This. Benefits are nice and all, but NOBODY is making a calculation like "You know, with the maternity leave benefits, I might be able to afford children". NO. Thats not how this works. Most people only START thinking about weither they can comfortably add children to their life if they are ALREADY doing well enough. Which was a strong point for France for a long time. A strength that is on decline for a while now. Go figure.
@@ludicrousreality0 Social housing doesn’t mean shit when it’s one of the most expensive places to live. Same problem as France and a lot of other places. Tackling just one issue out of many and applying band aids to the other problems won’t fix the issue, when it’s a multifaceted one.
Tbh wage stagnation and unaffordable housing are manor issues. But I bet even if that was fixed with a snap of our fingers people still wouldn't have that many kids. Numerous issues. But it certainly would help.
Haha. Good point. Why isn't he asked about it? He's in the 1% and can afford a surrogate to carry the children and nannies to care for them. These damn politicians and their bald faced hypocrisy.
@@rivartnorton6030countries with aggressive positions to LGBT+ like Eastern Europe still have pretty bad fertility rates. Cost of living, career pause and future uncertainty are the main reasons for fertility rates drops
They want us to have more children? We want to be financially stable enough to be able to _afford_ to have children without relying on government handouts that can be taken away as quickly as they are given.
Those guys in Africa certainly don't have any of those benefits yet they still have kids. The problem is cultural as well as economic, the west has dead end societal values.
@@sithersproductions No. In poor countries they HAVE to have more children to work and they also have higher infant mortality rates and mother mortality rates then in western countries. The only dead end here is people like you.
@@sithersproductionsyeah but in africa children are an investment, they get put to work In the west, children are a burden, they cost money We also want our children to do a lot more than just work on a field, so we need to invest even more
@@sithersproductions I like how you just ignore reasons young europeans give as to not have children and instead start talking about Africa, a completely different continent with completely different economic and cultural situations not relevant to the issue at hand
The only way to go back to replacement rate is to make having children a net gain rather than a net loss. Even with all these benefits, having children is still a massive decrease in your disposable income, and you need a house with more rooms for your children. This is unrealistic to ask of people who can't even afford an apartment
Unless we go back to living like the Victorians, then that won't be possible. The needs of the child will alway be greater in a developed economy (an adequate housing, heating, electricity, mobile phones, Internet connection, sewage system, childcare as mother's don't want to be stay at home house makers anymore, nurseries, primary/secondary education, universities, public transport). The idea that you can have a net gain economically with this lifestyle is a pipe dream. Furthermore, if the women don't want to have children by choice then no matter what benefits you present to them, they won't have them as you can't force them to procreate. Therefore, the only way you'll be able to reverse the declining birthrate is to make people who want to have them have at least 3 children to offset people who don't want to have them. - i.e. that's not gonna happen. We will most likely have to just live with a declining birthrate and its harsh consequences. Unless there is a big cultural reform to attitudes on housemaking and families, expect the problem to persist in the foreseeable future.
@@inbb510 That's what I'm saying, it's impossible for individuals to make it a net gain currently, so governments who are desperate for it should eat the cost. Pay for the housing, education, food, and all of the other stuff you mentioned. Only then would that be possible. It's obviously not possible, but they can at least help with all of these by fixing things like wage stagnation and housing costs. Those are the only real solutions, and are obviously not easy Also, the part about people not wanting children is irrelevant. My comment and this video are both referring to people who want to have children/more children than they already do but can't
@@penzorphallos3199Great likely hood their kids or grandkids will adopt the same mindset as native and stop having kids. Unless you never want them to gully assimilate into a nation and be ostracized.
Immigration pushes up the price of every square metre of urban land, and therefore housing. Good for those who own land, but the younger members of the community must pay more and more for less and less living space. To stuff more dwellings into a city, you have to build up, or out, or cover over green spaces. All three options are a drop in living standard.
@@noobmaster-cd7bk Less living space is a drop in the standard of living. Gardens are living space. Toddlers can play in them in safety, within earshot of their mothers. People can gather outdoors in privacy. More people in the same space means more traffic: pedestrian and vehicular. I don't enjoy petrol fumes.
@@chriswatson1698 no I don't agree, a suburban style of living is the last thing we need. You don't need a mansion to socialise with people (if the government did their job and a minimum area per household law). Suburbia makes you reliant on cars, which makes the streets more dangerous for kids and releases more toxic fumes for pedestrians. If society wasn't so reliant on cars in the first place, we would've built cities more compactly and therefore achieved more with less space. No cars => kids can play everywhere safely No cars => everything would be planned within walking/cycling distance No cars => no toxic fumes No cars => you would've probably had an apartment where a 8-lane highway is right now Britmonkey did a great video about the housing crisis. I recommend you watch it as well as some videos from not just bikes to see what I meant by "cars are the problem"
It actually makes me have a brain aneurysm every time politicians complain about population growth rates when the main reasons for it is the cost of living becoming higher and housing and all the solutions proposed dont address those 2 main issues that cause the problem
Yeah that argument is BS though, housing costs for instance in Sweden or Japan are only ridiculous in the major cities, people aren’t having kids because their cultures have devolved to view children as burdensome wastes of time and resources.
I still live with my parents because housing is criminally unaffordable. And we have out-of-touch people like Whoopi Goldberg saying that we aren’t working hard enough 🤦♂️
Here in Brazil, they increased the minimum wage by a whopping… 100 BRL! And now there are price increases for everything that isn’t medication(yet) So it was a moot exercise…
Woopie Goldberg, who does an hour show (-minus commercial breaks), without any reading outside the show to stay informed, thinks young people aren't working hard?
@@badluck5647you’re supposed to work hard in your youth so you don’t have to work as hard in your old age so yeah she’s definitely right. The proof is that she now only has to work one hour to maintain her lifestyle. But you do you.
@@mandolorian9893 I imagine that millennial hustler culture is a foreign concept to you boomers. We work through our lunches and unpaid overtime to get ahead just so we can get a promotion that pays like the entry level job boomers got thirty-fourty years ago. We then go home to a small apartment where our rent takes 50% more of our paycheck then boomers did thirty years ago, and then pay off student loans from colleges that charge 40% more than thirty years ago. Housing also cost more because boomer voters use zoning to restrict the amount homes being build to "protect their property value" aka artificially makes homes less affordable to young people. Edit: All my percentages were adjusted for inflation
States: "Have more babies (of our national ethnic group). The future of our country is on the line! Nothing is more important than this!!" Young adults: "We'd like to, but we can't afford it. We need money for houses and food and childcare. We could afford it, if you shifted the tax burden to the upper classes and cut down on their off-shoring their trillions of dollars." State: ".....Does anyone have any OTHER ideas? There is nothing more important to our future than this!"
As a Hungarian young father with a 5 and a 2 year old child, our pro-family policies are mostly just window dressing. The economy is so bad and keeps getting worse and worse, the cost of everything related to child care is sky high and gets higher each year with all the benefits being nominal only (meaning they don't scale with inflation) and unchanged since 2010. And housing prices are the number 1 worst in the EU compared to salaries, especially since the government encourages fogeign investors (mostly Russia, Chinese and from the Gulf states) to buy up all the apartments. Just now at the beginning of this year they closed down nearly all of... not sure what it's called in English, but the doctor you can take your sick kid at nights and weekend when there is an emergency. Sp now instead of it being close by, we'll have to go 60 km away, which takes 45-50 mins by car, and for those who can only rely on public transport... good fucking luck.
There isn't really such thing as a pro family economy. The economy can improve and promise no one is gonna have children. Its cultural instead. Europeans population has been stunted for many decades.
The point of those policies are to make the decline of EU countries slower, essentially, most EU countries are on the decline already and just want our prosperity to last a bit longer. The plots to make right wing extremism, which came as a result of the declining economies of both Germany and the U.S.A shows why that's a pipedream though
@@rivartnorton6030same sex marriage provides a great opportunity for adoptions. And all studies show that children of same sex couples are no more likely to be homosexual than children of heterosexual couples, so it’s not a self-perpetuating “problem”.
My take is that nobody wants to raise a kid inside an apartment, they have no backyard to play with their children and noise levels are a huge issue. But unfortunately apartments are the only way to support a growing population, we can't keep buidling single family houses on limited land space so the only solution is to build upwards. I think the fertility crisis is heavily linked with the housing crisis and part of the solution is to make appartments more appealing.
It's funny to contrast this to stories from around 1950: people were living with 12 people in the same apartment we now deem small for 2 people and 1 child. You're probably still right though, people don't want to put their kids in bunk beds anymore.
As achild raised in an ugly eastern european flat with a concrete parkinglot as a garden, trust me children don’t care…. You don’t miss what you never had. Flat or house… it doesn’t matter. It just has to be big enough, comfortable and yours.
Probably true to some extent, and apartments can absolutely be made more appealing. Large apartments are entirely possible and are still much cheaper to build per meter than houses. Also, you can soundproof them. With all of the space saved by not doing suburban sprawl, you can have a lot of nice parks nearby to play in. The main reason why apartments are so bad anywhere that they are bad is that there's so little land where they can actually be built that they have to be built very high and units have to be small. It's assumed that the only people living in them will be poor or single. The problem is always suburban sprawl and too many single family houses at the end of the day.
7:49 The 1980s' spike in Swedish fertility was due to a new government policy that extended child benefits for the first child if a second one was born fewer than 30 months afterwards, and same for the one after that. This caused a sudden increase in second and third births.
In Ireland, they decided that, to stop some domestic abuse, they would change the tax laws to stop one earner from taking their wife/husbands full tax allowance - which had allowed one earner to have 2 tax allowances and allowed one person to stay home with the kids easier. Now you can only claim 1.5 max, which penalises any family wanting a stay-at-home parent to the tune of almost 20k a year. That’s a real incentive to have kids huh?
I didn't know that. To be honest, the real issue in Ireland is housing. I've seen apartments in Galway to let that are more expensive than where I live now (Zone 4, London). Any solutions that ignore housing will just fail.
@@JL_Lux The issue which the "if you can't afford a family, don't have one" stance ignores is that many people in developed nations are behaving that way and it's hollowing out their populations because our current economic trajectory is towards a small upper class and a massive impoverished under class. Those who had families and could afford them can nod in a self-satisfied manner until their incomes are the only ones that can hold up the taxation demands of their country.
I also don't think governments are doing enough to address the motherhood penalty, which is a reality for many women (myself included). Especially in the UK.
@@jayc342009 the motherhood penalty is the umbrella term if you will to describe the discrimination and disadvantages women face in the workforce when they get pregnant and become mothers. These disadvantages can be from anything from pay, to reduced pensions, to dealing with perceived lack of competence and being overlooked for promotion in their jobs once they've had a child.
@@fairylights18 unfortunately companies don't care about anyone they just want to maximize profit as much as they can. Employers typically believe that mothers will prioritize their children over her career, why do you think "childfree women" are promoted so much? She will prioritise her job and be a good employee.
@@fairylights18 , if a society sees motherhood as a "penalty" then that is a cultural problem, not an economic one. At the end of the day, it is women who give birth, not men.
@@jayc342009 absolutely and it's that kind of perception of mothers and pregnant people that, in my personal opinion, is one of the reasons why more women are choosing to be child free. Companies and the government should recognise that not ALL women want to have children and many of them are on the fence about it because of the motherhood penalty. If the government want to improve birth rates then it's my opinion that the government and, in turn, companies and indeed the wider society should work on making motherhood and having a family an attractive option.
I am a millenial who would love to have some kids but I wouldn’t know how. We both work and make good money but can’t afford a house. We live in a small appartement but rent is 2/3 of my income. There is no way to live with one of us going part time (even though 1.5 incomes were normal in my parents’ generation and 1 in my grandparents’) and rental places don’t give permanent contracts anymore so every year to two years we have to move again and with a kid this would mean changing schools and taking them away from friends. Fix housing and reduce the 40 hour work week and people will start having kids again.
Put it this way (I'm not French), if any European countries want to have more children, they kinda need to make it more viable! I am single, just hit my 30s and can barely keep myself going with wage stagnation the way it is, let alone if I was in a relationship and having to provide for myself, I could POSSIBLY have an additional person WITH SOME SERIOUS CUTBACKS. Children on top of that (not that I can right now, not to mention my lack of interest in women sexually prevents them happening the normal way...) would be completely unfeasible! Oh did I also forget, I WANT TO BUY A HOME!
@@belstar1128 "most poor countries have the most kids" - i wish people would stop using this argument. In poorer countries children are useful for tasks like helping to fetch water from a source which can be miles away. They're essentially free labour. In a developed country, children are to put it bluntly expensive hobbies you send to school and occasionally see them when you aren't at work. Children in poor country - free labour for the family. Children in developed country - expensive hobby.
@@jayc342009 but its also poor people in rich countries .you know who i am talking about i can't get into detail because of censorship .but the guys who drink and smoke a lot of stuff .they often have a lot of kids .
Macron and Pope Francis keep telling us to have more children. Where's the government helping? It's easy to tell others to have more kids when you don't have any of your own. Do they have any idea what it takes to raise kids nowadays?
I live in France (I’m not French), my mother in law could retire early at 55 just because she had 3 children. That doesn’t exist anymore. These parental leave policies are nothing compared to that 😂
Retiring at 55 sounds nice, why not mske it 50, or even 45 ? Jokes aside, higher lufe expectancy is a reality and shoyld be reflected in retiring ages. However, there should be more generous benefits for families with dependent children. Give more benefits for housing, moat of all, make education free of costs till 18 or even 21.
The problem with France is that if even I with an income higher than 80% of the population can’t afford to buy a 2 bedroom apartment let alone a house for 3 or 4 kids to reach the replacement ratio… then how the hell am I supposed to bring kids into this?
