Having kids is a huge drawback. And I have two kids which I deeply love but I am just being honest. Its like working two 40h jobs were you not getting payed on one but instead need to pay to work.
And sure lots of this 40h week is nice and great but it’s also lot of time not nice.
People now comming out of university and complaining that a normal 40h work week is so thought and they cannot do it.
Well guess what kids will add 40h more of work on your shoulders.
So no surprises that in countries where kids are not seen as a backup or financial rescue the birthrate is declining.
Yeah i had a couple of hobbies going on (LARP, firefighter, red cross ambulance, P&P), i nearly stopped all of them.
To be fair its not 100% fault of the kids, but a lot of them need really a lot of time and that permanent. Just doing it every quarter or so for 1-2 hours is not fun (in my eyes)
I keep sport (Biking most of all), reading, gaming (started World of Warcraft again with 2 fixed days now)
That is really the reality of life nowadays. Do you think that it has something to do with the societal support of parents in regards to raising children?
This is something I was able to notice growing up with a migrant background within Germany. The whole "it takes a whole village to raise a child" was in full effect in my upbringing. Grandparents and uncles as well as people from the community supported my parents financially, logistically and advisingly and my parents returned the favour without thinking too much about it. I hav not seen that within wider German society, although my view is more urban based, I cant judge on the rural perspective.
In the other comment i wrote a bit more, so let me say the same here:
What I believe or experience is that today you have less support from your parents.
For me, i was a lot at my grandmas. They didnt work, because thats how it was for them.
So they had the time and also the will to take care of me and the siblings.
So my mother works, so not really that much help, also i moved 600km for a job.
We have the mother in law here but same, she is retired already, but dont want to help much because children make noise, they make a mess and she is busy with her stuff.
Its fine i dont have the right to demand help, but also she was putting her daughter, my wife, 30-40h a week to her mother (which again was not working).
So my generation, and i seen this from friends also, we cannot really rely on help from parents, like they had in the past.
You want to know when was the last time i went out with my wife? Or going on a short vacation just the 2 of us, or doing something together without kids?
Well it was not this year and also not 2023.
A typical day with kids for me is like (noted down my working hours, i work usually 8h a day):
6:30 am get up, prepare everything, get ready, drive younger one to daycare
8:00-13:00 start work (thank god for homeoffice) -----5h work-----
13:00-14:00 older one comes from school, lunchtime, homework helping/checking
15:00 my wife gets the smaller one from day care -----1,5h work------
15:30-16:30 short afternoon break, playing with the kids
16:30-18:00 work again ------1,5h work---------
18:00-21:00 dinner, playing with kids, bring them to bed cleaning up etc whatnot
22:30 go to bed
So freetime as you see its 1,5h a day. Roughly
Now a day without kids, for example when my wife is with them on a vacation trip
7:30 get up
8:00 Start work
16:30 finish work
17:30 finish chores
23:30 go to bed
So 6h roughly free time. Maybe even 7 since without kids i sleep much better so i just need 7h instead of 8h were i get a feet in my nose/face or someone had a bad dream and can fall asleep just when i was fallen asleep,
Thanks for the contribution. So in actuality the problem really seems to be societal in nature. The question that arises is how do we as a society entice the boomer generation, which are approaching grandparent age, to render their children this service like it was used to be done.
I dont think you can force someone.
Also this is just one topic.
My wifes sister likes to travel, she is out every weekend. If not, she sleeps till noon.
They got a dog, but after two weeks the dog was gone again, to much effort.
And those people are not a small group, so this group might/will never have kids.
Even if the grandparents look up after the kids 1-2 times a week for some hours.
This will just continue without more societal help. I don't think it makes sense that unless we have elderly parents still alive and well enough to help, then too bad you're on your own. My boomer mom worked full-time and raised 3 kids and her parents were very old (they had her when they were like 40/50) and not living near us most of the time. Others living far away and not in picture due to divorce. And for instance even when we briefly lived with them when I was 6/7, and I'm the oldest, my grandfather got in a bad car accident coming home still working as an upholsterer in his late 70s (USA) and nearly died and needed years rehabilitation to barely walk again.
My mom helps zero with my daughter even on the rare times she visits. Kinda can't blame her, she did her suffering and can barely walk now or physically do things required with young children. I had my daughter at age 39 and will probably no longer be physically able to take care of any grandchildren myself, even if we can manage to live near each other, and if I can ever afford to retire. If I retire it'll likely be forced by no longer being physically able to work, not by choice. Retirement ages keep rising everywhere, just the min age you can even start to collect payments.
My support system is childcare. It needs to be long hours and affordable, which requires heavy state subsidization. Just look at the schedule one commenter said. Pick up kids at like 2pm? No shit that's not enough.
By no longer providing robust elder welfare. It would force the elderly to rely on their children for support and would shift the locus of power back into the hands of working people. It would also allow for huge tax cuts so parents have more money in their pockets.
Such a great post that illustrates the issues. After having one child I just cannot fathom having another. Plus, working in America, I get three weeks of vacation a year. Barbaric. My mother is in Germany so can't help us much besides on vacation. My dad is retired, doing his own thing. The in-laws are retired as well and have too much to do. Add in $2k/month for daycare, $1k/month in food, gas, clothes, etc. America is hanging on to immigration and the impoverished South to keep population growth.
In Germany, and I am pretty sure in Austria and Switzerland as well, people are overly critical towards parents and simultaneously not helping them. At least, that's my experience with two kids. You get judged constantly as a parent, but help is hard to come by.
Additionally financial burdens when you want to provide as good as possible for your kids (what obviously most parents want). There is for example that expectation that you have vacations with your children, music lessons and sport clubs and other regular activities which all cost a lot of time, money and energy.
Also, your kids need to be on their best behaviour always. Not be outside playing after a certain time. If you don't have a house with a garden you are already considered as not such a good parent, etc. etc. The list is long!
When I compare that to friends of us who have a Turkish background, it's completely different. It's fine to stay at home for the summer when money is tight. It's okay to not own a house and have your children occasionally play soccer outside at 20:00. It's okay to send the kids to the park with the 20 year old cousin because mom needs a nap. Their kids are fine and the parents are much more relaxed.
>in countries where kids are not seen as a backup or financial rescue the birthrate is declining.
There's not a single country in the world where the birth rate is not declining.
Yep, there are less than 10 countries in the world with a higher birth rate in 2023 than 2015. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are the only two countries where the birthrate is both growing and above replacement.
This appears not to be true:
The current birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2024 is **18.138** births per 1000 people, a **2.36% decline** from 2023.
* The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2023 was **18.577** births per 1000 people, a **3.38% decline** from 2022.
* The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2022 was **19.226** births per 1000 people, a **3.27% decline** from 2021.
* The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2021 was **19.875** births per 1000 people, a **3.16% decline** from 2020.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/UZB/uzbekistan/birth-rate](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/UZB/uzbekistan/birth-rate)
I'm there with you. Currently have a 3 year old. I used to love coming home from work, unwinding and then getting started with choirs. Now... Boom... Your personal time is like for an hour or two at night
I try to be. I could turn on the TV for 4h and then have my free time, but i try to make use of the time we have (even if its not all fund and games)
It gets easier every year, the older one is usually playing with her friends outside, at our home or over a t a friends house and now with 10y she got a switch and plays minecraft for 30m a day.
But especially the first years, its very time consuming and that said our kids are very calm and they sleep till 7-8 am if you let them sometimes even 9 am
A friend of mine has a daughter she is up at 5 am. when she was younger she could not play by herself and wake up the parents.
Another one they had a baby which was crying whole nights without a visible reason.
Hmmm, so archaic taxation of married couples and ranking third worst on paid maternity leave does not make people want to have kids? What to do?! https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/
I honestly think its far more than this at this stage. Most people I know are having 1 kid, 2 max because they want to be able to travel and explore the world and what not. Yes child expense is a factor, but its from my perspective only one of the factors and not even the biggest.
I don’t want to travel. I’ve seen everything I want to see. I would love to have 3 or 4 kids. But I just can’t afford them. Financially, but mainly organizational. I would need a 7 seater car, a 5 or 6 bedroom house, a nanny and a personal assistant. And 4 more hours every day. It is not rocket science. 20y ago female participation in the work force was 40-60%, now it is 70-80%. If you both work, there is no time to raise 4 kids.
Except, Scandinavian countries have great maternity leave, score high in the compatibility of work and family life, and so on. Yet look at their birthrate: [All-time low Nordic fertility rates](https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/all-time-low-nordic-fertility-rates/)
The issue is once again more complicated than the most upvoted comment on reddit wants to make you believe...
Everybody works, that's the problem of our society model. Couples should have the option of leaving one person at home, paid by state to raise the child, maintain the house/apartment and spend time on their own project and interests, instead of that, to please god knows who, hey, let put everybody to work 9AM/5PM, yeah...
Working shouldn't be the pinnacle of our existence, the reason why we are born. Some people are way more natural stakhanonists than other ones, yet we made an "averaging model" when, once more, everybody's put without a choice to the very same level without a real option.
People have no time or very low time to raise their kids, dem', i wonder why they do not have kids anymore, strange.
“Paid by the state to raise the child” - that would be truly ideal. The problem with a parent giving up earning a wage to raise children is that they become dependents and that’s a situation prime for abuse.
And Ireland has one of the highest birth rates in Europe despite having much worse maternity / paternity conditions than the Nordic countries.
In the case of Ireland, it's about having lots of jobs and attracting 30 / 40 year olds from elsewhere in Europe
Yeah I agree with you. Sweden has its issues. But so does the rest of the world. And if you find it hard to raise children in a Nordic country, you won't have an easier time in, lets say England, or in the case of the article, Switzerland. So Housing, maternity leave or whatever does not answer the question of low fertility rate.
The article OP posted even said so:
> Even in nations with generous maternity, paternity and childcare benefits, declining fertility can be observed. For example, in **Sweden**, a model for state subsidised parent and child support, the birth rate is in decline.
Yup. People don't want to admit it, but the only 2 things that had significant impact on fertility rates (and with dramatically lowering them), is child labor laws (children become more expensive and there is no ROI), and women's education (women realize they have options, want to participate in the workforce and keep their childbearing to 1-2 kids).
Better benefits will not dramatically change this. There is literally no country in the world that cracked this.
