Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
Doesn't always work though. It seems everyone I know is doing IVF or some sort of hormone therapy to help stimulate pregnancy. Even though they were fecking regularly.

Are we also running into high fertility problems, in that women who do try to have kids are struggling to get pregnant?
Yes or no depending how you see it. It has always been the case that fertility declines with age and the average age for first child in almost all advanced nations is now above 30 for women and probably a handful years more for men. So that's no surprise.

If we went back to the basics of marrying off our daughters to the highest bidder as soon as they got their first period, you'd see birth rates skyrocket!
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
Understandable. As women move up the ranks in the corporate world, they are less likely to have children. The more intelligent the female, the lesser the chance she has kids.

Nowdays women are surpassing men in the third level education.
 

George Owen

LEAVE THE SFW THREAD ALONE!!1!
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
15,805
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Doesn't always work though. It seems everyone I know is doing IVF or some sort of hormone therapy to help stimulate pregnancy. Even though they were fecking regularly.

Are we also running into high fertility problems, in that women who do try to have kids are struggling to get pregnant?
I don't think so. Ask Boris... If that inbred can still make kids, the problem is obviously not biological.

Young people (specially young professionals) dont want kids because it's a pain in the ass and there is so much to do in life.
 

baskinginthesun

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,102
Yes or no depending how you see it. It has always been the case that fertility declines with age and the average age for first child in almost all advanced nations is now above 30 for women and probably a handful years more for men. So that's no surprise.

If we went back to the basics of marrying off our daughters to the highest bidder as soon as they got their first period, you'd see birth rates skyrocket!
Fair point. The people I know were well into their 30's when they started trying. I just find it incredible how high the natural fertility drops off.

You're probably right about the marrying off bit.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
I don't think so. Ask Boris... If that inbred can still make kids, the problem is obviously not biological.

People dont want kids because it's a pain in the ass.
That is my reason for not having them. I want to have a nice stress free life.
 

baskinginthesun

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,102
I don't think so. Ask Boris... If that inbred can still make kids, the problem is obviously not biological.

Young people (specially young professionals) dont want kids because it's a pain in the ass and there is so much to do in life.
.....and expensive, not mention the youngins' cannot afford houses so they don't feel settled which probably puts them off the idea of kids as well.
 

Jericholyte2

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
3,536
I know me and Mrs. Jericholyte2 have been trying for years now and have been having difficulties (we're not far from the IVF stage) but I have to admit that there are many occasions when I see what’s going on in the world I wonder why I would bring a life into this shit holed a world we have at a moment.
  • Rise of far right populism where free thinkers and people who question are derided as enemies of the peopl
  • Global crisis after global crisis
  • The privacy crisis concerning social media
  • Environmental crises leading increasingly extreme weather patterns
  • Increasing stress and cost of raising children
  • The over pressurised environment of schools (both of us have worked in the education system, she still does)
I do wonder sometimes if we should just get more dogs.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
Interestingly enough Italy and Hungary are trying to counter this. Italy is offering free land to women who have kids. Hungary is offering to exclude women who have children from taxes.
 
Mad Tory Boy Mike

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
Interestingly enough Italy and Hungary are trying to counter this. Italy is offering free land to women who have kids. Hungary is offering to exclude women who have children from taxes.
I haven't read anything about that but if that's true that is a wholly wrong approach (personal opinion) for two reasons.

One, it's not just women who have stopped wanting kids. Modern men are also massively put off by marriage and family, it's evident everywhere you look. Two, offering benefits to mothers only can encourage a rent-seeking behaviour against the state. What people in Britain call "benefit scrounging". Hook up with some layabout men, have a bunch of feral kids that neither parent can truly support and have the state pay for it all. And usually the poor kids that come out of those households have the lowest education rates and highest criminality rates. I'd rather have mass immigration than that to be honest.

In my opinion there need to be more family-based incentives to having children. Two-parent kids are far better supported from a financial, emotional as well social-connection standpoint and they are (on average) better achievers in life by every metric. They work out cheaper for the state (less financial support required) and with better output (taxes).

Bottom line, both sexes need strong incentives to have family and kids these days. Not just women.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
I haven't read anything about that but if that's true that is a wholly wrong approach (personal opinion) for two reasons.

One, it's not just women who have stopped wanting kids. Modern men are also massively put off by marriage and family, it's evident everywhere you look. Two, offering benefits to mothers only can encourage a rent-seeking behaviour against the state. What people in Britain call "benefit scrounging". Hook up with some layabout men, have a bunch of feral kids that neither parent can truly support and have the state pay for it all. And usually the poor kids that come out of those households have the lowest education rates and highest criminality rates. I'd rather have mass immigration than that to be honest.