@@rivartnorton6030 It has nothing to do with that. Same-sex relations account for less than 1% of all unions in France. Also, western europe doesn't promote same sex marriage. We allow it, and promote the fact of allowing it and guaranting the same rights to gay people. But no one encourages people to be gay. It's everyone's personnal sexual orientation.
You would do it by giving them a poorer quality of life which is what the final conclusion is. The government doesn’t care as long as you produce more tax cattle to fund pensions.
Politicians: Why do young people refuse to make babies?! Young people: because we know you won't help us raise them. You can't fool us with those incentives that cover only a fraction of the cost of having kids.
The idea of the government being able to subside all the costs for having kids is an insane idea that post-Millenials have. The idea of this stress-free life where you still have your free time like you did prior to having children, while being able to have two or more children is an idea not grounded in reality, you might just as well believe that the moon is made of cheese.
I am a 21 year old male in the UK, and I don’t think I’ll ever want kids or have kids because of housing. My one goal is to have a place that is completely my own. I can’t afford to do that if I have kids early. If I owned a house with enough room for children, and I didn’t have to pay ridiculous amounts to keep it, I’d probably have children. But that’s not possible so I probably just won’t have kids.
Sooner or later governments will realise people simply do not have enough to live. Politicians have homes, but we, everyday people have to rent from greedy landlords.
REALTIY: Raising children in a modern society is difficult, time consuming and expensive. I know, I raised three of them! In a low-tech, rural society, having a lot of children is a positive = free labor and the parents' old age security
As a Canadian i see our system as so down the drain i think its a safe bet retirement wise to raise a bunch of kids and hope they take care of me as an old man.
Who said that kids can't be free labour and parents retirement fund or carer in an urban high tech setting? Kids are how you raise them not the location or the era you are in.
@@vmoses1979because if you’re an surgeon, you can’t exactly bring your 5 year old child into operation room and help you with the surgery now can you?
@@lordssundee7047 Seems like a good argument isn't your strong suit. You also can't bring your teacher adult spouse into the operating room. Your argument has no specific application to children. I meant all household chores - cleaning, buying groceries, helping with dinner. My four siblings all did that and we have a syring bond between parents and kids. My still active parents live with my sister in Dubai enjoying their retirement while visiting with the rest of us for months during the summer in the northern hemisphere. Adults who have no conception how to parent and how to instill a work ethic want to tell you kids are useless.
With the way many economies are declining in most countries, having children is simply not a viable option anymore because how can someone support a family when they are struggling to simply support themselves?
It used to be that three or four generations lived closely together and all worked in the same city or village. Now all people pursuing higher education end up far away from their family to work and study, lacking this support network is a big barrier that is under emphasized.
Great point. The capitalistic system encourages a destructive individualism that is conflated with independence. This makes everything harder to navigate thus the epidemic of stress, depression etc
There aren't any jobs in villages and small towns. The housing costs in most cities are too high for a family to afford a large enough apartment or house for the entire extended family. That is if Mom and Dad could reside near/with only one of their children. What about the other kids and grandchildren?
The whole world is having this problem right now. It's what happens when you let billionaires steal everything from the working class. If I can't afford a house, I'm not making babies.
Perhaps the problem is far more structural than usually discussed. We live in an economic system that favors economic growth above all else. Citizens lives and its experience is not a factor in politics that makes any noticeable difference in our decisions to have kids or not. Im getting close to 30, and i have no clue how to get financially and time-wise stability to be able to provide a healthy upbringing for a child. Why? High living cost is one. High productivity requirements to even stay above water is another. I don't have time or money to be able to take care of a kid. Even if I made 3x the money I do now, I still work too much for family life to be conceivable for me. I need to be comfortable and mentally relaxed to consider having kids. I don't get that working 40 hours a week. I don't get that living paycheck to paycheck. I'm not saying it's not possible, it definitely is. But having grown up In Scandinavia, the highly institutionalized upbringing that is the only viable option is not something i want to offer the next generation. Our political discourse is not serious enough about the fact that we need to turn the debate on its head. The question should not be "How can society support our economy?" But should instead be "how can the economy support our society and our experience of life?" Capitalism is a great tool, but a poor foundation for society. It disregards the important experiences of life in favor of pure economic growth. For what end? More money? What is money worth if we are miserable?
I earn about £30K, my partner about £22K. Not massive salaries, not the smallest. No kids so we're fine. No exactly wealthy by any means, but always cover bills, can save for a house etc etc. If we had a kid, then my partner would basically stop working for like 3 years until our child could go to nursery. Meaning we'd have lost 40% of our household earnings immediately, while simultaneously increasing our overhead costs. So unless I earn about £60K (because you get higher tax brackets), we'd be financially taking a big hit. The problem, is the average salary is like £33K in the country and that range includes places like London and CEOs earning six-figure salaries.
@@Patrick-y4d1z yeah.. The economic structures just don't insentivice having kids. Not that that should be the deciding factor as such, but it shouldn't be a sacrifice of that magnitude either. I mean.. Is it too much to ask that our societies is designed with our actual human lives in mind? I mean. The economy is incredibly important and underpins what we are able to do, but is it worth having an incredible economy if we can't have the important things in life? Family, friends?
@@asbjo That's the thing. It shouldn't incentivise having children, but shouldn't punish it either. And if we don't have children, then we constantly have the issue of an ageing population and unsustainably keep importing more people into the country to prop up a collapsing structure. If it isn't redesigned, it will fail. It's just a matter of when - though I'd say it already has.
@ cd1051 The Commies and the post-Commies aren't doing any better. China is going broke, its Tofu-dreg infrastructure projects are falling apart Stupid Putin decided to abandon Russia's centuries- long ally, the Armenians (in Nagorno-Karabakh) to attempt to have enough armaments to start a war with his next door neighbor (Ukraine) Whose citizens objected to the president (secretly) signing a treaty to place Ukraine in the CTSO and the BRICs bloc. chose not to join the CTSO and BRICs bloc. Angola and Ethiopia are basket cases. Maduro, in Venezuela, has continued to jail and execute people who oppose his friends being elevated to run the country.
Yeah, duh, lower weekly work hours mean's more time for family. Countries need a 30hr work week to make it reasonable to have a family, especially now that it takes 2 full-time workers just to support/survive a fam
@@anthonygumbs4738 Some countries and companies have been in trail to tests out if 4 days a week work, and therefore that's approximately 32hours and in the UK you do not get pay cut. Therefore, working 80% for 100% salary! However it is not adopted nation wide nor a law yet. It is currently up to the corporations I guess
As you say, even in Norway and Sweden where you get one year of full payment during the first year and a lot of other benefits, young people can not afford to buy a home with room for 3 children. That’s crazy expensive. Im in my 50’s myself having 3 children, but when we bought our first home. One year salary (before tax) was equal to the price of our house, where we had 3 bedrooms. The same house today is probably around 5-10 times a young workers salary. So I think birthrate is a complicated issue to solve.
A decent sized houses isn't that expensive... out in the middle of nowhere, in some dead town where there's no work, and the only school was closed 40 years ago. Though only if the place is too ugly for any sane person to buy a vacation home there.
I agree, I live in Norway, I earn 40% above the national average, I am pregnant and I can’t afford an apartment with an extra room for my kid. And I will not get full payment during my leave I will not get my bonus, car allowance and higher end part of the salary. We really struggled with the decision to have one kid given the circumstances and we will definitely not have another because we don’t want to be struggling financially for the rest of our lives. Maternity leave is a small part of the overall picture. It is crazy that we even have to say it!
Even for France, the recent low was in the early 90s and peaked in the late 2000s. And something curious I've found is that pretty much all of these graphs start with the baby boom in the 50s to present day which is ridiculous. The baby boom was an anomaly when in reality, the birth rate had been decreasing since the early 1800s due to the Industrial Revolution. I hate how this issue is being framed as if the baby boom is what we should be aimed towards when honestly it was a total accident stemming from winning WW2.
The Baby Boom was mainly because increasing marriage rates and earlier age of marriage And this was mainly because of the increased gender differences in financial status. Study giving lotteries to people in sweden showed that when it is given to men, fertility rate increases, when it is given to women, fertility is basically unaffected. This is an experimental study, one of the strongest types of studies.
@@MA-gu2up Baby boom also in response to the drop in fertility rate during Great Depression, and later WW2, when the men were fighting the war. Economy improved+men came back and during that time, women didn't need to work and birth rates spiked
As all other people have said in the comments, we can't even afford our own house; how will we pay for kids? I also want to add, what about all the stress? We need to work more, work harder and where do we have time for kids if we can't even sleep normal and need to worry about being able to cook the food. We can't eat takeout forever.
The push for people to have more babies or increase in immigration is just catering to the old pension system. And it doesn't seem to be working, time and time again. As other people have already pointed out in the comments, the best solutions to this would be to increase wages and lower housing costs for young people. But maybe instead of trying to find a "cure" for the current pension system that our entire world revolves around, we should instead be trying to create a new, better one. The way things are going, the current trends are unsustainable and there might be a collapse coming in the not so distant future. I'm 35 this year, so not even a "young person" anymore, and I honestly don't see myself having a house or being able to afford a kid any time soon. If we continue down this road, I don't think I will ever be able to retire. And maybe by the time I am 65-70, there won't be any money for my pension anyway. Even if we address the wage stagnation and housing costs. I feel like having a "plan B" or an alternative to the current state of things, might not be such a far-fetched idea
How do you propose we solve it? Cause whatever the redistribution mechanism, even going as far as whether it's capitalism or socialism, fundamentally relies on labour. Less people less labour. More pensioners more demand for labour. The only "solution" is wishful thinking about automation, that magic AI will solve our problems. Let me tell you as an AI engineer that: there are no AI robots fixing roads or fixing the piping in your flat on the horizon. The only real solution is get married, have 2-3 kids of your own and raise them to love you.
Real estate scarcity is certainly a big issue in France, but more generally, it more about outlook on the future. France society is depressed, pessimistic, and afraid about what the future will look like.
It is already at breaking point in Africa and the Middle East. Modern medicine and food aid has created a population boom in both places. The idea that people would be denied either of these is sad; but none of those people were required to limit the size of their family to recieve aid.
@@here_we_go_again2571 It's not aid that made the african economic growth, it's just normal economic growth that partly stems for numerous investements (specially from china).
It is simple: if you have a kid 15% reduction on taxes 2 kids: 40% reduction. 3+ kids 60%+ reduction and ability to borrow money without paying it back for a house for better living conditions.
Because old people hold the economic and voting power thus any vote that makes housing more affordable hurts old people’s investment in housing. Therefore, old people will lobby and vote to prevent such actions
Hi Zack. Good video with accurate facts. However, as most political reforms forget, you need to look at the complete system, from birth to adulthood. Being French living in Germany, I can tell that having kids in France is much simpler than in Germany. There are more nurseries, more kindergarten and school finishes in the later afternoon. In Germany, having kids basically means one parent working part time, if not stopping to work completely.
One key issue that is never adressed is the issue of celibate. Our generation have a staggering amount of young and middle age adult that are just not in any meaningfull relationship. Child won't happen either because of this
That’s only true if children are some progression of relationships. Like a next step. Which to some people they are, but I like to think those selfish people are fewer than those of us who do value our children as more than an extension of our relationships
As long as the Western culture still forces feminist ideas and women in the workforce there will be no solution to the population decline. The cost of living don't play any role. Most of African countries have high fertility rates even though they're poor...
Only rural people because they grow their own food and live from livestock/Land but as soon they move to cities fertility rate drops like Ghana/Kenya/Southern African were fertility dropped over 50%
It is not reasonable to ask women to have children while mothers are penniless, and can be abandoned in middle age when the task of raising children is complete. No blame, on demand divorce makes motherhood untenable.
If you have some animals in captivity in a cage too small for them and you constantly stress them out and only give them enough food and water to survive till the next meal and force them to run on a treadmill to exhaustion every day, these animals wont breed. Now think of a person in an apartment working long hours in a modern job with credit card debt. These animals won't breed, are we suprised?
Politicians have poor response times that they can only handle the symptoms and not the cause. They can only act on demographic and climate problems after they are several decades too late.
I'm a bit confused on why all these people that scream about low birth rates for their countries are against immigration. If you are really worried about the lowering population an obvious solution seems to be let more people into your country. Do they not want other races of people in their countries?
My intake as a parent in France of what can be done : - Increase parental leave well paid, geting 400 € a month is not enough to replace a salary. As a father you used to have 11 days, that's it, it's not enough. - Increase the number of spots in daycare, many of my friends never got a solution to take their baby when they came back to work, and struggled a lot - Make daycare free or more accessible, it's actually cheap for poor people but as soon as you make decent money, you pay up to 1000 € a month for daycare for 1 kid. That actually pushes some women to stop working because the salary is not worth the daycare cost - Adapt working times with having kids, schools finish at 4:30, most people work until 6pm and more, how are you supposed to manage that - Last but not least, many don't have kids because they don't have a partner with whom they comit for life, less marriages equals less kids, and that I don't see a solution.
@@dexocon2658 You have after school daycare but then I get my kids back late, and we eat dinner late, and they go to bed late, and i have to wake them up early every morning while they did'nt get enough sleep... When I can I leave work early to get them but then have to work after I put them to bed, so have 0 time to breath...
@@zaydalaoui9397 Isn't their mother with you? Your point about how many mothers will stay home rather than work and pay that price to daycare, well, wouldn't this be a solution for you? Your kids will sleep early and so on, and you can too, you will probably have to work harder to earn more, but increasing one hour a day isn't much for most people, right?
