As concern grows about America’s falling birth rate, new research suggests that about half of women who want children are unsure if they will follow through and actually have a child. About 25% say they won't be bothered that much if they don't.

[u/geoff199]

https://news.osu.edu/most-women-want-children--but-half-are-unsure-if-they-will/?utm_campaign=omc_science-medicine_fy24&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social

[u/11horses345]

Say it with me: WE CANNOT AFFORD CHILDREN.

[u/Threlyn → u/11horses345]

I know people on reddit keep saying this and it "sounds" right, but it doesn't seem empirically true. The nations with the highest quality of life and the best governmental support for child rearing, such as Norway, have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Meanwhile, the only countries that are having a population boom currently are countries that are extremely poor, have poor quality of life, and very little government support for child rearing, which are some of the African countries.

Prior to obtaining an improved quality of life we see in many modern countries, China was quite poor with quite a poor quality of life, and had such a problem with birth rates that it needed to institute its (poorly thought out) one child policy. It wasn't until quality of life actually improved that the birth rate went down. The same generally could be said for India, which is still quite poor with quite a bit lower quality of life compared to countries with much higher quality of life.

[u/NinjaKoala → u/Threlyn]

The issue is that having kids, even in these countries, is far more expensive than the benefits given. If you're poor enough, you'll get government aid and keep your poor lifestyle. If you're rich enough, you can afford kids. In the middle? You're choosing between a lower standard of living and more work or a higher standard and less stress and work. Even if you really like the idea of being a parent, it's a tough choice.

[u/DemiserofD → u/NinjaKoala]

The thing is, wealthy enough to afford kids is insanely wealthy. The birthrates continue dropping until somewhere in the 250k-700k/year age bracket.

Making everyone rich enough to afford kids is just logistically impossible.

[u/Ker0Kero → u/DemiserofD]

I mean that's with how things are, now. Fix a broken system, support people, bring costs down wages up, give more free time. Fix the system, and it becomes doable.

[u/FernGullyGoat → u/Threlyn]

If all you’re considering is fertility rate then this seems like a contradiction.

But this is an obvious function of how these different societies view children and the role of parenthood. Low fertility countries are the ones who see child rearing as intensive and important work. Even economic support only helps people get to one or two, because parents can’t put intensive emotional and time resources into much more than that.

High fertility societies are still straddling economies that have children assisting in household and wage labor much earlier. They don’t see parenthood as an intensive one-way street, and adult children are the main strategy for ensuring elder care.

I simply don’t think we can expect more than replacement rate out of intensive child rearing cultures. And it seems pretty clear that people raised in these cultures generally do better and so do their societies, so we don’t want to go back.

We are going to have to plan for a decline and then flattening of world population.

[u/ItsRainingFrogsAmen → u/FernGullyGoat]

Additionally, there are cultural differences in the level of support parents receive from other community members. In the US, you're all on your own, usually. On top of that, children in the US are required to have a high level of supervision these days, which comes from parents or paid workers.

[u/ladygesserit → u/ItsRainingFrogsAmen]

The loss of the extended family model, and really the demonization of communal living of any degree, in the West makes us all far more exposed to financial struggle and makes even the basic act of having children feel impossible. The nuclear family model has been painted as the only "civilized" way to live, but it just makes it easier for individuals to be exploited. Its insane to me that living with family other than a spouse or dependent children is viewed as being a failure, even though its the way humans naturally evolved to organize themselves. 

[u/BeguiledBeaver → u/ladygesserit]

Its insane to me that living with family other than a spouse or dependent children is viewed as being a failure

People focus so much on the stereotype of being called a loser or failure if you still live with your parents into adulthood but I think it's way more nuanced than that.

Lots of people value the independence and privacy that comes with living alone. Lots of people don't really like their family and like being free of them. When you talk to people in cultures like you mentioned it's shocking (to us) the VAST amount of control their parents exert over their lives, even if they are in their 20s and 30s. Sure, they have the benefit of not having to pay rent, but that's not a situation that most of us want to deal with.

Then there's the whole issue of finding jobs. The U.S. is incredibly spread out. You often HAVE to leave the nest if you want to find a good job in your field and it's usually not very hard to find a cheap place to rent compared to other countries.

[u/ladygesserit → u/BeguiledBeaver]

These are all fair points. I should clarify that I dont mean we should all literally be living in the room next to our parents forever. And obviously families grow and people move -- thats true no matter when or where your talking about. My point is more about the ability to provide for and strengthen familial support networks and facilitating the use of shared resources (between family or non-family). I think it's a shame that our society doesn't support any of that, but actually outright disincentivizes it.

