Why don’t people have children? I mean, they have some, but it’s not enough. In many European countries the birth rate has stabilised at such a level that the population is declining only slowly (not counting migration now), but the question is how long we can maintain this level. Especially given that the economic crisis is becoming something long-term and permanent. Indeed, the crises we have faced in recent years are neither the result of the economic cycle, nor of natural conditions, nor of other external issues, but the direct and necessary consequence of the actions of Western governments. They are the result of activities aimed at destroying their own economies. Once they invent a green fate, the second time they start a war, the third time they come up with sanctions that damage us more than the country being punished. With such politicians, managers and economists, we have only one certainty – they will always be able to come up with something that will cause the country to become even poorer.
Having children is disadvantageous in every way. Parents of children are poorer, less happy and their lives are less stable.
However, back to the children. They cause is simple. Having children is disadvantageous in every way. Parents of children are poorer, less happy and their lives are less stable. There is no area where they are better off than others. So we are faced with a phenomenon that is advantageous and necessary for society as a whole, but disadvantageous for parents. As the example of Hungary shows, massive redistribution programmes can significantly alleviate the situation, but they cannot completely solve it (despite the increase in recent years, the Hungarian birth rate is lower than the Czech one). Religion doesn’t seem to help either – the European countries with the highest church attendance are also the countries with the lowest birth rates. Nor have the hopes associated with state-sponsored part-time jobs and breastfeeding corners in companies been fulfilled. They have helped some female managers to appear on the front pages of magazines, but have not changed the trend.
In such cases, there are only three solutions:
First. Coercion. It is conceivable that in China, for example, a certain number of children will be obligatory. As reproductive medicine has advanced, infertility ceases to play a role. So the state can mandate children. In a more subtle form, this would mean, for example, a drastic tax on childlessness. Penalties and taxes can be increased until the number of children starts to increase.
Religion doesn’t seem to help either – the European countries with the highest church attendance are also the countries with the lowest birth rates.
Second. Cost sharing. It turns out that across-the-board increases in benefits motivate different groups to different degrees, and that the result may be an undesirable demographic shift, or an increase in the proportion of those groups with the highest costs, the lowest work output, and who are unable to ensure the continuation of the national culture.
But there are other possibilities. They might look like this. A woman makes an offer to the government: I’m 24, I’m an electrical engineer with an IQ of 112, I’m perfectly healthy, I offer to have a child with my college-educated husband, I offer to stay home with him for three years and then take care of him normally. How much, stat, will you pay? A hundred thousand dollars? I’ll pass. Three hundred thousand? I’m in! The reward will be paid in monthly installments over 20 years. If a 36-year-old woman with an incomplete primary education and a partner with four convictions makes the same offer, she will, of course, get a completely different amount.
There will be an official sitting in the Ministry of Labour (one would be quite enough) who will monitor demographic trends and update the table once a year.
Well, and then there is a third option. State-run institutions where children will be born and raised, while some activities can be outsourced to private companies or families.
After all, for most of history children have grown up in conditions that were far from ideal, and yet humanity has survived.
Which of these do you like? Probably nothing. We would like children to be conceived out of love and to grow up in harmonious, complete families. Sociologists find it easy to determine that such children have fewer problems. But the problem is that such cases are too rare to ensure the survival of nations.
After all, for most of history children have grown up in conditions that were far from ideal, and yet humanity has survived. And between you and me, that engineer will love her child even if she gets paid four million.
It’s not a problem we need to solve this year or next. But it’s definitely something to think about prospectively.
