Thread by @simonsarris

Ah totally, that explains why its so different in Norw—

https://twitter.com/tanzinavega/status/1389893009874071552

You can't coherently make claims like "we need universal childcare [etc] to boost the fertility rate" if the fertility rate in countries with [manic pixie dream policy] are *also* rock bottom.

Think about the problem for more than 5 seconds I am begging all of you.

I don't think I can succinctly but: IMO the reasons people decide to have children are more spiritual or aesthetic* decisions than financial ones, and that alone should be very clear when comparing birthrates over time (booms, busts) and around the world.

https://twitter.com/ndwignall/status/1390353970497916930

Put another way, people do not need more money to have babies, they need more motivation, and different priorities. Sometimes these can look like money, but confusing the two is a *monumental* mistake if you're trying to craft policy.

A person who is very well off compared to people in (say) the 1600's will consider themselves not very well off. Partly this is because they not only contend with real peers, but the (false) perception of those real peers, plus highly visible top of society, plus advertising, etc

A certain malaise can outwardly look economic, but pressing the economic button will not fix it. That alone should be an extraordinary reason for pause, but nobody's paused.

The questions worth asking are things like:

Why does no one feel they have enough time? Have we complicated life too much for the average person? How?

Why does no one feel they have enough motivation? (Not just for babies, but for lots of other things that come before them.)

Answering them too quickly, again, is a mistake. It's not a flip subject. Your favorite podcast/senator/etc does not have the answer yet. Try to avoid the kneejerk conclusions.