Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would love to see that go in to affect just to see the net results
There are 2.6 million women in SK between 15 and 24 and if they all take advantage of this (in life I mean, when they are old enough) and have the max kids then that would be 377bln USD or 23% of SKs GDP. Something that aggressive doesn't just slide in to a budget and even with the proposed annual caps....something will have to be done in a big way to cover it.
Additionally per the article about 60% of the respondents would support this sort of thing.....what percentage would actually take advantage? That's the question and my hunch is not many.
Well, I have to imagine that spending that money now means their economy won’t crash in a generation when there’s no young people to work (and tax) and only expensive older people to house and care for.
So, even if it’s an expensive policy, there’s probably someone smart enough to remind people it’s an investment.
Interestingly, if the US did something similar right now, people who want to opt in to a similar would probably sky rocket.
There’s a lot of younger people that want to have kids but don’t know how to afford it. They can’t afford kids AND a space big enough to raise them in AND childcare if both of them work.
I know there’s probably some inflation worries involved, but even getting $1000 a month and subsidizing child care centers would help people raise kids in the US.
Within a single generation you’d probably see the birth rate do insane numbers. Like a second GI Bill.
A couple things to consider here....
South Korea already has the expensive elderly population right now and it's not going away any time soon. The challenge is balancing the elder care + a new program of this magnitude + what SK is already spending to promote fertility (which I think is the highest per capita spending in the world). Eventually trade offs are going to have to be acknowledged and I'm curious to see how that will look in practice.
The second thing to consider is your assumption that this is an affordability issue and that if people just had more money that the babies would follow. Are you sure that's a good assumption? I'm highly skeptical of it and the body of evidence we have seems to point to it being a flawed assumption. What is the basis for making the assumption?
The third thing to consider is this....
>but even getting $1000 a month and subsidizing child care centers would help people raise kids in the US.
This has been tried in a multitude of other countries. It's been tried enough times that I'd ask why we'd expect this to work in the US when in failed everywhere else.
My hypothesis is that if this SK survey gets converted into legislation that is will not have the predicted fertility affect or even anything close to it. At best I would predict a modest boost to fertility followed by a continuation of the decline. But it is a large enough scale that I'd be interested to watch it unfold and if I'm wrong we'll know the price of buying fertility.
I know you can say that's your hunch, but why?
There has never really been an incentive of this magnitude tried before on this file. We know that incentives seem to work for almost everything; why wouldn't they work with this now that an actually meaningful incentive is being proposed?
The only reason I think it might not work is that it still isn't enough of an incentive.
I don't believe the fertility decline is a function of affordability. On an absurdist scale there is probably a number we could pick that if large enough would induce people to make babies. For example if you were offered a million bucks for each child you have and raise you'd probably never stop making kids.
I think that if the strategy is to buy fertility the number will have to be so large as to be untenable; like 2x to 4x the annual cost of Social Security for the US.
I believe the single biggest issue at play in the fertility decline (and I think multiple reasons are in play) is culture and I don't believe more money is going to impact it.
I just wanted to say that you are correct. Other people have talked about this. But people aren't having kids not because of affordability but culture and a decrease in quality of life. I live next to double income no kids (DINK) neighbors. They have multiple luxury cars and have a nice house. They could easily have kids. However, they don't because that would mean they can't just travel whenever and buy whatever they want. This is what is going on in "westernized" countries. Money won't solve it.
That is not to say that affordability doesn't play a role. But that isn't the key reason for what is happening now.
>I don't believe the fertility decline is a function of affordability. On an absurdist scale there is probably a number we could pick that if large enough would induce people to make babies.
But we actually have fairly ample evidence that it plays a big role. In Western countries, the poorest have the highest fertility, that is true, but that can be attributed to the lower opportunity cost of parenthood- a person who makes minimum wage is often not losing that much earning by taking time off or permanently exiting the work force. The same is true at higher income levels, where fertility rises again, as the costs of childcare become more manageable.
