AHC/PC/WI: Prevent Birthrates From Collapsing in Europe, Japan and Korea Post-WWII

RousseauX

Donor
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/opinion/badinter-birthrate/index.html

This article says that if women were able to get shorter and more flexible work days, child care, greater income equality and a cultural shift in which men and women share household responsibilities they would be more willing to have children.

The article asserts this without mentioning how much it will help (so does it just make it go from 1.3 to 1.4 or something) or offer any real evidence that this will produce the desired effect.
 
So question.

Given that raising a child is a long and difficult process, what's in it for the parents exactly?

I mean I can see what's in it for society: more people of the correct ethnicity generating economic output and national power without all the baggage of immigration (are they really loyal? what if they don't like women's rights? etc).

But if I'm John Smith what's in it for me except maybe the state telling me it's going to subsidize part of the cost of raising kids?

It's for every country in general once we all reach a high standard of development we need to be able to have a steady population growth rate.
 

RousseauX

Donor
It's for every country in general once we all reach a high standard of development we need to be able to have a steady population growth rate.

Ok, so you are defining a benefit for society (the number of people of the correct ethnic group doesn't decrease)

But if I'm an individual, how does the act of -me- having more children benefit myself? You are like one in a hundred million or something, whether you have a kid or not is going to have all the difference on your own life and practically none on society as a whole.
 
Ok, so you are defining a benefit for society (the number of people of the correct ethnic group doesn't decrease)

But if I'm an individual, how does the act of -me- having more children benefit myself? You are like one in a hundred million or something, whether you have a kid or not is going to have all the difference on your own life and practically none on society as a whole.

Having a population rate that is able to have to replenish the death rate is good economically because you have the tax base to pay for what needs to be paid for and a future workforce as well.

Of course with technological changes that can all change but it's too far out there and a human workforce is still necessary.
 
OTOH guys, I'm glad this thread hasn't degenerated into something really cringe worthy like how to encourage women to have sex without birth control which is semi-expected whenever natalist threads comes up.

It is true that the debate in this thread is unusually substantive.

Take away women's freedom of choice.

That works in very underdeveloped regions - but as a region gets more developed, women gain more tools to resist oppression (which in turn means that women in such situations have even less children than countries at the same development level and more equality).

The Soviets tried that after the war. It really didn't work.

Well, the question is, what would the Soviet birth rate have looked like if they'd not tried anything at all?

In general, natalist policies of the kinds that were done in the Soviet Union seem to have a marginal effect - I've noticed that the same general package of policies is lauded as effective in some countries and derided as futile in others - as far as I can tell, the former cases tend to be countries or regions where the birthrate is low and the latter cases tend to be countries or regions where the birthrate is high.

fasquardon
 

RousseauX

Donor
Having a population rate that is able to have to replenish the death rate is good economically because you have the tax base to pay for what needs to be paid for and a future workforce as well.

Of course with technological changes that can all change but it's too far out there and a human workforce is still necessary.

You are not getting my question.

I'm basically asking you the free-rider's problem.

If having 2-3 kid is optimal for society, but having 1 kid is optimal for me individually, why should I have 2-3 kids when the effect of 1-2 extra person is negligible? If I have 2-3 extra kids and nobody else does I don't gain any benefit anyways.

Ok, so let's say the government persuades most other people to have 2-3 kids, but 1 kid is still optimal for me (because I still care about careers more), then if I have 1 kid the effect of 1-2 less people on the whole economy is still negligible. So I don't lose anything by not having more kids.

I mean, am I making the question clear?
 
Won't happen. People don't want to have like 4 children because it's such a bother to look after them for 3 decades. Nothing the government does can make children less of a huge life-consuming responsibility, and you can't convince people to have lots of children simply for the sake of the national interest or whatever.
 
You are not getting my question.

I'm basically asking you the free-rider's problem.

If having 2-3 kid is optimal for society, but having 1 kid is optimal for me individually, why should I have 2-3 kids when the effect of 1-2 extra person is negligible? If I have 2-3 extra kids and nobody else does I don't gain any benefit anyways.

Ok, so let's say the government persuades most other people to have 2-3 kids, but 1 kid is still optimal for me (because I still care about careers more), then if I have 1 kid the effect of 1-2 less people on the whole economy is still negligible. So I don't lose anything by not having more kids.

I mean, am I making the question clear?

I get it. People with careers really do not have time for children. That's why I'm saying reduce the work hours for everyone and higher pay so people would be more confident. And the government isn't completely subsidizing this after all people pay people too.

Oh and I agree make childcare a human right.
 
Having a population rate that is able to have to replenish the death rate is good economically because you have the tax base to pay for what needs to be paid for and a future workforce as well.

Of course with technological changes that can all change but it's too far out there and a human workforce is still necessary.
Those are macroeconomic issues, but the decision to have children is a microeconomic one. Almost all parents aren't thinking that it will help replenish the tax base and create a future workforce; instead they are thinking of the lost career time and the massive costs to them that come with raising a child. Given that it is impractical for the state to subsidize having children how are you going to fix the problem of microeconomic costs?
 

