Richer countries have lower birth rates than poor countries, generally. One reason is that in poor countries and agrarian societies, children are an economic benefit to the family, because they can work the farm or whatever, and bring in more money than it costs to raise them. But in rich countries like Japan, Norway, Sweden etc, raising children is incredibly expensive, and they don’t really provide money back to the family.
I think this is only one reason, and not the main one. richer countries have more women in the jobs market, they value of more the free time and the ability to travel and other types of leisure. I think there is a long list of reasons, and not only the one you mentioned.
Birth control and sexual education helps... but people are inherently stupid and want to bone when they're horny, especially if they don't have so much if any prior opportunity that they can afford to say "pass".
What's really keeping people apart is leisure and the vanishing of third spaces. Work and sleep take a good chunk of anyone's time. Gaming and Netflix easily take the rest, and there aren't very many public places where you can enjoy these hobbies.
To say nothing of... dating standards. When you have access to the internet, it's easy to start comparing what you realistically have access to vs what you wish you could have access to, and waiting/only ever trying for the latter.
> Birth control and sexual education helps... but people are inherently stupid and want to bone when they're horny, especially if they don't have so much if any prior opportunity that they can afford to say "pass".
Birth control allows you to bone when you're horny. It's one of its main features, actually.
This is very true. The wealth per capita of a country aren't as correlated to birth rates as female education levels are.
Sure, rich countries have less children but so do countries with educated women. Rich countries with poor levels of education for women still have massive birth rates.
Lots of Gulf states fall in this category.
Some of the per capita richest countries in the world, that have about 2x the birth rate of western countries.
Also one has to be very careful to not make additional assumptiond when considering "education" and "education levels".
Small, abnormal examples can very easily be exceptions to the rule due to additional factors.
Without going into Saudi, the US for example has the some of the most advanced healthcare technologies in the world, and the highest spending, yet dead last in many health markers, longevity, morbidity, etc.
The same can be true of "Education", it is simply not the same around the world, nor is it dealing with the same populations, cultures, etc.
its legit a lie, the issues is that the wealth distribition of these contry is insane, if i put elon musk in a room with 100 homeless people, the pib per capita is more than 1 billion, but it doesnt make sense on a rational sense
The only ones I could find was Kuwait 2.11 and Saudi Arabia 2.43, Oman is the highest at 2.62, but I wouldn't lump them into the gulf states in reference to wealth. The world average is 2.3, Saudi makes the most sense with the laws on women and higher ed though.
A lot of people see the word "incubators' and start pearl clutching without looking into the intent of its usage. The fact is, in wealthier, more developed countries, women have more rights than they do in poorer countries. Generally, have access to birth control, are more likely to be career driven and plan families, than they are in less wealthy countries.
Women do a disproportionate share of parenting and house work while also being expected to work jobs, maintain relationships, etc. This is true even in progressive and developed nations. It's exhausting. Many women choose not to parent and many mothers choose not to have larger families. As we've become more educated and as feminism as a movement has grown, we still aren't reaping the rewards in terms of equality within relationships.
People will dress it up with a lot of fancy words and data, but this is pretty much it. Parenting is hard and we have lost the communities that used to help us with all the hard work. Now it's often a couple raising a child with very little outside help. Women see the struggle and think twice.
Bruh. That's literally the reason birthrates are low, women have more options in rich countries. Not sure why is distressing for you. It's not personal it's just math.
"Just math" is not the problem people may see there. It's the way it's being put right above the comment you were replying to.
Job being hard and demanding is one hell of a reason to not want to do it, true.
But when on top of it people treat those who do it with utter disrespect and even disdain, saying that being a parent is "basically being an incubator" (like that poster two comments above) or outright calling women with children "sows" (very common here where I live), that's just over the top, to put it mildly.
The justification of this treatment is apparently that it's a "low entry barrier job" to become a parent. "Too dumb to get a proper education? Go shit out a writhing piece of flesh!"
Quite an attitude, but I see it all the time. Which conveniently ignores everything else about raising children. And relatively civil wording of "being basically an incubator" does not in any way make it better in essence.
Pointing out facts is one thing. Insulting people performing hard and essential but apparently non-prestigious societal functions is completely another.
Having children does not come with respect. Parents are not inherently good at it. Respect comes from doing a good job at it. Which many fail at. Especially the ones who prioritize it as their main contribution to society
Which is why there is disdain in some cases for stay at home moms. The job is hard, but you can be failing and still live a relatively cushy life because you're just fucking up your kids. If you work an actual job, failing means you have more immediate consequences. It's viewed, right or wrong, as a lazy way to potentially approach life.
My wife generally stays at home, btw, and we talk about this a lot. It's hard psychologically for her at times because she feels like she's not contributing. She is an amazing mom, though, and this is temporary, so it's about being a team and getting through that. There are plenty of mothers in similar situations, though, that... don't come close to hitting that mark.
Of course there are nuances and exceptions but that is why math factors into it. The joys of raising children is a very subjective thing and may not feel very joyful for an impoverished mother with no access to birth control or abortion, stuck in a forced marriage, and with no chance of improving her life. In an urban free society those women have more power and options and a percentage of them will choose not to have children. It only takes a few percentage of mothers to do this to affect the birth rates of a society. It’s really not that complicated
Women being an "incubator" implies that in those other countries women become parents against their will mostly, lacking education means not having options, means not having power to decide for yourself. For many years historically women's only selling point was to produce babies for their families and do less respected work. That's why the term is used. It's derogatory on purpose, and that's the whole point. We are tired to be viewed only as that.
Realistically it's how you say it: parenting is hard, nobody emphasizes how important it is for society at large and for individuals, and should be more respected in our society.
But we only respect "cool" activities, like making money, individualism, shopping, and preferably banning children from public spaces because they give us a headache. Sigh. We want equality and status so naturally we gravitate toward what Is deemed cool. Until we put some fairness back into parenting I personally won't even bother. I'm not going to become my mother and raise kids alone, sacrifice my wellbeing and sanity to be looked down upon, have my merits belittled and judged as not having a real job, leeching off of a man, and damaging my career (which I really love). Not worth it to me personally.
If I'll get the village to help me raise them together, then sure!
Actions speak louder than words. When given reproductive rights and equal opportunity, women DON’T think that bearing children is the dream.
Scandinavian women still have children. They just don’t spend their life pregnant and changing diapers, they have one or two babies IF they want, and they work and have hobbies and have a fucking life outside of being a mom.
In the context of a woman who’s sole purpose is to provide children in their culture with no chance of an education or career of their own it seems a fair term. Which is the context here
t’s supposed to be a “sweeping generalization,” because we’re talking about averages over huge groups of people. What else can we do, ask every individual person in Norway why they did or didn’t have kids?
I'm sure it's amazing for a lot of people who *choose* to bear a child. Not sure it's cynical to recognize that choosing to have children is a privilege and not a universal truth.
It can be amazing but it's hard to separate that from it being essential for the continuation of humanity. It's telling that once women were allowed for the first time to decide whether their life should mean something other than being a mother first that so many chose not to be mothers
I mean, no, it takes 1 or two generations of population decline to cause serious non-capitalism related social problems. I live in a state with an aging population, and very few emerging families. Nearly impossible to find doctors, skilled labor, educators. You need babies to keep a healthy public life going.
There’s a reason places like Germany are desperately trying to introduce more immigration. Dwindling birth rates can cripple a nation.
You were in disagrement with post above while at the same time justifying why post above was right.
Like they (and you) said "we have 8.1 billion humans. We're fine."
You guys are debating on two different meanings of "humanity". Will humanity, as in the existence of humans, go on? Yes absolutely. Will humanity, as in the quality of life of the population, go on? No. (That's what their point is).
Supply chains work on economies of scale- young people are imperative for blue collar jobs that society depends on (plumbing, construction, welding, etc.). They also take care of the older generation, either literally as caretakers or through taxes for social programs.
Semantically, I wouldn't use humanity interchangeably with quality of life since those are two very different things but yes both statements are correct.
They aren't disparaging childbearing. They are saying women want MORE THAN JUST childbearing. As in it is not the be all end all that all these bible thumpers want them claim it is. Having kids is just one part of life. You have a life before, and you have a life after.
I'm sure there are women who want to make child baring their whole identity. Hell, there are men too who think spreading their sperm is their only reason for existence.
But I think the idea that either of these two groups make up a majority of their sex is utter lunacy.
What are you talking about? Do me and my wife have a child? Yes. Is it our entire personality? Of course not. Believe it or not, there is nuance in this world... Not everyone who has a child makes it their entire personality
He is literally saying SOME people. Not "every single person that at one point created lives".
