I also support directing as many resources as possible to parents and making benefits universal. There are some daycare and income subsidies in Canada but it’s frustrating because we don’t use daycare and are means tested out of most benefits.
A few months I came across an article somewhere pointing out that free school lunches would direct funds to parents and make their lives easier. This is the sort of strategic thinking we need. Otherwise all public funds will end up with the oldsters.
I like the emphasis on helping people actualize their desire for larger families. No one is going to have children to bail out the social welfare system. I think this emphasis makes parents feel like suckers and feel that their children will enter a horrible, declining world (or be swamped by third world immigrants).
I would emphasize the benefits of having more children in old age, for support and for company, both for their parents and siblings. One of our concerns causing us to expand our family is that our children don’t have any nearby cousins available due to relocation and other factors. We essentially need to re-found an extended family for them. We also find that it’s harder and harder to make and rely on friends in an atomized, weird society. So they need to rely on each other.
Fertility education is useful but I wouldn’t overdo it to the point that people stop reproducing in their thirties and early forties. Some new research suggests that generation length through history is longer than you think.
Really excellent piece with key thoughts to explore further.
One that resonated for me was the idea that having more than one child is increasingly reserved for the wealthier in society.
Anecdotally that lands for me. I am a parent of three myself and our family were in a higher earning bracket (and also chose to live in a country where childcare was inexpensive and commuting a non-issue, both of which made being an active parent easier). Beyond myself, the majority of my peers (in their 50s, with similar education and income) have three children, some four, some two, but I'd say three is the average.
I then look at children of my peer group and those who are in relationships (some aren't) aren't even considering starting a family until into their early to mid-30s. None of those adult children of that group have indicated a desire to have more than one or maybe two children.
Interesting analysis, though I’m not convinced on the culture point - we need a cohesive and compelling argument for conservative principles. The birth rate issue is fundamental to that.
When you say you ‘work together on the birth rate challenge’…
“…how do we communicate [info on the relationship between age and fertility] in a way that both: reaches people; and is helpful rather than alienating?”
Very rarely do I think the answer to policy challenges is to cram more into the school curriculum, but this seems a good topic for a biology or geography syllabus.
I also support directing as many resources as possible to parents and making benefits universal. There are some daycare and income subsidies in Canada but it’s frustrating because we don’t use daycare and are means tested out of most benefits.
A few months I came across an article somewhere pointing out that free school lunches would direct funds to parents and make their lives easier. This is the sort of strategic thinking we need. Otherwise all public funds will end up with the oldsters.
I like the emphasis on helping people actualize their desire for larger families. No one is going to have children to bail out the social welfare system. I think this emphasis makes parents feel like suckers and feel that their children will enter a horrible, declining world (or be swamped by third world immigrants).
I would emphasize the benefits of having more children in old age, for support and for company, both for their parents and siblings. One of our concerns causing us to expand our family is that our children don’t have any nearby cousins available due to relocation and other factors. We essentially need to re-found an extended family for them. We also find that it’s harder and harder to make and rely on friends in an atomized, weird society. So they need to rely on each other.
Fertility education is useful but I wouldn’t overdo it to the point that people stop reproducing in their thirties and early forties. Some new research suggests that generation length through history is longer than you think.
https://isogg.org/wiki/How_long_is_a_generation%3F_Science_provides_an_answer
Really excellent piece with key thoughts to explore further.
One that resonated for me was the idea that having more than one child is increasingly reserved for the wealthier in society.
Anecdotally that lands for me. I am a parent of three myself and our family were in a higher earning bracket (and also chose to live in a country where childcare was inexpensive and commuting a non-issue, both of which made being an active parent easier). Beyond myself, the majority of my peers (in their 50s, with similar education and income) have three children, some four, some two, but I'd say three is the average.
I then look at children of my peer group and those who are in relationships (some aren't) aren't even considering starting a family until into their early to mid-30s. None of those adult children of that group have indicated a desire to have more than one or maybe two children.
Interesting analysis, though I’m not convinced on the culture point - we need a cohesive and compelling argument for conservative principles. The birth rate issue is fundamental to that.
When you say you ‘work together on the birth rate challenge’…
“…how do we communicate [info on the relationship between age and fertility] in a way that both: reaches people; and is helpful rather than alienating?”
Very rarely do I think the answer to policy challenges is to cram more into the school curriculum, but this seems a good topic for a biology or geography syllabus.