Article: Fertility Collapse Demands New Cultures

[Josh]

1. Higher minimum wages or wages in general so that it would be easier for working people to support families, especially with one primary earner.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Countries that are poorer have larger families. The wealthiest countries with very high wages have the lowest birthrates.

2. Better childcare options so that childcare is cheaper and more available. It is punitively expensive to find childcare in many US cities so people know they can't afford children and still keep some kind of working career.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Europe has this, America doesn't, yet America's birthrate is higher.

3. More affordable health care options. With the ACA things are better now than in the past, but it can still be very expensive, especially if you have a sick child. Even childbirth itself can be extremely expensive if you don't have insurance

Doesn't increase birthrates. Europe has this, America doesn't, yet America's birthrate is higher.

4. Cheaper housing. The cost of housing is getting astronomical in many parts of the country which prevents people from having families, or from having larger families. This is mostly due to policy like zoning that drive up the cost of housing. Other countries don't do this. Housing costs in say Japan are 1/2 what they are here.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews/haredim live in very expensive places like New York City with highly restrictive zoning yet keep on having quite large families.

5. Better transportation options. Cars are getting increasingly expensive and unaffordable yet this country is extremely car dependent. There are lots of people who can't afford families because all their disposable income goes to transportation expenses. We could do a better job of providing alternatives.

Doesn't increase birthrates. People who live in the large cities are less likely to have cars and can use a lot more good public transportation yet their birthrates are lower than rural populations which are much more car dependent and have terrible or no public transportation.

6. Cheaper higher education options so families aren't burdened by enormous college costs and young people aren't burdened by enormous college debts. Both of those things discourage having children.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Countries with free college or very cheap college (like Europe) have lower birthrates compared to places where it is more expensive like the U.S. or nonexistent except for the wealthy like much of the third world.

7. Promoting marriage since married people are more likely to have children and raise them successfully than single people.

I agree this is a good thing, yet things like tax promotions for married couples, child tax credits, etc. again have little effect on birthrates. Indeed we see in many demographics where the majority of children are born out of wedlock. Married couples seem to choose to delay having children and often end up not having as many children as single mothers do.

8. You could list a whole lot of other things that would make our communities more child friendly. Less crime and drugs on the streets, physically safer streets with more pedestrian options, parks, playgrounds, etc. to make our built environment more child friendly, more things like after school programs for kids. The list is endless.

Yet none of those things increase birthrates.

These are all policies that address the issue at a societal level. If you want to talk about plain communities like the Amish then the discussion is obviously somewhat different. But most people aren't going to choose to live in the 19th century like the Amish.

If present trends continue, most people are going to choose to live like Swartzentruber Amish, because they will be the only population left!

[Josh]

My wife and I have six children in one of the most expensive cities in the US but I don't know how well our experiences translate to public policy. Making this work on a single blue collar wage has required choices not everyone is ready to embrace. The largest accommodation is to re-adjust expectations around the size and quality of housing.

I would agree with this. It seems reasonable to expect a similar standard of living to the 1950s to me, in terms of size of house, square footage and so on.

Medical costs are the second largest area of concern. Our life would not be possible without Obamacare and subsidized medical insurance.

I don't agree with this. Swartzentrubers, as I pointed out earlier, have the largest family size in America, yet they eschew all subsidised medical insurance. They do not, generally speaking, have worse health (similar to the surrounding non-Swartzie population, one study showed slightly better mental health). It is thus not accurate to say "our life would not be possible". Rather, some expectations may need to change.

School tuition is another sizable budget item. In our case the church school is subsidized by the church in various ways to keep tuition low. At common market rates this would be entirely impossible.

I don't agree with this either. Aren't public school free? And yes, I agree that choices by church to keep tuition low help, but again, Swartzies seem to have mastered how to provide their own system of education entirely unsubsidised that they all pay for themselves, and they tend to almost all have big family sizes. So it is personally possible without "subsidy".