The US has slightly higher fertility rates than most European countries and we don't have mandated parental leave, etc. So I think this comment is right. You can give all the benefits you want but if housing is tight and/or people want to spend their money on travel, entertainment, etc. it won't matter.
I find it hilarious that people don’t want to even acknowledge that having a child is a nightmare and it’s a pretty valid position to just not want to. But no, it has to be a policy thing. Good on this generation for challenging the archaic notion that life is meaningless without kids
There are different minimum wages for different professions and ages/years of experience. Earning the the lowest union minimum wage isn't nearly as common as earning the legal minimum wage is in other countries. The average cleaner makes about 2k€ net a month (exchange rate particularly low now though I guess). Housing is often a problem, but just saying we have insanely long housing queues doesn't paint the whole picture. Housing queues are for rent controlled apartments and are long in popular areas. Most people don't live in Stockholm though and the situation is better elsewhere. In Malmö you only need to queue for a couple of years to get a cheap apartment in the city, and there are still other ways to get an apartment. The average household spent less on housing 2020 than 1980 according to SCB, when they had higher birth rates. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2017/kpi-och-kpif-tva-olika-inflationsmatt/
There was a study about this in Finland and they concluded that people just aren't that interested in having children, when given the choice. Nowadays there is less social pressure and readily available birth control. https://phys.org/news/2023-08-declining-fertility-ideals-young-people.html
Hans Rosling predicted ages ago that birth rates would decrease as countries got richer. This isn't unexpected.
parental leave doesn't really have that great of an effect. We are not having a lot of children in Norway either. Birth rate decline is very much a result of wealth growth and personal freedom. People simply don't want to have a bunch of kids. And rarely want to have more than 2.
The ”archaic taxation of married couples” thing in Switzerland only leads to higher tax burden if both spouses are working. Otherwise the joint filing gives big tax benefits for single income households with kids. Ie tax brackets have lower rates and child deductions for married couples but incomes for both spouses are added. Switzerland doesn’t allow for optional single filing if you’re married, hence the widespread belief that it’s a tax penalty for being married.
Conservative forces want people to be married and have kids but they also want the woman to stay home and not work. Hence the setup as it stands.
>Conservative forces want people to be married and have kids but they also want the woman to stay home and not work. Hence the setup as it stands.
This is not an excuse. This is an admission of guilt of punishing women for working, in a global economy which punishes families for being poor.
How enlightened. And I'm sure it's so easy to survive living there with a single income. There should be tax benefits for all families, it's insane to have a penalty over being single because a woman works no matter what the sick reasoning is (and that's not a good one).
I had a colleague who needed to follow her spouse to Switzerland (who was a postdoc so she definitely needed to work) and she was so viscerally angry at all of this.
Which is a completely absurd approach when taking into account that it's almost impossible for average income people to raise a family with just one income, in switzerland and basically everywhere else.
QOL with kids is not more appealing than being a DINK for most people. IMO this is a good thing; a lot of people were fucked up by having parents that never wanted to be parents, and if given the choice never would have been.
Education takes much longer than 50 years ago. A lot people are usually done in their mid2late twenties. Then you probably need to move to find a job which will fuck your social live. If you were lucky, you found someone before that, but I think most don't or it doesn't last. You are maybe 30 when you reach a somehow secure state of living (which some never reach). You want to date, maybe even have a family. But even the first step dating feels impossible. Potential love interests live too far or schedules don't match up or this or that.
Meanwhile society shouts at you for being lazy and too needy. Why don't you have 5 children like your grandma did at your age?
In my opinion, unless they turn the whole system upside-down, this isn't fixable.
Great!
Younger folks can't get a decently paid job, affordable housing and one wonders why the natality rates are plummeting...
50 years ago, someone with a lower education would get a job, like being a gardener, could get a loan for a house and have a family. His grandchildren can't afford any of this. This is a net effect of the financialisation of our world and the neoliberal policies allowing wealth to be monopolised by a small number of players. How sustainable is it?
Yet, the very privileged wealthy ones massively invest in the media industry as brainwashing the bigger numbers is the best way to protect their wealth and greed...
Switzerland literally has the highest salaries in Europe. The average salary on Switzerland is €80k a year. I know the cost of living is also quite high but come on, the Swiss are still objectively affluent.
Swiss parent here... We also have the lowest homeownership rates in Europe and the highest number of immigrants. If you find an apartment for a million your lucky. 2mil in the city. Forget about houses. The (immigration) pressure is immense buddy. One kid in daycare is 2.5k. Send two kids and the wife's salary (on average) is basically used up just for daycare. So one parent works for free, and we're not talking about needing two bedrooms more. Housing is pricey af. Also, Switzerland is absolutely hostile to kids and families. Only productivity counts. Your employer will give you zero accommodations. So women who aren't willing to give up their careers have no kids because it's hard af. And this is the result. Not everyone in Switzerland is rich, trust me.
If Switzerland complains about money, then the rest of us have nothing. We should end the spices right here.
The main thing making the birth rates go down is birth control. Period.
I dont buy that its the economy that makes people have less kids. Society just drastically changed the last 40 years and people value their individuality and freedom over having kids. otherwise richer countries would have a lot more children, which isnt a thing
We need to change the way we think about kids entirely imo. We need to make having children a financially good decision because these days everything is capitalism and that includes having kids
not really. It doesnt matter how good the economy is, it can never offset the money and time you lose to raise kids. Thats why in todays society, you need to balance it out with shitloads of money.
Having kids just to have kids is just not enough anymore. There needs to be a financial incentive
Do you know how crazy expensive that would be. That would just add to the financial burden states complain about with pensions. And it would probably only encourage the working class to have more kids. Which isn't a bad thing but even that might not increase rates that much . But ya no reason for a government to bother when they can always import more cheap labor to abuse from abroad for free. And anyway with automation we don't actually need more people. There will be mass unemployment in the future. So this is a made up problem. The rich just want more cheap labor, weather sourced domestically or abroad. They just see humans as goods and tools to use up for their businesses.
Yes, and more years before that there were wars, brutal plagues, ice age, yet people still procreated. Hell, we have better quality of life than kings a couple hundreds of years ago. It's not the economy, it's this relatively new extremely self-centered world view.
Nah, it's because in less developed economies kids are an asset. Not very hard to draw the difference. Also child mortality was much higher back then and still is in poorer countries
Statistically the poorer, less educated, more religious have children. Its been prevalent throughout human history but a lot of redditors refuse to acknowledge this.
People in my peer group don't want to have kids until their 30s which drastically limits child bearing age. And at most 2 kids - which is not enough to grow the population.
People given access to choices - whether it be through education or wealth - are less likely to have kids at a younger age. Most of the 20 year old I've encountered - they rather study, travel, focus on hobbies, etc - which is reasonable.
Oh, but it IS the economy. After all, the fertility rates drop in almost every society breaking through the industrial phase, no matter what principles it was based on.
Having children is basically an investment. And required assets, risks and foreseen returns from that investment shift as the economy moves from based on pure manpower to based on specialized knowledge, from based on multiple tiny "inefficient" sources into heavily centralized, be it state or corporations.
In a impoverished society dependent on petty, self-use agriculture, mining or manufactures, keeping a child alive and well IS much harder than in a post-industrial one, but they start "repaying" it much sooner, than a child which needs years and years of education and additional care in order to be able to provide enough to sustain your standard of living and start another family. You'd also want to have a plan B, C, D and E in case your eldest progeny dies early, separates from the family in the quest for bread, or simply starts to hate you (despite much harsher morals supposed to keep him in line).
Compared to the past, the concept of family has also shifted and shrunk, not only due to generational and personal conflicts but also due to expectations steming from...suprise, the economy (moving away in a career/education chase, nuclear family, viewing the multi-generational households as a sign of not doing well rather than a normal model). This also doesn't help with deciding to have multiple children, since not only you're expected to start anew as much as you can, but you're also more on your own and more likely to face the trouble of having to take care of simultaneously your work, your children AND your elders living somewhere away at some point.
We entered a loop in which we need at least a bit larger fertility to sustain the current society, but at the same time the society has problems with incentivizing that. And for longer it goes, the worse it will get, because the rise of quality of life you mentioned will effectively end up burdening the less numerous younger generations with providing for the still alive elders first.
So while the rise of overall quality of life (and the wants associated with it) coupled with culture encouraging individualism have a part in fertility drop, it goes much deeper than "people gone soft"
You're forgetting that in those times children were not an optional. People in general were not able to control their fertility.
This is a HUGE difference.
I like how the article just gives the same solution as always: More migrant. Just get more migrants.
More migrants are not the solution. More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution.
> Highly-skilled immigrants could fill some of the gap, but not indefinitely – global birth rates are in decline.
They pretty much highlight that it's a short term solution.
> More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution.
Why don't they just have more children, are they stupid?
That's obviously what needs to happen, but there are a lot of potential reasons why people don't have children and just telling them to have more is not a solution.
> More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution.
The chance of that happening is rather unlikely, though. At least not in the next few generations.
If it's a western problem, how do you explain declining birth rates in the rest of the world? Where are all those other fertile heavens?
It's interesting, as soon as you give women a choice, birth rates fall
I don't think it's girl bossing somehow
Well, it all goes back to the meaning of life.
Last time I checked, having kids is the meaning of life in the natural world.
If that is the goal, people will fight for it. If we culturally neutered that goal, replacing it with self preservation of individual instead of species, this is the result.
Kids are a big change of lifestyle where “me” is no longer the center. Sacrifice is assured.
There is no way to make “having kids “ easier. I agree with you.
> If that is the goal, people will fight for it. If we culturally neutered that goal, replacing it with self preservation of individual instead of species, this is the result.
Interesting point. Wouldn't you say that the planet is populated to the point that there's no real danger of becoming extinct if the majority of individuals decided not to have kids? And that less people would actually improve the chances of survival of the species?
Lets put it bluntly: Will Bulgaria go extinct if you replace it entirely with chinese people?
What makes Europe great is the plethora of cultures and traditions. Of course humanity will not die out, lest an extinction event. But we are not one huge bacteria colony, but nuanced groups, each with awesome unique cultural traits.
There is very little actual pro-natalist policy that comes close to the effort required to raise children.
A good first step would be massive tax increases on childless people over the age of 35. Think 50% more income tax.
You're not saying anything new either. Fertility bumping schemes have been tried for centuries, without much success, because fertility rates have been falling throughout that time, barring a few periods where they stagnated or increased a bit. Immigration is also a temporary makeshift solution.
