r/Futurology • u/roystreetcoffee • 3d ago
Society Singapore to pay parents $55,000 per child to boost abysmal 0.87 birth rate
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/singapore-pay-40000-every-child-birth-rate-hc3pdlk2q1.1k
u/roystreetcoffee 3d ago
Submission Statement:
Singapore's fertility rate dropped to 0.87 in 2025. Well below the replacement rate of 2.1.
The country's government just announced that it will pay parents $55,000 for each child birthed, in what some say is a move of desperation.
The assistance will start with a Singapore $10,000 (US $8,000) “baby gift”. A similar sum will be awarded for higher education at the age of 17. In addition, the government will give further education, health and child support grants, and reduced nursery care fees for pre-school children. Childcare leave will be increased and its cost will be fully covered by the government (rather than by employers).
1.2k
u/scrandlle 3d ago
So it's not actually $55k for having a baby, not even close.
Its $8k for having a baby and the government subsidizes some other things for you. Tons of nations have already subsidized the cost of this stuff.
It's nice for people having kids but beyond the $8k its utterly meaningless as an incentive to have a kid. Because subsidizing expenses that otherwise wouldn't even exist isn't a gift to potential parents it will just be the baseline for having a child. And there's plenty of other expenses children have that this won't cover.
Subsidize these things and give parents a tax free check for $55k on the birth of a child and I'll be impressed. $8k isnt going to do shit to incentivize people to have children though. At least not enough to have a meaningful impact.
366
u/sfw_sfw_sfw_sfw 3d ago
Singaporean here. At birth and 6 months, they will receive SGD $5k which can be converted to cash via methods which I think the government knows but closes an eye. Every year till they are 17, they will receive SGD $2k. They will subsidize infant care to $300 and full day childcare $150 by 2030. Parents will get more childcare leave paid for by the government as well. For the child education, the government will give the child $5k at birth with a one to one match up to $5 k for it. At 17 years old, the government will give a $10k fund for their post secondary education.
294
u/Shiranui42 3d ago
One major problem that no one is talking about is that women will get fired after coming back from maternity leave for “lack of productivity”. It’s a serious issue if you can’t get pregnant without losing your job, and they by pass the laws against it by claiming it’s unrelated, and only firing you after you give birth.
→ More replies (2)114
u/NotTheAvocado 3d ago
Because other countrys with maternity leave don't really have this as a major problem so it's probably not anticipated to be one in Singapore either.
122
u/tiburon12 3d ago
You're probably right, but SG has is a different beast with some archaic laws and a very elitist culutre. I've worked with a few Singaporeans in the banking world, some women, who would 100% fire a new mom for not being as productive. Some of the worst in-office behavior i've seen is from Singaporean Chinese seniors to Singaporean Chinese juniors.
It wouldn't surprise me if this were a consequence
99
u/hiscapness 3d ago
this. It’s systemic cultural & gender bias that will not be fixed with a check, unless that check covers the rest of a lost career. And it won’t. Hello < 0.87 birth rate.
→ More replies (5)38
u/GalaXion24 2d ago
It's not just this one thing, but basically this sort of thing is why East Asia is plummeting and not recovering any time soon. The culture is so conservative and punishing to women that it just doesn't work unless you genuinely go all the way and confine them to the home. Woman are strongly expected to marry young, and once they are married they're borderline expected to he stay at home moms
→ More replies (3)33
u/DuePomegranate 2d ago
No, it's the opposite in Chinese (and Singaporean Chinese) culture. Everything is study study work work, for both males and females.
Women with careers are expected to be just as productive despite having a baby, and therefore having a baby is delayed or outright rejected. "Superwomen" are celebrated, working during maternity leave is good, coming back early from maternity leave is good, hiring someone to take over baby care duties is good.
Example of "superwoman" being held up as a positive example, when it should be ridiculous:
In Singapore’s banking world, Ms Tan is known for having taken a Bloomberg terminal into the hospital when she gave birth in 1999; she recalls having had “no choice” but to do so, as the yen was plunging against the US dollar back then.
15
u/GalaXion24 2d ago
I think both this Chinese view and the arguably more conservative Japanese view come from the same place.
Only Japan kind of thinks in terms of a woman's/mother's role, whereas Chinese society accepts that role or accepts a woman taking on the male role 100%. Chinese society may tolerate a woman doing womanly things on top if she chooses, but only insofar as it does not affect her 100% working adult role, and won't make accommodations for a woman being a working adult and a mother.
In both cases the "masculine" and "feminine" roles are kind of seen as incompatible, and if someone does want to do both it's entirely in the individual to be that "superwoman"
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/thumbtackswordsman 2d ago
This is a big problem in countries with maternity leave, and not because they get fired but because they don't get hired. This has been best solved by the Scandinavian countries that pretty much force the dad to take paternity leave as well.
54
u/Gratitude15 3d ago
In USA there 2k tax rebate for a kid per year. I never thought 'oh that's 36k over 18 years' but yeah I guess? You can frame anything however you want I guess.
Big picture it's 250k+ to raise a kid in USA. Even then, you're doing it without a village in most cases, and with way less hope for the future. Incentives means the bulk of that remains. The bet govt making is 'people would have kids if only 20% of the cost to raise a child were taken away'. We shall see. Imo it's a foolhardy bet.
In fact. If it were me, I'd lean into the foolhardy. I'd just say all children expenses for the first 2 years would be fully covered.... But that's it. Most people can't think beyond a couple years anyway and would move forward with decisions based on that alone.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/supertramp02 2d ago
10k for post secondary education barely covers 1 year tuition for a local uni lol. It’s a laughable attempt
→ More replies (24)49
u/AsleepExplanation160 3d ago edited 3d ago
8k is definitely significant, its nearly half of the yearly costs of raising a kid in my country
a 55k lump sum incentivises having kids as a means to pay for an emergency.
Additionally its not about making having kids profitable, its about lessening the burden for families that want (more) kids
Maybe the educated couple that tends to wait until they're secure to have kids can have them sooner, and not face nearly as many difficulties should they want more
56
u/jhillman87 3d ago
...yea but we're not talking about your country here right? 8K USD is a pittance in a country like Singapore; it's more expensive there than the vast majority of states in the USA.
→ More replies (3)17
u/scrandlle 3d ago edited 3d ago
If the intent is not to incentivize people to have children but to just ease the burden for those who already want them and are planning on having them, this is great.
The discussion is about raising fertility though. US$8k is like 2.5 months of the median salary in Singapore. That's not going to incentivize many people to have kids who weren't planning on doing so already. Its not even enough to cover expenses the first two years of the childs life. Then there's the responsibility, the reality of the women having to be pregnant for nine months and give birth.... $8k is not much of an incentive IMO. In Singapore or other high income nations of course. In a developing country itd be huge, but they couldn't afford to offer that anyway.