In my opinion there need to be more family-based incentives to having children. Two-parent kids are far better supported from a financial, emotional as well social-connection standpoint and they are (on average) better achievers in life by every metric. They work out cheaper for the state (less financial support required) and with better output (taxes).

Bottom line, both sexes need strong incentives to have family and kids these days. Not just women.
I agree. I read that is what Italy and Hungary were planning to do, given the declining birth rate in both countries. Whether they actually do it, i dont know.

It could be counter beneficial in ways too. What they are essentially saying to women and men, is that we want you to have two kids to sustain the economic system, which is not an enticing reason for people to have kids.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
Sooner or later there is going to be a resource crunch for everything from clean drinking water to land to live on, thanks to global warming and other assorted crimes against nature committed during the advent of the industrial era. Lesser world population might not necessarily be a bad thing.
There already is for most of the world. Just not if you live in the west.

For most human beings alive, life is still for the most part survival.
 

Tibs

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
13,742
Location
UK
Is this not a good thing for fighting climate change?
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,021
Is this not a good thing for fighting climate change?
Yes, but the devastating economic effects will hit us a long time before the population shrinks enough to have a significant effect on climate change. We're still gonna be 8-9 billion by the end of the century. Not having kids is a terrible solution to climate change.
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
It they're looking for reasons the birth-rate has plummeted in developed countries they needn't look further than money.

Wages have stagnated, the cost of living has skyrocketed and people can't rely on traditional support systems taken for granted by previous generations. Your average 20-something couple in 2020 Britain would have to accept an enormous lifestyle change to accommodate the cost of having a child, and many would be putting themselves into financial difficulty. Add to that that many people in their late-20s entered the job market during a recession and are only now reaching the level of financial security previous generations would have achieved in their early 20s, there are a lot more cons and far fewer pros to having a kid than there used to be.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
It they're looking for reasons the birth-rate has plummeted in developed countries they needn't look further than money.

Wages have stagnated, the cost of living has skyrocketed and people can't rely on traditional support systems taken for granted by previous generations. Your average 20-something couple in 2020 Britain would have to accept an enormous lifestyle change to accommodate the cost of having a child, and many would be putting themselves into financial difficulty. Add to that that many people in their late-20s entered the job market during a recession and are only now reaching the level of financial security previous generations would have achieved in their early 20s, there are a lot more cons and far fewer pros to having a kid than there used to be.
So people in the richest nations don’t have kids.... just because it’s too expensive. But people in the poorest nations, with 0 social support systems are the ones having the most kids on this planet.

I don’t know man, but something tells me your analysis has a flaw or two in it.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
I think there is an increase in rationalization across western society. People are realizing that having kids just to fit in with the crowd is stupid. And secondly, they are realizing that having kids only makes your life stressful and not happier.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,539
So people in the richest nations don’t have kids.... just because it’s too expensive. But people in the poorest nations, with 0 social support systems are the ones having the most kids on this planet.

I don’t know man, but something tells me your analysis has a flaw or two in it.
children can be labour assets in the third world
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,539
It they're looking for reasons the birth-rate has plummeted in developed countries they needn't look further than money.

Wages have stagnated, the cost of living has skyrocketed and people can't rely on traditional support systems taken for granted by previous generations. Your average 20-something couple in 2020 Britain would have to accept an enormous lifestyle change to accommodate the cost of having a child, and many would be putting themselves into financial difficulty. Add to that that many people in their late-20s entered the job market during a recession and are only now reaching the level of financial security previous generations would have achieved in their early 20s, there are a lot more cons and far fewer pros to having a kid than there used to be.
kerala has (among major indian states):
1. the highest literacy rate since the 60s
2. the most functional welfare system by a distance, set up starting in the 60s.
3. the highest HDI since it was first measured in 1991
4. 1.7 fertility for 30 years.

i think there are a lot of links between 1 and 4.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
kerala has (among major indian states):
1. the highest literacy rate since the 60s
2. the most functional welfare system by a distance, set up starting in the 60s.
3. the highest HDI since it was first measured in 1991
4. 1.7 fertility for 30 years.

i think there are a lot of links between 1 and 4.
As intelligence goes up in the female of society, the probability of having kids goes down.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,496
I think there is an increase in rationalization across western society. People are realizing that having kids just to fit in with the crowd is stupid. And secondly, they are realizing that having kids only makes your life stressful and not happier.
Hmm i think you might be projecting a tad.

