And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one parent in the picture.
However birth rates are dropping there as much as in all the other rich countries. So the problem with population decline and dropping birthrates seems to be somewhere else.
I keep hearing here in the UK that the reason people aren't having kids is because it's so expensive, and I do what you do -- point people at the stats in Scandinavia where a huge chunk of childcare costs is borne by the state, and yet the birth rates are dropping.
My theory on this, and one that I personally felt as well, is that there's just no compelling reason to have kids outside of some biological imperative.
Having kids is seen as a big life-changing decision that rocks a relatively comfortable boat of material comforts and some light hedonism. Why bother with this when you can coast comfortably through life?
When you have kids on the farm, they are free labor, and you have as many as you can.
If you move into the city, they become noisy, expensive hobbies, and people aren't stupid, they have fewer of them.> Having kids is seen as a big life-changing decision that rocks a relatively comfortable boat of material comforts and some light hedonism. Why bother with this when you can coast comfortably through life?
I strongly disagree with this. It's a fair question, but humans are social creatures and find pleasure in more than just base things. We describe things as rewarding. Why play sports when you could sit down comfortably? If you play sports, why not play against the easiest opponent? Play all games on easy mode, why make it harder? Why go and find a romantic partner in life, wouldn't it be easier to sit at home and masturbate all day? Why study and learn new topics, why not just do the bare minimum to earn enough money to sit and watch tv.
People even volunteer. That's working for free.
This doesn't mean everyone has to find them rewarding, but there's far more to it than "I just feel I need to have kids".
On the contrary, the marginal cost of each child decreased with increased help from their siblings.
Perhaps the given scenario is true in "helicopter parenting" modes, but we don't generally employ those.
What, the state that raises its funds by draining resources from families? The state paying for childcare can't make it cheaper to raise children; it just means everyone is living with the costs that they were already going to have to pay. On average, if the cost of raising kids is high people still won't be able to afford them.
If you walk through the logic more deeply; it is unlikely that the state paying for childcare can make it cheaper to raise children. Who is supposed to pay for the costs? People who were already willing and available to help before the state got involved!
And if the state mucks up any part of its policy, it will make it even more expensive by spending the money in sub-optimal ways.
Same things go for schools, food in schools, universities, et.c., they are all "free", as in paid for by everyone in proportion to their wealth, instead of individually by the parent.
It isn't cheaper to raise kids. They're actually losing more under the socialised system because they still have to give up enough resources to raise the kids and now also to cover inefficiencies in the government program. On average everyone would be worse off. Or you're going to be taxing grandma so instead of her providing helpful childcare services she has to go and work at McDonalds to make up the difference or something. Society is geared towards supporting children already - routing the resources through the state or through the family can't make it easier. Men work to support families, women work to support families, grandparents have nothing better to do than support families. The resources were already tagged to support families. The government can't magic more resources into existence if raising kids is expensive. They'd be taxing families so instead of using the resources to support their families, the resources are being ... handed out to support families. There are no gains, so it isn't going to help.
State spending can reallocate; I can see some potential success in using childcare to free up high performing parents. But if the problem is median experience, reallocation can't do much.
Postscript The taxes in these countries are no joke. Young families are losing a lot more to the tax system than the "free" childcare makes up for. If you traded the free childcare for paid childcare and low taxes, they'd likely be in a much better position to have kids. [Taxes] approx. = [Cost of Services] + [Admin Costs] + [Cost of Rorts]. That isn't making it easier to fund a family.
In actual practice there will be particularly fertile women that have more children and their childcare needs will be draining resources from others, making it harder for them to form families.
I should stress that I don't think childcare costs are the big driver of low fertility. But to say that resource reallocation is going to help is a bit ... I mean, where are these resources going to come from? Everyone was already putting their resources towards their families, diverting money away from those families is the engine that powers the state. That is where the soldiers come from, the welfare comes from, all the labour, where the goods get produced, etc. We'd be asking them to stop caring for their families and instead spend all day caring for their families but according to how the government wants instead of what they actually think they need. You can't take from them, give it back to them and expect them to have more. They aren't even going to have the same.
If families are feeling the pinch, that "something else" is probably work that was important to setting up families and maintaining a standard of living. Forcing billionaires to put money into childcare is just making it more difficult to have children because those resource aren't going to be going towards whatever the more pressing problems are.
Billionaires make all that money by making things happen that people need done. Disrupting that and sending the resources to childcare is not likely to work either. If the problem is that childcare is too expensive, what is important is bringing down the cost, not trying to find someone else to pay the cost. There is no-one else, having children is too common an activity.
Traditionally the economic benefit of children was that they would basically work for you, including supporting you into old age. This made the enormous investment a lot more worthwhile.
Also the childcare obligations were much less (a 12 year old could be pretty much self sufficient by working).
With pensions, no child labour, etc, the trade-off is not like that any more in economic terms. Having children is basically a total economic loss and a rational person would tend to avoid it. It's seen as a luxury nowadays, something most can't afford.
The first couple years of a kid’s life are formative, and fleeting. Why only spend a small portion of each day together? It takes more than that to form a good bond.
Plus, grandparents might have all the free time, but aren’t as able to do everything as someone in the next younger generation. But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical?
The sooner we get away from 5 8s the better IMO, so we can start living richer, balanced lives. At least the commute is going, which really makes it more like 5 10s on average.
They do. In functional families everyone still works but because you have a dozen+ people to split the "chores" of life with, someone is typically available or can make themselves available at any given time.
It's also a family, so it's not just "aunts and uncles" but everyone from grandparents down to nieces and nephews. Lots of people at different stages of life able to contribute different things. The working-age folks tend to bring in money, and those who aged out or are too young contribute in other ways offloading tasks from those working a standard job.
The American nuclear family unit along with suburbanization in my opinion will destroy the country at a societal level. Thought this for a very long time. Humans are not meant to be isolated efficiency machines.
In particular, it could mean that you cant move to SV for better job, because some relative depends on you.
The primary factor to success and happiness in life is your family structure and having their loving guidance and support.
Today, the village mostly hinders. Few people have experience with children anymore and most are self centered. Their "help" mostly consists of direct criticism, or indirect criticism in calling the authorities.