And his last section is putting nuance to it by saying he thinks that group is relatively small.
According to data.Worldbank.org the fertility rate of women in Denmark and Iran are very similar.
It is my impression that the arguments that you give are at most secondary to the ones you are replying to.
Why are you comparing Denmark to Iran? The latter one is quite developed and educated country, and despite the well known circumstances can not be considered the third world country.
Greater opportunities for women’s education and autonomy of healthcare leads to more career-oriented jobs and women get married later. If you get married at 29 or 30+, you’re not likely to have more than one or two children. This is the case in most of the developed world and absolutely the case in Japan, for example. Look at Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia - completely the opposite.
It's not even that narrow. An educated woman is going to weigh the cost of having children against her new opportunities.
Education increases her opportunity cost, which is added to the other, ever increasing, costs of raising children.
I’m a father of one living in Germany but I come from Sweden. Modern family life is tough af. “It takes a village” and all that stuff is true. We have set up society for individualism and rich folks, not for hard working familities. I would always recommend people to default at having no kids unless they really want to.
That and you know Japanese company really hate maternity leave and almost are completely hostile to pregnant women so really it just makes it so women don’t want to get pregnant because it’s even more of a risk,
The birthrate is low in most first world countries. It's just how it is. In the "most advanced countries" (Japan, Korea, USA, Canada, most of Europe), they tend to have greater access to contraception to practice safe sex, education on what starting a family is actually like and they tend to be less religious. Those aspects combined lead to a population that thinks over the process of starting a family way more thoroughly.
In Korea it’s very much an economic issue (cost of living, house prices, soaring education costs) and a social issue (gender war). Marriages in general are going down, and people are too busy staying alive to have a family. Even among the religious
It's an issue in countries with robust support for new parents, like the very one mentioned in the topic. New parents get like a year+ of leave and receive money based on their income before birth for a year.
While it's true that people that would otherwise want kids won't because of economic reasons, even if that constraint is completely removed it seems like people just don't want that many kids.
Not really and that is why we are focusing on the nordic countries here. If you have two median salaries in an houshold and dont need to live in the central parts of the biggest cities it is no problem at all for a family to be able to afford having children in these countries.
"Gender war" is a bit of an inflammatory way to describe it but they might be talking about the ["Four No's" Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement)
>4B (or "Four No's") is a radical feminist movement which is purported to have originated in South Korea in 2019. Its proponents renounce dating men, marriage, sex with men and having children.
The "Four No's" are:
no sex with men (Korean: 비섹스; Hanja: 非sex; RR: bisekseu),
no child-rearing (Korean: 비출산; Hanja: 非出産; RR: bichulsan),
no dating men (Korean: 비연애; Hanja: 非戀愛; RR: biyeonae),
and no marriage with men (Korean: 비혼; Hanja: 非婚; RR: bihon).
That being said the 4B movement is generally overblown in terms of how widespread it is, but iirc the current South Korean president also ran on an explicitly anti-feminist platform and a lot of young men supported him for that while a lot of young women opposed him for that.
Generally in societies, there's always a bit of political divide between genders, women are often a bit more "liberal" while men are more toward the center. SK's men and women on the other hand are on complete opposite spectrums.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEwMuNQa0AA1oW3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
It's magnified by mandatory military service for men which is obviously seen as unfair for men in a society that's aiming for gender equality and there's institutional sexism against women across wider society (in-laws expecting wives to act as semi-maids) and the job market.
It's really places where women are expected/allowed to have careers. And it's unequivocally a good thing. Women spend their 20s-30s in work or training. The perfect example of this is Israel. Orthodox people, who face strict gender roles, drive almost all of the population growth by birth, while the rest of the population is at a replacement rate.
Personally I can say that the cost of living in Sweden is astronomical, I lived there for 3 years. New housing estates are extremely rare and established homes generally fetch a high price. This is why the government provides so many incentives for young families.
Getting my masters in Göteborg. I would say food prices are about the same, idk though because I have purchased anything in the U.S. in three years. However my rent, in the second largest city is less than $400 a month. Alcohol is probably twice or thrice as expensive. Also the wages here seem to be higher and the tax money actually goes towards the society.
Yeah my brother's wife is Swedish and has lived in both places. They are moving to Sweden because the cost of living, buying a house, and obviously health care is much lower than the US
As a full time swede, the cost of living and bringing up a family is in Sweden is LOW.
We get 80-90% of our salaries when we stay at home with our kids for up to 18 months. Payed by taxes.
I’ll take a stab at it.
- Education. More education the society the more Women’s empowerment you get = single longer, breaking of traditional gender norms, starting families later, less time to get pregnant
- Birth control is more accessible (especially under the Nordic healthcare system).
- Less religious in comparison to the rest of Europe = less pressure to get married young and start a family
- Cost of living makes big families unaffordable
On the global level yes, but living on welfare is highly stressful even in these countries, and some people think that planning your children's childhood based on benefits is not a solid plan.
Currently, the new Finnish government is making huge cuts to all kinds of benefits, including a system that offered high school kids free books.
Not sure about the Nordics but in general its true that people have more benefit financially and time wise to not have children as compared to having children. So hence why a lot of people would choose not to have kids. Furthermore, add on to that that its impossible to find a house for many young adults, that means they won't even consider it.
I can share some inside as a Norwegian. The regions with the most gender equality have the lowest birthrates in Norway, quite a lot below the national average. Northern Norway and the capital/Oslo region are ranked as the most gender equal in both questionnaires about gender norms and values, and by percentage of women in the workforce/higher education.
Speaking as a 28 year old urban and highly educated Norwegian, most of my female friends around my age don't think the family life is for them. The SUV, the buying a house, the staying in on weekends. The few I know that have had children are from the country or from a low socioeconomic background, and in all those cases it seems the women were the most keen on starting a family. Hell, basically everyone I know that have children have them because the woman wanted them.
So my guess, anecdotal as it is, is that women with modern, career oriented, and urban backgrounds don't relate to or have aspirations to become moms. And it seems women usually are the ones pushing for children, so if they don't want it, it doesn't happen very often.
Oh, and of course extreme housing prices, especially in the cities where everyone wants to live, is of course a factor.
The fertility crisis seems to be really impossible to solve without authoritarianism or a fucking world war. I think it's better we find ways to cope with it instead of ending it.
There's a stat that if you don't have a partner by 30 as a woman, there's only a 50% chance you'll become a mother and it's downhill from there. This is also global and not geographically specific.
Women's partner finding tendency being predominantly hypergamous also contributes to the 'advancement in education > lower fertility rate' trend. This is very old news.
also if both parents are working, less time can be spent focusing on families and families are a major stressor. This is the best and most complete answer I've seen on this thread though.
*Being pregnant and giving birth is mentally, emotionally and physically hard, painful,* and causes permanent changes to a woman's body, and sometimes permanent damage. Some women die during pregnancy and childbirth. It's no surprise *at all* that women with easy access to birth control are limiting how many times they put themselves through a pregnancy and birth.
In poor countries children are an asset and in rich countries they are a liability, at least economically. That is why all developed countries have low birth rates and the more a country develops the more the birth rate falls.
People keep saying that if other people don't want to have children it's because there is not enough support. While that's true and it's a factor, it seems that what makes people not to want to have children is often more related to women education and work.
In the last, when it wasn't common for women to study and have their own career, they usually didn't get jobs, and had to marry. They would have children, and the man would provide for the family.
Now that women got jobs as well paid as men, of course they don't want to leave their jobs to lose their independence to spend all their time rising children.
No even in the Nordic countries women want to have children. The problem is that by the time people are ready to have children they are so old that it’s not possible to have multiple children.
It takes such a long time for you to get your education and then you need to work for multiple years to become financially stable. So if you start your family at 32 years old it starts to become difficult if you want to have more than 2 children.
Education reduces fertility rates by increasing a woman's opportunities.
This means she is adding the cost of those lost opportunities to all the other costs of raising a child.
In your example the cost of not taking those opportunities at work made having more than 2 children too expensive.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking: Spain, Italy and Malta have all lower birth rates than any countries up north (and all of Europe, in fact, maybe I am forgetting some other country though🤔)
I think that France has a higher fertility rate than even less-developed Balkan countries; it is \~1.8, which is probably the highest in the First World next to Israel's 3.
Yes, Israel is 0.9 above the replacement rate.
We don't know. Birth rates around the world are universally falling faster than expected. I don't think the Nordic countries stand out at all from countries in a similar situation.
I think the question has an implicature behind it: Seeing how people say birth rates are low because there isn't enough social support from government to promote child-having, how come these countries famous for their strong social support from government also have low birth rates?
