https://xcancel.com/BirthGauge/status/1852415110754484585

As we know this is because El Salvador is extremely rich, highly educated and industrialised.

Agricultural employment along with female oppression is lower there than in France.

TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is always treated as the fundamental numeric that determines population growth (or decline). Intuitively, (assuming no immigration) if the average woman is going to have 2.5 children, there will be population growth but if the average women is going to have 1.5 children, there will be a population decline. Yet, when I work out a hypothetical situation, there is a very significant long term difference between a two countries with identical TFR’s. If the average age of women when they have their children is lower than one than in the other, countries with lower average age of mothers will have greater long term population growth (or lower population declines) even if their TFR’s are the same.

In some underdeveloped countries, the average age of the mother of first born children is around 18 but in some high income countries, it is over 30. There are significant differences in this metric between countries of similar TFR’s. What I can’t figure out is how to quantify this difference to assess its effect on long term demographic changes. How important is the age of mothers having children and how much impact would government initiatives to either encourage or discourage women to have their children at a young age?

There is no question that, on average, the younger a woman is at the birth her first child, the more children she will have in her lifetime. (Increased chances of infertility or death and probably more experience with birth control). Still, with those issues accounted for and only countries with equal TFR’s are compared, the average age of mother when they give birth makes a big difference.

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/popfacts/PopFacts_2019-5.pdf

https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-015-0058-9

https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=2&lev=1&slev=1&obj=1

My wife and I are 27 and doing what we can to open doors financially in the future for a kid. I have always been dilegent with money. For example I have a monthly budget spreadsheet where I've tracked every expenses for last 2.5 years, 401k contributions since 2019, and a lot of the standard advice.

I can't type out all the details right now maybe later, so I'm curious about general advice for saving money specific for having kids.

We save about $900 a month in a west coast us city, but I have a hard time seeing how to not spend more than we save when it comes to increased housing/food/child care or loss of income to stay at home/all the other increase expenses.

https://xcancel.com/Anne_red_head/status/1848731276833939815

For context, the female labour force participation rate is notably higher in Kazakhstan vs other high income countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-rates?time=2000..latest&country=KAZ~High-income+countries~USA~GBR~NOR~SWE~FIN~DNK

Kazakhstan isn't birthing children in order to exploit "free labour on a farm": https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-the-labor-force-employed-in-agriculture?tab=chart&time=1999..latest&country=KAZ~NPL~IND~VNM~THA~Middle+income~OWID_WRL~CHN~LKA~ROU~TUR~IRN~MEX~BRA

Nor are they particularly bereft of education: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-schooling-prados-de-la-escosura?tab=chart&time=1995..latest&country=KAZ~OWID_WRL~Western+Europe+%28AHDI%29~Western+offshoots+%28AHDI%29~ITA~ESP~Latin+America+%28AHDI%29

Kazakhstan isn't a poor country, quite the opposite: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=KAZ~OWID_WRL~Upper-middle-income+countries~CHN~Low-income+countries~Middle-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries~THA~NPL~LKA~URY~CRI

I posted an answer to r/nostupidquestions, and I realised afterwards I don't think I've written as comprehensive answer on this topic before, and I thought it would be a shame to waste it.

Are there any point here you disagree with and why? Are there any factors you think I may have missed?:

Fertility rates are significantly below replacement in almost every developed country, causing the drop in population. Also, this is happening in a lot of developing countries. E.g, India and Thailand are below replacement rate. Multiple converging factors are causing this I think:

• Financial. Gap between rich and poor is growing, your money is worth less, harder to get stable housing. So people wait longer until they are in a stable situation. And sometimes, having children would not be feasible financially.

...

• Reliable Contraception. Pre reliable contraception, there would have been a lot more 'oops' babies and babies born in bad situations, where if it had been an option, the parents would have preferred to use contraception.

...

• Technology use. Changing the way people interact, and reducing direct interaction with other people has affected people pairing up and how they spend their time. I expect if all phone, tablet computers and the internet just suddenly stopped working, after a while you would have more babies being born.

...

• Changing life goals. There's a reasonable chunk of people now who don't want to have children, because it doesn't fit with the sort of lifestyle they want to lead.

...

• Female education. This lowers fertility rates, as education occurs during fertile years and the woman also has more opportunities other than being a mother. (Note - I am not against female education, or trying to depreciate mothers. I am merely stating a known correlation).

...

• Declining religiosity. Most religious groups have higher fertility rates than atheists/agnostics, and also vary between each other. Most developed societies have become, and continue to become, more secular.

...

• Uncompensated motherhood/parenthood. In the past, when most humans survived by farming their land, more children means more people to help work your land - kids and parenting are financial help and so you are compensated for having them.

