Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One supposes that the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were substantially more traumatic and fraught. There was far more cause for "disaffection with a bleak future". And yet, what happened to birthrates back then? What is different now?
I would impugn the causes already noted by the OP. The China of the 1960s may have been wracked by radical experiments repudiating millennia of tradition, but it was understood, I think, that these were merely experiments. Said traditions persisted in the background. General intuition and expectations about family, legacy, the village and the polity didn't change as abstract concepts, even if they were mangled in the political sphere, in the news and in current events.
Now it seems however that society has evolved to the point, where the core traditions are themselves coming into question, not because they're obsolete or tainted with say hypocrisy or bad faith, but because, people in volume are doing a philosophical re-examination of some big-sky, big-picture fundamentals. And they're maybe finding that while they respect the reasoning and clever arguments of classical foundations - in the Chinese case, Confucianism - as thoughtful people everywhere respect historical texts - they no longer find compelling intellectual ground to agree with these texts. No longer agreeing, they are going to rethink their lives in all sorts of fundamental ways, including reproductive choice. I don't think that this would change if Xi suddenly had a bad-cold and died, to be replaced by a liberal reformer.
So in spite of the romanticization and rose-colored glasses we often see about the good ol' family days, I think the key distinction is that people have more freedom of choice now. It's not that they necessarily preferred how it was way back when, it's that they didn't have any other options, and rebels were quashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
Even if you could put the genie back in bottle on women's lib, urbanization, and secularism, there would be a whole lot of disgruntled folks who wouldn't go along with whatever natalist policy you're pushing. Doing all three is hard, extremely hard to impossible, and even then it probably wouldn't have the desired effect.
Count me in that cohort of would-be disgruntled folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
I'm generally a fan of the Homo economicus school of armchair sociology. Until child rearing pays, people will continue to leave it by the wayside. In fact I think money could even convince some people who don't have their hearts set on parenthood to get back on the wagon. Whether that's a good thing, or a better thing than the billions of people in the past who had children for cultural reasons despite not having their heart in it, is unknown to me.
This, in a nutshell, though I'm interpreting "pays" in a broad sense. Certainly there will always be people who want a family without having to go through an explicit CBA. But for many others, and even some of those who are pre-disposed, it has to be a net positive on some level beyond just the feel-good warm fuzzies.
Just like converting a post-Christian country is a lot harder than converting a pre-Christian country (to use just one religion as an example), raising a birthrate that fell because of post-modern cultural forces will be a whole lot harder than raising a birthrate that fell because of a war or famine in pre-modern times.
Even if you could put the genie back in bottle on women's lib, urbanization, and secularism, there would be a whole lot of disgruntled folks who wouldn't go along with whatever natalist policy you're pushing. Doing all three is hard, extremely hard to impossible, and even then it probably wouldn't have the desired effect.
I'm generally a fan of the Homo economicus school of armchair sociology. Until child rearing pays, people will continue to leave it by the wayside. In fact I think money could even convince some people who don't have their hearts set on parenthood to get back on the wagon. Whether that's a good thing, or a better thing than the billions of people in the past who had children for cultural reasons despite not having their heart in it, is unknown to me.
"People have the children they have not simply due to their individual pursuit of happiness, economic returns, or mere biology, but because of how cultural and values systems shape their behaviors.
It’s easy to spot culture-fertility linkages “in the wild.” For example, in ethnically Chinese populations around the world, birth rates spike in lucky Zodiac years, like the Dragon year. Births fall sharply around major holidays in virtually all countries.
<snip>
A Revolution of Ideas
... political conditions, the spread of specific ideologies, and changes in social and cultural attitudes probably mattered as much or more than specific economic conditions. As in Britain in 1877, so in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France. The advent of demographic transition from high to low fertility can be better explained through reference to shifts in culture and values than changes in economic conditions.
<snip>
Fertility Preferences Today
So what makes people likely to prefer more children? Religiosity is certainly a factor. But ethnic differences not directly tied to religion probably matter as well. Growing up in a community surrounded by extended families and people who support your way of life seems to boost fertility as well. This finding has been duplicated among the Roma in eastern Europe, immigrants in France, ethnic minorities in Indonesia, and African-Americans in the United States. Growing up in an environment that encourages connection to extended family and a sense of ethnic or cultural identity helps transmit fertility ideals, norms, and behaviors. Put simply, there is robust empirical evidence that people “learn” fertility ideals from their parents and immediate communities."
Evolution takes time and this social evolution has been inching forward for several thousand years. There is no genie of women's lib, urbanization, and secularism to put back in the bottle. Every society formed over the past 10,000 have had urban and city dwellers and secularism within government and community, technology, as well as, women who did more for their time on earth, than birth children. The ones we know about their names are recorded in history, however, there are probably many we don't know about ---
What I'm saying is, this is not new. The only thing that is new, we're paying attention to it. But maybe they were paying attention to it in the first century B.C. when they wrote, be fruitful and multiply. Maybe they wrote it because of what they had seen in their time and they knew what would happen to the human race if enough babies were not birthed ...