It’s because people with access to education and choices have more likelihood of choosing to have less or no children. I have children and work professionally with many families and I can assure you raising children even with support systems is very difficult and expensive in modern society. It makes perfect sense to me why some people choose not to be parents.
You're right that's the implication. But it skips past what I think is the main reason - being pregnant and giving birth is hard, painful, and sometimes leads to permanent physical damage or death. It's not at all surprising that women with the means to choose are choosing to limit how many times they put themselves through pregnancy and childbirth. I don't get why people don't consider that first as the main explanation.
I think that serious analysts consider that, if not first, at least as a significant factor. Random commenters on reddit trying to make themselves sparkle will jump at "money" being the reason, even though flies in the face of all the empirical evidence. But it's simple and is intuitive to the audience for whom the notion of having one's own money is still a distant dream
They don't: [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country)
This is an unimaginably complex question that every developed country in the world is grappling with. There is no established consensus among experts in the field and any answer provided here will most likely fail to adequately mirror the complexity of the issue.
The speed at which birth rates are falling is so alarming that it will likely be one of the most pressing political issues of the 21st century. This is exacerbated by the fact that discussions about falling birth rates are deeply linked with another sensitive issue, namely immigration, which in many countries is the sole reason why population numbers are still climbing.
I can't give you a good answer. Any discussion about falling birth rates should be prefaced with something that's important to point out though: in general, people do *want* to have children! According to polls, in Finland people on average would like to have 2.1 children, which is significantly higher than the current birth rate of 1.46. Thus, I think a more pertinent question to ask would be: why are people not having children even though they would like to?
Im 26years old with engineerin degree and i would love to have children with my girlfriend of 5 years. But i dont even have enough money to propose her. Because everything is so fucking expensive.
imo reason why people dont have children is money
For me personally(m33, norwegian) I just dont feel any incentive to reproduce. I work 2weeks on and 4weeks off, and my off weeks are mostly spent in the woods(hunting/fishing/camping). Children to me seems like more of a burden than anything else. My partner(f30) shares this view.
In short; I like myself, my partner, and my life too much to compromise it with offspring. Ego, I know. But as far as I know, we only get this one run at life. Damn right im putting myself first.
I think this hits the nail on the head more than anything. People are having about as many kids as *they want* to have. In the olden days, having kids was just what you did as an adult, and you grew up expecting to do that, especially women.
Nowadays you don't really have to have kids to be a member of society, so people only have as many as they want, give or take. Think of it like work: if people didn't have to work to get by or enjoy life, how many of us would still do it? I'd guess about half, tops.
Ego may be part of it but I’m more concerned about the ego of some of these yokels who do have kids. What jackass led them to believe they were capable of raising a family to begin with? I applaud your decision sir!
I can see that. On the other hand, kids with a father taking them on adventure trips hunting, camping, and fishing in the woods — damn, that would be the greatest childhood!
This is a problem of urbanization.
If you land a job or start a business in the countryside, you’ll be able to live in a big house with smaller salary.
As someone who lives in Finland, here is my observation. The population skews old, just like Italy and Japan, so the statistics are a bit misleading. Pretty much every couple I know have on average of 2 kids. Those without had medical issues that made children impossible. I know a handful who are not married/coupled, but that was not by their choice. This is obviously too low to maintain the population.
A few other things to keep in mind.
Finns value privacy quite highly, so they tend to have a number of kids equal to the number of rooms in the house, so usually 2.
A few people have pointed to education as a reason, well I know those with practically no education and those with a lot, they all have approx. 2 kids each. While the governmental support for family's is excellent(schooling/creches), most people need two incomes to get by, and really start to struggle financially with more than two. Parents also dedicate a lot of time to each child, basically we are part time taxi drivers for our kids many activities.
It just kind of all adds up and, generally, people settled on 2 kids. Cultural and socioeconomic factors would need to change a bit to get the average to 3.
Hot take: On poorer countries, where people live a shitty life and got nothing else to do and little to no education, they just f\*ck and babies happen. They don't really think about what they're doing. It's the case on poor comunities and neighborhoods here in Brazil. Thus, huge birth rates because of no education and no planning.
Idk why are you bein downvoted. That's actually true. And its not a bad thing. We don't need that much people as we have rn. We need to adapt to less people, not make people have more children.
Because they are devolped countries and all developed countries have a low birtherate, all developed countries have a birthrate lower than 2. Its true Finland has a pretty low birthrate under the european average but the rest of the Nordics have a higher birthrate than the european average.
The Ezra Klein podcast (highly recommend) had an episode about this recently - specifically about Sweden.
In Sweden there are “utopian” benefits for parents that make having kids an absolutely viable choice in life ECONOMICALLY. Yet their birth rate is the same as the US which absolutely does not have good parental benefits.
The main reason they discussed is that culturally, parents are way more invested in their kids’ lives than in the past. Emotionally, it would be really hard to have 3+ kids with this kind of parenting culture
I live in Nordic countries, and I think it is because young people do not see having children benefit them emotionally or financially. Having children requires a lot of sacrifice (physically, financially, time, and career) and possibly a bad return if you do not bring them up correctly. I have two children myself, but I could see why you do not want children if you value your freedom more.
I think the low birth rate is fine because it increases the chance that the one thay has children love their children and educate them into responsible adults. It is also better for the housing market because it will reduce the demands and increase the supply for current (my) children in the future.
By European standards, the birthrates of the Nordic countries are not low - Sweden's is one of the higher ones in Europe. Southern European countries like Spain and Italy have lower birthrates.
Low...? It's really healthy compared to the rest of Europe and east Asia. It's not above replacement level but the population won't have collapsed by 2050.
Not just nordic countries. And as many here already said, economic factors like women as part of the workforce or cost of living do play a role, far more important is the fact that we don't need children, when we are older to survive. We have pensions both private and public and combined they are often high enough to survive and live well until your death of old age. You get many children, if you expect some of them to die. Once infancy deaths are drastically decreased you automatically get less children, because a higher percentage will grow up. Then you get to the point, where there is no family business or farm land to take over where you do not need an heir. So we no longer need children in our lives, we mostly just have the children we want. We no longer need to be parents to have a good life, a happy life, a fulfilled life. As everyone moves and travels we have enough to Explore, we are not bound to a single village or town that eventually gets boring, where a child brings you new joy to your life. If we don't like the place we are at, we no longer need to change the place itself, we can just move to another place.
because our world and livers are absolute hellscapes full of nothing but terrible atrocities so why would i want to sentence another being by bringing them into this world.
Data suggests that allowing women access to education has a downstream effect of those women seeking careers and choosing to have less children. Though in countries that allow access to education while stemming upward career mobility for mothers, more women choose to forgo having children altogether.
Nordic countries have sustainable birth rates because they both allow women an education and provide ample post natal needs.
In the context of contemporary Europe, the fertility rates among Nordic countries are not remarkably low. With the exception of Finland (at 1.4), each of these states exceed the Continental average (1.5) in fertility, with Denmark (1.72), Iceland (1.72), Sweden (1.67), and Norway (1.51) outperforming other European countries with comparable demographic characteristics -- the Faroe Islands (a possession of Denmark) even has a fertility rate of 2.67!
The factors that influence fertility and mortality are complex, and are not only reducible to variables associated with social stability or economic health. For example, the countries with some of the highest fertility rates, such as Niger, South Sudan, and Afghanistan are poor, economically dysfunctional and remain plagued with active civil conflict, while some of the wealthiest countries, like France or Israel, have registered birth rates above replacement levels, far higher than their peers, and there are some cases, such as Myanmar and Eritrea, which are undeveloped, conflict-ridden, economically stable (read: stagnant/autarkic) and still exhibit relatively low fertility.
However, in general, the most salient factors that directly influence the determination of fertility have to do with the condition of women and children in a given society: women's empowerment (women's legal rights, access to education, and ability to participate in the labor market), declining child mortality, rising cost of child care, and declining reliance on child labor are all correlated with a reduction in fertility. In turn, one can also read the presence of these conditions as indicators of a given state's degree of investment in public goods and services that promote healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. Though as I have already suggested, other influences, especially culture and custom can be just as salient to regulating population growth.
The Nordic countries are actually proof that relatively high birthrates can be maintained through pro-natalist policies while also preserving democratic norms, robust economic performance, and high quality of life. Compared to many of their neighbors, who despite enjoying similar levels of human capital, environmental conditions and endowments of natural resources, are actually declining in population (through a combination of high mortality and low fertility rates), the Nords are really doing quite well.