I'm confident society will adjust but there's some elements that might collapse hard. Stock markets and pension funds for one are going to face some real challenges and that has many ripples.

If you're sticking money in a pension fund now that you might not see for 40 years then there's reason to be nervous.
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
So people in the richest nations don’t have kids.... just because it’s too expensive. But people in the poorest nations, with 0 social support systems are the ones having the most kids on this planet.

I don’t know man, but something tells me your analysis has a flaw or two in it.
You're arguing against a point I never made here mate. I never made any judgement on the factors surrounding global birth rates or made any comparison between factors controlling birth rates in rich and poor countries.

My statement was simply that, in developed countries, the cost of having children as a proportion of household income has increased massively over the course of the last few decades and this puts a lot of people off starting a family.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,623
I think there is an increase in rationalization across western society. People are realizing that having kids just to fit in with the crowd is stupid. And secondly, they are realizing that having kids only makes your life stressful and not happier.
We have to ask the question: why is it more stressful?

IMO it's the financial side. Having kids should be fun and joyful, but child care is extremely expensive here where I live. Clothing, food, daycare etc, they all add up quite heavily.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
You're arguing against a point I never made here mate. I never made any judgement on the factors surrounding global birth rates or made any comparison between factors controlling birth rates in rich and poor countries.

My statement was simply that, in developed countries, the cost of having children as a proportion of household income has increased massively over the course of the last few decades and this puts a lot of people off starting a family.
You made the point that the only reason that developed countries don't have as many children nowadays is because of the increasing costs vs income. That's what "If they're looking for reasons the birth-rate has plummeted in developed countries they needn't look further than money" means.

Yet all the analyses from across the globe point to higher education, gender equality and freedom of choice as the reasons people don't have as many kids... rather than money. And the developed world is not an alien species on a different solar system. Rich vs poor analysis is not out of context here, just because you didn't specifically make a judgement on it. It's yet another very strong indicator that money alone isn't one of the prime drivers of this fertility drop.
 
Last edited:

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
27,893
Location
Tool shed
You're arguing against a point I never made here mate. I never made any judgement on the factors surrounding global birth rates or made any comparison between factors controlling birth rates in rich and poor countries.

My statement was simply that, in developed countries, the cost of having children as a proportion of household income has increased massively over the course of the last few decades and this puts a lot of people off starting a family.
That's a really simplistic view, though. Cost of living has increased but so has the standard of living, housing, medicine, education etc. for children. Your view doesn't make a lot of sense given that historically, the poorer people are, the more children they've had. This is based on a myriad of factors beyond costs, such as lack of access to contraception, religious beliefs, and people just wanting more kids to help with low skilled jobs like farming.

I would argue the main reason people in richer countries have less kids these days is opportunity. People can afford to travel the world now, or get degrees, or get high skilled professions, or just live a far more enjoyable and comfortable lifestyle that they likely don't want to give up in order to have children. People also get married and settle down at a far older age, so the "window" for actually being able to have kids is much smaller.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
We have to ask the question: why is it more stressful?

IMO it's the financial side. Having kids should be fun and joyful, but child care is extremely expensive here where I live. Clothing, food, daycare etc, they all add up quite heavily.
I have two cousins who basically said they do not intend on having kids. They may get married, but they are not having kids. There reasons were life is already tough enough.

You have a point in that, if you make it enticing to have kids financially, then more people would have them.

But like i say, people are getting smart now days. The prospect of having kids just to fit in, normative social influence, what the social psychologists call it, is seen as being idiotic.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
That's a really simplistic view, though. Cost of living has increased but so has the standard of living, housing, medicine, education etc. for children. Your view doesn't make a lot of sense given that historically, the poorer people are, the more children they've had. This is based on a myriad of factors beyond costs, such as lack of access to contraception, religious beliefs, and people just wanting more kids to help with low skilled jobs like farming.

I would argue the main reason people in richer countries have less kids these days is opportunity. People can afford to travel the world now, or get degrees, or get high skilled professions, or just live a far more enjoyable and comfortable lifestyle that they likely don't want to give up in order to have children. People also get married and settle down at a far older age, so the "window" for actually being able to have kids is much smaller.
This.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
19,836
If they think birth rates are dropping rapidly now wait until there are realistic sex robots available.
 

entropy

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
11,224
Location
Where's my arc, Paulie?
That's a really simplistic view, though. Cost of living has increased but so has the standard of living, housing, medicine, education etc. for children. Your view doesn't make a lot of sense given that historically, the poorer people are, the more children they've had. This is based on a myriad of factors beyond costs, such as lack of access to contraception, religious beliefs, and people just wanting more kids to help with low skilled jobs like farming.