None-the-less, if the trend continues over the next 1000 years, money is not going to fix it. Only people can do that, but only if they want to and only if they see value that is above monetary within humanity.
"People have the children they have not simply due to their individual pursuit of happiness, economic returns, or mere biology, but because of how cultural and values systems shape their behaviors.
It’s easy to spot culture-fertility linkages “in the wild.” For example, in ethnically Chinese populations around the world, birth rates spike in lucky Zodiac years, like the Dragon year. Births fall sharply around major holidays in virtually all countries.
<snip>
A Revolution of Ideas
... political conditions, the spread of specific ideologies, and changes in social and cultural attitudes probably mattered as much or more than specific economic conditions. As in Britain in 1877, so in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France. The advent of demographic transition from high to low fertility can be better explained through reference to shifts in culture and values than changes in economic conditions.
<snip>
Fertility Preferences Today
So what makes people likely to prefer more children? Religiosity is certainly a factor. But ethnic differences not directly tied to religion probably matter as well. Growing up in a community surrounded by extended families and people who support your way of life seems to boost fertility as well. This finding has been duplicated among the Roma in eastern Europe, immigrants in France, ethnic minorities in Indonesia, and African-Americans in the United States. Growing up in an environment that encourages connection to extended family and a sense of ethnic or cultural identity helps transmit fertility ideals, norms, and behaviors. Put simply, there is robust empirical evidence that people “learn” fertility ideals from their parents and immediate communities."
Evolution takes time and this social evolution has been inching forward for several thousand years. There is no genie of women's lib, urbanization, and secularism to put back in the bottle. Every society formed over the past 10,000 have had urban and city dwellers and secularism within government and community, technology, as well as, women who did more for their time on earth, than birth children. The ones we know about their names are recorded in history, however, there are probably many we don't know about ---
What I'm saying is, this is not new. The only thing that is new, we're paying attention to it. But maybe they were paying attention to it in the first century B.C. when they wrote, be fruitful and multiply. Maybe they wrote it because of what they had seen in their time and they knew what would happen to the human race if enough babies were not birthed ...
None-the-less, if the trend continues over the next 1000 years, money is not going to fix it. Only people can do that, but only if they want to and only if they see value that is above monetary within humanity.
I don’t think money is going to entice those who prefer to remain child free to have children. I do think that things like paid maternity/paternity leave (and not just a few weeks), free/low cost maternal care including delivery and free/low cost daycare could entice those who have kids to have more.
My daughter and SIL are good examples. They have 2. They did get great paid leave (4 months) and have good healthcare, but the cost of daycare precludes having another child. They currently pay almost 5k a month for a 3.5 year old and a 6 month old. No way are they going to add to that huge financial burden. Since I never see the US doing any of the above suggestions, we’re going to just have to accept fewer kids being born.
I don’t think money is going to entice those who prefer to remain child free to have children. I do think that things like paid maternity/paternity leave (and not just a few weeks), free/low cost maternal care including delivery and free/low cost daycare could entice those who have kids to have more.
Agree completely.
The decision to have children or not is driven by non-financial factors. It's a lifestyle choice.
Once a couple decides on having children, the decision of how many is usually determined by finances. Parents are very consistent in stating that. The exceptions being somewhat random, personal and not subject to change by outside influences. Some of those reasons I've personally heard are we wanted to focus all our attention on one child; we didn't want to raise an only child.
Tokyo has started an egg-freezing fund for women who are postponing having a family. The new policy will provide up to 300,000 yen (roughly $2,200) per person to as many as 300 Tokyo residents per year, potentially starting in 2023.
The country reached a population high of 128.1 million in 2008, but that number has now dropped to 125.7. And the drop promises to continue with births hitting 799,728 in 2022.
Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said that the country was "on the brink of not being able to maintain social functions" due to the population crisis.
It’s a familiar story throughout East Asia, where South Korea’s fertility rate – already the world’s lowest – dropped again last year in the latest setback to the country’s efforts to boost its declining population.
Meanwhile, China is inching closer to officially losing its title as the world's most populous country to India after its population shrank in 2022 for the first time since the 1960s.
Chinese population decline in the 60's was due to famine caused by a government-caused environmental catastrophe.
I think education and income are negatively correlated with fertility because those functions take away time to dedicate to making relationships and raising kids.
The amount of time spent on education and income has skyrocketed, particularly in Asian countries where birthrates are plummeting. Some of it may be response to not liking Xi in China, but moreso I think it's the pressure of schooling and work that eats up the lets go make babies time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuero
Agree completely.
The decision to have children or not is driven by non-financial factors. It's a lifestyle choice.
Once a couple decides on having children, the decision of how many is usually determined by finances. Parents are very consistent in stating that. The exceptions being somewhat random, personal and not subject to change by outside influences. Some of those reasons I've personally heard are we wanted to focus all our attention on one child; we didn't want to raise an only child.