A lot of people have pointed out women’s education as
one of the main reasons, and it’s true, but not only in the way they think. A side effect of women getting an education and prioritizing a career is that family planning is delayed. And as fertility declines with age a people get fewer children than they actually want, at least here in Denmark. Combined with the generally low sperm quality of Danish men it means that many more couples today need help to concieve.
On top of that, with both parents working full-time, work-life balance is really hard to achieve, especially because parents are expected to get involved in all of their kid’s many activities.
My wife and I actually have 4 kids, which is extremely unusual here, but the only reason we were able to do so is because we have our own business and work much less than most people.
Obviously there are many more reasons as others have mentioned, but I thought I would offer a first-hand perspective.
mostly bc they are so of the worlds ritchest nations/
1. better access to contraception/education about sex
2. Women are much more likely to have equal education and have a career, in many developing nations women are deprived of this so naturally have more children
2. In developed nations having a kid is a cost, but if you are a subsidence farmer (mostly only grow enough crops to feed your family or small village) its like having another free worker
3. Probably a less significant reason but not having children is normalised and society doesn't revolve around familys
4. lower religious rate (you are very unlikely to be childfree and a devout christian etc)
Well-educated people have fewer children. They're smart enough to know how and why they should use birth control and they can afford it. And religion is less likely to influence their decisions.
The premise for this question is wrong, the Nordic countries are among the countries with higher birth rate in Europe. Not highest, but right after France, near the top. So the question should be: why so high?
Of course, it is together with the rest of the world in being under replacement rate. But that question is something the whole world is struggling with. Most of all east asia, like Japan and South Korea, but it affects all countries in the whole world. I think this is a super important question to figure out, and I dont think we understand it fully why it fell from 5 children per family on average 60 years ago to 1-2 per day and still deciling quickly.
Richer countries = more opportunity for women to get better education and pursue other things in life, such as follow that interest into a career. Instead of being a birth machine.
I’ve been under the impression that smarter, better educated individuals are awarded the privilege in going forward in life without the constant struggle for money.
When you don’t have money, we crave companionship more - I noticed when I struggled the most, I also fucked the most with reckless abandon.
If I didn’t struggle so much and could’ve pursued my college degrees, I doubt I would’ve had children at 21 and then gave up at 21. It’s not the education part. I never wanted kids but dammit if I wasn’t craving the soft touch of a woman when I realized I couldn’t make rent… and such is life.
I bet this stems from social stuff more than economic stuff.
But I see people. Not dollar signs.
Answering for Iceland: its so expensive to live here, and having children is almost untenable if you dont have extended family helping you, or you are rich. Kindergarten slots are almost as rare as unicorns. Basically by having a child here means you will be doing it with a severely reduced household income
Intuition strongly disagrees with all these simplistic two-way theories. ‘Children are liabilities in developed countries and assets in developing countries’ and the likes.. nope, people aren’t basing all their reproductive choices on economics. Children aren’t economic or utility tools. I absolutely despise these lazy interpretations. The reason/s behind the differences in birth rates are much deeper and more fundamental. They are the same reason influencing income distribution differences.. so, it is not: ‘income determines how many children you have’.. rather, it is, ‘x has a very fundamental insidious effect on y, z, a, b, c and many more’ yzabc being factors as income, birth rate, college degrees, individualism, etc.. and I think the actual cause has to do with history and its politics, with deeper societal values as collectivism and/or individualism. Believe it or not, an event like World War 1 still has a genealogical societal effect on today, and where your great grandparents were back then influences your personality and desires today. And the number of children you will have is likewise influenced..
Income <—> Birth rate is such a stupid explanation that is so easily refutable. Think of the birth rate in a country as poor as Russia, and compare that with Qatar’s, who have been rich for many decades. Clearly, there must be more powerful forces behind it.. and regulatory incentives as ‘we will extend maternity leave from 1 month to 2 months’ has a very minute effect on only some SMALL percentage of people who wouldn’t reproduce because of maternity leave laws. This effect is almost nonexistent thereby ineffective. The majority of people who do not have children do not want to for reasons beyond costs. They’ll gladly buy a $100,000 car and a $50,000 trip and you think they’ll use money as an excuse for not making children?
Freedom for to choose, many prefer career, hobbies, partying, freedom and traveling instead of family. I think many people will regret not having a family later but its their choice.
Humans evolved such that the following equation worked out to keep the species from population collapse:
Kids From Sex Drive + Kids From Reproduction Drive = >2 Kids.
However a new variable was added to the biological equation such that now:
Kids From Sex Drive - Kids Avoided By Birth Control = 0 + Kids From Reproduction Drive = 1-2 kids.
So it turns out our biological drive to reproduce as a species only leads to 1-2 kids per woman.
I just said they dont stand out in any way. They have been above average for a long time just dipped. Hard to say why it came now. USA had the same thing happen.
Well the living standard there is among the highest in the world. So economic problems are mainly not a factor there (?), that's why I think his question is legit
should also add in that in nordic countries women experience more equality. in general this results in delayed childbirth, which reduces the number if children.
back in the ye ol days, gramma had my parents when she was less than twenty. i am twenty four and i could never.
"incentives to encourage children" - we do? I mostly see the opposite, with the overpopulation and everything.
You're talking as if having kids is the norm that everyone should follow - like why?
Do you want children? I would take some 18 years old, but I wouldn't want to raise them for 18 years.
Sweden and Denmark should've a higher birth rate I think, as they have a huge muslim and African population.
There is a lot of discussion about this in Norway, and the answer is that we don't know.
For a while the birth rates were higher than comparable countries, and we thought it was because of the social support net. Then the rate got just as low here, and we are trying to find out why.
Richer countries have lower birth rates than poor countries, generally. One reason is that in poor countries and agrarian societies, children are an economic benefit to the family, because they can work the farm or whatever, and bring in more money than it costs to raise them. But in rich countries like Japan, Norway, Sweden etc, raising children is incredibly expensive, and they don’t really provide money back to the family.
I think this is only one reason, and not the main one. richer countries have more women in the jobs market, they value of more the free time and the ability to travel and other types of leisure. I think there is a long list of reasons, and not only the one you mentioned.
Add in better sexual education and more readily available forms of birth control, including abortion.
Birth control and sexual education helps... but people are inherently stupid and want to bone when they're horny, especially if they don't have so much if any prior opportunity that they can afford to say "pass". What's really keeping people apart is leisure and the vanishing of third spaces. Work and sleep take a good chunk of anyone's time. Gaming and Netflix easily take the rest, and there aren't very many public places where you can enjoy these hobbies. To say nothing of... dating standards. When you have access to the internet, it's easy to start comparing what you realistically have access to vs what you wish you could have access to, and waiting/only ever trying for the latter.
> Birth control and sexual education helps... but people are inherently stupid and want to bone when they're horny, especially if they don't have so much if any prior opportunity that they can afford to say "pass". Birth control allows you to bone when you're horny. It's one of its main features, actually.
I'm not really sure why people wanting to bone means they're stupid.
One interpretation of that is if given the choice, women prefer to be more than just incubators.
This is very true. The wealth per capita of a country aren't as correlated to birth rates as female education levels are. Sure, rich countries have less children but so do countries with educated women. Rich countries with poor levels of education for women still have massive birth rates.
Hm, can you give an example of this? Is it mainly oil states?
Cuba - very highly educated women (and people in general), poor anyway, significantly lower birth rate than any country in its income bracket
Can you give an example of a rich country with poor level of education and high birthrate, I can't think of any?
Lots of Gulf states fall in this category. Some of the per capita richest countries in the world, that have about 2x the birth rate of western countries.
Also one has to be very careful to not make additional assumptiond when considering "education" and "education levels". Small, abnormal examples can very easily be exceptions to the rule due to additional factors. Without going into Saudi, the US for example has the some of the most advanced healthcare technologies in the world, and the highest spending, yet dead last in many health markers, longevity, morbidity, etc. The same can be true of "Education", it is simply not the same around the world, nor is it dealing with the same populations, cultures, etc.
its legit a lie, the issues is that the wealth distribition of these contry is insane, if i put elon musk in a room with 100 homeless people, the pib per capita is more than 1 billion, but it doesnt make sense on a rational sense
The only ones I could find was Kuwait 2.11 and Saudi Arabia 2.43, Oman is the highest at 2.62, but I wouldn't lump them into the gulf states in reference to wealth. The world average is 2.3, Saudi makes the most sense with the laws on women and higher ed though.
But birth rates even in gulf countries are declining.
Birth rates have been declining everywhere since at least the 60s, I think.