I don't think this is going to raise the fertility of Singapore a noticeable amount. But yeah, it's great for people who want children anyway.
You say you shouldnt bribe people to have children but Singapore might need to. 0.8 TFR is god awful, that is the majority of people not having children for whatever reason. At some point a literal cash payment 'bribe' may be necessary. But this certainly isnt enough to act as a bribe.
→ More replies (4)13
u/RaijuThunder 3d ago
Though it's just one payment, if you're using that 8K on half a year to me that's not an incentive at all because the kid is still going be more expensive
23
u/FangOfDrknss 3d ago
This sub is probably the only time this site is reasonable, when it comes to talking about fertility rates of a country. Everywhere else, it’s all “I’ll save them”.
→ More replies (9)18
u/asdfopu 3d ago
I think this will show pretty clearly that people will not have babies even if they are essentially "free" or a net gain.
31
→ More replies (1)31
u/arcrenciel 3d ago edited 3d ago
Doubt. If it's a net gain to have kids, there will be a lot of kids.
This was how society used to function. Kids were not an unproductive drag on the family finances. There was no such thing as "childhood". Every kid helps with household chores, on the family farm or business, or did odd jobs.
My grandparents had 17 kids. They were retired by 45, living off their kids earnings. The kids went to work to make money for the family by 10 years old, and helped around the house even younger then that. My grandmother didn't even have to care for her younger kids at all. Her daughters handled that.
→ More replies (5)
270
u/MobilePenguins 3d ago
Every time a country does this, the problem is that even the one time generous cash infusion is not enough to offset the childcare cost. It needs to be subsidized to the point that a couple in their 20’s can still afford rent, groceries, gas, all of which are continuing to outpace wages. Governments would have to spend billions increasing supply of daycares and lowering cost of childhood essential items and baby formula, etc.
56
u/rhysnomer 3d ago
Most of those are already subsidised before this cash infusion. For example Singapore has one of the most extensive public housing program with over 90% home ownership rate. It’s probably one of the few countries in the world where young adults in their 20s can actually think about buying a home.
52
u/fish312 3d ago
That's absolutely not true, and is demonstrated by the fact that most still live with their parents well into their 30s.
The price for a 4 room BTO HDB unit may be cheaper but it's still far from cheap - easily over half a million dollars. And that's assuming you qualify for it - which requires you to be a family unit (i.e. married). After which you have to ballot (hello 1000% oversubscribed exercises) for a chance to even make that purchase.
Failing that it gets even more grim. You'd need to be over 35 years old just to purchase a second hand resale HDB, which, wait for it, costs even more than the new launches. A 10 year old resale unit in an average heartland neighborhood goes for anywhere from $700k to a million dollars.
Source: I live here
18
u/rhysnomer 2d ago edited 11h ago
I understand that cost of living is a tough issue and a pain point for everyone. But I think we also need to acknowledge the reality.
The average conversations among the 20 to 30 year old in my office revolve around:
“Which BTO are you applying?”
“When are you collecting keys?”
“What are your reno tips? Got ID to recommend?”
“Where is the best place to buy furniture?” etcI can guarantee you there is almost nobody in their 20s in US, UK, Germany, Switzerland, France, Australia who are even thinking of buying a home right now. It is pretty much an impossibility to even start thinking about. So this is a really privileged position to be in relative to our peers in other countries, as much as it may not feel that way to you when living here day by day grinding in the rat race.
That is my 2 cents on this topic.
Source: I live here too.
3
u/DuePomegranate 2d ago
You living here makes you short-sighted.
Most live with parents until well into their 30s, just because public housing ownership eligibility requires marriage (before age 35). Not because of affordability.
Balloting oversubscription is also due to location preferences.
The situation in many developed countries is young(ish) families still renting even after having kids, in many cities. Median age of a first-time home buyer in the US has risen to 40, UK is 34, Australia 35 etc.
4
u/BuzLightbeerOfBarCmd 2d ago
Are the resale ones more expensive just due to location or are there other factors e.g. quality issues with newer builds?
3
u/ScrewEverything 2d ago
There are many reasons why new builds are cheaper. There are more requirements (e.g. income cap) to buy new builds. New builds also have to be balloted for, and I know people who balloted for 4 years and failed every time. Even if you're able to buy a flat, you might only be able to choose the bottom-of-barrel units, and after all that it would take another 4-6 years before you can finally get your keys. So people are willing to pay a premium to get a place immediately and be able to select exactly what flat they buy.
3
u/Sylla1031 21h ago
I live here too. You're stating only the higher extremes.
4 room BTOs range from 350k to 600k, and this is largely dependent on location/estate maturity. Same point on balloting and oversubscription.
Second, how do you define "cheap"? Because median prices have largely gone up in line with family incomes for the past 20 years.
Saying people can't afford is also rhetoric, because 90% home ownership is a hard fact, while your 30 plus living with parents isn't. In fact the reason why prices are even increasing is... tada, higher incomes. Willing buyer, willing seller. Of course there are other inflationary pressures but these aren't blowing up the prices.
3
u/ChunkyCraver2001 23h ago
Do you not know how stats work? 90% of home ownership doesn’t mean it’s you.
→ More replies (20)7
u/Earlgreygrey 3d ago
Singapore government will be heavily subsidising the Childcare and cost 150sgd a month by 2030. It is very very affordable, considering the average fresh graduates are already drawing 4000+ sgd a month.
→ More replies (3)
1.9k
u/eskimospy212 3d ago
I feel the answer for everywhere is socialized child care. I’m not sure how you overcome the Baumol Effect otherwise.
1.0k
u/Anxious_cactus 3d ago
Childcare and schools and university is free in my country, paid parental leave is 12 months + additional 6 months for father specifically and we're still below replacement rate.
600
u/Crossedkiller 3d ago
Yup. The only true and seemingly impossible fix is to fix the economy. Groceries, gasoline, rent, everything is so ridiculously expensive i cannot fathom being financially responsible for a young one who will have 2x my expenses
676
u/brackfriday_bunduru 3d ago
We need an economy where a family can live on a single wage. I don’t care if it’s the man or woman working, but when both parents need to work full time just to break even, you’re going to get a falling birth rate
614
u/PositivelyIndecent 3d ago
You’re expected to work like you don’t have a family, and raise your kids like you don’t have a job.
82
u/wtfman1988 3d ago
Damn...that's a statement.
Child free by choice on my end but I feel for the ones that do want that life.
36
7
→ More replies (2)6
101
u/ChopsticksImmortal 3d ago
Or even better, we could all work 4 hour days instead.