In a situation where society is developing a bit more, but not yet developed, men are often assumed to be the primary earner in a household, often educated more, have more opportunities for work than women, women excluded from many professions. Women will never have the same earning capacity as men in these societies. Most women have to marry for survival, or it is difficult for them financially, socially, legally. You therefore don't lose out financially that much by having children, and you don't really have much choice anyway - you are sort of compensated for having them, or at least you don't lose out that much.

In more developed societies, typically women can be educated to the same level of men, have the same (or similar) job opportunities. As a result, you're kind of expected to be an independent economic unit as a woman. Typically women are the primary carer for young children. No one pays you for this. You may be expected/have to juggle a full time job and young children, which is very difficult and stressful. This is often not doable. You may also lose career progression. True, in many developed countries, there are often things in place to compensate for this at some level. E.g , child benefit. These do not come close anywhere to being a wage. You can't expect women to take a personal financial hit for having children and continue to have children at the same rate. You are also competing for housing with people with lower outgoing costs and higher earning capacity because they do not have children (SINKs and DINKs). You lose out significantly (financially) by having children.

As evidence for these reasons, look at the various places and groups with high fertility rates. They usually have some of the above factors negated by cultural practices, religious practices, law or some other reason. Israel - developed country - but religious.

Lower womens education/rights countries - typically higher fertility.

Amish groups - often very high fertility rates. No tech, very religious, low education levels, kind of remove financial factor by farming instead.

a big problem that i hear when it comes to having kids is the whole it costs too much mentality. i really only see this as an issue if you are impoverished by 3rd world standards. you'd be surprised how little children actually need in terms of material comforts (just go back a century and you'll find children having like 3 toys if they're lucky). honestly i think it may be better for kids not to have too much materially as i feel we overstimulate kids (like i don't think anyone under the age of 14 should have any electronics at all). honestly i think it would be better for a kid to grow up in poverty (by first world standards) provided the home is functional (loving, two parent, not abusive) than even growing up middle class.

edit: i wrote this suffering from a headache and brainfog. i am usually more careful with picking my words (it doesn't matter anyways. even when i am careful to not give the wrong message i get hate).

Everybody who raises children to be decent and tax-contributing members of society are doing their governments and communities a HUGE service.

Nonetheless, parents take a significant financial hit to their lifestyle and, even, career status.

Let's fix this! Pay parents more!

I know that the data shows that small tax incentives don't work, but the cost of raising a child is upwards of $200,000 these days in the US. Offer an equivalent amount of tax breaks.

Woman after woman posting that she doesn't feel safe getting pregnant anymore, with the politics of restricted abortion access. One poster specifically said that if the general election goes one way she wants 2 kids in the next 4 years, the other way she will delay child bearing at least 4. Another nearly died in a previous miscarriage and due to the way politics affected her care she's afraid to try again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenOver30/s/jyE58n4e9N

What do y'all think about the idea that having confident access to comprehensive healthcare affects women's decision to have kids? This includes private decision making with your high risk specialist etc. Heck even access to one. Idaho has lost 55% of their MFM specialists since ’22, they moved out of state and can't find replacements. What's a woman with a twin pregnancy to do? Travel to Oregon for pregnancy care?

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/05/idaho-is-losing-ob-gyns-after-strict-abortion-ban-but-health-exceptions-unlikely-this-year/#:~:text=Idaho%20lost%2022%25%20of%20practicing,to%20practice%2C%E2%80%9D%20Whitlock%20said.

Name a country that has free access to an array of birth control, abortion for any reason, and 'empowered women' that has a sustainable birthrate?

We don't need Quincy with a magnifying glass rubbing his chin to work out what the problem is here.

I hate to break it to everyone but there is no free stuff policy that's going to get people willingly pumping out 5 kids.

We need to think about this like we're being attacked by a foreign country, no one wants to send their sons into battle to die alone in field bleeding out in pain and misery. But we, as a society, deemed it necessary for our civilisation to survive.

This isn't a war men can fight unfortunately

So I think low birth rates are a very serious and self-evident problem. We can make very accurate predictions about the demographic outlook of most countries and they look ugly. (the amount of 21 years old in 2044 is the amount of 1 year old now, with some adjustments.)

We have seen a negative impact on Europe and East Asia and that is just the beginning. But even acknowledging the problem is too uncomfortable for many and they put their head in the sand or try to derail the conversation, even calling you names for caring about the future of humanity and the reslience and prosperity of the society we live in. The fact that the Antinatalism sub is over 20 times bigger than this one is disappointing.

But I am gald I found this sub and I think what we are doing is extremely important, because whatever the problem is, the movements to adress it always start small. Even if it isn't a popular topic that will get you rounds of applauses everywhere you go, someone had to get the conversation started and must keep it going,

Every piece of data looks terrible, but some now people are starting to discuss it, and some governaments are taking baby steps to try adress the issue. Results aren't great, but at least they are trying.