@@MA-gu2up3 reasons : 1) we both want to work and be independant. 2) it’s not as simple as work hard get more money, even if I work harder it will take years to get the results get a promotion and earn more money and it’s not guaranteed and it will never be as much as my wife earns 3) not every dad plans/wants to be an absent father who spends life at work and misses on his kids growing up Of course I knew all this before having kids and went for it anyway, because that’s more important for me than the rest but I know people who wont have kids for these reasons, so maybe if these topics were tackled more people will have kids.
There is a lot more to it than "women don't want to give up their high-powered careers to fufill their natural role as mothers". It is simply difficult or impossible to raise a family on a single income.
Most women don't even have careers, let alone high-powered ones. I think the welfare state is one of the biggest problems actually, fertility rates will rise with marriage rates, just like they did in the 1940s and 1950s, but the welfare state impedes that
@@Ralphieboy Still, about 25 percent of households live as breadwinner husbands and a stay at home mom in the US This is less the case now partly because of the welfare state with its taxes and feminism with biased employment and affirmative action.
I think there is two factors hampering fertility: the cost of living (housing, energy, etc.) and the much harder to measure expectation of the quality of life of your child. The former is easy to measure and have been going up for a while. The latter is harder to calculate but clearly the climate crisis, expectation for future increase on the cost of living, and the excess of capitalism, especially related to labor, are certainly reducing parents expectation relative to their child future welfare and hence inciting them to have less. This is often done in the hope to give them more tools (education, saving, loans, etc.) to help them maintain the same quality of life that their parent have (more competitive in the job markets, assistance to buy a first home, etc.). It is also not helping that many young adult see themselves worst off than their parents, already creating a low bar for their expectation of their children welfare.
TLDR idea board be like: "x european country fertility crisis" "x european country fertility crisis" "x european country fertility crisis" "x european country fertility crisis"
@@inbb510 Actually he nailed the problem pretty much on the head. People can't afford to have children because of how broken the economy, job salary and housing markets are. But it's ok, try to read his comment again and you might understand it.
Every country just tweaks around the edges. A £100, €200 or 500zl cannot move the needle. The first country to get these 5 things will have a massive advantage: - A stable jobs market with strong worker rights - Affordable housing - Schools and neighbourhoods that are safe (reminder we have kids in the UK wearing outer coats in classrooms this winter) - A sustainable pension system that not just us but our kids could live to use - A chance at the world not being a burning hellscape or 2m underwater in these kids' lives
Canada has the solution. You need an immigration Ponzi scheme. I’m Métis. Here the Métis and First Nation people are incentivized not to work at all. You get more money from having 4 children compared to being a teacher or nurse. Here in Saskatchewan, families can be gifted freehold houses, have the house renovated, get free groceries, subsidized energy and water, subsidized gasoline, a clothing and vacation bonus and even a free vehicle just for having children. France needs to create a system to encourage its native white French population not to work so being parents can become full time jobs. When you compare the Muslim birthrate of France to Canada the numbers are much lower here as the cost of living for tax paying immigrants is so high.
Stop fixating on the gender pay gap and promote more choices for women. I.e. Full Time employed mum / part time mum / stay at home mum, are all celebrated and equally supported by the state AND society.
I live in France. I can tell you one of the main reasons French people are not having babies - they don't want them. Everyone has their own reasons of course, but when I did my master's in France, none of the women I studied with wanted children. Most of them said that (in their opinion) 'Children ruin your life.' They looked down on their friends and family with children, and these were women from a variety of demographics. When I said I wanted a 'big family' of around 4 children, they treated me like I was crazy. I am not trying to downplay the importance of historical feminism. However, I think this is part of the problem with France as well, as they have gone 'off the rails' feminist. Women are told (and have told me) that if a woman does not work outside the home, she is not equal to her husband. Staying at home with children is not even treated as valid option in life. Things like cost of living obviously affects this, but the cultural view of children plays a significant part.
Les Français: ON A DROIT DE RETRAITER QUAND ON AURA 60 ANS À TAUX PLEIN. 😡 Les Français aussi: C'est mon droit de ne pas avoir d'enfants. C'est mon choix. Laisse-moi tranquille le gouvernement! 😡
But the key point is, why do so many women think this way? It's not feminism. If a woman has or is willing to have children, her professional path is blocked, while for men this helps them advance. Many women also don't want to be the sole caregiver. In this type of video I always see people blaming women, but few people calling men to get involved in raising children. Don't help or treat your time with the kids like ''babysitting'', but do your part of the work with the kids and around the house. Women who stay at home taking care of children do various unpaid jobs, saving hundreds of thousands a year, so being the relative who brings money home, especially in jobs that are not physically strenuous, is not enough. And for the one who stays at home it is risking ending up in a situation of financial abuse, and giving up your youth and time of work experience so that in 20 years you end up being exchanged for a younger version during a mid-life crisis, and having to start from scratch. Can you blame women who have grown up watching their mothers stress out and kill themselves or ending up in bad situations, wanting to avoid that fate? And to all this we add that our society is not tolerant of children. Everyone treats them as nuisances and nowadays places that prohibit children are on the rise.
@rachelolsen3428 Exactly right. Culture outweighs the economic reasons which truth be told are still relatively better than generations before when women had more kids. The blame for the culture change is feminism. Everything has positive and negative aspects. Women should have a chance at equal education and job opportunities but this did not have to mean the devaluing and denigration of being full time mother.
Well that’s actually true - if you depend financially on your husband then you are not equal to him. I am not going to argue but the reality is: only money matters. If you don’t have money then it doesn’t matter how bad your marriage gets - you are stuck with a person that doesn’t respect you. Even in case of divorce you won’t be able to later support yourself because you lost years on the job market -> you are pushed to low paying jobs. Staying at home is not a safe/reliable solution (maybe if your husband is a millionaire so you can get your share..)
Germany provides 14 month of maternity & paternity leave (of which one person can take up to 12 month) at around 80% of the salary. You can even stretch that to two years (you don't get more money though). In many German states nursery is fully subsidized, but the problem is a shortage of childcare workers so the free nursery often only provide coverage until 3 or 4pm. Additionally you get a lump sum per child every month and a tax credit. Despite all that Germany's birth rate only moved upwards by around 0.1-0.2 over the 10 years that followed. With war in Europe (and possibly globally), the global rise of the far right etc., I doubt that the birth rate will increase. Generally, fewer people want kids, because not even subsidized daycare and tax credits will compensate you financially for the enormous amount of work you put in. So it is rational, that people have fewer kids and the fall in birth rate is just an adjustment to the fact that children are a financial liability in a developed society. That's why no developed country now is at replacement level. Natalist policies stopped the decline in some (Scandinavia, France) in some extreme influence of religion delayed it (USA), but eventually it fell everywhere. The problem is that we do still need children in the future....
@@jayc342009 my point is that the issue might be basically unfixable. That’s why no country fixed it so far. Immigration is the only way to compensate somewhat.
@@jayc342009 , the problem is unsolvable in a liberal democratic society where women have the choice to become parents or not. It's quite literally an unsolvable problem without completely rethinking our cultural attitudes to motherhood, parenting, materialism, and families.
It's depressing to see how short sighted so many countries have been. They focus on only the next election cycle and not the long term impact of their decisions. Now the younger generations are expected to carry the older ones when the older ones have done everything they can to make life difficult for the youth. It's not just France. The unbelievable unfairness is enraging. The only answer I see is to cut benefits to the pensioners and address housing and wage stagnation. Or do what the US is trying and remove a womans control of her own reproduction.
“Or do what the U.S. is trying and remove a woman’s control over her own reproduction” 🤡 someone has no idea what they’re talking about and eats up propaganda and it shows.
Yeah but the second option doesn’t work. Poland has the worst access to contraception in Europe. Even after-pill access is difficult as you need prescriptions from doctors… Getting an appointment takes days + doctors can refuse prescriptions based on their religion = nearly impossible to get the after pill… Nearly total abortion ban killed 4 women just in last 4 years… Polish fertility rate fell to record low 1.2 (one of the lowest in Europe). You can try to take people’s human rights but people won’t make babies anyway if they know it’s a financial suicide and way to end up under the bridge.
Great video! I would just say that one of the solutions you suggested is to raise wages and that wouldn’t help at all. When wages go up, prices go up so nothing changes.
When people say increase wages, they mean increase in the lower to middle wages So while yes, prices go up, they dont go up as much proportionally unless you also increase top earners, so it's still a net gain
The opposite happened in Belgium last year. We have mandatory index adjustment, meaning that wages increase with inflation. So in 2023 we all got like 8% more salary. And turns out we also had the lowest inflation of the eurozone.
@@frankhuurman3955 a yes, shrinking the gov budget and then also making them pay more. Genius... Besides lower taxes always make the rich richer and the poor poorer
These demographic changes have to do with structural changes. People live longer and have more options than to have children. Most people want to work on their career and have children later. Furthermore, children in cities are expensive. In the past when most people lived in the countryside every child was a potential worker. You also had enough space for them. In a city, every room costs 300-500 dollars more. So what needs to happen is, space needs to become cheaper. It is incredibly hard to find a partner with 35. So that needs to change as well. Tax breaks can help, but the tax breaks need to be substantial and make up for the higher expenses. What also helps is child care. If more people should have children, we need a lot more places that offer child care.
he can cause that to happen by simply making sure people have more money and time, which can be done by shortening the working week. all it will cost is a 5-10% drop in profits of the biggest corporations, so they'll have to scrape by on only $90 billion profits rather than $100 billion.
When the older generations, that already own housing and lived during the economic boom times, want to have not only their savings, pensions, and other benefits, but also the ability to mortgage off a house that's highly valued so they can live in luxury for the last twenty or plus years of their life they complain if you try to push back retirement age a bit... While the new generations are barely making squat by comparison in todays currency and buying power for hard work, not able to afford houses with all these inflated prices that the old heavily vote and politically work to ensure stay high and valuable, and then are expected to pay increased taxes to, among other things, pay for the retimerment of those older people that already lived great lives, and if they were responsible should have been able to save plenty by this point. When many young people are doing jobs that don't even have retirement plans these days being tossed around between multiple part time gigs or stuff specifically to avoid it and benefits and other things. So, taken to the extreme, the older generation are greedy, wealthy, and in power and controlling it all for themselves, like vampired sucking from the young. While the young are actually doing work... but don't have the power, influence, or even time and money to do much of anything but work and survive (by extreme generalizations of coarse). So when the young can't afford a house, and don't have money to survive if not always working, there's little option to even get into relationships for many, let alone actually having and then raising and housing kids. So pushing off of that extreme interpretation of the situation, the answer is clear. Kill the old people, originally a joke idea I had, that's the more time goes buy becoming increasingly concerning a "viable option" given how things just keep getting worse otherwise with no actual fixes happening relying on existing political systems and those in charge of them... suddenly tons of housing becomes available and it's prices drop, taxes and burdens go way down on the young giving them more free time to work on politics, hobbies, romance, families, etc... while now having some housing options to actually support said raising of families. And without the old or young but wealthy crooks in power, always making sure to keep their own interests center point, not that of the younger generations or general citizenry... policies and stuff might finally shift for the better, rather than supporting a stagnant older generation that doesn't want to lose their high quality livelihoods. When the old generation considers it a travesty if they don't have enough money to go on vacation at least once or twice a year, and I and plenty other younger generations might never even have gone on one... there's clearly a big discrepancy here in quality of life and expectations. Now, the next question would be if this all just happens again in another 50 years or so... With the now young generation becoming that overbearing controlling older group focused on our own interests so much it's at the expense of the then younger generations ability to have basic livelihoods... Who knows... Well, even with housing and more balanced financial situations it's likely many still wont have the desired birth rates, I mean... even if you make housing affordable enough for you to not always need both parents or adults to be working at the same time to afford any form of actual house, we still have plenty of other modern issues to contend with that lower the rate of actual relationships forming like modern media, computers, and other things that make it easier for younger people (especially without money) to just stay at home and do stuff on their phone instead of going out to bars, parks, bowling alleys, events, etc... and meeting other humans and stuff that's kind of required to start relationships in the first place. If money isn't such a concern, maybe more people will try those things again, how much of this trend is a shift in response to economics, or actually a shift that would happen anyway just because modern games or media or stuff is so much more addicting... who knows. EDIT: No plans for kids here, or expecation on actually owning my own house for at least a few more decades if ever. But with no retirment plans or much savings... my retirement plan basically turned into a gun and a bullet for when I'm out of money/income, or have any big health issue I can't afford. And the low to nill expectation of an actual future kind of seams like a problem that will, if more broadly present in socieety, likely precede a more complete or major collapse in the next several decades with huge declines in populations and likely be an end point to the modern experiment of our current societies and livlihoods. Granted... automation and other things might in these next few decades be able to make it so most people can live so much more cheaply or with barely needing work... but there's no real expecation thing would go that well, when they'd probably just be an asset some rich would monopolize so they are even more secure as the rest of society crashes around them. Definitely met plenty others my age with brighter thoughts on the future, but also a few with ones similar to mine, so it's not like I and my experiences are that much of an oddity today.
As someone in their early 30s in the UK who wants children, the main stumbling block is not being able to afford a place with extra bedrooms on a single income. Literally fix that and you'd see a higher birth rate!
I don't disagree on housing & wages likely being problematic, but your conclusion featuring them was rather perfunctory and lacked any supporting data.
Probably because it's beating a dead horse. Every few weeks we get a "we're not having enough children" video, and it almost always comes down to; -low/stagnating salaries -poor / unaffordable housing -cost of living crisis. People can't afford to have children because the previous generations completely obliterated the economy housing and country at every level. Healthcare is worse, housing is worse, salaries are worse, it's literally all worse and shows no signs of improvement in the slightest.
