Interesting video, I think free childcare, a sustainable work-life balance, more affordable housing, and a communitarian natalist religious revival across Global North countries or the ''rich world'' could help a lot.
This video data does not count children out of wedlock (haram) where in many western countries it covers 30%. whereas in Asia it is something that is taboo. you have to get married (expensive). so the birth rate is lower than the west
This video does not include data on woke feminists, the social media movement for divorce, the movement for not marrying (South Korea), LGBTQ abortion and dating culture. access to birth control devices .effect on birth rates rate.
I'm from Uzbekistan, we don't have any problems regarding reproduction. People get married early and have kids. The problem is that parents don't really consider or think about future of the kids like education or housing. Our parents' retirement plan is us, meaning kids. I myself came to South korea to study but I had to quit cuz of financial difficulties. There you go, rich people have 1 child, educated and provided. Poor people have 5 broke-ass kids and they will work for rich kids.
Lol, i've never seen 5 kids family in cities (Samarkand, Tashkent). Only in rural areas it's normal to have so much kids. In cities it is 2-3 i guess. And in very rare occasions it is 4. But statistics says that birth rate in cities and rural areas almost the same. I think the problem is that we don't know what they consider cities in statistics.
Another social norm in many Mexican families is that the grandparents help out with childcare. My grandparents (and their siblings) took care of me and my cousins after school when we were little. Which kept our parents from having to pay for child care until we started getting hobbies. Social norms extend beyond just the immediate family in some cultures.
Good point. In richer countries where people may have jobs that are less physically demanding, people are retiring later, and as the population gets older (due to having less kids) there’s a push to increase retirement age even further. We had kids quite late and yet my mother isn’t retired yet. She’s just about to, but then since she had me late, and I had kids late, I don’t think her energy level and health would’ve made it easy to take care of the kids. Kindergarten here is cheap and amazingly good though so I’m not complaining
Yes this is key. Ultimately it's not actually about money or wealth. It's the fact that the rich world tends be incredibly atomized and individualistic. There is no family cohesion, everybody is spread apart. People in the rich world don't know how to work together. We have all been duped into thinking we can do everything on our own as if we were all self sufficient ubermenschen.
Similar in Turkey, in big cities it is hard since they Migrate without their Parents. But in small cities, my grandparents took care of us, they had a house as a retirement investment but they were doing good with their income so lended the house to us, we need not pay for rent when I was young so. They lended us interest free money to buy our car and house. With familiy help my family were able to buy their houses etc early and send both children to universty etc. Since they both were working they only had two children but they could raise 4 if they want easily
Israel has the highest fertiliy rate by far among developed countries, and its property price to income ratio is much higher than european countries or even the USA. It has little to do with property price
That’s what me and my wife are currently, and plan on continuing to do. As long as you make certain sacrifices, and are willing to have your wife care for your children/family instead of working for a boss, it’s totally possible. Also, living in a lower cost of living area plays a huge role in affordability. I bought our house when I was 22 (currently 25). I grew up near Austin, and realized pretty quickly that there was just no way I’d ever be able to buy a house nearby where I grew up. We are also planning on homeschooling, and hope for 5 children (currently on #1), so it’s not like she wouldn’t be doing anything for 7-8 hours a day while the kids would be at school, so she’ll be more “productive” that way I guess.
In the studies I read they couldn't really find a clear pattern to support that property prices are a good factor to include. Which surprised me as well
As a dutchy (almost 30 now) I'm well educated (university) and when the issue of children comes up the number 1 thing I always hear is that they would if they could own a house. If pressed on the matter, it's about the monthly expenses and space availability. Rent is just crushingly high, owning a house would be cheaper. Plus most rentals are tiny, raising children in them is unappealing. My parents are sitting on a large house, and they want to sell, but new tiny appartments cost the same as what they (think) they can sell their current home form, so they do not sell, and thus teh next generation can't get a nice big house. Housing seems to me to be an absolute factor, we have treated it like investment property and to make sure the price keeps going up, we stopped building nearly enough nice houses.
The Dutch baby boomers grew up with cheap houses. I lived in Friesland and the median house price in the 70's was probably some 5000 guilders. In fact my dad bought a house in the early 90's for 15,000 guilders which is about 6000 dollars. Now these same >100 year old houses are like 200-300k euros which is absolutely insane. That's like 50x the price in 20-25 years. Now even my dad is saying well "we need to limit new construction and keep open space" etc. Well that's easy for you to say but we let all these migrants in and they get social housing and meanwhile young people have to sell a kidney to even get a downpayment for a house.
How irreponcible of your parrents. The parrents house must go to their children. Also yea its prity hard to have sex when your parrents are in the other room.
Damn, this is dedication: having a baby, living with them for some years and then making a video about fertility rates. I'm joking, excellent video as usual!
@@MoneyMacrothe Soviet Union is a country with upper middle income but has a fertility rate of 2.3. but when Russia became a poor country the fertility rate dropped to 1.2 during the 90s. answer why
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa I seem to recall there being a fairly established thing that in times of significant hardship and disruption, fertility rates and either drop sharply or rise a Lot, depending on exactly what sort of hardship and disruption is going on and why (if more hands to do the work will improve things, it ends to go up, if more mouths to feed will make things worse, it tends to go down, just for the very obvious ones).
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Russia didn't revert to agrarianism (where you can put your children to work in the fields), it remained an industrial economy, but extremely disfunctional. Hence, the material conditions for having children did not exist, and the fertility rate plunged. Meanwhile, in the Soviet era, there was a cradle to grave welfare state, and having children was generally cheap and easy (education was one of the things the USSR did relatively well), so fertility rates were fairly high.
Living in japan for quite a while as a european i can tell you their approach to this problem is - non existing. Its a fricking nursery home and having even birth is extremely expensive let alone all the expenses down the road. Zero support from government they are busy making sure everything is great for corporate and elderly - since elderly are their voter base. Everywhere. Atrocious, really. No work/life balance also doesn't help. They are dying out and they did it to themselves.
White birthrates are below replacement level because of gynocentric divorce law and female economic empowerment. Now that divorce has catastrophic risk to a man’s wealth, men are avoiding marriage completely. When a woman has a career, she has few to no children. If you want to raise the white birthrate, these two obstacles must be removed. This means banning women from education and abolishing alimony and child support.
@@henkvandervossen6616 They are trained to be japanese every step of the way. The stranglehold of old traditional way of behaving is immense. You can really think of it as a religion. And they are (for the most part) discouraged to do this. And often told they are useless and could not make the leap. (Their confidence and personal dignity is taken away early and replaced by ranks, ego, artifice authorities. Their individuality is crushed at school. Traditions do the rest.) It is truly a society of old and decrepit traditions. (Its getting better now, but with their unwillingness to change its going to take another 100 years) Just awful.
@@henkvandervossen6616 They do. Japanese friend of my friend left Japan and married a guy from Turkey. But most japanese are timid. They cant and want look outside of the well. Parents, TV, goverment tell them to live as slaves. Just study and work. For god sake they have FEMALE\MALE ONLY universities let alone schools. Some young people have barely no chance to interact with opposite gender till 25+. And after that they have to work 6 days a week. No one including goverment wants you to have kids. Maternity leave? Prepare to insults and losing your job. Social welfare for children? Good luck.
@@henkvandervossen6616 Japan is much more insular than Europe or North America, and it works both ways - Japanese mostly wish to live among other Japanese.
As an Indian I have seen this happen first hand. My great grandfather had 13 children, my grandfather has 5 and am the only child of my parents. As India as gotten richer the number of children families have has drastically reduced.
Always😂 my parents have like 10-15 first cousins while I have 4. My sister is my only sibling whereas both my parents have 2. And to Continue the trend, I plan to have no children😌👍
Does that include UP and Bihar? 😂 I think your situation is definitely true for middle class, but the poor continue to have kids in the hope of getting a boy (the child sex is not revealed to avoid female infanticide) as result some people can have multiple girls before they stop at a boy.
@@qizhu6913 But that's the point, this guy's demographic musings are bunk. Everywhere in the Global South you are starting to see the same phenomenon of slower demographic growth after a boom. That demographic boom is increasingly looking like an aberration not a normal to world demographics. It's a good thing actually. Less resource depletion and pressure over Earth's environment. If you see these demographic alarmists the only problems they point are economic in nature. The reason is Capitalist economy is not compatible with demographic contraction just eternal expansion. These guys twist themselves into pretzels to explain away this reality and that is Capitalism what is not working anymore.
The issue is that kids take time and a secure home, the same things young people struggle to find for themselves. Unless we give young people more time (e.g. 4 day work week, longer parental leaves, easier access to childcare, etc.) and a secure nest (an affordable home, job security, decent salary, etc.) these societies are simply going to destroy themselves. No matter how many immigrants you want to bring to a country with a failing social model... because, if they properly integrate, they'll just have a similar birthrate after 1-2 generations. And if they don't integrate and continue having too many kids... then you have big social problems that make people *not* have kids.
@@jbmurphy4 Nope. The benefit of automation doesn't get passed on to the working class, it stays in the pockets of the company. Automation has already 10x productivity since the 70s, so technically we could have already afforded the workers to work less for the same money. But instead, we decided that all this benefit should go into the pockets of the shareholders and that's how we got billionaires, while everyone else worked just the same, if not harder doing new tasks that are not yet automated.
@@jbmurphy4 How very naive. AI will result in people getting fired and poverty growing. And it will have no effect on the population exposion in the third world.
@@jbmurphy4clipkut makes a very good point, also the need for a stable and slightly increasing population is needed to keep economy growth through consumption, high numbers of people means many consumers
@@clipkut4979no we can't because this automatisation was only by name. Maintenance of those "automotised" systems required shitton of extraskilled labour. The only place where you actually can get more for the same price is AI and Biotechnology.
This may be a US-only perspective, or just something within my own friend group. But when it comes to childcare, I notice a difference in generations from my own experience. When I was growing up, my parents relied on my grandparents for childcare. Both sets. Full stop. What I have noticed now is that for those in my age group who are having kids, grandparents aren't as available. The grandparents are still working, or they are busy with their own lives. So that free resource isn't there anymore.
I'm an American and I married a British woman back in 2010 and I moved to the UK to be with her. I became a stepdad as she had a daughter. My wife's parents were very involved in my stepdaughter's life so it allowed me and my wife to have a date almost every week. in 2012, she decided to move to the US. When we got to the US with her and my stepdaughter, the whole support system collapsed. I had family, but they would never help with childcare. Because everything was about the child and lack of external family support, we went years without a date and eventually destroyed our marriage. To this day, I never want to get married again, let alone ever have another child.
Exactly, its hard in my country to see old people, eyeing us like sheep to put out little ones every now and then to satisfy their hopes and desires... Yes, they are a massive support system. My cousins who have children (14 and counting) make use of them fully and they don't mind at all.
In my case, my grandmother took care of me and my siblings after school while both my parents worked, having a child today is no longer so feasible, because my parents are still working, in addition to all the expenses involved in having a child. And the thought is emerging that it is not fair that elderly people who should rest in their old age have to take care of children.
@@impressiion Yes, and that's the problem, the thoughts. We are turning overly individualistic and away from conventional humanistic desires in the pursuit of ever greater freedoms and time for ourselves rather than the family. Its a very narcissistic and self-centred approach to life without any expert or scientific basis. The collective has slowly been killed off. In fact, it has been turned into something demonic, as if communal and societal responsibilities and I dare say, restraints are draconic concepts. Essentially all this happened because we wanted less conflict in our lives so we opted for the economic systems to evolve without oversight. Allow them to fleece us, left, right and centre in exchange for the prospective prosperity they promised. Though it was short term. And now the stick to the carrot is so long that we are not trying to correct the transgression, instead clinging on to sustain what we have achieved. In the meantime, we found these values as worthy sacrifices. In some schools, it is thought that such was intended by the system. The thing is, as this happened in only couple of decades in the past, the human psyche and societal systems have not caught up nor will they. They are built on millennia worth of slow changes and maturity. That's why we talk about children, even if its a self induced one-child policy or no children at all. Both have very apparent negative outcomes as is known from the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean versions. But it does not stop us, because we are not enduring harsh consequences of it yet, though it will happen in my lifetime. Will see whether humanity will be as fast in recovering from it as it was fast in dropping time tested values. History though dictates that we will not endure until absolute catastrophe hits.
@@neocortex8198yeah that's a great idea, create a system where the majority of the people can barely live and also punish them for being unable to effectively bring children into the world and raising them. What we need is affordable housing, accessible education and healthcare, and welfare, for a functional society
I think a strong reason why East Asian and Southern European countries don't invest as much in childcare facilities is because they tend to have some of the highest life expectancies in the world, leading to elder care facilities being a more pressing matter. Also the social norms of these two cultures expect grandparents to play a MUCH more active role in childcare. Higher life expectancy means more healthy grandparents, which means less demand for institutional childcare programs, which means less government investment in such programs.
Besides higher life expectancy, in Eastern cultures, family stay together and community helps with child rearing but in the West, it is about individualism and the nuclear family.
When traveling in the Austrian Alps I noticed how three generations live in a single farmstead. Grandparents would raise the grandchildren, where the parents would work. This seems to be a hybrid between the poor economy / rich economy model explained in this video. Personally I am rather charmed by this model, although it will probably not survive modern developments.
Notice also that most rich countries are highly urbanized, which increases the costs of raising children and often results in being isolated from extended family.
As someone who originated from the Austrian Alps (but an expat since a long time), I would add that this kind of co-living is in my view (still) much more frequent in agricultural families (which often have plenty of space in farmhouses which previously had rooms for many labourers). However, agriculture only represents 3.5 percent of e.g. the Austrian workforce, so I would say it is rather an outlier. Another reason may be that daycare for pre-school children is much more difficult to find in the (still more traditionalist) countryside than in towns, so this kind of three generational co-living can come in handy. That is IF there is available space, which for most families is lacking due to exorbitant property prices and rents (due to tourism and scarcity of land in valleys).
It works this way in China, when people there still have families. That’s becoming less common because of how screwed up the economy of China is and the severity of crime and pollution.
Oh it will survive, this is how those who will be alive 50 years from now will be raised. The birthrate isnt high enough but among those who dont practice it it will be even lower.
Cost of life is the real issue. As a Canadian about to enter the job market I have no clue how I'm expected to ever be able to afford a house and two whole children, even if I get married and split costs.
This is a typical first-world issue related to overthinking and rationalizing. I bet with you that an immigrant from a more traditional country (India, Africa, Middle East, ....) will have 2-3 children easily having a very basic or even lower salary than yours..Because if people in Canada can't have children, what should a Brazilian, Moroccan, or Indian say? So it's cultural in a first instance, unless you really can't buy them to eat or get dressed....And this is rarely the case!
Condoms and birth control changed everything. I don't think people necessarily wanted to have a lot of kids in the past. It was just a lot harder to prevent. People got horny, had sex, and accidents happened. Now it's much easier to prevent unplanned children.
one of my friends has 9 siblings. his mom did not want to give birth to him and try to kill him while he was still in her womb. she and her husband are uneducated people so they dont know birth control
not only this one you've quoted, but lots of cultural changes, risks regarding relationships for men in general and liberal values drifting away from the traditional ones...it looks like it was properly planned to reduce the world's population by force, I mean, no one wants to live in a "planet wide Kowloon", for sure, but neither want we to live in a world with a "last generation of elders" and men afraid of dating/marrying due to laws regarding relationships (alimony check, pension checks in which men pay most of the part and go to jail in case of not doing so, divorce bills in which you literally have to "pay a fee" just because your marriage/life with your girlfriend didn't go as expected)...
My grandmother had two kids. It wasnt difficult for them to plan it. On average American women, through most of American history have average around 3.1 children. Even during the early period they had more, but on average 3.1 children survived to adulthood.
Child on a poor farm for centuries: An investment that will start to pay off as soon as halfway grown up, save retirement plan Child in a modern urban society: A liability that costs money, time and nerves
I’m turning 30 this year, and I’m still wondering how I can afford to have children. Both my partner and I are middle-class income earners. Our student loan debt accounts for 10% of our total wages, 40% goes towards mortgage and auto loans. Grocery prices have increased by 20%. It may seem like we have 30% left, but unfortunately, we always need to pay for unexpected expenses like car repairs and house maintenance. I’m living paycheck to paycheck with no savings, and i don’t want my children to experience the same financial situation as we’re currently facing.
Yesterday I turned 23 and Ive never even had a job. There just arent any in the area and Im completely unwilling to abandon the place my ancestors have lived for 1000s of years.
I'm Spanish and I can say that most people here don't have kids due to economical reasons. Housing unavailability and not being able to keep a home with one income are the main ones. You just can't expect youngsters living in a room to start building families.
¿Tus padres lo tuvieron más fácil que tú para tener hijos?¿Y tus abuelos?¿Tus bisabuelos?¿Tus tatarabuelos?¿Tus tatatarabuelos? ¿Que país es más rico: España o el Congo?¿España o la India?¿Donde se tienen más hijos? En España, los que más hijos tienen son los nacionales o los inmigrantes?¿Quienes son los más ricos y quienes los más precarios? Con muchos matices pero mayor desarrollo = menor natalidad
@@millevenon5853 Many are coming to Spain and many more will in the coming decades. They will replace the Spaniards who choose to emigrate, mostly to parts of Europe with lower unemployment.
@@ivannipaidea970si. Tus abuelos lo tuvieron más fácil. La gente en países pobres lo tiene más fácil. Ya que sus hijos no son tan caros. Pero si vives en España del día moderno (o hasta en una ciudad en el Congo) los padres normales quieren darle una mejor vida a sus hijos. Y eso es mucho más caro que tener un hijo en los años de tus abuelos y solo pagar ropa y comida. La situación de cientos de millones de padres hoy no es como la situación como la de abuelos que parieron para sacar trabajadores. Hoy en día se tiene hijos para quererlos y darles una mejor vida, no para sacarles provecho económico como tú propones
I live in a poor region in Italy where the fertility rate per woman is close to 0 While I believe this can be attributed also to the mentality of some people who simply do not wish to raise a child, the main issue is that here young people simply can't find a job neither afford an house for themselves. I know people who already in their 50's are still paying the loan for the house they live in and generally young people still live with their parents in their 30's or just move abroad. Yesterday I was talking to a friend that suggested building more houses could make them more affordable as their price would decrease but I am not totally convinced, especially because with the extreme levels of bureaucracy and taxation there is very little incentive for entrepreneurship.
If you get rid of the pension system eventually the old people will die, Italy won’t have debt from paying for their asses and you can buy homes again once they die 🤷♂️
A fertility rate below zero would mean that the average woman kills someone else's kid and never gets pregnant. I think you meant to say the fertility rate is below two. The fertility rate is the average number of children that women have. How else could that go below zero?
@@greenSTEMforall simply a lot of women just don't have children Most of the population is old people who already had children back in the days while the people that are in the age to have them today just won't, or in some cases move to other countries. I know the number is crazy but that's just how bad things are here
A point to note is that India's fertility rate is 2.1 which is barely at the replacement level. And it is expected to go even further down as people have stopped marrying and having kids. The population of India will continue to rise as fewer people are dying due to an increase in life expectancy but after some decades India will witness a colossal decline in population once the boomers, Generation X, and millennials begin to die. For example - I am a single child to my parents and I am still unmarried (30M) and I have no plans to get married and have kids in the future.
India's newborns this year will be as many as newborns in Americas (both North and South) + Europe + Russia + Australia + New Zealand and Oceania. If Bangladesh and Pakistan are added, it's even funnier.
