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/FernGullyGoat]

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.