Having children isn’t worth it for women nowadays. If you can’t take care of yourself financially why would you want to bring someone else in to struggle?
"The Taboo of the Century" I don't know what he is on about. In Germany its fairly well known and even talked about in schools that a low birth rate can lead to societal problems. Probably just catering to feeling of the far-right.
Not really, left wingers tend to just pretend migration can replace birth rates, and that birth rates are a women’s rights issue and not an economic issue
most people on this planet dont know what low birth rates can lead too. some people say its good because of global warming, others say it declines and then it rises again like previously in history without even knowing the context on why the population rose in the first place. just because people in germany might know that doesnt mean populaation in france know.
Ça n'a pas l'air d'être très efficace d'en parler alors car la France a un taux de natalité bien supérieur à l'Allemagne et elle a longtemps été le pays le plus fécond d'Europe ( même si les récents déclins de natalité nous rapproche de votre niveau à vous )
If you eliminate race and ethnicity from the equation, there is not actually a national problem. The problem is the idea that race/ethnicity is a nationally significant factor in terms of maintaining an optimal tax base and if you don't believe that immigrants can be fully assimilated. The human race is the only race and ethnicities are like the clothes humans wear. Identity is a shortcut to superficial greatness.
What's the point of having kids? Why should I care about the future? I think the fertility issue goes far deeper than just being an economical issue. It's about our culture of individualism and hedonism (the internet and drugs). Human connection means less and less. Legacy means less and less. The only people that have high birthrates are some religious people, that are more family oriented, which socially enforce them to have children.
What I was taught in school and my own experience is that expectations of education are a huge factor in people's decision not to have kids. The number of years of university needed to get a good job are getting longer and more uncertain. No one wants to have kids under those circumstances. It’s a difficult situation because you can’t directly regulate professors or employers, but it doesn’t seem like this perspective gets acknowledged much.
And yet France is literally the country with one of the highest birth rates in Europe with Turkey and Ireland. I would be more worried about the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe (Poland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Romania, Croatia, Germany... ) which have had very, very low birth rates and for a very long time unfortunately. This is quite worrying for these countries. Macron is worried because a drop in the birth rate is not part of French habits. In any case, Macron and his government are the problem. To see if it will continue for France or if it's just passing through. The French still overwhelmingly want children.
@@redstone5062 yes that's true too. This must be taken into account, you are right. 🙂 But also in general, France has always had a very generous birth rate policy and a pronatalist policy compared to other European countries. That's why. But unfortunately under Macron it is less good....
@@aliceg6745 He cut the social welfare net that supported the pronatalist policy. As a libertarian and conservative he wants to have people paying for their children and working their asses off. But of course the people cannot do that anymore, the life stress is too much. They do not want to live like animals.
3:32 Was it really that much of a surprise that a country with so many Arabs and Africans has had a high fertility rate compared to other EU countries? Also, it seems like the problem is not so much that people don't want or can't afford more kids. The problem seems to be that people start having kids pretty late so they simply can't have more kids on a physical level. Apparently the average age of the first kid, at least in Italy, is close to 30 years old.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231try 5, after 35 women start having trouble both to their own body, and increase chance of pregnancy problems effecting baby or chance to conceive. Realistically it's like 16-35 for women to have babies, outside that time frame problems start to arise. Not to say it's impossible but they will struggle with it.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Are you out of your mind? How long do you think women are fertile? Maybe the man can, but women can't. My friend was already at risk of never being able to have a kid as 26. At 35 women are already at a high risk of losing their few eggs. Not to mention even if they can, the health risks to the baby and the mother rise massively. You've been fed false ideas that women have all the time in the world, probably by deluded women who believe they can have their cake and eat it too. By 35 if they haven't had kids, adios amigos, that train has departed, and if it hasn't departed, it should not be loaded.
I'm a divorced young millenial with one kid I have 50% of the time working full-time and it is so hard. I have a military planning schedule to be able to do everything (which includes 5am wake up times every single day), budget on everything and even if I rent my own place (do not own yet) my parents basically had to move in when Covid hit and schools closed off so that I could keep my job... And I can do this only because I have a Northern Europe salary with a Southern Europe living. If I lived in the country my company is based, I could not do it as public childcare and everything else is way more expensive. If you want us to have more children give incentive to single and divorced parents raising children on a single income, HQ free or cheap long-hours childcare and enable us to keep working whilst raising children. Long paid breaks are great especially if they are for both mum, dads and adoptive parents so it removes the stigma but realistically we want to work AND raise our children and this should be facilitated. That includes incentivising companies who have remote-first and hyper flexible and hybrid policies. That's the only way to incentivise modern parenting. Gone are the days where "family policies" in the 50s family model sense will help the majority of us.
Increasing personal wealth goes hand in hand with less children. The world where families were financed by one wage has gone and we have a generation that struggles to get by, without children and kids cost. Time, money, space and leisure time. Any of these factors are deterrence to having kids. A low birth rate is a big politico economic problem for governments.
Poor, badly industrialized nations needed the extra kids for manpower on the farms, but just because Europe is the highest economic center of the world doesn’t mean people don’t want kids!
If i made more money and could afford a home, i would definitely be more interested in having kids. You realise that not everyone is like the ultra greedy rich people?
Before "The Pill" sex and pregnancy went hand in hand. Motherhood was a full time job. Women have a choice, even if affordability is a main factor@@lorenzooliveira1157
I strongly question why the 'demographic crisis' is framed in terms of raising taxes on *workers*, and not on businesses and the wealthy, who are under-taxed as it is.
That's what staying alive is. When the cells in your body can no longer sufficiently multiply, you start to deteriorate until one part of the system fails and you die. You do understand that we're not maintaining our population right? It's declining.
Would you be happy living in the forest in a wooden cabin fending for your self on your own farm then? If you are happy with that then I won't argue with you but if not then you're just another keyboard Socialist supporting de-growth without actually knowing what you are advocating for.
@@wss33 Nope. Staying alive involves reaching a peak number of cells that are then replaced at various rates without further growth to the number of cells.
1. Stop gender inequality. 2. Increase women's safety. 3. Give equal opportunities and equal pay to women in every fields. 4. Make IVF popular, cheap and available everywhere. 5. Make living standards balance with average income. 6. Build more schools and hospitals. 7. Stop hate and discrimination against single moms. 8. Stop discrimination against Same-sex couples. 9. And, ffs stop looking at birth rates country wise. If in 4 countries its decreasing, 40 other countries are breeding in double. There are many others.
Did you forget anything in the ideological bible they gave you? I don't see climate change or shutting down nuclear powerplants there. Your masters would be disappointed that you didn't do your homework. If you're going full ideology, the go Full ZEALOT. Don't just stop at loudhorn screamer.
@@Mitjitsu When you are from that group, who always have had oppressed the other group, subjugated them, tried to made the other group submissive, you'd find something that will help bring the oppressed group to equality, 'Ideology driven'. Didn't know this channel had 'Incels' too.
@@fireironthesecond2909 To bring a child you need a lots of things available my points includes a few important ones. So, if anyone raises support for equality, that means they have to become politicians? Is this some kind of 'Incel theory'? If points like equal opportunities and equal pay for women hurts your ego, you are plain and simple an Incel.
Countries like france and Us have shown that there is a strong co-relation with owning a house and Car/reliable transit in the young age increase the fertility rate and also it depends highly on how much the father helps in the household, the early 2000s rise in fertility can be attributed to low interest rate and better employment prospects, it might be a good start if we lower the interest rates in particular sectors like Education and Housing
Maybe address the out of control and incessant inflation, low wages, constant crises and flawed job market first and people might actually want kids again
amazing how governments will do absolutely everything to not address housing and wage stagnation.
This.
Benefits are nice and all, but NOBODY is making a calculation like "You know, with the maternity leave benefits, I might be able to afford children". NO. Thats not how this works.
Most people only START thinking about weither they can comfortably add children to their life if they are ALREADY doing well enough.
Which was a strong point for France for a long time. A strength that is on decline for a while now. Go figure.
wonder why singapore with social housing has low fertility rate as well
It's almost like all the cheaper housing and lower wages are taken up by somebody coming from outside the area 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
@@ludicrousreality0 Social housing doesn’t mean shit when it’s one of the most expensive places to live. Same problem as France and a lot of other places. Tackling just one issue out of many and applying band aids to the other problems won’t fix the issue, when it’s a multifaceted one.
Tbh wage stagnation and unaffordable housing are manor issues.
But I bet even if that was fixed with a snap of our fingers people still wouldn't have that many kids.
Numerous issues.
But it certainly would help.
he himself doesn't have kids , in fact he is younger then his step son
Damn didn’t know about the step son, that’s wild 😭
She literally married her in childhood or something
his wife had a menopause before she knew him .
@@ludicrousreality0 they started dating when he was 16 and she was in her 40s
Haha. Good point. Why isn't he asked about it? He's in the 1% and can afford a surrogate to carry the children and nannies to care for them. These damn politicians and their bald faced hypocrisy.
When having children becomes a fantasy rather than a natural part of life, that's when you know the economy is fucked.
Not just the economy...the human race.
Economy might be doing great... it's the species and society that's being fucked... humans... apparently less so though.
How a country can get a higher fertility rate if it promotes the same sex marriage program ?
@@rivartnorton6030countries with aggressive positions to LGBT+ like Eastern Europe still have pretty bad fertility rates.
Cost of living, career pause and future uncertainty are the main reasons for fertility rates drops
@@rivartnorton6030These people still wouldn't have babies if you ban same sex marriage.
They want us to have more children?
We want to be financially stable enough to be able to _afford_ to have children without relying on government handouts that can be taken away as quickly as they are given.
Those guys in Africa certainly don't have any of those benefits yet they still have kids. The problem is cultural as well as economic, the west has dead end societal values.
@@sithersproductions No. In poor countries they HAVE to have more children to work and they also have higher infant mortality rates and mother mortality rates then in western countries. The only dead end here is people like you.
@@sithersproductionsyeah but in africa children are an investment, they get put to work
In the west, children are a burden, they cost money
We also want our children to do a lot more than just work on a field, so we need to invest even more
@@sithersproductions I like how you just ignore reasons young europeans give as to not have children and instead start talking about Africa, a completely different continent with completely different economic and cultural situations not relevant to the issue at hand
@@sithersproductionsthere’s high infant mortality rates in Africa too.
The only way to go back to replacement rate is to make having children a net gain rather than a net loss. Even with all these benefits, having children is still a massive decrease in your disposable income, and you need a house with more rooms for your children. This is unrealistic to ask of people who can't even afford an apartment
Strangely enough migrant communities still see it as a net gain and have multiple children per women still, almost like they benefit from it 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Well if you had nothing, then having something is better for them
Unless we go back to living like the Victorians, then that won't be possible.
The needs of the child will alway be greater in a developed economy (an adequate housing, heating, electricity, mobile phones, Internet connection, sewage system, childcare as mother's don't want to be stay at home house makers anymore, nurseries, primary/secondary education, universities, public transport).
The idea that you can have a net gain economically with this lifestyle is a pipe dream. Furthermore, if the women don't want to have children by choice then no matter what benefits you present to them, they won't have them as you can't force them to procreate.
Therefore, the only way you'll be able to reverse the declining birthrate is to make people who want to have them have at least 3 children to offset people who don't want to have them. - i.e. that's not gonna happen.
We will most likely have to just live with a declining birthrate and its harsh consequences. Unless there is a big cultural reform to attitudes on housemaking and families, expect the problem to persist in the foreseeable future.
@@inbb510 That's what I'm saying, it's impossible for individuals to make it a net gain currently, so governments who are desperate for it should eat the cost. Pay for the housing, education, food, and all of the other stuff you mentioned. Only then would that be possible. It's obviously not possible, but they can at least help with all of these by fixing things like wage stagnation and housing costs. Those are the only real solutions, and are obviously not easy
Also, the part about people not wanting children is irrelevant. My comment and this video are both referring to people who want to have children/more children than they already do but can't
@@penzorphallos3199Great likely hood their kids or grandkids will adopt the same mindset as native and stop having kids. Unless you never want them to gully assimilate into a nation and be ostracized.
Yes let me raise children with the money I don’t have and in the house I don’t own.
🤣🤣
generational debt
Gotta pay 40% of my wages to housing only, i wonder why i dont have kids
They dont care just have kids and be in debt, feed the tax machine
Why not move then?
@@dioniscaraus6124hardly any job outside of cities.
Same, my RENT is 45%. Studying to get a better job, but I’ll be ultra poor for the next 4 years.
@@Billy_the_fish1 If he would do this, he would not need a housing, because he would barely be home to start with.
"bringing down housing cost" is the takeaway. No house, no baby production🕶
Immigration pushes up the price of every square metre of urban land, and therefore housing. Good for those who own land, but the younger members of the community must pay more and more for less and less living space.
To stuff more dwellings into a city, you have to build up, or out, or cover over green spaces. All three options are a drop in living standard.
@@chriswatson1698 why would building more houses drop the standard of living?
@@noobmaster-cd7bk Less living space is a drop in the standard of living. Gardens are living space. Toddlers can play in them in safety, within earshot of their mothers. People can gather outdoors in privacy. More people in the same space means more traffic: pedestrian and vehicular. I don't enjoy petrol fumes.
@@chriswatson1698 no I don't agree, a suburban style of living is the last thing we need. You don't need a mansion to socialise with people (if the government did their job and a minimum area per household law). Suburbia makes you reliant on cars, which makes the streets more dangerous for kids and releases more toxic fumes for pedestrians.
If society wasn't so reliant on cars in the first place, we would've built cities more compactly and therefore achieved more with less space.