I would argue the main reason people in richer countries have less kids these days is opportunity. People can afford to travel the world now, or get degrees, or get high skilled professions, or just live a far more enjoyable and comfortable lifestyle that they likely don't want to give up in order to have children. People also get married and settle down at a far older age, so the "window" for actually being able to have kids is much smaller.
Not it hasn't. They have only gotten expensive. You are conflating quality of care available with affordability. Both are entirely different things. The fact that millions have lost their jobs, healthcare, cannot afford to pay rent or mortgage, all in one fell swoop tells you how stupid humans really are.
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
If they think birth rates are dropping rapidly now wait until there are realistic sex robots available.
"Granddad. What did you used to do before there were robots?"
"Well, little Timmy, let me show you my Fleshlight."
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
You made the point that the only reason that developed countries don't have as many children nowadays is because of the increasing costs vs income. That's what "If they're looking for reasons the birth-rate has plummeted in developed countries they needn't look further than money" means.

Yet all the analyses from across the globe point to higher education, gender equality and freedom of choice as the reasons people don't have as many kids... rather than money. And the developed world is not an alien species on a different solar system. Rich vs poor analysis is not out of context here, just because you didn't specifically make a judgement on it. It's yet another very strong indicator that money alone isn't one of the prime drivers of this fertility drop.
Undoubtedly, those things you mention are factors for decreasing birth rates - they just aren't as relevant to developed countries today as they are to developing countries. Global trends that are leading to decreases in birth rates (e.g - changing attitudes, the decreased economic utility of having large families, the availability of contraception etc.) occurred decades or more ago in most developed countries. In the UK there have been two major historical falls in birthrate which correspond almost exactly to the current trends you are identifying in the developing world. The first one was rapid industrialisation and the advent of child labour laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second one was a cultural shift combined with increased availability of contraception in the second half of the 20th Century which lead to a further collapse in the birth-rate between the mid-60s and the early-80s.

Since the early-80s the birthrate has been relatively stable here until the last few years where there's been a downward trend again. My argument is simply that the reason birth-rates are decreasing in wealthy countries at this particular moment in time is because 20-somethings now either flat out can't afford them, and because general economic trends mean that they are less likely to lead lives conducive to 'settling down and having kids'. Obviously changes in attitudes are still ongoing but you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate a statistically significant shift in the last 20-30 years or so to explain the fact why the current raft of 20-somethings aren't having kids. The one thing that is demonstrably different between the 20-somethings of today and the 20-somethings of the 80s and 90s in that 20-somethings today are, across the board, less likely to have stable lives.


That's a really simplistic view, though. Cost of living has increased but so has the standard of living, housing, medicine, education etc. for children. Your view doesn't make a lot of sense given that historically, the poorer people are, the more children they've had. This is based on a myriad of factors beyond costs, such as lack of access to contraception, religious beliefs, and people just wanting more kids to help with low skilled jobs like farming.

I would argue the main reason people in richer countries have less kids these days is opportunity. People can afford to travel the world now, or get degrees, or get high skilled professions, or just live a far more enjoyable and comfortable lifestyle that they likely don't want to give up in order to have children. People also get married and settle down at a far older age, so the "window" for actually being able to have kids is much smaller.
I've addressed some of your points (especially your first paragraph) in my response to Mike above so sorry if there's repetition.

Life is definitely more comfortable for the majority now (not sure about enjoyable, work-life balance has taken a hammering in the last 30 years and we have a tendency of looking back at the absence of modern conveniences in terms of how we'd feel if they vanished, rather than how life was before them), but this has little to do with the amount of disposable income that the average 20-something has. A key point on the bolded is that getting a degree or being highly skilled is no longer a guarantee of financial security, never mind wealth. Someone with my job in 1980 would be able to sustain a middle class lifestyle: nice house, nice car, holidays etc. for themselves, a stay-at-home partner and a couple of kids. In 2020, my fiancé and I would probably need to earn twice as much as we do to get close to that standard of living.