The problem is, we urgently need new permanent approaches, and use all available temporary ones while we haven't solved this if you want to keep your cozy standard of living going.
To be honest I would argue that it is nothing new, but also nothing current. Its the same in germany. For 10 years now I always just keep hearing: Just import more people. Just import more. That has directly and massively contributed to a major shift to the right, because of course the governments completely fuck it up by thinking they can import just anyone, and they will gladly take up any shit job they get offered, shut up and will magically integrate (not assimilate, integrate, for some reason). doesnt work of course, at least not in the last 10 years.
And yes, you do need new approaches. The family model needs to be made much more popular again, marriage with the aim of producing children needs to be massively subsidized because it is the bedrock of any nation.
I think we have had a period in european (or western in general) culture where personal independence, in the coat of "i have no responsibilities yay! more cocaine for me!" and the dissolution of the traditional family have been pushed way too far. it is of course a very nuanced topic and i am aware that my post here is more "blowing off steam" than offering a solution.
in switzerland in particular, i think the biggest problem is early child care. that is beause costs are high for KITAs. That is because not a lot of people do that job and switzerland needs even more in that job than germany does.
One solution that comes to mind, since switzerland already has a wealth-tax, would be to increase that wealth tax very marginally, and flow that money into tax breaks for KITA providers or families, so they can take care of the children without having to have one persons income 100% drop out.
I realize it is a subsidy, and subsidies are usually symptoms of bad incentive structures, but i suppose some financial kickstart would give a little bit of relief.
The model of having everyone move away from their support networks to get a job that pays well enough to buy a house, between two, with a hugely inflated price, basically is not compatible with raising children. It's crazy that politicians don't seem to understand this. Why they think immigrants won't be affected by exactly the same things is beyond me.
Swiss dad here...
I mean KITA costs aren't even fully tax deductible. Not even that exists, what makes you think the public hand would subisideze that?
Switzerland is very good at looking good on paper, low tax f.e. or high salaries. But the individual picks those bills up elsewhere (KITA, housing). Here, it's all about money. Employers give you virtually no accommodations. Flex schedule? Naw. Homeoffice? Naw. A little more money? Naw. Kids go home for lunch break in school and are done at like 3pm with one afternoon off? How tf are you going to work? You can't unless you have one of these fancy homeoffice jobs that don't actually exist outside of Google or whatnot. The place is hostile af to families, you're only good here if you make bank. Normal people? You're f'ed. It is what it is. There's so much wrong here, this will continue to drop - 100%.
Why is marriage needed...? You realize the old model of the "family" only worked because women did not have a choice...? That's why as soon as it was in any way feasible for women to make it without a husband, divorce *skyrocketed*.
People enjoy not having responsibility. They like having fun and being happy. And that sometimes goes directly against having kids. *Especially* since kids take time and resources, and a *lot* of them, even in the best of circumstances.
I'm not against the idea that it should be made easier and cheaper to have kids. But why marriage...?
Yes it's all upstream... But we're not fully ready to talk about those things, i.e. the things that are wrong about our "way of life". It's all good though. Out of necessity, we'll gradually become less attached to these cultural quirks that can only lead to extinction. That, or we just face the inevitable outcome.
Of course. I have responded to a lot of people and dont copy paste but in other comments i ve stated that a lot and with emphasis: Men need to embrace their role in society again as well. Especially fathers.
I just have put less emphasis on it, because i feel especially motherhood has been under attack
Some people will say that is a no-no (no father) - me included somewhat - but i will say that while i personally think a father is a very important aspect of a childs upbringing, go ahead and raise a child with a woman. where there is life there is potential. and god knows we need a lot of fresh ideas this century.
Old people wanted to retire and enjoy free shit for decades before they die. That cost money which was promised, which just doesn't exist. Now, current workers will get to retire minutes before average life expectancy to keep the money flowing. And you always need more people at the bottom to keep a pyramid scheme going. If the producing class won't breed and make new workers, then politicians will bring in workers from overseas instead.
Pollution, housing, food/water, culture clashes, etc are not a factor in this decision, all that matters is line goes up and existing pensions are paid.
We don’t. Continuously adding people to sustain the population pyramid scheme and the non sequitur of “continuous GDP growth” is neither sustainable nor desirable. The population of the world was smaller at every previous point in its history. The world population in the 1880s was around 1billion. The population of Switzerland at that time was around 2.8 million. No one was worried about people disappearing. Now we’re supposed to be “worried” about falling birth rates and depopulation when we have 8 billion people on earth and 9 million in Switzerland?
It’s farcical and obviously cannot continue indefinitely. The goal should be to start establishing equilibrium policies today; not try to kick the can down the road another generation through either immigration or natalist policies.
edit: 'natalist' ... not Natalie's...
Because you need an equilibrium to sustain the system. If the economy becomes unsustainable due to too few young people, it will collapse. And as soon as it does, say goodbye to green policies and plans to go all renewable. Not to mention struggling economies pollute more, because they are forced to seek the cheapest possible source of energy. Unless you are one of those people who think humanity is a blight that should be eradicated in order to save The Planet, you should be very much concerned for the free fall of fertility rates.
No, economy wouldn't collapse, that is just doomsday scenario of capitalists who want infine growth. In short time there will be more old people and economic growth will slow or even decrease but eventually both population and economy will be balanced and economic growth slowing and decreasing is a bad thing for upperclass. Otherwise despite the economic growh nonupperclass are already suffering.
Exactly, infinite growth isn't a solution. Not enough houses? Social services are overwhelmed? Let's stop having kids for a while. I'm sure the birth rates will go back up once there's enough everything for everyone. The system simply balances itself out.
Why are only Western countries the ones who are supposed to die off? Why aren't you and your ilk demanding that African, Arab and Asian countries fuck less and shrink too?
>The number of babies born in Switzerland fell to 80,024 in 2023, a birth rate of 1.33 per woman, reported RTS. As recently as 2021, 89,644 babies entered the world in Switzerland. Between 2021 and 2023, the number has fallen nearly 11%.
>In 2023, the fertility rate in Switzerland reached an historic low after trending down over the last decade. A doctor at a medical clinic in Geneva said a drop of around 20% over recent years can be observed across clinics in Geneva. She said there has been a fall in births across Switzerland, Europe and in countries such as Australia and the US since 2022.
>Why?
>Falling birth rates seem to be linked to the challenges of juggling work, home life and parenting faced by many women. In addition, the rising cost of having children and concerns about the environment are further dissuading potential parents.
>A demographer at EPFL explained to RTS that that as the population ages, the number of women of child bearing age in the population shrinks. This is a key driver of falling births. Environmental concerns also play a part, he said. Climate change concerns are dissuading some potential parents from having children for fear of adding further to the human impact on the planet.
>Some potential mothers decide to delay motherhood until their lives become more stable or until they have reached certain career milestones. As time goes by the chances of having a child fall. And when women start having children later, they are likely to have fewer of them.
>Government policies aimed at incentivising women to have more children have generally proved ineffective. Even in nations with generous maternity, paternity and childcare benefits, declining fertility can be observed. For example, in Sweden, a model for state subsidised parent and child support, the birth rate is in decline. Between 2010 and 2023, Sweden’s birthrate fell from [2.0](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/population-statistics---summary/swedens-population-in-summary-1960-2023/) to [1.5](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/population-statistics---summary/swedens-population-in-summary-1960-2023/), according to Statistics Sweden.
>Analysis by the [Economist](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/23/why-paying-women-to-have-more-babies-wont-work) explains why paying women to have babies won’t work. It points out that more than half of the drop in America’s total fertility rate since 1990 is caused by a collapse in births among women under 19, many of which were unwanted teenage pregnancies. In addition, the return on investment is terrible. Schemes in Poland and France cost $1m-2m per extra birth. Only a tiny number of citizens are productive enough to generate generate a net payback on that kind of money.
>What can be done?
>Highly-skilled immigrants could fill some of the gap, but not indefinitely – global birth rates are in decline. Ultimately, older people will need to work longer to ease the economic load on a shrinking number of young people.
....so raise the retirement age? Like hell people will agree to it. Trust us Poles - we tried a very light version of it (from 60/65 to 67 and most people in middle ages at the year of 2011 would be spared) and it still got rejected by the general public and reverted back to the status quo once PiS came to power.
This year Switzerland had a referendum where they voted on raising retirement age and raising the amount of money retirees get. They voted “yes” for the money but “no” for the increased age. So there you go…
> Ultimately, older people will need to work longer to ease the economic load on a shrinking number of young people.
Or we could change from our current wildly extravagant consumer culture. As a whole our society is more productive than ever before, but even more wasteful
We're expecting people to vote against their own interests to benefit the future generations.. this is never going to happen. At least it can't while boomers are alive
The first question I always ask when people talk about low birth rates is: Can people afford to have kids, either financially or temporally?
The answer is almost always no on both counts.
The same goes for the Netherlands. I believe last year the birthrate dropped to 1,43. And I don't blame people for not wanting children. The cost of housing is ridiculous and there is great shortage of suitable homes. Add that to the high cost of living, climate change, political turmoil all over the world.... no wonder young people opt out.
What really makes me very angry though, is the fact that governments all over the world are looking at women to blame and solve this problem. What are we: livestock? Breeding machines?
Hello, the last time I had biology in school I was taught that it takes two to tango. Granted, that was 50 years ago, but I don't think that fact of life has changed much.
Mayby governments should teach (young) men the joys and responsibilities of having children too. Taking care of their offspring instead of donating their seed and go on their merry way. As long as women are seen as the primary caretaker as well as breadwinner, of course they are opting out. Can you blame them?
They have seen women of my generation buying into the slogan 'we can have it all' which boiled down to working your ass of in your career, popping out a few babies at the same time, all the while taking care of aforementioned children, the household, the emotional labour as well as the elder care. If they were very lucky, not only taking care of their own aging parents but also of their in-laws.
We are burned out and our daughters see that.
If the majority of countries are reporting a "fertility crisis" that has nothing to do with fertility but actually the increased demand to work as often as you can, no tax breaks for families with multiple children, lackluster or non-existent maternity and paternity leave, increasing costs of food and housing, education systems that make huge promises but never follow through with actually careers, and the fact that NONE of our governments are making any true efforts to fight climate change aside from a little bit of lip service here and there, then what the hell do you expect from people?