I live in Hong Kong. Had dinner with my girl friends in our 30s last night. The one with 2 kids said kindergarten alone for one kid already costs US13000/year. Rent costs US3000/month. This is why our birth rate is 0.8 which is the lowest in the world.
If you cant afford kindergarden just take your kids to work. Its been done before, kindergardens where invented so children wouldnt be running arround the factory, if people have kids and have no choice but to bring their kids to work the company might increase wages or subsidize kindergardens.
The differences in Europe are not just about social policies but social attitudes: I live in France where it is considered normal for professional women to have 2 - 3 children AND to hold down their jobs thanks to generous and generalised child and after school care; I have close friends in Germany and have noticed the opposite: if you have children there seems to be more of an expectation that you be at home and raise them and not 'outsource' the task. Guess who has the higher birth rate?
Further, a lot of jobs are now becoming hybrid, thanks to COVID. So, women can manage both family and career if adequate support system is there. The IT and finance sectors are the best example. Further, lot of women don't want more than two children, not due to career. Bringing up a child is stressful once they start to go to school. There was no social media 50 years back. Even the child is not safe inside the home today.
wow that's a great point! I live in Germany (but I'm Canadian) and they have incredibly regressive attitudes towards women, career and childcare here. I would have thought these attitudes would have been even worse in France, but it sounds like it's also counteracted by good and available child care. In many parts of Germany, childcare is almost impossible to access, partly because of reasons mentioned in the video (e.g. those working in childcare are paid very badly, and therefore there's not enough people working in this field).
i never have noticed something like this in germany, most people send their kids very early into daycare. Daycare workers also get payed ok in comparison.
@@mam0lechinookclan607 Not saying there is no day care there; I've just noticed a contrast with France in terms of attitudes towards raising children: France seems more open to a collective effort vs a more private effort, based on some observations.
@@mam0lechinookclan607 I have lived all over Germany and the availability of childcare is highly variable as well as the salaries/wages of those working in childcare. Friends/family of mine who live in NE or northern Germany don't seem to have so much of an issue with finding affordable or even free childcare in a formalized setting. In contrast, in southern and especially SW Germany childcare costs significantly more (if you can even find a spot) and those working in publicly funded facilities are paid middling - as in not really well in comparison to the cost of living in those locations, but not necessarily minimum wage. But "not minimum wage" doesn't mean "good salary". In most parts of eastern Germany childcare is relatively affordable and decent quality, but this also has historical reasons. Perhaps in the part of Germany you live in and in your circle, people don't have issues with finding and using childcare and somehow some of the workers don't get paid the worst. But I've lived all over Germany, and I can definitely say this situation is highly variable depending on where you are. The most sexist attitudes towards career women using childcare tend to be where childcare is hardest to access and/or is most expensive. In many places there, I've heard some women be called "Rabenmutter", which is frankly ridiculous and outrageous. On top of it all, no matter which way you cut it, childcare workers are definitely not paid enough such that it's an attractive field for many young people to get into, so they don't.
It almost seems like you could simplify the theory to simply the opportunity costs for the women of having a child. Poor countries don't have much in opportunity costs because there's not much opportunity in the first place. Rich countries generally have more opportunities including future career opportunities, so there's more to lose by having kids. Thus those with more available childcare (whether institutional or shared social) can lower those costs and hence see better fertility rates.
FYI The trade off in poor countries is a lower chance of surviving childbirth. Rural families have land and space if they are lucky, to house large families. As soon as they can migrate to the cities, the birthrate drops. As having lots of children in the city is actually an issue, as jobs and housing that make having lots of children possible is very expensive.
Many western countries are doing the opposite. They go for austerity and cut social programs like free child care. Then they complain about low fertility rate.
You will find that poor countries have just as much inequality (meaning potential "opportunities") as rich countries. "List of countries by income equality" says that richest 10% in India make 8.6 times the poorest 10%, which is less than the 18.5 to 14.0 ratio in the US but higher than the 6.9 in Germany. So arguably, there is a higher (relative) opportunity cost from having children in India than in Germany.
I am the father of two children. My wife would like a third. In my heart of hearts, I would too. But that is NOT going to happen. Why? We can barely afford to live. Basic expenses are too high. We don't earn enough on two incomes. School is expensive. And childcare is extortion. We're in the US, and to expect the "government" or private enterprise to do anything productive about it in the near future is futile.
I live nowadays mostly in Kenya as a retiree. To my astonishment and delight young(er) women seem eager to have me and my babies. Those children will grow up to be Europeans and will inherit a good future.
Why would you ever send your children to school? Just home school, educate your children by yourself. I know you can do it. It's the job of a father to educate his kids.
@@konstantinrebrov675 I know a little english but, if we educate tour children in own house when they go to labour market.. what college degree will they have to get a regular job? and a good university education is very expensive, the salary is stagnant since time and the inflammation goes very fast
@@selenazamora4133 You don't have to go to school or college to get a good education for a career. A good university education can be for free, believe it! You don't have to pay anything. All the lectures from the university are available for free on UA-cam. You can learn anything on your own, watch any lecture, read any textbooks on the internet for free. UA-cam has videos about any topic, mathematics, physics, computer programming. The best US universities such as Stanford have their lectures on UA-cam. There is no need to go anywhere or pay anything. You can get as good education as any university. But you need to create your own curiculum, you have to create your own learning plan. You have to know what is it that you need to learn, and what materials that you will use. You need to know how to google things, to find all the lectures and materials. You are responsible for your own education, you need to have the discipline, you need to have a dream, a purpose. This is not for the weak. If you need to be fed with a spoon, then go home. But I don't want to be a loser. If you are not among the best, then you are among the rest. That is not who I am.
@@selenazamora4133 You don't need any degree to become a computer programmer. You just need enough discipline like a warrior to keep learning. It is possible to learn software engineering on your own, you don't have to go to university for it. And you can use university lectures on UA-cam for free. But I do not like people who need to be forced with a stick or with a donut to do the work. Self discipline and the desire to learn must be from within.
In the US, nothing will change as long as our politicians and their donors are doing well. There are extremely strong forces in this country working against any kind of social policies that would benefit average people. We pay the most of any country in the developed world for the worst healthcare. Childcare is so expensive, you actually save money by not working and watching the child yourself. Our nutrition is obscenely bad, our streets are dangerous for anyone outside a car, we have more guns than people leading to crazy amounts of shootings, we allow train companies to derail trains and poison communities, minimum wage hasn't been raised in 16 years and corporations have bought the government to make sure nothing improves. The USA is a hellhole, and if we want people to have kids then things need to improve.
Your analysis are spot on. Do you know, the audited figure of gun massacre deaths are 42,000 deaths in I think 2021. Thats year after year of heartbreak for the families. USA is virtually disfunctional.
In America at one point, one man’s income was enough to provide for a family of 4. Now it’s one man with 2 jobs and a woman with one full time job to provide for a family of 4.
You didn't mention infant / child mortality. This was only conquered by vaccination and antibiotics in the 1950s. Prior to that the loss of one or more kids to disease was very common - in my own extended family two kids died in early childhood between 1930 and 1950 of what became preventable diseases before I was born.
One of the theory of the baby boom is actually that it was a pre modern medicine mentality in a modern medicine world: as soon as people realized that their children are not going to die, they stop making a lot of them.
@@TalwinderDhillonTravels actually it is. Vaccinations and medication aren’t free everywhere nor was that common in the 50s. So it would have been a trade off to some people on quality vs quantity.
@@thetrainhopper8992This factor is overstated because it fundamentally misrepresents how people, including poor people, think. It implicitly suggests that people have more kids as 'spares' i.e. just cos they're familiar with lots of children dying young in their communities, so they have more kids so that at least some of them will survive to adulthood. NO. This is a clear case of the economic numbers being completely divorced the actual people it's studying. Even among the poor, people don't have have kids as 'spares', and you'll see that if you ever talk to them or attend one of their funerals - they're just as devastated by the deaths of their kids as any other parent would be. They aren't having more kids just account for some of them dying, it's just normal in their context for people to have that many kids. I bet even the economists who promote this idea don't really mean to say the poor are heartless homo economicus types, but their models implicitly assume that just to simplify the messy reality of how actual humans are. Improved healthcare does tend to lower fertility, but firstly it's very hard to untangle that effect from all the other effects that tend to happen alongside that (like increased wealth and education), and secondly the effect is far more subtle and vague than the pithy summary 'quality vs quantity' tends to suggest to people.
In a world where both parents work, childcare is absolutely essential. Here in bulgaria the government has for 14 years not provided new kindergartens in the capital city, its absolutely untenable.
My largest issue with this topic is why it's even considered a problem in the first place. The human population can't grow exponentially forever, it's an inevitability that we'd decrease in population at some point in time. Increasing forever without end is unsustainable, this is just the natural course of things taking route.
It’s a problem from government’s point of view. Discounting social security issues, As you become smaller, you also have less leverage in global negotiations.
In a way, yes, but you could also argue than slow decline or stability in population is the ideal goal. A brutal decline will occurs if you have only 1 child (or less) per women
But that's what happens when nobody can afford to have kids. The government just wants more labor. It's wants should come second to what the people need.
@@kellharris2491 scusa, rifletti un attimo sul tuo pensiero. Io preferisco creare con le mie scelte una societa dove i lavori faticosi e degradanti siano fatti da macchine create e istruite da pochi abitanti colti. Io non voglio fare figli con l'idea che poi saranno costretti a una vita di miseria e rinuncie per servire una piccola elite. Questo non significa essere alruisti, ma solo creare nuovi schiavi che vivono solo per essere manodopera. Non penso sia giusto come accade ora, e continuare a fare così, solo perché si è sempre fatto, senza ragionare lo trovo profondamente sbagliato
0:23: 🌍 The population of rich countries is declining due to low fertility rates, threatening their economies and retirement systems. 4:24: 📚 As a society becomes wealthier, the cost of raising children increases, leading parents to have fewer children. 7:30: 📚 The compromise between quantity and quality of fertility is influenced by women's ability to balance family and career. 11:45: 📚 The difficulty for women in low fertility countries in Asia and Southern Europe to combine a career with a large family is attributed to the availability and cost of childcare, social norms regarding gender roles, and the time commitment required for parenting. 14:42: 💡 The low fertility rate in rich countries can be explained by a combination of insufficient social policies, restrictive social norms, and precarious labor markets. 18:27: 🌍 The world can be saved by implementing policies that support work-family balance and address the barriers to having more children. Recap by Tammy AI
"As a society becomes wealthier, the cost of raising children increase" What's odd with this is raising children in poorer countries is more expensive if you ratio down the income. I am from a poorer country and now living in a well developed economy country. All the people here complaint about how expensive it is to have a child when in fact I will be more comfortable to raise a child here than in my home country. More developed country people keep misleading themselves about this problem. It is not a matter of cost, but the unwillingness of people in more more developed countries to sacrifice their own leisure and luxuries that hinders them from raising children. Im not going to debate if that's right or wrong, I am jus here to point out how most western countries view this incorrectly.
Artificial wombs and medically induced life expectancy will easily crack this nut this is one of these problems that will look old fashion in a few decades
@@southcoastinventors6583 That's disgusting and leads directly to totalitarianism. If you accept mass production of Humans in tubes what's to stop the people in charge of those programs of selecting or modifying those individuals created like that to better mold to market needs or whatever they wish? Commodification of human lives leads to a very dark path. Better manage economic degrowth. Human beings aren't a natural resource for government and corporations to exploit. If people is sick and tired of rising workers for Capitalists to exploit for free, that's their right.
@@wafercrackerjack880very true! It's already rare to see even the top 100 richest people have 4+ childrens. Might i add, another reason is also because people from developed countries are becoming less hardy. What they perceived as stressful is not so for their poorer counterparts.
@@royalroyal2210 Yes, I have seen this at home too. When you grow up well off, it's really harder to imagine or endure a more stressful life. I can totally empathize with my richer counterparts though, but still, I feel so blessed to have had hardships given to me at a younger age and so as I grow older, I am more happy and ready to face the realities of life. My wife and I have just found out she is pregnant and we couldnt be more excited to face the challenge of raising a well adjusted human being! Is it scary? Absolutely. But is it worthwhile not only at a spiritual and personal level but also on a societal level, there's no doubt in my mind it is.
Portugal made all kindergartners/day care centres free recently. I'm no parent, but I think that, while it's a good step, it's not enough. Wages are incredibly low in Portugal. It doesn't really matter much if you get that specific cost reduced if you still can't afford the extra food costs, books, clothes, etc. that a child needs.
@@thailux6494 Lol dude I am not even American. And I really don't know how being ignorant about basics of economy is not believing a fairy tale that government can give you anything for free.
@@KiKfilms it’s free at the point of use and a lot cheaper for society as a whole due to the bargaining power of government, degree of scale and universality of the operations and lack of interest in profit. No, it’s not the same having to pay out of your own pocket or letting the government do it for you. You’ll pay way more if you do it alone and the societal outcomes will be worse. That’s a major reason why we have “free” stuff in all developed countries. It makes no economic sense not to - and plus, advanced countries value human lives so we believe in taking care if one another, so there’s that. And this is not even considering all the externalities of having free to access services. Which come from increased producitivy to health of the population
You're map needs to include Greece, Taiwan and Poland. They have a birth rate lower than mainland China. Tbf a lot of Western countries would probably be even lower if it wasn't for immigration.
@@secretname4190immigrant increase fetility but decrease the quality of the citizen. Lot of them dont know how to function in a society which eventually led to disassemble of social struture.
@@yytyytgat least in America, immigrants are very high quality citizens. Much more so than the blue haired 350lb heroine shooting McDonald’s eating losers with no appreciation for their country that make up a lot of native born Americans
I live in the Southeastern US. My paternal grandma had 8 kids. My dad, aunts, and uncles from that side of the family each had between 3-5 kids each. I have three siblings. My older brother has 3 kids and my younger siblings are childless. In my culture, your extended family is your immediate family. My aunts, older cousins, and grandmother would take turn watching all of the kids in the family. At one point we lived in the same house or in the same neighborhood. My husband's family is large as well and has a similar dynamic. I'm pregnant with our first child. I would like to have 4 children. There are at least 10 different family members who will babysit for me once I return to work after maternity leave. I used to also babysit my nephew amd nieces if my mom or aunts were unavailable. I'm grateful and fortunate to have a large close-knit family. If I have grandkids, I will help my children out with childcare the same way my elders have helped me out. Gotta get our clan going and connected.
What amazes me is not that people are having fewer children, to me that seems quite logical and not a bad thing, but that a lot of people seem to be opting out of having children entirely - which was something that was very rare in my parents (baby boomer) generation. I know loads of people in their 30s who simply are choosing not to have kids or will not because they didn’t have the right partner at the right time or they just thought they’d think about it later in life once they have a home and stable career.
Look around you. Look at the cost of living, the incoming and increasingly serious climate crisis, and the rampant and rising inequality. If you are a wage serf, your beloved child will likely be a serf too, if they haven't recreated slavery by the time your child has grown. If you love your child, why would you bring them into this? To be someone else's slave until they die?
@@Ealsante people have always pronounced coming doom and it’s never stopped people having kids in the past. Things are much better today than in most of all history - people live now like kings did in the past. The fact obesity is more of a problem than starvation is now tells you something. We’re better off the media just don’t like to tell you that
@@lightweightben Well it's stopped people now from having kids, hasn't it LOL. You said nothing to counter what Ealsante said. So your argument is null and void.
@@lightweightben Why is it amazing to you that people don't have kids? I'm 35, don't have kids, and I know lots of people in their 30s that don't have kids.
@@DavidVonR it’s amazing because it’s a historical aberration. Despite the world being better than it’s ever been by multiple objective measures people are choosing childlessness. I’d have thought there had never been a time better to have children than this era. However the difficulty in getting a home and security now compared to the recent past (particularly the boomer generation) is probably having an effect on people deciding to be (or delay such that they don’t have a choice) parents. I do agree that climate doom may be influencing people as well, but like I say the end is nigh is an age old trope.
An issue I think about often is inflation. My grandma worked 8hrs a day as a single parent and raised 7 kids. My parents both worked my dad 8 hrs and my mom 12 as a nurse to raise 3 of us. The potatoes my grandma used to feed her family only required 8hrs a day as a single parent. But the potatoes to raise me and my siblings require 20hrs (would be 40hrs for 6 kids). The potatoes haven't changed but the cost to acquire them has, drastically. Which is weird because we're more advanced in farming and technology now which was supposed to reduce costs and increase yields through economies of scale, but the opposite has happened. Let's ditch the technology and go back to the old affordable ways. The majority of us are not benefiting from the new ways. What is inflation and who benefits from it? Where is it located exactly and why are we all so accepting of it. A practical discussion is required not textbook justifications, we don't live in textbooks.
I was going to bring up the devaluing of the nations currency (inflation). My dad had 9 siblings, I have 3 siblings and amoungst us we have zero kids (we are all in our 30s).
Your grandmother def worked on that farm though.... Working class women have been working throughout history, esp those on farms. It's for a very short period during the mid 1900s that true housewifes existed anywhere else than in the high class.
I think another factor that I almost never see discussed is _actual_ desire to have lots of children. As in, remove all the practical barriers and imagine everyone can have as many children as they might theoretically want - how many kids _do_ people want, on average? In the developed world at least, I imagine the average comes out between 2-3. I can't really imagine myself or anyone I know _wanting_ 4+ kids. Take that 2-3 and add in biological constraints and even in a world devoid of socio-economic troubles, you are still going to struggle to keep the _average_ children per woman above 2.1. Practically, to maintain an average above 2.1 you need quite a lot of people choosing to have large families.
There will also be a substantial group that just rather has no children and spend their time traveling, maintaining an exciting social life or just having a more luxurious life with an early retirement by redirecting the resources needed to raise children to wealth creation. And i suspect that group also grows as a society grows wealthier. Jobs are not the only thing competing with having kids anymore. There is so much more easilly available to people now then ever before that also competes for that time, resources and attention.
I have noticed that parents that have more than 2-3 children are ones that have 3 daughters or sons and they just want to have both son and daughter so much that they dont mind having 4, 5 or more children.
I've heard at least one anecdote of a woman who had two already moving to a country with much better social programs for kids, and ending up then pretty happy with four, without ever having thought of it before.
I wanted 5 when I was younger. I have one. I was gonna have more but my current spouse will make a terrible coparent. I'm getting myself a dog instead. Maybe I'll foster or adopt later.
If you live in a post industrial society, kids cost a lot, plus you have alternatives like social security and investments. If you live in an agrarian society, kids are your investment, relatively cheap and actually generate income since adolescence (if not earlier).
We had a super strong economy with half the workforce in the 50s and 60s. Wages were higher per worker because globalization hadn’t spread labor to lower income countries, women hadn’t entered the workforce en masse yet, etc. There are obviously trade offs for that, but median wages have been stagnant for quite some time, while the cost of essentials like housing, healthcare, and education have outpaced inflation.
I am surprised you did not mention inequality. Back in the 60's you was able to raise a family on 1 working class fulltime job. Today doing so on 2 working class fulltime jobs is not or only barely possible in many countries. When we look at studies from the US on why young women wait with having children, the one point that come up again and again is cost.