No cars => kids can play everywhere safely
No cars => everything would be planned within walking/cycling distance
No cars => no toxic fumes
No cars => you would've probably had an apartment where a 8-lane highway is right now
Britmonkey did a great video about the housing crisis. I recommend you watch it as well as some videos from not just bikes to see what I meant by "cars are the problem"
Audience: "How often will you make the same 'aging population' video for a different country TLDR?"
TLDR news: "Yes!"
😉
It's called job security.
Well, they can just reuse the same infographics over and over so ... yeah
An Aging population is the most underrated and greatest threats, so I would like to be seen the same video a hundred times on a different country
That's what I thought.
They just change the name of the country and the video content remains the same. 😂😂😂
Each country's demographic situation is unique so this isn't surprising.
It actually makes me have a brain aneurysm every time politicians complain about population growth rates when the main reasons for it is the cost of living becoming higher and housing and all the solutions proposed dont address those 2 main issues that cause the problem
Yeah that argument is BS though, housing costs for instance in Sweden or Japan are only ridiculous in the major cities, people aren’t having kids because their cultures have devolved to view children as burdensome wastes of time and resources.
That doesn't explain why some of the poorest countries in the world have the highest fertility rates. It's more to do with culture than money.
@@magivkmeister6166true but those countries have a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy
@@allthenewsordeath5772guess rent there don't take up half your wage even in a small town.
@@allthenewsordeath5772 Young people live in cities, so you might want to rethink your argument
I still live with my parents because housing is criminally unaffordable. And we have out-of-touch people like Whoopi Goldberg saying that we aren’t working hard enough 🤦♂️
Here in Brazil, they increased the minimum wage by a whopping… 100 BRL!
And now there are price increases for everything that isn’t medication(yet)
So it was a moot exercise…
Woopie Goldberg, who does an hour show (-minus commercial breaks), without any reading outside the show to stay informed, thinks young people aren't working hard?
@@badluck5647you’re supposed to work hard in your youth so you don’t have to work as hard in your old age so yeah she’s definitely right. The proof is that she now only has to work one hour to maintain her lifestyle. But you do you.
@@mandolorian9893 You are assuming Woopie worked hard in her youth. She did like three movies over her career.
@@mandolorian9893 I imagine that millennial hustler culture is a foreign concept to you boomers. We work through our lunches and unpaid overtime to get ahead just so we can get a promotion that pays like the entry level job boomers got thirty-fourty years ago. We then go home to a small apartment where our rent takes 50% more of our paycheck then boomers did thirty years ago, and then pay off student loans from colleges that charge 40% more than thirty years ago. Housing also cost more because boomer voters use zoning to restrict the amount homes being build to "protect their property value" aka artificially makes homes less affordable to young people.
Edit: All my percentages were adjusted for inflation
States: "Have more babies (of our national ethnic group). The future of our country is on the line! Nothing is more important than this!!"
Young adults: "We'd like to, but we can't afford it. We need money for houses and food and childcare. We could afford it, if you shifted the tax burden to the upper classes and cut down on their off-shoring their trillions of dollars."
State: ".....Does anyone have any OTHER ideas? There is nothing more important to our future than this!"
😂
As a Hungarian young father with a 5 and a 2 year old child, our pro-family policies are mostly just window dressing. The economy is so bad and keeps getting worse and worse, the cost of everything related to child care is sky high and gets higher each year with all the benefits being nominal only (meaning they don't scale with inflation) and unchanged since 2010. And housing prices are the number 1 worst in the EU compared to salaries, especially since the government encourages fogeign investors (mostly Russia, Chinese and from the Gulf states) to buy up all the apartments.
Just now at the beginning of this year they closed down nearly all of... not sure what it's called in English, but the doctor you can take your sick kid at nights and weekend when there is an emergency. Sp now instead of it being close by, we'll have to go 60 km away, which takes 45-50 mins by car, and for those who can only rely on public transport... good fucking luck.
Think the word is "pediatrician".
Economic times are tough, but no one regrets having children
There isn't really such thing as a pro family economy. The economy can improve and promise no one is gonna have children. Its cultural instead. Europeans population has been stunted for many decades.
@@nikobellic570False! I personally know a handful of people where having a child when they weren’t prepared essentially ruined their lives.
Hungary is thriving stop the bull 😂
"Sure these policies have failed in every country that introduced them, but I'm sure they'll work for us.... right. RIGHT!?"
The point of those policies are to make the decline of EU countries slower, essentially, most EU countries are on the decline already and just want our prosperity to last a bit longer.
The plots to make right wing extremism, which came as a result of the declining economies of both Germany and the U.S.A shows why that's a pipedream though
Uhhh yea no. With enough policy changes the hope is thay eventually having kids will be a net gain, which will boost the fertility rate up@@GameyCat
How a country can get a higher fertility rate if it promotes the same sex marriage program ?
@@rivartnorton6030 what country "pormotes" same sex program? And by that I mean actively promotes same sex marriage. I'll wait.
@@rivartnorton6030same sex marriage provides a great opportunity for adoptions. And all studies show that children of same sex couples are no more likely to be homosexual than children of heterosexual couples, so it’s not a self-perpetuating “problem”.
My take is that nobody wants to raise a kid inside an apartment, they have no backyard to play with their children and noise levels are a huge issue. But unfortunately apartments are the only way to support a growing population, we can't keep buidling single family houses on limited land space so the only solution is to build upwards. I think the fertility crisis is heavily linked with the housing crisis and part of the solution is to make appartments more appealing.
It's funny to contrast this to stories from around 1950: people were living with 12 people in the same apartment we now deem small for 2 people and 1 child. You're probably still right though, people don't want to put their kids in bunk beds anymore.
work from home is the solution.
As achild raised in an ugly eastern european flat with a concrete parkinglot as a garden, trust me children don’t care…. You don’t miss what you never had. Flat or house… it doesn’t matter. It just has to be big enough, comfortable and yours.
Oit of curiosity, why did sweden have such a sharp increase in babies born arround the 90s?
Probably true to some extent, and apartments can absolutely be made more appealing. Large apartments are entirely possible and are still much cheaper to build per meter than houses. Also, you can soundproof them. With all of the space saved by not doing suburban sprawl, you can have a lot of nice parks nearby to play in. The main reason why apartments are so bad anywhere that they are bad is that there's so little land where they can actually be built that they have to be built very high and units have to be small. It's assumed that the only people living in them will be poor or single. The problem is always suburban sprawl and too many single family houses at the end of the day.
7:49 The 1980s' spike in Swedish fertility was due to a new government policy that extended child benefits for the first child if a second one was born fewer than 30 months afterwards, and same for the one after that. This caused a sudden increase in second and third births.
In Ireland, they decided that, to stop some domestic abuse, they would change the tax laws to stop one earner from taking their wife/husbands full tax allowance - which had allowed one earner to have 2 tax allowances and allowed one person to stay home with the kids easier. Now you can only claim 1.5 max, which penalises any family wanting a stay-at-home parent to the tune of almost 20k a year. That’s a real incentive to have kids huh?
I didn't know that.
To be honest, the real issue in Ireland is housing. I've seen apartments in Galway to let that are more expensive than where I live now (Zone 4, London). Any solutions that ignore housing will just fail.
Women can work and have kids. This isn't the 1950s.
I mean you can have kids if both parents work. If you’re depending on the tax rebate. Don’t have kids
@@JL_Lux The issue which the "if you can't afford a family, don't have one" stance ignores is that many people in developed nations are behaving that way and it's hollowing out their populations because our current economic trajectory is towards a small upper class and a massive impoverished under class. Those who had families and could afford them can nod in a self-satisfied manner until their incomes are the only ones that can hold up the taxation demands of their country.
Irelands birth rate im fairly certain is the highest in Europe. Which to me is evidence that high births are a largely cultural thing
I also don't think governments are doing enough to address the motherhood penalty, which is a reality for many women (myself included). Especially in the UK.
What's the motherhood penalty?
@@jayc342009 the motherhood penalty is the umbrella term if you will to describe the discrimination and disadvantages women face in the workforce when they get pregnant and become mothers. These disadvantages can be from anything from pay, to reduced pensions, to dealing with perceived lack of competence and being overlooked for promotion in their jobs once they've had a child.
@@fairylights18 unfortunately companies don't care about anyone they just want to maximize profit as much as they can.
Employers typically believe that mothers will prioritize their children over her career, why do you think "childfree women" are promoted so much? She will prioritise her job and be a good employee.
@@fairylights18 , if a society sees motherhood as a "penalty" then that is a cultural problem, not an economic one.
At the end of the day, it is women who give birth, not men.
@@jayc342009 absolutely and it's that kind of perception of mothers and pregnant people that, in my personal opinion, is one of the reasons why more women are choosing to be child free.
Companies and the government should recognise that not ALL women want to have children and many of them are on the fence about it because of the motherhood penalty. If the government want to improve birth rates then it's my opinion that the government and, in turn, companies and indeed the wider society should work on making motherhood and having a family an attractive option.
I am a millenial who would love to have some kids but I wouldn’t know how. We both work and make good money but can’t afford a house. We live in a small appartement but rent is 2/3 of my income. There is no way to live with one of us going part time (even though 1.5 incomes were normal in my parents’ generation and 1 in my grandparents’) and rental places don’t give permanent contracts anymore so every year to two years we have to move again and with a kid this would mean changing schools and taking them away from friends.
Fix housing and reduce the 40 hour work week and people will start having kids again.
Invest money, apply for grants, etc.
Put it this way (I'm not French), if any European countries want to have more children, they kinda need to make it more viable! I am single, just hit my 30s and can barely keep myself going with wage stagnation the way it is, let alone if I was in a relationship and having to provide for myself, I could POSSIBLY have an additional person WITH SOME SERIOUS CUTBACKS. Children on top of that (not that I can right now, not to mention my lack of interest in women sexually prevents them happening the normal way...) would be completely unfeasible! Oh did I also forget, I WANT TO BUY A HOME!
The lack of interest in women is so relatable, i'd pick video games any day
yet the most poor countries have the most kids
@@belstar1128 "most poor countries have the most kids" - i wish people would stop using this argument.
In poorer countries children are useful for tasks like helping to fetch water from a source which can be miles away. They're essentially free labour.
In a developed country, children are to put it bluntly expensive hobbies you send to school and occasionally see them when you aren't at work.
Children in poor country - free labour for the family.
Children in developed country - expensive hobby.
@@jayc342009 but its also poor people in rich countries .you know who i am talking about i can't get into detail because of censorship .but the guys who drink and smoke a lot of stuff .they often have a lot of kids .
Macron and Pope Francis keep telling us to have more children. Where's the government helping? It's easy to tell others to have more kids when you don't have any of your own. Do they have any idea what it takes to raise kids nowadays?
I live in France (I’m not French), my mother in law could retire early at 55 just because she had 3 children. That doesn’t exist anymore. These parental leave policies are nothing compared to that 😂
Retiring at 55 sounds nice, why not mske it 50, or even 45 ? Jokes aside, higher lufe expectancy is a reality and shoyld be reflected in retiring ages. However, there should be more generous benefits for families with dependent children. Give more benefits for housing, moat of all, make education free of costs till 18 or even 21.
The problem with France is that if even I with an income higher than 80% of the population can’t afford to buy a 2 bedroom apartment let alone a house for 3 or 4 kids to reach the replacement ratio… then how the hell am I supposed to bring kids into this?
How a country can get a higher fertility rate if it promotes the same sex marriage program ?
In Paris*. If you go to the Cantal, you could buy a house with 5 bedrooms if you wanted.
@@rivartnorton6030 It has nothing to do with that. Same-sex relations account for less than 1% of all unions in France. Also, western europe doesn't promote same sex marriage. We allow it, and promote the fact of allowing it and guaranting the same rights to gay people. But no one encourages people to be gay. It's everyone's personnal sexual orientation.
@@alioshax7797 true, but good luck finding any sort of job with a masters degree outside of Paris region
You would do it by giving them a poorer quality of life which is what the final conclusion is. The government doesn’t care as long as you produce more tax cattle to fund pensions.
Politicians: Why do young people refuse to make babies?!
Young people: because we know you won't help us raise them. You can't fool us with those incentives that cover only a fraction of the cost of having kids.
The idea of the government being able to subside all the costs for having kids is an insane idea that post-Millenials have.
The idea of this stress-free life where you still have your free time like you did prior to having children, while being able to have two or more children is an idea not grounded in reality, you might just as well believe that the moon is made of cheese.
Also because previous generations destroyed the planet so much that nobody wants to put kids in a world like that
Politicians: Surprised Pikachu face.
Then why do the rich have fewer children than the poor?
@@jorenbaplu5100 many people don't realize how much this weigh on the decision to have children or not
I am a 21 year old male in the UK, and I don’t think I’ll ever want kids or have kids because of housing. My one goal is to have a place that is completely my own. I can’t afford to do that if I have kids early. If I owned a house with enough room for children, and I didn’t have to pay ridiculous amounts to keep it, I’d probably have children. But that’s not possible so I probably just won’t have kids.
Enjoy working until 80 years old then.
That's why they are importing immigrants and replacing you.
Try to have as much as children young man.
Having children in this time is financially imposible.
No it’s not, people in the worst countries in the world have more children
@@BlakossRight, but not because they can AFFORD to have children.
@@EnterTheSoundscape they can’t afford it, they have them anyways, we’re a lot richer here than people are in third world countries
@@Blakoss that’s my point. It’s still financially impossible to have kids in the UK unless you plan to live in absolute poverty.
