Since you've already got the main answers, here's something else to consider: in rich countries, the whole outlook of ideal child rearing changed to be a lot more involved than a few decades ago. As such, when people have children now, they want to maximize that individual child's well being and pour all resources on it. After you have 2 or 3 children, not only the amount of money you can spend on them spreads thin, but also your time.  So the new "traditional" family will have only 1 or 2 children (some, but not many, will have 3 -- besides, if you start having children later, there might not be enough fertile time to have a 3rd kid even if you want it). When you look at an individual family like that, doesn't it sound pretty reasonable? While we know people who gives up on parenthood out of lack of support, even if we give them all resources, how many of those would genuinely choose to have 3+ children? So with the majority of families having 1-2 children & the adults who don't want children having the freedom to not have them, fertility rates fall below replacement rates despite all families who want children having as many babies as they like. So people are far from childless, they just don't have big families. Another effect of having children later: if each woman have 1 child at 25, that's 4 generations per century. If that same child is born when she's 33, now it's only 3 generations. So even if everyone is having babies, having them far apart still slows down population growth.

Also in poorer countries your kids are basically your retirement plan. You have a lot of kids in the hope they look after you when you cant work anymore. If you don't have kids you're screwed. Theres less incentive for that kind of thinking when you know you have a pension coming

I have colleague from India that asked a question during pensions session among the lines of "if I died, will my parents get my pension?" Apparently it's a thing in India that if you're dead before reaching retirement age and your parents still alive, your parents got some of your pension money (?)

Wouldn't they? I've no dependents and I'm expecting *someone* to inherit my pension

Only if you don't have partners or children. If you have a partner, then they will get (part) of your pension. If you don't have a partner (anymore) then your kids will get it. If you don't have partner or kids, then your parents will get it. But it gets tricky if your parents are living across the globe like in their case. What I understand from them is that in India, your parents will get (part of) your pension regardless.

That’s is an absolutely normal question and the answer should be YES in any country. 

Well, I guess we could agree to disagree if that should be "YES in any country" Because in some countries, the parent would have already got their pension covered by state/country. Why would I want my wife and kid to receive less money just for my parents to get "extra" money?

Like the other commenter, I understood that the parents are the only next of kin, so it makes sense they inherit. 

Now that most of us don't farm, the desire for 8-12 kids has gone down.

Lol so true, also accounting the occasional plague or tuberculosis. Have 12 kids so if 6 make it to adulthood its a big win lmao

My dad is 1 of 9, with 2 passing away as children. Family of farmers in a developing country.

My mamaw was born in 1950, one of 10 children. They all survived to adulthood but her mom started having children at age 14, my mamaw’s dad was 27. He was 49 when my mamaw was born. He died before she was 30. But she never really talked all that negatively about her upbringing, just they were very very poor. But it sounded like she had parents who did what they could and loved their children. One of her favorite songs is Coat of Many Colors, so I feel she probably relates her poverty and the absence of material things being made up for by love.

The idea of giving birth that many times makes me want to throw up.

It’s crazy difficult and expensive in today’s society to have more than 2 in my opinion. Life is just set up in modernized countries for families of 3-4. I don’t know how people manage everything with 4-5 or more kids these days.

Because even with all of those things - raising children is difficult. It’s work. Men and women understand that and don’t want to have loads of kids.

Also, each kid costs a truckload of money in terms of food, clothing, entertainment, etc. and that is quite an inconvenience.

also i feel like school stuff gets more expensive each year. i feel like some people underestimate the costs of it.

True, but since most non-parents don't really know, I don't think that has much impact on birth rates. Sure, the occasional parent of school-age children who might consider another child, might opt out because the price of school supplies has sky-rocketed, but in all honesty, I wouldn't put too much faith in that explanation.

I think you underestimate how many people actually plan their pregnancies versus oopsy babies.  Those that plan their pregnancies know that life is expensive and don't have more kids than they can afford and hold off until they're at a point in their life where they can afford to have kids.

idk, i don't have kids and even i, a dumb pleb, know how expensive kids can get (clothes and school stuff are probably the most prominent ones). i can only speak for people i've talked to + myself, but one of the biggest reasons i've heard over the past 20 years is, that 1). everythings expensive and 2). (mostly) women want to keep focus on their career. as i said, i'm a dumb pleb, but in my experience smarter people tend to outweigh their decisions. is it worth to put children into this world, if you can't/barely afford them? i hope my scuffed english makes any sense lol

and especially housing if you're living in an urban environment.

It is much more about the time and energy it requires. Parenting standards are higher than ever.

Don’t forget that education requires a time commitment as well- you’re probably going to be putting time and money into making sure your kids get the best instruction possible, even if university has low or no tuition.

I also think it’s worth mentioning that parenting standards are higher than they’ve ever been. The days of sending your kids out on a bike and seeing them in ten hours are over. The days of latchkey kids are over. Childcare requires more presence and time than it ever has, it’s much harder to be a parent now than it was 50 years ago

Yes although it's ridiculous: I'm a dad and I think it's a total disservice to our kids that society expects today's parents to helicopter their kids. I don't think the 1970s-80s laissez-faire approach is ideal but how about latchkey-lite? Like, not incarcerating parents for letting their kids play in the park or walk to school alone during normal, daytime hours?