The issue is far less that the lives of 20-somethings are too good to abandon for a child, it's that they aren't lives many would contemplate bringing a child into. Not because they're necessarily bad (although as I've said, the cost of living means that it's perfectly possible to be working full-time and still struggling), but because they're insecure. Millennials are far less likely to have a permanent contract, far more likely to work part-time hours/shift work, far more likely to have to relocate away from their support systems for work and far less likely to own a home than their parents were at the same age. Many people will move house half-a-dozen times in their 20s, hold several different jobs and live in a few different cities. Again, these aren't necessarily bad things, but living a sort of semi-nomadic lifestyle where you don't know where you'll be living or whether you'll be working when your contract ends is not conducive to settling down and having kids.

Undoubtedly, some people enjoy that lifestyle and lean into it, but the reason people are settling down later is because most don't reach a stage in their career where they can afford to do so until their 30s. Although, I think that's especially acute in my peer group because the job market didn't recover from the crash until most of us were in our mid-20s. Associated with that is the fact that most of us didn't have the taste of freedom and disposable income our parents got at 18/19 until we were in our mid-20s, so it that sense it's a bit of a chicken and egg between the financial circumstances and the different priorities.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
19,836
"Granddad. What did you used to do before there were robots?"
"Well, little Timmy, let me show you my Fleshlight."
I'd say that Old man and child's relationship seems a bit off.
 

UweBein

Creator of the Worst Analogy on the Internet.
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
3,729
Location
Köln
Supports
Chelsea
This not 2100. This is happening today.
Fertility rate has gone up in Germany and they are trying to increase it further. France and Scandinavia are also implementing measures.

However, East and South Europe are facing a massive problem. In some countries in these regionpopulation has already been reduced by 30% compared to 30 years ago.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,742
I agree. I read that is what Italy and Hungary were planning to do, given the declining birth rate in both countries. Whether they actually do it, i dont know.

It could be counter beneficial in ways too. What they are essentially saying to women and men, is that we want you to have two kids to sustain the economic system, which is not an enticing reason for people to have kids.
Well in fairness the economic system is probably why people aren't having kids, why shouldn't it be adjusted to be the reason why people want to have kids again? If you could settle down in your mid 20s with a normal 35h a week job and a house, regardless of how rich your parents were, I think a lot more people would have kids before the age of 30.
 

Hugh Jass

Shave Dass
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
11,244
Well in fairness the economic system is probably why people aren't having kids, why shouldn't it be adjusted to be the reason why people want to have kids again? If you could settle down in your mid 20s with a normal 35h a week job and a house, regardless of how rich your parents were, I think a lot more people would have kids before the age of 30.
The incentives would have to be really good.

Men and women, in the present day, are not having kids for the economic system. They are having them because that is how they are taught to live the dream life. So if the government come out and say: "We want you to have three kids for the economic system." Unless the deal is pretty good, i doubt many will sign up for it.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,742
The incentives would have to be really good.

Men and women, in the present day, are not having kids for the economic system. They are having them because that is how they are taught to live the dream life. So if the government come out and say: "We want you to have three kids for the economic system." Unless the deal is pretty good, i doubt many will sign up for it.
I don't know about that. The "dream life" is the only option when you can't settle down. If you're never going to be able to afford a house, the only things worth saving for are maybe a car and then holidays, gigs, experiences...

If people had both options then there'd be more kids IMO.
 

shamans

Thinks you can get an STD from flirting.
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
18,226
Location
Constantly at the STD clinic.
I can't speak for what will fix this because I don't understand the mentality of someone not wanting kids -- I respect the decision and not having a kid is much, much better than having one and not taking care of them, but just saying I can't comment on a solution because I don't understand the reasoning.

However, I will say for those of us that do want kids (such as myself) I cannot wait and it has nothing to do with economic benefits. A child will set me back significantly, but I will still (hopefully) be able to provide, have a house and enough for us to survive a good life. If I didn't have a kid though, I could buy the sports car I wanted, travel around the world and live a very flashy life.

What I am trying to say is, it doesn't seem like "economic benefit" would be much of a factor for someone who doesn't want kids to suddenly go "oh well $1k for each kid, guess I'm gonna get popping!". Issue is obviously more complex than that.

Maybe it would be best to ask people in there 30's or 40's who haven't had kids why they didn't? I also do disagree with the person who said living standards have not gone higher, they really have in some cases.

Back in the day a house here where I live was a simple 3 bedroom, 1 bath with a carport (if you're lucky). Now it's like every 30 something I talk to either wants a luxury apartment or a luxury finished house with granite counter tops.