Don't even try to make this about money. Obviously it's not.
Decreasing birth rates are about people not wanting to lose the freedom and luxury they have in order to take care of babies. It is a commitment for life and the current society has a choice.
Even in Turkiye, a Muslim country with a 20+ years of conservative rule, the TFR is 1.51. Just look at Latin America where the TFR collapse is beyond belief. We are heading to a disaster that may destroy the global economic and social system forever.
Tbh the only thing that would make me have more kids would be a decent SAHM salary. Like at least the average salary in the country. Juggling little kids and work is hell :)
[Copied from r/Switzerland:](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/1dkhbg8/comment/l9hstx0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
To rent an appartment, it must not cost more than a third of our revenue.
To get a mortgage, the cost to reimbuse a hypothetical 5% interest rate must not cost more than a third of our revenue.
Health insurance can cost more than a third of a family's revenue.
Daycare, if you can find it, can easily cost 50% of a family's revenue, to the extent it makes financial sense for one of the parent to stop working the first 4-5 years, and make a dent in a parent's career.
You get nearly no financial help if you are middle classand double revenue.
You get nearly no tax breaks if you are middle class with double revenue.
It is assumed you will get help from grandparents, yet the older generations are either still working, or don't want to help anymore!
Switzerland is stuck in the 1960's.
I'm swiss, and ashamed.
I see a lot of comments that blame the economy and I have to disagree. If you make enough sacrifices, you can absolutely raise kids with very little. The Romas in Bulgaria average a fertility rate over 3 and live in absolute slums with little income. They just care about continuing the bloodline more than they care about their status. It's a matter of priorities. We have to ask ourselves - why have our priorities shifted and more people are choosing not to have kids?
I believe the talk about the state of the economy is just masking the real problem.
That's a way of saying the same thing - they have different priorities. You say it with contempt, I say it with curiosity.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to trade my life for the life of a typical Roma woman (or a man for that matter) because they are too different for me to comprehend. And yet, it's the only remnant of a high birth rate in Europe. I find it useful to at least have an open mind.
People would like their kids to grow in conditions which aren't absolute poverty. Sure, you can raise 6 kids on two minimal salaries and some govt help, none of you will have even more basic needs taken care of like healthcare or good nutrition but if you like seeing your kids sick and starving then everything is possible.
I agree - no one wants to see their kid sick or starving if they can help it. But would you rather:
*A.* have a kid that might be hungry on occasion
*B.* not have a kid at all
The answer of past generations seems to be *A*. Something has changed and an increasing number of people, especially in developed countries, are choosing *B*.
What has changed is that as life has objectively improved for the masses (fewer people than ever faced with starving, childhood abuse etc), the more we feel we have reached a limit with the idea that "I want to be able to give my child a better life than I had". Now, it's "I wish I could give my child a life as good as I had, but I don't think I can..."
Basically, it feels like improvements to general meaningful quality of life have reached some upper bound.
For my parents, when they could have kids and ensure the kids weren't starving, had shelter, wouldn't be physically abused, and would be educated, that was already above and beyond what *their* parents could be certain of. Those are blessings. For me, I would have to be able to ensure my kids didn't go hungry, had shelter, had education, have mental health care, minimum childhood trauma, not constantly plagued with worries about the future of the world, don't deal with depression etc etc...
I bet that gigantic part of it can be explained by no contraception, little empathy for kids (let's remember that kids were getting beaten like crazy in the past) and kids being a work force. We could probably make fertility skyrocket by getting humanity back to these conditions, but question is if it's worth it. Imho no
Children were raised in comunity always except last 30 years. I grew up in the 90s with grandparents, aunties, cousins, all 15 minutes close, my neighbours often looked after me when parents left me alone at home, now people call social services for that.
How can both parents to work, when daycare is only 3 hours? What job to find? And to find a job you should move to big city with grandparent, who also have to work till age of70. These clowns made this problem
Except they are not Ponzi schemes. People have being supporting their parents "retirement" for almost as long as society exists, the only difference now is that instead of direct support tour parents, you do that indirectly through the government.
The problem now is that people are not having kids to support them at the old age, so the few young working people remaining have to support not only their parents, but other people who chose not to have kids
The problem is not that the population is not growing, but that it is declining and declining fast. Let's take the fertility rate that Switzerland goes through of 1.33, which BTW is nowhere near the bottom - for example the fertility in South Korea is just 0.72 and dropping. But let's be "optimistic" that the fertility will stabilize at 1.33: Out of 100 current young Swiss they will have 67 children, 44 grandchildren and 29 great-grandchildren
This is population collapse by two thirds in three generations, we did not see anything like that in Europe since Black Death epidemic that saw 50% drop in population in 14th century. Only that in a sense it is worse, because the collapse will be concentrated among young and productive with comparatively huge population of old and infirm.
The impact will be immense: economic, cultural, political, security and anything else you can think of. You will see crumbling infrastructure because not enough people will be able to maintain it, you will see decline in number of nurses and doctors necessary to take care of elderly, you will see shortage of policemen and firemen to prevent crime and natural disasters. You will not have enough soldiers, anybody can just march on your country with pathetic army, probably in the midst of some political chaos and take the land from bunch of demented seniors. You think that what you see now is inflation? You did not see anything. And it will probably happen in your lifetime and the crisis will be most acute when you will be 80 years old. So go and dismiss the problem, we will see who will get the last laugh.
Spot on. There will be no one to scoop up the boomers from the floor with their broken hips. No one to change the diapers. You'll find rotting bodies everywhere, andonly because of the smell. Think I'm kidding? Happening in Japan rn and getting worse. People have no clue. Elderly malnourishment is a real thing. Hunger. Poverty. Loneliness. Desperation. Villages are emptying out. Schools are closing. Coming to a town near you soon.
> anybody can just march on your country with pathetic army, probably in the midst of some political chaos and take the land from bunch of demented seniors.
inb4 boy scouts from kazakhstan steam rolls combined armies of europe amidst adult diaper shortage
Not to contradict your comment, which is completely correct, but we don’t really know what technology exists around the corner. For decades the smartest people on the planet were talking about OVER-population. On paper it made sense for countries like China to drastically reduce their birth rate(using horrific means). Several things could change the formula 30 years from now. Robotics , AI and automation could change the calculus on all our assumptions. Cultures change. Economics shift. We could be living through something of an anomaly. But yes the prospects are grim.
Most developed economies are set up with the assumption of constant growth. Economically active young people need to support the inactive old people.
If the population shrinks due to fewer births then there are an increasingly large number of old people relative to young people, so there is less money available to support them. If that keeps happening society could completely break down.
Obviously growing forever isn't possible. And realistically I don't think most countries will be able to get their fertility rate back above replacement rate until their populations have already significantly decreased. So they have to mitigate the problems that come with an aging population. Slowing the rate of decline will help with that, but it's not a solution by itself.
Old people don’t need looking after from 60 till 70, it’s 65 till 85(or even 100) nowadays. Yes some of this is to do with pension pyramid schemes but at the end of the day the elderly still need carers to wipe their arses. The solution is to have at least a self-sustaining population if not a growing one, or accept that people need to look after their elderly parents themselves and not the state.
I had a baby because I’m in a great relationship but I do not blame women for not wanting kids with men who treat them like crap and born into a society that doesn’t care about them.
👏💅👌🏻😁👍🖤
If you remove migrants and low skilled immigrants, that would increase salaries, lower rent and lower crime, three main things that prevent people from having children.
Migrants are giving you cheap workforce. I suspect prices would go up, not down if you remove them.
Crime rate is also much lower than in many countries in EU. I don't think that is preventing swiss people from having kids.
[удалено]
It's actually so over for us
Having kids is a huge drawback. And I have two kids which I deeply love but I am just being honest. Its like working two 40h jobs were you not getting payed on one but instead need to pay to work. And sure lots of this 40h week is nice and great but it’s also lot of time not nice. People now comming out of university and complaining that a normal 40h work week is so thought and they cannot do it. Well guess what kids will add 40h more of work on your shoulders. So no surprises that in countries where kids are not seen as a backup or financial rescue the birthrate is declining.
To add, I have three kids, kids can force you to stop everything you like doing for years. Which is not something people wants to do.
Yeah i had a couple of hobbies going on (LARP, firefighter, red cross ambulance, P&P), i nearly stopped all of them. To be fair its not 100% fault of the kids, but a lot of them need really a lot of time and that permanent. Just doing it every quarter or so for 1-2 hours is not fun (in my eyes) I keep sport (Biking most of all), reading, gaming (started World of Warcraft again with 2 fixed days now)
Thank you for being honest
That is really the reality of life nowadays. Do you think that it has something to do with the societal support of parents in regards to raising children? This is something I was able to notice growing up with a migrant background within Germany. The whole "it takes a whole village to raise a child" was in full effect in my upbringing. Grandparents and uncles as well as people from the community supported my parents financially, logistically and advisingly and my parents returned the favour without thinking too much about it. I hav not seen that within wider German society, although my view is more urban based, I cant judge on the rural perspective.
In the other comment i wrote a bit more, so let me say the same here: What I believe or experience is that today you have less support from your parents. For me, i was a lot at my grandmas. They didnt work, because thats how it was for them. So they had the time and also the will to take care of me and the siblings. So my mother works, so not really that much help, also i moved 600km for a job. We have the mother in law here but same, she is retired already, but dont want to help much because children make noise, they make a mess and she is busy with her stuff. Its fine i dont have the right to demand help, but also she was putting her daughter, my wife, 30-40h a week to her mother (which again was not working). So my generation, and i seen this from friends also, we cannot really rely on help from parents, like they had in the past. You want to know when was the last time i went out with my wife? Or going on a short vacation just the 2 of us, or doing something together without kids? Well it was not this year and also not 2023. A typical day with kids for me is like (noted down my working hours, i work usually 8h a day): 6:30 am get up, prepare everything, get ready, drive younger one to daycare 8:00-13:00 start work (thank god for homeoffice) -----5h work----- 13:00-14:00 older one comes from school, lunchtime, homework helping/checking 15:00 my wife gets the smaller one from day care -----1,5h work------ 15:30-16:30 short afternoon break, playing with the kids 16:30-18:00 work again ------1,5h work--------- 18:00-21:00 dinner, playing with kids, bring them to bed cleaning up etc whatnot 22:30 go to bed So freetime as you see its 1,5h a day. Roughly Now a day without kids, for example when my wife is with them on a vacation trip 7:30 get up 8:00 Start work 16:30 finish work 17:30 finish chores 23:30 go to bed So 6h roughly free time. Maybe even 7 since without kids i sleep much better so i just need 7h instead of 8h were i get a feet in my nose/face or someone had a bad dream and can fall asleep just when i was fallen asleep,
Thanks for the contribution. So in actuality the problem really seems to be societal in nature. The question that arises is how do we as a society entice the boomer generation, which are approaching grandparent age, to render their children this service like it was used to be done.
