Birth rates are falling in the Nordics below the UK and the US. Are family-friendly policies no longer enough?

[RastaMentality]

Twenty years ago, Finland appeared to have it all. The birth rate was rising and the proportion of women in the labour force was high. Policymakers from around the world, including the UK and east Asia, came to learn about the Nordic model behind it: world class maternity care; generous parental leave; a right to pre-school childcare. But maybe they got it wrong. Despite all the support offered to parents, Finland's fertility rate has fallen nearly a third since 2010. It is now below the UK's, where the social safety net is more limited, and only slightly above Italy's, where traditional gender roles persevere.

Click to shrink...

Across the world, fertility is declining in very different societies — conservative and liberal, big and small state, growing economies and stagnating ones. Even India — known for its growing population — now has fewer births per woman than the theoretical replacement rate of 2.1. In Europe in 2023, the rate fell in "Hungary, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, all the ones who were really high or were paraded as examples . . . It seems that Finland might be a forerunner, unfortunately."

Click to shrink...

"The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what's going on. The policy responses are untried because it's a new situation. It's not primarily driven by economics or family policies. It's something cultural, psychological, biological, cognitive." At the Family Federation, Rotkirch oversees a unique series of surveys, which ask young people not just how many children they are planning to have, but how many they would ideally like to have. Her findings suggest that children do not fit into many millennials' life plans. Once it was a sacrifice not to have children; now starting a family means sacrificing independence. "In most societies, having children was a cornerstone of adulthood. Now it's something you have if you already have everything else. It becomes the capstone."

Click to shrink...

Rotkirch also suspects that the spread of social media is playing a role, not least by stoking political polarisation, loneliness and mental health issues, which reduce fertility. Stabilising birth rates may require not just top-down policies but a societal rethink. "What would society look like if we valued reproduction, and raising babies, not just your own, as much as [economic] production?"

Click to shrink...

Childlessness in Finland majorly appearing for the first time:

Until recently, fertility decline was driven by families having fewer children than their parents and grandparents. Now the key dynamic is childlessness. In Finland, three-quarters of the recent decline in fertility is attributable to people who have no children. "You see similar trends everywhere." In the family barometer surveys, among Finns born in the late 1970s and 1980s, fewer than one in twenty said at the age of 25 that they didn't want to have children. Among those born in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that proportion rose to nearly one in four. Nearly 40 per cent of Finnish men with low education are now childless at the age of 45 (and probably for life): a "huge" proportion. Most have no partners. Men are as likely as women to say they want children, but are more likely to be childless.

Click to shrink...

The idealized life course for more and more modern women unfortunately doesn't line up with biology:

Women's fertility drops in their late thirties and forties: society has to adapt. "If you do everything that typical ministers of finance tell you to do, you are 45 — you have a house and a doctorate and it's too late. The idealised life course is really at odds with female reproductive biology."

Click to shrink...

https://www.ft.com/content/500c0fb7-a04a-4f87-9b93-bf65045b9401

I know the internet is typically not a place for nuanced discussion but it feels short sighted to approach the fertility topic by just screaming about money. Globally, Human lives are far more complex and busy than at any time in history. People also live in far more luxurious and resourced standards of living than ever before. Hunger and poverty are at all time lows.

Far less people are having kids "because there's nothing else to do" since there's a whole lot to do now.

People in developed countries (especially Europe) can find things to do for an entire lifetime beyond having children (traveling the world, picking up hobbies, and women can work!) without getting bored.

 

[Rosebud]

The idealized life course for more and more modern women unfortunately doesn't line up with biology

Click to shrink...

Exactly. And if women have to choose between having a successful career and being a mother, well...

 

[Zissou]

Seems like it's Trevor/Carol on a mass scale?


View: https://youtu.be/sP2tUW0HDHA?si=-almrS-9RaLeXrsb

 

[Laughton]

Doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. You can have as many family friendly policies as you like, more and more people are still going to be comfortable saying that they just don't want kids.

 

[Soap]

Cost of living is astronomical in Scandinavian countries when having children too. Care workers and child minders are also underpaid too. As someone with Scandinavian family, including those with young children, I think it is rather enlightening to learn what the reality is there, which is essentially not as different as you'd think in certain areas.

