I believe OP is making the general case that our commitment to nuclear family living raises the cost of raising a family as there are no economies of scale compared to multi-generational living. A moments thought about it, and he's clearly correct
A lot of societies are about to find out the burden women were implicitly carrying simply because they had no choice, either due to lack of financial independence, birth control, or civil rights.
To use the phrase “die out” stinks 30’s Germany to me, and I think you could stand to think twice before using such verbiage.
>Vive la France?
> No one would be left to appreciate the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triomphe.
> French scientists were concerned about the nation’s birth rate 100 year ago. In 1860, there had been 1 million births in the country. In 1922, the number had fallen to 450,000.
> As one observer noted: “At the rate of decline in number of children born in that country, in the year 2022 — 100 years hence — there will be nobody left in France, except as they drift in from other sections of Europe. The figures show, unerringly, that the present rate of decrease, maintained for 100 years, would reduce the birthrate to zero.”
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2021/12/27/experts-...
And what happened in the 20th century post WW2? A French Baby Boom driven by increased marital fertility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-20th_century_baby_boom#Eur...
> France and Austria experienced the strongest baby booms in Europe.[19] In contrast to most other countries, the French and Austrian baby booms were driven primarily by an increase in marital fertility.[28] In the French case, pronatalist policies were an important factor in this increase.[29] Weaker baby booms occurred in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands.[30]
We really have no idea what is going on with fertility and what the end result will be. When population was booming everyone predicted mass starvation that didn't happen. Now when population is declining everyone is confidently predicting disaster, but who's to say it won't self-correct? (alongside appropriate societal efforts)?
The two big changes from previous decades are women’s financial independence and birth control methods that are 100% effective and relatively convenient and cheap, essentially separating the acts of having sex and becoming parents.
Let us not forget the downward pressure this labor surplus created on wages.
But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.
My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.
I can't speak for elsewhere, but American society seems to incentivize against the factors that allow for high fertility. I think it is also apparent in Asia with the Sampo/ Satori generation phenomenon in Korea and Japan respectively.