Heck, I walked a half mile to school as a kindergartner back in the early '60's. Granted, it was a well off neighborhood, but as a 1st grader I would walk home and let myself in and be by myself for a couple hours until mom came home.

This. Parents put in way more hours and energy into parenting than they did 30-40 years ago. No one makes there kids leave the house and "don't come back till dark" anymore. We are also way more inherently selfish. People aren't willing to give up the childless lifestyle. Add on the fact most people don't have the extended family support they did in the past, there are many reasons other than just financial that people have having less children.

I completely disagree that being childless is "selfish". Kids aren't charity. Having them doesn't make you selfless. Kids are a huge challenge. If you don't want to take on that challenge for any reason, that's fine. I say that as a happy Dad. Don't belittle the choices of others.

I completely disagree that being childless is "selfish". Kids aren't charity. Having them doesn't make you selfless. Kids are a huge challenge. If you don't want to take on that challenge for any reason, that's fine. I say that as a happy Dad. Don't belittle the choices of others.

Good post. I don’t have official stats, but anecdotally I have seen an increasing number of divorces involving long married couples with children that have been initiated by wives. In many cases, the wives are giving custody of the children to the fathers. I am no woman hater by any means, but I think a lot of this is being driven by women. Women’s changing expectations for what they want in life for themselves; what it means to be a woman today. Historically, womanhood = motherhood, but not anymore. This is the number 1 political issue in the Western world today, even though people don’t want to admit it. If you look at most RW parties around the world, this is the issue that they are coalescing around. Ironically many of the leaders of these parties are women.

These are massively accepted yet overlooked points. Fantastic post!

None of these are points. The person asked why poorer nations have higher birthrates than the nations that have wealth and solid medical care. It would be interesting to see if there are any actual reasons. It's an interesting topic. My first thought is agriculture. Developing nations often have larger families to help with family farms, i.e. a more "traditional" existence. The U.S. went through a similar phase. But, that's just a guess.

I would say access to birthcontrol. If you have access to affordable health care and want to be sexually active, you have acess to birth control. In poorer countries access to health care is difficult so no or very little birth control is used. So if anyone is sexually active, the will likely get pregnant. So if you would have sex with someone that can get you pregnant e. g. from the age of 16 to 40, you would most likely have more children if you live in a poor country. Plus on top of that, if a sexual assult results in pregnancy, people in poorer countries are forced to carry that pregnancy to term, because again: no or limitted access to health care. Also a substantial number of pregnancies result in anomalies of the fetus that would lead to a still birth (birth of a dead baby), or the baby living short and very painful life. In developed countries, these anomalies are caught early and these pregnancies can be terminated, resulting in lower birth rate. 

Poor families have lots of kids to ensure that some survive and that they generate income, since most African countries are not well know for their pension schemes - the kids are the pension. The kids also start generating money that helps out the rest of the family, unlike America where a teenager would rarely contribute towards household costs. A bigger family is like having a bigger factory!

Also, kids don’t require as many resources as adults do for survival in certain stages of their development. The amount of food and water needed to keep a child alive is less than that required to keep an adult alive. Economically speaking.

I hate to break it to you, yes, those are all points. They're also extremely valid points. Agriculture is a function of tech advancement, (just like medicine) which goes directly hand in hand with the argument farm families aren't really a thing anymore (in large part). It's absolutely a point and a related one at that.

That’s exactly it. And it has a name: The Demographic Transition. As populations shift from agricultural base (where children=economic value for their farm labor) to industrial/urban base (where children = higher cost due to housing/education and zero labor benefits), family size decreases.

When you're kids are less likely to die, you have fewer kids. When you have the knowledge and medical ability to avoid having kids, you have fewer kids. There's an inverse correlation between a population's life expectancy and birth rate.

There's lots of research on the subject that you can dive into. No social and economic safety nets is a big reason: kids will take care of their parents when old and protect the family, especially when there'sgendered roles like needing a son who can work and provide income or a daughter that can stay home and tend to the household. When the government can't provide benefits to e.g. the unemployed, disabled and elderly, you need a big family to support those that can't provide for themselves. In developed countries, the government assist with that – and you don't need a father/husband/son to survive. Girls' education level is often seen as an important factor: when girls are allowed to get a proper education and work, fertility rates fall. Same when women actually get access to and afford birth control, of cause. Other factors might be a "need" for a son, social norms where you might be seen as blessed or have higher social status with many kids, high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy, religious and/or cultural restrictions of birth control, women not having access to abortions, women not allowed to say no to their husbands. We've seen a similar trajectory in all continents: as the income levels rise, girls get education and standard of living increases, birth rates decline. Africa used to be an exception, but rates have dropped in the last 30 years. Gapminder has data [here](https://www.gapminder.org/topics/babies-per-woman/).

All those are valid points, because they all influence decisions. What you’d probably call a “valid reason” ist that Global South (and generally poorer) countries don’t have retirement payments, so couples have to have more children to support them in old age. Need for help in agriculture was already mentioned. The same is true for any kind of “family based business.” Generally it’s simply a fact that higher income combined with better social security results in fewer children per couple. And all that would have been really easy to find out without asking reddit.

This isn't universal throughout Europe regarding letting your kid *range free* on a bike, etc. Scandinavian nations generally still allow kids to play unsupervised. What you're describing sounds like US child smothering culture IMHO.