 

[Dr. Mario]

For better or worse the community sense of society is unraveling. Churches fall apart but with that also support structures and a general sense that a society looks after its children. Other people's kids are nuisances, might as well not start on your own. In many ways I supported a greater individualism, but I feel like we've gone too far and its making way for pervasive dread. I hope I'm not becoming an old conservative. I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way.

 

[Rodelero]

Is it actually cheap to have children in those areas though? A lot of the 'pro family' policies I'm aware of across the world are a drop in the ocean.

 

[Aselith]

Doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. You can have as many family friendly policies as you like, more and more people are still going to be comfortable saying that they just don't want kids.

Click to shrink...

I would also like to point out that the expectations an policies at workplaces often don't make it reasonable for women to have good careers and children, which is what needs to change.

 

[nonoriri]

I've said this in so many threads: people have always just assumed that AFAB people by default want to have children because that's the role that has been delegated to them for thousands of years. But when given options many have middling to little interest and would rather pursue other things. Or even if they have kids, they don't want more than a few because they still have career and other interests, unlike my grandmother who was basically forced by church and society to have 10. Trying to reverse this is going to come with attacks on childbearing people who don't want kids and reproductive rights from the right. It's a dangerous thing and then focus should shift to how maintaining society with lower birth rates.

 

[gozu]

Isaac Asimov "predicted*" that humanity would end up sending their babies to luxury nurseries then to luxury boarding schools. Then the children go to university dorms and then strike out on their own and get their own houses. At no point do they ever live with their parents (except maybe on optional vacations) and at no point do the parents ever spend anything on the child, except for birthday presents and the like. Maybe? Haven't re-read the book in decades.

If parenthood was that easy and cost zero money & time, I suspect fertility rates would shoot back up. But it's a hard sell...not living with your children. ever. Except on vacations. It goes against our one-kid at a time ultra-protective mammalian instincts as a human species.

Yet that is the most cost effective way of doing things. Solo and Duo parenting are extremely inefficient. That's why we say it takes a village, because a village increases efficiency a lot. Yet, we have no more villages. Well something's gotta give. People love money too much and kids are too much of a money sink these days.

* in The Naked Sun, great science fiction book

 

[Netherscourge]

It's too expensive to have kids anywhere in the world anymore.

If you're not wealthy, don't have kids or you risk a lifetime of financial insecurity.

 

[Lozjam]

I would also like to point out that the expectations an policies at workplaces often don't make it reasonable for women to have good careers and children, which is what needs to change.

Click to shrink...

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

 

[Aselith]

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

Click to shrink...

Preach 🙋

 

[Ikon]

I don't know, I'm a Swede in the late 70s and early 80s bracket where people still want kids to a larger extent according to the article.

I'm married with three kids between 4 and 8 years old, on one income (mine) and we're living relatively comfortably. We aren't saving a lot of money each month, but I feel like it's financially reasonable.

School is free and child care costs next to nothing, kids get meals and snacks at school, and we primarily need to pay for new clothes and food at home (which are both super expensive to be honest).

 

[RastaMentality]

Is it actually cheap to have children in those areas though? A lot of the 'pro family' policies I'm aware of across the world are a drop in the ocean.

Click to shrink...

I know it's popular to be universally negative all the time but people have way more options for sorting their lives than they did in the 1950s. Children being cheap could probably raise figures significantly but would they still stay there in a luxurious society?

 

[Lashley]

Expensive and both parents working full time jobs.

Who has the money and the time? It's hardly a shock

 

[Rosebud]

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

Click to shrink...

I think that the vast majority of people don't want to be a stay at home parent, it takes all your financial independence away even if your partner is rich.

 

[RastaMentality]

I think that the vast majority of people don't want to be a stay at home parent, it takes all your financial independece away even if your partner is rich.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Losing your financial independence means more miserable marriages and possibly worse parenting. Being financially dependent even while wealthy is a possible nightmare in the making.

 

[Thrill_house]

America decided to let those with wealth and companies fuck over the common person as much as humanly possible at every chance. I'm not bringing a child into this world to suffer through this shit as I have had to. Our lives are great as is, kids would beat us into the dirt in many ways. Hardest of passes.

 

[barbarash22]

In such articles there's always a line like this: "The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what's going on."
Which begs the question if whoever is responsible for such comments lives in a bubble or just doesn't know what they're talkin about.