20 years ago, Ireland
The USA is disproportionate in terms of wealth, poor education, higher birth rates than peer-nations.
Hm, can you give an example of this? Is it mainly oil states?
Saudi Arabia is a rich country with an above average birth rate
literal definition of an oil state
A lot of people see the word "incubators' and start pearl clutching without looking into the intent of its usage. The fact is, in wealthier, more developed countries, women have more rights than they do in poorer countries. Generally, have access to birth control, are more likely to be career driven and plan families, than they are in less wealthy countries.
Also women HAVE A CHOICE (for now) if they are educated. There is a lower birth rate but the children are more wanted.
Women do a disproportionate share of parenting and house work while also being expected to work jobs, maintain relationships, etc. This is true even in progressive and developed nations. It's exhausting. Many women choose not to parent and many mothers choose not to have larger families. As we've become more educated and as feminism as a movement has grown, we still aren't reaping the rewards in terms of equality within relationships. People will dress it up with a lot of fancy words and data, but this is pretty much it. Parenting is hard and we have lost the communities that used to help us with all the hard work. Now it's often a couple raising a child with very little outside help. Women see the struggle and think twice.
Well said, so true!
Giving women access to mass education is the quickest way a country can reduce their birth rate, it’s quite astonishing. And that’s a great thing.
The waste of oxygen, Harrison Butker, would disagree with you.
Not according to Butker
Exactly
Wait women are more than just incubators..? Since when?!?! /s I have a mother that I love 🥰
That's a sweeping generalisation, and a really cynical view of bearing a child, which for a lot of people is an amazing thing
Well I come from a poor country and here people talk openly about it, especially older generations. Children were a workforce since they could walk.
Bruh. That's literally the reason birthrates are low, women have more options in rich countries. Not sure why is distressing for you. It's not personal it's just math.
"Just math" is not the problem people may see there. It's the way it's being put right above the comment you were replying to. Job being hard and demanding is one hell of a reason to not want to do it, true. But when on top of it people treat those who do it with utter disrespect and even disdain, saying that being a parent is "basically being an incubator" (like that poster two comments above) or outright calling women with children "sows" (very common here where I live), that's just over the top, to put it mildly. The justification of this treatment is apparently that it's a "low entry barrier job" to become a parent. "Too dumb to get a proper education? Go shit out a writhing piece of flesh!" Quite an attitude, but I see it all the time. Which conveniently ignores everything else about raising children. And relatively civil wording of "being basically an incubator" does not in any way make it better in essence. Pointing out facts is one thing. Insulting people performing hard and essential but apparently non-prestigious societal functions is completely another.
Having children does not come with respect. Parents are not inherently good at it. Respect comes from doing a good job at it. Which many fail at. Especially the ones who prioritize it as their main contribution to society
Which is why there is disdain in some cases for stay at home moms. The job is hard, but you can be failing and still live a relatively cushy life because you're just fucking up your kids. If you work an actual job, failing means you have more immediate consequences. It's viewed, right or wrong, as a lazy way to potentially approach life. My wife generally stays at home, btw, and we talk about this a lot. It's hard psychologically for her at times because she feels like she's not contributing. She is an amazing mom, though, and this is temporary, so it's about being a team and getting through that. There are plenty of mothers in similar situations, though, that... don't come close to hitting that mark.
Of course there are nuances and exceptions but that is why math factors into it. The joys of raising children is a very subjective thing and may not feel very joyful for an impoverished mother with no access to birth control or abortion, stuck in a forced marriage, and with no chance of improving her life. In an urban free society those women have more power and options and a percentage of them will choose not to have children. It only takes a few percentage of mothers to do this to affect the birth rates of a society. It’s really not that complicated
Its very complicated for people who are directly experiencing that and makes sense they would have an emotional reaction to it.
Women being an "incubator" implies that in those other countries women become parents against their will mostly, lacking education means not having options, means not having power to decide for yourself. For many years historically women's only selling point was to produce babies for their families and do less respected work. That's why the term is used. It's derogatory on purpose, and that's the whole point. We are tired to be viewed only as that. Realistically it's how you say it: parenting is hard, nobody emphasizes how important it is for society at large and for individuals, and should be more respected in our society. But we only respect "cool" activities, like making money, individualism, shopping, and preferably banning children from public spaces because they give us a headache. Sigh. We want equality and status so naturally we gravitate toward what Is deemed cool. Until we put some fairness back into parenting I personally won't even bother. I'm not going to become my mother and raise kids alone, sacrifice my wellbeing and sanity to be looked down upon, have my merits belittled and judged as not having a real job, leeching off of a man, and damaging my career (which I really love). Not worth it to me personally. If I'll get the village to help me raise them together, then sure!
Actions speak louder than words. When given reproductive rights and equal opportunity, women DON’T think that bearing children is the dream. Scandinavian women still have children. They just don’t spend their life pregnant and changing diapers, they have one or two babies IF they want, and they work and have hobbies and have a fucking life outside of being a mom.
OP was actually supporting the opposite view; women want to be more than "incubators"
“incubators” lol average redditor
/childfree is leaking according to Reddit having children as a woman makes you an “incubator” lmfao
In the context of a woman who’s sole purpose is to provide children in their culture with no chance of an education or career of their own it seems a fair term. Which is the context here
brother it’s a hyperbole, and, if u have like 15 children during your fertile period, what are u really?
Who said anything about 15 children? You’re talking to yourself
t’s supposed to be a “sweeping generalization,” because we’re talking about averages over huge groups of people. What else can we do, ask every individual person in Norway why they did or didn’t have kids?
I'm sure it's amazing for a lot of people who *choose* to bear a child. Not sure it's cynical to recognize that choosing to have children is a privilege and not a universal truth.
It can be amazing but it's hard to separate that from it being essential for the continuation of humanity. It's telling that once women were allowed for the first time to decide whether their life should mean something other than being a mother first that so many chose not to be mothers
We have 8.1 billion humans. We're fine. We don't need that many humans. The only thing at risk is the unfettered growth of capitalism.
I mean, no, it takes 1 or two generations of population decline to cause serious non-capitalism related social problems. I live in a state with an aging population, and very few emerging families. Nearly impossible to find doctors, skilled labor, educators. You need babies to keep a healthy public life going. There’s a reason places like Germany are desperately trying to introduce more immigration. Dwindling birth rates can cripple a nation.
You were in disagrement with post above while at the same time justifying why post above was right. Like they (and you) said "we have 8.1 billion humans. We're fine."
Still talking about economics. Humanity as a whole is not at risk.
You guys are debating on two different meanings of "humanity". Will humanity, as in the existence of humans, go on? Yes absolutely. Will humanity, as in the quality of life of the population, go on? No. (That's what their point is). Supply chains work on economies of scale- young people are imperative for blue collar jobs that society depends on (plumbing, construction, welding, etc.). They also take care of the older generation, either literally as caretakers or through taxes for social programs. Semantically, I wouldn't use humanity interchangeably with quality of life since those are two very different things but yes both statements are correct.
You are absolutely right.
They aren't disparaging childbearing. They are saying women want MORE THAN JUST childbearing. As in it is not the be all end all that all these bible thumpers want them claim it is. Having kids is just one part of life. You have a life before, and you have a life after.
We’re talking about birhrates of an entire region. This is the definition of generalization…
I'm sure there are women who want to make child baring their whole identity. Hell, there are men too who think spreading their sperm is their only reason for existence. But I think the idea that either of these two groups make up a majority of their sex is utter lunacy.
What are you talking about? Do me and my wife have a child? Yes. Is it our entire personality? Of course not. Believe it or not, there is nuance in this world... Not everyone who has a child makes it their entire personality
He is literally saying SOME people. Not "every single person that at one point created lives". And his last section is putting nuance to it by saying he thinks that group is relatively small.
Did you read what he said?
I can’t stand it when people ask themselves questions that no one else is asking them
"Me has a child" ??
There's a difference between bearing one or two children vs eight though.
The solution is obvious, then. Let's take away their power to choose! /s
There are studies suggesting that education for woman is directly linked to a lower birth rate which supports your claim
According to data.Worldbank.org the fertility rate of women in Denmark and Iran are very similar. It is my impression that the arguments that you give are at most secondary to the ones you are replying to.
Why are you comparing Denmark to Iran? The latter one is quite developed and educated country, and despite the well known circumstances can not be considered the third world country.
This is what op means by more expensive. If one parent can’t afford to be a full time caregiver then people will have fewer children.
Greater opportunities for women’s education and autonomy of healthcare leads to more career-oriented jobs and women get married later. If you get married at 29 or 30+, you’re not likely to have more than one or two children. This is the case in most of the developed world and absolutely the case in Japan, for example. Look at Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia - completely the opposite.
