Birth rates are falling in the Nordics. Are natalist policies no longer enough?

Low birthrate is only a problem for ponzi-scheme societies.

Crossposting from my own Reddit comment about the same article:

No, it's just that the policies aren't changing fast enough to match the drop in culture pressure/attitudes that used to push people to have kids (especially religious ones).

Major things that have pushed people to have kids:

* De facto retirement plan / can actually make you richer (sorta)

* Cultural/religious pressure

* Emotional personal reasons: you want kids because you want kids

Of these three, the first one is obviously not just gone, but actually reversed -- people don't quickly put their grade school children to work on the farm anymore -- and the second one has rapidly declined in the last century. To the extent people in developed countries have kids, it's usually because they just wanna, that's it. Maybe a bit of an exception for immigrant groups when it comes to cultural attitudes, but those tend to regress to the mean for the the country over generations.

Things pushing people to not have kids:

* Kids are extremely expensive in terms of money

* Kids are extremely expensive in terms of energy/labor/time

* Kids are an 18+ year commitment you can't really back out of

* And of course some people just don't see benefit to themselves (this is more a lack of upside than a downside)

Due to the first two things here, having kids generally results in a large change in lifestyle and even standard of living, usually a downgrade on the latter, with things like 'going out' or vacations taking a steep tumble in frequency and/or quality. Lots of jokes about this in parent groups because it's very true for most: kids are intensive and expensive.

The reality is that expectations for parents have never been higher, and if you look at childcare time, the amount of time moms and dads spend with taking care of their kids has gone up, even as the number of kids people have has gone down. People really expect a lot out of parents, people expect a lot out of themselves as would-be parents, and then they look at their material circumstances and how much kids would cost, and think: nah, that wouldn't work.

And for what? The entity that benefits most tangibly from more kids is not the parents, but the state, who wants more workers to keep that worker:retiree ratio solid.

Of course, there is a solution: if the state is the one benefitting in the end, let the state pay: make parenting a net zero financial impact for most families via larger subsidies to cover child-rearing costs. This would remove one of the major issues stopping people from having kids, and partially mitigate another one (to the extent that things like occasional babysitting might be covered).

Making parenting net zero on your budget is a radical suggestion that politically would probably be unpopular, especially among people who absolutely don't want kids: because NOT having kids is currently viewed as the 'smart financial choice', being financially equal with parents would likely be viewed as oppression. They would view it as a subsidy from a childfree lifestyle to a child-supporting one...which is exactly correct, of course, because currently the child-supporting lifestyle ends up supporting the childfree one when it comes time to retire.

Absent a change like this, it's hard to not imagine seeing more and more people avoiding kids as a practical choice: will having kids make you happier than just spending more time with existing friends and family? Uncertain, but it'll definitely leave you with less money, meaning likely less financial security. And of course, it doesn't help that things like homes are increasingly expensive, which means it's harder to afford more space that people reasonably want for their kids. The different components of inflation hit people supporting kids extra hard.

Upper-middle and upper class aren't having children either though, so my bet is on the latter side of your argument. Huge opportunity costs for having kids before your mid 30s, and afterwards, it's a bit late to have more than a couple kids to have sustainable population numbers.

Definitely a bit hypocritical of me, since I'm also a part of the problem who doesn't want to have kids. But, at least for me, it's not worth it right at this time.

I thought the house-as-an-asset mentality was the most to blame.

Are you sure most houses in the Nordics are occupied by the same family most of the time?

Ah. I misread that a bit.

I TOTALLY agree.

We have a system now where childfree people disproportionately benefit from the socialized state. Not only do they not have to engage in any of the sacrifice (both monetary, time, and personal interests) of raising children, but they also get to suck just as much off the productivity of other people's children later in retirement. You might even get MORE than parents, since social security benefit is based off your average income over 35 working years.

For all of human history, your children were your retirement plan. You benefited directly in the future by how many you had that became successful, productive adults. But now retirement is so heavily socialized in the west that that children often can't directly take care of their parents because they're dealing with their own work and tax burden.

I don't have anything against childfree people (I'm one myself), but this system is fundamentally perverse and self destructive. You can't disproportionately reward people that don't reproduce from the bounty of those who do and expect that system to continue for very long. Like a parasite sucking a host dry, both eventually die.