RousseauX

Donor
I get it. People with careers really do not have time for children. That's why I'm saying reduce the work hours for everyone and higher pay so people would be more confident. And the government isn't completely subsidizing this after all people pay people too.

Oh and I agree make childcare a human right.

But the problem is that people in the wealthy first world would rather use their extra time to go on vacations and pursue other interests rather than looking after kids. This doesn't change if you give them more free time.

I mean, I'm gonna ask this again: what is the individual interest in me having extra kids?

Because if you are gonna appeal to vague principles than keeping America white/Eurabia Muslims is probably going to resonate a lot more than the notion that it will increase government revenue like 30 years from now on.
 
Last edited:
You are not getting my question.

I'm basically asking you the free-rider's problem.

If having 2-3 kid is optimal for society, but having 1 kid is optimal for me individually, why should I have 2-3 kids when the effect of 1-2 extra person is negligible? If I have 2-3 extra kids and nobody else does I don't gain any benefit anyways.

Ok, so let's say the government persuades most other people to have 2-3 kids, but 1 kid is still optimal for me (because I still care about careers more), then if I have 1 kid the effect of 1-2 less people on the whole economy is still negligible. So I don't lose anything by not having more kids.

I mean, am I making the question clear?

There have been some studies that the majority of women would prefer more children in Europe, and presumably in developed countries overall (actually confirmed now that I look at the OCED link) - although conversely this is reversed in less developed countries. Yale's demographic series had a session talking about them, using Bolivia as an example. In Bolivia women have more children than they desire, in Europe they have less than they desire, nobody is happy as par usual.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-the-u-s-but-the-desire-for-kids-does-not/
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_2_Ideal_and_actual_number_of_children.pdf

So in a sense assisting women in being able to have more children - in developed nations - is helping them fulfill out their ideals. On the other hand they may be… not lying, but not distinguishing between their idealized society structure and their personal desires. Which could easily be the case, I imagine people are taught certain notions about how many children they're supposed to have, 2 being the general number and in some cases 3, but then they don't actually intend to apply that to themselves even if they had the opportunity. However presuming their real intents reflect their desires then it would indicate that there are obstacles in their way of fertility, and removing these would enable higher birth rates that are in fact desired by the developed countries.
 

RousseauX

Donor
There have been some studies that the majority of women would prefer more children in Europe, and presumably in developed countries overall (actually confirmed now that I look at the OCED link) - although conversely this is reversed in less developed countries. Yale's demographic series had a session talking about them, using Bolivia as an example. In Bolivia women have more children than they desire, in Europe they have less than they desire, nobody is happy as par usual.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-the-u-s-but-the-desire-for-kids-does-not/
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_2_Ideal_and_actual_number_of_children.pdf

So in a sense assisting women in being able to have more children - in developed nations - is helping them fulfill out their ideals. On the other hand they may be… not lying, but not distinguishing between their idealized society structure and their personal desires. Which could easily be the case, I imagine people are taught certain notions about how many children they're supposed to have, 2 being the general number and in some cases 3, but then they don't actually intend to apply that to themselves even if they had the opportunity. However presuming their real intents reflect their desires then it would indicate that there are obstacles in their way of fertility, and removing these would enable higher birth rates that are in fact desired by the developed countries.

I think the way the question is asked is responsible for the answers.

The survey question asks "Generally speaking, what do you think is the ideal number of children for a family?"

"Ideal" family size resonates into something like "how many kids do you want assuming no downsides" and it seems to ask what is the ideal number of children in a family in society in general as oppose to themselves.

If the poll had straight up asked "how many kids do you want", I'd give the result a lot more credence.

But I do think this line of debate is a lot more interesting.
 
Last edited:
There have been some studies that the majority of women would prefer more children in Europe, and presumably in developed countries overall (actually confirmed now that I look at the OCED link) - although conversely this is reversed in less developed countries. Yale's demographic series had a session talking about them, using Bolivia as an example. In Bolivia women have more children than they desire, in Europe they have less than they desire, nobody is happy as par usual.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...and-the-u-s-but-the-desire-for-kids-does-not/
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_2_Ideal_and_actual_number_of_children.pdf

So in a sense assisting women in being able to have more children - in developed nations - is helping them fulfill out their ideals. On the other hand they may be… not lying, but not distinguishing between their idealized society structure and their personal desires. Which could easily be the case, I imagine people are taught certain notions about how many children they're supposed to have, 2 being the general number and in some cases 3, but then they don't actually intend to apply that to themselves even if they had the opportunity. However presuming their real intents reflect their desires then it would indicate that there are obstacles in their way of fertility, and removing these would enable higher birth rates that are in fact desired by the developed countries.

That's not that bad. Have they asked while European women can't have more children and Bolivian women why they can't have less? I love to see what they have to say so we can concoct some sort of solution.
 