You just need to live a normal life nowadays and compare it to how it was 30 years ago than you know why.

 

[krazen]

It's also the fact that raising children is a full time job.

Our society is so much better off with one person doing work, and the other tending to the house. It's absolutely unsustainable having 2 parents work 40 hours per week jobs, then having childcare on top of that.

The problem is, our society is now designed for both people to work. That puts an incredible amount of stress on families, and puts really negative outcomes on the kids.

I'm not saying we should go back to the pre-60s. But we definitely to make sure that you can support a family of 4 with a single job. That hasn't happened.

And no, I'm not advocating for women to be that role at all. It should be a choice, as each family is different and have different needs. If wages got up, it should be conceivable that both of the couple work part time as they raise their child. That's probably best case scenario honestly.

The problem is, most people don't have a choice. And both partners have to work just to make ends meet. That is honestly sickening.

Click to shrink...

I also think culturally it's an unattractive 'job' too. You would have to be someone who sees raising kids as a satisfying end all job on its own…while wider society does see you as a loser, to be frank. On the mother side you're seen as aged with no sexual agency or desires (the MILF) who's expected to have no life of her own, on the flip a stay at home dad is seen as someone who's not fulfiling their traditional role of 'supporting their family' (even though what's more supportive than raising kids?).

 

[Rosebud]

In such articles there's always a line like this: "The strange thing with fertility is nobody really knows what's going on."
Which begs the question if whoever is responsible for such comments lives in a bubble or just doesn't know what they're talkin about.

You just need to live a normal life nowadays and compare it to how it was 30 years ago than you know why.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, decades ago people would be poor and still have like 10 kids.

 

[ConflictResolver]

It's too expensive to have kids anywhere in the world anymore.

If you're not wealthy, don't have kids or you risk a lifetime of financial insecurity.

Click to shrink...

What's your definition of wealthy?

I'm average salary with a baby and doing fine. We are paying a mortgage, nearly all of our savings have gone into the deposit for the house.

I suppose your definition might class me as wealthy due to the house?

I don't know, I'm a Swede in the late 70s and early 80s bracket where people still want kids to a larger extent according to the article.

I'm married with three kids between 4 and 8 years old, on one income (mine) and we're living relatively comfortably. We aren't saving a lot of money each month, but I feel like it's financially reasonable.

School is free and child care costs next to nothing, kids get meals and snacks at school, and we primarily need to pay for new clothes and food at home (which are both super expensive to be honest).

Click to shrink...

I think that the vast majority of people don't want to be a stay at home parent, it takes all your financial independence away even if your partner is rich.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Losing your financial independence means more miserable marriages and possibly worse parenting. Being financially dependent even while wealthy is a possible nightmare in the making.

Click to shrink...

Me and my wife have agreed she is going to give it a go when her maternity pay ends. It makes much more emotional and sentimental sense for her to continue looking after our baby.

I also think culturally it's an unattractive 'job' too. You would have to be someone who sees raising kids as a satisfying end all job on its own…while wider society does see you as a loser, to be frank. On the mother side you're seen as aged with no sexual agency or desires (the MILF category) on the flip a stay at home dad is seen as someone who's not fulfiling their traditional role of 'supporting their family' (even though what's more supportive than raising kids?).

Click to shrink...

Those are just stereotypes that English speaking society pushes though.

 

[Sensei]

I've said this in so many threads: people have always just assumed that AFAB people by default want to have children because that's the role that has been delegated to them for thousands of years. But when given options many have middling to little interest and would rather pursue other things. Or even if they have kids, they don't want more than a few because they still have career and other interests, unlike my grandmother who was basically forced by church and society to have 10. Trying to reverse this is going to come with attacks on childbearing people who don't want kids and reproductive rights from the right. It's a dangerous thing and then focus should shift to how maintaining society with lower birth rates.

Click to shrink...

I say that in all these threads too.

Call me whatever you want, but lets be honest: if many of the women in our bloodlines throughout history had a legitimate choice in the matter, many of those bloodlines would not have made it to this point at all. Perpetually increasing population, or even replacement rate, is incompatible with women's liberation.