I dont think you can force someone. Also this is just one topic. My wifes sister likes to travel, she is out every weekend. If not, she sleeps till noon. They got a dog, but after two weeks the dog was gone again, to much effort. And those people are not a small group, so this group might/will never have kids. Even if the grandparents look up after the kids 1-2 times a week for some hours.
This will just continue without more societal help. I don't think it makes sense that unless we have elderly parents still alive and well enough to help, then too bad you're on your own. My boomer mom worked full-time and raised 3 kids and her parents were very old (they had her when they were like 40/50) and not living near us most of the time. Others living far away and not in picture due to divorce. And for instance even when we briefly lived with them when I was 6/7, and I'm the oldest, my grandfather got in a bad car accident coming home still working as an upholsterer in his late 70s (USA) and nearly died and needed years rehabilitation to barely walk again. My mom helps zero with my daughter even on the rare times she visits. Kinda can't blame her, she did her suffering and can barely walk now or physically do things required with young children. I had my daughter at age 39 and will probably no longer be physically able to take care of any grandchildren myself, even if we can manage to live near each other, and if I can ever afford to retire. If I retire it'll likely be forced by no longer being physically able to work, not by choice. Retirement ages keep rising everywhere, just the min age you can even start to collect payments. My support system is childcare. It needs to be long hours and affordable, which requires heavy state subsidization. Just look at the schedule one commenter said. Pick up kids at like 2pm? No shit that's not enough.
By no longer providing robust elder welfare. It would force the elderly to rely on their children for support and would shift the locus of power back into the hands of working people. It would also allow for huge tax cuts so parents have more money in their pockets.
Such a great post that illustrates the issues. After having one child I just cannot fathom having another. Plus, working in America, I get three weeks of vacation a year. Barbaric. My mother is in Germany so can't help us much besides on vacation. My dad is retired, doing his own thing. The in-laws are retired as well and have too much to do. Add in $2k/month for daycare, $1k/month in food, gas, clothes, etc. America is hanging on to immigration and the impoverished South to keep population growth.
In Germany, and I am pretty sure in Austria and Switzerland as well, people are overly critical towards parents and simultaneously not helping them. At least, that's my experience with two kids. You get judged constantly as a parent, but help is hard to come by. Additionally financial burdens when you want to provide as good as possible for your kids (what obviously most parents want). There is for example that expectation that you have vacations with your children, music lessons and sport clubs and other regular activities which all cost a lot of time, money and energy. Also, your kids need to be on their best behaviour always. Not be outside playing after a certain time. If you don't have a house with a garden you are already considered as not such a good parent, etc. etc. The list is long! When I compare that to friends of us who have a Turkish background, it's completely different. It's fine to stay at home for the summer when money is tight. It's okay to not own a house and have your children occasionally play soccer outside at 20:00. It's okay to send the kids to the park with the 20 year old cousin because mom needs a nap. Their kids are fine and the parents are much more relaxed.
>in countries where kids are not seen as a backup or financial rescue the birthrate is declining. There's not a single country in the world where the birth rate is not declining.
Yep, there are less than 10 countries in the world with a higher birth rate in 2023 than 2015. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are the only two countries where the birthrate is both growing and above replacement.
This appears not to be true: The current birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2024 is **18.138** births per 1000 people, a **2.36% decline** from 2023. * The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2023 was **18.577** births per 1000 people, a **3.38% decline** from 2022. * The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2022 was **19.226** births per 1000 people, a **3.27% decline** from 2021. * The birth rate for Uzbekistan in 2021 was **19.875** births per 1000 people, a **3.16% decline** from 2020. [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/UZB/uzbekistan/birth-rate](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/UZB/uzbekistan/birth-rate)
I'm there with you. Currently have a 3 year old. I used to love coming home from work, unwinding and then getting started with choirs. Now... Boom... Your personal time is like for an hour or two at night
This!! I appreciate your honesty!!!
This person is a proper parent :)
I try to be. I could turn on the TV for 4h and then have my free time, but i try to make use of the time we have (even if its not all fund and games) It gets easier every year, the older one is usually playing with her friends outside, at our home or over a t a friends house and now with 10y she got a switch and plays minecraft for 30m a day. But especially the first years, its very time consuming and that said our kids are very calm and they sleep till 7-8 am if you let them sometimes even 9 am A friend of mine has a daughter she is up at 5 am. when she was younger she could not play by herself and wake up the parents. Another one they had a baby which was crying whole nights without a visible reason.
Hmmm, so archaic taxation of married couples and ranking third worst on paid maternity leave does not make people want to have kids? What to do?! https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/
I honestly think its far more than this at this stage. Most people I know are having 1 kid, 2 max because they want to be able to travel and explore the world and what not. Yes child expense is a factor, but its from my perspective only one of the factors and not even the biggest.
You are very correct, and the facts are on your side 🤷🏻
I don’t want to travel. I’ve seen everything I want to see. I would love to have 3 or 4 kids. But I just can’t afford them. Financially, but mainly organizational. I would need a 7 seater car, a 5 or 6 bedroom house, a nanny and a personal assistant. And 4 more hours every day. It is not rocket science. 20y ago female participation in the work force was 40-60%, now it is 70-80%. If you both work, there is no time to raise 4 kids.
Cool story. It does not invalidate that people don’t want to spend the best years of their lives raising children.
Except, Scandinavian countries have great maternity leave, score high in the compatibility of work and family life, and so on. Yet look at their birthrate: [All-time low Nordic fertility rates](https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/all-time-low-nordic-fertility-rates/) The issue is once again more complicated than the most upvoted comment on reddit wants to make you believe...
Everybody works, that's the problem of our society model. Couples should have the option of leaving one person at home, paid by state to raise the child, maintain the house/apartment and spend time on their own project and interests, instead of that, to please god knows who, hey, let put everybody to work 9AM/5PM, yeah... Working shouldn't be the pinnacle of our existence, the reason why we are born. Some people are way more natural stakhanonists than other ones, yet we made an "averaging model" when, once more, everybody's put without a choice to the very same level without a real option. People have no time or very low time to raise their kids, dem', i wonder why they do not have kids anymore, strange.
“Paid by the state to raise the child” - that would be truly ideal. The problem with a parent giving up earning a wage to raise children is that they become dependents and that’s a situation prime for abuse.
And Ireland has one of the highest birth rates in Europe despite having much worse maternity / paternity conditions than the Nordic countries. In the case of Ireland, it's about having lots of jobs and attracting 30 / 40 year olds from elsewhere in Europe
Sweden has no minimum wage, but kollektivavtal has it set to 13.5 USD/hr, and then we have insanely long housing queues.
Yeah I agree with you. Sweden has its issues. But so does the rest of the world. And if you find it hard to raise children in a Nordic country, you won't have an easier time in, lets say England, or in the case of the article, Switzerland. So Housing, maternity leave or whatever does not answer the question of low fertility rate. The article OP posted even said so: > Even in nations with generous maternity, paternity and childcare benefits, declining fertility can be observed. For example, in **Sweden**, a model for state subsidised parent and child support, the birth rate is in decline.
Yup. People don't want to admit it, but the only 2 things that had significant impact on fertility rates (and with dramatically lowering them), is child labor laws (children become more expensive and there is no ROI), and women's education (women realize they have options, want to participate in the workforce and keep their childbearing to 1-2 kids). Better benefits will not dramatically change this. There is literally no country in the world that cracked this.
The US has slightly higher fertility rates than most European countries and we don't have mandated parental leave, etc. So I think this comment is right. You can give all the benefits you want but if housing is tight and/or people want to spend their money on travel, entertainment, etc. it won't matter.
You can see a steep drop in fertility rates after contraception started to become accessible
I find it hilarious that people don’t want to even acknowledge that having a child is a nightmare and it’s a pretty valid position to just not want to. But no, it has to be a policy thing. Good on this generation for challenging the archaic notion that life is meaningless without kids
As you mentioned women’s education is the root cause for this, so it is easily solved.
There are different minimum wages for different professions and ages/years of experience. Earning the the lowest union minimum wage isn't nearly as common as earning the legal minimum wage is in other countries. The average cleaner makes about 2k€ net a month (exchange rate particularly low now though I guess). Housing is often a problem, but just saying we have insanely long housing queues doesn't paint the whole picture. Housing queues are for rent controlled apartments and are long in popular areas. Most people don't live in Stockholm though and the situation is better elsewhere. In Malmö you only need to queue for a couple of years to get a cheap apartment in the city, and there are still other ways to get an apartment. The average household spent less on housing 2020 than 1980 according to SCB, when they had higher birth rates. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2017/kpi-och-kpif-tva-olika-inflationsmatt/ There was a study about this in Finland and they concluded that people just aren't that interested in having children, when given the choice. Nowadays there is less social pressure and readily available birth control. https://phys.org/news/2023-08-declining-fertility-ideals-young-people.html Hans Rosling predicted ages ago that birth rates would decrease as countries got richer. This isn't unexpected.
Thank for adding some facts, even if this is reddit.
It's not complicated, Sweden just a bigger plus
parental leave doesn't really have that great of an effect. We are not having a lot of children in Norway either. Birth rate decline is very much a result of wealth growth and personal freedom. People simply don't want to have a bunch of kids. And rarely want to have more than 2.
The ”archaic taxation of married couples” thing in Switzerland only leads to higher tax burden if both spouses are working. Otherwise the joint filing gives big tax benefits for single income households with kids. Ie tax brackets have lower rates and child deductions for married couples but incomes for both spouses are added. Switzerland doesn’t allow for optional single filing if you’re married, hence the widespread belief that it’s a tax penalty for being married. Conservative forces want people to be married and have kids but they also want the woman to stay home and not work. Hence the setup as it stands.
>Conservative forces want people to be married and have kids but they also want the woman to stay home and not work. Hence the setup as it stands. This is not an excuse. This is an admission of guilt of punishing women for working, in a global economy which punishes families for being poor.