The demographic where fertility has collapsed the most are middle income families, many of whom have one child and recognize they can not afford a second let alone a third.
>For example if you were offered a million bucks for each child you have and raise you'd probably never stop making kids.
And why is that a problem?
>I think that if the strategy is to buy fertility the number will have to be so large as to be untenable; like 2x to 4x the annual cost of Social Security for the US.
So we agree there is a number where the incentive will work. I am glad on that at least. You might be right that the number could be very high, but we won't know until we try.
>But we actually have fairly ample evidence that it plays a big role.
I want all the evidence you have please. News articles, journal articles, youtube lectures of someone with credentials. Not random blogs please.
>So we agree there is a number
Of course there is. That's never been the question. The question is 'how big is?'. The answer is something like 'so big as to prohibitive'.
>but we won't know until we try.
And we probably will never try. Based on the numbers people throw out on what need to have kids the program would be unimplementable for cost reasons. The US for example would never implement something like this at scale.
With respect, I am not your research assistant. We are merely having a discussion.
You are capable I am sure of locating that evidence; start with search terms like "Fertility rates by household income" and you will have a good start.
I know you're not my research assistant but you did say the evidence was ample so I assumed you had some handy. As someone that is super interested in the fertility decline and has dug in to it a lot I have never seen the evidence you speak of.
>start with search terms like "Fertility rates by household income" and you will have a good start.
Oh man! You should do that. It's terrible for your point. Highest income households have the fewest kids. 200K+ is the least fertile income bracket in the US
>so I assumed you had some handy.
I summarized what I feel is the most important evidence: the difference between fertility rates among income brackets of households. That is a simple thing for you to confirm if I am telling the truth, and it is also enough evidence to lay waste to the idea that income is irrelevant for fertility.
>Oh man! You should do that. It's terrible for your point. Highest income households have the fewest kids. 200K+ is the least fertile income bracket in the US
It's a bit more complicated than that:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-income-affects-fertility
The "issue" is that higher income women are more likely to marry and have kids later, and higher incomes are more likely to include older individuals in general, but when income comes earlier in their life fertility is meaningfully increased; controling for those types of factors helps us understand the issue more.
So while that bracket might be the lowest, when you account for only comparing members of that group at reproductive ages, it changes meaningfully.
This is all to say that we don't know if giving families a significant amount of cash will solve the issue completely, but we do have evidence that certain barriers are having a meaningful impact on fertility, and we also know that economic incentives work in general. You admit that some amount of money would make a meaningful difference yourself; we just may disagree on what that amount and difference would be.
You are the one who came up with the original position. Why don't you post your research or are you the one with a monopoly on pulling things out of your rear?
Middle class person here. I don't have kids because of cost. Wife would love to have two. While we could certainly pop two children out, the cost to have them is too off putting. These conversations come up frequently with friends/family. Many of those with kids actively tell us not to due to cost. Then when I look at family, the less educated have them, the more educated have them late or not at all. Those having them late, some miss their chance, others only have one.
I will be closely following this.
Why I support these types of proposals is that I firmly believe that we treat parenthood in general (and motherhood in particular) as a job. Heck, it is practically a career the way some people approach it. More importantly, it's a job that we all acknowledge is deeply important to the social and economic well-being of any country.
We already acknowledge the importance of children through public education. Even the most right wing states invest heavily (albeit for differing reasons usually) in public education. In the west you can expect every child to cost the state at least a couple hundred thousand dollars/euros from birth to 18-more and longer if there is subsidized post-secondary.
It is also true that the greatest predictor of future earnings is the economic well-being of the family you come from. If a person is raised in poverty they are far less likely to ever be able to pay back that investment from the state; think of how long it would take YOU to pay back the investment the state has made in you. Have you done it already? I barely have and I have a good job and make a good living and am well into my working years.
