Added 22Sep: I’ve changed my mind; this post is wrong. Some hope that the world’s fertility fall might be reversed by governments subsidizing fertility. But on reflection, that seems unlikely to me. Let me explain why.
It's funny how over the last 40 years our society has transitioned so many women into the workforce, and to what end? All that extra income has led to skyrocketing costs for housing, college, and other big-ticket items because families have more willingness (and ability) to pay. We're all just out-bidding each other. Now that the dust has settled, everyone is still living in the same houses and attending the same colleges, only now it needs two incomes instead of one, and kids have become an extravagance. Faustian bargain if you ask me.
Well, I'm honored that my point last time got your attention.
I think you misunderstood. I was not arguing that people had children only because they were income- producing units. (yay David Friedman for influencing me to read some books on economics, though I still don't know anything.)
But, they did have reasons besides marital joy to want children. Children represented a line of succession, which economically meant the family would retain their assets in the long term.
It is unarguable that the vast majority children in the past entered the workforce earlier than they do today. Nobility aside, there were no six year old children who spent the day in day care. Everyone was expected to be useful.
Supporting a child for 10 years is very different than the current 25. And it may have been equally challenging.
Millenials say they want kids but are delaying having them because they cannot afford them. So we find out what it is that they think costs so much and then either convince them that they don't really need it, or subsidise it. The report says that childcare is too expensive, student debt is crushing, and housing costs too much. Government could address all of them.
Is it gatecrashing this conversation to note that human fertility is currently doing fine (or alarmingly not at all fine for those old people who have seen the world's population triple in just the course of one boomer lifetime)? What seems to be the case globally is that more advanced societies will lose out fertility-wise to those of what used to be called ''the third world '. Without getting too deep into Charles Murray/Steve Sailer territory, it should not, surely, be outside of the Overton window to note that anywhere that might reasonably be called an advanced modern civilisation has been created by either S.E. Asian or Indo-European majority ethnicities?
If you were fertility czar, what would you recommend? Increase research funding for artificial wombs and advancing in vitro? Tax breaks for adoption and successful child developmental achievements? A return to religious communes/group family dynamics? Raising status through social/cultural/financial incentives of Mormon/Catholic Mommy Bloggers etc. Send Jordan Peterson/Elon Musk out on speaking tours? Subsidizing Pro-Natal/Large Family Movies, Books, Music & Games?
Overlooked the most important consideration: What values do we instill in the next generation? At one time we knew that America is the best country in the world, at any time in history. No dispute.
Today, emotionally stunted progressives hate America. No ideologues or their deluded followers love this country. They won't stop tearing it down, much less invest in the future.
The future belongs to those who show up. As with the Akkadians. Newcomers came to Mesopotamia, inherited the Sumerian script and lands. In a few generations lost all trace of the people who came before.
It's politically incorrect, but here goes: I would add to your list the genetic qualities of the parents. Governments should be more willing to invest in parents who are educated and high-earning, given that this correlates strongly with the child's future economic output. The US and Canada do this today with immigration policy that biases in favor of highly-skilled young people (grad students, H1B visa holders, people with assets, etc.).
Also for the list: How much political capital needs to be spent. By that I mean, to what extent is it perceived within the population as a real problem. Frankly a lot of Americans I talk to think a little bit of population loss could be a good thing. They remember back to their youth, when houses were cheaper and traffic was better and college admissions weren't insane and it wasn't a logistical nightmare to claim a camping spot at their favorite national park. In a very crowded country like Japan or South Korea I wonder if there is a similar ambivalence, in which case the political capital costs could be high to get to the scale of investment needed.
"Some think that in the old days folks had kids as a way to pay for their retirement. But it seems that parents have almost always given much more to their kids overall than they’ve gotten back."
I don't think these are at all contradictory, especially in a world where the economy was smaller, more local, less comprehensive, and less automated. A farmer centuries ago couldn't easily sell or rent out the family farm to a stranger and then reliably live on the proceeds, or invest the proceeds and live on returns on capital. A lot of the goods, services, or care they'd need just wouldn't have been easy to buy. But, they could *definitely* give it to their kids and live in their spare room and get fed, maybe in exchange for babysitting grandkids. Who cares what the lifetime totals add up to in that situation?
In the modern day, yes, an individual with no kids can save and invest their money and then buy e.g. long-term care insurance. But what's the equivalent for a country? If a whole country allows that to happen, then who are the *actual people* providing the long-term care? Yes, in time, we can automate more of that. Yes, at present richer countries can allow more immigration. But at minimum, the people need to exist and be nearby before you can pay them to do physical care things for you.
In a declining population world, returns on capital might be much lower as the scarce resource becomes labor rather than capital. So perhaps it will actually be the case that children are the most efficient way to save for retirement.
I guess I'm saying maybe the market just solves this problem for you, and government subsidies aren't needed.
