We have the same trend in Hong Kong, where it was estimated in 2014 to cost $700,000 (USD) to raise a kid [1].
I've several married friends (all Hong Kong locals) chose to have pets over kids, and that's also my preference - except I don't want to have pets either.
By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily [2]. That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually.
> By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily [2]. That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually.
There are over 7 million people in Hong Kong. I think it's going to take a while for Mainland Chinese to swamp out "original" Hong Kongers at that rate...
Same in Finland, and from what I've heard, in most of the developed world. Many young people simply don't want to get kids, and there's probably a demographic crisis looming over the horizon. Migration will probably be used to keep increasing the population initially, but at some point we will run out of immigrants.
The way I see it, there are two ways out:
1) We accept that the population cannot keep growing forever, and prepare ourselves for a society where older people are going to be increasingly common.
2) We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations.
There is, of course, the idea of vat-grown children, but that seems somewhat far-fetched.
I'm used to people worrying about overpopulation and too much immigration. The opposite is rather refreshing.
A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the point of our increased productivity?
But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population; the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.
We coerce, or force young people start breeding.
I don't really know how that could be done
without massive human rights violations.
At least in my country, there are certainly non-coercive options that could make having children more attractive.
For example, house prices are extremely high in areas with good employment prospects. In London there are literally people in their late 20s and early 30s who can't even afford to rent a flat to themselves. Let alone buy a property with a spare bedroom.
Interventions like lowering house prices in high-demand areas would allow younger couples to start having children with no human rights violations needed.
For 2) a country could implement economic incentives in the form of a graduated tax penalty for each 'missing' child under the country's replacement rate, and a tax credit for each registered dependent counting towards the rate with the taxes from the former supporting a program to fund childcare, fertility treatments, a parental stipend, etc.
I think this ought to be the default. If you don't have children, consider not having any children. If you do have children, consider not having any more. Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children.
No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. Humans pollute a lot. Also for the 99%, it doesn't so much matter if the world GDP continues to skyrocket. As long as we can keep productivity going up (no idea how), the 99% should be ok.
No, I'm not talking about a ban on having children or a lottery system or a qualification/licensing (at least not yet). If voluntary restraint works (and so far it looks like it), there won't be any need for coercive action.
> Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children.
What's good for the macro is not good for the micro. For communities, we need a strong work force that enjoys entertainment, that takes care of their elders, and raises the next generation to do the same.
If you bring macro policy to the micro, you end up with desolation, a shrinking economy, decreasing home values, and nobody to do anything.
Getting people who are willing and able to act in the long term best interest of the community to avoid propagating their genetics might have some downsides...
Hardly an Asian only thing. When I lived in Vancouver, I was frequently noticing that some people were spending more money and affection on their pets than on their own children.
Seeing that made me rather uncomfortable, and contributed to my doubt of the West.
Isn't that out of pure convenience? It's just convenient not to have kids and adapt your lifestyle, because entire economy is parasitic on people having kids. Families with kids have to spend a lot more than those without (cost to parent), kids become workers and tax payers (benefit to economy). I know that in some countries there are measures to counter this imbalance, but they are a rarity.
This seems to happen in developed countries where having kids is no longer necessary to ensure one's own well-being after retirement. It might also have something to do with common lack of self-appreciation, when proud parents see their children as better versions of themselves and other people don't want any...
I agree. Our generation must begin to question how a world has been created where increasingly the cost benefit analysis favours not having children. I acknowledge there’s more to it than the financial case, but the whole set of reasons needs to be factored in.
Plus the world is going to shit. How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then?
(n.b. Of course I hope I’m wrong, and I’m doing what I can to make sure I am, buti it is a truly monstrous challenge.)
> How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then?
How do you justify your own existence if you "know" the earth eventually won't be habitable. I have the answer for you: you hope. There's plenty of that left, it's what keeps us all going.
My personal way to deal with the question is that I decided that my kids deserve their own chance to try to survive and make a living.
Also, when I was a kid I believed I would die within 20 years because of some natural disaster (hole in the ozone layer, nuclear war where the fears of the day). People at all times seem to believe that the end of the world is just around the corner.
I know, I know - this time it is for real...
Ultimately, we all die no matter what we do, so why do anything at all?
Perhaps it's the other way round and the world is going to shit because so many people don't have kids and don't care what happens in the future... Giving voters with kids additional votes for every child might be worth considering.
>Plus the world is going to shit. How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then?
People had kids all through the worse times -- not just accidentally as some implied here, they actively wanted and had kids.