In a pure capitalist society the value of all things is determined by the market productivity and children will inevitably be devalued unless society pushes back and injects more humane values into public policy.

Yes, that is true, although I would argue that the market-socialist hybrid economy we have specifically tries to push women into employment and in turn devalues work that women should be doing like being a wife and mother at home or doing things like teaching in a church school. There are many and myriad ways the system instead promotes that women should be busy making PowerPoints and Excel sheets for their boss.

[Ken]

But making it easier to have children in this country would certainly help alleviate some of the reasons why people aren't having them today.

How could that be accomplished?

My wife and I have six children in one of the most expensive cities in the US but I don't know how well our experiences translate to public policy. Making this work on a single blue collar wage has required choices not everyone is ready to embrace. The largest accommodation is to re-adjust expectations around the size and quality of housing. Medical costs are the second largest area of concern. Our life would not be possible without Obamacare and subsidized medical insurance. School tuition is another sizable budget item. In our case the church school is subsidized by the church in various ways to keep tuition low. At common market rates this would be entirely impossible.

In a pure capitalist society the value of all things is determined by the market productivity and children will inevitably be devalued unless society pushes back and injects more humane values into public policy.

I'm not sure your church school really escapes market realities. The cost you are paying directly in tuition may be lower, but the shortfall is made up elsewhere, probably through a combination of

1. Below market rent for your school space if you are using church facilities for school
2. Church subsidies paid for through tithing so you are paying through the back door through tithes as are other church members who are subsidizing your children if they don't all have 6 children of their own.
3. Below market wages for teachers and/or teachers who are working in volunteer roles

[barnhart]

How could that be accomplished?

My wife and I have six children in one of the most expensive cities in the US but I don't know how well our experiences translate to public policy. Making this work on a single blue collar wage has required choices not everyone is ready to embrace. The largest accommodation is to re-adjust expectations around the size and quality of housing. Medical costs are the second largest area of concern. Our life would not be possible without Obamacare and subsidized medical insurance. School tuition is another sizable budget item. In our case the church school is subsidized by the church in various ways to keep tuition low. At common market rates this would be entirely impossible.

In a pure capitalist society the value of all things is determined by the market productivity and children will inevitably be devalued unless society pushes back and injects more humane values into public policy.

I'm not sure your church school really escapes market realities. The cost you are paying directly in tuition may be lower, but the shortfall is made up elsewhere, probably through a combination of

1. Below market rent for your school space if you are using church facilities for school
2. Church subsidies paid for through tithing so you are paying through the back door through tithes as are other church members who are subsidizing your children if they don't all have 6 children of their own.
3. Below market wages for teachers and/or teachers who are working in volunteer roles

Yes to all three and there are other similar mechanisms as well. That is why I said it's not a market solution nor is it scalable.

[Ken]

1. Higher minimum wages or wages in general so that it would be easier for working people to support families, especially with one primary earner.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Countries that are poorer have larger families. The wealthiest countries with very high wages have the lowest birthrates.

2. Better childcare options so that childcare is cheaper and more available. It is punitively expensive to find childcare in many US cities so people know they can't afford children and still keep some kind of working career.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Europe has this, America doesn't, yet America's birthrate is higher.

3. More affordable health care options. With the ACA things are better now than in the past, but it can still be very expensive, especially if you have a sick child. Even childbirth itself can be extremely expensive if you don't have insurance

Doesn't increase birthrates. Europe has this, America doesn't, yet America's birthrate is higher.

4. Cheaper housing. The cost of housing is getting astronomical in many parts of the country which prevents people from having families, or from having larger families. This is mostly due to policy like zoning that drive up the cost of housing. Other countries don't do this. Housing costs in say Japan are 1/2 what they are here.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Groups like Ultra-Orthodox Jews/haredim live in very expensive places like New York City with highly restrictive zoning yet keep on having quite large families.

5. Better transportation options. Cars are getting increasingly expensive and unaffordable yet this country is extremely car dependent. There are lots of people who can't afford families because all their disposable income goes to transportation expenses. We could do a better job of providing alternatives.