All the points you make are valid points, but I think you overlook the forces that actually would want to increase fertility. In the United States I wouldn’t be surprised if the pentagon one day will advocate pro natalist policies. Because their won’t be always such an inflow of immigrants same holds true for China who might see India as a more populated rival. Same could be said for japan and Korea. Some countries really don’t want to rely on immigrants too. And the historical reasons for high fertility cited in history papers or Econ papers seems to me not that much convincing. Fertility reduction is handy now compared to the past with affordable an effective contraception. Another part of my argument is that I don’t imagine it to be too hard to raise fertility with government intervention. The US can certainly afford to pay 100 000 USD per child. That would only cost 400 billion USD to 600 billion USD annually. The US also would kind of have good reasons to do so. I however imagine that you could be less in favor of that because you lean more libertarian, hence you wouldn’t like that kind of amount of income transfer
I've seen lot of "cost to raise a child" posts, but $20k/year should do it easy. I won't claim that makes them cost neutral (parents do a lot of unpaid labor) but it would be close enough.
We could afford it. There are about 3 working age for each child so that's only like $6k in taxes per worker.
We won't do it because kids can't vote nor can parents vote on their behalf.
I think you can basically give 100,000 USD per new child. It’s not too much considering he or she is going to pay 500,000 USD in taxes in the future not counting inflation adjusted
But ... they do. Fund fertility. I get 750€ a month, 250 for each kid. Plus 1500/mth parents-money for the first year - if I stop working. Plus nearly free Kindergarten and free okayish schools and famously free college (this being Germany). And free family health insurance (I pay, but as a single I paid the same as now, with wife and kids taken care of without extra-charge. When my youngest will have finished school,00000, the funding will have been 54k€ Kindergeld+100k in schools-fees+maybe 10k Kindergarten-subsidies, no idea how to calculate health-care, but easily another 10k. Not that this would raise our fertility rate to more than 1.58 (2022). In Berlin, 37% of the mothers had no German passport; nationwide 25% (obviously many ethnic Turkish or Russian have a German passport; in the class of my son - primary school - only one other boy has a 'German' surname.). Oh, I am fine with that - else we'd see TFRs as in Japan or South Korea. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Births/Tables/live-birth-citizenship.html Oh, the slave-comparison signals "fringe" - as do most of the first comments. I hope, not mine.
If the interests of the government are closely tied into the economy then politicians over time will have to care collectively about depopulation as the workforce/consumption shrink.
It's funny how over the last 40 years our society has transitioned so many women into the workforce, and to what end? All that extra income has led to skyrocketing costs for housing, college, and other big-ticket items because families have more willingness (and ability) to pay. We're all just out-bidding each other. Now that the dust has settled, everyone is still living in the same houses and attending the same colleges, only now it needs two incomes instead of one, and kids have become an extravagance. Faustian bargain if you ask me.
> Will Nations Fund Fertility?
lol no
the goal is to replace the native populations, not grow them
Well, I'm honored that my point last time got your attention.
I think you misunderstood. I was not arguing that people had children only because they were income- producing units. (yay David Friedman for influencing me to read some books on economics, though I still don't know anything.)
But, they did have reasons besides marital joy to want children. Children represented a line of succession, which economically meant the family would retain their assets in the long term.
It is unarguable that the vast majority children in the past entered the workforce earlier than they do today. Nobility aside, there were no six year old children who spent the day in day care. Everyone was expected to be useful.
Supporting a child for 10 years is very different than the current 25. And it may have been equally challenging.
If you believe the report from the CDC referenced here: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-birthrate-decline-millennials-delay-having-kids-2019-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T
Millenials say they want kids but are delaying having them because they cannot afford them. So we find out what it is that they think costs so much and then either convince them that they don't really need it, or subsidise it. The report says that childcare is too expensive, student debt is crushing, and housing costs too much. Government could address all of them.
Is it gatecrashing this conversation to note that human fertility is currently doing fine (or alarmingly not at all fine for those old people who have seen the world's population triple in just the course of one boomer lifetime)? What seems to be the case globally is that more advanced societies will lose out fertility-wise to those of what used to be called ''the third world '. Without getting too deep into Charles Murray/Steve Sailer territory, it should not, surely, be outside of the Overton window to note that anywhere that might reasonably be called an advanced modern civilisation has been created by either S.E. Asian or Indo-European majority ethnicities?
If you were fertility czar, what would you recommend? Increase research funding for artificial wombs and advancing in vitro? Tax breaks for adoption and successful child developmental achievements? A return to religious communes/group family dynamics? Raising status through social/cultural/financial incentives of Mormon/Catholic Mommy Bloggers etc. Send Jordan Peterson/Elon Musk out on speaking tours? Subsidizing Pro-Natal/Large Family Movies, Books, Music & Games?
Overlooked the most important consideration: What values do we instill in the next generation? At one time we knew that America is the best country in the world, at any time in history. No dispute.