 

[The Albatross]

A quixotic issue, as well, is that many places that have "Family friendly" political/social policy tend to also be places that are extremely expensive to live. The policy tries to keep up with the cost of living, but it's like putting your finger in the dike, it can only do so much. Not that Massachusetts really has 1:1 policy with Scandinavian countries, but this state has generally been ahead of the curve with most social/political policy around child/family healthcare, universal pre-k, schooling, services, and so on, but it's also largely one of the most expensive places to live in the Western hemisphere. There are posts every day on various subreddits of people looking to move to MA and it's like ... how can anybody afford to live here? 5-10+ years ago you could go an hour outside of Boston and have affordable rents, affordable home prices, but now the third most competitive rental market in the country, more competitive than Boston, is Worcester county and prices continue to skyrocket. We're building housing, but not keeping pace with demand.

We have a 5.5 year old, with a new baby due ... like ... maybe today ... And daycare over the next 5 years is going to be $100,000 for us by the time this kid gets to kindergarten. For us it's a no brainer, we're doing the daycare route and my wife is going to continue working like she did with our first... She struggled having maternity leave and being at home for 8 weeks, so she'd never do the non-work parenting thing, but also the opportunity cost. If she took 5 years off with our first, she would have lost too much opportunity professionally, it's hard to put your career on pause for 5-6 years and then try to pick back up. But it still sucks.

I hate seeing these fucking content creators online lambasting parents paying $20-$30k/year for daycare. We're not sending our kids to 'The Harvard of Daycares,' we're sending them to ... your average every day daycare facility. We loved our daycare place for our first, it was great esp because she had some developmental delays and they were wonderful, but ... like it's just a normal daycare center, not some Ivy League prep school shit. Home daycares are cheaper, so that is something we kinda thought about 5+ years ago w/ our first, but we went with the center because no home daycares do infants around us, and we had to send my daughter to daycare at 9 weeks, which is younger than most places do around here.

 

[krazen]

Me and my wife have agreed she is going to give it a go when her maternity pay ends. It makes much more emotional and sentimental sense for her to continue looking after our baby.


Those are just stereotypes that English speaking society pushes though.

Click to shrink...

Yeah but that's the whole problem. My good friend is a stay at home dad while his wife works and they make it work, but he lets me know it messes with him on some level. The societal pressure is there.

People are obviously making it work, but the issue isn't people who have kids but people who clearly aren't making the choice and we have to look at the motivating factors.

 

[ConflictResolver]

Yeah but that's the whole problem. My good friend is a stay at home dad while his wife works and they make it work, but he lets me know it messes with him on some level. The societal pressure is there.

People are obviously making it work, but the issue isn't people who have kids but people who clearly aren't making the choice and we have to look at the motivating factors.

Click to shrink...

Yes I can't blame those people at all, people can be jerks about these traditional roles and expectations.

Me and my wife are introverts so we have lived our whole lives not giving a shit how we look to others, but I understand not everyone has that luxury.

 

[RastaMentality]

Those are just stereotypes that English speaking society pushes though.

Click to shrink...

How many people in Eastern societies want this lifestyle either?

 

[Tomasoares]

Is it really that bad that our population is going to shrink in the next decades? I mean, aside from no retirement for our generation (if you don't have a private one), which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I'd say that you'll need a lot more than just some policies, such as reducing work-journey (from 40 to 30 hours) and huge overhaul in the housing policy, to make them a lot more cheaper (2-3x) and renting more affordable as well. Both of those things would be huge life changers and much more impactful measures than some social programs. Everything requiring college/doctorade degree doesn't help much either as pointed by the article.

Also, women already are already much more discriminated regarding both the pressure to be mothers and leave their career as well as in working environment, but things must progress and not go backwards.

 

[prophetvx]

Is it really that bad that our population is going to shrink in the next decades? I mean, aside from no retirement for our generation (if you don't have a private one), which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I'd say that you'll need a lot more than just some policies, such as reducing work-journey (from 40 to 30 hours) and huge overhaul in the housing policy, to make them a lot more cheaper (2-3x) and renting more affordable as well. Both of those things would be huge life changers and much more impactful measures than some social programs. Everything requiring college/doctorade degree doesn't help much either as pointed by the article.

Also, women already are already much more discriminated regarding both the pressure to be mothers and leave their career as well as in working environment, but things must progress and not go backwards.

Click to shrink...

General consensus is that the global population will cap at around 10.5-11 billion (in around 2100), we're at around 8.15 currently.