@@nicknickbon22he said “muh woman job make me no want baby”. He didn’t detail that the cost of living is becoming untenable for young people. It used to be a 20 year old male could buy a house and raise 4 kids with his 19 year old wife. She’s fertile for 15 years and has plenty of ability to have children. By the 90s it started becoming harder to buy a home. It was a 26-30 year old homebuying duel income couple having 2-3 children instead of a single earner 20 year old having 3-5 children with his spouse. By 2023 it’s impossible for anyone young to buy. House prices doubled since Biden got into office and wages didn’t double
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se he said that in rich countries the cost to maintain a baby is much higher than in poor countries and that a baby is not much of an opportunity because it is the state to take care of you when you’re old through pensions. The housing cost is simply another child cost. Second of all, the us is not declining, so why talk about it anyway? The housing cost is a problem in few us cities and maybe in some European city of comparable size to major us cities (maybe in a country capital) but alone it doesn’t explain why you have a sharp decline in population in countries such as Italy and Spain. Anywhere, if you interested someone in the comments has linked some research linking housing cost and fertility rate, but again, the research seems to be focused on the us mostly.
In Australia we used to have a "baby bonus" where the government would pay the mother $5000 per child. This ended on 1st July 2013 and in the days leading up to this policy cancellation doctors were inducing labour in the mothers to give birth to the child before this date, less the mothers miss out on the $5000 baby bonus. It was quite appalling really, but really showed how desperate parents/mother's are for money. I've got 1 child, and i can confidently say that we cannot afford another if we want to maintain that both parents have good and fulfilling careers, and simply more time to enjoy our lives. Daycare/childcare availability and affordability are also an issue here
"have good and fulfilling careers" Theres no such thing. Work is a means to an end. Nobody likes working. "Daycare/childcare availability and affordability are also an issue here" Doesnt matter. Why would you have children if you wont raise them?
People who grew up poor don't want to bring kids into an even poorer world than the one they grew up in. I watched the American Dream wither and die on the vine as the stable middle-class family my grandfather built crumbled into a ruined diaspora of lost people.
@@BrotherHood-xh9sgwhat are you basing this on? Your eyes? Cause that’s misleading. Sure “a lot” have many children. But how does that compare to most people? Even the poorest countries are seeing big falls in their population growth. Because the people there are richer, more educated, and want more for their children than their own parents or hard parents who had way more kids
@@n.m6249 Yeah but it is not comparable because life is different there. Cost of living is a factor our standards of living and what we define as a healthy upbringing are different for better or worse. To be able afford what we consider healthy and modest is extremely expensive. The parameters are completely different
I live in a developing country, my grandparents had 8 kids, my fathers had 4 children and now that im 35 years old i have decided not to have any kids at all, my reasons: the world is fcked up, racism, inequality, intolerance and hate are here to stay
Most surprising thing in this video is that US dads are one of the most active in their children in the world. Not that I believed we are absent in our kids lives, but fathers from other countries aren't that active at all.
because there is a decline in living standards, in developed countries, many people do not commit to marriage for financial reasons, instead of fixing solutions to lower living standards in developed countries, developed country governments instead import cheap labor from poor and developing countries.
Something you really missed on for the US is that our high replacement rate isn't really driven out by dads being more helpful around the home but it also still provides a decent case study for your previous mentioning of socioeconomic status as a big indicator for reproductive rate. Most fertility in the US is driven by immigrants either directly replacing dying people or immigrant families having more children on average than citizen (or if we want to get more granular, it's broken up by race typically) where latin american families as a whole tend to have more kids than white families. It's expected that with time this will taper off as they further become integrated into the fabric of our society.
Back in the times of the highest fertility rates people loved in huts or single unit Manhattan squats lol. The solution is more poverty and less space, pile everyone on top of each other.
Parents also need to plan with an eye towards paying for their kids houses in the same way they need to plan to pay for their educations since, in countries like Canada, buying a house without parental support is largely impossible.
As someone who moved to America a long time ago, I can clearly see that more and more people are unmarried even at the age of 30 and above, both men and women. This is even true in deeply religious states like Alabama where I currently reside. Literally everyone in my social circle is hardcore Christians, yet they are all unmarried. Economic reasons aren't the main cause here, its more to do with social and cultural factors.
If you don't mind my asking, what is your opinion on why hardcore Christians aren't marrying? Of all the demographics I figured they'd have the fewest issues finding partners and starting families, so your assessment is really surprising to me.
@@SunseedStarchild My assessment is based on what I see here in Huntsville, AL where I live. There are many guys including women, who are not marrying, for reasons I can't fully pinpoint. What I do notice is that not only do people find it hard to find eligible dates, but the relationships they get into hardly last long enough to end up in marriages. One reason from what I've noticed is that many people now have unrealistically high standards than what they had in the past. Like, I know a guy in my social circle whose relationship ended within a month because the girl didn't like "his tone" about something..makes me wonder, have people become so uptight and intolerant of each others? Seems like it. I see people breaking up over trivial, silly reasons which can be talked over. My close friend has msged random girls on Facebook, tried christian dating apps, approached girls irl ( including where he works, and church) totalling to 900+ women over the span of 3 years, and he's still unmarried at the age of 29. He's your typical, conventionally attractive guy, close to 6 feet, makes close to 6 figures, charming, laidback personality, no debts, literally no flaws i can think of, but he can't find a relationship that ends in marriage. Its wild to me how people like him find it difficult to marry..by the way, are you aware of the fact that conservative states have a higher divorce rate than liberal states?
@Ghostrider-ul7xn If the guy really is tall, attractive, makes good money and has a good personality, it is likely that he acts badly to those he dates, or approaches them in a creepy way, because no matter where you live, if you have all of those traits and have asked about 900 women out, then it's most certainly something wrong with you, actually, even if you were just completely average and asked 900 women out, you would have to have some serious flaws to not be able to keep a single one.
@@kaymartin2807 I'm 99.9% positive its not his fault here, I'm his close friend, I know every single thing about him because he also shares all the screenshots of his approaches with me. In most cases, he gets ghosted at the texting stage eventhough there's absolutely NOTHING creepy in his interactions. Dude, he's a hardcore christian, how could you possibly draw the conclusion that there could be something 'creepy' in his interactions? That doesn't add up even if you don't know the person. I haven't seen or heard him say anything sexual or weird even in real life that could come off as creepy. He follows the Bible to a T. Note that I said "most" cases, there are those few cases where he goes on dates after some interactions ( using the same template and approach, so you can't really argue that there's something creepy in his approaches), but by the end of first or second, he rejects them on the grounds of not following some of his biblical principles. Those principles are his ONLY dealbreakers. But if you want to compare the "no"s he gets vs the "no"s he gives, that's like 95% vs 5%, that's the key difference in this conversation here. Besides, this isn't just about him. As I mentioned, there are many others in our social circle who are very similar in his stats but are still single. There's another guy who is literally a millionaire and unmarried at 40. That dude already gave up.
@@Ghostrider-ul7xn I wasn't aware that conservative states had higher divorce rates, that's genuinely fascinating. I'll have to look into that, thanks for letting me know! To sum up what I gathered from your assessment, it sounds like the Christian sphere is suffering from issues with expectations and communication (the same thing we're all having issues with regardless of how we identify), which makes sense all things considered. Thanks for your input!
Something that was not mentioned is young unemployment. E.g., Spain is very high. This for, the Spanish leave parent homes after their 30, while biologicalfertility for women falls sharplyafter 35. This leaves women with a very small time window.
Maybe parents should have less hangups about their adult children having sex and people shouldn't necessarily dismiss a partner for living with their parents.
@@alexgodeye3031 Well I'm pretty sure that they have sex with people before their 30s. That is not the issue. The point is if as parent you want/can have a kid in the same place you grown up considering you have your parents and siblings. It just not enough space for a family of 8 in an apartment for 4 (considering each son/daughter has 2 kids in a family with two parents and two adult "children")
I am from Spain and I am very shocked how this topic is never really discussed on political debates. Also my friends, who are most of them well above 30 and only one third of them have kids, don't seem to care. It's very discouraging.
Promoting Spaniards having children instead of importing millions of Africans is not a part of the major plan of turning Europe into an extension of the Middle East.
Spain used that have an very high fertility rate centuries ago which is a big reason Latin America is so populated. I hope the culture changes and they start having more kids.
@@ala.ba7394in Italy these houses are selled in areas with no jobs. You mush return original view of the house in strict time like 3 years, must use local archive for that, can't hire anyone except locals etc
@@ala.ba7394 maybe actually do some research about those "1 euro houses". Not only are they in regions where there are 0 jobs, so useful only for digital nomads that wouldn't even pay tax in that country. but they also cost a lot more than 1 euro, especially when you add renovations to the cost
I knew what the punchline of the video would be as I think the cost of childcare is the obvious fix, but I still enjoyed the journey of you delving into this problem space. The question I have is: How do we get a government to incentivize policy that only has an ROI decades into the future when all of the people who need to implement such policies won't be around to "take credit." Forget that most of congress in the US won't be alive, even "younger" politicians don't think in such long view strategy.
Politicians only do what they can. They are constrained by their electorate (most of whom are close or at retirement in developed countries), the geopolitical context, and people of high influence. For any substantial change, we would need a strong cultural moment that would transform into a political movement. Wanna start? I'm down.
the approach is to simply abolish pensions if people want to live comfortably in their old age more kids would help. also make college tuition the same rate per family potentially even not even siblings but first cousins also abolishing most regulations on commerce would make starting a company easier
"I think the cost of childcare is the obvious fix" - it isn't a 'fix', it's a bandaid. It'll only have a small effect, perhaps raising fertility to 1.8 at most, if that. Everyone loves bemoaning costs while implicitly pretending things are easier for the poor and/or in the past. No it isn't and wasn't. Relative to their income it's much harder, yet they still have kids (and saying 'child labor' just makes you seem outdated and ignorant). Costs are a much more popular excuse than they are a factor. They play a role, but a fairly limited one. Just look at the ultra-rich for instance - how many kids do they tend to have? Money isn't all there is to this, not even close.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn " Everyone loves bemoaning costs while implicitly pretending things are easier for the poor and/or in the past. No it isn't and wasn't." Have any sources to back this claim?
@@jonrussell739 US household spending data. Families with higher income save (i.e., aren't spending) a lot more of their income. Of course, the aggregate data also includes people who are retired, who spend $30k (through their savings) but only make $5k, but the general trend makes sense. Of course rich people can afford to save more of their income. And those savings could theoretically be used to raise children. You get €250 per month per child in Germany. Incentives are probably not the problem. People 200 years ago had children without getting paid anything for it.
My main issue with the "women working lowers fertility" hypothesis is both its metahistoric context and modern statistics. The "working women have less children" idea was created when both Feminism was at its peak and the idea that overpopulation was a threat to global food supply was mainstream, meaning that it was thought of as an idea to give praise to a movement that specifically wanted women to work more. The idea that "women work less in poor countries" is often false, in fact we have statistics from countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, Mali, Etc. in Tanzania fertility rates are lower than in Niger despite women working considerably less there. In fact, many high fertility countries have higher female labour force participation, including full time, than countries like those U.S.A. and here in the Netherlands. I'm not saying that it's not a factor, I just doubt that it's as big of a factor as many claim. Urbanisation basically explains way more than the female labour force participation hypothesis.
Nope, it's about female labor participation, even in Africa there's a clear correlation, in countries where women participate more in the workforce the fertility rate is lower and is falling faster.
You dont understand what you are talking about. Working as a clerk in a supermarket 4 hours a day it not a real job. It still counts as "working women" but its not the same as woman working as construction engeneer, having a proper education and working 8-12 hours a day. How exactly you expect family to raise kids if both parents come home 7-8 PM when most kindergarders are already closed their doors? Their kids are already waiting in the police station and parents get sued for bad parenting.
It's wild that you think the literal biggest factor is not as big of a factor as many claim. Those few countries you mentioned had female labor force participation increase relatively recently, such that cultural trends hadn't adjusted to the trend of women working (ie the women already had a lot of kids or were having kids). Within a few decades, all countries with high female labor force participation experience drops in fertility as young women decide against having kids so that their lives will be easier. Look at the USA in the 1960's and 1970's when women started working full time in large proportions. At the time, you could have believed labor force participation wasn't a big issue. However, the trend eventually works out exactly as it does in every other country: new women stop having kids. This effect is etremely reliable, it obviously just can't happen overnight becuase culture takes time to change. But, on the scale of culutral change a few decades is actually a very short period of time for such drastic change.
My take is that breeding aged people have fewer kids if we're _feeling_ poorer because every generation is getting poorer. It now takes two incomes to afford a house whereas generations ago it took only one. While productivity has increased and the pie is now larger it doesn't matter for the average young adult since the boomers and a few extremely wealthy people are scoffing down most of it. 'Poorer' countries are feeling richer every generation and this hope gives them motivation to have kids since their kids will be better off than they are.
One thing that must be taken into account when looking at the US's highest fertility rates is the impact of immigration and inequality. The US manages to maintain a rate of 1.62 on average, but this average hides that while Latinos, Middle Easterners and Asians, poor, have 3-4 children on average, a middle class white American will have similar birth rates. from Japan and Korea. That is, immigration hides the very low birth rate of the natives, and this applies to France and several other rich countries that have adopted immigration as a method of combating the lack of manpower.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Not just Indian all South Asian, East Asian, and some South East Asian groups (like filipinos, their average household income is over 100k) out earn whites. Read the data again.
The wonderful thing about American immigration is that once the child is born in the US, they are a native of the country. No ridiculous hoops to jump through.
*Hot take:* For countries like my own, (Canada) rising the immigration rate doesn't help. It is only contributing to the housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We are importing 1 million people per year, with nowhere to house these people, let alone housing Canadians. If they want more Canadian's (and other G7 nations) to rise the birth rate, we need infrastructure, housing, and to address better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits. Reduce the barrier to entry on owning a home, and increasing the supply of homes. Canada has a lot of land to which we can expand our city limits. Another problem is how independent our culture and mindset is here. Canadian's are generally polite, but very flakey people when it comes to dating and romance. It comes with historically being such a large nation land-wise, but most provinces being isolated. This makes it hard to meet people in general, and creates unique sub-cultures and politics within each province. I don't have a solution for this one in particular, as hook-up culture is a phenomenon that exists globally, but effects the west to a greater extent. The biggest elephant in the room is we need. More. Affordable. Housing. The Bank of Canada keeps raising mortgage rates and new houses aren't being built to sustain Canadians and/or the mass influx of immigrants we have coming into our country. The Trudeau Government keeps pushing for this with no plan to help these newcomers into our country. We need to reduce the land taxes and interest rates. The Government can only blame climate change for so long before one realizes that a carbon tax only harms the middle and lower classes as it raises gasoline and cost of living. The massive corporations can pay these no problem, or just invest or move elsewhere. Not to mention the insane income tax rates we have in Canada which make it impossible to invest securely. There should also be more investment into housing in cities that aren't Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. This way, the housing markets in these cities won't be so insane, and provide growth in other cities provinces. TLDR: Make childcare cheap and accessible, accessible and plentiful affordable housing, less taxes.
If you "import" 1 million people per year then that means that Canada needs 1 million people per year. It doesn't matter if 1 million people per year come from immigration or from naturally born people. The housing crisis is easily solved: just build more houses. How difficult is this? We are not in the middle ages anymore we can build 10 store high buildings. And immigrants help you with the cost of living crisis by fueling the economy. *infrastructure, housing, and to address better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits* Yes, but why do you think those are only problems with native born people and not with immigrants? Of course you need to improve all of that for immigrants then you won't have the perceived problems immigration brings. *Reduce the barrier to entry on owning a home, and increasing the supply of homes.* Yes, for immigrants. *Canada has a lot of land to which we can expand our city limits.* Exactly. For immigrants. No more housing crisis. *The biggest elephant in the room is we need. More. Affordable. Housing.* Yes, for immigrants. No more housing crisis. Seriously, why do you think that immigrants are somewhat different from native born? Immigrants and native born need infrastructure, housing, better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits, increasing the supply of homes, More. Affordable. Housing. They all equally apply to immigrants and natives because they are all just people. The problem is that your government is not solving those problems for people, but then you blame the immigrants.
There are many parts of the housing crises but a major factor is the rise of single parent households where you now need two residences instead of one. And the second residence still needs extra rooms for regulations on visitation. We also don't build enough midrise buildings that could hold more people.
You're misconstruing me mentioning immigrants as if I don't want immigrants in the first place. My gripe isn't with people coming in, it is with the government who keeps "opening the flood gates" for people to come here without housing security. There are height restrictions to high rises in Canadian cities that limit how high we can have buildings. My government is 100% responsible for its citizens, and those coming in new to the country. They are allowing people in at a rate that isn't sustainable with the shape of our economy and resources at the moment. There are many reports of immigrants coming to Canada and mentioning it was a mistake and that they never should've left their home nation. Re-read my TLDR section. Immigrants are just by-products and victims to our current problems exasperated by our incapable government (i.e. the government and supply. It's the government both provincial and federal that approve extra land use, and compensating the original owners and farmers on city limits). Immigrants are not the problem themselves, they are just being given the short end of the stick while our government pretends to help them and welcomes them with open arms.@@holz_name
maybe deregulate housing and make nimbys traitors and just allow people to build massive housing complexes and just ban any opposition to such construction
Been there, seen the situation. The problem is that Canada does not invest enough in improving or extending its infrastructure and housing. You can build a lot of housing in the middle of nowhere, but without a suitable means of transportation (I am not talking about cars), it will result in clogged roads which happens in big cities.
The higher the competitive pressure, the lower the birth rate. Long working hours in white collar jobs cause stress and mental load, long education times shorten the time window for children significantly, and top, everyone is looking for the most perfect partner. Rich economies need to re-learn how to chill and redistribute more, especially towards child-care.
In the U.S. there is a lot of “informal” childcare like relatives and grandparents helping out, a “friend” watching a bunch of kids, or shady-ass daycares that are cheap. Also some parents just let their kids run wild and nobody watching them and you have these feral kids running around who don’t know right from wrong and commit disproportionate amount of crimes.
I am from the US, you are right, about childcare and parenting. That's why logical-thinking people are deciding to have kids later in life once they are ready not by society's standards. It's actually quite empowering.
@@comecorrect1 >when they are ready If people are not ready to have kids when 95-99% of the human population throughout history was maybe that's on them and not "society".
Рік тому+13
Great video, great analysis. I think it makes sense. I live in the one of the southern european countries with ultra low fertility and what you said fits whats going on. There are a non-neglectable number of companies that have a toxic work culture of "number of hours worked > quality of the output" that leads to a lot of overtime. In addition to this, when you quit your job you have to give a whooping 2 months to the company after your notice. This means that there are a lot of people with very little time to raise children (due to the overtime) and it's difficult to change jobs to a better offer due to the 2 months period. I've had international job opportunities go down the drain when they learn they'd have to be waiting 2 months for me.
This video is the reward for finishing my next exercise sheet. Thank you for bringing great content as always. I love how you present data and viewpoints!
In the part of Nigeria that I live in, few people work on the farm yet most parents have more than 5 children. Unemployment is high, inflation is 29%, and few children contribute to family income.
Ignorant question: why are declining fertility rates and populations a problem? I remember a time not that long ago when doomsayers were warning that the increasing human population would soon be unsustainable, there weren't enough resources on the planet to feed/house/clothe etc. a burgeoning population, etc. Fewer people means more resources per capita and in theory a better life for each person. Supporting freeloading retired people (e.g. me) does present a greater burden for those still working, but couldn't some of the added burden be compensated for by greater productivity?
Another important factor is that the west 🇺🇸🇪🇺👦🏼and westernized countries favors Dopamine over family and stability and have too much degenerate values that break the family union and impossible to create family under these degenerate values. and men don't want the mother of their children to have onlyfans and women don't want a manchild who plays videos games. " GREAT REPLACEMENT " meanwhile anyone following your values commit su1cide
As a person of turkish origins i have seen the amount of fertility rates of my family decline. My grandpa's family used to work in the farms in the outskirts of Ankara and he was the last of 7 kids, fortunately he had the opportunity to study and subsequently he only had 2 kids (one my father) compared to its sibsilings which had more, my father only has 2 childs (me and my brother). So we have seen how education can impact to fertility rate but also to the well being of the future generations
Infinately more wise to compassionately deny a child existence than subject them to a brutal existence of uncertainty and instability. Not having kids is a no-brainer when one knows they are a job loss away from foodstamps, eviction, are crushed with student and consumer debt. Moreover the government subsidizes broke people to have children and men tend to want to mitigate this risk with women who don't desire a family.