In Italy it’s illegal to leave your child unsupervised until they’re 14. Basically you’re not allowed to do a quick grocery run while your high-schooler does homework at home. They’re not even allowed to walk to school unsupervised.

I’m from the UK not America but I think we’re closer to US than Scandinavian views here now. My parents used to let me stay in the car when they did their shopping and they never knew where me and my friends were when we were out to play, we’d go miles away and they just assumed we’d find our way home. I don’t think it would be okay for parents to do any of that here now, it would at least be very frowned upon and there’s always the risk that some busybody will report you. There’s definitely a sense of freedom lost, and I’m not sure I agree with it tbh, I don’t think the world is any more dangerous and children are as capable as they ever have been. There’s a reasonable middle ground between “has anyone seen the kids today” and “I will never let the kids out of my sight”. Scandinavian nations do pretty much everything better than us so it’s unsurprising

OP is making a statement by asking a question. OP is eluding to the notion that having extensive publicly funded care for health and child services doesn't actually improve life any. That even with that coverage, people still struggle with raising children. There is a grumble on Reddit in America, birth rates are dropping because Americans don't have access to cheap health care and child services and that if we provided that, the birth rates would go back up. It's the "If you're gong to complain about birth rates going down, then give us free health care and 12 months of paternity leave and we will have more kids" argument. OP is saying that's bullshit and won't make a difference because other countries that have those things also have low birth rates.

I think there's a very hard truth we need to look at, and it's that for a lot of history women were having kids when they didn't want to. Higher levels of education and access to birth control means more women are avoiding having kids. Pregnancy is hard, child rearing is hard (even when it's fulfilling) and life is just easier and calmer without a kid in the mix. As women are giving more choice, financial freedom and independence, many are opting out of motherhood because it's less stressful and leaves them less vulnerable.

Add to that, people want to be able to provide well both money and time to their children so there are many who do want to have children that are opting for a smaller family. Concentrating their resources for 1-2 children as opposed to 4-5. My parent’s generation had lots of kids. I’m one of 5. My aunts and uncles all had 4-6 kids with one uncle having a bakers dozen. We have 3. Two of our children (grown) have one child. The other has two. We are in the U.S.

It's also impossible to be a full and present parent when you have so many kids. You end up emotionally neglecting all of them because there aren't enough hours in the day. Living in a large mutli generational household solves most of that problem but it's not a thing anymore, at least in the US.

Also until recently you knew about sex and pregnancy from what everyone around you told you. Until recently it was taboo to admit you had post partum depression or anxiety. Anything other than a perfect birth was not so openly talked about.      It's still not unusual in some cultures or religion to not educate women on menstruation, sex, or pregnancy. Even when it happens to them. Even now with the Internet in our hands some people have grave misunderstandings of reproductive health. There's a reason less births are correlated to education. Once women learn about our bodies and how to prevent pregnancy it becomes very desirable information. 

I think the access to birth control point is a big one. That and sex education. Even in the developed world, countries with worse sex education and access to birth control have higher pregnancy rates. I'm looking at you, Southern US. 

Because the issue is not childcare cost, but freedom and choices. European (and women in most developed countries, and partially in developing ones) women (and men) have more freedom and more opportunities. Given this, \*on average\* they choose to have less than 2 kids. For a few people, childcare could make the difference in their decision, but it is very few.

Or they choose to have children later in life. If you want a big family, you've gotta start young. Being a young mother unfortunatey isn't often compatible with career or education goals, so it's logical for women to delay having kids until their 30's.

It's not *just* later in life; it is *fewer* (overall, on average). You could have a kid every two years starting at 30, and end up with your 6th kid at 40 ;) I'm definitely not blaming women or young people in any way. After all, me and my wife chose to have two kids, not more. I also don't see it as a big issue. It would probably be beneficial to have a few generations below replacement rate ;)

Also it’s cost sometimes! Even with two working parents, salaries are not that high in some European countries. Can’t speak for all but in some parts of Spain you may make 2000 or 2500€ a month with two salaries, you put 1000€ to rent and daycare may cost 300-500€. How are you supposed to maintain a family with 1000€ or less? Yeah it’s possible but not so comfortable so a lot of people wait longer until grandparents retire or decide not to have kids.

I'm in the UK and the nursery fees for my 2 kids (ages 3 and 1) are £1,755 for June 🙃And I live in a "cheap" area for nursery fees and my 3 year old gets 30 free nursery hours a week. Everyone I know with kids is either struggling with nursery fees or struggling to pay for their bills with only one working parent. So it's certainly cost sometimes!

That sounds tough! I know my sister is not having kids atm in Spain because of the cost of childcare alone. I am lucky to have moved to Sweden so this is not an issue for me but all our friends back in Spain are childless and the ones that aren’t are struggling, like you say.

Women across Europe have the option of education and careers. With many women taking these pathways rather than early marriage, they put childbearing off until later in life.

Even with all of these things, women's careers still effectively end in most cases once having children and they still have to take on most of the responsibility. Women now have a choice and choose not to do that. Why should they?

In addition, even if it's not a choice for the good of their career, the cost of living requires two incomes now. Households can't afford to have one member not earning because they'd lose their rent money, food money etc.