Yes, growth will continue to slow and stagnate. It's a big reason there is a bit of an immigration arms race going on currently in a number of countries to secure government revenue moving forward.

 

[kayos90]

Is it really that bad that our population is going to shrink in the next decades? I mean, aside from no retirement for our generation (if you don't have a private one), which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I'd say that you'll need a lot more than just some policies, such as reducing work-journey (from 40 to 30 hours) and huge overhaul in the housing policy, to make them a lot more cheaper (2-3x) and renting more affordable as well. Both of those things would be huge life changers and much more impactful measures than some social programs. Everything requiring college/doctorade degree doesn't help much either as pointed by the article.

Also, women already are already much more discriminated regarding both the pressure to be mothers and leave their career as well as in working environment, but things must progress and not go backwards.

Click to shrink...

I think it really depends how people quantify and qualify "bad."

 

[ConflictResolver]

How many people in Eastern societies want this lifestyle either?

Click to shrink...

Figures suggest birthrate going down there too. So good point.

 

[Pau]

I say that in all these threads too.

Call me whatever you want, but lets be honest: if many of the women in our bloodlines throughout history had a legitimate choice in the matter, many of those bloodlines would not have made it to this point at all. Perpetually increasing population, or even replacement rate, is incompatible with women's liberation.

Click to shrink...

Yup.

A lot of men also tend to ignore just how much pregnancy itself sucks.

Until we figure out a way for AFAB folks to have children while bypassing pregnancy and without being expected to sacrifice more of their life to childrearing than their AMAB partners, this will always be an issue as long as AFAB people have a choice.

 

[Spesi]

Is it really that bad that our population is going to shrink in the next decades? I mean, aside from no retirement for our generation (if you don't have a private one), which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I'd say that you'll need a lot more than just some policies, such as reducing work-journey (from 40 to 30 hours) and huge overhaul in the housing policy, to make them a lot more cheaper (2-3x) and renting more affordable as well. Both of those things would be huge life changers and much more impactful measures than some social programs. Everything requiring college/doctorade degree doesn't help much either as pointed by the article.

Also, women already are already much more discriminated regarding both the pressure to be mothers and leave their career as well as in working environment, but things must progress and not go backwards.

Click to shrink...

It's pretty bad if you're a tax payer since goverment incomes kinda rely to the fact that there are more working people vs kids/retired/etc.

At least for me as a guy around 30s, we just haven't got the time nor desire for kids. We've just now "settled" after years of studying, meaning that we've ended our army/schools & are finally in quite stable, full job -style of life & have time/money to do stuff, even while everything is expensive as hell. It's also a pain to find a new apartment even for two of us in Helsinki region plus since 2008 it's been pretty much crisis after crisis so...yeah.

 

[Sean C.]

You just need to live a normal life nowadays and compare it to how it was 30 years ago than you know why.

Click to shrink...

If you're suggesting things were better 30 years ago, as a general rule they were not.

 

[RPGam3r]

I've said this in so many threads: people have always just assumed that AFAB people by default want to have children because that's the role that has been delegated to them for thousands of years. But when given options many have middling to little interest and would rather pursue other things. Or even if they have kids, they don't want more than a few because they still have career and other interests, unlike my grandmother who was basically forced by church and society to have 10. Trying to reverse this is going to come with attacks on childbearing people who don't want kids and reproductive rights from the right. It's a dangerous thing and then focus should shift to how maintaining society with lower birth rates.

Click to shrink...

I just wanted to bold this and say thanks for mentioning it!

 

[Richietto]

Yeh even in countries where having children is more doable, the culture ain't there, maybe one day it will shift back but it is what it is and I don't blame anyone! Really we should be focusing on how to make society function when there isn't enough babies and too many old people in need of care, because even if the culture shifts back and people want to have babies and can, we aren't getting those 2.5+ birth rates again. Its all gonna stagnate and fluctuate around whatever number that will be and capitalism is gonna have to change.

 

[evilromero]

I think that the vast majority of people don't want to be a stay at home parent, it takes all your financial independence away even if your partner is rich.

Click to shrink...

If you're married you don't necessarily need financial independence since you're a financial team. I agree, I think one parent should be at home to help with kids/household stuff while the other works. I know it's not possible for most these days but it's the most effective division of labor and the best way to help mentor children as they grow.