1. Cost of buying and maintaining a home. When homes cost 10 times the annual salary of the average wage for a decent family home, why have more than one child and live with bickering and arguments over sharing a room? 2. Size of homes for larger families. Average home sizes are getting smaller as developers try to squeeze every penny they can put of buyers for the smallest possible footprint. Not only that, but homes are poorly designed and not laid out in a manner conducive to family life. 3. Cost and flexibility of childcare. Working hours for parents are 9-5; school is 9-3. One parent will often be working full time just to pay for childcare if they are low earners. If you are a shift worker, then good luck finding cover. 4. Cost of living. Food, energy, clothing and transport are all costing more. Activities and hobbies for children also cost more than they used to. Those swimming lessons, admission fees etc also have to be factored in not to mention the increased food bills. Who can afford to have more than two kids these days? I will also admit that as we grow more affluent, the definition of needs and wants changes but why should we look to downgrade our standard of living in the interests of producing more workers for business owners and companies to exploit?
" Average home sizes are getting smaller as developers try to squeeze every penny"....that's true in the UK, not elsewhere (in fact it's the opposite in USA, Australia, Canada, NZ) Only true in UK because when EU introduced minimum floor space home sizes for new builds...tory refused* to adopt that policy or to introduce anything similar for our already badly undersized and over priced housing. *tory refused to adopt ALL EU policies that sought to improve the lot of the average person...likely because of its hopeless obsession with protecting corporate profits, no matter what the cost to the rest of the economy, the country, the vast majority of citizens... (who do productive work for a living, as opposed to those who derive all/most of their income from corporate handouts, aka: share dividends.)
@@noneofyourbiznessit’s true in the US to some extent too. Smaller yards, narrower houses, smaller plans. American homes went down from a 2016 average of 2600 sqft (260 sqmt I think) to 2300 sqft (230 sqmt). They’ve also doubled in price in that time
The social norms also include availability of many things for larger families. Both my husband and myself come from a 2 kids family, but we have 3 kids. It is only now that I can see how much more complicated things can get with 3 or more kids. For instance hotel rooms are for a maximum of 2 kids, finding a car that we would fit in was more difficult, entry to attractions can be relatively more expensive than with 1-2 kids. With three kids it is still doable, but I am wondering how larger families do stuff.
We have forgotten how. You no longer see them but station wagons used to be common as well as bunk/multiple beds per room. Now people seem to think they need a large suv just to haul two kids around and anything more they need a suburban (actually it used to be common for three kids to squeeze in the back of a sedan too). For hotel rooms, my complete guess is that they may not of had that regulation or skirted it often in the past. However at the same single parent households were more rare and discipline was higher in the past as well.
We just had bunk beds, went camping on public lands for vacations, went to libraries or public pools or lakes for fun, turned our yard into a very large garden so we could have lots of healthy food, and so on. My brother and I worked a ton starting at young ages when we weren’t in school. There are ways to make it work and still have a great life, you just find other things to do and be a bit savvy with the finances. Sadly, houses are now so expensive that I wonder if I’d be able to afford to give the same sort of life for my kids.
Let’s not forget a sentinel event in the history of humanity, June 23, 1960, the oral contraceptive pill was approved in the US. 4 years later the baby boom ended.
Makes a lot of sense, would have liked to see the added parameters of immigrant % as well as distribution (median kids per woman). They could, as they make large portions of the population now, affect things greatly. And as they are seemingly not adopting western social norms there could be a scenario where systems are "intertwined". i.e. enough kids but a large part raised as the security option for the parents. Instead of the parents wanting a better and fulfilling future for their child (general western norm, as mentioned). Government leniency towards alternative lifestyles could also have a big effect. US, France, Sweden... have much higher rates of economic migrants and in the last years and decades also growing immigration concerns. [Female to male labour force participation in Afghanistan, Morocco, Iraq, Algeria.. is ~10/20-100 compared to European nations all at ~80/90-100.] Great video as always though! And good luck with the little one :)
One thing that wasn't mentioned here - but that would be a much more difficult topic to research - is that is that a lot of friends in my generation (late 30s) and the newer generation are absolutely freaked out about climate change and what it means for the planet in the coming few decades. It's usually people from richer countries who have the "luxury" and education to worry about such matters rather than poorer people with less or no education who can only afford to worry about tomorrow's meal.
I also think education is the defining factor. When you start to think about the world and not only about yourself. Even without climate change, there are too many people on Earth as it is. If we don't change anything we'll destroy our planet.
"Good quality of life" is very subjective and really kinda works against us in the modern world, where everyone can see always new cool and whatever things on the internet and start they are missing out on x, y and z. In the older days we would live simpler lives and have simpler needs and still feel its good and meaningful life ....but the more rich we get in the material world ...the more things and everything we need to get the feel of "good quality". and i do genuinely feel alot is lost in this endless race for better "quality of life".
Why is the Western Union the Western world now claiming to be worried about brith rate when why had spent so much years becoming O'mo and the disruption of the family life. And are now telling Africa that they need to be the same Gate men
Maybe the term 'dying' does not do justice. The world population has gone from 1 billion to 8 billion in a span of 2 centuries perhaps the populations are rebalancing themselves to adjust to the new socio-economic circumstances of the 21st century. I think this is a natural process. So crying about population going up or down is like crying about stock market going down or up, we know it will always fluctuate.
You missed an extremely relevant point that I can´t believe you forgot. Older countries such as Portugal and Spain have a huge number of older people, which needs a lot of attention from children when they get old. Specially in Portugal where sending your parents to a nursing home is almost out of question in most cases, for economic reasons, they have to spend much of their time caring their parents later in their career (if they have any). So if they don't get a baby in their early days, for sure they will not have conditions down the line
By doubling the labour force in the market we reduced the value of labour making one ordinary salary unstainable to support most families..there needs to a better trade off between career and children
@testacals Well, another major contributor was the globuzation of the workforce, where relatively expensive domestic labour was outsourced to cheaper other seas areas
if you actually look at the data for female workforce participation, it hasn't changed much since they started collecting the data. Around 50% of women have always worked. Also factor in the women that leave to raise kids and then come back. There was a small drop in female participation in the 50s but then it went back up. What has changed is the type of work women are pursuing. they still work mostly in low-level clerical, domestic work, retail, service industry, but nowadays they can pursue careers and positions that they were excluded from in the past, plus this is also driven by necessity because those lower level clerical, trade, and service jobs have all been automated or outsourced (we don't really need seamstresses anymore, theres no demand for them) and the computer took over a lot of jobs.
wow! what a thorough analysis. certainly the best ive seen on youtube. i love how you stick to the data, and don't speculate about sperm count, abortion, or the religious/secular divide. well done!
Except you can actually find conclusive data which shows how religion can directly correlate with fertility rates. Take ultra orthodox jews in Israel for example@@MoneyMacro
He also doesn't speculate on other popular explanations favored by people on the left, like the cost of housing. Specifically he finds that that ISN'T a good factor, despite all the moaning about it. It's telling that all your examples of him not being speculative were of right-leaning theories you clearly don't like. And btw, his explanation DOES support the idea that, for instance, women returning to traditional family roles would probably raise the birth rate. He just doesn't think that solution is feasible and also doesn't like it.
Here in Poland the government was giving away 500zt (800 now), roughly 8% of the average gross salary per kid per month for close to 10 years now. Along with a strong propaganda campaign this policy has achieved a staggering 0% net increase in fertility rate since its start. That's not even counting a probable decrease related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, data not available yet. The situation is much more nuanced than it might seem at first glance, so thanks a lot for the video!
Not surprising, since 500+ for most people meant “cool, 500 more a month” instead of “yeah that’s enough for us to raise another child” given the cost of everything.
It happens in Brazil too where the ancient generations had much children. I am 50 years old man and when I was child my birthday party were full of children but nowadays birthday party are few children and lots of adults and elders
Or maybe make housing cheaper and build more housing so people don't waste so much on rent and mortgages and have space to start families. @@neocortex8198
@@neocortex8198 is already expensive to be childfree by itself, so a tax wouldnt help that much to people deciding to start families when in The first place they didnt had The mean for it.
Interesting. Doesn't seem to explain Norway, though. We have very affordable and available child care, free education, scoring high on home labour sharing, strong worker rights and low unemployment. Yet, birth rate is about 1.5.
Ban all dating apps and make a state run one. A long term relationship forming is 2 customers lost to the private firms. A long term relationship forming is 2 people voting for the programms continuation for a government branch.
I know this is a long time ago and I'll admit this is from Wikipedia but looking up Norwegian demographics on their the demographics of indigenous born Norwegians seemed pretty stable it's just foreign born migrants and their children that have declined significantly but something more nuanced would be a deeper dive
@@dogood8750 Norwegians are NOT stable. They look stable as people are living longer so in absolute terms population is not declining. If you look at actual number of kids Norwegians are also in perpetual decline.
The argument would prob be that if you took away those things while still maintaining an inustrialized economy, you’d have a lower birth rate than what you have rn.
This is a really simple one. Really. Like REALLY simple. The RICH countries' wealth is held by mostly the top 10% for household wealth, and then if you break that out to the top 20% that's almost all the wealth of the country. When the wealth distribution is that small, the VAST majority of the country is about one emergency away from losing everything they have. IF the wealth is distributed like this, then INCOME is going to decide what 80% of the population is doing. I can use the US as an example. Go from the beginning of the 60s to now and cost of living vs. income is not sustainable for that 80% to be producing many babies. And cost of living is a fickle thing, because while many people can afford stuff they couldn't in the 60s because of the access to cheap goods, the cost for what would be considered mandatory bills and expenses is such that most people don't have much money left at the end of a month, and many already had to be creative JUST to live month to month, with both the husband and wife working at least one job, and probably one of them working two jobs. Yeah there's just not much time for making babies there. No one in the US should need a 20 minute video to figure this one out because they're living in the worst time I can remember in my 60 years for two things, cost for a vehicle and cost for a place to live. US citizens pretty much need both.
I have a fairly long way to go in my life before I have kids, but I'd like to have 2 or 3 kids of my own. At least amongst those around me, it's not that people aren't having kids, but just waiting until later to have them.
Another aspect is how we become more mobile as economies grow. In cultures where people move away from family to other cities or countries for opportunities, we see that as a good economic move, with people earning more and raising the country's GDP. But that comes with the cost of losing family support from grandparents on starting a family.
I did a case study about the demographics of India and its sustainability. It is interesting to know that the economic growth rate of the Southern part of the country is significantly higher than the North and the richer South is facing a decline in birth rate. Just like the West. The underdeveloped, poorer, backward North part of India is exploding with it's population by the millions, with limited economic options available these poorer people from the North flock to the South for employment, just like the migrant crisis we see in Europe. It is interesting to see different dynamics within a country, especially for someone like me from a tiny country. With the advent of AI and automation, population is going to spell doom for countries with huge number of people.
Not all north states have high population. Especially the Himalayan ones. Although we do migrate to southern parts but it is only when we are left with no opti0ns for empl0yment purpose. Also, our state geography is not very much favourable.
I am almost 30 years old and am single nearly all my life. All this discussion is interesting but useless when I don't even have a partner to plan having children with. And no, I won't marry a woman only to have children. I want to have a loving relationship with her and establish our life together before raising a family. Interestingly, the reason why I broke up with my only love had to do with careers. Our career plans were diverging after college. Unless one of us gave up on theirs, we had to split to avoid our friendship becoming sour. Now that I have a job, aging parents and well established social circle, it's almost impossible for me to engage in social activities that encourages meeting with unknown people and, maybe, finding someone I love and loves me, because that would require me to slack on my professional, family or social responsibilities. And I don't want to lose the credibility I earned for more than ten years.
Full employment and affordable housing are good things I believe. Its hard to start a family and start dating if you have to live with mom and dad until you are 35. So there must be plenty of housing and which is affordable for ordinary people. And everyone who wants a job should be able to get one - with a job guarantee program and full employment policies by the government. Off-loading the parents burden of taking care of their child would also help encourage parents getting an extra child. If this is done by better access to child care or a shorter workday or both doesn't perhaps matter so much.
Neither in Italy nor Spain housing cost is a major problem in the areas that have the lowest fertility rates, in Sicily you could find a 100m2 apartment for 40000 or 50000€, while housing costs are very high in countries such as France and Sweden where they have the highest fertility rate in Europe.
@@nicknickbon22 It is not swedes who breed, its immigrants who lives in cheap apartments in unattractive areas with high unemployment. That is not what I call solving the fertility crisis. Sweden have lots of cheap housing in rural areas, like in the northern half of Sweden where you buy a big house for only costs 50000€. But young people want to move to cities to find a job and a partner since rural Sweden does not have much such to offer. And the governments and EUs anti-rural policies have only helped to destroy the flourishing Swedish countryside we had 30 years ago. So now no other option is left that moving to city facing the sky high housing costs that rightwing landlord butt licking government have created. Life is not easy in other places in Europe either. Italians are among the peoples in europe that moves out last from mom and dads house when they are aged 30. So no wonder that not many children are made there. And the enormous youth unemployment caused by the Eurocrisis in Spain might have contributed to their low fertility rates
@@nicknickbon22housing might not be expensive Spain and Italy, but if there's no work opportunities near your cheap apartment, you are going to leave for another city or country. That's why they mentioned in the video that Southern Europe needs to fix their economies to address demographic decline.
It feels as if your prescriptions for the future, re women's careers, is very middle to upper middle class centered. Lower socio-economic cohorts don't so much have careers as jobs, and are driven less by potential future accomplishments than by immediate material necessity. Easing access to child care will help both drastically, but reducing the cost of raising a child might result in different trade off decisions.
@@nicknickbon22 I have. Could you point me to the timestamp for the discussion on variances in value judgements of employment by socio-economic status?
Get a 7-day free trial and 25% off Blinkist Annual Premium by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/moneymacro
Interesting video, I think free childcare, a sustainable work-life balance, more affordable housing, and a communitarian natalist religious revival across Global North countries or the ''rich world'' could help a lot.
what an irony, the richer a country, the more expensive it is to have children (society standard)
This video data does not count children out of wedlock (haram) where in many western countries it covers 30%. whereas in Asia it is something that is taboo. you have to get married (expensive). so the birth rate is lower than the west
This video does not include data on woke feminists, the social media movement for divorce, the movement for not marrying (South Korea), LGBTQ abortion and dating culture. access to birth control devices .effect on birth rates rate.
A massive factor is that the marriage rate has been in decline for decades now. Less marriages equals less families and so, less babies.
I'm from Uzbekistan, we don't have any problems regarding reproduction. People get married early and have kids. The problem is that parents don't really consider or think about future of the kids like education or housing. Our parents' retirement plan is us, meaning kids. I myself came to South korea to study but I had to quit cuz of financial difficulties. There you go, rich people have 1 child, educated and provided. Poor people have 5 broke-ass kids and they will work for rich kids.
Lol, i've never seen 5 kids family in cities (Samarkand, Tashkent). Only in rural areas it's normal to have so much kids. In cities it is 2-3 i guess. And in very rare occasions it is 4. But statistics says that birth rate in cities and rural areas almost the same. I think the problem is that we don't know what they consider cities in statistics.
Rich kids who are sad and lonely and have no real family which exacerbates as they age. Whos rich now?
@@Energine1
How do you know that rich kids are sad and lonely in general?
Where is the poll proving that?
@@Energine1 is this how you try to console yourself?
and that is a perfect society, the many will serve the few /s
Another social norm in many Mexican families is that the grandparents help out with childcare. My grandparents (and their siblings) took care of me and my cousins after school when we were little. Which kept our parents from having to pay for child care until we started getting hobbies. Social norms extend beyond just the immediate family in some cultures.
In Mexico we’re doing just fine jajaja
Good point. In richer countries where people may have jobs that are less physically demanding, people are retiring later, and as the population gets older (due to having less kids) there’s a push to increase retirement age even further.
We had kids quite late and yet my mother isn’t retired yet. She’s just about to, but then since she had me late, and I had kids late, I don’t think her energy level and health would’ve made it easy to take care of the kids.
Kindergarten here is cheap and amazingly good though so I’m not complaining
Yes this is key. Ultimately it's not actually about money or wealth. It's the fact that the rich world tends be incredibly atomized and individualistic. There is no family cohesion, everybody is spread apart. People in the rich world don't know how to work together. We have all been duped into thinking we can do everything on our own as if we were all self sufficient ubermenschen.
honestly old people have to work and thas a good example old folks that dont work or help out dont have a place in society
Similar in Turkey, in big cities it is hard since they Migrate without their Parents. But in small cities, my grandparents took care of us, they had a house as a retirement investment but they were doing good with their income so lended the house to us, we need not pay for rent when I was young so. They lended us interest free money to buy our car and house. With familiy help my family were able to buy their houses etc early and send both children to universty etc. Since they both were working they only had two children but they could raise 4 if they want easily
the cost of property is a major factor. the idea of having a family where 1 parent looks after the children full time seems lavish today.
Israel has the highest fertiliy rate by far among developed countries, and its property price to income ratio is much higher than european countries or even the USA. It has little to do with property price
That’s what me and my wife are currently, and plan on continuing to do. As long as you make certain sacrifices, and are willing to have your wife care for your children/family instead of working for a boss, it’s totally possible.
Also, living in a lower cost of living area plays a huge role in affordability. I bought our house when I was 22 (currently 25). I grew up near Austin, and realized pretty quickly that there was just no way I’d ever be able to buy a house nearby where I grew up.
We are also planning on homeschooling, and hope for 5 children (currently on #1), so it’s not like she wouldn’t be doing anything for 7-8 hours a day while the kids would be at school, so she’ll be more “productive” that way I guess.
@@sawyersprott your wife is eager to live the life you described? How old is she?
@@aminek7693there’s a religious/cultural component to this scenario that likely overrides certain economic incentives.
In the studies I read they couldn't really find a clear pattern to support that property prices are a good factor to include. Which surprised me as well
As a dutchy (almost 30 now)
I'm well educated (university) and when the issue of children comes up the number 1 thing I always hear is that they would if they could own a house.
If pressed on the matter, it's about the monthly expenses and space availability. Rent is just crushingly high, owning a house would be cheaper. Plus most rentals are tiny, raising children in them is unappealing.
My parents are sitting on a large house, and they want to sell, but new tiny appartments cost the same as what they (think) they can sell their current home form, so they do not sell, and thus teh next generation can't get a nice big house.
Housing seems to me to be an absolute factor, we have treated it like investment property and to make sure the price keeps going up, we stopped building nearly enough nice houses.
The Dutch baby boomers grew up with cheap houses. I lived in Friesland and the median house price in the 70's was probably some 5000 guilders. In fact my dad bought a house in the early 90's for 15,000 guilders which is about 6000 dollars. Now these same >100 year old houses are like 200-300k euros which is absolutely insane. That's like 50x the price in 20-25 years. Now even my dad is saying well "we need to limit new construction and keep open space" etc. Well that's easy for you to say but we let all these migrants in and they get social housing and meanwhile young people have to sell a kidney to even get a downpayment for a house.
How irreponcible of your parrents. The parrents house must go to their children.
Also yea its prity hard to have sex when your parrents are in the other room.