RousseauX

Donor
That's not that bad. Have they asked while European women can't have more children and Bolivian women why they can't have less? I love to see what they have to say so we can concoct some sort of solution.

Genuine question.

Are you primarily asking this question because you not comfortable with the idea of immigrants replacing the current population of America/Europe.

Because this sounds suspiciously like something more than an academic exercise.
 
Genuine question.

Are you primarily asking this question because you not comfortable with the idea of immigrants replacing the current population of America/Europe.

Because this sounds suspiciously like something more than an academic exercise.

It's about preventing the free fall we're seeing in Japan and South Korea because I heard that there are dire economic consequences to declining birth rates. It's also to prevent the population from going too high as well.

I want to see how we can achieve a stable rate zone for growth rate without going too over or too little.

Besides the aging of Europe does put burden on the social welfare system.

I mean sure I like immigrants there's nothing wrong with them I encourage them to come it's just that we want to be able to avoid the problems of too many people and too few people for economic reasons once the entire world becomes developed.
 
Last edited:
That's not that bad. Have they asked while European women can't have more children and Bolivian women why they can't have less? I love to see what they have to say so we can concoct some sort of solution.

Well they're different studies so they're not directly compared. I am assuming it is because countries like Bolivia are going through their fertility transition right now, so the number of children they have is above that that is really desired - it is hard for women to have children after all, and then raising them is worse. Notably in Bolivia most women know about contraceptive methods, but aren't using them. It seems that in some of the societies conservative social forces are preventing their widespread usage, and in some cases although they know about contraceptives it isn't easy for their usage. On the other hand, this lecture cut out - predictably - in the middle, so what the professor was elaborating on wasn't available.

http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/mcdb-150/lecture-13

This is the lecture on Bolivia.

I think the way the question is asked is responsible for the answers.

"Ideal" family size resonates into something like "how many kids do you want assuming no downsides".

If the poll had straight up asked "how many kids do you want", I'd give the result a lot more credence.

But I do think this line of debate is a lot more interesting.

Ahem, isn't that sort of the point of it? How many kids would people want if they had no downsides, and then to compare that to how many children they have to see the gap. If we just asked them "how many kids do you want" then it isn't finding out how many kids their ideal family would have, just how many kids they would want. Which is certainly interesting of course and would be useful, but not integral to the debate, which as I understand it is figuring out the ideal family size, real family sizes, and determining from thus if the gap that exists is due to social structure preventing them from having children.
 
Why would you want that in the first place?

Most of the answers here combine with each other: less women in the workforce, less rights for women, no sexual revolution, less education, no contraceptive pills, lower standards of living and stupid continuous warfare work pretty well to strengthen and plausibilise each other. Create a PoD which includes some of the factors, and you might reap the others, too.
 

RousseauX

Donor
It's about preventing the free fall we're seeing in Japan and South Korea because I heard that there are dire economic consequences to declining birth rates. It's also to prevent the population from going too high as well.

I want to see how we can achieve a stable rate zone for growth rate without going too over or too little.

Besides the aging of Europe does put burden on the social welfare system.

I mean sure I like immigrants there's nothing wrong with them I encourage them to come it's just that we want to be able to avoid the problems of too many people and too few people for economic reasons once the entire world becomes developed.
Alright, fair enough I guess
 

RousseauX

Donor
Ahem, isn't that sort of the point of it? How many kids would people want if they had no downsides, and then to compare that to how many children they have to see the gap. If we just asked them "how many kids do you want" then it isn't finding out how many kids their ideal family would have, just how many kids they would want. Which is certainly interesting of course and would be useful, but not integral to the debate, which as I understand it is figuring out the ideal family size, real family sizes, and determining from thus if the gap that exists is due to social structure preventing them from having children.

I think the big problem is not that they are answering how many kids -their- ideal family would have, it's asking what is the ideal family size -society- should have. It could be that pretty everybody would answer <2 for themselves but still think it should be ~2.1 for everybody else.

The other big thing is of course, I don't think it's possible to get rid of a lot of the downsides.

I seriously doubt the state would be able to for instance, get rid of the pain of child birth or the emotional burden of having a young child sick.
 
I think the big problem is not that they are answering how many kids -their- ideal family would have, it's asking what is the ideal family size -society- should have. It could be that pretty everybody would answer <2 for themselves but still think it should be ~2.1 for everybody else.

The other big thing is of course, I don't think it's possible to get rid of a lot of the downsides.

I seriously doubt the state would be able to for instance, get rid of the pain of child birth or the emotional burden of having a young child sick.

OCED's report makes the difference between that on page 6. The European questions were personal, while the rest were ideal society. They also have a comparison between ideal personal and ideal general on that page. It does make a difference, although not too large of one, the greatest is in Ireland which is… looks like half a point gap, while there are some very small reversed situations - people want to have more than they think is good for the society. And for the European data the question was apparently phrased as"And for you personally, what would be the ideal number of children you would like to have or would have liked to have?”
 
Top