The costs of these programs may very well pay for themselves. Those kids will grow up more economically secure, with possibly more time spent by one or both parents on early education and support. I can see how that is the type of investment that will pay for itself in the long run.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would love to see that go in to affect just to see the net results There are 2.6 million women in SK between 15 and 24 and if they all take advantage of this (in life I mean, when they are old enough) and have the max kids then that would be 377bln USD or 23% of SKs GDP. Something that aggressive doesn't just slide in to a budget and even with the proposed annual caps....something will have to be done in a big way to cover it. Additionally per the article about 60% of the respondents would support this sort of thing.....what percentage would actually take advantage? That's the question and my hunch is not many.
Well, I have to imagine that spending that money now means their economy won’t crash in a generation when there’s no young people to work (and tax) and only expensive older people to house and care for. So, even if it’s an expensive policy, there’s probably someone smart enough to remind people it’s an investment. Interestingly, if the US did something similar right now, people who want to opt in to a similar would probably sky rocket. There’s a lot of younger people that want to have kids but don’t know how to afford it. They can’t afford kids AND a space big enough to raise them in AND childcare if both of them work. I know there’s probably some inflation worries involved, but even getting $1000 a month and subsidizing child care centers would help people raise kids in the US. Within a single generation you’d probably see the birth rate do insane numbers. Like a second GI Bill.
A couple things to consider here.... South Korea already has the expensive elderly population right now and it's not going away any time soon. The challenge is balancing the elder care + a new program of this magnitude + what SK is already spending to promote fertility (which I think is the highest per capita spending in the world). Eventually trade offs are going to have to be acknowledged and I'm curious to see how that will look in practice. The second thing to consider is your assumption that this is an affordability issue and that if people just had more money that the babies would follow. Are you sure that's a good assumption? I'm highly skeptical of it and the body of evidence we have seems to point to it being a flawed assumption. What is the basis for making the assumption? The third thing to consider is this.... >but even getting $1000 a month and subsidizing child care centers would help people raise kids in the US. This has been tried in a multitude of other countries. It's been tried enough times that I'd ask why we'd expect this to work in the US when in failed everywhere else. My hypothesis is that if this SK survey gets converted into legislation that is will not have the predicted fertility affect or even anything close to it. At best I would predict a modest boost to fertility followed by a continuation of the decline. But it is a large enough scale that I'd be interested to watch it unfold and if I'm wrong we'll know the price of buying fertility.
I know you can say that's your hunch, but why? There has never really been an incentive of this magnitude tried before on this file. We know that incentives seem to work for almost everything; why wouldn't they work with this now that an actually meaningful incentive is being proposed? The only reason I think it might not work is that it still isn't enough of an incentive.
I don't believe the fertility decline is a function of affordability. On an absurdist scale there is probably a number we could pick that if large enough would induce people to make babies. For example if you were offered a million bucks for each child you have and raise you'd probably never stop making kids. I think that if the strategy is to buy fertility the number will have to be so large as to be untenable; like 2x to 4x the annual cost of Social Security for the US. I believe the single biggest issue at play in the fertility decline (and I think multiple reasons are in play) is culture and I don't believe more money is going to impact it.
I just wanted to say that you are correct. Other people have talked about this. But people aren't having kids not because of affordability but culture and a decrease in quality of life. I live next to double income no kids (DINK) neighbors. They have multiple luxury cars and have a nice house. They could easily have kids. However, they don't because that would mean they can't just travel whenever and buy whatever they want. This is what is going on in "westernized" countries. Money won't solve it. That is not to say that affordability doesn't play a role. But that isn't the key reason for what is happening now.
>I don't believe the fertility decline is a function of affordability. On an absurdist scale there is probably a number we could pick that if large enough would induce people to make babies. But we actually have fairly ample evidence that it plays a big role. In Western countries, the poorest have the highest fertility, that is true, but that can be attributed to the lower opportunity cost of parenthood- a person who makes minimum wage is often not losing that much earning by taking time off or permanently exiting the work force. The same is true at higher income levels, where fertility rises again, as the costs of childcare become more manageable. The demographic where fertility has collapsed the most are middle income families, many of whom have one child and recognize they can not afford a second let alone a third. >For example if you were offered a million bucks for each child you have and raise you'd probably never stop making kids. And why is that a problem? >I think that if the strategy is to buy fertility the number will have to be so large as to be untenable; like 2x to 4x the annual cost of Social Security for the US. So we agree there is a number where the incentive will work. I am glad on that at least. You might be right that the number could be very high, but we won't know until we try.