@@castirondude Yes. If you banish 25% of the population housing prices will fall to be affordable again. Reduce demand, decrease price.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714Of course you are too good to be part of that 25% right?
@@gregoryturk1275 I dont live in the Nederlands.
Damn, this is dedication: having a baby, living with them for some years and then making a video about fertility rates.
I'm joking, excellent video as usual!
Hehe. 5 months
@@MoneyMacrothe Soviet Union is a country with upper middle income but has a fertility rate of 2.3. but when Russia became a poor country the fertility rate dropped to 1.2 during the 90s. answer why
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa I seem to recall there being a fairly established thing that in times of significant hardship and disruption, fertility rates and either drop sharply or rise a Lot, depending on exactly what sort of hardship and disruption is going on and why (if more hands to do the work will improve things, it ends to go up, if more mouths to feed will make things worse, it tends to go down, just for the very obvious ones).
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Russia didn't revert to agrarianism (where you can put your children to work in the fields), it remained an industrial economy, but extremely disfunctional. Hence, the material conditions for having children did not exist, and the fertility rate plunged. Meanwhile, in the Soviet era, there was a cradle to grave welfare state, and having children was generally cheap and easy (education was one of the things the USSR did relatively well), so fertility rates were fairly high.
I can imagine how that conversation went
"hey honey, could I get your participation in a practical economics experiment"
Living in japan for quite a while as a european i can tell you their approach to this problem is - non existing. Its a fricking nursery home and having even birth is extremely expensive let alone all the expenses down the road. Zero support from government they are busy making sure everything is great for corporate and elderly - since elderly are their voter base. Everywhere.
Atrocious, really. No work/life balance also doesn't help. They are dying out and they did it to themselves.
White birthrates are below replacement level because of gynocentric divorce law and female economic empowerment. Now that divorce has catastrophic risk to a man’s wealth, men are avoiding marriage completely. When a woman has a career, she has few to no children. If you want to raise the white birthrate, these two obstacles must be removed. This means banning women from education and abolishing alimony and child support.
One wonders why many younger people just are not leaving Japan to find a better life elsewhere
@@henkvandervossen6616 They are trained to be japanese every step of the way. The stranglehold of old traditional way of behaving is immense. You can really think of it as a religion. And they are (for the most part) discouraged to do this. And often told they are useless and could not make the leap. (Their confidence and personal dignity is taken away early and replaced by ranks, ego, artifice authorities. Their individuality is crushed at school. Traditions do the rest.)
It is truly a society of old and decrepit traditions.
(Its getting better now, but with their unwillingness to change its going to take another 100 years)
Just awful.
@@henkvandervossen6616 They do. Japanese friend of my friend left Japan and married a guy from Turkey. But most japanese are timid. They cant and want look outside of the well. Parents, TV, goverment tell them to live as slaves. Just study and work. For god sake they have FEMALE\MALE ONLY universities let alone schools. Some young people have barely no chance to interact with opposite gender till 25+. And after that they have to work 6 days a week. No one including goverment wants you to have kids. Maternity leave? Prepare to insults and losing your job. Social welfare for children? Good luck.
@@henkvandervossen6616 Japan is much more insular than Europe or North America, and it works both ways - Japanese mostly wish to live among other Japanese.
As an Indian I have seen this happen first hand. My great grandfather had 13 children, my grandfather has 5 and am the only child of my parents. As India as gotten richer the number of children families have has drastically reduced.
Always😂 my parents have like 10-15 first cousins while I have 4. My sister is my only sibling whereas both my parents have 2. And to Continue the trend, I plan to have no children😌👍
However unfortunately India’s GDP per capita is still low and can’t be considered as rich country
@@qizhu6913Yeah India is still a sh*thole but much richer than when I grew up there in the early 2000’s
Does that include UP and Bihar? 😂
I think your situation is definitely true for middle class, but the poor continue to have kids in the hope of getting a boy (the child sex is not revealed to avoid female infanticide) as result some people can have multiple girls before they stop at a boy.
@@qizhu6913 But that's the point, this guy's demographic musings are bunk.
Everywhere in the Global South you are starting to see the same phenomenon of slower demographic growth after a boom. That demographic boom is increasingly looking like an aberration not a normal to world demographics.
It's a good thing actually. Less resource depletion and pressure over Earth's environment.
If you see these demographic alarmists the only problems they point are economic in nature. The reason is Capitalist economy is not compatible with demographic contraction just eternal expansion. These guys twist themselves into pretzels to explain away this reality and that is Capitalism what is not working anymore.
The issue is that kids take time and a secure home, the same things young people struggle to find for themselves. Unless we give young people more time (e.g. 4 day work week, longer parental leaves, easier access to childcare, etc.) and a secure nest (an affordable home, job security, decent salary, etc.) these societies are simply going to destroy themselves. No matter how many immigrants you want to bring to a country with a failing social model... because, if they properly integrate, they'll just have a similar birthrate after 1-2 generations. And if they don't integrate and continue having too many kids... then you have big social problems that make people *not* have kids.
We might have AI freeing up our time to have children in a generation or two but then a lower population would become desirable!
@@jbmurphy4 Nope. The benefit of automation doesn't get passed on to the working class, it stays in the pockets of the company. Automation has already 10x productivity since the 70s, so technically we could have already afforded the workers to work less for the same money. But instead, we decided that all this benefit should go into the pockets of the shareholders and that's how we got billionaires, while everyone else worked just the same, if not harder doing new tasks that are not yet automated.
@@jbmurphy4 How very naive. AI will result in people getting fired and poverty growing. And it will have no effect on the population exposion in the third world.
@@jbmurphy4clipkut makes a very good point, also the need for a stable and slightly increasing population is needed to keep economy growth through consumption, high numbers of people means many consumers
@@clipkut4979no we can't because this automatisation was only by name. Maintenance of those "automotised" systems required shitton of extraskilled labour. The only place where you actually can get more for the same price is AI and Biotechnology.
This may be a US-only perspective, or just something within my own friend group. But when it comes to childcare, I notice a difference in generations from my own experience. When I was growing up, my parents relied on my grandparents for childcare. Both sets. Full stop. What I have noticed now is that for those in my age group who are having kids, grandparents aren't as available. The grandparents are still working, or they are busy with their own lives. So that free resource isn't there anymore.
I'm an American and I married a British woman back in 2010 and I moved to the UK to be with her. I became a stepdad as she had a daughter. My wife's parents were very involved in my stepdaughter's life so it allowed me and my wife to have a date almost every week. in 2012, she decided to move to the US. When we got to the US with her and my stepdaughter, the whole support system collapsed. I had family, but they would never help with childcare. Because everything was about the child and lack of external family support, we went years without a date and eventually destroyed our marriage. To this day, I never want to get married again, let alone ever have another child.
@@demonicaxeman7264Damn, sorry to hear that.
Exactly, its hard in my country to see old people, eyeing us like sheep to put out little ones every now and then to satisfy their hopes and desires... Yes, they are a massive support system. My cousins who have children (14 and counting) make use of them fully and they don't mind at all.
In my case, my grandmother took care of me and my siblings after school while both my parents worked, having a child today is no longer so feasible, because my parents are still working, in addition to all the expenses involved in having a child. And the thought is emerging that it is not fair that elderly people who should rest in their old age have to take care of children.
@@impressiion Yes, and that's the problem, the thoughts. We are turning overly individualistic and away from conventional humanistic desires in the pursuit of ever greater freedoms and time for ourselves rather than the family. Its a very narcissistic and self-centred approach to life without any expert or scientific basis.
The collective has slowly been killed off. In fact, it has been turned into something demonic, as if communal and societal responsibilities and I dare say, restraints are draconic concepts.
Essentially all this happened because we wanted less conflict in our lives so we opted for the economic systems to evolve without oversight. Allow them to fleece us, left, right and centre in exchange for the prospective prosperity they promised. Though it was short term. And now the stick to the carrot is so long that we are not trying to correct the transgression, instead clinging on to sustain what we have achieved. In the meantime, we found these values as worthy sacrifices. In some schools, it is thought that such was intended by the system.
The thing is, as this happened in only couple of decades in the past, the human psyche and societal systems have not caught up nor will they. They are built on millennia worth of slow changes and maturity. That's why we talk about children, even if its a self induced one-child policy or no children at all. Both have very apparent negative outcomes as is known from the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean versions.
But it does not stop us, because we are not enduring harsh consequences of it yet, though it will happen in my lifetime. Will see whether humanity will be as fast in recovering from it as it was fast in dropping time tested values. History though dictates that we will not endure until absolute catastrophe hits.
Lol. Every time an economist asks me that question I return the question back at them. “ why aren’t you and your spouse having 3-4-5 kids? “. 😂
we need to have massive tax hikes on those with less kids especially retirees, id even argue banning retirement for anyone with at least 3 kids.
Elon Musk has 10 kids. 😂
@@NityaStrikerBASED
@@neocortex8198 how many kids do you have?
@@neocortex8198yeah that's a great idea, create a system where the majority of the people can barely live and also punish them for being unable to effectively bring children into the world and raising them. What we need is affordable housing, accessible education and healthcare, and welfare, for a functional society
I think a strong reason why East Asian and Southern European countries don't invest as much in childcare facilities is because they tend to have some of the highest life expectancies in the world, leading to elder care facilities being a more pressing matter. Also the social norms of these two cultures expect grandparents to play a MUCH more active role in childcare. Higher life expectancy means more healthy grandparents, which means less demand for institutional childcare programs, which means less government investment in such programs.
Italian here: you hit the point in full
I'm also an Italian man and yes, what you wrote is true.
I'm from Spain and u nailed 👌👌
Besides higher life expectancy, in Eastern cultures, family stay together and community helps with child rearing but in the West, it is about individualism and the nuclear family.
@@Speedy300The West is not the United States. I have only seen that individualistic lifestyle in the USA
When traveling in the Austrian Alps I noticed how three generations live in a single farmstead. Grandparents would raise the grandchildren, where the parents would work. This seems to be a hybrid between the poor economy / rich economy model explained in this video. Personally I am rather charmed by this model, although it will probably not survive modern developments.
Notice also that most rich countries are highly urbanized, which increases the costs of raising children and often results in being isolated from extended family.
As someone who originated from the Austrian Alps (but an expat since a long time), I would add that this kind of co-living is in my view (still) much more frequent in agricultural families (which often have plenty of space in farmhouses which previously had rooms for many labourers). However, agriculture only represents 3.5 percent of e.g. the Austrian workforce, so I would say it is rather an outlier. Another reason may be that daycare for pre-school children is much more difficult to find in the (still more traditionalist) countryside than in towns, so this kind of three generational co-living can come in handy. That is IF there is available space, which for most families is lacking due to exorbitant property prices and rents (due to tourism and scarcity of land in valleys).
This model is why African people have big families
It works this way in China, when people there still have families. That’s becoming less common because of how screwed up the economy of China is and the severity of crime and pollution.
Oh it will survive, this is how those who will be alive 50 years from now will be raised. The birthrate isnt high enough but among those who dont practice it it will be even lower.
Cost of life is the real issue. As a Canadian about to enter the job market I have no clue how I'm expected to ever be able to afford a house and two whole children, even if I get married and split costs.
🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷👋👋
FEMINISM
FETISH
KINK
IN RICH COUNTRIES
ANTI DEPRESSANT PILLS
This is a typical first-world issue related to overthinking and rationalizing. I bet with you that an immigrant from a more traditional country (India, Africa, Middle East, ....) will have 2-3 children easily having a very basic or even lower salary than yours..Because if people in Canada can't have children, what should a Brazilian, Moroccan, or Indian say? So it's cultural in a first instance, unless you really can't buy them to eat or get dressed....And this is rarely the case!
@@algarve8287 maybe he doesnt want to have children in poverty ? not everyone wants to struggle in order to have kids
@@algarve8287 You do realise it's completely possible to become homeless in Canada. It's not as if Africans don't understand finances.
"Canada" is not a real "country".
Condoms and birth control changed everything. I don't think people necessarily wanted to have a lot of kids in the past. It was just a lot harder to prevent. People got horny, had sex, and accidents happened. Now it's much easier to prevent unplanned children.
true also they had children to use them as workers on the farm etc
one of my friends has 9 siblings. his mom did not want to give birth to him and try to kill him while he was still in her womb. she and her husband are uneducated people so they dont know birth control
not only this one you've quoted, but lots of cultural changes, risks regarding relationships for men in general and liberal values drifting away from the traditional ones...it looks like it was properly planned to reduce the world's population by force, I mean, no one wants to live in a "planet wide Kowloon", for sure, but neither want we to live in a world with a "last generation of elders" and men afraid of dating/marrying due to laws regarding relationships (alimony check, pension checks in which men pay most of the part and go to jail in case of not doing so, divorce bills in which you literally have to "pay a fee" just because your marriage/life with your girlfriend didn't go as expected)...
People had to have a lot of children in the past, because so many of them died before their fifth birthdays.
My grandmother had two kids. It wasnt difficult for them to plan it. On average American women, through most of American history have average around 3.1 children. Even during the early period they had more, but on average 3.1 children survived to adulthood.
Child on a poor farm for centuries: An investment that will start to pay off as soon as halfway grown up, save retirement plan
Child in a modern urban society: A liability that costs money, time and nerves
Exactly.
This is still a factor in poor countries.
In the urban centres and cities, the same pattern is seen in the labor, house work class.
question is. did the Roman Republic have a birth crisis when farmers were bankrupted and forced to move into the city?
@Tracchofyre brilliant piece of history. Any books you can reccomend me on the matter?
And when the pensions system collapses eventually, my kids will take care of me, and you will be a starving, freezing old man.
I’m turning 30 this year, and I’m still wondering how I can afford to have children. Both my partner and I are middle-class income earners. Our student loan debt accounts for 10% of our total wages, 40% goes towards mortgage and auto loans. Grocery prices have increased by 20%. It may seem like we have 30% left, but unfortunately, we always need to pay for unexpected expenses like car repairs and house maintenance. I’m living paycheck to paycheck with no savings, and i don’t want my children to experience the same financial situation as we’re currently facing.
Yesterday I turned 23 and Ive never even had a job. There just arent any in the area and Im completely unwilling to abandon the place my ancestors have lived for 1000s of years.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 You know online jobs exist, right?
I'm Spanish and I can say that most people here don't have kids due to economical reasons. Housing unavailability and not being able to keep a home with one income are the main ones.
You just can't expect youngsters living in a room to start building families.
It's either Spanish or Vanish
¿Tus padres lo tuvieron más fácil que tú para tener hijos?¿Y tus abuelos?¿Tus bisabuelos?¿Tus tatarabuelos?¿Tus tatatarabuelos?
¿Que país es más rico: España o el Congo?¿España o la India?¿Donde se tienen más hijos?
En España, los que más hijos tienen son los nacionales o los inmigrantes?¿Quienes son los más ricos y quienes los más precarios?
Con muchos matices pero mayor desarrollo = menor natalidad
You guys can invite Latin immigrants who share your culture
@@millevenon5853 Many are coming to Spain and many more will in the coming decades. They will replace the Spaniards who choose to emigrate, mostly to parts of Europe with lower unemployment.
@@ivannipaidea970si. Tus abuelos lo tuvieron más fácil. La gente en países pobres lo tiene más fácil. Ya que sus hijos no son tan caros. Pero si vives en España del día moderno (o hasta en una ciudad en el Congo) los padres normales quieren darle una mejor vida a sus hijos. Y eso es mucho más caro que tener un hijo en los años de tus abuelos y solo pagar ropa y comida. La situación de cientos de millones de padres hoy no es como la situación como la de abuelos que parieron para sacar trabajadores. Hoy en día se tiene hijos para quererlos y darles una mejor vida, no para sacarles provecho económico como tú propones
I live in a poor region in Italy where the fertility rate per woman is close to 0
While I believe this can be attributed also to the mentality of some people who simply do not wish to raise a child, the main issue is that here young people simply can't find a job neither afford an house for themselves. I know people who already in their 50's are still paying the loan for the house they live in and generally young people still live with their parents in their 30's or just move abroad.
Yesterday I was talking to a friend that suggested building more houses could make them more affordable as their price would decrease but I am not totally convinced, especially because with the extreme levels of bureaucracy and taxation there is very little incentive for entrepreneurship.
You must mean below 1 you can't get a "fertility rate per woman below 0" unless they are sucking people into their wombs.
If you get rid of the pension system eventually the old people will die, Italy won’t have debt from paying for their asses and you can buy homes again once they die 🤷♂️
A fertility rate below zero would mean that the average woman kills someone else's kid and never gets pregnant. I think you meant to say the fertility rate is below two. The fertility rate is the average number of children that women have. How else could that go below zero?
@@greenSTEMforall simply a lot of women just don't have children
Most of the population is old people who already had children back in the days while the people that are in the age to have them today just won't, or in some cases move to other countries.
I know the number is crazy but that's just how bad things are here
It can't be below zero.. you can say that is maybe less than 0.5 babies per woman but not negative babies per woman..
A point to note is that India's fertility rate is 2.1 which is barely at the replacement level. And it is expected to go even further down as people have stopped marrying and having kids. The population of India will continue to rise as fewer people are dying due to an increase in life expectancy but after some decades India will witness a colossal decline in population once the boomers, Generation X, and millennials begin to die. For example - I am a single child to my parents and I am still unmarried (30M) and I have no plans to get married and have kids in the future.
It is what Japan is facing now, pretty much. Many other countries will have this happen sooner or later in different intensities.
That's only for the developed areas, in rural parts the avg family size is still like 5-8 kids.
@@shivaanrambally9611 The Indian average is 2.1 which includes urban and rural areas. Use your brain.
In the case of India it will be more like in the western world, difficult but manageable. China and even more Korea are fucked
India's newborns this year will be as many as newborns in Americas (both North and South) + Europe + Russia + Australia + New Zealand and Oceania. If Bangladesh and Pakistan are added, it's even funnier.
I live in Hong Kong. Had dinner with my girl friends in our 30s last night. The one with 2 kids said kindergarten alone for one kid already costs US13000/year. Rent costs US3000/month. This is why our birth rate is 0.8 which is the lowest in the world.
If you cant afford kindergarden just take your kids to work. Its been done before, kindergardens where invented so children wouldnt be running arround the factory, if people have kids and have no choice but to bring their kids to work the company might increase wages or subsidize kindergardens.
The differences in Europe are not just about social policies but social attitudes: I live in France where it is considered normal for professional women to have 2 - 3 children AND to hold down their jobs thanks to generous and generalised child and after school care; I have close friends in Germany and have noticed the opposite: if you have children there seems to be more of an expectation that you be at home and raise them and not 'outsource' the task. Guess who has the higher birth rate?
Further, a lot of jobs are now becoming hybrid, thanks to COVID. So, women can manage both family and career if adequate support system is there. The IT and finance sectors are the best example. Further, lot of women don't want more than two children, not due to career. Bringing up a child is stressful once they start to go to school. There was no social media 50 years back. Even the child is not safe inside the home today.
wow that's a great point! I live in Germany (but I'm Canadian) and they have incredibly regressive attitudes towards women, career and childcare here. I would have thought these attitudes would have been even worse in France, but it sounds like it's also counteracted by good and available child care. In many parts of Germany, childcare is almost impossible to access, partly because of reasons mentioned in the video (e.g. those working in childcare are paid very badly, and therefore there's not enough people working in this field).
i never have noticed something like this in germany, most people send their kids very early into daycare.
Daycare workers also get payed ok in comparison.
@@mam0lechinookclan607 Not saying there is no day care there; I've just noticed a contrast with France in terms of attitudes towards raising children: France seems more open to a collective effort vs a more private effort, based on some observations.