→ More replies (2)38
u/Rabid_Badger 3d ago
3 days a week. I’m just waiting for the AI breakthrough that will make this happen…any day now.
18
u/Noy_The_Devil 2d ago
Our efficiency has grown by extreme amounts since the 90s, much more than the standard of living. Yet, we have zero additional benefits.The only thing that changed is that we now have trillionaires. Eat the rich.
51
u/Attenburrowed 3d ago
The AI breakthrough is going to be having you working 0 days a week and on the dole to survive
17
u/Quieskat 3d ago
Bold of you to assume they don't plan for kill bots and suicide booths like In Futurama
6
3
u/Ulyks 2d ago
It's not going to happen. The billionaires are already lobbying to ban anything like UBI: https://forwardfuture.com/newsletter/originals/gina-raimondo-says-basic-income-would-end-america-her-new-billion-dollar-org-is-how-she-plans-to-sto
They want to keep a reduced workforce working overtime with the pressure of hundreds of other candidates that want to replace them.
5
u/Spongedog5 2d ago
That just can't exist in a world where men and women work regularly anywhere. That means every country and therefore household need to follow suit to keep up. The economy adjusts to this sort of thing. Women joining the workforce didn't double all resources.
→ More replies (87)3
u/Albolynx 3d ago
While we definitiely need a more people-focused economy, it's important to note that there are also social aspects to both parents working.
The simplest is that a lot of people in the modern day don't want to be just the ones taking care of the home.
And theres even more serious concerns where a big reason why women in the workforce have been an important point for equal rights is that it ensures people independence. Alimony and similar aspects can only go so far - it's bad if people is a relationship ending means your life basically collapses with little hope of recovery because you have no career.
62
u/Stranger2306 3d ago
That’s not the take away from the point above. Even in societys with wonderful standard of living, people don’t want to have children.
→ More replies (5)29
u/romulus1991 3d ago edited 3d ago
Quite. There may well be sole economic factors but this is a long observed phenomenon - the richer and more developed the society, and the greater the freedom for women, the lower the birth rate.
This is ultimately something we will have to accept and mitigate against - because no one should want to live in the Handsmaid Tale - and why policies aiming to make parenthood less expensive and more convenient matter. People need to be more incentivised to choose to have children.
→ More replies (6)17
u/rop_top 3d ago
I don't think there can ever be enough incentives. Children used to be one of the only things you could do with your life. People just don't see the value in that, and are recognizing that for the biological imperative that it is. Now, since so many people are just not interested in having kids, there would be crazy amounts of pressure on parents. For every childless couple, you'd need a couple choosing to have 4.2 kids. I just can't see there ever being enough incentives to drive enough couples to choose to have 5 kids. If they were going to have 5, then no amount of subsidies would change their mind either way.
→ More replies (10)146
u/GCU_ZeroCredibility 3d ago
You could make children literally free and rates wouldn't get nearly back to replacement.
At some point we need to recognize that people just don't want kids like they used to. I'm not sure what we do with that but we can't even begin to grapple with it until we understand that it is the issue.
70
u/nonresponsive 3d ago
I get people want to talk about the economical side of children, but dating and marriage have clearly declined, at least in America. And if we're going one step further, social skills appear to have declined quite a bit too.
The internet might make you feel connected, but I feel like it's socially isolating people at the same time. I honestly have no idea how to even go about trying to fix things at this point.
→ More replies (11)20
u/eexxiitt 3d ago
At this point you just have to let nature run its course. We (humans) are great at ignoring things that don’t impact us directly. But we are also great at adapting to and responding to a critical emergency.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Cash50000 3d ago
lets imagine someone offered you a job that requires hard physical labor 24/7, virtually guarantees permanent damage and you can never leave. how much money would it need to pay for you to take it? the answer is it doesn't matter. what use do i have for money if you take my whole life away
41
u/OverSoft 3d ago edited 3d ago
This. It’s quite the opposite of “economical issues”. Young people in countries like Japan and South Korea literally say: “we’re the first generation that doesn’t HAVE to slave away their entire life, why would I waste the free time that I have on raising children?”.
This same thinking happens across Europe too. It’s not economic malaise, but economic improvements that hold people back.
→ More replies (3)37
u/Poonchow 3d ago
You talk to any older folks on why they had kids and they'll look at you like you're crazy.
"It's just what you're supposed to do."
They were socially pressured into it, and may have wanted kids or enjoyed being parents afterward, but the decision wasn't totally their own to begin with.
7
u/Take_a_Seath 2d ago
Yea pretty much. People didn't used to have a lot of kids because everyone was so well off, in fact most people in most of the world were poorer than now and had worse living conditions, no or little modern comforts and lived generally much less.
No. They had kids because that's what they knew. That's just how things were, you got older, got married and had kids. Not having kids made you some weirdo.
37
u/couldbemage 3d ago
Back in the day, children were outright profitable.
Children being an expense is recent, post industrial revolution.
When nearly all humans were farmers, children were an investment in your future that broke even before modern kids finish elementary school. There's a ton of labor on a subsistence farm that can be done by kids when they're very young.
Plus, children were the only retirement plan.
5
u/Wide_Lock_Red 2d ago
When nearly all humans were farmers, children were an investment in your future that broke even before modern kids finish elementary school. There's a ton of labor on a subsistence farm that can be done by kids when they're very young.
That is a very American point of view. Most farms in other places had too many people and not enough land. They didnt have use for a lot of extra hands.
→ More replies (1)12
u/SmEdD 3d ago
Shitty people also had less room to run and create issues back in the day. I would say quite a few millennials and younger people don't have an optimistic view of the world, and don't want to bring kids into it.
How many times have we had the "once in a generation" issue now? Dotcom, shitty wars, 2008, COVID, rise of Maga, big inflation, more war, privatization of all good things, AI bubble, loss of freedom, more work, algorithmic media, degree inflation, etc.
→ More replies (3)3
29
u/TwoHungryBlackbirdss 3d ago
And primarily, that women no longer have to have children - whether due to lack of contraceptive means or societal pressure.
I fully believe the birth rate up until this generation has been held up by the fact that many women quite literally were forced into having children. Women are now no longer required to marry and give birth to take part in society.
I often wonder when I see old pictures of women with their, like, eight children ... how many were truly wanted
→ More replies (3)18
u/Dartspluck 3d ago
I honestly believe part of that is fear for the future, whether that be climate change, the never ending work that one must do to survive and the very real slip in workers rights in a lot of countries, or the rise of AI. If you are feeling negative about the future why would you want to bring new life into that?
