Finland threw a small amount at the problem. France had the most all around approach that did show results, but it is still not enough.
Populations are going to decline. The elites are more interested in fighting over who gets to keep their stuff than on any consequences that might have for the world.
There have been several countries to throw money at this problem and it doesn’t really help. The root of the “issue” is women having more control over their own bodies and reproductive health. Women are choosing to delay having children and having as many children, which isn’t a problem at all except for the ruling class.
The question remains, did they do it right. The easiest way to fuck it up would be to means test it and mire it in bureaucracy or have some kinda of grift.
In Iran, after the revolution, the Khomeini called for more children and population growth quickly moved to 4%. Then in the 2000 they did some campaign “two children are enough” bla bla and it worked as well. This is evidence that just simple messaging, together with the general socio-economic conditions, can have a drastic impact.
So I don’t quite believe what you’re implying, that it can’t be solved through money. It’s just similar to climate change, the costs are immense.
A fundamental issue with quality of life today is that both parents HAVE TO work today and neither can stay at home to actually raise the children. What kind of life is that? Since the dawn of time it was that women stayed at home and could watch the children at least for half the day. Today it should be either husband or wife staying at home. The other thing is that “outside” is no longer a public place for children to roam and play.
These things are very simple to change and it’s not complicated, it just takes a lot of money and will. And generally it goes against the interest of capitalists.
The astonishing fertility decline in Iran began around 1985 in the midst of governmental advocacy for more children and four years before the inauguration of the national family planning program by the government [13]. When launched, the family planning program was effective in accelerating the fertility decline by removing social and economic barriers to contraceptive use through making modern contraceptives available free of charge throughout the country. Family planning counseling and services were provided to rural couples through the country’s rural health networks [14]. At the same time, the desire for smaller family size was on the rise [10] and therefore the program enjoyed a high level of social acceptance. The use of modern contraceptives increased from 27% to 57% between 1989 and 2004 [15]. In all, the level and speed of the fertility decline went far beyond the government’s original conservative targets [15].
It has to do with reproductive health and family planning and marriage age of women. Other factors as well, but y’all looooove to say it’s just a money issue when it’s not. It has everything to do with women’s freedoms.
And I’m not saying it’s just money, but also just “earnest” messaging can have effects. If it’s coupled with socio economic conditions.
And right now we’re facing inevitable climate change, escalating wealth inequality, very high inflation, war in Europe with an outlook of more war, a huge refugee wave looming, automation and AI relegating job security to a historical concept, uncertainties about future horrors technology, social media effecting how people perceive reality… so obviously it’s not just that.
And yeah, I agree, many women today don’t want to curtail their careers by dropping out of their job for a decade. But that is also at least partially a manufactured attitude through advertising and PR and can be changed. Except it’s counter to capitalism.
But I’d be curious why you think money alone couldn’t solve this fertility crisis. Or what could. I highly doubt any western country has offered enough money that would make up for giving up the second income.
Because women don’t just need money to have as many children as society wants.
Women don’t want to have as many children as society demands.
And unless we’re going to take away birth control and abortions and reproductive health options and continue to allow child marriage, I don’t think this is a trend we’re going to reverse quickly if at all.
And personally? That simply isn’t an option that should be considered.
In Iran, after the revolution, the Khomeini called for more children and population growth quickly moved to 4%. Then in the 2000 they did some campaign “two children are enough” bla bla and it worked as well. This is evidence that just simple messaging, together with the general socio-economic conditions, can have a drastic impact.
I’d be interested in knowing more about the type of contraceptives and reproductive health the women had access to during these times. You can’t just point to that and say it’s because of messaging.
So I don’t quite believe what you’re implying, that it can’t be solved through money. It’s just similar to climate change, the costs are immense.
You don’t have to believe me, it’s playing out right now. There are plenty of countries offering monetary compensation for people to have more children and it barely affects the numbers.
The root of the fall is because women have more control over when and how many children they have.
Finland threw a small amount at the problem. France had the most all around approach that did show results, but it is still not enough.
Populations are going to decline. The elites are more interested in fighting over who gets to keep their stuff than on any consequences that might have for the world.
There have been several countries to throw money at this problem and it doesn’t really help. The root of the “issue” is women having more control over their own bodies and reproductive health. Women are choosing to delay having children and having as many children, which isn’t a problem at all except for the ruling class.
The question remains, did they do it right. The easiest way to fuck it up would be to means test it and mire it in bureaucracy or have some kinda of grift.
In Iran, after the revolution, the Khomeini called for more children and population growth quickly moved to 4%. Then in the 2000 they did some campaign “two children are enough” bla bla and it worked as well. This is evidence that just simple messaging, together with the general socio-economic conditions, can have a drastic impact.
So I don’t quite believe what you’re implying, that it can’t be solved through money. It’s just similar to climate change, the costs are immense.
A fundamental issue with quality of life today is that both parents HAVE TO work today and neither can stay at home to actually raise the children. What kind of life is that? Since the dawn of time it was that women stayed at home and could watch the children at least for half the day. Today it should be either husband or wife staying at home. The other thing is that “outside” is no longer a public place for children to roam and play.
These things are very simple to change and it’s not complicated, it just takes a lot of money and will. And generally it goes against the interest of capitalists.
Immigration is much easier.
Wow, would you look at that. This entire study goes into the details of the boom and bust of population growth in Iran and what a fucking SHOCKER.
It has to do with reproductive health and family planning and marriage age of women. Other factors as well, but y’all looooove to say it’s just a money issue when it’s not. It has everything to do with women’s freedoms.
Alright alright lol that is the better study.
And I’m not saying it’s just money, but also just “earnest” messaging can have effects. If it’s coupled with socio economic conditions.
And right now we’re facing inevitable climate change, escalating wealth inequality, very high inflation, war in Europe with an outlook of more war, a huge refugee wave looming, automation and AI relegating job security to a historical concept, uncertainties about future horrors technology, social media effecting how people perceive reality… so obviously it’s not just that.
And yeah, I agree, many women today don’t want to curtail their careers by dropping out of their job for a decade. But that is also at least partially a manufactured attitude through advertising and PR and can be changed. Except it’s counter to capitalism.
But I’d be curious why you think money alone couldn’t solve this fertility crisis. Or what could. I highly doubt any western country has offered enough money that would make up for giving up the second income.
Because women don’t just need money to have as many children as society wants.
Women don’t want to have as many children as society demands.
And unless we’re going to take away birth control and abortions and reproductive health options and continue to allow child marriage, I don’t think this is a trend we’re going to reverse quickly if at all.
And personally? That simply isn’t an option that should be considered.
I’d be interested in knowing more about the type of contraceptives and reproductive health the women had access to during these times. You can’t just point to that and say it’s because of messaging.
You don’t have to believe me, it’s playing out right now. There are plenty of countries offering monetary compensation for people to have more children and it barely affects the numbers.
The root of the fall is because women have more control over when and how many children they have.