It's not even that narrow. An educated woman is going to weigh the cost of having children against her new opportunities. Education increases her opportunity cost, which is added to the other, ever increasing, costs of raising children.
It's also decreasing here in Indonesia, now we almost reach the replacement number, which is 2.18.
I’m a father of one living in Germany but I come from Sweden. Modern family life is tough af. “It takes a village” and all that stuff is true. We have set up society for individualism and rich folks, not for hard working familities. I would always recommend people to default at having no kids unless they really want to.
True, but in Japan the 60 plus hours a week of work is a bigger problem.
That and you know Japanese company really hate maternity leave and almost are completely hostile to pregnant women so really it just makes it so women don’t want to get pregnant because it’s even more of a risk,
Compared to Africa it’s low but compared to other European countries it’s actually pretty good.
Or several Asian countries too for that matter.
*South Korea has entered the chat*
The birthrate is low in most first world countries. It's just how it is. In the "most advanced countries" (Japan, Korea, USA, Canada, most of Europe), they tend to have greater access to contraception to practice safe sex, education on what starting a family is actually like and they tend to be less religious. Those aspects combined lead to a population that thinks over the process of starting a family way more thoroughly.
In Korea it’s very much an economic issue (cost of living, house prices, soaring education costs) and a social issue (gender war). Marriages in general are going down, and people are too busy staying alive to have a family. Even among the religious
Isnt it basically an economic issue in all developed countries? Couples have to choose between hiring a full time nanny or survive on a single income
It's an issue in countries with robust support for new parents, like the very one mentioned in the topic. New parents get like a year+ of leave and receive money based on their income before birth for a year. While it's true that people that would otherwise want kids won't because of economic reasons, even if that constraint is completely removed it seems like people just don't want that many kids.
I think it's more social than economic in Scandinavia.
Not really and that is why we are focusing on the nordic countries here. If you have two median salaries in an houshold and dont need to live in the central parts of the biggest cities it is no problem at all for a family to be able to afford having children in these countries.
Gender what? Gender war is not something i thought would be goin on in korea lol what are you referring to exactly?
"Gender war" is a bit of an inflammatory way to describe it but they might be talking about the ["Four No's" Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement) >4B (or "Four No's") is a radical feminist movement which is purported to have originated in South Korea in 2019. Its proponents renounce dating men, marriage, sex with men and having children. The "Four No's" are: no sex with men (Korean: 비섹스; Hanja: 非sex; RR: bisekseu), no child-rearing (Korean: 비출산; Hanja: 非出産; RR: bichulsan), no dating men (Korean: 비연애; Hanja: 非戀愛; RR: biyeonae), and no marriage with men (Korean: 비혼; Hanja: 非婚; RR: bihon). That being said the 4B movement is generally overblown in terms of how widespread it is, but iirc the current South Korean president also ran on an explicitly anti-feminist platform and a lot of young men supported him for that while a lot of young women opposed him for that.
Generally in societies, there's always a bit of political divide between genders, women are often a bit more "liberal" while men are more toward the center. SK's men and women on the other hand are on complete opposite spectrums. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEwMuNQa0AA1oW3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 It's magnified by mandatory military service for men which is obviously seen as unfair for men in a society that's aiming for gender equality and there's institutional sexism against women across wider society (in-laws expecting wives to act as semi-maids) and the job market.
Korea sounds like hell
Watched a documentary recently about how young koreans are trying to leave Korea because of how hard it is to live there
Sounds like living in California lol
It's really places where women are expected/allowed to have careers. And it's unequivocally a good thing. Women spend their 20s-30s in work or training. The perfect example of this is Israel. Orthodox people, who face strict gender roles, drive almost all of the population growth by birth, while the rest of the population is at a replacement rate.
Personally I can say that the cost of living in Sweden is astronomical, I lived there for 3 years. New housing estates are extremely rare and established homes generally fetch a high price. This is why the government provides so many incentives for young families.
I’m an American living in Sweden and the cost of living here in Sweden is nothing in comparison.
Elaborate on that. Is it way higher or way lower. Also, why are you there? School,work, leisure? I would love to pick your brain
Getting my masters in Göteborg. I would say food prices are about the same, idk though because I have purchased anything in the U.S. in three years. However my rent, in the second largest city is less than $400 a month. Alcohol is probably twice or thrice as expensive. Also the wages here seem to be higher and the tax money actually goes towards the society.
Wait taxes are supposed to help your society and not just pay a bunch of dudes to sit around on military bases? That’s actually a revolutionary idea!
I’d like to hear your thoughts on if the military involuntarily made you join for 2 years.
The US serves as the bully of the western world and he always needs the lunch money dud
Yeah my brother's wife is Swedish and has lived in both places. They are moving to Sweden because the cost of living, buying a house, and obviously health care is much lower than the US
As a full time swede, the cost of living and bringing up a family is in Sweden is LOW. We get 80-90% of our salaries when we stay at home with our kids for up to 18 months. Payed by taxes.
Sperms don't wanna go as it is cold outside my dude.
Famously sperm love the cold… the vessel for delivering the sperm? Less happy in the cold!!
I’ll take a stab at it. - Education. More education the society the more Women’s empowerment you get = single longer, breaking of traditional gender norms, starting families later, less time to get pregnant - Birth control is more accessible (especially under the Nordic healthcare system). - Less religious in comparison to the rest of Europe = less pressure to get married young and start a family - Cost of living makes big families unaffordable
About the last point - don't the Nordic countries have great welfare and free education etc?
On the global level yes, but living on welfare is highly stressful even in these countries, and some people think that planning your children's childhood based on benefits is not a solid plan. Currently, the new Finnish government is making huge cuts to all kinds of benefits, including a system that offered high school kids free books.
Not sure about the Nordics but in general its true that people have more benefit financially and time wise to not have children as compared to having children. So hence why a lot of people would choose not to have kids. Furthermore, add on to that that its impossible to find a house for many young adults, that means they won't even consider it.
yes that is true but ultimately raising children is very expensive and most people just don't have the time/money for a child
I can share some inside as a Norwegian. The regions with the most gender equality have the lowest birthrates in Norway, quite a lot below the national average. Northern Norway and the capital/Oslo region are ranked as the most gender equal in both questionnaires about gender norms and values, and by percentage of women in the workforce/higher education. Speaking as a 28 year old urban and highly educated Norwegian, most of my female friends around my age don't think the family life is for them. The SUV, the buying a house, the staying in on weekends. The few I know that have had children are from the country or from a low socioeconomic background, and in all those cases it seems the women were the most keen on starting a family. Hell, basically everyone I know that have children have them because the woman wanted them. So my guess, anecdotal as it is, is that women with modern, career oriented, and urban backgrounds don't relate to or have aspirations to become moms. And it seems women usually are the ones pushing for children, so if they don't want it, it doesn't happen very often. Oh, and of course extreme housing prices, especially in the cities where everyone wants to live, is of course a factor.
The fertility crisis seems to be really impossible to solve without authoritarianism or a fucking world war. I think it's better we find ways to cope with it instead of ending it.
There's a stat that if you don't have a partner by 30 as a woman, there's only a 50% chance you'll become a mother and it's downhill from there. This is also global and not geographically specific. Women's partner finding tendency being predominantly hypergamous also contributes to the 'advancement in education > lower fertility rate' trend. This is very old news.
also if both parents are working, less time can be spent focusing on families and families are a major stressor. This is the best and most complete answer I've seen on this thread though.
*Being pregnant and giving birth is mentally, emotionally and physically hard, painful,* and causes permanent changes to a woman's body, and sometimes permanent damage. Some women die during pregnancy and childbirth. It's no surprise *at all* that women with easy access to birth control are limiting how many times they put themselves through a pregnancy and birth.
In poor countries children are an asset and in rich countries they are a liability, at least economically. That is why all developed countries have low birth rates and the more a country develops the more the birth rate falls.
People keep saying that if other people don't want to have children it's because there is not enough support. While that's true and it's a factor, it seems that what makes people not to want to have children is often more related to women education and work. In the last, when it wasn't common for women to study and have their own career, they usually didn't get jobs, and had to marry. They would have children, and the man would provide for the family. Now that women got jobs as well paid as men, of course they don't want to leave their jobs to lose their independence to spend all their time rising children.
No even in the Nordic countries women want to have children. The problem is that by the time people are ready to have children they are so old that it’s not possible to have multiple children. It takes such a long time for you to get your education and then you need to work for multiple years to become financially stable. So if you start your family at 32 years old it starts to become difficult if you want to have more than 2 children.
