My wife and I are well to do in the US, with a good household income that probably puts us in the top 2% or some shit. And to maintain the sort of life that used to be considered “middle class”, we need all of that income for our family of 4. Which means that we both work. We would have liked more kids. But there is only so much time to go around. Fuck are we supposed to do, have another kid and hire a nanny? Fuck is the point of that, we wouldn’t even be parenting.

You want more kids? Give people more time. Which means LESS WORK and BETTER CHILDCARE OPTIONS.

People don’t want to bring children into this capitalistic hellscape. Color me surprised.

The cost of raising a child has gone up thousands. No government has come close to subsidizing the increase.

Have they tried raising the salaries so that one parent can stay at home and actually take care of the children, instead of sending them to way too expensive daycares. Having children is a "luxury" nowadays.

I assure you you can. The payment would have to cover all of the child's needs plus a bit more but you definitely can.

Most birds don't lay eggs without a proper nest

Tried everything...except work life balance.

Just like the socalled "work shortage", the problem is they aren't offering nearly enough. That's it.

Currently in Taiwan, citizens receive 2500 NT per month (i.e. $80 USD) per birth until the child is five years old. That's a fucking joke.

Woman of childbearing age here. Lots of my friends took another child off the table when Roe fell. Being potentially forced to die and leave your existing children orphaned is a big deterrent, turns out

I suspect the rise of the dual-income family (often as a matter of necessity) has had a massive influence on this.

In addition to the absurd increases in cost of living etc.

They've tried everything... except putting guardrails on these giant corporations and their runaway price-gouging. In the US at least, if the cost of wages kept pace with skyrocketing housing, higher education, and healthcare, I guarantee more people could afford to live and care for themselves and children...

They might also recognize that shrinking family size isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lower birth rates around the world could lessen environmental degradation, competition for resources, and even global conflict, Wang Feng, a sociology professor at UC Irvine, writes in the New York Times.

In every single one of these "depopulation crisis" articles the "maybe a shrinking population isn't entirely a bad thing" perspective is always in a throwaway paragraph near the end, if it's even mentioned at all.

Also consistently missing in these types of articles: an actual breakdown of the costs of raising a child (including the opportunity costs to one's career as the result of parental leave) vs the benefits the government is offering.

Also invariably missing: a description of the serious short- and long-term physical and mental risks of pregnancy and childbirth; at least this article mentions maternal mortality, but there's so much more at risk even in a "healthy" pregnancy and birth, from post-partum depression to incontinence. Occasionally articles will muse about women's fear of "frivolous" conditions like weight gain and stretch marks, but never life-altering ones like severe hemorrhaging, organ failure, and fistulas. How many women are postponing or forgoing pregnancy because they're not willing to risk life and limb to procreate? We'll never know as long as no one thinks to ask.

I have read a million of these "birth rates are dropping despite government efforts" articles, and they all echo the same pro-growth propaganda while conveniently neglecting these major, crucial points. JOURNALISTS, DO BETTER!

In 1968, when Richard Nixon was first elected, "middle class" was defined as one Union type job paying for a family of four in a private house with a few luxuries. In those days, $1 million was a vast fortune. Nixon ramped up inflation with his Vietnam War buildup, and the Oil Crisis really increased it. Ronald Reagan got elected and by the time Bush Sr. finished the job, "middle class" was two incomes to keep the household going, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.

Is a declining birth rate a bad thing? 50 million people live in a country (South Korea) the size of Indiana. Maybe, just maybe the economy should just take a hit for a change so there can be fewer people here. I know rich people don't want that, but I bet the country would be a better place for it.

Raising a kid in America starts around $200k, conservatively. A 2-3k incentive or even 6 months of paid leave worth around 25k aren't gonna make a dent.

People who complain about falling birth rates usually want more humans to cheaply exploit as a resource.

In a world with fewer humans, human life and human labors are more valuable.

We should be celebrating declining birth rates, as infinite growth is not possible in a finite system and most of the existential threats we face are due to population pressures.

People are generally depressed and struggling with little help, barely making ends meet, and then they get bitched at for not creating more people to thrust into this thankless meatgrinder. If people felt better about the world that they were bringing people into then maybe they would be more inclined.

We live in a world with an aging population that is happy to reap the benefits of short term thinking, leave it up to the next generation, then get pissed when people aren't giving them a next generation to pay the tab.

(it’s the economy and political landscape)

Free fucking childcare...

Sure you can. We could limit the work week to 32 hours, pay higher salaries such that homes and goods are affordable again.

“Please have children to fuel our profiteering, war, and labor goals” basically

Go fuck yourselves.

You can actually by making the families cost of living and housing needs affordable on one parents income. One off baby bonus bribes and stuff that governments do will never actually work when both parents have to work themselves Into dust just to make ends meet.

Reducing the world population is the obvious answer to slowing the detrimental effects humankind are having on the earth.

My husband and I chose not to have biological children and there are so many reasons for it. It's not even just one big one - it's multiple huge ones. Lack of support systems for parents and childcare, finances (we are ok for a couple, but there is no way we could comfortably afford even a single child), healthcare costs alone will break you, the future of this planet is not looking so hot (or rather, VERY hot actually), carbon footprint of another child on the planet is huge, and I refuse to bring in another soul to become a slave for our corporate overlords. And I am not even listing any personal reasons, which there also are - these are just things that are happening in the world overall... and the best the politicians can do is pikachu face that there is no population growth. Because, ya know, 8 BILLION of us is not enough.

Yeah here is my counter offer:

• universal free childcare, education, and healthcare.
• 3 day work week
• double annual salaries

Kids are not affordable or cute or have fur, plus they take time l, a lot of time. For me there's no reason to have kids.

You actually definitely could, they just didn't offer to pay enough

When a menial worker complains their menial job doesn't pay enough. Boomers sing "that's not a real job" then expect those same people to have kids to support their greed.

The optimal strategy for raising a child in the 21st century is to have just one so you can focus all your resources and attention on them for maximum chance of success.