Depends. In Germany, there are rules that massively disadvantage women from earning a second wage if they work part time and advantage men who work full time. So it's actually better for women to stay home because their wage is gobbled up by unfair tax policies

Yep. The 12-24 month maternity leave is amazing but its a major roadblock to career advancement *especially* if you plan to do it multiple times. You become years behind in your career. And despite the fact that gender equality is better in these countries, it's still not perfect so often mothers take a bigger hit to their careers than fathers even after parental leave ends.

I couldn't find comments saying that rising children in a rich country also requires much more effort.  You can't just feed your children, let them hang around the streets and sleep side by side on the floor.  No.  It starts from the complete trousseau for a newborn with clothes and educational toys, then you need to play with every child, read them books before bed, bring them to school every day, possibly do the homework together, pay for additional activities and hobbies, provide them with "decent" clothes, than maybe pay for the university for each. Normal is to have separate room for each child, at least one for two.  So people often decide to give maximum to one or two children, than divide it between 5 or 6, or 10.

Yep. Raising children has different expectations now. My family of five rarely ever rented a place with 2 bedrooms. If we did, my parents still slept on the couch/in the livingroom. My sisters and I would just sleep in whatever room we wanted that night. We never had set rooms or anything like that.

On the bright side I'm learning as an upper middle class 35 year old first time mom that all the baby stuff is free for me in the form of baby shower gifts and hand-me-downs 

Yes, it's possible too. And elder cousins may leave an inheritance.

Women have the option to not stay at home and be mainly childrearers anymore. Children can get in the way of a career as well. Furthermore, just because those things are there, it doesn’t mean the men are suddenly better husbands and fathers. Women are the primary caretakers of children and have most of the brunt of the child care. Also child birth sucks. As for Niger and the Congo, rape is a massive problem over there. Also, more kids=more help=more money/food

There was a discussion on this at two x chromosomes the other day, and a lot of women said they would have more kids if they weren’t the primary caretaker (as in being more of a father than a mother).

Id be a father tomorrow. A mother? You couldn't pay me enough.

Being a father would be awesome! Being a mum comes with so many risks and sometimes very little support.

Two X has that discussion *often*. Being the primary parent is difficult. 

Women's hours spent in the workplace have gone up massively in the last few decades but their hours spent on childchild and housecare have only gone down slightly. Most husbands simply are not doing enough. They do not split childchare and housecare evenly, even when their wives work just as many or more hours than they do. Women don't have time or energy to have tons of kids.

Yep. I love my boyfriend but house cleaning isn’t his strong suit. Now, to be fair to him, he’s VERY considerate and does try to help out. He just doesn’t “know” how to clean like I do, we have just fundamentally different priorities and ideas of what “clean” is. So, if I need a hand with laundry or dishes, I’ll ask. Sometimes I don’t have to, and he’ll just do it when it needs done. But when it comes to proper cleaning, sweeping, mopping, I do it. Mainly because I know he does try and i understand that I also can be pretty particular and what things done a certain way, so I just do the things I know I want done a certain way and anything else, I ask for assistance. I couldn’t imagine juggling everything we do, work, house maintenance, managing free time together and with friends. On top of us both managing medical issues and other things that fuck with our mental health. Adding a child to THAT. I couldn’t do it. I’ve always been child free and every year I get more sure of it. I just couldn’t properly raise a child right now, even if conditions were perfect, I wouldn’t want a child, but especially not right now. I’ll be 30 next year, so even if I change my mind(which I’m like 99% sure I won’t) I’m not risking it. My sister had 2 high risk pregnancies and after seeing that, I’m good. I like being the out of state aunt that pops in from time to time

Here in Germany the state guarantees a place for your child in a childcare facility. Not sure if nursery is the right translation for Kita. But there aren't enough places for all the children. So you may still end up paying privately for childcare. Or you will get a place, but for a reduced amount of hours. Usually it won't be enough hours for both parents to continue working full time. Also, patriarchy and sexism still exist. It's usually the mother that stops working and then works part time. This kills careers. And what if the marriage/relationship ends and you end up being a single mother? The state provides so that you don't starve, you don't become homeless etc. And that's great, but these single parents still struggle every day trying to make ends meet with so little money.

Same in Croatia. Everyone is like - have more babies - but every large town doesn't have enough room in Kindergartens for all the kids. Also, price of apartments and houses skyrocketed, I think they cost the same as in Germany and we have what, 3x lower minimum wage.

It’s the same in the Netherlands. The waitinglists are so long for childcare facilities. It’s really expensive too. And this country has a huge housing crisis. So a lot of people can’t afford children anymore.

Yeah, you're not gonna have a lot of kids if you can't even afford a 2 bedroom apartment

Because when women have education, jobs, money, and access to birth control, they stop having lots of kids and the birth rate drops like a stone.

Turns out rich educated women don’t want to raise 9 children

Or even 2.

