Lady Dopers- What does the state have to put on the table for you to make more babies?

[wonky]

There is no amount. I didn’t refrain from having kids because of money.

[Wesley_Clark]

Spain has a 22% unemployment rate. The jobs that exist, many of them do not offer benefits or job security. Fixing that would probably help.

I could be wrong though, Germany has a 4% unemployment rate and their fertility rate is just as low as Spain.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Icarus

OK, let’s ask - is any modern western country doing things already that would seem to support raising the birth rate? If so, are these policies successful in encouraging a higher birth rate?

I would submit that Germany ticks off many of the boxes: healthcare for all, free college tuition, maternity leave with 18 weeks paid a and 1 year job protection, free daycare for under 3 year-olds. But with all that, their birth rate is still only 1.5 children per woman, which is actually an increase over time.

So, it would seem that there would be other factors. This opinionsuggest that a combination of economics and culture contribute to the lower birth rate.

To Spain I say, good luck with your social engineering!

France has done a lot to increase birth rates.

France Boosts Birth Rate With Incentives for Parents - LifeSite

[ul]
[li]Income tax credits[/li][li]Subsidies and stipends for large families of 3 or more kids[/li][li]Cheap daycare[/li][li]Tax deductions to hire housekeepers[/li][li]Discounts on public transit and various events around the nation (entertainment venues, etc)[/li][/ul]

It seems to work, their rates are almost at replacement levels.

[Nava]

@lavenderviolet

Personally, I have one kid so far and hope that I am able to have at least 1-2 more. The main reason I probably won’t have more than that is that I just waited too long to start having kids.

Which is the case for many women in Spain and other low-birth-rate countries. And in our case, a lot of it is economics - specifically, the economics of unpaid work and of glass ceilings that you thought you’d broken already only to hit your head against them yet another time.

Sometimes, “economics” isn’t about what you get paid; it’s about what you don’t get paid.

[Urbanredneck]

Would it help if cities were more family friendly?

I cant imagine trying to raise kids in a place like New York or San Fransisco where the only place for them to play is an apartment hallway or a crowded city sidewalk. Then the idea of having to push a stroller onto a city bus or subway.

I live in a suburb of Kansas City voted tops for being family friendly. We have good schools, parks, and community programs. Therefore lots of families, many with 3 or more children.

[Catamount]

I inadvertently told a lie earlier. There is one thing that the state could do that would make me have babies: make humans like seahorses so men are the ones who carry and birth the children.

[even_sven]

@Urbanredneck

I cant imagine trying to raise kids in a place like New York or San Fransisco where the only place for them to play is an apartment hallway or a crowded city sidewalk. Then the idea of having to push a stroller onto a city bus or subway.

When I lived in the city I lived within walking distance of a dozen parks, a major zoo, a great bookstore with a kids play area, a library, a year round public pool, a restaurant with on-site childcare, and a major nature area. We never had to play in the hallways! There are other issues, but that isn’t one of them.

[eclectic_wench]

Fuck no. I have two. I don’t want a third, and there’s nothing the state could do about my reasons, which are: 1) with three, there’s no way I could give each of them the amount of time and attention I love giving my two; 2) I have no desire to go through the sleep-deprivation stage ever ever ever again; 3) at my age the risk of chromosomal abnormalities is too high for my taste; and 4) my second pregnancy was pure hell, and unless the state can stop me throwing up for five solid months and having twice-daily migraines and carpal tunnel syndrome and a wide variety of other fun stuff, it can fuck right off.

That said, though. If I was considering a third, the main things the state could do would be:

1. Repeal the 8th Amendment, which means that during pregnancy a woman’s body is state property. At the moment, a pregnant woman has no legal say in her own healthcare. A doctor can legally do whatever he wants to her, including stuff that’s actively and permanently damaging to her and that she has actively refused, as long as he can claim it’s for the good of the baby. I’m never putting myself in that position again.

2. Stop letting maternity hospitals have policies (as many of them do) that explicitly prioritise the baby’s life over the mother’s, no matter what the parents say.

3. Have decent maternity hospitals. The one private maternity hospital in Ireland - the only one that wasn’t insanely overcrowded and understaffed - closed a few years back. I’m not attracted to the idea of giving birth in a corridor because there’s no delivery room free, the way a woman was when I was in the public hospital having one of my kids. Or to the idea of being jammed into a six-bed ward with seven other women and their babies again. Or to the idea of giving birth in a place that’s so understaffed that a friend of mine nearly bled to death because no one was free to answer her call button for half an hour after she was realised she was haemorrhaging.

Basically, if the state considered a pregnant woman to be a human being, the thought of being a pregnant woman in this country would be a lot less horrific.

[eclectic_wench]

P.S. I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I actually live in a First World country. Allegedly.

[AK84]

@Icarus

OK, let’s ask - is any modern western country doing things already that would seem to support raising the birth rate? If so, are these policies successful in encouraging a higher birth rate?

I would submit that Germany ticks off many of the boxes: healthcare for all, free college tuition, maternity leave with 18 weeks paid a and 1 year job protection, free daycare for under 3 year-olds. But with all that, their birth rate is still only 1.5 children per woman, which is actually an increase over time.

So, it would seem that there would be other factors. This opinionsuggest that a combination of economics and culture contribute to the lower birth rate.

To Spain I say, good luck with your social engineering!