The "climate change" etc excuses are just excuses (the same could have been said in the 10s after the Spanish flu toll, in the 30s about the unstable world politics, in the 50s to 80s about the possible "nuclear holocaust", and so on).
Or does somebody believe the billions having kids today are "bad people" and they're some kind of enlightened figure?
Yes, this is one of many reasons I won't be having children. Couldn't live with myself knowing that they're going to have a worse life than I've had. Reproducing is also the worst possible thing you could do given our current situation anyway so I won't be part of it. I feel better knowing that even if I am living an unsustainable life (which I certainly am despite being very frugal) at least it ends with me.
[+] [-] andyonthewings|7 years ago|reply
I've several married friends (all Hong Kong locals) chose to have pets over kids, and that's also my preference - except I don't want to have pets either.
By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily [2]. That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually.
[1]: https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/04/want-to-raise...
[2]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/15/41000-one-way-permit-h...
[+] [-] captainmuon|7 years ago|reply
There are over 7 million people in Hong Kong. I think it's going to take a while for Mainland Chinese to swamp out "original" Hong Kongers at that rate...
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angled|7 years ago|reply
https://www.esf.edu.hk/school-fees/ - and it only goes up from there for the international schools.
[+] [-] tootie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahje|7 years ago|reply
The way I see it, there are two ways out:
1) We accept that the population cannot keep growing forever, and prepare ourselves for a society where older people are going to be increasingly common.
2) We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations.
There is, of course, the idea of vat-grown children, but that seems somewhat far-fetched.
[+] [-] mcv|7 years ago|reply
A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the point of our increased productivity?
But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population; the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.
[+] [-] michaelt|7 years ago|reply
For example, house prices are extremely high in areas with good employment prospects. In London there are literally people in their late 20s and early 30s who can't even afford to rent a flat to themselves. Let alone buy a property with a spare bedroom.
Interventions like lowering house prices in high-demand areas would allow younger couples to start having children with no human rights violations needed.
[+] [-] userulluipeste|7 years ago|reply
3) Reverse the changes that led to the arrest of the population growth.
[+] [-] deogeo|7 years ago|reply
We won't. Preachy, US-centered source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
[+] [-] romeoEtJoliet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcny|7 years ago|reply
No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. Humans pollute a lot. Also for the 99%, it doesn't so much matter if the world GDP continues to skyrocket. As long as we can keep productivity going up (no idea how), the 99% should be ok.
No, I'm not talking about a ban on having children or a lottery system or a qualification/licensing (at least not yet). If voluntary restraint works (and so far it looks like it), there won't be any need for coercive action.
[+] [-] smileysteve|7 years ago|reply
What's good for the macro is not good for the micro. For communities, we need a strong work force that enjoys entertainment, that takes care of their elders, and raises the next generation to do the same.
If you bring macro policy to the micro, you end up with desolation, a shrinking economy, decreasing home values, and nobody to do anything.
[+] [-] vibrato|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|7 years ago|reply
Seeing that made me rather uncomfortable, and contributed to my doubt of the West.
[+] [-] polskibus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyjones|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geowwy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markdown|7 years ago|reply
Developed countries.
[+] [-] analognoise|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GreeniFi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|7 years ago|reply
(n.b. Of course I hope I’m wrong, and I’m doing what I can to make sure I am, buti it is a truly monstrous challenge.)
[+] [-] fipple|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speedplane|7 years ago|reply
How do you justify your own existence if you "know" the earth eventually won't be habitable. I have the answer for you: you hope. There's plenty of that left, it's what keeps us all going.
[+] [-] fhhhhfhfgggggg|7 years ago|reply
Also, when I was a kid I believed I would die within 20 years because of some natural disaster (hole in the ozone layer, nuclear war where the fears of the day). People at all times seem to believe that the end of the world is just around the corner.
I know, I know - this time it is for real...
Ultimately, we all die no matter what we do, so why do anything at all?
[+] [-] flexie|7 years ago|reply
That is true in South Korea as well.
[+] [-] lazyjones|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|7 years ago|reply
People had kids all through the worse times -- not just accidentally as some implied here, they actively wanted and had kids.
The "climate change" etc excuses are just excuses (the same could have been said in the 10s after the Spanish flu toll, in the 30s about the unstable world politics, in the 50s to 80s about the possible "nuclear holocaust", and so on).
Or does somebody believe the billions having kids today are "bad people" and they're some kind of enlightened figure?
[+] [-] black-tea|7 years ago|reply