@@EnterTheSoundscape not true at all and many people have kids in the UK
Sooner or later governments will realise people simply do not have enough to live. Politicians have homes, but we, everyday people have to rent from greedy landlords.
landlords have their own costs to mantain the property. its also a question of supply and demand
@@Xamufam Yeah, expenses payed for by my rent
I am starting to think that renting needs to be abolish to some extent and housing needs to be a human right
REALTIY: Raising children in a modern society is difficult, time consuming and expensive.
I know, I raised three of them!
In a low-tech, rural society, having a lot of children
is a positive = free labor and the parents' old age security
As a Canadian i see our system as so down the drain i think its a safe bet retirement wise to raise a bunch of kids and hope they take care of me as an old man.
Who said that kids can't be free labour and parents retirement fund or carer in an urban high tech setting? Kids are how you raise them not the location or the era you are in.
@@vmoses1979
🤣
U wish!
R U a proponent of Victorian-style child labor?
@@vmoses1979because if you’re an surgeon, you can’t exactly bring your 5 year old child into operation room and help you with the surgery now can you?
@@lordssundee7047 Seems like a good argument isn't your strong suit. You also can't bring your teacher adult spouse into the operating room. Your argument has no specific application to children. I meant all household chores - cleaning, buying groceries, helping with dinner. My four siblings all did that and we have a syring bond between parents and kids. My still active parents live with my sister in Dubai enjoying their retirement while visiting with the rest of us for months during the summer in the northern hemisphere. Adults who have no conception how to parent and how to instill a work ethic want to tell you kids are useless.
With the way many economies are declining in most countries, having children is simply not a viable option anymore because how can someone support a family when they are struggling to simply support themselves?
It used to be that three or four generations lived closely together and all worked in the same city or village. Now all people pursuing higher education end up far away from their family to work and study, lacking this support network is a big barrier that is under emphasized.
Great point. The capitalistic system encourages a destructive individualism that is conflated with independence. This makes everything harder to navigate thus the epidemic of stress, depression etc
There aren't any jobs in
villages and small towns.
The housing costs in
most cities are too high
for a family to afford
a large enough apartment
or house for the entire
extended family. That
is if Mom and Dad could
reside near/with only one
of their children. What
about the other kids
and grandchildren?
As a 24 years old native French : We can't afford having babies even if we wanted to.
Fr
Ain’t yall revolting right now?
@@unc1221 All the time, but no guns, no pressure
@@WolfearOfficial oh dang. That’s tuff.
Apply for grants and invest money.
The whole world is having this problem right now. It's what happens when you let billionaires steal everything from the working class. If I can't afford a house, I'm not making babies.
@@Snake369 it’s literally that. It’s the main reason.
@@Snake369 population is declining in developed countries, where billionaires do all of their stealing.
@@Snake369 you can keep arguing and calling me names, but the facts won’t change. Everything is going to shit because of runaway capitalism.
Perhaps the problem is far more structural than usually discussed.
We live in an economic system that favors economic growth above all else. Citizens lives and its experience is not a factor in politics that makes any noticeable difference in our decisions to have kids or not.
Im getting close to 30, and i have no clue how to get financially and time-wise stability to be able to provide a healthy upbringing for a child.
Why? High living cost is one.
High productivity requirements to even stay above water is another.
I don't have time or money to be able to take care of a kid. Even if I made 3x the money I do now, I still work too much for family life to be conceivable for me.
I need to be comfortable and mentally relaxed to consider having kids. I don't get that working 40 hours a week. I don't get that living paycheck to paycheck.
I'm not saying it's not possible, it definitely is. But having grown up In Scandinavia, the highly institutionalized upbringing that is the only viable option is not something i want to offer the next generation.
Our political discourse is not serious enough about the fact that we need to turn the debate on its head.
The question should not be "How can society support our economy?" But should instead be "how can the economy support our society and our experience of life?"
Capitalism is a great tool, but a poor foundation for society. It disregards the important experiences of life in favor of pure economic growth. For what end? More money? What is money worth if we are miserable?
I earn about £30K, my partner about £22K. Not massive salaries, not the smallest. No kids so we're fine. No exactly wealthy by any means, but always cover bills, can save for a house etc etc.
If we had a kid, then my partner would basically stop working for like 3 years until our child could go to nursery. Meaning we'd have lost 40% of our household earnings immediately, while simultaneously increasing our overhead costs.
So unless I earn about £60K (because you get higher tax brackets), we'd be financially taking a big hit. The problem, is the average salary is like £33K in the country and that range includes places like London and CEOs earning six-figure salaries.
@@Patrick-y4d1z yeah.. The economic structures just don't insentivice having kids. Not that that should be the deciding factor as such, but it shouldn't be a sacrifice of that magnitude either.
I mean.. Is it too much to ask that our societies is designed with our actual human lives in mind? I mean. The economy is incredibly important and underpins what we are able to do, but is it worth having an incredible economy if we can't have the important things in life? Family, friends?
@@asbjo
That's the thing. It shouldn't incentivise having children, but shouldn't punish it either. And if we don't have children, then we constantly have the issue of an ageing population and unsustainably keep importing more people into the country to prop up a collapsing structure.
If it isn't redesigned, it will fail. It's just a matter of when - though I'd say it already has.
Very well said. We've got the economy upside down. Why are we serving the economy when we should be able to use it as a tool to make our lives better
@@Patrick-y4d1zold people will just import others to take care of them at young peoples expense till they die and it’s no longer their problem
Capitalists when they realise that their housing policies and lack of action on the cost of living is slowly strangling their nation 😮
@ cd1051
The Commies and the
post-Commies aren't
doing any better.
China is going broke, its
Tofu-dreg infrastructure
projects are falling apart
Stupid Putin decided to
abandon Russia's centuries-
long ally, the Armenians
(in Nagorno-Karabakh)
to attempt to have enough
armaments to start a war
with his next door neighbor
(Ukraine) Whose citizens
objected to the president
(secretly) signing a treaty
to place Ukraine in the
CTSO and the BRICs bloc.
chose not to join the
CTSO and BRICs bloc.
Angola and Ethiopia are
basket cases. Maduro,
in Venezuela, has
continued to jail and
execute people who
oppose his friends
being elevated to
run the country.
Nah communist. We need balance or ethicalism of economy
This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with state enabled monopolies.
Communism casually nuking the birth rate of the Eastern block and China to be worse than the capitalist countries
@@akiraraiku state monopolies over what?
People aren’t having children because the private housing market is out of control.
Yeah, duh, lower weekly work hours mean's more time for family.
Countries need a 30hr work week to make it reasonable to have a family, especially now that it takes 2 full-time workers just to support/survive a fam
A 30-hour week is a great 👍 idea 💡
@@anthonygumbs4738 That's why I vote for the left.
@@anthonygumbs4738 Some countries and companies have been in trail to tests out if 4 days a week work, and therefore that's approximately 32hours and in the UK you do not get pay cut. Therefore, working 80% for 100% salary! However it is not adopted nation wide nor a law yet. It is currently up to the corporations I guess
They need future taxpayers to fund their luxury spendings
Not exactly, the more people that get into retirement, more money is spent on medical and day-to-day needs, especially the older elderly
@@lorenzooliveira1157 so naive
Another one , they wont give you the money you paid will take it by inflation and provide poor health or public service @GansGreuts
@GansGreuts it's for the budget, so it is for both.....
As you say, even in Norway and Sweden where you get one year of full payment during the first year and a lot of other benefits, young people can not afford to buy a home with room for 3 children. That’s crazy expensive. Im in my 50’s myself having 3 children, but when we bought our first home. One year salary (before tax) was equal to the price of our house, where we had 3 bedrooms. The same house today is probably around 5-10 times a young workers salary. So I think birthrate is a complicated issue to solve.
A decent sized houses isn't that expensive... out in the middle of nowhere, in some dead town where there's no work, and the only school was closed 40 years ago. Though only if the place is too ugly for any sane person to buy a vacation home there.
I agree, I live in Norway, I earn 40% above the national average, I am pregnant and I can’t afford an apartment with an extra room for my kid. And I will not get full payment during my leave I will not get my bonus, car allowance and higher end part of the salary. We really struggled with the decision to have one kid given the circumstances and we will definitely not have another because we don’t want to be struggling financially for the rest of our lives. Maternity leave is a small part of the overall picture. It is crazy that we even have to say it!
Even for France, the recent low was in the early 90s and peaked in the late 2000s. And something curious I've found is that pretty much all of these graphs start with the baby boom in the 50s to present day which is ridiculous. The baby boom was an anomaly when in reality, the birth rate had been decreasing since the early 1800s due to the Industrial Revolution. I hate how this issue is being framed as if the baby boom is what we should be aimed towards when honestly it was a total accident stemming from winning WW2.
The Baby Boom was mainly because increasing marriage rates and earlier age of marriage
And this was mainly because of the increased gender differences in financial status.
Study giving lotteries to people in sweden showed that when it is given to men, fertility rate increases, when it is given to women, fertility is basically unaffected. This is an experimental study, one of the strongest types of studies.
@@MA-gu2up Baby boom also in response to the drop in fertility rate during Great Depression, and later WW2, when the men were fighting the war. Economy improved+men came back and during that time, women didn't need to work and birth rates spiked
As all other people have said in the comments, we can't even afford our own house; how will we pay for kids?
I also want to add, what about all the stress? We need to work more, work harder and where do we have time for kids if we can't even sleep normal and need to worry about being able to cook the food. We can't eat takeout forever.
Apply for grants, invest money, etc.
The push for people to have more babies or increase in immigration is just catering to the old pension system. And it doesn't seem to be working, time and time again. As other people have already pointed out in the comments, the best solutions to this would be to increase wages and lower housing costs for young people.
But maybe instead of trying to find a "cure" for the current pension system that our entire world revolves around, we should instead be trying to create a new, better one. The way things are going, the current trends are unsustainable and there might be a collapse coming in the not so distant future. I'm 35 this year, so not even a "young person" anymore, and I honestly don't see myself having a house or being able to afford a kid any time soon. If we continue down this road, I don't think I will ever be able to retire. And maybe by the time I am 65-70, there won't be any money for my pension anyway.
Even if we address the wage stagnation and housing costs. I feel like having a "plan B" or an alternative to the current state of things, might not be such a far-fetched idea
Fair points, I think the collapse you mentioned is already happening but in slow motion.
How do you propose we solve it? Cause whatever the redistribution mechanism, even going as far as whether it's capitalism or socialism, fundamentally relies on labour. Less people less labour. More pensioners more demand for labour.
The only "solution" is wishful thinking about automation, that magic AI will solve our problems. Let me tell you as an AI engineer that: there are no AI robots fixing roads or fixing the piping in your flat on the horizon.
The only real solution is get married, have 2-3 kids of your own and raise them to love you.
Hello stranger remember put a hazmat suit on for these comments
I forgot I’m already contaminated
Thank Allah we have white liberals to warn us ❤
Scrolled a bit, doesn't seem that bad tbh
Maybe make it so people can buy a house to have a family in. Or help people afford and care for them.
Real estate scarcity is certainly a big issue in France, but more generally, it more about outlook on the future. France society is depressed, pessimistic, and afraid about what the future will look like.
I think with the state of western culture this is going to get way way worse.
It is already at breaking point
in Africa and the Middle East.
Modern medicine and food
aid has created a population
boom in both places.
The idea that people would
be denied either of these is
sad; but none of those people
were required to limit the
size of their family to recieve
aid.
@@here_we_go_again2571 It's not aid that made the african economic growth, it's just normal economic growth that partly stems for numerous investements (specially from china).
It is simple: if you have a kid 15% reduction on taxes 2 kids: 40% reduction. 3+ kids 60%+ reduction and ability to borrow money without paying it back for a house for better living conditions.
Stop increseing co2 😮
@@dafafaaf7679 Go to the Shadow Realm to stop increasing co2.
why wont they just make living more affordable first
Because that actually requires controversial laws, and the politicians need that reelection
Hardly any political policy starts with "Just......"
Because old people hold the economic and voting power thus any vote that makes housing more affordable hurts old people’s investment in housing. Therefore, old people will lobby and vote to prevent such actions
Thumbnail maker, well done sir 🎩
Hi Zack. Good video with accurate facts. However, as most political reforms forget, you need to look at the complete system, from birth to adulthood. Being French living in Germany, I can tell that having kids in France is much simpler than in Germany. There are more nurseries, more kindergarten and school finishes in the later afternoon. In Germany, having kids basically means one parent working part time, if not stopping to work completely.
there are no "accurate facts", just facts, when will people start to learn what this word even means
One key issue that is never adressed is the issue of celibate. Our generation have a staggering amount of young and middle age adult that are just not in any meaningfull relationship. Child won't happen either because of this
That’s only true if children are some progression of relationships. Like a next step. Which to some people they are, but I like to think those selfish people are fewer than those of us who do value our children as more than an extension of our relationships
Ban dating apps, they are a scourge on your birthrate
As long as the Western culture still forces feminist ideas and women in the workforce there will be no solution to the population decline. The cost of living don't play any role. Most of African countries have high fertility rates even though they're poor...
Only rural people because they grow their own food and live from livestock/Land but as soon they move to cities fertility rate drops like Ghana/Kenya/Southern African were fertility dropped over 50%
In Kenya there are no high birth rates even in rural areas. The high cost of living in this country is driving people insane😭😭
It is not reasonable to ask women to have children while mothers are penniless, and can be abandoned in middle age when the task of raising children is complete.
No blame, on demand divorce makes motherhood untenable.
If you have some animals in captivity in a cage too small for them and you constantly stress them out and only give them enough food and water to survive till the next meal and force them to run on a treadmill to exhaustion every day, these animals wont breed.
Now think of a person in an apartment working long hours in a modern job with credit card debt.
These animals won't breed, are we suprised?
Politicians have poor response times that they can only handle the symptoms and not the cause. They can only act on demographic and climate problems after they are several decades too late.
