I always thought a low birth rate was a net-good: Something all countries are striving for. Like when your country drops below 2 births per woman, it has "made it" into the ranks of Developed Countries. Lower birth rate means fewer bodies to feed and a smaller environmental footprint. Sure, I guess it also means you have less "cannon fodder" both economically and militarily, but net net low birth rate countries are better off than high birth rate countries.
without placing a value judgement on the outcomes, this assertion is only true if the population decreases overall, which doesn't happen in the countries with permissive immigration policies. other countries with low birth rates and strict immigration policies have different problems, like declining property values, difficulty paying for pension/retirement obligations, shrinking gdp (even if gdp per capita is increasing), etc.
Only if you're willing to starve the elderly.
Consequently, future generations will always be paying for present day late life social support.
Because of this, negative population growth requires higher and higher present day tax burdens to continue paying equivalent benefits.
And population economics are not something you can paper over, because they're by definition on the order of your entire country's economic output.
Now that some countries actually have shrinking populations, everybody switched from panicking about overpopulation to panicking about having not enough working population to support too many elderly people. Immigration is the popular way out, but somehow I'd expect this shouldn't have been such a big problem in the first place. A couple of decades ago, women barely worked (paid, that is; they were probably overrepresented in unpaid elderly care).
I don't think a shrinking population should be this big a problem for a country. Sure, it probably requires some economic choices, just like everything does. But especially for densely populated countries dealing with housing shortages, a lower birth rate shouldn't have to be a bad thing.
An example of policy would be explicit subsidy of child support. Culture might be preferring to live in villages rather than cities. Economic structure might be lower housing costs for child-bearing families. More of France's immigrants may have been female, whereas Germany got mainly male immigrants/Gastarbeiters, etc.
France's total fertility rate fell below replacement around 1980 and it is still below replacement.[1] So if policy makes a difference, France is not trying hard enough.
1. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/...
Our three kids are gonna cost us at least half a million dollars by the time they're all 18, between lost income, daycare costs, higher housing costs (not just a bigger house to maintain a similar comfort level, but also one in a much more expensive area than we might otherwise live in, since we have to care about school quality—an uncomfortably small house in a good school district still costs more than a huge house in a merely so-so district, let alone an actually-bad district, in our city), healthcare costs, transportation costs, plus all the smaller stuff like clothes, food, et c. And e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g optional is also far more expensive, like vacations.
And that's if we don't chip in for their post-secondary education or, like, give them a few grand to get their feet under them when they leave. Or buy them cars or any of that (we're not there yet, thank god). It could easily end up being closer to a million than a half-million, without even going nuts.
The tax credits don't even come close to covering it. Worse, because many of those expenses are front-loaded and so hit in our relatively-young years, the opportunity cost of that money ends up being enormous. The shadow cast on our future savings is way bigger than what we spend on them directly. We'd be retiring by 50, 55 at the latest if not for having kids, and also be able to spend more freely. As it is IDK if we're gonna be able to retire until we just can't work anymore.
Kids are basically financial suicide unless you're crazy-rich. Like they're great and all but god damn do I understand why people choose not to have them, even if they like the idea of having kids.
Or if you're very poor, then the more kids you have, the more you receive in benefits. Many poor people manage to have more kids than middle class people.
The middle class parent thinks "if I have another kid how will I pay for their college?" The poor parent just sends their kids to community college or if they're amazingly brilliant and get into Harvard, then they'll get a free full ride because they're poor.
But, the result of all this psychology and zero-sum competition (as housing/schools are) is that kids tend to eat all available income up to a point—and, indeed, if you cross a certain income threshold and can afford top-tier private school, there's another entire tier of potential and hard-to-convince-yourself-not-to-do spending above that.
A lot of developed countries have done a lot of things about it. A long time ago. It's mostly just the US that doesn't really seem to care about families, as far as I can tell. It's one of only 3 countries in the world that doesn't even guarantee paid maternity leave.
You know what says "This country values parents who choose to have children?" Actual replacement of lost income potential and career progression.
Yes, in the US there are tax credits, SNAP, etc. None of these even come close to replacing the life income changes.
If we were serious about it, we'd have something approaching equivalent income replacement, GI Bill-style college funding, and child care cost support in every state*.
Having children should be an income neutral choice, not a burden.
* Side note: On all of these programs, I'd be in favor of supply-side support, rather than demand side reimbursement, given how inflationary reimbursement has been in the education market.