Doesn't increase birthrates. People who live in the large cities are less likely to have cars and can use a lot more good public transportation yet their birthrates are lower than rural populations which are much more car dependent and have terrible or no public transportation.

6. Cheaper higher education options so families aren't burdened by enormous college costs and young people aren't burdened by enormous college debts. Both of those things discourage having children.

Doesn't increase birthrates. Countries with free college or very cheap college (like Europe) have lower birthrates compared to places where it is more expensive like the U.S. or nonexistent except for the wealthy like much of the third world.

7. Promoting marriage since married people are more likely to have children and raise them successfully than single people.

I agree this is a good thing, yet things like tax promotions for married couples, child tax credits, etc. again have little effect on birthrates. Indeed we see in many demographics where the majority of children are born out of wedlock. Married couples seem to choose to delay having children and often end up not having as many children as single mothers do.

8. You could list a whole lot of other things that would make our communities more child friendly. Less crime and drugs on the streets, physically safer streets with more pedestrian options, parks, playgrounds, etc. to make our built environment more child friendly, more things like after school programs for kids. The list is endless.

Yet none of those things increase birthrates.

These are all policies that address the issue at a societal level. If you want to talk about plain communities like the Amish then the discussion is obviously somewhat different. But most people aren't going to choose to live in the 19th century like the Amish.

If present trends continue, most people are going to choose to live like Swartzentruber Amish, because they will be the only population left!

Imagine if we took some of the wealth of this country and instead of transferring it directly to the wealthiest 0.1% and foreign oligarchs like we do now, we instead decided to invest in making life easier and better for working families. And even if population doesn’t increase, working families just had better lives. The horror!

One thing you can be sure of, present trends are not going to continue. The Swartzentruber are not going to take over the world (or the US) and the US population will not shrink to zero or probably even shrink. It is still increasing.

Everything reaches an equilibrium. The policies I cited will simply influence to a lesser or greater degree what that new equilibrium will be.

[Ken]

My wife and I have six children in one of the most expensive cities in the US but I don't know how well our experiences translate to public policy. Making this work on a single blue collar wage has required choices not everyone is ready to embrace. The largest accommodation is to re-adjust expectations around the size and quality of housing. Medical costs are the second largest area of concern. Our life would not be possible without Obamacare and subsidized medical insurance. School tuition is another sizable budget item. In our case the church school is subsidized by the church in various ways to keep tuition low. At common market rates this would be entirely impossible.

In a pure capitalist society the value of all things is determined by the market productivity and children will inevitably be devalued unless society pushes back and injects more humane values into public policy.

I'm not sure your church school really escapes market realities. The cost you are paying directly in tuition may be lower, but the shortfall is made up elsewhere, probably through a combination of

1. Below market rent for your school space if you are using church facilities for school
2. Church subsidies paid for through tithing so you are paying through the back door through tithes as are other church members who are subsidizing your children if they don't all have 6 children of their own.
3. Below market wages for teachers and/or teachers who are working in volunteer roles

Yes to all three and there are other similar mechanisms as well. That is why I said it's not a market solution nor is it scalable.

Yes, my point was simply that lower tuition isn't free. There are costs to it.

[Judas Maccabeus]

One way to make it easier for people to have children would be to make it cheaper, and a great way to make that happen is make it easy to use midwives and dedicated birthing centers, which plain people of course already do. These are far less expensive than hospital births. And yet many states make it expensive and difficult, if not outright illegal, for midwives to operate. If people choose to use an unlicensed but experienced midwife, allow them to do so.

For those of us that had our children in the mainstream culture, I doubt medical expenses would be the major bar. If I recall correctly, I paid nothing for both of the expenses for our children, but then again we had really good insurance, and at the time, my wife worked there for child #2.

I suspect it is loss of income #2 the major driving factor. Housing expenses in urban areas are unreal!