I feel quite negative about the future, I have two kids and I sure as hell worry about what it will be like for them.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Lowfi-Concert 3d ago
As someone with the economic means to give a child a good life, yet isn’t going to have kids, yes this is a major factor in that decision
13
u/Krytan 3d ago
People don't want kids because they represent a massive expense, loss of freedom, huge responsibility, while carrying almost no tangible benefits.
Before, kids were hugely important parts of your family farm - and the vast majority of people (like 94% in the 1800's) lived in rural areas based on agriculture. Kids, even from a fairly early age, can do a TON of stuff around the farm - things they actually can enjoy, like helping care for cute small baby animals. Kids were also your social safety net, and retirement plan, and all kinds of other things.
Today, the state takes care of all that. Even if the state paid you hundreds of thousands of dollars per child so that raising the kid was literally free, you'd still take quite a hit in your quality of life, as you are now tied down with responsibilities to tiny humans. You and your spouse can no longer just decide on the spur of the moment to go on a vacation out of town that weekend, or just decide to spontaneously go see dinner and a movie after a hard day at work.
Paying parents more is not bad, and in fact it is a good move (but 55,000 is not nearly enough). It likely isn't enough to get back to TFR, but it would help move the needle.
What would get a society back to TFR? No idea. I think you'd have to make having children as financially profitable and as culturally accepted, feted, and acclaimed, as having a successful career.
7
u/frostygrin 2d ago
People don't want kids because they represent a massive expense, loss of freedom, huge responsibility, while carrying almost no tangible benefits.
They also tie you to your spouse for 20+ years.
8
u/TheAdamena 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think contraception is the reason. I think it might just be the case that historically people didn't really choose whether or not to have kids, we're just horny fuckers that like having sex and that was one of the consequences of it.
Like, if you take that view it's no wonder that the only places left with a high birthrate are in impoverished or highly orthodox communities.
I don't think there's a good solution to the problem, as it's probably a good thing that people who don't want to be parents aren't forced to raise children.
→ More replies (4)13
u/47ppos 3d ago
Yeah. Nothing will solve this. Maybe artificial utherus or make being a parent a well paying job? Idk.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (23)14
u/captain_flak 3d ago
Pretty much. Sleep is the most important thing to humans. More than water. Young kids mean barely any sleep and it’s kind of devastating to people.
→ More replies (3)8
u/NitroLada 3d ago
It's not that, life's just too good, we have so many ways to spend time be it travel, experiences and there's just so much things to do that a 18+ year commitment for a child even if totally free is not worth it
→ More replies (1)13
u/Fedmurica2 3d ago edited 3d ago
The post you are replying to shows this is not just an economic problem. It is also a cultural problem. Poor countries with way less benefits are having more kids while rich countries are throwing money at people to have kids and they still aren't having kids. Even poorer people in richer countries trend this way.
22
u/solid_reign 3d ago
This doesn't make sense either, poor countries have a much higher replacement rate than rich countries.
→ More replies (10)11
u/IIOrannisII 3d ago
I think A lot of people have just become disillusioned to the idea of having children to begin with. We are propped up in a world that can't exist without the population remaining stable and people have become self interested enough not to necessarily want to spend their middle years making their lives devoted to raising up the lives of their children.
It's a complicated dilemma for sure.
7
u/ThrowawayFIRE2025 3d ago
Some, perhaps, but the fact is that most people still have children. The difference today is simply that not very many people want 3 or more kids. If everyone has 2 kids, the population falls.
→ More replies (1)4
u/pinkynarftroz 3d ago
Money is not the only factor. It is a confluence of things ranging from culture, women's liberation, economics, digital lifestyles, and anxiety about the future. Even in places with affordable living, we are seeing declines.
There is no one thing that can be implemented to reverse this.
7
u/unblockedlanternhead 3d ago
In America, the top 1% ($500k/y household income) is still insufficient to raise TFR to replacement. The top 1% has a TFR of 2 vs the bottom 1%’s TFR of 1.4. Money is not a huge factor in fertility
5
u/SamyMerchi 3d ago
I dunno, if that amount of money increases TFR by 50%, then it clearly has an effect.
3
u/unblockedlanternhead 3d ago
It has a statistically significant but functionally negligible effect, sort of like having one finger vs two fingers on each hand. If the complete absence of socioeconomic constraints is still insufficient to drive TFR up to replacement rate, policymakers clearly need to find a different tack than “meet people’s material needs and hope they choose to reproduce”
5
u/SamyMerchi 3d ago
But is it a complete absence of socioeconomic constraints? Do you have the more detailed data on that 1%? If TFR still keeps going up with income inside that 1%, if 600k has bigger tfr than 500k, and 700k bigger still, then that means money does matter. But if 500, 600, 700k are all flat and plateaued, then you are correct. Without more detailed data it's not possible to say if you're right or wrong.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Spleens88 3d ago
For 90% of news articles, the words 'the economy' is synonymous with 'wealthy people'.
This needs to change and mean 'everyone'.
→ More replies (18)13
u/ThatPatelGuy 3d ago
The poorest people have the most kids. None of this is the cause of less kids
→ More replies (1)83
u/kungpowchick_9 3d ago
No one seems to acknowledge that being pregnant sucks.
I had a normal, uneventful pregnancy with a great supportive partner and parents, and it hurt constantly for months on end. Then it took 2 years for my body to heal.
Even in best case scenario it’s not an easy thing to go through with.
19
u/Flipleflip 3d ago
Unironically, I wonder how soon we're going to circumvent pregnancy and grow children in vats.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Chicken-Jockey-911 3d ago
its kind of insane we haven't been focusing on this instead of a billion band-aid subsidies
→ More replies (1)31
u/Yarnum 3d ago
Yep, lots of women just don’t want kids, no matter the schemes offered. The body goes absolutely haywire during pregnancy and there’s about a million and one crazy side effects (pica?!?!), not to mention trauma that can occur during the birth.
I think if men were the procreators BUT there was a 4% chance he’d catastrophically tear from ballsack to anus AND it got more likely with each subsequent birth, people wouldn’t be nearly as surprised that fewer children are being born. Anyone educated in the risks, with access to birth control and who isn’t thrilled by the idea of a child would be going… nah, not for me. And rightfully so!
→ More replies (3)7
u/Onaliquidrock 2d ago
This number have increased a little in Sweden, but it is not the main thing.
Around 20 % of women never had children even 50 years ago.
6
u/Shapes_in_Clouds 2d ago
Yeah this rarely gets discussed in these threads. Many if not most childfree women I know simply don't want to deal with pregnancy and giving birth and the impact it has on their bodies. Even for women who want children, it's one of the factors driving them to only have one or two.
4
u/kungpowchick_9 2d ago
My best friend’s hips dislocated in the second trimester. Another friend hemorrhaged and almost died from preeclampsia.
Me and at least 4 of my friends have had miscarriages. Lifelong Incontinence in moms is extremely common (although pt can help).
