495
You can’t even pay people to have more kids
(www.vox.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
495 points (97.0% liked)
News
23360 readers
1671 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here's the core problem: people can't afford to have kids. Until economies are restructured so that a family can reasonably and rationally survive on a single income, you aren't going to see birthrates rise.
Alternatively, you could ban any and all forms of birth control, and institute a state-religion that tied into your economic system, so that people had huge economic incentives to appear outwardly devout. Handmaid's Tale, et al.
We had vast universal childcare during the commie period where I grew up. That made it possible for two working parents to have children. The population grew steadily throughout the whole period, until the fall of the regime. It's been in free fall since then.
IMO it's better to have a parent taking care of their children--I'm agnostic on whether that should be a mom or a dad in a traditional heterosexual, nuclear family--because that seems to help children develop better emotionally. Childcare in general is more impersonal. BUT the system that your country had under communism is still better than what we have in the US right now.
Anecdotally, I loved child care. I preferred being among other children heck of a lot more than being at home with my parents. It might be good for the parents as well to be on equal footing instead of one being the "breasmaker." That introduces a natural power imbalance in the relationship which you have to struggle to not let become detrimental.
Subsidized child care for younger ages (under first grade at public school) would be a good alternative too. We don't need every job to be able to support a family of 4. When women joined the workforce during wartime and maintained that working position, the economy and jobs shifted to paying less because less was needed and we had a larger paid workforce. With that said, that means that a 2 income household should be able to afford kids, and it cannot without external help from other family.
Shortly after I had my first kiss in late high school my mother got drunk and informed me I would receive no help or support if I went and got myself pregnant. Here I am 15 years later, married and aiming for a kid, and I know her words will be true today too.
Some families are able to live closer to each other and help each other raise kids, but the modern economy doesn't allow for people to stay in the same area as easily. Almost every job requires you to move to a different state hundreds of miles each time, every few years. And most people need to change jobs due to stagnant wages, it's the only way to receive a raise.
Yes, but also no. IMO, every job should at a bare minimum pay a living wage, by which I mean a wage that allows a person to live reasonably: healthy food, reliable transportation, a single bedroom apartment, the ability to do things that for entertainment, healthcare, and the ability to have a realistic retirement savings plan. While a single job may not--strictly speaking--need to be able to support a family of 4, each job should be able to support at least two people, assuming that you want each family to have at least two children.
Subsidized child care only goes so far, esp. when one or both parents are working jobs that aren't 9-5.
OTOH, I think that a significant reduction in the human population, particularly in the most developed countries, is probably a good thing. Even if that means that the remainder need to pay sharply higher taxes (oh no, won't someone think of the Republicans! :'( ).