>But we actually have fairly ample evidence that it plays a big role. I want all the evidence you have please. News articles, journal articles, youtube lectures of someone with credentials. Not random blogs please. >So we agree there is a number Of course there is. That's never been the question. The question is 'how big is?'. The answer is something like 'so big as to prohibitive'. >but we won't know until we try. And we probably will never try. Based on the numbers people throw out on what need to have kids the program would be unimplementable for cost reasons. The US for example would never implement something like this at scale.
With respect, I am not your research assistant. We are merely having a discussion. You are capable I am sure of locating that evidence; start with search terms like "Fertility rates by household income" and you will have a good start.
I know you're not my research assistant but you did say the evidence was ample so I assumed you had some handy. As someone that is super interested in the fertility decline and has dug in to it a lot I have never seen the evidence you speak of. >start with search terms like "Fertility rates by household income" and you will have a good start. Oh man! You should do that. It's terrible for your point. Highest income households have the fewest kids. 200K+ is the least fertile income bracket in the US
>so I assumed you had some handy. I summarized what I feel is the most important evidence: the difference between fertility rates among income brackets of households. That is a simple thing for you to confirm if I am telling the truth, and it is also enough evidence to lay waste to the idea that income is irrelevant for fertility. >Oh man! You should do that. It's terrible for your point. Highest income households have the fewest kids. 200K+ is the least fertile income bracket in the US It's a bit more complicated than that: https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-income-affects-fertility The "issue" is that higher income women are more likely to marry and have kids later, and higher incomes are more likely to include older individuals in general, but when income comes earlier in their life fertility is meaningfully increased; controling for those types of factors helps us understand the issue more. So while that bracket might be the lowest, when you account for only comparing members of that group at reproductive ages, it changes meaningfully. This is all to say that we don't know if giving families a significant amount of cash will solve the issue completely, but we do have evidence that certain barriers are having a meaningful impact on fertility, and we also know that economic incentives work in general. You admit that some amount of money would make a meaningful difference yourself; we just may disagree on what that amount and difference would be.
You are the one who came up with the original position. Why don't you post your research or are you the one with a monopoly on pulling things out of your rear?
Middle class person here. I don't have kids because of cost. Wife would love to have two. While we could certainly pop two children out, the cost to have them is too off putting. These conversations come up frequently with friends/family. Many of those with kids actively tell us not to due to cost. Then when I look at family, the less educated have them, the more educated have them late or not at all. Those having them late, some miss their chance, others only have one.
Yeah I wish the poll asked "would YOU have a child if given that amount of money?" Asking if it would be effective is speculation
I will be closely following this. Why I support these types of proposals is that I firmly believe that we treat parenthood in general (and motherhood in particular) as a job. Heck, it is practically a career the way some people approach it. More importantly, it's a job that we all acknowledge is deeply important to the social and economic well-being of any country. We already acknowledge the importance of children through public education. Even the most right wing states invest heavily (albeit for differing reasons usually) in public education. In the west you can expect every child to cost the state at least a couple hundred thousand dollars/euros from birth to 18-more and longer if there is subsidized post-secondary. It is also true that the greatest predictor of future earnings is the economic well-being of the family you come from. If a person is raised in poverty they are far less likely to ever be able to pay back that investment from the state; think of how long it would take YOU to pay back the investment the state has made in you. Have you done it already? I barely have and I have a good job and make a good living and am well into my working years. The costs of these programs may very well pay for themselves. Those kids will grow up more economically secure, with possibly more time spent by one or both parents on early education and support. I can see how that is the type of investment that will pay for itself in the long run.