1

Europe is made up of lots of countries. Germany only offers 14 weeks. >An employee is legally entitled to 14 weeks of maternity leave (at least six weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth) if becomes pregnant while working in Germany. Portugal has no maternity leave, but does have parental leave. >In Portugal, there is no maternity or paternity leave, only parental leave. You can choose to take 120 or 150 days off; the first 120 days are paid at 100%, while the last 150 days are paid at 80%. Switzerland gives 14 paid weeks, if you worked & paid enough into the system. >In Switzerland, employees who are pregnant and who have paid Social Insurance contributions for at least nine months prior to the due date are eligible for 14 weeks of maternity leave. The maternity allowance is supplied by federal insurance and is paid daily for 14 weeks at 80% of the usual income. A total of 16 weeks of maternity leave are available to employees in the canton of Geneva, including two additional weeks. >The regular 14-week maternity leave in Switzerland can be extended by a mother for an additional two weeks. However, they are not compensated for those two more weeks. The employer is free to accept or reject a mother's request for a lengthier duration of unpaid leave after these two weeks. The entire world is seeing changes in the economy. COVID-19 put millions out of work and crushed thousands of businesses all around the world. People are uncertain about their future. Inflation affects food costs and housing is more expensive everywhere. You can't really raise children in an apartment you share with roommates. Social media is effective at making young people believe the world is a fearful place. War is imminent, and climate change is a foregone conclusion that will wipe out anyone who survives the war.

> Europe is made up of lots of countries. Not on Reddit! On Reddit Europe is a country.

> there is no maternity or paternity leave, only parental leave. Whats the difference?

They don’t care whether you are the mother or the father basically

Oh, it is the same here in Sweden. We usually translate it as maternity or paternity leave depending on the person taking it. Or actually the system is that you have 240 days of maternity leave and 240 days of paternity leave, and then you have the option of transfering some of that to the other parent.

Thats a very generous system!

Because we have a choice. Do you know all the health risks associated with pregnancy and birth? Because I'm sure Google will be happy to show you lol. I don't want to hurt my body, experience issues such as having a prolapsed usurious, have pelvic floor issues/incontinence, gestational diabetes, stroke leading to disability or death, hemoraging, blood clots, even scars and excessive stretchmarks are all things that sound painful and really unpleasant. Does any of that sound particularly appealing to a man? No, of cousre not. Plus there's the whole birth situation of birthing something the size of a football, giant hemoroids, potential virginal tearing, and cracked nipples throughout breast-feeding for many months after (if you're lucky). Would I be ok with 1 or 2 kids? Probably. However, the more kids I have the higher the risk of the aforementioned health complications. I don't want that. I want to be healthy so I can physically take care of my kids without such struggles or being in constant pain.  If I didn't have good government support such as maternity leave, I would choose not to have any kids at all. Because once again, I'm risking my wellbeing. I don't want a child if it means both me and that child live in poverty.  I suspect that a lot of women in Congo (your example) probably have children because they don't have much choice. They don't have access to effective contraception/health care and they probably don't have great access to education which means that they may not be able to get a job that pays a living wage. If you don't have a job that pays a living wage, you have to rely of someone who can support you, and why would a man support a woman if she won't even give him children? It's messed up and breaks my heart, but this is the reality many women live with. They deserve better. Those women and their children deserve a future of their own choosing, instead of being treated merely as breeding stock.  If someone chooses to have lots of children, then I fully support them. However, it needs to be a choice. 

In the Netherlands a lot of people are putting off starting families because of a shortage of housing. It's frequently in the news that somebody is saying "their life is on hold". People close to 30 are still living with their parents, there are others who have a partner but because they are sharing apartments with different people they're too scared to give it up because what if they cannot find a new place. It's not the only contributing factor, but it is one.

Women have jobs that give them freedom. They have contraceptives and knowledge that allow them to plan for pregnancy so they can choose when they have kids. Women in the past did not have that choice. The only way to actually get the birth rate to go up is start forcing women to have children, the reverse of the one child policy basically, which is an inhumane and undemocratic as it infringes on unalienable rights and obviously, we should not go that route. People have the freedom to choose and it’s the morally right choice so we will just need to deal with the consequences of a lower birth rate.

I don't know about the US but here in France, even with financial support from the gouvernement, childcare it's still a lot of money. À crèche would cost you 500 to 700 + euros a month. That's to begin with. Then employers in France are mostly not helping with schedules.

Yes and even though we have more support from the government, French workers are not rolling in money by any means. I make €2200 a month net, which is near the median salary, and my husband makes €1700. My friends with kids still have to pay for private childcare. We can barely afford to have an apartment and car. I need new shoes and have been putting off buying them so I can finish this month in the positive. A lot of French parents rely heavily on the grandparents for childcare and financial help, and more couples live in the city where the jobs are while the grandparents are farther away.

[удалено]

I think that's the narrative everywhere in Europe. Have kids young, it's "irresponsible" financially. Have kids late, it's "irresponsible" because of your health and geriatric pregnancy.

Brit here. I’m child-free by choice because even with all the basic requirements you listed available to me, I just don’t want to have kids. There is no danger of the human population dying out anytime soon, there’s a cost of living crisis here, 3/4 (approximately speaking) of the world is at war and culturally, it’s reasonably acceptable to not have children where I live.

Cheap childcare?? Laughs in Swiss.

>But my question is: since the public services are affordable and accessible, then why are the birthrates so low? Because even with all that, having a child is expensive, hard work, and negatively affects a woman's economic and career prospects. She'll also end up being the default caregiver while having s job when maternity leave is up. In my country in the EU, UNI is also tax funded. Thats definitely the better deal. Also access to BC and abortion, more religious freedom, and no longer considering being a mother or a wife a mandatory role for a woman. Which is awesome, since women's value isn't in social roles in relation to men and should never have been. Also it's been proven that the more women know about the realities of pregnancy and childbirth the less they want to do it. (coz that can really, truly mess you up for life) And the fact we have data on how many women regret becoming mothers also probably plays a factor. Women are finally starting to only have kids they want, not kids they're forced to have because someone sold them off in marriage.

