Making our towns and cities a safe and supportive place for children is a great way to promote having children.
A primary reason people choose not to have children (when they get the chance to choose) is not wanting to bring children into an inhospitable place/world/life
Tax cuts for parents. When 50-60% of what I make goes to the state, which provides "universal"(ie. subpar) services, 20-30% of the rest goes to a landlord because home ownership is no longer afforable, it's pretty hard to have more than 1 child.
I'm all for innovative ideas in supporting families and children, but the examples from the article hardly count as "successfully reversing fertility declines".
- Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article.
- Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation.
- South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline.
- Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.
"successfully reversed declining fertility rates by consistently improving and working on family policy" not "successfully reversing fertility declines"
It's kinda sus that you leave the whole "rates" part out
- Japan (1.2) and Tokyo (.99) vs Nagareyama (1.5 considering it's in Chiba and Tokyo) & Nagi (2.95)
- Considering the Italian Birth Rate is in freefall whole South Tyrol is holding steady and above not just Italy's but also the UK.
- Czecha had a 1.8 until a drop to 1.6 during 2021 to 2022 according towards your dataset with Belgium, Lit. and the UK are now below
Considinder Czecha had a 1.1 in 2000, its only just makes it more impressive
It's influenced by the population wave caused by a communist president in early 1970s. The results are subpar if you normalize for that. There are a lot more adults in the age to have children right now than before, but it's going to drop hard very soon.
One thing that perplexes me about this topic is that people don't just pull up a historical birth rate chart, find the bit not that long ago when fertility rates were around 4, and then ask "why was it 4 then?".
Followed by asking "how can we restore those things?".
I really doubt it was because any of the popular reasons trotted out whenever this topic comes up, which usually blame money, despite us having much more money now than in days past when birthrates were way higher.
I wonder why it's so hard for people just to say simple things like "it's because everyone carefully uses contraception now, and treats sex as a consumption good, because they want it but not its result - a scenario most of them treat as on par with catching malaria".
I wonder how much of this is a selection bias of people already set on having a family choosing to settle in such a place. E.g. Tokyo population increases, Japan population decreases. Aside from the Czech example it doesn't seem like much was accomplished.
These locations required many decades of thoughtful planning to almost reach 2.0 TFR (sans the first example, which is over 2).
The wealthier a country is, the more $ required to break the opportunity cost calculus.
E.g. the US would require over $200k in subsidies per child to reach native fertility rates over 2.1 amongst the non-orthodox religious subset.
Likelihood that this happens amongst the boomer class that still thinks like Malthus on average? Zero. They have all the political power, but no incentive.
In the US, the cost to raise a child 0-18 per the Brookings Institute (2022), is $310k. This does not include day care or college. Children are a luxury good in the current economic system config, plain and simple, and there is no will whatsoever to invest materially in moving the needle towards support for parents. And so, the TFR marches ever downward.
Future political reps might have the will to course correct, but the current folks will have to age out first.
> The town began offering free medical services for children until junior high school ... Over the years, those policies have expanded to include free medical care for children through high school ...
I don't understand. Japanese health care is US like by default?
Readit News
- Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article.
- Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation.
- South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline.
- Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.
It's kinda sus that you leave the whole "rates" part out
- Japan (1.2) and Tokyo (.99) vs Nagareyama (1.5 considering it's in Chiba and Tokyo) & Nagi (2.95)
- Considering the Italian Birth Rate is in freefall whole South Tyrol is holding steady and above not just Italy's but also the UK.
- Czecha had a 1.8 until a drop to 1.6 during 2021 to 2022 according towards your dataset with Belgium, Lit. and the UK are now below
Considinder Czecha had a 1.1 in 2000, its only just makes it more impressive
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hus%C3%A1k%27s_Children
One thing that perplexes me about this topic is that people don't just pull up a historical birth rate chart, find the bit not that long ago when fertility rates were around 4, and then ask "why was it 4 then?".
Followed by asking "how can we restore those things?".
I really doubt it was because any of the popular reasons trotted out whenever this topic comes up, which usually blame money, despite us having much more money now than in days past when birthrates were way higher.
I wonder why it's so hard for people just to say simple things like "it's because everyone carefully uses contraception now, and treats sex as a consumption good, because they want it but not its result - a scenario most of them treat as on par with catching malaria".
Funny world we live in
https://www.population.fyi/t/family-research
The wealthier a country is, the more $ required to break the opportunity cost calculus.
E.g. the US would require over $200k in subsidies per child to reach native fertility rates over 2.1 amongst the non-orthodox religious subset.
Likelihood that this happens amongst the boomer class that still thinks like Malthus on average? Zero. They have all the political power, but no incentive.
Future political reps might have the will to course correct, but the current folks will have to age out first.
I don't understand. Japanese health care is US like by default?