Today, emotionally stunted progressives hate America. No ideologues or their deluded followers love this country. They won't stop tearing it down, much less invest in the future.
The future belongs to those who show up. As with the Akkadians. Newcomers came to Mesopotamia, inherited the Sumerian script and lands. In a few generations lost all trace of the people who came before.
It's politically incorrect, but here goes: I would add to your list the genetic qualities of the parents. Governments should be more willing to invest in parents who are educated and high-earning, given that this correlates strongly with the child's future economic output. The US and Canada do this today with immigration policy that biases in favor of highly-skilled young people (grad students, H1B visa holders, people with assets, etc.).
Also for the list: How much political capital needs to be spent. By that I mean, to what extent is it perceived within the population as a real problem. Frankly a lot of Americans I talk to think a little bit of population loss could be a good thing. They remember back to their youth, when houses were cheaper and traffic was better and college admissions weren't insane and it wasn't a logistical nightmare to claim a camping spot at their favorite national park. In a very crowded country like Japan or South Korea I wonder if there is a similar ambivalence, in which case the political capital costs could be high to get to the scale of investment needed.
"Some think that in the old days folks had kids as a way to pay for their retirement. But it seems that parents have almost always given much more to their kids overall than they’ve gotten back."
I don't think these are at all contradictory, especially in a world where the economy was smaller, more local, less comprehensive, and less automated. A farmer centuries ago couldn't easily sell or rent out the family farm to a stranger and then reliably live on the proceeds, or invest the proceeds and live on returns on capital. A lot of the goods, services, or care they'd need just wouldn't have been easy to buy. But, they could *definitely* give it to their kids and live in their spare room and get fed, maybe in exchange for babysitting grandkids. Who cares what the lifetime totals add up to in that situation?
In the modern day, yes, an individual with no kids can save and invest their money and then buy e.g. long-term care insurance. But what's the equivalent for a country? If a whole country allows that to happen, then who are the *actual people* providing the long-term care? Yes, in time, we can automate more of that. Yes, at present richer countries can allow more immigration. But at minimum, the people need to exist and be nearby before you can pay them to do physical care things for you.
In a declining population world, returns on capital might be much lower as the scarce resource becomes labor rather than capital. So perhaps it will actually be the case that children are the most efficient way to save for retirement.
I guess I'm saying maybe the market just solves this problem for you, and government subsidies aren't needed.
Where I agree is that it is however an serious issue over all
All the points you make are valid points, but I think you overlook the forces that actually would want to increase fertility. In the United States I wouldn’t be surprised if the pentagon one day will advocate pro natalist policies. Because their won’t be always such an inflow of immigrants same holds true for China who might see India as a more populated rival. Same could be said for japan and Korea. Some countries really don’t want to rely on immigrants too. And the historical reasons for high fertility cited in history papers or Econ papers seems to me not that much convincing. Fertility reduction is handy now compared to the past with affordable an effective contraception. Another part of my argument is that I don’t imagine it to be too hard to raise fertility with government intervention. The US can certainly afford to pay 100 000 USD per child. That would only cost 400 billion USD to 600 billion USD annually. The US also would kind of have good reasons to do so. I however imagine that you could be less in favor of that because you lean more libertarian, hence you wouldn’t like that kind of amount of income transfer
I've seen lot of "cost to raise a child" posts, but $20k/year should do it easy. I won't claim that makes them cost neutral (parents do a lot of unpaid labor) but it would be close enough.
We could afford it. There are about 3 working age for each child so that's only like $6k in taxes per worker.
We won't do it because kids can't vote nor can parents vote on their behalf.
I think you can basically give 100,000 USD per new child. It’s not too much considering he or she is going to pay 500,000 USD in taxes in the future not counting inflation adjusted
But ... they do. Fund fertility. I get 750€ a month, 250 for each kid. Plus 1500/mth parents-money for the first year - if I stop working. Plus nearly free Kindergarten and free okayish schools and famously free college (this being Germany). And free family health insurance (I pay, but as a single I paid the same as now, with wife and kids taken care of without extra-charge. When my youngest will have finished school,00000, the funding will have been 54k€ Kindergeld+100k in schools-fees+maybe 10k Kindergarten-subsidies, no idea how to calculate health-care, but easily another 10k. Not that this would raise our fertility rate to more than 1.58 (2022). In Berlin, 37% of the mothers had no German passport; nationwide 25% (obviously many ethnic Turkish or Russian have a German passport; in the class of my son - primary school - only one other boy has a 'German' surname.). Oh, I am fine with that - else we'd see TFRs as in Japan or South Korea. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Births/Tables/live-birth-citizenship.html Oh, the slave-comparison signals "fringe" - as do most of the first comments. I hope, not mine.
If the interests of the government are closely tied into the economy then politicians over time will have to care collectively about depopulation as the workforce/consumption shrink.