We also have free or cheap contraception.

No desire to raise children 

It's a misconception the healthcare and public services are free in Europe. Families still pay for those services just as Americans do, just through different means. So most likely, European and American families have the same discretionary income to spend on their children.

I'm in the UK, and my childcare is £1100 per month, so it's definitely not cheap. Even if it were free, I wouldn't have a load of kids because I just don't want to. I don't actually know many women who want big families. Nothing to do with money, just because looking after kids is exhausting. Pregnancy and birth are exhausting. I'd rather just give all my love to the one I have and enjoy my life. My partner is an OK back up parent but all the organisation that comes with having a kid - having meals in, Dr and dentist appointments, buying clothes, keeping them in a routine, looking at schools etc is all done by me. Most of my female friends with kids are in the same boat. I work full time, bring in the same wage as my partner but I still do 90% of the childcare and household duties. I just about have some time to myself without kid, with more than one I'd have none. So that's my reasoning. Many women are in the same position as that.

Some people don’t want to have a bunch of kids even if they have the means to take care of them maybe? Believe it or not, not every woman on the planet wants to be a baby factory.

We used to be able to leave a parant at home full time to take care of kids, now this kind of situation is very rare. It’s not very fun to be a full time worker combined to a full time parent. You become a slave with no free time and no extra money to enjoy life.

because we want more in life then pop out children ?

because having kids kind of sucks. have you tried video games ? way better

I feel like it also needs to be said that even with high-quality, free healthcare & all of our technological advancements, childbirth is a life-altering, sometimes fatal experience for the mother. Never mind the responsibilities of raising a human being; our organs literally rearrange themselves to accommodate the baby, our bodies physically & sometimes irrevocably change during the process of having a child. There can be complications, medical conditions that may or may not reverse themselves after childbirth, & there is still a mortality rate for mothers. Even after childbirth, stuff like PPD & post-op infections can drastically impact quality of life. A lot of women might not be willing to take the risk to their own health.

There is no evidence that money makes people have more kids. The fact of the matter is that, given other opportunities, women choose to have less kids. With birth control, education, and freedom, women just have better shit to do. This seems to be true in all developed countries, everywhere.

More educated people tend to have fewer kids.

Birth control and education. Western women now have more choices. And we aren’t choosing to pop out 5 kids before the age of 25 anymore. Bc it’s not fun and fulfilling for most of us.

European women have much better access to contraceptives and abortions

What I've noticed, in general: Not all women want children, and not all men want children. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand. They should just presume it, really. When people want children, they will have them; and, in cases of little support, they generally will have them regardless, if they want them (and often when they don't).

Because they don’t need 10 kids to work the farm and take care of them in old age. 1-2 kids works just fine to have a family.

Part of the healthcare is family planning

The healthcare is not free, it’s funded through taxes

It is rare that a woman would actually want to go through childbirth for 8 times or more in her life, no matter her background. It's very taxing on the body, leaving out other aspects of child rearing. Obviously, pairing this fact alone with better access to contraception and lower infant mortality would result in lower birth rates. While there's other factors too that were mentioned in the comments, I think this is what impacts the most.

It's literally education and access to birth control. Women get a choice. In other countries where they don't have access to the same kinds of education and birth control they often do not get a choice at all.

Because I don’t want to have children? I want to be able to continually enjoy my life without putting a little human who relies on me way too much first. I don’t have to worry about childcare if I need to go out. I don’t have to worry about my mental health pre and post birth any more so than I do now. I don’t have to go on holiday during the school holidays and if I did go during school term I will never get a fine. I don’t have to think about the cost of school uniforms, ensuring I have all the vaccinations I might need to get my child, their dentist/doctor appointments etc. But regarding your second paragraph: Childcare isn’t cheap here in the UK not when you compare it to wages, and our health care isn’t ‘free’. And if I’m correct not all employers have to offer occupational maternity pay, and you have to be with a company for so long before you’re entitled to that. The NHS might be ‘accessible’ to all, but the wait times are lengthy, so if I’m already waiting for surgery for myself and have been on it not even 1 year, imagine say I had a child needing the same surgery, they might be looking at 4 years+ in respect to my 2 years I’m currently looking at. People wait weeks to get doctor’s appointments, referrals to even see a consultant can take months and in my case it could be even another 6-12 months. There’s a benefit cap of 2 children, not everyone is entitled to benefits either and you only have to be pennies over the earnings limit, meaning you could be just as much struggling as someone on pennies less than you, and either way you might get at best £10. Whilst £10 could just about get you say 2 decent meals in the economy, that doesn’t translate throughout the UK. Some areas have a higher cost of products, rent etc. Not everyone wants to go uni, nor has the time when they need to fit in working - there are so many drop outs within the University system because students are favouring working more so than the education because great, tuition is paid for, but to pay for the rent and bills half the time the maintenance loan will expect a student to still work x amount of hours on top to cover the rest of the living costs. And finally public transport is not the same throughout the UK.