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I thought it was interesting the extent to which countries such as China are trying to combat this collapse, although so far, their efforts are unsuccessful.

I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Actually, Japan and South Korea are further along on this than China. China has the "countryside" where large families still make some form of economic sense. S. Korea and Japan largely do not.

It is the "modern" worldview that is impacting this, along with later and later marriages. This reduces both the possibility of having children and the number that are possible. IF participation of women in the workforce was lower, the law of supply and demand would serve to increase wages. perhaps, if expectations were a bit lower for housing, it would also help. We qualified for our mortgage some 40 years ago based on my income alone. I doubt if either of my daughters could do that.

I suspect that the implicit antinatalism of one of our political parties drives the "open borders" agenda. If their constituency will not have children, than you must get population from somewhere.

[ohio jones]

Just off the top of my head, all of these things would make it easier for families:

Josh addressed these in terms of increasing birthrates (or not). Let me present some economic factors as well.

1. Higher minimum wages or wages in general so that it would be easier for working people to support families, especially with one primary earner.

This fuels inflation, which makes it harder for working people to support families.

2. Better childcare options so that childcare is cheaper and more available. It is punitively expensive to find childcare in many US cities so people know they can't afford children and still keep some kind of working career.

If you're going to increase the wages of childcare providers in 1., how is the cost going to decrease?

3. More affordable health care options. With the ACA things are better now than in the past, but it can still be very expensive, especially if you have a sick child. Even childbirth itself can be extremely expensive if you don't have insurance

Sounds like you're on the same page as Josh here, especially in terms of birth costs.

4. Cheaper housing. The cost of housing is getting astronomical in many parts of the country which prevents people from having families, or from having larger families. This is mostly due to policy like zoning that drive up the cost of housing. Other countries don't do this. Housing costs in say Japan are 1/2 what they are here.

Housing sizes in Japan are 1/2 what they are here, too, so that plays a role. But there are some areas with housing costs that are still fairly reasonable.

5. Better transportation options. Cars are getting increasingly expensive and unaffordable yet this country is extremely car dependent. There are lots of people who can't afford families because all their disposable income goes to transportation expenses. We could do a better job of providing alternatives.

Choosing transportation over family sounds like badly misplaced priorities.

6. Cheaper higher education options so families aren't burdened by enormous college costs and young people aren't burdened by enormous college debts. Both of those things discourage having children.
7. Promoting marriage since married people are more likely to have children and raise them successfully than single people.
8. You could list a whole lot of other things that would make our communities more child friendly. Less crime and drugs on the streets, physically safer streets with more pedestrian options, parks, playgrounds, etc. to make our built environment more child friendly, more things like after school programs for kids.

These are getting better, especially if "programs" can be translated to "parenting."

The list is endless.

It is indeed.

[Ken]

I thought it was interesting the extent to which countries such as China are trying to combat this collapse, although so far, their efforts are unsuccessful.

I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Actually, Japan and South Korea are further along on this than China. China has the "countryside" where large families still make some form of economic sense. S. Korea and Japan largely do not.

It is the "modern" worldview that is impacting this, along with later and later marriages. This reduces both the possibility of having children and the number that are possible. IF participation of women in the workforce was lower, the law of supply and demand would serve to increase wages. perhaps, if expectations were a bit lower for housing, it would also help. We qualified for our mortgage some 40 years ago based on my income alone. I doubt if either of my daughters could do that.

I suspect that the implicit antinatalism of one of our political parties drives the "open borders" agenda. If their constituency will not have children, than you must get population from somewhere.

I doubt it has much at all to do with a "modern world view"

It is simple economics. In a rural agrarian society, additional children are an economic benefit because they provide endless free labor on the farm. Whether we are talking about 19th century America, rural China in the 1980s, or Niger today. In a non-agrarian industrial economy every additional child is an economic cost.

Every country that moves from an agrarian society to an urbanized industrial society goes through the exact same demographic shift regardless of values or world view.