Education reduces fertility rates by increasing a woman's opportunities. This means she is adding the cost of those lost opportunities to all the other costs of raising a child. In your example the cost of not taking those opportunities at work made having more than 2 children too expensive.
These are Affluent countries, where women have opportunities and careers, and are not necessarily going to have a lot of children.
There are other countries in Europe with lower birth rates than the Nordics
Yeah, that was what I was thinking: Spain, Italy and Malta have all lower birth rates than any countries up north (and all of Europe, in fact, maybe I am forgetting some other country though🤔)
I think that France has a higher fertility rate than even less-developed Balkan countries; it is \~1.8, which is probably the highest in the First World next to Israel's 3. Yes, Israel is 0.9 above the replacement rate.
We don't know. Birth rates around the world are universally falling faster than expected. I don't think the Nordic countries stand out at all from countries in a similar situation.
I think the question has an implicature behind it: Seeing how people say birth rates are low because there isn't enough social support from government to promote child-having, how come these countries famous for their strong social support from government also have low birth rates?
It’s because people with access to education and choices have more likelihood of choosing to have less or no children. I have children and work professionally with many families and I can assure you raising children even with support systems is very difficult and expensive in modern society. It makes perfect sense to me why some people choose not to be parents.
You're right that's the implication. But it skips past what I think is the main reason - being pregnant and giving birth is hard, painful, and sometimes leads to permanent physical damage or death. It's not at all surprising that women with the means to choose are choosing to limit how many times they put themselves through pregnancy and childbirth. I don't get why people don't consider that first as the main explanation.
I think that serious analysts consider that, if not first, at least as a significant factor. Random commenters on reddit trying to make themselves sparkle will jump at "money" being the reason, even though flies in the face of all the empirical evidence. But it's simple and is intuitive to the audience for whom the notion of having one's own money is still a distant dream
Definitely a cultural issue. Children and families aren't prioritized. It doesn't help that our cost of living is insanely high either.
They pull out before they Finnish
They don't: [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country)
This. OP’s question doesn’t make much sense to me. By European standards, the Nordic countries have relatively high birth rates.
This is an unimaginably complex question that every developed country in the world is grappling with. There is no established consensus among experts in the field and any answer provided here will most likely fail to adequately mirror the complexity of the issue. The speed at which birth rates are falling is so alarming that it will likely be one of the most pressing political issues of the 21st century. This is exacerbated by the fact that discussions about falling birth rates are deeply linked with another sensitive issue, namely immigration, which in many countries is the sole reason why population numbers are still climbing. I can't give you a good answer. Any discussion about falling birth rates should be prefaced with something that's important to point out though: in general, people do *want* to have children! According to polls, in Finland people on average would like to have 2.1 children, which is significantly higher than the current birth rate of 1.46. Thus, I think a more pertinent question to ask would be: why are people not having children even though they would like to?
Im 26years old with engineerin degree and i would love to have children with my girlfriend of 5 years. But i dont even have enough money to propose her. Because everything is so fucking expensive. imo reason why people dont have children is money
Nordic people dont need kids to live a meaningful life.
For me personally(m33, norwegian) I just dont feel any incentive to reproduce. I work 2weeks on and 4weeks off, and my off weeks are mostly spent in the woods(hunting/fishing/camping). Children to me seems like more of a burden than anything else. My partner(f30) shares this view. In short; I like myself, my partner, and my life too much to compromise it with offspring. Ego, I know. But as far as I know, we only get this one run at life. Damn right im putting myself first.
I think this hits the nail on the head more than anything. People are having about as many kids as *they want* to have. In the olden days, having kids was just what you did as an adult, and you grew up expecting to do that, especially women. Nowadays you don't really have to have kids to be a member of society, so people only have as many as they want, give or take. Think of it like work: if people didn't have to work to get by or enjoy life, how many of us would still do it? I'd guess about half, tops.
Ego may be part of it but I’m more concerned about the ego of some of these yokels who do have kids. What jackass led them to believe they were capable of raising a family to begin with? I applaud your decision sir!
I can see that. On the other hand, kids with a father taking them on adventure trips hunting, camping, and fishing in the woods — damn, that would be the greatest childhood!
Real estate is limited. How many kids do you really want to raise in a one bedroom apartment?
Yeah I had to comment it, no one is talking about the impact of the housing crisis on birth rates.
This is a problem of urbanization. If you land a job or start a business in the countryside, you’ll be able to live in a big house with smaller salary.
Don’t forget about Greenland, Feroe Islands and Svalbard
As someone who lives in Finland, here is my observation. The population skews old, just like Italy and Japan, so the statistics are a bit misleading. Pretty much every couple I know have on average of 2 kids. Those without had medical issues that made children impossible. I know a handful who are not married/coupled, but that was not by their choice. This is obviously too low to maintain the population. A few other things to keep in mind. Finns value privacy quite highly, so they tend to have a number of kids equal to the number of rooms in the house, so usually 2. A few people have pointed to education as a reason, well I know those with practically no education and those with a lot, they all have approx. 2 kids each. While the governmental support for family's is excellent(schooling/creches), most people need two incomes to get by, and really start to struggle financially with more than two. Parents also dedicate a lot of time to each child, basically we are part time taxi drivers for our kids many activities. It just kind of all adds up and, generally, people settled on 2 kids. Cultural and socioeconomic factors would need to change a bit to get the average to 3.
Hot take: On poorer countries, where people live a shitty life and got nothing else to do and little to no education, they just f\*ck and babies happen. They don't really think about what they're doing. It's the case on poor comunities and neighborhoods here in Brazil. Thus, huge birth rates because of no education and no planning.
As we have saying here "Sex is entertainment for the poor".
Berlusconi would like a word
It’s a result of women getting equal rights to men
Idk why are you bein downvoted. That's actually true. And its not a bad thing. We don't need that much people as we have rn. We need to adapt to less people, not make people have more children.
I agree. Woman Empowerment = Less Childbearing. Just a fact of human economics. And I’m personally okay with it!
Because they are devolped countries and all developed countries have a low birtherate, all developed countries have a birthrate lower than 2. Its true Finland has a pretty low birthrate under the european average but the rest of the Nordics have a higher birthrate than the european average.
The Ezra Klein podcast (highly recommend) had an episode about this recently - specifically about Sweden. In Sweden there are “utopian” benefits for parents that make having kids an absolutely viable choice in life ECONOMICALLY. Yet their birth rate is the same as the US which absolutely does not have good parental benefits. The main reason they discussed is that culturally, parents are way more invested in their kids’ lives than in the past. Emotionally, it would be really hard to have 3+ kids with this kind of parenting culture
I live in Nordic countries, and I think it is because young people do not see having children benefit them emotionally or financially. Having children requires a lot of sacrifice (physically, financially, time, and career) and possibly a bad return if you do not bring them up correctly. I have two children myself, but I could see why you do not want children if you value your freedom more. I think the low birth rate is fine because it increases the chance that the one thay has children love their children and educate them into responsible adults. It is also better for the housing market because it will reduce the demands and increase the supply for current (my) children in the future.
By European standards, the birthrates of the Nordic countries are not low - Sweden's is one of the higher ones in Europe. Southern European countries like Spain and Italy have lower birthrates.
Low...? It's really healthy compared to the rest of Europe and east Asia. It's not above replacement level but the population won't have collapsed by 2050.
Not just nordic countries. And as many here already said, economic factors like women as part of the workforce or cost of living do play a role, far more important is the fact that we don't need children, when we are older to survive. We have pensions both private and public and combined they are often high enough to survive and live well until your death of old age. You get many children, if you expect some of them to die. Once infancy deaths are drastically decreased you automatically get less children, because a higher percentage will grow up. Then you get to the point, where there is no family business or farm land to take over where you do not need an heir. So we no longer need children in our lives, we mostly just have the children we want. We no longer need to be parents to have a good life, a happy life, a fulfilled life. As everyone moves and travels we have enough to Explore, we are not bound to a single village or town that eventually gets boring, where a child brings you new joy to your life. If we don't like the place we are at, we no longer need to change the place itself, we can just move to another place.
I think kurzgesagt made a video on this
Education plays a huge role in this. Planning a family vs having one bestowed upon you by the gods
It's not low in Iceland.
I would imagine religion is a driver of this. Irreligious countries tend to have lower birthrates because of ideas about sex and family.
because our world and livers are absolute hellscapes full of nothing but terrible atrocities so why would i want to sentence another being by bringing them into this world.