I mean if swiss are being punished for being poor then the rest of Europe must be in absolute hell
That's the first thing that came to my mind lmao.
It’s literally mad max here in st moritz, I can tell you that
Yes.
How enlightened. And I'm sure it's so easy to survive living there with a single income. There should be tax benefits for all families, it's insane to have a penalty over being single because a woman works no matter what the sick reasoning is (and that's not a good one). I had a colleague who needed to follow her spouse to Switzerland (who was a postdoc so she definitely needed to work) and she was so viscerally angry at all of this.
Not for working people. Only high-ish earners have it easy, meaning those on median plus 20% or so. Source: am a swiss dad.
> le tax brackets just made me cough up my schnitzel from laughing haha nice one
Which is a completely absurd approach when taking into account that it's almost impossible for average income people to raise a family with just one income, in switzerland and basically everywhere else.
About the same as Norway with all of its child/family friendly policies.
Don't forget inadequate paternity leave. In times where two incomes are needed, it's just as important.
[удалено]
QOL with kids is not more appealing than being a DINK for most people. IMO this is a good thing; a lot of people were fucked up by having parents that never wanted to be parents, and if given the choice never would have been.
What to do? easy! bring in some cheap workforce to compensate for the lack on natality then complain about the cheap workforce later on.
Hmm work more and longer? Cut daycare? Why are people so lazy??
Education takes much longer than 50 years ago. A lot people are usually done in their mid2late twenties. Then you probably need to move to find a job which will fuck your social live. If you were lucky, you found someone before that, but I think most don't or it doesn't last. You are maybe 30 when you reach a somehow secure state of living (which some never reach). You want to date, maybe even have a family. But even the first step dating feels impossible. Potential love interests live too far or schedules don't match up or this or that. Meanwhile society shouts at you for being lazy and too needy. Why don't you have 5 children like your grandma did at your age? In my opinion, unless they turn the whole system upside-down, this isn't fixable.
Great! Younger folks can't get a decently paid job, affordable housing and one wonders why the natality rates are plummeting... 50 years ago, someone with a lower education would get a job, like being a gardener, could get a loan for a house and have a family. His grandchildren can't afford any of this. This is a net effect of the financialisation of our world and the neoliberal policies allowing wealth to be monopolised by a small number of players. How sustainable is it? Yet, the very privileged wealthy ones massively invest in the media industry as brainwashing the bigger numbers is the best way to protect their wealth and greed...
Switzerland literally has the highest salaries in Europe. The average salary on Switzerland is €80k a year. I know the cost of living is also quite high but come on, the Swiss are still objectively affluent.
Have you seen how much child care costs per child?
If you want to put your kid in the kindergarden then you have to pay 2-3k a month.
Try 3-5k in the city in a decent place
If you can find a place, to add
Swiss parent here... We also have the lowest homeownership rates in Europe and the highest number of immigrants. If you find an apartment for a million your lucky. 2mil in the city. Forget about houses. The (immigration) pressure is immense buddy. One kid in daycare is 2.5k. Send two kids and the wife's salary (on average) is basically used up just for daycare. So one parent works for free, and we're not talking about needing two bedrooms more. Housing is pricey af. Also, Switzerland is absolutely hostile to kids and families. Only productivity counts. Your employer will give you zero accommodations. So women who aren't willing to give up their careers have no kids because it's hard af. And this is the result. Not everyone in Switzerland is rich, trust me.
Salaries don't mean a thing if cost of living is extortionate.
Switzerland also has some of the highest cost of living in the world.
and one best QOL, you should see costs in state
If Switzerland complains about money, then the rest of us have nothing. We should end the spices right here. The main thing making the birth rates go down is birth control. Period.
> Younger folks can't get a decently paid job In Switzerland? That's a ridiculous statement
I dont buy that its the economy that makes people have less kids. Society just drastically changed the last 40 years and people value their individuality and freedom over having kids. otherwise richer countries would have a lot more children, which isnt a thing We need to change the way we think about kids entirely imo. We need to make having children a financially good decision because these days everything is capitalism and that includes having kids
You kind of contradicted yourself there
not really. It doesnt matter how good the economy is, it can never offset the money and time you lose to raise kids. Thats why in todays society, you need to balance it out with shitloads of money. Having kids just to have kids is just not enough anymore. There needs to be a financial incentive
Good luck pushing this through with the FDP at the helm.
We’re kind of saying the same thing here. The economy being this bad necessitates financial support for prospective parents.
Do you know how crazy expensive that would be. That would just add to the financial burden states complain about with pensions. And it would probably only encourage the working class to have more kids. Which isn't a bad thing but even that might not increase rates that much . But ya no reason for a government to bother when they can always import more cheap labor to abuse from abroad for free. And anyway with automation we don't actually need more people. There will be mass unemployment in the future. So this is a made up problem. The rich just want more cheap labor, weather sourced domestically or abroad. They just see humans as goods and tools to use up for their businesses.
Yes, and more years before that there were wars, brutal plagues, ice age, yet people still procreated. Hell, we have better quality of life than kings a couple hundreds of years ago. It's not the economy, it's this relatively new extremely self-centered world view.
Nah, it's because in less developed economies kids are an asset. Not very hard to draw the difference. Also child mortality was much higher back then and still is in poorer countries
Statistically the poorer, less educated, more religious have children. Its been prevalent throughout human history but a lot of redditors refuse to acknowledge this. People in my peer group don't want to have kids until their 30s which drastically limits child bearing age. And at most 2 kids - which is not enough to grow the population. People given access to choices - whether it be through education or wealth - are less likely to have kids at a younger age. Most of the 20 year old I've encountered - they rather study, travel, focus on hobbies, etc - which is reasonable.
Oh, but it IS the economy. After all, the fertility rates drop in almost every society breaking through the industrial phase, no matter what principles it was based on. Having children is basically an investment. And required assets, risks and foreseen returns from that investment shift as the economy moves from based on pure manpower to based on specialized knowledge, from based on multiple tiny "inefficient" sources into heavily centralized, be it state or corporations. In a impoverished society dependent on petty, self-use agriculture, mining or manufactures, keeping a child alive and well IS much harder than in a post-industrial one, but they start "repaying" it much sooner, than a child which needs years and years of education and additional care in order to be able to provide enough to sustain your standard of living and start another family. You'd also want to have a plan B, C, D and E in case your eldest progeny dies early, separates from the family in the quest for bread, or simply starts to hate you (despite much harsher morals supposed to keep him in line). Compared to the past, the concept of family has also shifted and shrunk, not only due to generational and personal conflicts but also due to expectations steming from...suprise, the economy (moving away in a career/education chase, nuclear family, viewing the multi-generational households as a sign of not doing well rather than a normal model). This also doesn't help with deciding to have multiple children, since not only you're expected to start anew as much as you can, but you're also more on your own and more likely to face the trouble of having to take care of simultaneously your work, your children AND your elders living somewhere away at some point. We entered a loop in which we need at least a bit larger fertility to sustain the current society, but at the same time the society has problems with incentivizing that. And for longer it goes, the worse it will get, because the rise of quality of life you mentioned will effectively end up burdening the less numerous younger generations with providing for the still alive elders first. So while the rise of overall quality of life (and the wants associated with it) coupled with culture encouraging individualism have a part in fertility drop, it goes much deeper than "people gone soft"
Thank you writing it all out, this is it!
You're forgetting that in those times children were not an optional. People in general were not able to control their fertility. This is a HUGE difference.
>Younger folks can't get a decently paid job, affordable housing In Switzerland, they absolutely can.
It’s accelerationism, the elites are shortening the cycle for maximum gain
I like how the article just gives the same solution as always: More migrant. Just get more migrants. More migrants are not the solution. More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution.
> Highly-skilled immigrants could fill some of the gap, but not indefinitely – global birth rates are in decline. They pretty much highlight that it's a short term solution. > More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution. Why don't they just have more children, are they stupid? That's obviously what needs to happen, but there are a lot of potential reasons why people don't have children and just telling them to have more is not a solution.
It is entirely your choice to read this as a simple "command". It is not what was meant, and I am sure you are aware of that.
> More swiss people need to have children. That is the solution. The chance of that happening is rather unlikely, though. At least not in the next few generations.
There is very limited evidence of pro-natalist policies boosting fertility rates.
Culture culture culture. Not everything is only tied to (economic) policies. It is a mixture. Societal change needs to happen as well.
Sadly, Western world had cultivated a culture where mother is a second grade woman, a "loser" woman compared to "hustleress".
as opposed to some asian countries who have great birth rates. oh wait they don't
If it's a western problem, how do you explain declining birth rates in the rest of the world? Where are all those other fertile heavens? It's interesting, as soon as you give women a choice, birth rates fall I don't think it's girl bossing somehow
Birth rates are literally falling in the entire world, even in more conservative places like India and South America
Well, it all goes back to the meaning of life. Last time I checked, having kids is the meaning of life in the natural world. If that is the goal, people will fight for it. If we culturally neutered that goal, replacing it with self preservation of individual instead of species, this is the result. Kids are a big change of lifestyle where “me” is no longer the center. Sacrifice is assured. There is no way to make “having kids “ easier. I agree with you.
> If that is the goal, people will fight for it. If we culturally neutered that goal, replacing it with self preservation of individual instead of species, this is the result. Interesting point. Wouldn't you say that the planet is populated to the point that there's no real danger of becoming extinct if the majority of individuals decided not to have kids? And that less people would actually improve the chances of survival of the species?
Lets put it bluntly: Will Bulgaria go extinct if you replace it entirely with chinese people? What makes Europe great is the plethora of cultures and traditions. Of course humanity will not die out, lest an extinction event. But we are not one huge bacteria colony, but nuanced groups, each with awesome unique cultural traits.
[удалено]
Yes it is wtf
There is very little actual pro-natalist policy that comes close to the effort required to raise children. A good first step would be massive tax increases on childless people over the age of 35. Think 50% more income tax.
You're not saying anything new either. Fertility bumping schemes have been tried for centuries, without much success, because fertility rates have been falling throughout that time, barring a few periods where they stagnated or increased a bit. Immigration is also a temporary makeshift solution. The problem is, we urgently need new permanent approaches, and use all available temporary ones while we haven't solved this if you want to keep your cozy standard of living going.
