This is not a position paper. This paper is a finding of fact.

Demanding that they must advocate something is an anathema to proper science.

And, saying that "pointing out the problem is the easy part" indicates to me you're not in the sciences. It's laughable, even.

so let's be more constructive and explore possible solutions to this problem as well, and not just argue about the problem itself.

i do agree that the political landscape in the US makes addressing this problem difficult. the only option i see is to develop grassroots support for this issue by changing peoples opinions on the need to support parenting and having children.

No one needs to take responsibility anymore, live life to the full, have sex with 200 people, take drugs and experiment, and eventually at 40 try and have a child with IVF because at that point that’s your only shot. If you don’t like who you had it with after 5 years, just leave them, it’s fine. Oh and then pass off your children’s moral social education to bad schools.

That’s also not a good plan. Neither is the one you talked about, but society definitely needs to find a golden middle ground, because something is really bad right now. The progressive liberal path really doesn’t work in the long run.

A more equitable solution than socialized childcare that recognizes that homemaker is a valuable job that lots of women (50% of those with children) would prefer to do would be to increase the refundable child tax credit. Then you could use that money for hired childcare or to "hire yourself" as a caretaker according to your preference (obviously men could also be the homemaker if that's what the couple wants).

People in general like the addition economic freedom from making more money. Even starting at WWII women started working in huge numbers in the US and that number has increased ever since. The sending the money back in tax credits barely works in a single income house because the otherside in the massive increase of available workers in the US is the massive inflation of assets. When one person works solely to afford a house, the other person can't take a break to have a child. Now add in the out of control costs of healthcare tied to your job no one in the younger generation is going to want to have a child.

> Despite efforts to promote gender equality in occupations and professions, many women still choose to stay at home or work part-time. In the United States, for example, a 2015 Gallup survey found that more than half of women with children under age 18 would prefer to stay at home over working outside the home. Also, nearly 40 percent of women without children under age 18 indicated that they preferred the homemaker role.

Let the phrasing sink in. Despite efforts, women still prefer that role. It's quite clear from context that their preference is wrong.

As far as economics goes, people wildly overstate how unachievable it is. Having a stay-at-home parent is not something reserved for the 1%, and in fact many poorer people do it for economic reasons. People have been taught not to want it, so they don't try to figure out how to make it work.

[0] https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/more-women-stay-...

That said, women are still almost 2x likely to prefer homemaking[1] even with the social engineering, and I suspect women's preferences are stronger than men's (e.g. I think it would be nice to be a SAHD, and I'd prefer it over outside work, but we probably wouldn't be together if my wife weren't the SAHM). So as a man you have to be prepared to accept that that's how the world is. Someone has to bring in money, and it'll probably be you.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer...

i think breastfeeding is still a significant factor for the first year at least. working while breastfeeding can be a challenge.

It isn't a valuable job, economically speaking. It's an anachronism and essentially a luxury for couples where one parent makes enough to support the entire household. Not only this, but it essentially puts all of the pressure on the working parent to economically hold up the household

The cases where it economically makes sense are practically nonexistent in 2023

Honestly I don't know how you could even make an economic statement about it that doesn't boil down to a tautology unless you're also willing to say e.g. teachers aren't an economically valuable job.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...

If that is not possible, then the solution is not to have children, which is a 100% fair choice.

The ones who have no difficulty managing themselves often just opt out entirely.

I've found this attitude in a lot of people. I think it's designed to shut down ideas that they don't like. At least that tends to happen.

Describing a problem builds awareness. It's the first step to a solution. Insisting on a solution is just another way of ignoring a problem.

And everything has problems.

The other option we are seeing now is women in general will greatly reduce or stop having children.

Couple this in with two members of a family required to work to afford housing and healthcare the entire entire traditionalist appeal is going to fall apart due to complete unworkability.

But im afraid pandora's box has been opened and i don't see a way to fix this that doesn't involve alot of people losing rights/individualism (which im opposed too).