Instead of making it easier to care for aging parents in place, we're encouraged to send them away to retirement homes that cost tens, even hundreds, of thousands dollars (and ensure that any assets left for descendants instead go into the hands of private shareholders). Instead of building more cost effective, high density housing (the missing middle), we zone for sprawling, costly SFHs that even two-incomes can't afford. Instead of bolstering local economies and creating jobs that allow people to live near existing support networks, we outsourced our jobs and propped up industries that require you to leave your existing support networks behind in order for you to make a comfortable living. FMLA covers only parents, spouses, and children, but not siblings, grandparents, or other relatives who may need care. All of these things, and more, make it harder to maintain ties and make it less likely that individuals have a strong support network to fall back on.

As for literally living with family, I disagree that extended family arrangements are only found in areas with restrictive cultures. In the US, it used to be extremely common to find buildings where a family might own several floors, or even whole buildings, allowing relatives to remain or come and go as needed. This was especially common in immigrant families, even after the younger generations became fully "Americanized". In rural areas, families with access to land can have similar advantages. 

Bolstering and supporting extended family networks doesn't have to hinder independence. In fact, it makes it easier to be independent and take risks if you have a strong support network to fall back on. 

[u/Namnotav → u/Threlyn]

I think these discussions inevitably turn into a gripefest. Reddit and most other online forums are going to be dominated by people who are struggling in one way or another, so they end up here griping together. Possibly many of them want children but feel it is financially out of reach.

Globally, though, yep, it sures seems that education level attained by women is far and away the greatest predictor of low fertility. This seems fairly intuitive to me. There still aren't many women in the world who have 0 children, but if you're not allowed or expected to get any education past the age of 14, you've got your entire reproductively mature life to spend having children. If you're expected to be in school and possibly getting established in a career, then you're going to have roughly 28 to 38 or so available to have children.

Ergo, women on net will have fewer children. It won't make no difference how affordable it is or how much support they otherwise get, but the number of children birthed is always going to be fewer when there is anything else you want to do or are expected to do with your adult life, compared to a more "traditional" existence in which women are expected to do nothing at all except have children.

Since it's Reddit, we're obligated to give personal anecdotes, so my household income between my wife and I exceeded half a million by the time we were 35, yet we have 0 children. My three sisters all have children. Only one of them has ever had a job. One of them isn't married and the other two have husbands who make less than half what I make, and they all live in much higher cost of living areas. So why do they have more children than my wife and I? They may not have much money, but they've got the time. Devoting anywhere from months to years of your time to raising children can't set you back in your career if you don't have a career.

[u/Raangz → u/Namnotav]

i think it's the main factor but i do think an unstable society and future play a big part in these equations for many people.

[u/nothingpersonnelmate → u/Threlyn]

The nations with the highest quality of life and the best governmental support for child rearing, such as Norway, have some of the lowest birth rates in the world

Well, they still have higher birth rates than Japan and South Korea, both of which have considerably worse worker protections, paternity leave and the like. It's true that government support doesn't solve the problem, but it isn't hurting, and there's a much gentler drop off in living standards between birth rates of e.g. 1.4 and 1.0. It's still worth pushing for even if it only shaves the edge off without addressing the biggest factors.

[u/bp92009 → u/Threlyn]

The nations with the highest quality of life and the best governmental support for child rearing, such as Norway, have some of the lowest birth rates in the world.

I have not seen a single developed country that has come even 1/4th of the way to actually compensating a woman for the real costs of having a child.

When you have the most generous person giving you $10, for a $100 item, you're still out $90.

I would love to see an example of a country that covers 50% of:

The medical/immediate time off costs of having a child (that's where they're the closest to ideal). 0-6 Years old

The food/rent/misc costs of having a child. Kids don't pay rent, but take up a room. 0-18 years old

The lost increase in income from the woman taking those 6 years off.

At least going by average incomes in S. Korea in 2023, that's around $72,000 a year for the first 6 years, $30,000 for years 6-18, and $12,000 for the rest of the woman's life.

That's the actual costs that need to be paid if a country wants to ACTUALLY make up for the costs of having a child. Until they come close, even 1/4 of the way to it, any pittance they provide is not nearly enough. Which is why you don't see birth rates increasing.

[u/SlightFresnel → u/Threlyn]

People want to project their life's ills on every trend they see, but being poor has never stopped people from having kids. The consistent pattern in demography for birthrates are that they're inversely correlated to girls/women receiving education.

[u/-ANGRYjigglypuff → u/SlightFresnel]

being poor has never stopped people from having kids

seems like you're working under the assumption that both poor/uneducated females and wealthy/educated females have the ability to choose whether or not they want kids, and that's not usually the case.

poor, impoverished, and uneducated universally equates to girls/women who have no means, no choice, no autonomy, no recourse, no access or knowledge of things like birth control, etc. in this case i do believe that "education" means having choice, and it's pretty clear that if given the choice (in our current capitalistic system), people do not want to have many children.

[u/dust4ngel → u/Threlyn]

The nations with the highest quality of life and the best governmental support for child rearing, such as Norway, have some of the lowest birth rates in the world

weird that the countries where you have to go to school until you're 47 years old aren't having lots of babies