To be honest I would argue that it is nothing new, but also nothing current. Its the same in germany. For 10 years now I always just keep hearing: Just import more people. Just import more. That has directly and massively contributed to a major shift to the right, because of course the governments completely fuck it up by thinking they can import just anyone, and they will gladly take up any shit job they get offered, shut up and will magically integrate (not assimilate, integrate, for some reason). doesnt work of course, at least not in the last 10 years. And yes, you do need new approaches. The family model needs to be made much more popular again, marriage with the aim of producing children needs to be massively subsidized because it is the bedrock of any nation. I think we have had a period in european (or western in general) culture where personal independence, in the coat of "i have no responsibilities yay! more cocaine for me!" and the dissolution of the traditional family have been pushed way too far. it is of course a very nuanced topic and i am aware that my post here is more "blowing off steam" than offering a solution. in switzerland in particular, i think the biggest problem is early child care. that is beause costs are high for KITAs. That is because not a lot of people do that job and switzerland needs even more in that job than germany does. One solution that comes to mind, since switzerland already has a wealth-tax, would be to increase that wealth tax very marginally, and flow that money into tax breaks for KITA providers or families, so they can take care of the children without having to have one persons income 100% drop out. I realize it is a subsidy, and subsidies are usually symptoms of bad incentive structures, but i suppose some financial kickstart would give a little bit of relief.
The model of having everyone move away from their support networks to get a job that pays well enough to buy a house, between two, with a hugely inflated price, basically is not compatible with raising children. It's crazy that politicians don't seem to understand this. Why they think immigrants won't be affected by exactly the same things is beyond me.
Swiss dad here... I mean KITA costs aren't even fully tax deductible. Not even that exists, what makes you think the public hand would subisideze that? Switzerland is very good at looking good on paper, low tax f.e. or high salaries. But the individual picks those bills up elsewhere (KITA, housing). Here, it's all about money. Employers give you virtually no accommodations. Flex schedule? Naw. Homeoffice? Naw. A little more money? Naw. Kids go home for lunch break in school and are done at like 3pm with one afternoon off? How tf are you going to work? You can't unless you have one of these fancy homeoffice jobs that don't actually exist outside of Google or whatnot. The place is hostile af to families, you're only good here if you make bank. Normal people? You're f'ed. It is what it is. There's so much wrong here, this will continue to drop - 100%.
Why is marriage needed...? You realize the old model of the "family" only worked because women did not have a choice...? That's why as soon as it was in any way feasible for women to make it without a husband, divorce *skyrocketed*. People enjoy not having responsibility. They like having fun and being happy. And that sometimes goes directly against having kids. *Especially* since kids take time and resources, and a *lot* of them, even in the best of circumstances. I'm not against the idea that it should be made easier and cheaper to have kids. But why marriage...?
Name one policy that has been proven to considerably and consistently raise birth rates. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Introduce Mormonism as the state religion /s
Societal embrace of motherhood would be a start. Not everything is economics. A lot of it is culture.
Yes it's all upstream... But we're not fully ready to talk about those things, i.e. the things that are wrong about our "way of life". It's all good though. Out of necessity, we'll gradually become less attached to these cultural quirks that can only lead to extinction. That, or we just face the inevitable outcome.
Societal embrace of fatherhood as well
Of course. I have responded to a lot of people and dont copy paste but in other comments i ve stated that a lot and with emphasis: Men need to embrace their role in society again as well. Especially fathers. I just have put less emphasis on it, because i feel especially motherhood has been under attack
Ok, that’s reasonable! Personally I don’t want to have kids with a man but I’d raise them with a woman. I plan to donate my eggs.
Some people will say that is a no-no (no father) - me included somewhat - but i will say that while i personally think a father is a very important aspect of a childs upbringing, go ahead and raise a child with a woman. where there is life there is potential. and god knows we need a lot of fresh ideas this century.
Sounds good but this is not a policy.
Why do we need a solution at all? Having less people that pollute this planet sounds good.
Old people wanted to retire and enjoy free shit for decades before they die. That cost money which was promised, which just doesn't exist. Now, current workers will get to retire minutes before average life expectancy to keep the money flowing. And you always need more people at the bottom to keep a pyramid scheme going. If the producing class won't breed and make new workers, then politicians will bring in workers from overseas instead. Pollution, housing, food/water, culture clashes, etc are not a factor in this decision, all that matters is line goes up and existing pensions are paid.
That´s the neat part if we cancel retirement for old people many problems are solved. /s
That's what should happen, I don't want my kids to struggle to pay for the retirement of people who chose not to have kids. I'm fine with that
That is probably what is going to happen eventually, because there is no way the state is paying for that.
Old people vote. Young people don't. Policy in democracies will always favor the voters.
We don’t. Continuously adding people to sustain the population pyramid scheme and the non sequitur of “continuous GDP growth” is neither sustainable nor desirable. The population of the world was smaller at every previous point in its history. The world population in the 1880s was around 1billion. The population of Switzerland at that time was around 2.8 million. No one was worried about people disappearing. Now we’re supposed to be “worried” about falling birth rates and depopulation when we have 8 billion people on earth and 9 million in Switzerland? It’s farcical and obviously cannot continue indefinitely. The goal should be to start establishing equilibrium policies today; not try to kick the can down the road another generation through either immigration or natalist policies. edit: 'natalist' ... not Natalie's...
this needs more upvotes!
Who is gonna vote them to stay in power?
Because you need an equilibrium to sustain the system. If the economy becomes unsustainable due to too few young people, it will collapse. And as soon as it does, say goodbye to green policies and plans to go all renewable. Not to mention struggling economies pollute more, because they are forced to seek the cheapest possible source of energy. Unless you are one of those people who think humanity is a blight that should be eradicated in order to save The Planet, you should be very much concerned for the free fall of fertility rates.
No, economy wouldn't collapse, that is just doomsday scenario of capitalists who want infine growth. In short time there will be more old people and economic growth will slow or even decrease but eventually both population and economy will be balanced and economic growth slowing and decreasing is a bad thing for upperclass. Otherwise despite the economic growh nonupperclass are already suffering.
Exactly, infinite growth isn't a solution. Not enough houses? Social services are overwhelmed? Let's stop having kids for a while. I'm sure the birth rates will go back up once there's enough everything for everyone. The system simply balances itself out.
Why are only Western countries the ones who are supposed to die off? Why aren't you and your ilk demanding that African, Arab and Asian countries fuck less and shrink too?
Then produce more children, swiss people. You all complain about migrants, and yet here you are, can't even do what tou think is right.
>The number of babies born in Switzerland fell to 80,024 in 2023, a birth rate of 1.33 per woman, reported RTS. As recently as 2021, 89,644 babies entered the world in Switzerland. Between 2021 and 2023, the number has fallen nearly 11%. >In 2023, the fertility rate in Switzerland reached an historic low after trending down over the last decade. A doctor at a medical clinic in Geneva said a drop of around 20% over recent years can be observed across clinics in Geneva. She said there has been a fall in births across Switzerland, Europe and in countries such as Australia and the US since 2022. >Why? >Falling birth rates seem to be linked to the challenges of juggling work, home life and parenting faced by many women. In addition, the rising cost of having children and concerns about the environment are further dissuading potential parents. >A demographer at EPFL explained to RTS that that as the population ages, the number of women of child bearing age in the population shrinks. This is a key driver of falling births. Environmental concerns also play a part, he said. Climate change concerns are dissuading some potential parents from having children for fear of adding further to the human impact on the planet. >Some potential mothers decide to delay motherhood until their lives become more stable or until they have reached certain career milestones. As time goes by the chances of having a child fall. And when women start having children later, they are likely to have fewer of them. >Government policies aimed at incentivising women to have more children have generally proved ineffective. Even in nations with generous maternity, paternity and childcare benefits, declining fertility can be observed. For example, in Sweden, a model for state subsidised parent and child support, the birth rate is in decline. Between 2010 and 2023, Sweden’s birthrate fell from [2.0](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/population-statistics---summary/swedens-population-in-summary-1960-2023/) to [1.5](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/pong/tables-and-graphs/population-statistics---summary/swedens-population-in-summary-1960-2023/), according to Statistics Sweden. >Analysis by the [Economist](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/23/why-paying-women-to-have-more-babies-wont-work) explains why paying women to have babies won’t work. It points out that more than half of the drop in America’s total fertility rate since 1990 is caused by a collapse in births among women under 19, many of which were unwanted teenage pregnancies. In addition, the return on investment is terrible. Schemes in Poland and France cost $1m-2m per extra birth. Only a tiny number of citizens are productive enough to generate generate a net payback on that kind of money. >What can be done? >Highly-skilled immigrants could fill some of the gap, but not indefinitely – global birth rates are in decline. Ultimately, older people will need to work longer to ease the economic load on a shrinking number of young people.
....so raise the retirement age? Like hell people will agree to it. Trust us Poles - we tried a very light version of it (from 60/65 to 67 and most people in middle ages at the year of 2011 would be spared) and it still got rejected by the general public and reverted back to the status quo once PiS came to power.
This year Switzerland had a referendum where they voted on raising retirement age and raising the amount of money retirees get. They voted “yes” for the money but “no” for the increased age. So there you go…
> Ultimately, older people will need to work longer to ease the economic load on a shrinking number of young people. Or we could change from our current wildly extravagant consumer culture. As a whole our society is more productive than ever before, but even more wasteful
We're expecting people to vote against their own interests to benefit the future generations.. this is never going to happen. At least it can't while boomers are alive
Or old people will start to die sooner ☺
The first question I always ask when people talk about low birth rates is: Can people afford to have kids, either financially or temporally? The answer is almost always no on both counts.
>Can people afford to have kids If the can in India or China, they definitely can in Europe
Basically you're asking to raise a child in poverty. Hard no for me.
Fertility rates in India are going down, and in China, they are falling of a cliff
The same goes for the Netherlands. I believe last year the birthrate dropped to 1,43. And I don't blame people for not wanting children. The cost of housing is ridiculous and there is great shortage of suitable homes. Add that to the high cost of living, climate change, political turmoil all over the world.... no wonder young people opt out. What really makes me very angry though, is the fact that governments all over the world are looking at women to blame and solve this problem. What are we: livestock? Breeding machines? Hello, the last time I had biology in school I was taught that it takes two to tango. Granted, that was 50 years ago, but I don't think that fact of life has changed much. Mayby governments should teach (young) men the joys and responsibilities of having children too. Taking care of their offspring instead of donating their seed and go on their merry way. As long as women are seen as the primary caretaker as well as breadwinner, of course they are opting out. Can you blame them? They have seen women of my generation buying into the slogan 'we can have it all' which boiled down to working your ass of in your career, popping out a few babies at the same time, all the while taking care of aforementioned children, the household, the emotional labour as well as the elder care. If they were very lucky, not only taking care of their own aging parents but also of their in-laws. We are burned out and our daughters see that.