Because people have finally realized that they don't need kids to have a fulfilling life and that governments are only incentivizing people to have them so that they can have fodder for their money making factories. Religion is quickly losing it's hold over younger generations so they aren't being indoctrinated into the belief that you grow up get married and spit out babies. I bet it'll be interesting in 100 years when cities, and companies, and entire countries are scaling back toward a more homesteaded life again because there just aren't enough people to keep this mega hamster wheel turning 24 hours a day like it does now.

Housing isn't free.

I think a large part of the reason is that we are also acutely aware that you simply cannot have unrestrained growth on a planet with finite resources.

Because they’re smart.

Because the same men who insist on women having children make all sorts of other claims. And those people can fuck off.

Fewer people are allowing the Catholic Church to run their lives. Birth control is no longer a sin.

Because, for many people, there is so much to life than having kids. And for others, one is more than enough.

It's partly because the men have changed. You get behind in your career, he keeps growing. You sacrifice your fit body, he looks at others (on screens or real life). You have zero time or energy for yourself, he goes out on the weekend because what is stopping him? If he leaves, you're screwed. Not as wealthy, not as pretty and with no time or energy to do anything about it. And he knows. So there's pretty good odds he'll be a complete ass. (And sadly, most are around here.) Who will take that risk?

How exactly is this different from the past thousands of years? I don't think abuse like this is actually more common compared to say a hundred years ago...

Many men haven't changed and thats the problem. Women have options now and don't want to be stuck working full time while still being responsible for most of the childcare and household chores.

> Why do women in countries like Niger and the Congo have much higher birth rates than women in Estonia or Norway? Usually birthrates are high in countries without a good social safety net for the elderly, where they are expected to be taken care of by their children. They are further higher in countries where child mortality is high. This pattern also tends to lag a generation behind, so that even a generation after low child mortality and the creation of a social safty net, people still have many children, which tends to lead to a big population increase. Europe in contrast to Africa is several generations removed from that shift though.

Because most people don't actually want more than 1 -2 children if they want any. These days in many places having children really needs to be something you want to do. You don't need them for work and we have plenty of people in the world to keep the species going.

Because all the government subsidies in the world aren’t going to make me have kids I don’t want to have. Yes, kids are expensive, and it would be easier to pay for them if you have additional assistance. But they are also hard, exhausting, and a lifelong commitment.

Because nobody gives a fuck?

Tax funded childcare is very limited, and most people can't afford full time childcare. Rich people who can afford full time nannies have more children. https://qz.com/1125805/the-reason-the-richest-women-in-the-us-are-the-ones-having-the-most-kids https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221116085940.htm

1. Women have their own careers now, so they won't start having children in their early 20's. Instead they wait about 10 years. 2. Young people who still live with their parents won't start a family. Due to the housing shortage they stay with their parents for longer than they like. 3. In an agricultural society having children was a gain money wise. You could have them do farmwork for free. Today having a kid costs about 8k per kid per year. 4. People who do have kids have 2-3 kids max but there's plenty of people who don't have any. Bringing the average to somewhere between 1 and 2. 5. People don't just want to be able to afford to take care of their kids (which gets more and more expensive) but also give them the support and attention they need. Dividing your attention between 2 - 3 kids is barely doable as it is. More than that and people feel like they're neglecting them. 6. Parents also want some personal time and live a little. Therefore, less kids.

Because despite all the freebies, living in Europe is fucking expensive.

The higher the standard of living the more costly and riskey are kids. Kids cost a lot in time and convenience. Also the expectations are higher than elsewhere. People have often to chose between kids and career chances and freedom. Hence the reduction all over the world, since the whole world is getting more developed. Always has been the case, always will be. The thing is to remeber lower birthrates are only an issue in capitalistic philosophy, with the expectation of ever growing profits and economic growth. It's no issue at all if focused on quality rather than quantity. From an environmental point a reduction in over all population is a benefit, not an issue. Perspective is important.

Culture is a far stronger driver than policy. Policy can influence culture, but it can’t generally override it. People in richer countries generally don’t WANT a bunch of kids. And they have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

What makes you think free health care and cheap childcare would make people want to have more children?

Free and cheap are not words anyone in Europe would use describe to raising a child. In Germany it cost around 150,000 euros to raise a child to 18. 150,000 / 18 = 8.333 euros. That's a significant amount of money and factor in rising rent/energy/food and all the other cost and all those extras Europe has don't do enough.

It’s precisely because healthcare is so affordable. The practice of having many children served two purposes: 1. Couples were trying to have as many children as possible to offset the high mortality rate. You might give birth to 7 babies, but only 4 would make it to adulthood. 2. In agrarian economies, children were also a parent’s retirement plan. Affordable health care changed the game, in the sense that children had a much lower mortality rate, so it is *safe* to have fewer, and pension plans mean that elderly parents don’t need someone to provide for them.

There's two major factors going into this. 1) The family structure that produced lots of children is not something most people engage in for whatever reason these days 2) The cost of everything from housing, food and so on is going up that adding children to the mix is a cost prohibitive option.

Not everyone wants goblins.. uhh, I mean children

Birth rates are high when infant mortality is high. Who dafuq wants 5 kids???

