Original title "Even More Pronatalist Research Showing Local Governments Can Boost Birth Rates (Study: 1,741 Cities in Japan!)" compressed to fit within title limits.
Nagoya-area municipalities spend significantly more on social welfare, elderly welfare, and child welfare ... Municipal governments can offset big-city fertility penalties through aggressive family support spending.
All the actions taken, or maybe suggested to be causal, seem kind of socialist. No market driven solutions at all. Are we sure this is correct?
The reality is providing support to parents and their children is not profitable, and therefore social programs and government subsidies are required. So, socialism or bust now that humans can control their fertility and make economic and opportunity cost driven decisions around said fertility.
TLDR Society is going to have to pay for kids if they want to attempt to have more kids in society, because kids are expensive.
I actually think the opposite, even if this study doesn’t appear to support it.
Socialism is a major factor why people have fewer kids. If the state is going to take care of you, it replaces family in this regard, and there is less incentive to build up a family as opposed to go it alone, backstopped by the state.
Wealth is not positively correlated with fertility, it seems to be an excuse well off people use for why they won’t have kids.
Only the selfish or cowardly will have children as a means to support them in old age, I argue, and since children grow to be adults with free will, they don’t have to take care of their parents. Certainly, I agree some will take their chances for self serving reasons, which is unfortunate.
We expect humans, who exist without their consent, to earn a living during their lifetime; no reason they can’t save for elder care vs spend hundreds of thousands of dollars raising kids under no obligation to care for them decades in the future.
Rightsizing the global population pyramid scheme through fertility choice empowerment is going to be painful unfortunately. It was a form of debt issued, and will slowly be “paid back” as structural demographics compress over the next 100-200 years.
(in the US, the cost to raise a child from 0-18 in 2023 dollars is ~$330k, not including childcare or college)
I don’t think people consciously operate this way, but it’s a question of incentives. A society that emphasizes family and supporting elders will have more kids, one where the state has a bigger role fewer. It’s not a conspiracy but a nudge.
It's not mentioned in Birth Gap [1] (who will take care of you in old age) in the interview questions they ask, but I recommend the documentary regardless to understand the motivations for less children globally. The cohort of those who intend to be childfree continues to grow [2] [3] (at least in the US).
With all due respect, sound logical systems can prove falsehoods when starting from false premises. Human behavior is notoriously difficult to reason about, probably because of uncertainty about those premises. I'm asking what evidence would change your premises. I apologize for giving a bad vibe previously.
To me it seems like a fair and increasingly important question to ask people: is there any amount of contrary empirical evidence that would cause you to reevaluate your reasoning?
All the actions taken, or maybe suggested to be causal, seem kind of socialist. No market driven solutions at all. Are we sure this is correct?
TLDR Society is going to have to pay for kids if they want to attempt to have more kids in society, because kids are expensive.
Socialism is a major factor why people have fewer kids. If the state is going to take care of you, it replaces family in this regard, and there is less incentive to build up a family as opposed to go it alone, backstopped by the state.
Wealth is not positively correlated with fertility, it seems to be an excuse well off people use for why they won’t have kids.
We expect humans, who exist without their consent, to earn a living during their lifetime; no reason they can’t save for elder care vs spend hundreds of thousands of dollars raising kids under no obligation to care for them decades in the future.
Rightsizing the global population pyramid scheme through fertility choice empowerment is going to be painful unfortunately. It was a form of debt issued, and will slowly be “paid back” as structural demographics compress over the next 100-200 years.
(in the US, the cost to raise a child from 0-18 in 2023 dollars is ~$330k, not including childcare or college)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GeVG0XYTc
[2] https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2025/04/msu-study-finds-number...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44749557 (citations)
How much evidence would it take to change your mind?