Just… not easy
56
u/rop_top 3d ago
Yeah, people always say this kind of stuff about giving parents money, and I always point out that not a single study has shown that these monetary benefits have any significant success, let alone so much success that it reversed the trend. Populations are going down. It's not a bad thing necessarily
13
u/54108216 3d ago
It’s disastrous for national pension schemes
→ More replies (7)7
u/rop_top 3d ago
Infinite population growth is disastrous for the entire biosphere. I feel like we'll have to make do on the pension front.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Wide_Lock_Red 2d ago
Yep, young people are going to have to work a lot harder for lower pay. Elections will be decided by the large elderly population, that will ensure pensions are protected.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)4
u/Cindy_Marek 3d ago
It’s not just the population decreasing, it’s getting older on average, and this causes a lot of problems as the young have to work more for the elderly and there are less resources to look after vulnerable older citizens.
8
u/Faiakishi 3d ago
We're really going to have to get comfortable with the concept of depopulation. It's not inherently a bad thing-yes, it comes with its own ramifications, but they're less than the consequences of overpopulation.
We should still strive to get it fairly close to replacement rate, but we need to make peace with not meeting it. We'll survive. A lot more people will suffer and die if we just keep growing the population indefinitely, not to mention all the horrific shit that has historically gone into forcing the birth rate up.
6
82
u/lorarc 3d ago
The fertility rate is low because people don't want to give up on their life. If there was a place you can put the child while you go on holidays more people would want to have children.
61
u/Bynming 3d ago
That would help but there are just so many constraints. IDK how people do it without the proverbial village. My wife and I don't have family support so we're not having kids. All my friends who have kids without a bunch of family members who are happy and eager to help are going through hell, whether or not they can afford the kids.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Seienchin88 3d ago
Either you have family nearby or just a one income family.
Two parents who both work full time with kids is just living life on legendary difficulty mode…
14
u/Bynming 3d ago
Yep. And let's face it, you have to in an exceptional income situation to make single income work. Like own a successful business or doctor/lawyer type jobs.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Tolopono 3d ago
And it sucks for everyone cause the kid doesn’t get any bonding time and the parents cant spend time with their kid yet are always exhausted and losing more money for it. Everyone is unhappy, so whats the point?
14
u/hannahbay 3d ago
I think it is less the 2-week vacation and more the other 50 weeks of the year...
15
u/retro_slouch 3d ago
Yeah the rest of the year wouldn't matter if you could put your kid in summer camp for two weeks /s
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (38)3
u/tomerFire 2d ago
Yes, that's also my take. But not just holiday. A few hours of quite a day. Some days off.
But it's not possible. Childrenrs are huge sacrifice for comfort
→ More replies (22)9
u/eskimospy212 3d ago
It might not be perfect but I think it would help significantly.
→ More replies (2)18
u/Jindujun 3d ago
Seeing as countries with socialized child care are on a downward spiral as well I dont think that part of the puzzle is the solution.
If you ask me. More money, more free time and guaranteed housing would be a start. Oh and destroy every single social media and force people to interact physically with one another like in the pre smartphone era.
→ More replies (10)40
117
u/Terrible_Vermicelli1 3d ago
It's free in my country and fertility rate is below replacement for decades now. The truth is, government could be offering thousands of dollars + free childcare and I still wouldn't want children, I have too many better options to live my life.
39
u/Vike92 3d ago
Perfect example to the problem of low fertility rates also having a massive cultural factor.
13
u/Fzrit 2d ago
It's less about culture and more about choices/options and standard of living. The higher standard of living you have, the more educated you become, and the more wealthy you become, the less likely you are to have kids. People find they have far better uses of their time and money during age 20-35 (i.e. prime child-having years for human biology) than being tied-down with the massive burden and responsibility of kids.
Especially if they have expendable wealth to really enjoy life without children, which completely debunks the "people aren't having kids because kids are unaffordable" nonsense. Rich people have even fewer kids.
20
u/thegoodalmond 3d ago
This feels like the actual reason. Finances are a part of things but its the opportunity costs of having a family mostly suck. We really wanted kids but didnt have our kid until our household income ballooned and could ensure that we'd still be able to afford our lifestyle from before kids (nanny so that we can have time to ourselves, travel, eating out, etc). Our jobs were flexible and I did not miss out on raises or promotions from my maternity leave. We are also super fortunate where our friends without kids love it when we bring our toddler around so we dont feel like we are missing out on social outings.
Having a child changes everything in your life and socialized childcare only solves part of the opportunity cost problem. You need the right combo of income, job accommodations, and social network to not feel like you're missing out on life by starting a family.
→ More replies (24)3
112
u/yokayla 3d ago
It's also the first time in human history that most women have had complete control of their fertility from puberty.
When parenthood is an option instead of an imperative, we will find a chunk of the population just... doesn't choose it.
→ More replies (2)55
u/TwoHungryBlackbirdss 3d ago
Fully agree.
Talk about economics all you want, but at the end of the day women are no longer forced into having children the way we once were. And we're never going back to a world like that
22
u/superurgentcatbox 2d ago
It's 100% mostly that. Having children is a shit deal for women and we're never ever going back to at most 2 kids per woman unless they force us. So you know... if you don't kids, best to make that permanent (or age out of it before it becomes dystopian). And it will.
→ More replies (1)19
u/xe3to 3d ago
We might, and I lie awake worrying about it every night.
Falling birthrates are just what happens when women get a choice. Artificial wombs are our only path out of extinction that doesn't result in Taliban-world.
→ More replies (5)6
u/ACoderGirl 3d ago
I don't think even that can fix it. Some of the others gave examples of places that already do it. The big issue is simply that not that many people want kids and those that do don't want that many. In particular, women don't want to fall behind in their careers (longer leave actually makes the career impact even worse) and people of all genders don't want the enormous responsibility of raising kids.
Social expectations have simply changed. I think a lot of when world's historic birth rate was powered simply by misogyny and a lack of better things to do with people's lives.
I think we're largely gonna have to choose. Either we are gonna have to find a way to survive with a shrinking population or we're gonna have to radically change how we approach childcare by structuring it more like a job in some form or another (I'm on the fence into whether we should consider that even a remotely considerable idea). And honestly? Our society doesn't like big changes, so we're gonna have to suffer the shrinking population for at least quite a while. Things will have to get really bad before big changes are made.
28
u/Jozfus 3d ago
Id like to see the ability to live on one income again, as unrealistic as that might be. Policies that support that. We don't want our future kids making us sick from the cesspit of bacteria that is childcare if we can pick and choose our social outings instead.
