This isn’t a bad thing, which is important to get out early because some far-right groups use it as an example for why we should wind back the clock.
Most women in advanced countries work, they have and want to have meaningful careers. Having children conflicts with that, in the immediate significant time off, and the long term impact of being the default parent when they have issues at school or are sick.
Lifestyles in advanced countries really rely on two incomes. Stopping work for a significant period to raise multiple children is a significant impact on that income, plus the long term expenses of the child combine to reduce that lifestyle. Not having children, or reducing the number, can be an economic choice.
The culture of both parents working also impacts the support network. Your working, your friends are working, the village is behind a desk not supporting you.
Finally women get a choice now, which is a change that is recent, isn’t global and doesn’t seem to be as widely acknowledged as it should be.
Society needs to change to address these issues and provide these missing supports. Which is going to take time, but as they are addressed we will probably see the birth rates start to climb again.
While I appreciate the optimism, I’m not sure that the historical data bears out that we will probably see the birthrates climb again when the supports are in place. This is a massive challenge for all of the Global North, but especially Japan, China, South Korea, and then all the way up in the “developed world.” Some where around Panama, Indonesia, or Myanmar is where you see the 2.1 replacement rate (from 2024 data), so something close to 100 countries below 2.1 TFR.
Bribes have been tried (as in one time payments for kids). Child Care coverage has been tried. Other structural changes (like the Nordic dual parent paternity leave, or even time shifted paternity leave like France and others).
Maybe you mean more than just economic and governmental supports. As Claudia Goldin has said
“cultural changes around gender and women’s autonomy are the primary drivers of fertility decline, not just economic factors that policies might address”
This is why, as an American, I’m so confused about the anti-immigration bonanza happening. It’s not only against the American ethos, but shooting ourselves in the foot both economically and culturally. We need more people to make up for the future loss that is happening, and people from around the world have wanted to come. They pay for their worth in huge amounts (I’m already digressing so I won’t paste more journals and such on this), and what’s more if we want the economy to thrive and survive we need them… (Should we have a growth based economy is another question, that is worth asking, but again digression.)
Anyway, the point is Global North has tried and failed to address TFR, and no one has one that battle. Greater standard of living = lower TFR.
Yes, I think with women it’s not just about “career or children”. Regardless of being a “career woman” or not, more women than historically are choosing not to have kids or choosing not to settle for whoever comes along. So if they don’t meet someone they really like they’re more likely to walk away.
Social pressure around having kids absolutely still exists but it’s definitely lower compared to any other time in history.
It’s the same as how people instantly think divorce rates going up is a bad thing. But again, this is partly due to less social pressure and more people willing to break the previous social codes in which case it’s a good thing that more people are leaving unhappy marriages.
I’m not sure the birth rates will climb significantly again. I think they will just even out steadily because there are people who have the choice to not have children now. And it’s not just giving them the opportunity to manage it financially that will change that. Reducing it to economics still ignores part of the feminist, equality angle of the argument.
Feminism/Equality and the changes it has brought.
This isn’t a bad thing, which is important to get out early because some far-right groups use it as an example for why we should wind back the clock.
Most women in advanced countries work, they have and want to have meaningful careers. Having children conflicts with that, in the immediate significant time off, and the long term impact of being the default parent when they have issues at school or are sick.
Lifestyles in advanced countries really rely on two incomes. Stopping work for a significant period to raise multiple children is a significant impact on that income, plus the long term expenses of the child combine to reduce that lifestyle. Not having children, or reducing the number, can be an economic choice.
The culture of both parents working also impacts the support network. Your working, your friends are working, the village is behind a desk not supporting you.
Finally women get a choice now, which is a change that is recent, isn’t global and doesn’t seem to be as widely acknowledged as it should be.
Society needs to change to address these issues and provide these missing supports. Which is going to take time, but as they are addressed we will probably see the birth rates start to climb again.
While I appreciate the optimism, I’m not sure that the historical data bears out that we will probably see the birthrates climb again when the supports are in place. This is a massive challenge for all of the Global North, but especially Japan, China, South Korea, and then all the way up in the “developed world.” Some where around Panama, Indonesia, or Myanmar is where you see the 2.1 replacement rate (from 2024 data), so something close to 100 countries below 2.1 TFR.
Bribes have been tried (as in one time payments for kids). Child Care coverage has been tried. Other structural changes (like the Nordic dual parent paternity leave, or even time shifted paternity leave like France and others).
Maybe you mean more than just economic and governmental supports. As Claudia Goldin has said “cultural changes around gender and women’s autonomy are the primary drivers of fertility decline, not just economic factors that policies might address”
This is why, as an American, I’m so confused about the anti-immigration bonanza happening. It’s not only against the American ethos, but shooting ourselves in the foot both economically and culturally. We need more people to make up for the future loss that is happening, and people from around the world have wanted to come. They pay for their worth in huge amounts (I’m already digressing so I won’t paste more journals and such on this), and what’s more if we want the economy to thrive and survive we need them… (Should we have a growth based economy is another question, that is worth asking, but again digression.)
Anyway, the point is Global North has tried and failed to address TFR, and no one has one that battle. Greater standard of living = lower TFR.
Yes, I think with women it’s not just about “career or children”. Regardless of being a “career woman” or not, more women than historically are choosing not to have kids or choosing not to settle for whoever comes along. So if they don’t meet someone they really like they’re more likely to walk away.
Social pressure around having kids absolutely still exists but it’s definitely lower compared to any other time in history.
It’s the same as how people instantly think divorce rates going up is a bad thing. But again, this is partly due to less social pressure and more people willing to break the previous social codes in which case it’s a good thing that more people are leaving unhappy marriages.
I’m not sure the birth rates will climb significantly again. I think they will just even out steadily because there are people who have the choice to not have children now. And it’s not just giving them the opportunity to manage it financially that will change that. Reducing it to economics still ignores part of the feminist, equality angle of the argument.