 

[Tomasoares]

If you're suggesting things were better 30 years ago, as a general rule they were not.

Click to shrink...

Especially if you weren't a white american

 

[Dice]

If you're married you don't necessarily need financial independence since you're a financial team. I agree, I think one parent should be at home to help with kids/household stuff while the other works. I know it's not possible for most these days but it's the most effective division of labor and the best way to help mentor children as they grow.

Click to shrink...

This still isn't fair. A working partner 's shift ends at the end of the day whereas being a parent is a 24 hour, "8 days a week" kind of job -- unpaid.

There is validity in paying people to be parents. (But no one will do it lol)

It's better for division of labour, but too many parents come out of it down turned about missing the best years of a career and society WILL punish you for it with lower wages and less opportunities.

The stuff you're saying about being financial independent\team is dangerous. It's how a lot of trad wives get fucked over. A lot of marriages don't work out and assuming they will "for the kids" sucks lol

 

[Rosebud]

If you're married you don't necessarily need financial independence since you're a financial team. I agree, I think one parent should be at home to help with kids/household stuff while the other works.

Click to shrink...

Ideally yes, but then there's many unhappy people in relationships because they can't afford to divorce. Plus let's be honest, 90% of the time the mother would be chosen to stay at home and times changed

 

[nonoriri]

If you're married you don't necessarily need financial independence since you're a financial team. I agree, I think one parent should be at home to help with kids/household stuff while the other works. I know it's not possible for most these days but it's the most effective division of labor and the best way to help mentor children as they grow.

Click to shrink...

When you say "parent" maybe be honest and admit that society will push staying home on the birthing parent. Like this shit doesn't exist in a vacuum and it basically amounts to "women need to go back into the kitchen and have their lives revolve around popping out babies".

I say that in all these threads too.

Call me whatever you want, but lets be honest: if many of the women in our bloodlines throughout history had a legitimate choice in the matter, many of those bloodlines would not have made it to this point at all. Perpetually increasing population, or even replacement rate, is incompatible with women's liberation.

Click to shrink...

Bolding for truth and it's something a lot of liberals need to come to terms with or else admit that they do think people owe their wombs to society as a service.

 

[Viewt]

We need to divorce ourselves from a system that can only sustain itself with perpetual growth - both in terms of capital and in terms of people themselves.

My wife and I are childless because we just prefer that lifestyle. Even in an alternate reality where childcare wasn't a massive expense (monetarily and in terms of time), I don't think we'd have kids. It's not for us and I'm glad we live in a time where that's not so weird. If we were living in the 50s, societal pressures would make our situation a lot more difficult.

 

[carlsojo]

You don't need family friendly policies anymore you need a policy that fully subsidizes a second income.

 

[Elfgore]

I'll echo what a lot of people have.... what's the appeal? They cost a lot of money, time, and energy. So much so one dedicated parent staying home is preferred, but people above show why that's pretty much not fair for who does get stuck with that job.

For women, it can be a career ender. My sister just had her first baby and no joke her woman boss sighed about her going on maternal leave. Seeing how exhausted she is while her husband had to go back to work tells me when that's up, she is going to be a walking zombie. In a potentially stunted career because she was gone for several weeks.

I'm a dude, I have less expectations on me than women and a hell of a lot less physical and emotional costs for this and I still don't want a baby. I can't blame women who just say "fuck that".

 

[Sean C.]

We need to divorce ourselves from a system that can only sustain itself with perpetual growth - both in terms of capital and in terms of people themselves.

Click to shrink...

I mean, we're not even talking about perpetual growth here, we're talking about replacement level.

 

[TissueBox]

Not just women, single women, etc., but more and more hetero married men / couples have no desire for children, despite having the means to raise them.

 

[PostModernMaybe]

I completely understand why this is happening but I don't think anybody really wants to live in the world where all nations have way more elderly than younger people. Shit gets grim when there's not enough of a tax base to support those old/disabled folks and the answer becomes "some of y'all just need to die"

 

[Neha]

General consensus is that the global population will cap at around 10.5-11 billion (in around 2100), we're at around 8.15 currently.

Click to shrink...

Meaning the global human birthrate will stay above 1.0 till around 2100, whereupon it will go below 1.0?

 

[mbpm]

Kids are a hefty task. If you don't already have the urge it might be hard to justify them outside of like, religious duty/norms