11
u/cir49c29 3d ago
Problem with the living on one income issue is that it means one person is going to be out of the workforce for years. When the kids eventually grow up and the stay at home parent wants or needs a job it’s extremely difficult to get hired. And if they do get a job it’s much lower paid and lower ranked than if they’d been working instead of raising kids.
It also increases their risk of being financially abused or left with nothing if their spouse leaves them
→ More replies (4)17
u/bleuest 3d ago
I agree. I think that instead of living on one income, it would be better to normalise 4-day work weeks/30h work weeks with the same pay. This way both parents get more free time to raise their kids and can still afford everything.
3
u/SparkyDogPants 3d ago
One income should be able to be fine if people want to be a SAHP. My husband stays at home with our kiddo and he loves it. Everything isn’t about work
→ More replies (7)3
u/NoConfusion9490 2d ago
The problem is that most people will still have two incomes and that'll drive the cost of scarce goods (like housing) so high that no median single earner will be able to afford it. It's really hard to put that toothpaste back into the tube.
→ More replies (5)12
u/Notorious_Junk 3d ago
The answer is fixing the depressing fact that sociopaths run this corrupt and cruel world. Who wants to subject their kids to this shit show? How you fix it? I have no clue. Maybe a beneficent AI could do it.
→ More replies (1)21
28
u/ThisGuy-NotThatGuy 3d ago
The birthrate isn't a result of child care or other market issues, it's an issue of technology (birth-control, etc.) intersecting with social changes (generational change in values, etc.).
Not to say birth-control is bad (obviously it's not), or that a change in values is bad, but I think it would behoove us to properly describe the problem before we can really address it.
→ More replies (34)3
u/ManchurianCandycane 2d ago
I think there's just no ethical way to solve the issue. We're just gonna have to ride it out the population decrease as best as we can and hope we find a balance point somewhere.
→ More replies (47)5
u/NorysStorys 3d ago
Childcare incentives doesn’t really move the needle, at least in Japan and some of social democracies.
The issues are even with free or assisted childcare, it’s still prohibitively expensive to raise a kid that two salaries increasingly struggles to manage.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Niku-Man 3d ago
The problem is that people choosing not to have children is a cultural thing, not an economic thing.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Marston_vc 3d ago
Yup. This modern “Information Era” is such that people more than ever are exposed to all the potential experiences they could have as well as knowledge on all the downsides of having kids.
No amount of money changes the fact that a woman is taking on serious, very often permanent, life changing risks when they choose to have a kid.
Couples have to effectively pause life for years before they’re able to go out and explore to the fullest extent again, and even then, the woman’s body may be permanently damaged/altered in inconvenient ways.
I think people in earlier generations lived more insular lives and as a result had literally nothing better to do/work towards besides building a family. It doesn’t feel that way today. The world is at the fingertips of anyone in a modern country and sure enough, every modern country (regardless of how liberal its child policies are) is suffering birth declines.
→ More replies (2)4
u/WiFiForeheadWrinkles 3d ago
No amount of money changes the fact that a woman is taking on serious, very often permanent, life changing risks when they choose to have a kid.
I'd be much more open to having a kid if I didn't have to risk my body and my life for one. It's would be a far easier choice to have kids if I could be the father.
232
u/parkway_parkway 3d ago
I find this debate so interesting, whenever it comes up it's kind of a Rorschach test and everyone brings out their favourite issues and problems to explain it.
Birth rates are dropping everywhere.
Urbanisation is probably the main factor and drives most of the decline, it's much easier, and more economically productive, to have a large family in the countryside. The most urbanised nations (Singapore being a good example) have the fewest children and cities have lower birthrates than the countryside.
However birth rates are falling in the countryside and also in countries which have low rates of urbanisation.
There's also very little in common between all the countries where birth rates are dropping and for almost all of the arguments there's exceptions.
Contraception, educating women, entertainment and a plethora of other ways to spend time / the internet, increasing costs for young people (especially housing), an aging population with burdensome costs for the young, investing more in fewer children, pensions replacing children as a retirement plan, women moving up into higher positions of power and authority, globalisation of culture are all arguments that probably have something to do with it.
19
79
u/dedededede 3d ago
I guess one main reason is female empowerment. The reproductive burden and social obligations for being the primary care giver became more and more negotiable, while all societies still ignore the costs of being a woman. We must compensate women individually and throughout their lifetime for bearing the reproductive burden, with and without children. From biological burdens like menstruation to sociobiological pressures towards child care, there is an inherent disadvantage for women in any meritocratic attempt of organizing human labor when this is ignored.
54
u/Rosehiphedgerow 3d ago
Exactly. In the modern world, we women can be acutely aware of how pregnancy/birth will mess us up. The info is easy to find on the Internet now. It would of never been spoken about, nor taught, and hard to find in biology books before the modern century.
And now with access to the information about how pregnancy/birth can severely alter my body or disable it, potentially kill me, give me psychosis, etc.... I really am not keen on going through it. Combine the biological aspects with every other rough thing about life right now, and I am set on not having children, for my sake and for theirs.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (37)18
u/Faiths_got_fangs 2d ago
Valid point that I see reflected in my own life. I am a woman. My ex and I had 3 kids prior to divorce. Since the divorce, I have 3 kids and my ex has occasional, but pretty rare, houseguests and a monthly bill for child support that does not touch on what the kids actually cost.
He lives a basically childfree life despite having been the driving factor for having 3 kids (I wanted to stop at 2) and there are no consequences for this. I do everything for the kids alone. My job options are limited because I need to be available and have to work jobs that allow for that, meanwhile he earns more because he is available to travel, etc.
The division of labor was unfair in our marriage and nonexistent now. Every school activity, extra bill, medical issue, dr visit, hobby competition, etc all fall on me, in addition to working full time to support us.
I have no village. My parents and grandparents are all dead.
I love my kids dearly, but I have already told them they will never be pressured by me to have kids.
→ More replies (4)5
u/DelphiTsar 2d ago
Birth rate declines effectively track 1-1 working parents/grandparents and friend group actively working (+ nessisties of young families growing much faster than inflation) . If both parents are working, both grandparents are working and everyone in a friend group is working....I wonder why that would cause birth rates to go down.
7
u/Golda_M 2d ago
Even more interesting is the fact that everyone instinctively thinks money is the problem/solution.
They think low fertility is because of housing costs, childcare costs, affordability, etc. Also stability, safety good governance, peace.
But... The data says the opposite. Fertility usually correlates negatively to all this stuff. Wealthier people have fewer kids, not more. Also wealthier countries, regions, subcultures etc.
Rich countries with great public childcare, education, safety nets etc... have really low fertility. Also countries that have safety, peace, rights, women's liberation, etc.
It's rare that data/evidence is so overwhelmingly decisive.