@@mam0lechinookclan607 I have lived all over Germany and the availability of childcare is highly variable as well as the salaries/wages of those working in childcare. Friends/family of mine who live in NE or northern Germany don't seem to have so much of an issue with finding affordable or even free childcare in a formalized setting. In contrast, in southern and especially SW Germany childcare costs significantly more (if you can even find a spot) and those working in publicly funded facilities are paid middling - as in not really well in comparison to the cost of living in those locations, but not necessarily minimum wage. But "not minimum wage" doesn't mean "good salary".
In most parts of eastern Germany childcare is relatively affordable and decent quality, but this also has historical reasons. Perhaps in the part of Germany you live in and in your circle, people don't have issues with finding and using childcare and somehow some of the workers don't get paid the worst. But I've lived all over Germany, and I can definitely say this situation is highly variable depending on where you are. The most sexist attitudes towards career women using childcare tend to be where childcare is hardest to access and/or is most expensive. In many places there, I've heard some women be called "Rabenmutter", which is frankly ridiculous and outrageous. On top of it all, no matter which way you cut it, childcare workers are definitely not paid enough such that it's an attractive field for many young people to get into, so they don't.
It almost seems like you could simplify the theory to simply the opportunity costs for the women of having a child. Poor countries don't have much in opportunity costs because there's not much opportunity in the first place. Rich countries generally have more opportunities including future career opportunities, so there's more to lose by having kids. Thus those with more available childcare (whether institutional or shared social) can lower those costs and hence see better fertility rates.
FYI The trade off in poor countries is a lower chance of surviving childbirth. Rural families have land and space if they are lucky, to house large families. As soon as they can migrate to the cities, the birthrate drops. As having lots of children in the city is actually an issue, as jobs and housing that make having lots of children possible is very expensive.
Basically. Women in rich countries basically become a man, while men don't find them attractive and don't want to marry them
Many western countries are doing the opposite. They go for austerity and cut social programs like free child care. Then they complain about low fertility rate.
You will find that poor countries have just as much inequality (meaning potential "opportunities") as rich countries. "List of countries by income equality" says that richest 10% in India make 8.6 times the poorest 10%, which is less than the 18.5 to 14.0 ratio in the US but higher than the 6.9 in Germany. So arguably, there is a higher (relative) opportunity cost from having children in India than in Germany.
But why do women complain about having to work nowadays and in their forties regret not having kids.
I am the father of two children. My wife would like a third. In my heart of hearts, I would too. But that is NOT going to happen. Why? We can barely afford to live. Basic expenses are too high. We don't earn enough on two incomes. School is expensive. And childcare is extortion. We're in the US, and to expect the "government" or private enterprise to do anything productive about it in the near future is futile.
I live nowadays mostly in Kenya as a retiree. To my astonishment and delight young(er) women seem eager to have me and my babies. Those children will grow up to be Europeans and will inherit a good future.
Why would you ever send your children to school? Just home school, educate your children by yourself. I know you can do it. It's the job of a father to educate his kids.
@@konstantinrebrov675
I know a little english but, if we educate tour children in own house when they go to labour market..
what college degree will they have to get a regular job?
and a good university education is very expensive, the salary is stagnant since time and the inflammation goes very fast
@@selenazamora4133 You don't have to go to school or college to get a good education for a career. A good university education can be for free, believe it! You don't have to pay anything. All the lectures from the university are available for free on UA-cam. You can learn anything on your own, watch any lecture, read any textbooks on the internet for free. UA-cam has videos about any topic, mathematics, physics, computer programming. The best US universities such as Stanford have their lectures on UA-cam. There is no need to go anywhere or pay anything. You can get as good education as any university. But you need to create your own curiculum, you have to create your own learning plan. You have to know what is it that you need to learn, and what materials that you will use. You need to know how to google things, to find all the lectures and materials. You are responsible for your own education, you need to have the discipline, you need to have a dream, a purpose. This is not for the weak. If you need to be fed with a spoon, then go home. But I don't want to be a loser. If you are not among the best, then you are among the rest. That is not who I am.
@@selenazamora4133 You don't need any degree to become a computer programmer. You just need enough discipline like a warrior to keep learning. It is possible to learn software engineering on your own, you don't have to go to university for it. And you can use university lectures on UA-cam for free. But I do not like people who need to be forced with a stick or with a donut to do the work. Self discipline and the desire to learn must be from within.
In the US, nothing will change as long as our politicians and their donors are doing well. There are extremely strong forces in this country working against any kind of social policies that would benefit average people. We pay the most of any country in the developed world for the worst healthcare. Childcare is so expensive, you actually save money by not working and watching the child yourself. Our nutrition is obscenely bad, our streets are dangerous for anyone outside a car, we have more guns than people leading to crazy amounts of shootings, we allow train companies to derail trains and poison communities, minimum wage hasn't been raised in 16 years and corporations have bought the government to make sure nothing improves. The USA is a hellhole, and if we want people to have kids then things need to improve.
Your analysis are spot on.
Do you know, the audited figure of gun massacre deaths are 42,000 deaths in I think 2021. Thats year after year of heartbreak for the families. USA is virtually disfunctional.
In America at one point, one man’s income was enough to provide for a family of 4. Now it’s one man with 2 jobs and a woman with one full time job to provide for a family of 4.
Does a system like that deserve for u to create more humans into it? No.
@@antinatalistwitch111Preach. You don't give me the needed conditions to plant, I'll withhold my seed(s).
Not familiar of four but three
@@antinatalistwitch111 Absolutely not, my fellow antinatalist.
Effect of feminism... feminism increased supply of workers and decreased their salary
You didn't mention infant / child mortality. This was only conquered by vaccination and antibiotics in the 1950s.
Prior to that the loss of one or more kids to disease was very common - in my own extended family two kids died in early childhood between 1930 and 1950 of what became preventable diseases before I was born.
One of the theory of the baby boom is actually that it was a pre modern medicine mentality in a modern medicine world: as soon as people realized that their children are not going to die, they stop making a lot of them.
You are right but that’s not relevant to the topic of the video.
@@TalwinderDhillonTravels actually it is. Vaccinations and medication aren’t free everywhere nor was that common in the 50s. So it would have been a trade off to some people on quality vs quantity.
The boom was because of the horny soldiers returning from world war 2. Nothing more nothing less.
@@thetrainhopper8992This factor is overstated because it fundamentally misrepresents how people, including poor people, think. It implicitly suggests that people have more kids as 'spares' i.e. just cos they're familiar with lots of children dying young in their communities, so they have more kids so that at least some of them will survive to adulthood. NO. This is a clear case of the economic numbers being completely divorced the actual people it's studying. Even among the poor, people don't have have kids as 'spares', and you'll see that if you ever talk to them or attend one of their funerals - they're just as devastated by the deaths of their kids as any other parent would be. They aren't having more kids just account for some of them dying, it's just normal in their context for people to have that many kids. I bet even the economists who promote this idea don't really mean to say the poor are heartless homo economicus types, but their models implicitly assume that just to simplify the messy reality of how actual humans are. Improved healthcare does tend to lower fertility, but firstly it's very hard to untangle that effect from all the other effects that tend to happen alongside that (like increased wealth and education), and secondly the effect is far more subtle and vague than the pithy summary 'quality vs quantity' tends to suggest to people.
In a world where both parents work, childcare is absolutely essential. Here in bulgaria the government has for 14 years not provided new kindergartens in the capital city, its absolutely untenable.
My largest issue with this topic is why it's even considered a problem in the first place. The human population can't grow exponentially forever, it's an inevitability that we'd decrease in population at some point in time. Increasing forever without end is unsustainable, this is just the natural course of things taking route.
This. From an environmental view, less people are great! Could our economies not adapt to no growth?
It’s a problem from government’s point of view. Discounting social security issues, As you become smaller, you also have less leverage in global negotiations.
In a way, yes, but you could also argue than slow decline or stability in population is the ideal goal. A brutal decline will occurs if you have only 1 child (or less) per women
But that's what happens when nobody can afford to have kids. The government just wants more labor. It's wants should come second to what the people need.
@@kellharris2491 scusa, rifletti un attimo sul tuo pensiero. Io preferisco creare con le mie scelte una societa dove i lavori faticosi e degradanti siano fatti da macchine create e istruite da pochi abitanti colti. Io non voglio fare figli con l'idea che poi saranno costretti a una vita di miseria e rinuncie per servire una piccola elite. Questo non significa essere alruisti, ma solo creare nuovi schiavi che vivono solo per essere manodopera. Non penso sia giusto come accade ora, e continuare a fare così, solo perché si è sempre fatto, senza ragionare lo trovo profondamente sbagliato
0:23: 🌍 The population of rich countries is declining due to low fertility rates, threatening their economies and retirement systems.
4:24: 📚 As a society becomes wealthier, the cost of raising children increases, leading parents to have fewer children.
7:30: 📚 The compromise between quantity and quality of fertility is influenced by women's ability to balance family and career.
11:45: 📚 The difficulty for women in low fertility countries in Asia and Southern Europe to combine a career with a large family is attributed to the availability and cost of childcare, social norms regarding gender roles, and the time commitment required for parenting.
14:42: 💡 The low fertility rate in rich countries can be explained by a combination of insufficient social policies, restrictive social norms, and precarious labor markets.
18:27: 🌍 The world can be saved by implementing policies that support work-family balance and address the barriers to having more children.
Recap by Tammy AI
"As a society becomes wealthier, the cost of raising children increase" What's odd with this is raising children in poorer countries is more expensive if you ratio down the income. I am from a poorer country and now living in a well developed economy country. All the people here complaint about how expensive it is to have a child when in fact I will be more comfortable to raise a child here than in my home country. More developed country people keep misleading themselves about this problem.
It is not a matter of cost, but the unwillingness of people in more more developed countries to sacrifice their own leisure and luxuries that hinders them from raising children. Im not going to debate if that's right or wrong, I am jus here to point out how most western countries view this incorrectly.
Artificial wombs and medically induced life expectancy will easily crack this nut this is one of these problems that will look old fashion in a few decades
@@southcoastinventors6583 That's disgusting and leads directly to totalitarianism. If you accept mass production of Humans in tubes what's to stop the people in charge of those programs of selecting or modifying those individuals created like that to better mold to market needs or whatever they wish? Commodification of human lives leads to a very dark path. Better manage economic degrowth.
Human beings aren't a natural resource for government and corporations to exploit.
If people is sick and tired of rising workers for Capitalists to exploit for free, that's their right.
@@wafercrackerjack880very true! It's already rare to see even the top 100 richest people have 4+ childrens.
Might i add, another reason is also because people from developed countries are becoming less hardy. What they perceived as stressful is not so for their poorer counterparts.
@@royalroyal2210 Yes, I have seen this at home too. When you grow up well off, it's really harder to imagine or endure a more stressful life.
I can totally empathize with my richer counterparts though, but still, I feel so blessed to have had hardships given to me at a younger age and so as I grow older, I am more happy and ready to face the realities of life.
My wife and I have just found out she is pregnant and we couldnt be more excited to face the challenge of raising a well adjusted human being! Is it scary? Absolutely. But is it worthwhile not only at a spiritual and personal level but also on a societal level, there's no doubt in my mind it is.
Portugal made all kindergartners/day care centres free recently. I'm no parent, but I think that, while it's a good step, it's not enough. Wages are incredibly low in Portugal.
It doesn't really matter much if you get that specific cost reduced if you still can't afford the extra food costs, books, clothes, etc. that a child needs.
They may be free, but they aren't easily available. There is a shortage of both institutions and staff.
"Free" aka "funded from taxes you are forced to pay".
@@KiKfilms Americans don’t know the first thing about economies of scale and it shows. That’s quite an ignorant statement.
@@thailux6494 Lol dude I am not even American. And I really don't know how being ignorant about basics of economy is not believing a fairy tale that government can give you anything for free.
@@KiKfilms it’s free at the point of use and a lot cheaper for society as a whole due to the bargaining power of government, degree of scale and universality of the operations and lack of interest in profit.
No, it’s not the same having to pay out of your own pocket or letting the government do it for you. You’ll pay way more if you do it alone and the societal outcomes will be worse. That’s a major reason why we have “free” stuff in all developed countries. It makes no economic sense not to - and plus, advanced countries value human lives so we believe in taking care if one another, so there’s that.
And this is not even considering all the externalities of having free to access services. Which come from increased producitivy to health of the population
You're map needs to include Greece, Taiwan and Poland. They have a birth rate lower than mainland China. Tbf a lot of Western countries would probably be even lower if it wasn't for immigration.
@@secretname4190immigrant increase fetility but decrease the quality of the citizen. Lot of them dont know how to function in a society which eventually led to disassemble of social struture.
Greece is not rich country... they have huge debt per citizen and was saved by EU. Taiwan soon may become part of China.
@@secretname4190 How?
Greece and Poland where quite a bit higher in my dataset.
@@yytyytgat least in America, immigrants are very high quality citizens. Much more so than the blue haired 350lb heroine shooting McDonald’s eating losers with no appreciation for their country that make up a lot of native born Americans
I live in the Southeastern US. My paternal grandma had 8 kids. My dad, aunts, and uncles from that side of the family each had between 3-5 kids each. I have three siblings. My older brother has 3 kids and my younger siblings are childless. In my culture, your extended family is your immediate family. My aunts, older cousins, and grandmother would take turn watching all of the kids in the family. At one point we lived in the same house or in the same neighborhood. My husband's family is large as well and has a similar dynamic. I'm pregnant with our first child. I would like to have 4 children. There are at least 10 different family members who will babysit for me once I return to work after maternity leave. I used to also babysit my nephew amd nieces if my mom or aunts were unavailable. I'm grateful and fortunate to have a large close-knit family. If I have grandkids, I will help my children out with childcare the same way my elders have helped me out. Gotta get our clan going and connected.
This exactly. Our families also say "my kids/our kids" about all of the kids in the families.
Property markets, urbanisation, and the dating arena must surely not be forgotten
What amazes me is not that people are having fewer children, to me that seems quite logical and not a bad thing, but that a lot of people seem to be opting out of having children entirely - which was something that was very rare in my parents (baby boomer) generation. I know loads of people in their 30s who simply are choosing not to have kids or will not because they didn’t have the right partner at the right time or they just thought they’d think about it later in life once they have a home and stable career.
Look around you. Look at the cost of living, the incoming and increasingly serious climate crisis, and the rampant and rising inequality. If you are a wage serf, your beloved child will likely be a serf too, if they haven't recreated slavery by the time your child has grown. If you love your child, why would you bring them into this? To be someone else's slave until they die?
@@Ealsante people have always pronounced coming doom and it’s never stopped people having kids in the past. Things are much better today than in most of all history - people live now like kings did in the past. The fact obesity is more of a problem than starvation is now tells you something. We’re better off the media just don’t like to tell you that
@@lightweightben Well it's stopped people now from having kids, hasn't it LOL. You said nothing to counter what Ealsante said. So your argument is null and void.
@@lightweightben Why is it amazing to you that people don't have kids? I'm 35, don't have kids, and I know lots of people in their 30s that don't have kids.
@@DavidVonR it’s amazing because it’s a historical aberration. Despite the world being better than it’s ever been by multiple objective measures people are choosing childlessness. I’d have thought there had never been a time better to have children than this era. However the difficulty in getting a home and security now compared to the recent past (particularly the boomer generation) is probably having an effect on people deciding to be (or delay such that they don’t have a choice) parents. I do agree that climate doom may be influencing people as well, but like I say the end is nigh is an age old trope.
An issue I think about often is inflation. My grandma worked 8hrs a day as a single parent and raised 7 kids. My parents both worked my dad 8 hrs and my mom 12 as a nurse to raise 3 of us. The potatoes my grandma used to feed her family only required 8hrs a day as a single parent. But the potatoes to raise me and my siblings require 20hrs (would be 40hrs for 6 kids). The potatoes haven't changed but the cost to acquire them has, drastically. Which is weird because we're more advanced in farming and technology now which was supposed to reduce costs and increase yields through economies of scale, but the opposite has happened. Let's ditch the technology and go back to the old affordable ways. The majority of us are not benefiting from the new ways.
What is inflation and who benefits from it? Where is it located exactly and why are we all so accepting of it. A practical discussion is required not textbook justifications, we don't live in textbooks.
I agreed
ITS TOOO MANY PEOPLE on Earth
Stop believing in stupid propaganda
I was going to bring up the devaluing of the nations currency (inflation).
My dad had 9 siblings, I have 3 siblings and amoungst us we have zero kids (we are all in our 30s).
Inflation is because the rich are taking money from us. Earlier, they actually used to reinvest in the market. Not the case anymore.
@@johnbrown7911 and somehow its 8 billion people in the world ... still remember "only" 6 billion
Your grandmother def worked on that farm though.... Working class women have been working throughout history, esp those on farms. It's for a very short period during the mid 1900s that true housewifes existed anywhere else than in the high class.
I think another factor that I almost never see discussed is _actual_ desire to have lots of children. As in, remove all the practical barriers and imagine everyone can have as many children as they might theoretically want - how many kids _do_ people want, on average?
In the developed world at least, I imagine the average comes out between 2-3. I can't really imagine myself or anyone I know _wanting_ 4+ kids. Take that 2-3 and add in biological constraints and even in a world devoid of socio-economic troubles, you are still going to struggle to keep the _average_ children per woman above 2.1. Practically, to maintain an average above 2.1 you need quite a lot of people choosing to have large families.
There will also be a substantial group that just rather has no children and spend their time traveling, maintaining an exciting social life or just having a more luxurious life with an early retirement by redirecting the resources needed to raise children to wealth creation.
And i suspect that group also grows as a society grows wealthier. Jobs are not the only thing competing with having kids anymore. There is so much more easilly available to people now then ever before that also competes for that time, resources and attention.
I have noticed that parents that have more than 2-3 children are ones that have 3 daughters or sons and they just want to have both son and daughter so much that they dont mind having 4, 5 or more children.
I've heard at least one anecdote of a woman who had two already moving to a country with much better social programs for kids, and ending up then pretty happy with four, without ever having thought of it before.
I wanted 5 when I was younger. I have one. I was gonna have more but my current spouse will make a terrible coparent. I'm getting myself a dog instead. Maybe I'll foster or adopt later.
If you live in a post industrial society, kids cost a lot, plus you have alternatives like social security and investments. If you live in an agrarian society, kids are your investment, relatively cheap and actually generate income since adolescence (if not earlier).
this could be a hard to swallow pill about why economic inequality is a factor in national security
But how could you maintain a strong economy with half the workforce? The key to security in todays world is economic strength
We had a super strong economy with half the workforce in the 50s and 60s. Wages were higher per worker because globalization hadn’t spread labor to lower income countries, women hadn’t entered the workforce en masse yet, etc. There are obviously trade offs for that, but median wages have been stagnant for quite some time, while the cost of essentials like housing, healthcare, and education have outpaced inflation.
@@EodbatmanIt's funny that now that the supply in people is declining, instead of increasing wages (price), now suddenly there's a cry for changes...
@@Eodbatmanthis is just objectively wrong for a multitude of reasons
Because your citizens are more incentive to kill you then other nations
I am surprised you did not mention inequality. Back in the 60's you was able to raise a family on 1 working class fulltime job. Today doing so on 2 working class fulltime jobs is not or only barely possible in many countries.
When we look at studies from the US on why young women wait with having children, the one point that come up again and again is cost.
It’s the cost opportunity thing explained at the beginning of the video… why people comment replying the exact same things said in the video?