I'm a bit confused on why all these people that scream about low birth rates for their countries are against immigration. If you are really worried about the lowering population an obvious solution seems to be let more people into your country. Do they not want other races of people in their countries?
Because that does not increase the birth rate.
Do migrants magically stay young forever or do they age too? Think about it.
How many children has Macron fathered.
Considering his wife is 70... She did her part though.
Maybe Macron should look at himself and have some then? Oh, he can't, wife too old for that.😡🥴😕🧐
LOL. The baby snatcher is wayyyyy too old
He could ADOPT. Why didnt he adopt?????
Adopting does not increase the birth rate.@@MagMar-kv9ne
@@MagMar-kv9newhy do we act like adoption solves demographic issues when it doesn’t. There is no shortage of people lined up to adopt babies.
@@badart3204 Actually there is. There are not as many people as you think that like to adopt children.
My intake as a parent in France of what can be done :
- Increase parental leave well paid, geting 400 € a month is not enough to replace a salary. As a father you used to have 11 days, that's it, it's not enough.
- Increase the number of spots in daycare, many of my friends never got a solution to take their baby when they came back to work, and struggled a lot
- Make daycare free or more accessible, it's actually cheap for poor people but as soon as you make decent money, you pay up to 1000 € a month for daycare for 1 kid. That actually pushes some women to stop working because the salary is not worth the daycare cost
- Adapt working times with having kids, schools finish at 4:30, most people work until 6pm and more, how are you supposed to manage that
- Last but not least, many don't have kids because they don't have a partner with whom they comit for life, less marriages equals less kids, and that I don't see a solution.
The working program problem is so valid! I always asked myself, how do they expect to manage job and kid?
@@dexocon2658well my carreer just stoped since I had kids. I can’t keep up
@@dexocon2658 You have after school daycare but then I get my kids back late, and we eat dinner late, and they go to bed late, and i have to wake them up early every morning while they did'nt get enough sleep... When I can I leave work early to get them but then have to work after I put them to bed, so have 0 time to breath...
@@zaydalaoui9397
Isn't their mother with you?
Your point about how many mothers will stay home rather than work and pay that price to daycare, well, wouldn't this be a solution for you? Your kids will sleep early and so on, and you can too, you will probably have to work harder to earn more, but increasing one hour a day isn't much for most people, right?
@@MA-gu2up3 reasons :
1) we both want to work and be independant.
2) it’s not as simple as work hard get more money, even if I work harder it will take years to get the results get a promotion and earn more money and it’s not guaranteed and it will never be as much as my wife earns
3) not every dad plans/wants to be an absent father who spends life at work and misses on his kids growing up
Of course I knew all this before having kids and went for it anyway, because that’s more important for me than the rest but I know people who wont have kids for these reasons, so maybe if these topics were tackled more people will have kids.
There is a lot more to it than "women don't want to give up their high-powered careers to fufill their natural role as mothers". It is simply difficult or impossible to raise a family on a single income.
Most women don't even have careers, let alone high-powered ones.
I think the welfare state is one of the biggest problems actually, fertility rates will rise with marriage rates, just like they did in the 1940s and 1950s, but the welfare state impedes that
@@MA-gu2up In the 1950's it was possible for a working man to support a family and for the wife/mother to stay at home. That is no longer the case.
@@Ralphieboy
Still, about 25 percent of households live as breadwinner husbands and a stay at home mom in the US
This is less the case now partly because of the welfare state with its taxes and feminism with biased employment and affirmative action.
@@MA-gu2up I guess you are right: women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
Viva la France! Fewer people! Less stress on the planet! Less competition for finite resources! Wonderful, wonderful France!
❤
Is he going to address housing, social care affordness issuee???
The politicians? HAH!
Putting a man in charge who marries an older woman and has no children, is counter intuitive.
I think there is two factors hampering fertility: the cost of living (housing, energy, etc.) and the much harder to measure expectation of the quality of life of your child.
The former is easy to measure and have been going up for a while.
The latter is harder to calculate but clearly the climate crisis, expectation for future increase on the cost of living, and the excess of capitalism, especially related to labor, are certainly reducing parents expectation relative to their child future welfare and hence inciting them to have less. This is often done in the hope to give them more tools (education, saving, loans, etc.) to help them maintain the same quality of life that their parent have (more competitive in the job markets, assistance to buy a first home, etc.).
It is also not helping that many young adult see themselves worst off than their parents, already creating a low bar for their expectation of their children welfare.
"France's fertility rate remains a mystery" said everyone who haven't visited France and never saw Muslim and African families
TLDR idea board be like:
"x european country fertility crisis"
"x european country fertility crisis"
"x european country fertility crisis"
"x european country fertility crisis"
Yeah they should celebrate this, I mean this is exactly what they want
@@magivkmeister6166 Who?
You can remove the "european". They did the same on tldr global with Russia, Japan, China (twice) ...
@@akaviri5 oh true
Happening in OZ & NZ too. It's happening all around the world but some people are too far in their bubbles to see it's worldwide.
People: If you want us to have more children, sort out the economy and unaffordable housing
Government: No but here are some paper policies
Just say you don't understand the complexity of the problem. It's ok.
Please explain how I am wrong@@inbb510
@@inbb510
Actually he nailed the problem pretty much on the head. People can't afford to have children because of how broken the economy, job salary and housing markets are.
But it's ok, try to read his comment again and you might understand it.
@@Patrick-y4d1z , or you could pick up a basic human geography book and realise that the problem has a huge cultural element to it?
Every country just tweaks around the edges. A £100, €200 or 500zl cannot move the needle.
The first country to get these 5 things will have a massive advantage:
- A stable jobs market with strong worker rights
- Affordable housing
- Schools and neighbourhoods that are safe (reminder we have kids in the UK wearing outer coats in classrooms this winter)
- A sustainable pension system that not just us but our kids could live to use
- A chance at the world not being a burning hellscape or 2m underwater in these kids' lives
Canada has the solution. You need an immigration Ponzi scheme. I’m Métis. Here the Métis and First Nation people are incentivized not to work at all. You get more money from having 4 children compared to being a teacher or nurse. Here in Saskatchewan, families can be gifted freehold houses, have the house renovated, get free groceries, subsidized energy and water, subsidized gasoline, a clothing and vacation bonus and even a free vehicle just for having children. France needs to create a system to encourage its native white French population not to work so being parents can become full time jobs. When you compare the Muslim birthrate of France to Canada the numbers are much lower here as the cost of living for tax paying immigrants is so high.
Stop fixating on the gender pay gap and promote more choices for women. I.e. Full Time employed mum / part time mum / stay at home mum, are all celebrated and equally supported by the state AND society.
I live in France. I can tell you one of the main reasons French people are not having babies - they don't want them. Everyone has their own reasons of course, but when I did my master's in France, none of the women I studied with wanted children. Most of them said that (in their opinion) 'Children ruin your life.' They looked down on their friends and family with children, and these were women from a variety of demographics. When I said I wanted a 'big family' of around 4 children, they treated me like I was crazy.
I am not trying to downplay the importance of historical feminism. However, I think this is part of the problem with France as well, as they have gone 'off the rails' feminist. Women are told (and have told me) that if a woman does not work outside the home, she is not equal to her husband. Staying at home with children is not even treated as valid option in life. Things like cost of living obviously affects this, but the cultural view of children plays a significant part.
Les Français: ON A DROIT DE RETRAITER QUAND ON AURA 60 ANS À TAUX PLEIN. 😡
Les Français aussi: C'est mon droit de ne pas avoir d'enfants. C'est mon choix. Laisse-moi tranquille le gouvernement! 😡
But the key point is, why do so many women think this way? It's not feminism. If a woman has or is willing to have children, her professional path is blocked, while for men this helps them advance. Many women also don't want to be the sole caregiver. In this type of video I always see people blaming women, but few people calling men to get involved in raising children. Don't help or treat your time with the kids like ''babysitting'', but do your part of the work with the kids and around the house. Women who stay at home taking care of children do various unpaid jobs, saving hundreds of thousands a year, so being the relative who brings money home, especially in jobs that are not physically strenuous, is not enough. And for the one who stays at home it is risking ending up in a situation of financial abuse, and giving up your youth and time of work experience so that in 20 years you end up being exchanged for a younger version during a mid-life crisis, and having to start from scratch. Can you blame women who have grown up watching their mothers stress out and kill themselves or ending up in bad situations, wanting to avoid that fate? And to all this we add that our society is not tolerant of children. Everyone treats them as nuisances and nowadays places that prohibit children are on the rise.
@rachelolsen3428 Exactly right. Culture outweighs the economic reasons which truth be told are still relatively better than generations before when women had more kids. The blame for the culture change is feminism. Everything has positive and negative aspects. Women should have a chance at equal education and job opportunities but this did not have to mean the devaluing and denigration of being full time mother.
Well that’s actually true - if you depend financially on your husband then you are not equal to him.
I am not going to argue but the reality is: only money matters. If you don’t have money then it doesn’t matter how bad your marriage gets - you are stuck with a person that doesn’t respect you.
Even in case of divorce you won’t be able to later support yourself because you lost years on the job market -> you are pushed to low paying jobs.
Staying at home is not a safe/reliable solution (maybe if your husband is a millionaire so you can get your share..)
@@nathan13l. Allegedly the USA did smething like this with the afro american community completely going downhill.
Germany provides 14 month of maternity & paternity leave (of which one person can take up to 12 month) at around 80% of the salary. You can even stretch that to two years (you don't get more money though). In many German states nursery is fully subsidized, but the problem is a shortage of childcare workers so the free nursery often only provide coverage until 3 or 4pm.
Additionally you get a lump sum per child every month and a tax credit.
Despite all that Germany's birth rate only moved upwards by around 0.1-0.2 over the 10 years that followed. With war in Europe (and possibly globally), the global rise of the far right etc., I doubt that the birth rate will increase.
Generally, fewer people want kids, because not even subsidized daycare and tax credits will compensate you financially for the enormous amount of work you put in. So it is rational, that people have fewer kids and the fall in birth rate is just an adjustment to the fact that children are a financial liability in a developed society. That's why no developed country now is at replacement level. Natalist policies stopped the decline in some (Scandinavia, France) in some extreme influence of religion delayed it (USA), but eventually it fell everywhere.
The problem is that we do still need children in the future....
And the government doesn't care to address the issue, they just enable more immigration like that will fix the issue
@@jayc342009 my point is that the issue might be basically unfixable. That’s why no country fixed it so far. Immigration is the only way to compensate somewhat.
The previous decades of leftist rule in Europe didn't do anything about the declining birth rates. Maybe the right will find a solution.
@@tobiwan001Exactly, people just don't want kids unless you're religious. Israel is the only developed country to have a high fertility rate
@@jayc342009 , the problem is unsolvable in a liberal democratic society where women have the choice to become parents or not.
It's quite literally an unsolvable problem without completely rethinking our cultural attitudes to motherhood, parenting, materialism, and families.
It's depressing to see how short sighted so many countries have been. They focus on only the next election cycle and not the long term impact of their decisions. Now the younger generations are expected to carry the older ones when the older ones have done everything they can to make life difficult for the youth. It's not just France. The unbelievable unfairness is enraging. The only answer I see is to cut benefits to the pensioners and address housing and wage stagnation. Or do what the US is trying and remove a womans control of her own reproduction.
“Or do what the U.S. is trying and remove a woman’s control over her own reproduction” 🤡 someone has no idea what they’re talking about and eats up propaganda and it shows.
Yeah but the second option doesn’t work. Poland has the worst access to contraception in Europe. Even after-pill access is difficult as you need prescriptions from doctors… Getting an appointment takes days + doctors can refuse prescriptions based on their religion = nearly impossible to get the after pill…
Nearly total abortion ban killed 4 women just in last 4 years…
Polish fertility rate fell to record low 1.2 (one of the lowest in Europe).
You can try to take people’s human rights but people won’t make babies anyway if they know it’s a financial suicide and way to end up under the bridge.
Great video! I would just say that one of the solutions you suggested is to raise wages and that wouldn’t help at all. When wages go up, prices go up so nothing changes.
Exactly! This happened in Brazil, where minimum wage increased by 100 BRL, and now you can see groceries increase slowly as well! AAAAAAAA-
When people say increase wages, they mean increase in the lower to middle wages
So while yes, prices go up, they dont go up as much proportionally unless you also increase top earners, so it's still a net gain
The opposite happened in Belgium last year. We have mandatory index adjustment, meaning that wages increase with inflation. So in 2023 we all got like 8% more salary. And turns out we also had the lowest inflation of the eurozone.
you could also lower income taxes rather than to raise wages? this way it comes out of the gov budget.
@@frankhuurman3955 a yes, shrinking the gov budget and then also making them pay more. Genius...
Besides lower taxes always make the rich richer and the poor poorer
Lots of people don't have kids due to the climate crisis. Who wants to bring a kid into a world where they can only envision a dystopian future.
These demographic changes have to do with structural changes.
People live longer and have more options than to have children. Most people want to work on their career and have children later.
Furthermore, children in cities are expensive. In the past when most people lived in the countryside every child was a potential worker. You also had enough space for them. In a city, every room costs 300-500 dollars more.
So what needs to happen is, space needs to become cheaper. It is incredibly hard to find a partner with 35. So that needs to change as well.
Tax breaks can help, but the tax breaks need to be substantial and make up for the higher expenses.
What also helps is child care. If more people should have children, we need a lot more places that offer child care.
Tell Macron to have babies first! How dare someone who has never gotten kids can understand how it feels to be parents!