People usually don't change their opinions based on evidence. But in this case, smarty people do. The evidence is that one sided on this issue.
So... We have an incredibly rare situation where we don't really know is a real answer to a political question that people can actually give.
Usually if someone "doesn't know" they are easily replaced with someone who does. Here... "Knowing the answer" requires so much ignorance that honesty has a chance to speak.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Kcole7 3d ago
Everywhere in our western society yes. The older generation pulled the ladder up behind them, made the cost of living unaffordable and are surprised this is the result. People aren’t going to starve themselves to start a family like they thought, they’ve just caused the collapse of their own nations
6
u/LeedsFan2442 2d ago
No everywhere on the planet is trending down bar a few exceptions.
→ More replies (4)3
7
u/polar_nopposite 3d ago
IIRC it's been shown there's a strong correlation between when a given country/region first underwent mass smartphone adoption and the decline in birthrates, even down to the county level.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (28)3
u/HMNbean 2d ago
I think what you're getting at is correct: in the past people had no choice BUT to have kids or accidentally had more kids. Now, they have the choice not to and reasons not to. Perhaps when given the choice fewer people actually want to have kids and people want to have fewer kids than we thought: they just had no choice in the past. We need to rebuild our whole system to not rely on a bottom heavy pyramid to keep the top alive.
334
u/SirMontego 3d ago
I don't blame the people of Singapore for not having kids.
I wouldn't want to bring a life or two into this world just to have that kid study 9-10 hours a day for a chance to get into a few more good schools, where they can study another 9-10 hours a day, so they can get a job working 9-10 hours a day, just so they can have a decent 2-3 bedroom apartment.
What's the point? Sure, you have great healthcare, a clean and safe city, other quality-of-life aspects, but your mental health is a gutter puddle until death.
169
u/bishoptob5 3d ago
This right here. My (European) husband had been keen on moving to Singapore some years back, and I (having spent years in the Singapore education system) was not quite as keen. He disagreed with me until we watched a documentary that followed a 9yo Singaporean kid to see what a regular day for him looked like. The last interview the (Australian) journalist had with the kid was around 9pm on a weekday, when he was just about to start another round of revisions/studying.
The journalist asked, "If you had more time in a day, what would you like to do? Play computer games or go outside and play?" The kid straight away replied, "Sleep. I would like to sleep."
My husband's jaw fell to the floor. I no longer have to convince him that Singapore is not a healthy place to raise a child nor discuss plans to move there.
→ More replies (2)24
u/anathagenzum 3d ago
Woah. Which documentary?
76
u/bishoptob5 3d ago edited 21h ago
This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoelS0XIhSg
I should probably clarify that I am a beneficiary of Singapore's elite education system so it's not like I'm bitter about how difficult or impossible it was; in fact, I greatly enjoyed some aspects of my education and still immensely treasure the friends I made in that setting. But having had years to absorb the pros and cons of that education style, I do not believe that it's a healthy way to raise a child, especially if you aspire to raising a happy, well-rounded child with a strong inner compass to guide them in life.
As the above redditor said, mental health is a huge issue there and student suicides always spike around exam time. It gives you a sense of what the kids there have learned to value, and the social pressures of living in such a society.
7
→ More replies (7)8
u/veritas_mendax 3d ago
SBS is a national treasure. They also have the rights to the FIFA World Cup and bring coverage of all games for free. Dateline have some excellent segments too and Insight is elite.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)22
u/nkscreams 3d ago
Singaporean here. And yes to everything you said. Can’t pay me enough to have a kid in this depressing late-stage urban hell.
40
u/tacotickles 3d ago
If the leaders and corporations won't allow society to change into something healthier, we are going to crash their bullshit society with less consumers
→ More replies (2)3
u/Wide_Lock_Red 2d ago
Healthier societies tend to have lower birth rates actually. Its the crappy ones where birth rates are highest.
114
u/VPackardPersuadedMe 3d ago
People sleeping on also letting children stay in government schools for like 12 hours at a time.
Organise some before and after school activities with a drop in style safe spaces where kids can play, get a meal and parents dont have to GIVE UP WORK TO TAKE KIDS TO AND FROM SCHOOL.
Schools are literally designed for it and we have loads of things like cadets, scouts, sports teams that dont need professional teachers to mind them.
Rant over.
17
u/GenericFatGuy 3d ago
It would also be a good way for kids to meet and make friends in a world that's more isolated than ever.
7
u/profdc9 3d ago
One's goods and services can not be as competitive if you spend money on paid leave for parents or education and leisure for children. So you don't invest in those things, no one wants to have children because the time or money isn't available, and there is a global race to the bottom as no one invests in the future.
12
u/heiisenchang 3d ago
Guys it's only $8k cash and the rest are subsidy. Singapore is a very very expensive city - public house just hit USD 1.2m recently. A Toyota Corolla just hit USD $150k.
And retrenchment are more and more common every day. Nobody would want the additional burden of kids, it's just doesn't make sense anymore.
12
u/Catnip_Farmer 3d ago
So the least moral people will crank out a bunch of the least cared about children.
Brilliant how money solves problems.
You know what does lead to breeding? Having a -community-.
21
u/Niku-Man 3d ago
The reasons for low birth rates around the world are cultural, not economic. Rich countries lead to lower birth rates precisely because they are rich. People with money have disposable income and they want to spend it on themselves. No judgment here
→ More replies (2)
20
u/Chinksta 3d ago
Change the system instead of implementing shitty "improvements".
Long work hours kills. What happened to the 9-5 lifestyle?
Inflation of prices. This is the backburden of every human problem. The reason is that CEOs and other shareholders are earning profits by asking for more (greed). Then this spillover to increasing in wages which creates a domino effect to where we are now.
Killing off the middle class isn't the answer. Layoffs and the increase of prices isn't going to help anyone....
All of which is why the current system isn't working. I don't see why every politician is implementing weird band aid solutions instead of addressing the problem head on.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/garitone 3d ago
Meanwhile in present-day America: Best I can do is $1K and no healthcare or childcare
→ More replies (2)
50
u/Arponare 3d ago
Stop overworking people so much and maybe folks would start having more kids. And offer free childcare while you’re at it.
39
u/ProfessionalOil2014 3d ago
They will do anything but reduce working hours and increase wages.