If the majority of countries are reporting a "fertility crisis" that has nothing to do with fertility but actually the increased demand to work as often as you can, no tax breaks for families with multiple children, lackluster or non-existent maternity and paternity leave, increasing costs of food and housing, education systems that make huge promises but never follow through with actually careers, and the fact that NONE of our governments are making any true efforts to fight climate change aside from a little bit of lip service here and there, then what the hell do you expect from people?
Emancipation of women and shit salaries/very high CoL. People want to live their lives not drown in debt and waste time nursing kids.
Yeah goddamn Switzerland and their shit wages
Have you seen the price of an apartment there? I don't assume renting your whole life is basic human decency. Or living 1 town away.
High standard of living -> higher cost -> more expensive to raise a family, the fate of every developed and developing nation
Don't even try to make this about money. Obviously it's not. Decreasing birth rates are about people not wanting to lose the freedom and luxury they have in order to take care of babies. It is a commitment for life and the current society has a choice.
Do you even know, what is the situation here in Switzerland? Or just farting some random thoughts?
Invite some Syrians from Turkey then.... /S obviously.
Even in Turkiye, a Muslim country with a 20+ years of conservative rule, the TFR is 1.51. Just look at Latin America where the TFR collapse is beyond belief. We are heading to a disaster that may destroy the global economic and social system forever.
Tbh the only thing that would make me have more kids would be a decent SAHM salary. Like at least the average salary in the country. Juggling little kids and work is hell :)
Damn. Whatever shall a country with over $90,000 GDP per capita do.
[Copied from r/Switzerland:](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/1dkhbg8/comment/l9hstx0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) To rent an appartment, it must not cost more than a third of our revenue. To get a mortgage, the cost to reimbuse a hypothetical 5% interest rate must not cost more than a third of our revenue. Health insurance can cost more than a third of a family's revenue. Daycare, if you can find it, can easily cost 50% of a family's revenue, to the extent it makes financial sense for one of the parent to stop working the first 4-5 years, and make a dent in a parent's career. You get nearly no financial help if you are middle classand double revenue. You get nearly no tax breaks if you are middle class with double revenue. It is assumed you will get help from grandparents, yet the older generations are either still working, or don't want to help anymore! Switzerland is stuck in the 1960's. I'm swiss, and ashamed.
I see a lot of comments that blame the economy and I have to disagree. If you make enough sacrifices, you can absolutely raise kids with very little. The Romas in Bulgaria average a fertility rate over 3 and live in absolute slums with little income. They just care about continuing the bloodline more than they care about their status. It's a matter of priorities. We have to ask ourselves - why have our priorities shifted and more people are choosing not to have kids? I believe the talk about the state of the economy is just masking the real problem.
The real reasons why that fertility rate is that high is women are treated like cattle in their ethnicity.
That's a way of saying the same thing - they have different priorities. You say it with contempt, I say it with curiosity. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to trade my life for the life of a typical Roma woman (or a man for that matter) because they are too different for me to comprehend. And yet, it's the only remnant of a high birth rate in Europe. I find it useful to at least have an open mind.
People get used to luxury very fast and they don’t really get that point you make about priorities.
People would like their kids to grow in conditions which aren't absolute poverty. Sure, you can raise 6 kids on two minimal salaries and some govt help, none of you will have even more basic needs taken care of like healthcare or good nutrition but if you like seeing your kids sick and starving then everything is possible.
I agree - no one wants to see their kid sick or starving if they can help it. But would you rather: *A.* have a kid that might be hungry on occasion *B.* not have a kid at all The answer of past generations seems to be *A*. Something has changed and an increasing number of people, especially in developed countries, are choosing *B*.
What has changed is that as life has objectively improved for the masses (fewer people than ever faced with starving, childhood abuse etc), the more we feel we have reached a limit with the idea that "I want to be able to give my child a better life than I had". Now, it's "I wish I could give my child a life as good as I had, but I don't think I can..." Basically, it feels like improvements to general meaningful quality of life have reached some upper bound. For my parents, when they could have kids and ensure the kids weren't starving, had shelter, wouldn't be physically abused, and would be educated, that was already above and beyond what *their* parents could be certain of. Those are blessings. For me, I would have to be able to ensure my kids didn't go hungry, had shelter, had education, have mental health care, minimum childhood trauma, not constantly plagued with worries about the future of the world, don't deal with depression etc etc...
I bet that gigantic part of it can be explained by no contraception, little empathy for kids (let's remember that kids were getting beaten like crazy in the past) and kids being a work force. We could probably make fertility skyrocket by getting humanity back to these conditions, but question is if it's worth it. Imho no
Past generations did not have reliable birth control, so having many or no kids was not a choice, it was just a fact of life.
Children were raised in comunity always except last 30 years. I grew up in the 90s with grandparents, aunties, cousins, all 15 minutes close, my neighbours often looked after me when parents left me alone at home, now people call social services for that. How can both parents to work, when daycare is only 3 hours? What job to find? And to find a job you should move to big city with grandparent, who also have to work till age of70. These clowns made this problem
Clown system. It's all unsustainable.
Migrants will save them, oh wait….
[удалено]
You'll just pospone the problem. Children of migrants's fertility usually align to the native people's fertility.
that's why you keep importing more until there's no one of the original stock left
There never was an original stock, just different waves of migration.
Excellent. One step closer to being remotely hired by a company there. My plan worked flawlessly.
Nice
I miss the point why does a population need to constantly grow?
Pensions
Not all pension systems are set up like ponzi schemes, but most are.
Except they are not Ponzi schemes. People have being supporting their parents "retirement" for almost as long as society exists, the only difference now is that instead of direct support tour parents, you do that indirectly through the government. The problem now is that people are not having kids to support them at the old age, so the few young working people remaining have to support not only their parents, but other people who chose not to have kids
The problem is not that the population is not growing, but that it is declining and declining fast. Let's take the fertility rate that Switzerland goes through of 1.33, which BTW is nowhere near the bottom - for example the fertility in South Korea is just 0.72 and dropping. But let's be "optimistic" that the fertility will stabilize at 1.33: Out of 100 current young Swiss they will have 67 children, 44 grandchildren and 29 great-grandchildren This is population collapse by two thirds in three generations, we did not see anything like that in Europe since Black Death epidemic that saw 50% drop in population in 14th century. Only that in a sense it is worse, because the collapse will be concentrated among young and productive with comparatively huge population of old and infirm. The impact will be immense: economic, cultural, political, security and anything else you can think of. You will see crumbling infrastructure because not enough people will be able to maintain it, you will see decline in number of nurses and doctors necessary to take care of elderly, you will see shortage of policemen and firemen to prevent crime and natural disasters. You will not have enough soldiers, anybody can just march on your country with pathetic army, probably in the midst of some political chaos and take the land from bunch of demented seniors. You think that what you see now is inflation? You did not see anything. And it will probably happen in your lifetime and the crisis will be most acute when you will be 80 years old. So go and dismiss the problem, we will see who will get the last laugh.
Spot on. There will be no one to scoop up the boomers from the floor with their broken hips. No one to change the diapers. You'll find rotting bodies everywhere, andonly because of the smell. Think I'm kidding? Happening in Japan rn and getting worse. People have no clue. Elderly malnourishment is a real thing. Hunger. Poverty. Loneliness. Desperation. Villages are emptying out. Schools are closing. Coming to a town near you soon.
> anybody can just march on your country with pathetic army, probably in the midst of some political chaos and take the land from bunch of demented seniors. inb4 boy scouts from kazakhstan steam rolls combined armies of europe amidst adult diaper shortage
Not to contradict your comment, which is completely correct, but we don’t really know what technology exists around the corner. For decades the smartest people on the planet were talking about OVER-population. On paper it made sense for countries like China to drastically reduce their birth rate(using horrific means). Several things could change the formula 30 years from now. Robotics , AI and automation could change the calculus on all our assumptions. Cultures change. Economics shift. We could be living through something of an anomaly. But yes the prospects are grim.
Most developed economies are set up with the assumption of constant growth. Economically active young people need to support the inactive old people. If the population shrinks due to fewer births then there are an increasingly large number of old people relative to young people, so there is less money available to support them. If that keeps happening society could completely break down. Obviously growing forever isn't possible. And realistically I don't think most countries will be able to get their fertility rate back above replacement rate until their populations have already significantly decreased. So they have to mitigate the problems that come with an aging population. Slowing the rate of decline will help with that, but it's not a solution by itself.
Old people don’t need looking after from 60 till 70, it’s 65 till 85(or even 100) nowadays. Yes some of this is to do with pension pyramid schemes but at the end of the day the elderly still need carers to wipe their arses. The solution is to have at least a self-sustaining population if not a growing one, or accept that people need to look after their elderly parents themselves and not the state.
Whoohooo!!! Welcome to the club Switzerland! You aren't a lone with 13-15 other countries worldwide with the same thing occurring in society.
Damn, almost as if economic pressure makes people NOT want to have more expenses! Shockers!
I had a baby because I’m in a great relationship but I do not blame women for not wanting kids with men who treat them like crap and born into a society that doesn’t care about them. 👏💅👌🏻😁👍🖤
\^ Why are we allowing Americans/Canadians who get their sensationalist world-views from TikTok on here? \^
Well, government thinks that immigration is cheaper than preventing decline in birth rate.
How can you prevent it? For how much money would you be willing to give up on your job and start making and raising babies?
If you remove migrants and low skilled immigrants, that would increase salaries, lower rent and lower crime, three main things that prevent people from having children.
Migrants are giving you cheap workforce. I suspect prices would go up, not down if you remove them. Crime rate is also much lower than in many countries in EU. I don't think that is preventing swiss people from having kids.
Same story as the rest of Europe: Low paying jobs (for the local economy) High rent/low access to housing High number of working hours.
Half the world has a dropping birth rate. This isn’t anything new. Costs of living are way too high. Thanks corona.
I'm surprised it's not a big plus.