This is such a tired phrase. Like if we had socialism or communism or some other -ism it wouldn't matter.

But that's just not true. The issue is math and the fact that prime age working people (25-55ish) are the ones that, for the most part, make stuff. If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.

  If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/japan-m...

/s

The difference is that the couples that do have children, have much fewer children. 2, instead of 4.

We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars.

The USA seems to be doing alright with this, where housing is relatively affordable, and child tax credits and the ability to combine you income with your spouse. (The situation is much more dire in Central/Eastern Europe)

One way to improve this is to increase land value taxes, but offer a credit for each child of the owners under 18 living there. This would give families a formal tax advantage against baby boomers and investors.

Per modern standards. A whole bedroom per child is still today only an amenity that relatively richer people have, especially in desirable areas.

I also wonder how many women chose to have 4 kids. It might have just been an unfortunate byproduct of sex, but now it’s completely controllable. And after seeing what my wife went through in 2 completely normal pregnancies with no complications, you would have to offer me some serious cash if I was a woman to go through that.

I guess it depends how far back you go. Prior to child labor laws, having more children resulted in more family income. They could work on the farm or in factories, etc. In those times, childhood mortality was also high. So you may have had 8 kids but not that many would make it to adulthood.

What is "historically"? Is that in a society of cavemen where most men died before reaching maturity? Is that a polygamous tribal society? Is it ancient Rome where peasants had families and had loads of kids to help with farm work? Are we talking post-renaissance, where vast majority of people had families and contraception was non existent, so basically everyone had kids?

What is a%, 100%? 90%?

Since moving to the EU, when we explain to people how much our child costs, their jaw drops. If the US wants more children, they really need to solve the medical costs problem.

This is half-right, as both 10% and 90% are technically both percentages. The rest is very much [Citation Needed].