@@nicknickbon22he said “muh woman job make me no want baby”. He didn’t detail that the cost of living is becoming untenable for young people. It used to be a 20 year old male could buy a house and raise 4 kids with his 19 year old wife. She’s fertile for 15 years and has plenty of ability to have children. By the 90s it started becoming harder to buy a home. It was a 26-30 year old homebuying duel income couple having 2-3 children instead of a single earner 20 year old having 3-5 children with his spouse. By 2023 it’s impossible for anyone young to buy. House prices doubled since Biden got into office and wages didn’t double
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se he said that in rich countries the cost to maintain a baby is much higher than in poor countries and that a baby is not much of an opportunity because it is the state to take care of you when you’re old through pensions. The housing cost is simply another child cost.
Second of all, the us is not declining, so why talk about it anyway? The housing cost is a problem in few us cities and maybe in some European city of comparable size to major us cities (maybe in a country capital) but alone it doesn’t explain why you have a sharp decline in population in countries such as Italy and Spain.
Anywhere, if you interested someone in the comments has linked some research linking housing cost and fertility rate, but again, the research seems to be focused on the us mostly.
Housing cost is still a problem in Spain and Italy, families can't afford housing costs so have less children.@@nicknickbon22
In Australia we used to have a "baby bonus" where the government would pay the mother $5000 per child. This ended on 1st July 2013 and in the days leading up to this policy cancellation doctors were inducing labour in the mothers to give birth to the child before this date, less the mothers miss out on the $5000 baby bonus. It was quite appalling really, but really showed how desperate parents/mother's are for money. I've got 1 child, and i can confidently say that we cannot afford another if we want to maintain that both parents have good and fulfilling careers, and simply more time to enjoy our lives. Daycare/childcare availability and affordability are also an issue here
"have good and fulfilling careers" Theres no such thing. Work is a means to an end. Nobody likes working.
"Daycare/childcare availability and affordability are also an issue here" Doesnt matter. Why would you have children if you wont raise them?
People who grew up poor don't want to bring kids into an even poorer world than the one they grew up in. I watched the American Dream wither and die on the vine as the stable middle-class family my grandfather built crumbled into a ruined diaspora of lost people.
Not even close, as a lot of poor people do have many children. So your entire mindset is wrong.
@@BrotherHood-xh9sgwhat are you basing this on? Your eyes? Cause that’s misleading. Sure “a lot” have many children. But how does that compare to most people? Even the poorest countries are seeing big falls in their population growth. Because the people there are richer, more educated, and want more for their children than their own parents or hard parents who had way more kids
@@BrotherHood-xh9sg exactly I'm from Africa and poor people have most children
@@n.m6249 Yeah but it is not comparable because life is different there. Cost of living is a factor our standards of living and what we define as a healthy upbringing are different for better or worse. To be able afford what we consider healthy and modest is extremely expensive. The parameters are completely different
I live in a developing country, my grandparents had 8 kids, my fathers had 4 children and now that im 35 years old i have decided not to have any kids at all, my reasons: the world is fcked up, racism, inequality, intolerance and hate are here to stay
Most surprising thing in this video is that US dads are one of the most active in their children in the world. Not that I believed we are absent in our kids lives, but fathers from other countries aren't that active at all.
It surprised me as well to be honest
As an American dad, I try to help a lot with the kids but I never realized the US was in the vanguard of this trend...
That's why America leads the way in technology. Stimulated minds from a young age.
Number 1 right? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@DrumToTheBassWoop😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Would love to hear about aging population’s impact on elderly care. Thank you!!
because there is a decline in living standards, in developed countries, many people do not commit to marriage for financial reasons, instead of fixing solutions to lower living standards in developed countries, developed country governments instead import cheap labor from poor and developing countries.
Something you really missed on for the US is that our high replacement rate isn't really driven out by dads being more helpful around the home but it also still provides a decent case study for your previous mentioning of socioeconomic status as a big indicator for reproductive rate.
Most fertility in the US is driven by immigrants either directly replacing dying people or immigrant families having more children on average than citizen (or if we want to get more granular, it's broken up by race typically) where latin american families as a whole tend to have more kids than white families.
It's expected that with time this will taper off as they further become integrated into the fabric of our society.
Really helpful when them and there children are even larger then old people
Another very important issue is housing. For larger families you need bigger houses and not many can afford it.
Back in the times of the highest fertility rates people loved in huts or single unit Manhattan squats lol. The solution is more poverty and less space, pile everyone on top of each other.
The evidence for that was inconclusive in the studies I read... Which surprised me as well
I dunno about bigger houses so much as affordable houses & cost of housing as a proportion of income.
lol no you don't, you just need a big enough house. American houses are stupidly big.
Parents also need to plan with an eye towards paying for their kids houses in the same way they need to plan to pay for their educations since, in countries like Canada, buying a house without parental support is largely impossible.
This is the most non biased view of the problem. Thank you.
As someone who moved to America a long time ago, I can clearly see that more and more people are unmarried even at the age of 30 and above, both men and women. This is even true in deeply religious states like Alabama where I currently reside. Literally everyone in my social circle is hardcore Christians, yet they are all unmarried. Economic reasons aren't the main cause here, its more to do with social and cultural factors.
If you don't mind my asking, what is your opinion on why hardcore Christians aren't marrying? Of all the demographics I figured they'd have the fewest issues finding partners and starting families, so your assessment is really surprising to me.
@@SunseedStarchild My assessment is based on what I see here in Huntsville, AL where I live. There are many guys including women, who are not marrying, for reasons I can't fully pinpoint. What I do notice is that not only do people find it hard to find eligible dates, but the relationships they get into hardly last long enough to end up in marriages. One reason from what I've noticed is that many people now have unrealistically high standards than what they had in the past. Like, I know a guy in my social circle whose relationship ended within a month because the girl didn't like "his tone" about something..makes me wonder, have people become so uptight and intolerant of each others? Seems like it. I see people breaking up over trivial, silly reasons which can be talked over. My close friend has msged random girls on Facebook, tried christian dating apps, approached girls irl ( including where he works, and church) totalling to 900+ women over the span of 3 years, and he's still unmarried at the age of 29. He's your typical, conventionally attractive guy, close to 6 feet, makes close to 6 figures, charming, laidback personality, no debts, literally no flaws i can think of, but he can't find a relationship that ends in marriage. Its wild to me how people like him find it difficult to marry..by the way, are you aware of the fact that conservative states have a higher divorce rate than liberal states?
@Ghostrider-ul7xn If the guy really is tall, attractive, makes good money and has a good personality, it is likely that he acts badly to those he dates, or approaches them in a creepy way, because no matter where you live, if you have all of those traits and have asked about 900 women out, then it's most certainly something wrong with you, actually, even if you were just completely average and asked 900 women out, you would have to have some serious flaws to not be able to keep a single one.
@@kaymartin2807 I'm 99.9% positive its not his fault here, I'm his close friend, I know every single thing about him because he also shares all the screenshots of his approaches with me. In most cases, he gets ghosted at the texting stage eventhough there's absolutely NOTHING creepy in his interactions. Dude, he's a hardcore christian, how could you possibly draw the conclusion that there could be something 'creepy' in his interactions? That doesn't add up even if you don't know the person. I haven't seen or heard him say anything sexual or weird even in real life that could come off as creepy. He follows the Bible to a T. Note that I said "most" cases, there are those few cases where he goes on dates after some interactions ( using the same template and approach, so you can't really argue that there's something creepy in his approaches), but by the end of first or second, he rejects them on the grounds of not following some of his biblical principles. Those principles are his ONLY dealbreakers. But if you want to compare the "no"s he gets vs the "no"s he gives, that's like 95% vs 5%, that's the key difference in this conversation here. Besides, this isn't just about him. As I mentioned, there are many others in our social circle who are very similar in his stats but are still single. There's another guy who is literally a millionaire and unmarried at 40. That dude already gave up.
@@Ghostrider-ul7xn I wasn't aware that conservative states had higher divorce rates, that's genuinely fascinating. I'll have to look into that, thanks for letting me know!
To sum up what I gathered from your assessment, it sounds like the Christian sphere is suffering from issues with expectations and communication (the same thing we're all having issues with regardless of how we identify), which makes sense all things considered. Thanks for your input!
Something that was not mentioned is young unemployment. E.g., Spain is very high. This for, the Spanish leave parent homes after their 30, while biologicalfertility for women falls sharplyafter 35. This leaves women with a very small time window.
Maybe parents should have less hangups about their adult children having sex and people shouldn't necessarily dismiss a partner for living with their parents.
@@alexgodeye3031 Well I'm pretty sure that they have sex with people before their 30s. That is not the issue. The point is if as parent you want/can have a kid in the same place you grown up considering you have your parents and siblings. It just not enough space for a family of 8 in an apartment for 4 (considering each son/daughter has 2 kids in a family with two parents and two adult "children")
I am from Spain and I am very shocked how this topic is never really discussed on political debates. Also my friends, who are most of them well above 30 and only one third of them have kids, don't seem to care. It's very discouraging.
Promoting Spaniards having children instead of importing millions of Africans is not a part of the major plan of turning Europe into an extension of the Middle East.
Spain dads should have kids better than depend on immigration and instead of drinking alcohol they should focus on have kids and their families…
Italy, same story here
Spain used that have an very high fertility rate centuries ago which is a big reason Latin America is so populated. I hope the culture changes and they start having more kids.
“Rich” countries are dying because we can’t afford a house, let alone an extra room to put a baby in
You can thank the world economic forum for that
They are literally selling houses for 1 Euro in many countries like Italy, France, Japan...
@@ala.ba7394in Italy these houses are selled in areas with no jobs. You mush return original view of the house in strict time like 3 years, must use local archive for that, can't hire anyone except locals etc
“Poor” countries can’t either though
@@ala.ba7394 maybe actually do some research about those "1 euro houses". Not only are they in regions where there are 0 jobs, so useful only for digital nomads that wouldn't even pay tax in that country. but they also cost a lot more than 1 euro, especially when you add renovations to the cost
Scariest thing is this data is outdated. Even a behemoth like India has fallen below replacement rate. Things are looking dire.
I knew what the punchline of the video would be as I think the cost of childcare is the obvious fix, but I still enjoyed the journey of you delving into this problem space.
The question I have is: How do we get a government to incentivize policy that only has an ROI decades into the future when all of the people who need to implement such policies won't be around to "take credit." Forget that most of congress in the US won't be alive, even "younger" politicians don't think in such long view strategy.
Politicians only do what they can. They are constrained by their electorate (most of whom are close or at retirement in developed countries), the geopolitical context, and people of high influence.
For any substantial change, we would need a strong cultural moment that would transform into a political movement.
Wanna start? I'm down.
the approach is to simply abolish pensions if people want to live comfortably in their old age more kids would help. also make college tuition the same rate per family potentially even not even siblings but first cousins
also abolishing most regulations on commerce would make starting a company easier
"I think the cost of childcare is the obvious fix" - it isn't a 'fix', it's a bandaid. It'll only have a small effect, perhaps raising fertility to 1.8 at most, if that. Everyone loves bemoaning costs while implicitly pretending things are easier for the poor and/or in the past. No it isn't and wasn't. Relative to their income it's much harder, yet they still have kids (and saying 'child labor' just makes you seem outdated and ignorant). Costs are a much more popular excuse than they are a factor. They play a role, but a fairly limited one. Just look at the ultra-rich for instance - how many kids do they tend to have? Money isn't all there is to this, not even close.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn " Everyone loves bemoaning costs while implicitly pretending things are easier for the poor and/or in the past. No it isn't and wasn't."
Have any sources to back this claim?
@@jonrussell739 US household spending data. Families with higher income save (i.e., aren't spending) a lot more of their income. Of course, the aggregate data also includes people who are retired, who spend $30k (through their savings) but only make $5k, but the general trend makes sense. Of course rich people can afford to save more of their income. And those savings could theoretically be used to raise children.
You get €250 per month per child in Germany. Incentives are probably not the problem. People 200 years ago had children without getting paid anything for it.
My main issue with the "women working lowers fertility" hypothesis is both its metahistoric context and modern statistics.
The "working women have less children" idea was created when both Feminism was at its peak and the idea that overpopulation was a threat to global food supply was mainstream, meaning that it was thought of as an idea to give praise to a movement that specifically wanted women to work more.
The idea that "women work less in poor countries" is often false, in fact we have statistics from countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, Mali, Etc. in Tanzania fertility rates are lower than in Niger despite women working considerably less there. In fact, many high fertility countries have higher female labour force participation, including full time, than countries like those U.S.A. and here in the Netherlands.
I'm not saying that it's not a factor, I just doubt that it's as big of a factor as many claim. Urbanisation basically explains way more than the female labour force participation hypothesis.
Exaclty.
Nope, it's about female labor participation, even in Africa there's a clear correlation, in countries where women participate more in the workforce the fertility rate is lower and is falling faster.
The more educated a woman is, the less children she has.
You dont understand what you are talking about. Working as a clerk in a supermarket 4 hours a day it not a real job. It still counts as "working women" but its not the same as woman working as construction engeneer, having a proper education and working 8-12 hours a day. How exactly you expect family to raise kids if both parents come home 7-8 PM when most kindergarders are already closed their doors? Their kids are already waiting in the police station and parents get sued for bad parenting.
It's wild that you think the literal biggest factor is not as big of a factor as many claim.
Those few countries you mentioned had female labor force participation increase relatively recently, such that cultural trends hadn't adjusted to the trend of women working (ie the women already had a lot of kids or were having kids). Within a few decades, all countries with high female labor force participation experience drops in fertility as young women decide against having kids so that their lives will be easier.
Look at the USA in the 1960's and 1970's when women started working full time in large proportions. At the time, you could have believed labor force participation wasn't a big issue. However, the trend eventually works out exactly as it does in every other country: new women stop having kids. This effect is etremely reliable, it obviously just can't happen overnight becuase culture takes time to change. But, on the scale of culutral change a few decades is actually a very short period of time for such drastic change.
My take is that breeding aged people have fewer kids if we're _feeling_ poorer because every generation is getting poorer. It now takes two incomes to afford a house whereas generations ago it took only one. While productivity has increased and the pie is now larger it doesn't matter for the average young adult since the boomers and a few extremely wealthy people are scoffing down most of it. 'Poorer' countries are feeling richer every generation and this hope gives them motivation to have kids since their kids will be better off than they are.
One thing that must be taken into account when looking at the US's highest fertility rates is the impact of immigration and inequality.
The US manages to maintain a rate of 1.62 on average, but this average hides that while Latinos, Middle Easterners and Asians, poor, have 3-4 children on average, a middle class white American will have similar birth rates. from Japan and Korea. That is, immigration hides the very low birth rate of the natives, and this applies to France and several other rich countries that have adopted immigration as a method of combating the lack of manpower.
the natives? the children of those people are natives to the US. the only true natives are the Native Americans
One correction, the average asian american is wealthier than the average white american and they have similar birth rates.
@@josh2482averege Indian not Asia. this data is misleading
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Not just Indian all South Asian, East Asian, and some South East Asian groups (like filipinos, their average household income is over 100k) out earn whites. Read the data again.
The wonderful thing about American immigration is that once the child is born in the US, they are a native of the country. No ridiculous hoops to jump through.
*Hot take:* For countries like my own, (Canada) rising the immigration rate doesn't help. It is only contributing to the housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We are importing 1 million people per year, with nowhere to house these people, let alone housing Canadians. If they want more Canadian's (and other G7 nations) to rise the birth rate, we need infrastructure, housing, and to address better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits. Reduce the barrier to entry on owning a home, and increasing the supply of homes. Canada has a lot of land to which we can expand our city limits.
Another problem is how independent our culture and mindset is here. Canadian's are generally polite, but very flakey people when it comes to dating and romance. It comes with historically being such a large nation land-wise, but most provinces being isolated. This makes it hard to meet people in general, and creates unique sub-cultures and politics within each province. I don't have a solution for this one in particular, as hook-up culture is a phenomenon that exists globally, but effects the west to a greater extent.
The biggest elephant in the room is we need. More. Affordable. Housing. The Bank of Canada keeps raising mortgage rates and new houses aren't being built to sustain Canadians and/or the mass influx of immigrants we have coming into our country. The Trudeau Government keeps pushing for this with no plan to help these newcomers into our country. We need to reduce the land taxes and interest rates. The Government can only blame climate change for so long before one realizes that a carbon tax only harms the middle and lower classes as it raises gasoline and cost of living. The massive corporations can pay these no problem, or just invest or move elsewhere. Not to mention the insane income tax rates we have in Canada which make it impossible to invest securely. There should also be more investment into housing in cities that aren't Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. This way, the housing markets in these cities won't be so insane, and provide growth in other cities provinces.
TLDR: Make childcare cheap and accessible, accessible and plentiful affordable housing, less taxes.
If you "import" 1 million people per year then that means that Canada needs 1 million people per year. It doesn't matter if 1 million people per year come from immigration or from naturally born people. The housing crisis is easily solved: just build more houses. How difficult is this? We are not in the middle ages anymore we can build 10 store high buildings. And immigrants help you with the cost of living crisis by fueling the economy.
*infrastructure, housing, and to address better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits*
Yes, but why do you think those are only problems with native born people and not with immigrants? Of course you need to improve all of that for immigrants then you won't have the perceived problems immigration brings.
*Reduce the barrier to entry on owning a home, and increasing the supply of homes.*
Yes, for immigrants.
*Canada has a lot of land to which we can expand our city limits.*
Exactly. For immigrants. No more housing crisis.
*The biggest elephant in the room is we need. More. Affordable. Housing.*
Yes, for immigrants. No more housing crisis.
Seriously, why do you think that immigrants are somewhat different from native born? Immigrants and native born need infrastructure, housing, better supports for young people owning homes and child benefits, increasing the supply of homes, More. Affordable. Housing. They all equally apply to immigrants and natives because they are all just people. The problem is that your government is not solving those problems for people, but then you blame the immigrants.
There are many parts of the housing crises but a major factor is the rise of single parent households where you now need two residences instead of one. And the second residence still needs extra rooms for regulations on visitation. We also don't build enough midrise buildings that could hold more people.
You're misconstruing me mentioning immigrants as if I don't want immigrants in the first place. My gripe isn't with people coming in, it is with the government who keeps "opening the flood gates" for people to come here without housing security. There are height restrictions to high rises in Canadian cities that limit how high we can have buildings.
My government is 100% responsible for its citizens, and those coming in new to the country. They are allowing people in at a rate that isn't sustainable with the shape of our economy and resources at the moment. There are many reports of immigrants coming to Canada and mentioning it was a mistake and that they never should've left their home nation.
Re-read my TLDR section. Immigrants are just by-products and victims to our current problems exasperated by our incapable government (i.e. the government and supply. It's the government both provincial and federal that approve extra land use, and compensating the original owners and farmers on city limits). Immigrants are not the problem themselves, they are just being given the short end of the stick while our government pretends to help them and welcomes them with open arms.@@holz_name
maybe deregulate housing and make nimbys traitors and just allow people to build massive housing complexes and just ban any opposition to such construction
Been there, seen the situation. The problem is that Canada does not invest enough in improving or extending its infrastructure and housing. You can build a lot of housing in the middle of nowhere, but without a suitable means of transportation (I am not talking about cars), it will result in clogged roads which happens in big cities.
The higher the competitive pressure, the lower the birth rate. Long working hours in white collar jobs cause stress and mental load, long education times shorten the time window for children significantly, and top, everyone is looking for the most perfect partner. Rich economies need to re-learn how to chill and redistribute more, especially towards child-care.
U maakt me een viere belg vandaag, zeer goede channel! Goed bezig man!