100% agree - with that said, monetary incentives will boost fertility rates. And as said above, the monetary incentives are pretty lackluster.
I think education and income are negatively correlated with fertility because those functions take away time to dedicate to making relationships and raising kids.
They do, but there are additional factors. One is that with greater education and income, there's more desire to make one's mark in the world as a creative person, an explorer and a creator. Being a parent certainly takes time from such pursuits, but besides that, it detracts from the creator-explorer persona. Hans Sachs may have been both a poet and a shoemaker, but that was Medieval thinking. The modern poet would be disaffected by also being a shoemaker. So too, a creative person, by being a parent... even if parenthood exacted zero toll on one's career, finances or time.
There's also what might be termed existential skepticism. I think that this increases with education and money. A simple question: is one oneself glad to have been born? If not, then that's a powerful disincentive to reproduce. A negative answer to such question, by my reckoning, correlates strongly with having more education, more exposure to the world, more familiarity with literature and the products of the human imagination.
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 03-04-2023 at 05:08 PM..
Tokyo has started an egg-freezing fund for women who are postponing having a family. The new policy will provide up to 300,000 yen (roughly $2,200) per person to as many as 300 Tokyo residents per year, potentially starting in 2023.
The country reached a population high of 128.1 million in 2008, but that number has now dropped to 125.7. And the drop promises to continue with births hitting 799,728 in 2022.
Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said that the country was "on the brink of not being able to maintain social functions" due to the population crisis.
It’s a familiar story throughout East Asia, where South Korea’s fertility rate – already the world’s lowest – dropped again last year in the latest setback to the country’s efforts to boost its declining population.
Meanwhile, China is inching closer to officially losing its title as the world's most populous country to India after its population shrank in 2022 for the first time since the 1960s.
Chinese population decline in the 60's was due to famine caused by a government-caused environmental catastrophe.
March 3 Wall Street Journal article about Nagi, a small town in western Japan, that has bucked the trend and has a birth rate of 2.68 (in 2021), versus 1.3 average in Japan.
EDIT: this article is paywalled.
They achieved this by offering stipends to families, especially to people in their 20s, and subsidized day care. It took 20 years to reach a "tipping point" of many larger families.
Now delegations from all over Japan are visiting Nagi to learn its secrets, and groups have come in from South Korea as well. It's become a bit of a nuisance, in fact, with so many strangers coming in and photographing the children etc., and the town has begun charging these groups $73 plus $7.30 per person.
Will it make a difference? Here is my thoughts. The Japanese are a unique and resourceful people. When they discover a "better way to do something", they adopt it wholesale, all over the land. It's almost uncanny. Such behavior dates back to their centuries of living in the shadow of the giant Chinese civilization which seems to have imbued them with a certain humility.
Now as a nation they are publicly acknowledging the demographic emergency and are looking for solutions. Nagi offers a Japanese approach that, frankly, boils down to money. Just pay people enough, and they'll make babies.
Although I have opposed socialistic solutions like nationalized free daycare here in the U.S., I'm starting to wonder if indeed that might be the best way to encourage more native births. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, immigration only gets you so far, and unrestricted immigration comes at a cost, that is that you begin to lose your national identity.
Europe and America, along with East Asia, must relearn how to raise 2-3 children per mom, or they will simply cease to exist.
They do, but there are additional factors. One is that with greater education and income, there's more desire to make one's mark in the world as a creative person, an explorer and a creator. Being a parent certainly takes time from such pursuits, but besides that, it detracts from the creator-explorer persona. Hans Sachs may have been both a poet and a shoemaker, but that was Medieval thinking. The modern poet would be disaffected by also being a shoemaker. So too, a creative person, by being a parent... even if parenthood exacted zero toll on one's career, finances or time.
There's also what might be termed existential skepticism. I think that this increases with education and money. A simple question: is one oneself glad to have been born? If not, then that's a powerful disincentive to reproduce. A negative answer to such question, by my reckoning, correlates strongly with having more education, more exposure to the world, more familiarity with literature and the products of the human imagination.
100% agree that with less education, there's less alternatives to child rearing. However, if the educational system is increasing negativism, that seems to be a failure on educations part. Issue awareness is good, but unless there's a solution associated with the issue, it doesn't do much good. There's good and bad in nature, good and bad in humanity etc, guess it depends on which side is dwelled on and published more.
Students of demographics would be interested in seeing this video on Russia, and its attempts to forestall serious demographic decline.
Russia has very few immigrants. They have an ongoing war, and if geopoliticists are right, Russia will be in a nearly constant state of war for a very long time - or until they go broke.
Naturally, this does nothing to encourage family development, and in the context of Russia the population pyramid is discussed.
Peaceful countries, such as South Korea, are also looking at a long decline in population, so war is not the sole cause of collapse although it does make things a lot worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
