws I do think will help for sure.
I do see them building a lot around the world, it's just that they're building more for luxury, this means a bigger footprint of pollution, etc. We live in a time where there are a lot of homes, mansions and buildings, there there's even the controversy of the billionaire row, where most of it sets empty is skyscraper in the sky, cater to the ultra-rich, is nothing more than an investment
You have entire ghost cities in China they have plenty of housing, more than even what they would need, but things are made cheap, but have expensive price roll the appearance of lux, much like how a high end brand will sell poor quality but the mark up value is way higher.
Personally I think we're heading for a housing bubble specifically caused by building oversaturation of "luxury" (again not talking about quality,) because many of the time they said empty and are just use as a investment,
My mother's family is from Iran, she was born in 1954, in her day it was a sign of education and class to have fewer children.
Which makes sense ..a woman at 18-25 with 3 -5 children will have no life outside being a mother wife cook maid laundress personal assistant nurse maid and hostess.
That is true today. I was born in1959 and felt that way growing up in Texas. IMO, impoversized uneducated women started huge families at an early age and like Miss Mary Mary commented (I'm paraphrasing) they were domestics with little chance of advancement in life.
Smart
laughs in Darwin. How educated are they really?
@@missmarymary6506 found the feminist
Growing up i always pictured myself having children. My parents had 3 kids, so i pictured myself with three. I had a very romanticised view on having kids. I saw children as a symbol of love, the greatest kid you could ever give to someone, and the symbol of you and the person youve vowed to spend the rest of your life with, becoming one flesh.
But now as a 25 year old woman my views on children are changing. A part of me is still considering motherhood, but a bigger part of me is looking at my student loan debt, the rising cost of living, the drop in the number of jobs being created per year, and the number of jobs being replaced with automation. Im looking at rapid climate change. Im also looking at myself and my desires. I want to be able to travel the world someday, not have my body alter faster due to giving birth, im thinking about my hobbies, my love for reading and writing. Im thinking about how much i enjoy peace and quiet, as well as not having a massive expense like children draining my meager resources.
Theres a lot of reasons for not wanting to have children. Thanks to the rapid advancement in technology and medicine, if i ever change my mind and decide to have kids, i should realistically be able to have 1 or 2 in my 40s if i so choose.
But honestly, if i ever decide to have kids it would only be if i have a lot of money ($300,000-$500,000) in both liquid and asset form to support them and have something to pass down to them.
But rn as a broke 25 year old college student still living with her parents, having children is not my priority.
You are speaking for millions, female & male, in your age group who now find themselves in the same situation.
They live in all the countries where it now takes about 20 years of schooling, and many more years to pay that off, just to guarantee a slightly above middle-class standard of living.
There is nothing extravagant about your expectations. Similarly, most in that group are not asking to live like millionaires.
But, in most first World countries, we may have reached a point where only millionaires can afford to raise children.