Lets face an ugly truth. Having kids is not economically viable in todays world. I am a 32 year old, professional, well off (for now) male, and a wife and family would above all be an expense for me, one that I am not sure. I doubt its much different for many other men. Focusing solely on women to increase fertility is doomed.

Moreover, another ugly truth, the arrival of women into the workplace in droves is far more responsible for driving down the fertility rate. The modern workplace basically by definition is predicated upon either having a stay at home spouse, or eternal bachelorhood. Especially in today’s service economy with its 80-100 hour work weeks.

We basically have two options,
i) Force women back into the home to get them to reproduce more; i.e the Majorian option.
or

ii) Reform the workplace to stop it from being so anti-family; or more accurately make it reflect modern social more and technology, do Mom and Dad really need to spend 100 hour a week at the office in the era of mass, portable communication?

The stereotypical militant, man-hating, lesbian feminist of rightist lore is not the cause of the reduced birthrate; its the beleaguered, overworked and underpaid office worker who would love tp have a family, but cannot literally afford to right now and keeps delaying it until the matter become moot.

[Urbanredneck]

@AK84

Lets face an ugly truth. Having kids is not economically viable in todays world. I am a 32 year old, professional, well off (for now) male, and a wife and family would above all be an expense for me, one that I am not sure. I doubt its much different for many other men. Focusing solely on women to increase fertility is doomed.

Moreover, another ugly truth, the arrival of women into the workplace in droves is far more responsible for driving down the fertility rate. The modern workplace basically by definition is predicated upon either having a stay at home spouse, or eternal bachelorhood. Especially in today’s service economy with its 80-100 hour work weeks.

We basically have two options,
i) Force women back into the home to get them to reproduce more; i.e the Majorian option.
or

ii) Reform the workplace to stop it from being so anti-family; or more accurately make it reflect modern social more and technology, do Mom and Dad really need to spend 100 hour a week at the office in the era of mass, portable communication?

The stereotypical militant, man-hating, lesbian feminist of rightist lore is not the cause of the reduced birthrate; its the beleaguered, overworked and underpaid office worker who would love tp have a family, but cannot literally afford to right now and keeps delaying it until the matter become moot.

I do agree that it would help if a person could work only say 40-50 hours a week and that income was enough to support a spouse to stay home with the kids.

However to your other point, I wouldnt throw out the anti-child attitude of some of our society who see children as some sort of virus is part of the problem.

[ZPG_Zealot]

The right to capture, heinously torture, and eventually kill a certain number of men is the only thing that could ever induce me to have a child.

[iiandyiiii]

@ZPG_Zealot

The right to capture, heinously torture, and eventually kill a certain number of men is the only thing that could ever induce me to have a child.

How many, and which ones? Or would any men do?

[mistymage]

@ZPG_Zealot

The right to capture, heinously torture, and eventually kill a certain number of men is the only thing that could ever induce me to have a child.

Death by Snu snu?
I did my part: 3 boys. I was trying for 4 (hopefully a girl) but Mistermage is the son of a twin and was afraid our luck (and ages) would have us having triplets. So he got snipped and I got another dog.

[Velocity]

@ZPG_Zealot

The right to capture, heinously torture, and eventually kill a certain number of men is the only thing that could ever induce me to have a child.

How variable is this number?

[ftg]

Let’s look at the main causes of lower fertility rates:

1. Fewer childhood deaths. No need to produce two or three times as many kids as you want just to have enough survive to adulthood.

2. Moving off the farm and farms becoming mechanized. No need to have a bunch of cheap labor to help with the farm.

3. Birth control.

So, to increase family sizes you can try:

1. Increasing child death rates. Maybe start an anti-vaccination campaign, make health care unfordable, etc.

2. Put most of the population back on farms and take away all the modern equipment.

3. Get rid of birth control. Like that’s going to be popular in any society where it’s already common.

As long as you have a modern society with modern attitudes, people aren’t going to crank out a dozen kids (hoping that 4 or 5 will survive).

[cwthree]

@ZPG_Zealot

The right to capture, heinously torture, and eventually kill a certain number of men is the only thing that could ever induce me to have a child.

Exactly how would that balance or compensate for having a child?

[Merneith]

@Urbanredneck

However to your other point, I wouldnt throw out the anti-child attitude of some of our society who see children as some sort of virus is part of the problem.

1. Some people just don’t want children. They deserve the liberty to pursue their own happiness.

2. Acknowledging that childcare is difficult and pregnancy can be debilitating and dangerous is not anti-child. The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem.

3. Children are accepted in far more places today than they were in the past. If people today grumble when someone’s kid acts up, in the past, they just wouldn’t have allowed a child to be present at all.

[you_with_the_face]

I have one and will likely be trying for another a year from now. “Likely” as opposed to definitely because the pains and discomforts of pregnancy are still fresh in my memory, and I’m still trying to wrap my brain around taking care of a toddler alongside an infant. I have faith that this feat is perfectly possible, but the day-to-day logistics still seem elusive me. And if the second has special needs? It’s gonna take me a while to work up some more babymaking courage.

Short of giving me enough money that I could retire today without sacrificing quality of life, I doubt the government could do anything to make this decision easier for me.

[Tatterdemalion]

@cwthree

Exactly how would that balance or compensate for having a child?

She’s a Praying Mantis?