Shout out to the thumbnail designer. Good job haha
he can cause that to happen by simply making sure people have more money and time, which can be done by shortening the working week. all it will cost is a 5-10% drop in profits of the biggest corporations, so they'll have to scrape by on only $90 billion profits rather than $100 billion.
When the older generations, that already own housing and lived during the economic boom times, want to have not only their savings, pensions, and other benefits, but also the ability to mortgage off a house that's highly valued so they can live in luxury for the last twenty or plus years of their life they complain if you try to push back retirement age a bit... While the new generations are barely making squat by comparison in todays currency and buying power for hard work, not able to afford houses with all these inflated prices that the old heavily vote and politically work to ensure stay high and valuable, and then are expected to pay increased taxes to, among other things, pay for the retimerment of those older people that already lived great lives, and if they were responsible should have been able to save plenty by this point. When many young people are doing jobs that don't even have retirement plans these days being tossed around between multiple part time gigs or stuff specifically to avoid it and benefits and other things.
So, taken to the extreme, the older generation are greedy, wealthy, and in power and controlling it all for themselves, like vampired sucking from the young. While the young are actually doing work... but don't have the power, influence, or even time and money to do much of anything but work and survive (by extreme generalizations of coarse). So when the young can't afford a house, and don't have money to survive if not always working, there's little option to even get into relationships for many, let alone actually having and then raising and housing kids.
So pushing off of that extreme interpretation of the situation, the answer is clear. Kill the old people, originally a joke idea I had, that's the more time goes buy becoming increasingly concerning a "viable option" given how things just keep getting worse otherwise with no actual fixes happening relying on existing political systems and those in charge of them... suddenly tons of housing becomes available and it's prices drop, taxes and burdens go way down on the young giving them more free time to work on politics, hobbies, romance, families, etc... while now having some housing options to actually support said raising of families. And without the old or young but wealthy crooks in power, always making sure to keep their own interests center point, not that of the younger generations or general citizenry... policies and stuff might finally shift for the better, rather than supporting a stagnant older generation that doesn't want to lose their high quality livelihoods. When the old generation considers it a travesty if they don't have enough money to go on vacation at least once or twice a year, and I and plenty other younger generations might never even have gone on one... there's clearly a big discrepancy here in quality of life and expectations. Now, the next question would be if this all just happens again in another 50 years or so... With the now young generation becoming that overbearing controlling older group focused on our own interests so much it's at the expense of the then younger generations ability to have basic livelihoods... Who knows...
Well, even with housing and more balanced financial situations it's likely many still wont have the desired birth rates, I mean... even if you make housing affordable enough for you to not always need both parents or adults to be working at the same time to afford any form of actual house, we still have plenty of other modern issues to contend with that lower the rate of actual relationships forming like modern media, computers, and other things that make it easier for younger people (especially without money) to just stay at home and do stuff on their phone instead of going out to bars, parks, bowling alleys, events, etc... and meeting other humans and stuff that's kind of required to start relationships in the first place. If money isn't such a concern, maybe more people will try those things again, how much of this trend is a shift in response to economics, or actually a shift that would happen anyway just because modern games or media or stuff is so much more addicting... who knows.
EDIT: No plans for kids here, or expecation on actually owning my own house for at least a few more decades if ever. But with no retirment plans or much savings... my retirement plan basically turned into a gun and a bullet for when I'm out of money/income, or have any big health issue I can't afford. And the low to nill expectation of an actual future kind of seams like a problem that will, if more broadly present in socieety, likely precede a more complete or major collapse in the next several decades with huge declines in populations and likely be an end point to the modern experiment of our current societies and livlihoods. Granted... automation and other things might in these next few decades be able to make it so most people can live so much more cheaply or with barely needing work... but there's no real expecation thing would go that well, when they'd probably just be an asset some rich would monopolize so they are even more secure as the rest of society crashes around them. Definitely met plenty others my age with brighter thoughts on the future, but also a few with ones similar to mine, so it's not like I and my experiences are that much of an oddity today.
As someone in their early 30s in the UK who wants children, the main stumbling block is not being able to afford a place with extra bedrooms on a single income. Literally fix that and you'd see a higher birth rate!
I don't disagree on housing & wages likely being problematic, but your conclusion featuring them was rather perfunctory and lacked any supporting data.
I emplore you, good sir, please elaborate on your proposition!
*tips fedora*
I imagine for a lot of people watching, their statement on wages and housing was as obvious and uncontroversial as saying "breathing air is good"
Probably because it's beating a dead horse. Every few weeks we get a "we're not having enough children" video, and it almost always comes down to;
-low/stagnating salaries
-poor / unaffordable housing
-cost of living crisis.
People can't afford to have children because the previous generations completely obliterated the economy housing and country at every level. Healthcare is worse, housing is worse, salaries are worse, it's literally all worse and shows no signs of improvement in the slightest.
Several countries are facing that same problem, a shrinking population.
Now THAT is a Thumbnail 🍼
Having children isn’t worth it for women nowadays. If you can’t take care of yourself financially why would you want to bring someone else in to struggle?
"The Taboo of the Century"
I don't know what he is on about. In Germany its fairly well known and even talked about in schools that a low birth rate can lead to societal problems. Probably just catering to feeling of the far-right.
Not really, left wingers tend to just pretend migration can replace birth rates, and that birth rates are a women’s rights issue and not an economic issue
most people on this planet dont know what low birth rates can lead too. some people say its good because of global warming, others say it declines and then it rises again like previously in history without even knowing the context on why the population rose in the first place. just because people in germany might know that doesnt mean populaation in france know.
Ça n'a pas l'air d'être très efficace d'en parler alors car la France a un taux de natalité bien supérieur à l'Allemagne et elle a longtemps été le pays le plus fécond d'Europe ( même si les récents déclins de natalité nous rapproche de votre niveau à vous )
ok i went to high school 12 years ago in Belgium and they told me to not have kids and the world is overpopulated maybe things changed now .
the world is overpopulated in africa and other third world regions. in the developed world its underpopulated.@@belstar1128
If you eliminate race and ethnicity from the equation, there is not actually a national problem. The problem is the idea that race/ethnicity is a nationally significant factor in terms of maintaining an optimal tax base and if you don't believe that immigrants can be fully assimilated. The human race is the only race and ethnicities are like the clothes humans wear. Identity is a shortcut to superficial greatness.
What's the point of having kids? Why should I care about the future? I think the fertility issue goes far deeper than just being an economical issue. It's about our culture of individualism and hedonism (the internet and drugs). Human connection means less and less. Legacy means less and less. The only people that have high birthrates are some religious people, that are more family oriented, which socially enforce them to have children.
That's OK being Christian or Hindu or Jewish in western countries having kids. Islam is a different story.
What I was taught in school and my own experience is that expectations of education are a huge factor in people's decision not to have kids. The number of years of university needed to get a good job are getting longer and more uncertain. No one wants to have kids under those circumstances. It’s a difficult situation because you can’t directly regulate professors or employers, but it doesn’t seem like this perspective gets acknowledged much.
And yet France is literally the country with one of the highest birth rates in Europe with Turkey and Ireland. I would be more worried about the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe (Poland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Romania, Croatia, Germany... ) which have had very, very low birth rates and for a very long time unfortunately. This is quite worrying for these countries.
Macron is worried because a drop in the birth rate is not part of French habits. In any case, Macron and his government are the problem.
To see if it will continue for France or if it's just passing through. The French still overwhelmingly want children.
@@redstone5062 yes that's true too. This must be taken into account, you are right. 🙂
But also in general, France has always had a very generous birth rate policy and a pronatalist policy compared to other European countries. That's why. But unfortunately under Macron it is less good....
@@aliceg6745 He cut the social welfare net that supported the pronatalist policy. As a libertarian and conservative he wants to have people paying for their children and working their asses off. But of course the people cannot do that anymore, the life stress is too much. They do not want to live like animals.
"Work longer! Work for less! Rent only!.. Why aren't you guys having kids?"
New camera? Looks good
Yeah, even China and India are worried about low birth rates. And we've not seen any country reverse this trend once it starts.
India not😂😂 they have to many males
3:32 Was it really that much of a surprise that a country with so many Arabs and Africans has had a high fertility rate compared to other EU countries?
Also, it seems like the problem is not so much that people don't want or can't afford more kids. The problem seems to be that people start having kids pretty late so they simply can't have more kids on a physical level. Apparently the average age of the first kid, at least in Italy, is close to 30 years old.
That's still twenty years to have kids in
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 After 30 years it's not really that easy to accomplish. And it's also more risky.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231try 5, after 35 women start having trouble both to their own body, and increase chance of pregnancy problems effecting baby or chance to conceive.
Realistically it's like 16-35 for women to have babies, outside that time frame problems start to arise. Not to say it's impossible but they will struggle with it.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Are you out of your mind? How long do you think women are fertile? Maybe the man can, but women can't.
My friend was already at risk of never being able to have a kid as 26. At 35 women are already at a high risk of losing their few eggs.
Not to mention even if they can, the health risks to the baby and the mother rise massively. You've been fed false ideas that women have all the time in the world, probably by deluded women who believe they can have their cake and eat it too.
By 35 if they haven't had kids, adios amigos, that train has departed, and if it hasn't departed, it should not be loaded.
@@fungo6631 Doesn't matter. It is better than nothing and that's what you're getting now.
I'm a divorced young millenial with one kid I have 50% of the time working full-time and it is so hard. I have a military planning schedule to be able to do everything (which includes 5am wake up times every single day), budget on everything and even if I rent my own place (do not own yet) my parents basically had to move in when Covid hit and schools closed off so that I could keep my job... And I can do this only because I have a Northern Europe salary with a Southern Europe living. If I lived in the country my company is based, I could not do it as public childcare and everything else is way more expensive.
If you want us to have more children give incentive to single and divorced parents raising children on a single income, HQ free or cheap long-hours childcare and enable us to keep working whilst raising children. Long paid breaks are great especially if they are for both mum, dads and adoptive parents so it removes the stigma but realistically we want to work AND raise our children and this should be facilitated. That includes incentivising companies who have remote-first and hyper flexible and hybrid policies. That's the only way to incentivise modern parenting. Gone are the days where "family policies" in the 50s family model sense will help the majority of us.
Increasing personal wealth goes hand in hand with less children. The world where families were financed by one wage has gone and we have a generation that struggles to get by, without children and kids cost. Time, money, space and leisure time. Any of these factors are deterrence to having kids. A low birth rate is a big politico economic problem for governments.
Poor, badly industrialized nations needed the extra kids for manpower on the farms, but just because Europe is the highest economic center of the world doesn’t mean people don’t want kids!
If i made more money and could afford a home, i would definitely be more interested in having kids. You realise that not everyone is like the ultra greedy rich people?
Before "The Pill" sex and pregnancy went hand in hand. Motherhood was a full time job. Women have a choice, even if affordability is a main factor@@lorenzooliveira1157
I strongly question why the 'demographic crisis' is framed in terms of raising taxes on *workers*, and not on businesses and the wealthy, who are under-taxed as it is.
If a society requires infinite growth to stay alive, it's an awfully designed society
It requires 2.1 child to born in order to replace the parents. What infinite growth you are talking about?
That's what staying alive is. When the cells in your body can no longer sufficiently multiply, you start to deteriorate until one part of the system fails and you die.
You do understand that we're not maintaining our population right? It's declining.
Would you be happy living in the forest in a wooden cabin fending for your self on your own farm then?
If you are happy with that then I won't argue with you but if not then you're just another keyboard Socialist supporting de-growth without actually knowing what you are advocating for.
@@wss33 Nope. Staying alive involves reaching a peak number of cells that are then replaced at various rates without further growth to the number of cells.
@@aze94 Nope. Being alive is maintaining homeostasis. When the body can no longer maintain homeostasis it dies.
1. Stop gender inequality.
2. Increase women's safety.
3. Give equal opportunities and equal pay to women in every fields.
4. Make IVF popular, cheap and available everywhere.
5. Make living standards balance with average income.
6. Build more schools and hospitals.
7. Stop hate and discrimination against single moms.
8. Stop discrimination against Same-sex couples.
9. And, ffs stop looking at birth rates country wise. If in 4 countries its decreasing, 40 other countries are breeding in double.
There are many others.
Anything else that isn't boring, self serving and ideologically driven?
Did you forget anything in the ideological bible they gave you? I don't see climate change or shutting down nuclear powerplants there.
Your masters would be disappointed that you didn't do your homework. If you're going full ideology, the go Full ZEALOT. Don't just stop at loudhorn screamer.
@@Mitjitsu When you are from that group, who always have had oppressed the other group, subjugated them, tried to made the other group submissive, you'd find something that will help bring the oppressed group to equality, 'Ideology driven'. Didn't know this channel had 'Incels' too.
Wow you somehow made 9 points and only 1 of them are remotely relevant. That is impressive have you considered being a politician?
@@fireironthesecond2909 To bring a child you need a lots of things available my points includes a few important ones. So, if anyone raises support for equality, that means they have to become politicians? Is this some kind of 'Incel theory'?
If points like equal opportunities and equal pay for women hurts your ego, you are plain and simple an Incel.
Countries like france and Us have shown that there is a strong co-relation with owning a house and Car/reliable transit in the young age increase the fertility rate and also it depends highly on how much the father helps in the household, the early 2000s rise in fertility can be attributed to low interest rate and better employment prospects, it might be a good start if we lower the interest rates in particular sectors like Education and Housing
Highest fertility in the world: Niger. Education and car access must really be crazy high there.
Maybe address the out of control and incessant inflation, low wages, constant crises and flawed job market first and people might actually want kids again
Tax cuts for parents
“JuST ImPoRt moRE MiGra-”
*increased crime, racism, and maybe civil war*
*surprised Pikachu face*