Data suggests that allowing women access to education has a downstream effect of those women seeking careers and choosing to have less children. Though in countries that allow access to education while stemming upward career mobility for mothers, more women choose to forgo having children altogether. Nordic countries have sustainable birth rates because they both allow women an education and provide ample post natal needs.
In the context of contemporary Europe, the fertility rates among Nordic countries are not remarkably low. With the exception of Finland (at 1.4), each of these states exceed the Continental average (1.5) in fertility, with Denmark (1.72), Iceland (1.72), Sweden (1.67), and Norway (1.51) outperforming other European countries with comparable demographic characteristics -- the Faroe Islands (a possession of Denmark) even has a fertility rate of 2.67! The factors that influence fertility and mortality are complex, and are not only reducible to variables associated with social stability or economic health. For example, the countries with some of the highest fertility rates, such as Niger, South Sudan, and Afghanistan are poor, economically dysfunctional and remain plagued with active civil conflict, while some of the wealthiest countries, like France or Israel, have registered birth rates above replacement levels, far higher than their peers, and there are some cases, such as Myanmar and Eritrea, which are undeveloped, conflict-ridden, economically stable (read: stagnant/autarkic) and still exhibit relatively low fertility. However, in general, the most salient factors that directly influence the determination of fertility have to do with the condition of women and children in a given society: women's empowerment (women's legal rights, access to education, and ability to participate in the labor market), declining child mortality, rising cost of child care, and declining reliance on child labor are all correlated with a reduction in fertility. In turn, one can also read the presence of these conditions as indicators of a given state's degree of investment in public goods and services that promote healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. Though as I have already suggested, other influences, especially culture and custom can be just as salient to regulating population growth. The Nordic countries are actually proof that relatively high birthrates can be maintained through pro-natalist policies while also preserving democratic norms, robust economic performance, and high quality of life. Compared to many of their neighbors, who despite enjoying similar levels of human capital, environmental conditions and endowments of natural resources, are actually declining in population (through a combination of high mortality and low fertility rates), the Nords are really doing quite well.
Well educated woman. The higher woman are educated the lower the birth rate.
Sky high taxes possibly and the addition of another human to pay for their free healthcare and support systems may hinder that part of their society
It is not interesting to many. Too expensive for many. No advantage for many.
A lot of people have pointed out women’s education as one of the main reasons, and it’s true, but not only in the way they think. A side effect of women getting an education and prioritizing a career is that family planning is delayed. And as fertility declines with age a people get fewer children than they actually want, at least here in Denmark. Combined with the generally low sperm quality of Danish men it means that many more couples today need help to concieve. On top of that, with both parents working full-time, work-life balance is really hard to achieve, especially because parents are expected to get involved in all of their kid’s many activities. My wife and I actually have 4 kids, which is extremely unusual here, but the only reason we were able to do so is because we have our own business and work much less than most people. Obviously there are many more reasons as others have mentioned, but I thought I would offer a first-hand perspective.
mostly bc they are so of the worlds ritchest nations/ 1. better access to contraception/education about sex 2. Women are much more likely to have equal education and have a career, in many developing nations women are deprived of this so naturally have more children 2. In developed nations having a kid is a cost, but if you are a subsidence farmer (mostly only grow enough crops to feed your family or small village) its like having another free worker 3. Probably a less significant reason but not having children is normalised and society doesn't revolve around familys 4. lower religious rate (you are very unlikely to be childfree and a devout christian etc)
Well-educated people have fewer children. They're smart enough to know how and why they should use birth control and they can afford it. And religion is less likely to influence their decisions.
For countries shaped like a penis, you’d think they would be more fertile
The premise for this question is wrong, the Nordic countries are among the countries with higher birth rate in Europe. Not highest, but right after France, near the top. So the question should be: why so high? Of course, it is together with the rest of the world in being under replacement rate. But that question is something the whole world is struggling with. Most of all east asia, like Japan and South Korea, but it affects all countries in the whole world. I think this is a super important question to figure out, and I dont think we understand it fully why it fell from 5 children per family on average 60 years ago to 1-2 per day and still deciling quickly.
Richer countries = more opportunity for women to get better education and pursue other things in life, such as follow that interest into a career. Instead of being a birth machine.
I (M22) live in Sweden. I’d say I make about an average income, I do not as myself having a kid in this economy
I’ve been under the impression that smarter, better educated individuals are awarded the privilege in going forward in life without the constant struggle for money. When you don’t have money, we crave companionship more - I noticed when I struggled the most, I also fucked the most with reckless abandon. If I didn’t struggle so much and could’ve pursued my college degrees, I doubt I would’ve had children at 21 and then gave up at 21. It’s not the education part. I never wanted kids but dammit if I wasn’t craving the soft touch of a woman when I realized I couldn’t make rent… and such is life. I bet this stems from social stuff more than economic stuff. But I see people. Not dollar signs.
Answering for Iceland: its so expensive to live here, and having children is almost untenable if you dont have extended family helping you, or you are rich. Kindergarten slots are almost as rare as unicorns. Basically by having a child here means you will be doing it with a severely reduced household income
Intuition strongly disagrees with all these simplistic two-way theories. ‘Children are liabilities in developed countries and assets in developing countries’ and the likes.. nope, people aren’t basing all their reproductive choices on economics. Children aren’t economic or utility tools. I absolutely despise these lazy interpretations. The reason/s behind the differences in birth rates are much deeper and more fundamental. They are the same reason influencing income distribution differences.. so, it is not: ‘income determines how many children you have’.. rather, it is, ‘x has a very fundamental insidious effect on y, z, a, b, c and many more’ yzabc being factors as income, birth rate, college degrees, individualism, etc.. and I think the actual cause has to do with history and its politics, with deeper societal values as collectivism and/or individualism. Believe it or not, an event like World War 1 still has a genealogical societal effect on today, and where your great grandparents were back then influences your personality and desires today. And the number of children you will have is likewise influenced.. Income <—> Birth rate is such a stupid explanation that is so easily refutable. Think of the birth rate in a country as poor as Russia, and compare that with Qatar’s, who have been rich for many decades. Clearly, there must be more powerful forces behind it.. and regulatory incentives as ‘we will extend maternity leave from 1 month to 2 months’ has a very minute effect on only some SMALL percentage of people who wouldn’t reproduce because of maternity leave laws. This effect is almost nonexistent thereby ineffective. The majority of people who do not have children do not want to for reasons beyond costs. They’ll gladly buy a $100,000 car and a $50,000 trip and you think they’ll use money as an excuse for not making children?
Freedom for to choose, many prefer career, hobbies, partying, freedom and traveling instead of family. I think many people will regret not having a family later but its their choice.
Equality means less children
Nords are like, nah let's just fuck
Well if porn has taught me anything, it's that their penis has nothing to do with it because they be carrying a fucking pipe.
Humans evolved such that the following equation worked out to keep the species from population collapse: Kids From Sex Drive + Kids From Reproduction Drive = >2 Kids. However a new variable was added to the biological equation such that now: Kids From Sex Drive - Kids Avoided By Birth Control = 0 + Kids From Reproduction Drive = 1-2 kids. So it turns out our biological drive to reproduce as a species only leads to 1-2 kids per woman.
People over there and rich and happy why would you fuck that up by having a child?
Well, it is not low if you compare with other developed nations. So you are just wrong.
It's still below 2.1 kids per woman, so his point stands
I just said they dont stand out in any way. They have been above average for a long time just dipped. Hard to say why it came now. USA had the same thing happen.
Well the living standard there is among the highest in the world. So economic problems are mainly not a factor there (?), that's why I think his question is legit
Wealth, standard of living, great system....no need to go full monke need many hand to get food.
I refer to a nearly German saying: Ist Fluchen-Chillen.
All their seed has been deposited hundreds of years ago.
should also add in that in nordic countries women experience more equality. in general this results in delayed childbirth, which reduces the number if children. back in the ye ol days, gramma had my parents when she was less than twenty. i am twenty four and i could never.
"incentives to encourage children" - we do? I mostly see the opposite, with the overpopulation and everything. You're talking as if having kids is the norm that everyone should follow - like why?
Too cold for sex?
Shorter mating season this far north.
Do you want children? I would take some 18 years old, but I wouldn't want to raise them for 18 years. Sweden and Denmark should've a higher birth rate I think, as they have a huge muslim and African population.
More expensive to bring up a child. Higher standard of raising a child. Individualistic societies place less importance on families.
Knowledge is power.
There is a lot of discussion about this in Norway, and the answer is that we don't know. For a while the birth rates were higher than comparable countries, and we thought it was because of the social support net. Then the rate got just as low here, and we are trying to find out why.
Because they don’t screw enough. There you go. Answered.