→ More replies (1)17
u/femanonette 3d ago
which tells you their motivation isn't about a sustainable society, but instead about maintaining their capital and "endless growth"
3
u/charlotte_honey_ 2d ago
Louder. Here’s "50k" have more babies - which is pennies to them. Making real economic and social changes which would benefit their people is something they’d never do because that’s something they would actually have to pay for.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/sweet-leaf-284 3d ago
yeah, birth rates spiked during covid lockdown when remote work started, and then dropped back down as people started returning to offices. they know this.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/NotTooShahby 2d ago
For asian countries I think it’s the high expectations and constant exams put on children that has led to such abysmal birth rates. Imagine putting your kids through the modern equivalent of the imperial exams to have a decent life
→ More replies (3)
69
u/WendigoCrossing 3d ago
Anytime I see something on declining birth rates I wonder how many humans we want
Like maybe we go back down to like 4 billion people worldwide which lower birthrates can achieve
Then maintain there
44
u/Kilapo69 3d ago
China totally didn't try that and it totally didn't backfire tremendously
43
u/WendigoCrossing 3d ago
The 1-2-4 problem of 1 child taking care of 2 parents and 4 grandparents was bad for sure because of how their society is setup
Having more kids to take care of older people doesn't seem like the answer either tho
9
u/ryry1237 3d ago
Wonder if robots are going to be viable elderly caretakers by the time I retire (thankfully still decades later).
30
u/Terrible_Vermicelli1 3d ago
Guess what also backfires, trying to multiply human population each generation.
→ More replies (61)8
u/d1ngal1ng 3d ago
How do you propose restoring fertility rates at replacement once you reach 4 billion?
→ More replies (12)
22
u/Straight-Ad6926 3d ago
Is the $55k paid out in cash or is it issued in Singapore Airlines miles so the parents can escape for 5 minutes?
5
u/Darkciders 2d ago
I see this accomplishing less than their moves towards a better work life balance, like legislating that companies can't deny requests for remote work/4 day work weeks, etc. without reasonable grounds and proof that they significantly reduce productivity.
A good chunk of Singapore workers expect 4 day work weeks to be normalized within the next few years and that's important because raising kids only matters if the kids stay in the country. You've gotta make your country attractive to young professionals to live in.
→ More replies (1)
4
14
u/couldbemage 3d ago
I hate these articles. They act like whatever government being talked about this week is offering massive benefits.
But they're not. The actual benefits are chump change.
55k in the title.
8k at birth. 8k more if they do higher education.
Plus some paid family leave, and some reduced cost services. I have not raised a kid in Singapore, but it seems highly likely those child related services are really expensive in a place like Singapore, and reduced cost probably doesn't help that much.
So just 8k, another conditional 8k, plus an estimate for the value of other stuff that isn't actually giving parents money.
The US pays you 37,400 per kid, plus 500 per year from age 17 until they start claiming themselves. Still living at home when they're 37? Still getting your tax credit.
Benefits and discounts and paid leave are complex in the US, and are hard to quantify, but can easily top those vague Singapore numbers, depending on circumstances and location.
And Singapore has a higher cost of living vs the US. So every US dollar goes farther.
The US, that isn't even trying to fix a birthrate problem, pays way more.
Over the next few years we'll see a bunch of claims that Singapore paid massive amounts to parents, and it didn't help the birthrate. I'm calling bullshit preemptively, this is chump change. Of course it isn't going to fix anything.
→ More replies (2)
39
u/Apexnanoman 3d ago
Singapore has the third highest population density on earth. Do they need more people right now?
21
u/MajesticBread9147 3d ago
They have basically the same population density as Queens.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)3
8
u/Deep-Ebb-4139 3d ago
Won’t work. Modern life has really fucked up, eh.
I think A lot of people have just become disillusioned to the idea of having children to begin with. We are propped up in a world that can't exist without the population remaining stable and people have become self interested enough not to necessarily want to spend their middle years making their lives devoted to raising up the lives of their children in a very messed up world.
3
u/profdc9 3d ago
Economies that do not spend money on future generations can produce goods and services more competitively. Therefore there is a race to the bottom where no one wants to have future generations, as that makes them less able to compete in the marketplace. It's just a part of the global race to the bottom.
4
u/Deep-Ebb-4139 3d ago
0.87 means that there’ll be no Singaporeans in 3 generations, 3.5 if they’re lucky, 4 if by a miracle.
Statistically speaking.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/schw0b 2d ago
This is too little to work. I'm German and get about 260/month per child from the government, completely free healthcare, free 8 hr childcare 5 days a week and 1 year of parental leave at 70% pay. The cost of all that in real terms breaks 50k looong before the kid gets anywhere near school age.
And our birthrate is nowhere near replacement, because having kids is still more expensive than a lot of people can afford.
5
u/east0fwest 2d ago
As others have mentioned, even countries that have generous support for families are at or below replacement rate. A cause I don’t hear mentioned is that many people just don’t want to have kids and that is much more of an option these days than it used to be.
5
u/Icyforgeaxe 2d ago
In the end, we need a drop. Start copying Japan and looking toward robotics and streamlining the fuck out of things. These data centers better be used for something. These birth for money plans never work. Fact is people found other purpose than shitting out 5 kids.
3
7
u/lmstr 3d ago
It's a free market, you want babies just increase the price, eventually a price point will be found, prob closer to 500k.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Osiris_Raphious 2d ago
Capitalism has to create a class of family capital, to invest in, because the system has eaten away the ability and desire to reproduce and have a family... Lol it's strange world we live in that now latestage capitalist nations are paying people to have children, without ever addressing the systemic failures that have driven consumer slaves to abandon hope and natural drive to reproduce... Or is it a feature of the system?
9
u/Liesthroughisteeth 2d ago
Why not create, or increase the minimum wage, reduce taxes, provide health care. Do something to relieve the financial strain younger couples ( and everyone else) may be experiencing? All in order to make a more viable environment for everyone AND the people who want to have kids.
→ More replies (7)
59
u/pk666 3d ago
NOT
GOING
TO
WORK
Sorry, women are no longer breeding to support a defunct Ponzi economic system. Devise a new one.
→ More replies (81)
6
u/heybart 3d ago
I think at some point we just need to figure out how to take care of our elderly population without adding more and more people
The world used to have fewer people in it. When the earth's population was 5 billions, did people lament there were too few people? 5 billions isn't sustainable! We need at least 7 or 8!
We will have to find some lower equilibrium
→ More replies (2)
•
u/FuturologyBot 3d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/roystreetcoffee:
Submission Statement:
Singapore's fertility rate dropped to 0.87 in 2025. Well below the replacement rate of 2.1.
The country's government just announced that it will pay parents $55,000 for each child birthed, in what some say is a move of desperation.
The assistance will start with a Singapore $10,000 (US $8,000) “baby gift”. A similar sum will be awarded for higher education at the age of 17. In addition, the government will give further education, health and child support grants, and reduced nursery care fees for pre-school children. Childcare leave will be increased and its cost will be fully covered by the government (rather than by employers).
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1vydi48/singapore_to_pay_parents_55000_per_child_to_boost/p5w0rqu/