In the U.S. there is a lot of “informal” childcare like relatives and grandparents helping out, a “friend” watching a bunch of kids, or shady-ass daycares that are cheap. Also some parents just let their kids run wild and nobody watching them and you have these feral kids running around who don’t know right from wrong and commit disproportionate amount of crimes.
I am from the US, you are right, about childcare and parenting. That's why logical-thinking people are deciding to have kids later in life once they are ready not by society's standards. It's actually quite empowering.
@@comecorrect1 >when they are ready
If people are not ready to have kids when 95-99% of the human population throughout history was maybe that's on them and not "society".
Great video, great analysis. I think it makes sense. I live in the one of the southern european countries with ultra low fertility and what you said fits whats going on.
There are a non-neglectable number of companies that have a toxic work culture of "number of hours worked > quality of the output" that leads to a lot of overtime. In addition to this, when you quit your job you have to give a whooping 2 months to the company after your notice. This means that there are a lot of people with very little time to raise children (due to the overtime) and it's difficult to change jobs to a better offer due to the 2 months period. I've had international job opportunities go down the drain when they learn they'd have to be waiting 2 months for me.
Just curious, what are the consequences for just... leaving? A fine, jail?
This video is the reward for finishing my next exercise sheet. Thank you for bringing great content as always. I love how you present data and viewpoints!
In the part of Nigeria that I live in, few people work on the farm yet most parents have more than 5 children. Unemployment is high, inflation is 29%, and few children contribute to family income.
Ignorant question: why are declining fertility rates and populations a problem? I remember a time not that long ago when doomsayers were warning that the increasing human population would soon be unsustainable, there weren't enough resources on the planet to feed/house/clothe etc. a burgeoning population, etc. Fewer people means more resources per capita and in theory a better life for each person. Supporting freeloading retired people (e.g. me) does present a greater burden for those still working, but couldn't some of the added burden be compensated for by greater productivity?
Other components of the solution that you did not mention is reduction in cost of living and work hours.. Fixing all these things will be tough.
Or just don't spend a lot on you kids upbringing that why dollar store was invented
Another important factor is that the west 🇺🇸🇪🇺👦🏼and westernized countries favors Dopamine over family and stability and have too much degenerate values that break the family union and impossible to create family under these degenerate values. and men don't want the mother of their children to have onlyfans and women don't want a manchild who plays videos games.
" GREAT REPLACEMENT " meanwhile anyone following your values commit su1cide
@@southcoastinventors6583 Yep, I get all my family vacations, child education and housing from the dollar store
/s
just in case
Do washable diapers work?
As a person of turkish origins i have seen the amount of fertility rates of my family decline. My grandpa's family used to work in the farms in the outskirts of Ankara and he was the last of 7 kids, fortunately he had the opportunity to study and subsequently he only had 2 kids (one my father) compared to its sibsilings which had more, my father only has 2 childs (me and my brother). So we have seen how education can impact to fertility rate but also to the well being of the future generations
NGL you had in the first half.
Infinately more wise to compassionately deny a child existence than subject them to a brutal existence of uncertainty and instability.
Not having kids is a no-brainer when one knows they are a job loss away from foodstamps, eviction, are crushed with student and consumer debt.
Moreover the government subsidizes broke people to have children and men tend to want to mitigate this risk with women who don't desire a family.
1. Cost of buying and maintaining a home. When homes cost 10 times the annual salary of the average wage for a decent family home, why have more than one child and live with bickering and arguments over sharing a room?
2. Size of homes for larger families. Average home sizes are getting smaller as developers try to squeeze every penny they can put of buyers for the smallest possible footprint. Not only that, but homes are poorly designed and not laid out in a manner conducive to family life.
3. Cost and flexibility of childcare. Working hours for parents are 9-5; school is 9-3. One parent will often be working full time just to pay for childcare if they are low earners. If you are a shift worker, then good luck finding cover.
4. Cost of living. Food, energy, clothing and transport are all costing more. Activities and hobbies for children also cost more than they used to. Those swimming lessons, admission fees etc also have to be factored in not to mention the increased food bills.
Who can afford to have more than two kids these days? I will also admit that as we grow more affluent, the definition of needs and wants changes but why should we look to downgrade our standard of living in the interests of producing more workers for business owners and companies to exploit?
" Average home sizes are getting smaller as developers try to squeeze every penny"....that's true in the UK, not elsewhere (in fact it's the opposite in USA, Australia, Canada, NZ) Only true in UK because when EU introduced minimum floor space home sizes for new builds...tory refused* to adopt that policy or to introduce anything similar for our already badly undersized and over priced housing.
*tory refused to adopt ALL EU policies that sought to improve the lot of the average person...likely because of its hopeless obsession with protecting corporate profits, no matter what the cost to the rest of the economy, the country, the vast majority of citizens... (who do productive work for a living, as opposed to those who derive all/most of their income from corporate handouts, aka: share dividends.)
@@noneofyourbiznessit’s true in the US to some extent too. Smaller yards, narrower houses, smaller plans. American homes went down from a 2016 average of 2600 sqft (260 sqmt I think) to 2300 sqft (230 sqmt). They’ve also doubled in price in that time
The social norms also include availability of many things for larger families. Both my husband and myself come from a 2 kids family, but we have 3 kids. It is only now that I can see how much more complicated things can get with 3 or more kids. For instance hotel rooms are for a maximum of 2 kids, finding a car that we would fit in was more difficult, entry to attractions can be relatively more expensive than with 1-2 kids. With three kids it is still doable, but I am wondering how larger families do stuff.
We have forgotten how. You no longer see them but station wagons used to be common as well as bunk/multiple beds per room. Now people seem to think they need a large suv just to haul two kids around and anything more they need a suburban (actually it used to be common for three kids to squeeze in the back of a sedan too). For hotel rooms, my complete guess is that they may not of had that regulation or skirted it often in the past. However at the same single parent households were more rare and discipline was higher in the past as well.
I agree with you, however I believe people don’t realize most of these things until after they’ve had 3 or more kids lol.
We just had bunk beds, went camping on public lands for vacations, went to libraries or public pools or lakes for fun, turned our yard into a very large garden so we could have lots of healthy food, and so on. My brother and I worked a ton starting at young ages when we weren’t in school. There are ways to make it work and still have a great life, you just find other things to do and be a bit savvy with the finances. Sadly, houses are now so expensive that I wonder if I’d be able to afford to give the same sort of life for my kids.
Most couples in the didn't get hotel rooms and vacations
While other doesnt have to make it work have WONDERFUL life without livingt in povetry.@@Eodbatman
Let’s not forget a sentinel event in the history of humanity, June 23, 1960, the oral contraceptive pill was approved in the US. 4 years later the baby boom ended.
A culture concerned more with "fun" and "self" is not appropriate for having or raising kids.
Makes a lot of sense, would have liked to see the added parameters of immigrant % as well as distribution (median kids per woman). They could, as they make large portions of the population now, affect things greatly.
And as they are seemingly not adopting western social norms there could be a scenario where systems are "intertwined". i.e. enough kids but a large part raised as the security option for the parents. Instead of the parents wanting a better and fulfilling future for their child (general western norm, as mentioned). Government leniency towards alternative lifestyles could also have a big effect. US, France, Sweden... have much higher rates of economic migrants and in the last years and decades also growing immigration concerns. [Female to male labour force participation in Afghanistan, Morocco, Iraq, Algeria.. is ~10/20-100 compared to European nations all at ~80/90-100.]
Great video as always though! And good luck with the little one :)
One thing that wasn't mentioned here - but that would be a much more difficult topic to research - is that is that a lot of friends in my generation (late 30s) and the newer generation are absolutely freaked out about climate change and what it means for the planet in the coming few decades. It's usually people from richer countries who have the "luxury" and education to worry about such matters rather than poorer people with less or no education who can only afford to worry about tomorrow's meal.
Freaked out about climate change, thats fucking delusional lmao
I also think education is the defining factor. When you start to think about the world and not only about yourself. Even without climate change, there are too many people on Earth as it is. If we don't change anything we'll destroy our planet.
"Good quality of life" is very subjective and really kinda works against us in the modern world, where everyone can see always new cool and whatever things on the internet and start they are missing out on x, y and z. In the older days we would live simpler lives and have simpler needs and still feel its good and meaningful life ....but the more rich we get in the material world ...the more things and everything we need to get the feel of "good quality". and i do genuinely feel alot is lost in this endless race for better "quality of life".
Why is the Western Union the Western world now claiming to be worried about brith rate when why had spent so much years becoming O'mo and the disruption of the family life. And are now telling Africa that they need to be the same
Gate men
Maybe the term 'dying' does not do justice. The world population has gone from 1 billion to 8 billion in a span of 2 centuries perhaps the populations are rebalancing themselves to adjust to the new socio-economic circumstances of the 21st century. I think this is a natural process. So crying about population going up or down is like crying about stock market going down or up, we know it will always fluctuate.
Absolutely true. And it's a beneficial trend in a world with ever more scarcer resources (water, arable land) due to climate change
You missed an extremely relevant point that I can´t believe you forgot.
Older countries such as Portugal and Spain have a huge number of older people, which needs a lot of attention from children when they get old.
Specially in Portugal where sending your parents to a nursing home is almost out of question in most cases, for economic reasons, they have to spend much of their time caring their parents later in their career (if they have any).
So if they don't get a baby in their early days, for sure they will not have conditions down the line
By doubling the labour force in the market we reduced the value of labour making one ordinary salary unstainable to support most families..there needs to a better trade off between career and children
It certainly aint just the doubling of labour force that reduced the cost. The payment has gone down even after those events.
@testacals Well, another major contributor was the globuzation of the workforce, where relatively expensive domestic labour was outsourced to cheaper other seas areas
if you actually look at the data for female workforce participation, it hasn't changed much since they started collecting the data. Around 50% of women have always worked. Also factor in the women that leave to raise kids and then come back. There was a small drop in female participation in the 50s but then it went back up. What has changed is the type of work women are pursuing. they still work mostly in low-level clerical, domestic work, retail, service industry, but nowadays they can pursue careers and positions that they were excluded from in the past, plus this is also driven by necessity because those lower level clerical, trade, and service jobs have all been automated or outsourced (we don't really need seamstresses anymore, theres no demand for them) and the computer took over a lot of jobs.
Another great video, Quality did also improve over the last 2 years!! 🙏😎
wow! what a thorough analysis. certainly the best ive seen on youtube. i love how you stick to the data, and don't speculate about sperm count, abortion, or the religious/secular divide.
well done!
Thank you. I indeed didn't find much evidence that this stuff can explain the differences between countries.
@@MoneyMacroi call bullshit
Except you can actually find conclusive data which shows how religion can directly correlate with fertility rates. Take ultra orthodox jews in Israel for example@@MoneyMacro
i think banning abortion would def help birth rates
He also doesn't speculate on other popular explanations favored by people on the left, like the cost of housing. Specifically he finds that that ISN'T a good factor, despite all the moaning about it. It's telling that all your examples of him not being speculative were of right-leaning theories you clearly don't like. And btw, his explanation DOES support the idea that, for instance, women returning to traditional family roles would probably raise the birth rate. He just doesn't think that solution is feasible and also doesn't like it.
Fantastic video, i love how you make academic level economics content accessible to me as a regular guy lol
Here in Poland the government was giving away 500zt (800 now), roughly 8% of the average gross salary per kid per month for close to 10 years now. Along with a strong propaganda campaign this policy has achieved a staggering 0% net increase in fertility rate since its start. That's not even counting a probable decrease related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, data not available yet.
The situation is much more nuanced than it might seem at first glance, so thanks a lot for the video!
The Polish fertility rate did increase slightly the past 2 years. I hope it increases more.
Not surprising, since 500+ for most people meant “cool, 500 more a month” instead of “yeah that’s enough for us to raise another child” given the cost of everything.
But without it, the fertility rate might have actually dropped - we don't know, but given the overall trend in Europe, it likely would have.
There is nothing wrong with a shrinking population. Given that inflation will not be a problem, states can increase pension credits without worry.
It happens in Brazil too where the ancient generations had much children. I am 50 years old man and when I was child my birthday party were full of children but nowadays birthday party are few children and lots of adults and elders
Having children has become too expensive in rich countries.
And in poor countries, this video didnt mention that the fertility rate is nose diving all over the planet.
@@ToneyCrimson not in Africa
@@thanasis-_- Yes in africa too, the feritility rate is going down.
@@ToneyCrimson Yes but not to the point where they have to worry about. Average age in many african countries is below 18.
The expectation are too high and the values nihilistic
One of the overlooked factor in deciding fertility is the people are not willing to lower their lifestyle to start a family.
then maybe the solution is a childless tax that makes it more expensive to not have a family then to have a family
Or maybe make housing cheaper and build more housing so people don't waste so much on rent and mortgages and have space to start families. @@neocortex8198
I think the solution is alllowing cheap energy(fracking, oil etc. No co2 bs) and planning permission increase so housing can become cheaper
However, that could lead to child neglect and abuse if people who don´t want children are forced to have children for finacial reasons.@@neocortex8198
@@neocortex8198 is already expensive to be childfree by itself, so a tax wouldnt help that much to people deciding to start families when in The first place they didnt had The mean for it.
Interesting. Doesn't seem to explain Norway, though. We have very affordable and available child care, free education, scoring high on home labour sharing, strong worker rights and low unemployment. Yet, birth rate is about 1.5.
Ban all dating apps and make a state run one. A long term relationship forming is 2 customers lost to the private firms. A long term relationship forming is 2 people voting for the programms continuation for a government branch.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 tie the pension to the number of children you’ve had.
I know this is a long time ago and I'll admit this is from Wikipedia but looking up Norwegian demographics on their the demographics of indigenous born Norwegians seemed pretty stable it's just foreign born migrants and their children that have declined significantly but something more nuanced would be a deeper dive
@@dogood8750 Norwegians are NOT stable. They look stable as people are living longer so in absolute terms population is not declining.
If you look at actual number of kids Norwegians are also in perpetual decline.
The argument would prob be that if you took away those things while still maintaining an inustrialized economy, you’d have a lower birth rate than what you have rn.
Thank you. This question is very interesting and important. I think you've hit the core issue for a lot of parents these days.
This is a really simple one. Really. Like REALLY simple.
The RICH countries' wealth is held by mostly the top 10% for household wealth, and then if you break that out to the top 20% that's almost all the wealth of the country. When the wealth distribution is that small, the VAST majority of the country is about one emergency away from losing everything they have. IF the wealth is distributed like this, then INCOME is going to decide what 80% of the population is doing. I can use the US as an example. Go from the beginning of the 60s to now and cost of living vs. income is not sustainable for that 80% to be producing many babies. And cost of living is a fickle thing, because while many people can afford stuff they couldn't in the 60s because of the access to cheap goods, the cost for what would be considered mandatory bills and expenses is such that most people don't have much money left at the end of a month, and many already had to be creative JUST to live month to month, with both the husband and wife working at least one job, and probably one of them working two jobs. Yeah there's just not much time for making babies there.
No one in the US should need a 20 minute video to figure this one out because they're living in the worst time I can remember in my 60 years for two things, cost for a vehicle and cost for a place to live. US citizens pretty much need both.
I have a fairly long way to go in my life before I have kids, but I'd like to have 2 or 3 kids of my own. At least amongst those around me, it's not that people aren't having kids, but just waiting until later to have them.
Another aspect is how we become more mobile as economies grow. In cultures where people move away from family to other cities or countries for opportunities, we see that as a good economic move, with people earning more and raising the country's GDP. But that comes with the cost of losing family support from grandparents on starting a family.
I did a case study about the demographics of India and its sustainability. It is interesting to know that the economic growth rate of the Southern part of the country is significantly higher than the North and the richer South is facing a decline in birth rate. Just like the West. The underdeveloped, poorer, backward North part of India is exploding with it's population by the millions, with limited economic options available these poorer people from the North flock to the South for employment, just like the migrant crisis we see in Europe. It is interesting to see different dynamics within a country, especially for someone like me from a tiny country. With the advent of AI and automation, population is going to spell doom for countries with huge number of people.
Not a single southern Indian state has had population decline so far.
@@Umrao979 birth rates are declining in the Southern states, I'm pretty sure because I did the study only few months back
@@Umrao979he's right birth rate is decreasing in southern state especially in cities
Not all north states have high population. Especially the Himalayan ones. Although we do migrate to southern parts but it is only when we are left with no opti0ns for empl0yment purpose. Also, our state geography is not very much favourable.
@@sairisstate geography as well as southern states language & Culture😅
«Practical research”😂
I refuse to work like a slave raising a family, is hard taking care of myself, my vasectomy is the best decision I ever made 😊
I am almost 30 years old and am single nearly all my life.
All this discussion is interesting but useless when I don't even have a partner to plan having children with.
And no, I won't marry a woman only to have children.
I want to have a loving relationship with her and establish our life together before raising a family.
Interestingly, the reason why I broke up with my only love had to do with careers.
Our career plans were diverging after college.
Unless one of us gave up on theirs, we had to split to avoid our friendship becoming sour.
Now that I have a job, aging parents and well established social circle, it's almost impossible for me to engage in social activities that encourages meeting with unknown people and, maybe, finding someone I love and loves me, because that would require me to slack on my professional, family or social responsibilities.
And I don't want to lose the credibility I earned for more than ten years.
You deserve an arraigned marriage amigo
@@wussrestbrook1200 You may have hit on sometime! In about 10-15 years time, you think?
Full employment and affordable housing are good things I believe. Its hard to start a family and start dating if you have to live with mom and dad until you are 35. So there must be plenty of housing and which is affordable for ordinary people. And everyone who wants a job should be able to get one - with a job guarantee program and full employment policies by the government.
Off-loading the parents burden of taking care of their child would also help encourage parents getting an extra child. If this is done by better access to child care or a shorter workday or both doesn't perhaps matter so much.
Neither in Italy nor Spain housing cost is a major problem in the areas that have the lowest fertility rates, in Sicily you could find a 100m2 apartment for 40000 or 50000€, while housing costs are very high in countries such as France and Sweden where they have the highest fertility rate in Europe.
@@nicknickbon22
It is not swedes who breed, its immigrants who lives in cheap apartments in unattractive areas with high unemployment. That is not what I call solving the fertility crisis.
Sweden have lots of cheap housing in rural areas, like in the northern half of Sweden where you buy a big house for only costs 50000€.
But young people want to move to cities to find a job and a partner since rural Sweden does not have much such to offer. And the governments and EUs anti-rural policies have only helped to destroy the flourishing Swedish countryside we had 30 years ago.
So now no other option is left that moving to city facing the sky high housing costs that rightwing landlord butt licking government have created.
Life is not easy in other places in Europe either. Italians are among the peoples in europe that moves out last from mom and dads house when they are aged 30.
So no wonder that not many children are made there. And the enormous youth unemployment caused by the Eurocrisis in Spain might have contributed to their low fertility rates
I can only leave my house to one heir so I only had one.
@@nicknickbon22housing might not be expensive Spain and Italy, but if there's no work opportunities near your cheap apartment, you are going to leave for another city or country. That's why they mentioned in the video that Southern Europe needs to fix their economies to address demographic decline.
@@melissacorbett4180 yeah, that’s the point here
This is all just a capitalism problem. Capitalism requires constant growth. Living well, does not.
It feels as if your prescriptions for the future, re women's careers, is very middle to upper middle class centered. Lower socio-economic cohorts don't so much have careers as jobs, and are driven less by potential future accomplishments than by immediate material necessity. Easing access to child care will help both drastically, but reducing the cost of raising a child might result in different trade off decisions.
He actually said it in the video, just watch it full length 😅.
@@nicknickbon22 I have. Could you point me to the timestamp for the discussion on variances in value judgements of employment by socio-economic status?
Around 15:45