I am an optimist and I believe both problem will be fixed in my lifetime, although they will get worse before they will get better. Thank you people for supporting this cause

EDIT: I post this videos here (that you may or may not agree with) for the people thinking natalism and economic prosperity or climate change are a contradiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ&t=14s

EDIT 2. Not replying anymore (sleep time), but I am a bit disappointed by some comments. Even if people don't agree, you would think the one choosing to spend time in a natalist subreddit would understand why many of us are worried about birth rates, and I am tired to explains under every comment.

Some people understanding of demography and economics is at the level of a purple Marvel villain.

In the developed world, especially the Anglo-sphere, surveys of the young tend to produce contradictory results:

1. Most young women and men (anywhere between 60-90%) indicate that they want to marry and have kids, usually desiring 2 kids.
2. A plurality (sometimes surveyed as a majority) are uber-liberal/progressive and terrified of climate catastrophe, therefore equally question the morality of having kids (despite usually also wanting them for themselves).
3. Most desire to be 'financially stable' before starting a family but aren't willing to take a risk, change industry and/or move geographically to achieve that stability (e.g. move to a booming region with a resource sector).
4. Most, both men and women, typically aren't interested in "settling down" with a spouse until their 30s.
5. Most aren't willing to sacrifice a career for temporary, full-time parenthood.

The above are contradictory goals;

• If you put career first, you most likely won't have kids.

• Everybody makes financial and career opportunity costs, and most people with kids struggle, at least temporarily. If you're unwilling to take that risk, you won't have kids.

• If you're too picky or laxidisical when looking for a spouse, you most likely won't find one. That means no kids.

• If you sit on the fence about having kids because you're fearful of global trends that are mostly out of your control; chances are you'll wait too long and won't have kids.

Literally none of the above issues can be fixed with a childcare subsidy, a tax credit, parental leave etc. All are personal, culturally-driven issues that impact certain people in society more than others.

Clearly pronatalism needs to appeal to hearts and minds first, before looking into economic causes for the fertility decline.

The main problem with boosting natalism, I feel, is the myth of adolescence extending into adulthood. Adolescence ends maybe 2 years after puberty and that's it.

People should also stop believing that autistic/ADHD people mature later, because that's not biologically true. Autistic people actually have a shorter lifespan.

With increasing disability diagnosis rates, we need to really think critically about what this means. Today, 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 American children has a disability diagnosis. When my parents were growing up it was 1 in 100 and a lot of it was due to accidents and it was less common in urban areas because there was less farm related risks.

Many people point to extended schooling as the issue and while that might be the case (most people shouldn't attend college) technology has made it so that people can learn more information, for example with Youtube, whenever they want.

For everyone who cites Abraham and Sarah having kids later, we should also emphasize that psalm 127 says "Blessed are the children of a man's youth".

While I'm not saying that 13 year olds should be getting married under the current American system, I think we should be looking at the 21-35 set seriously and that they shouldn't be considered basically teens, like they are here in VHCOL.

I think that independence at 18 should be the standard again. Unfortunately the majority of ethnick families don't let people move out at that age. That's why I prefer more dysfunctional sides of the culture here where parents drop kids off at the homeless shelter on their 18th birthday.

I wish I had found my stuff on the curb in trash bags on my 18th instead of my immigrant mom crying when I moved out long after that because we are babied too much in Far East, Mediterranean, Latin American, etc cultures.

Instead, we're looking toward astrology and saying that the "Saturn Return" at age 32 is the age where you become an adult. When that wasn't even the case in medieval astrology, that was the age that people started dying lol. For example, I'm 43 so I'm nearly dead.

What do y'all think of kidults? I definitely think it's somewhat dumb for people to think they need to mature through a partying and frat lifestyle. Most people don't want to climb the corporate ladder or get a PhD, masters degree. That's honestly not what the game plan is for most folks. What happened to "Just having a job". Why are gen z and younger millennials in VHCOL's supposed to go through 9 or 10 different job changes just to pay rent ffs. What are your thoughts about this matter.

For me it's got to be a greater availability of IVF, and more research into making it more effective. I've known too many couples who've made the choice to have a family but mother nature decided against it. The success rate is also very low, seems a good place to spend money.

Thoughts?

I've noticed on this sub especially there is a lot of doomerism about the topic, essentially people saying there is nothing you can do about the topic. This is often a response to people who suggest certain government economic policy to increase births. I'm not sure if these are anti natalist trolls or what but I think this is wrong. Firstly we have seen places with low fertility rates increase, specifically in Kazakhstan, Georgia and Hungary. Furthermore many government programs in nations where this is a problem have just started, just outright saying they will fail is dumb. Also this place has a western bias so I am sure all of you know that immigration is becoming more and more unpopular. The only way for this to be viable is for an increase in birth rates Furthermore in Africa birth rates are declining as well. I think certain people here acting like there is nothing to be done about birth rates are either mis informed or bad faith actors