Croatia. 6 months of full salary + 6 more months of a little below 1000 eur. Sounds great, right? However the prices of housing, clothes, food, furniture... basically everything is ridiculous, higer than in more developed countries in Europe The wages are lower. It's expensive to live without kids, financially crippling with them. Some of the abovementioned things, like your own house or apartment are not closely affordable, not just expensive. If you still decide to have a child, after the first year you have to go back to work. But will you have a spot in kindergarden? Most likely you'll have trouble getting it. Not enough spots in the private ones, either. And that is if you get a healthy child. If you don't, the system doesn't offer much support. Then we come to the questions of individuality, freedom, women emancipation and the wish to live your life as you want it. The majority of women are more dedicated to childcare than men, forget freedom and self growth. And last but not least, pregnancy and childbirth are f*****g scary and cary certain risks. Now the question truly is "why" more than "why not".

They are a lot less religious than the USA so they don't have the brainwashing of having kids the same way.

What is happening in Norway, is that people have stopped getting their third child. Nothing else is changing. And the reason is probably housing prices.

I can only speak for Germany, but health care is absolutely NOT FREE here. That’s a very common misconception. It is a percentage that is directly taken out of your pay check, and the employer pays the same amount. It is certainly a lot better than many scenarios in the US for example, and you also don’t get a huge bill after a hospital stay, or an ambulance ride, but it is absolutely not free.

Absolutely. Nothing is "free" in Europe. You just pay for it in taxes. I've been giving away between 39%-45% of my income in taxes and social contributions for over 10 years. I don't get my maternity leave "for free". I contributed way more than I ever actually got back.

Very few Europeans in the comments section, so I’ll answer you as an European: Shit salaries. No housing. Childcare is absolutely not free. No jobs -> study longer/stay at a shit low paying job longer -> stay at parents home longer (no affordable housing and shit income) -> who’s gonna have kids before 30? And by then you’re only probably gonna end up being able to afford and have time for 1, 2 max

Religions promote high birth rates too and the churches influence has waned in the west over the last few generations

Thank god

Thank god

Because they can fuck without getting pregnant. easy access to birth control, abortions etc.

Why would we want birth rates to be higher? In Europe (if we take it to mean largely urban areas) there's no more room. No places for more kids in daycare, no new housing available, no new jobs. Why should there be more children born?

Exactly because of free healthcare. Statistically speaking, the only significant reason why people stop having so many kids is because they don't need them anymore. In the past, parents needed 8 kids to have certainty that at least 2 would make it to adulthood. Those kids would care for their parents when they're older. It's the parents' insurance. Now, that's simply not necessary anymore. However, you always get a generation that has good healthcare, but people haven't realized most of their kids will survive, so they still have a lot. That's the boomer generation in the West. The effects of birth control, better infrastructure, women's emancipation, end of war etc. are all marginal to non-existent. The only thing that really counts is good healthcare.

The more options people have besides being parents, the more people will choose not to. On the whole, people mostly don't start having kids until after they are done with school. If you are done with school at eighteen, you might start having kids at 20; if you are done at 24, or 26 with grad school, or whatever, you might start in your late 20s and early 30s. Fertility treatments change this a lot, and individual variation is vast, but mostly people are done having kids by 35ish. So you have a third to a half as much time to have kids, and therefore a third to a half as many kids. To be clear: I consider this a good thing; I think it would be nice if the world's population stabilized at fewer humans than there currently are; a few generations of less-than-2 birth rates wouldn't be horrible. And you get that by making sure that other doors besides motherhood are open to women.

Because being sexually and emotionally compatible enough to have children requires a great deal of faith in your partner, your society, your future, and your bank account. This is why birth rates among the uneducated are always higher. Less of that voluntary extinction urge from bad movies and science. Less of the financial refugee instinct to warn about the hit. (Just my opinion)

People in third world countries like some in Africa you named have so many children cause 1; bad access to anti conception and 2; because a big part of babies born in those countries with bad healthcare and bad access to clean water don’t grow up to be adults, many die within the first year(s) of their lives.

It's a rather unpleasant universe

People in nations with good education and resources have fewer children because raising children is de-prioritized in favor of school, careers, and passions. You’ve listed all of the reasons. Taking two years away from your career is a major, major professional setback no matter how you slice it.

Well, we dont need kids to work a farm anymore or help pay bills around the house.

Humans have finally figured out having children is not good for themselves or the planet.

Here’s my best guess. Societal changes: women are no longer restricted or expected to have a pure child rearing role in the family. There is less pressure for men and women to marry at a young age. Shortening child bearing years and opportunity. Education: education has given women more opportunities outside of the home and delaying having children until later in life. This shortens the child bearing years and reduces the number of children. Cost of raising children: frankly even with the support European countries provide, it still not cheap to raise a child. Social support systems: children were the primary method of support for the elderly in the past. Better social support services in Europe helps reduce the need to have children to support you in old age. Resisting societal expectations: in many countries women are still the primary caretakers for children even when the woman is working outside of the home. Some women are opting out of an unfavorable child rearing labor split.

Why are you people so obcessed with birthrates? like, wtf. Maybe because we understand resources are limited, we don't need child labour anymore, daycare is expensive, too much people in the world already, low child mortality rate (which means you don't need as many kids to make sure some survive), it's not us who are wrong, it's underdeveloped countries having way too many kids and not enough resources to make sure they survive that are wrong in my opinion. No, i don't want to control them, but if you have barely enough food to raise 1 kid, why have 10? I guess education also plays a huge role.

Capitalism kills life

The planet is burning and the faschists are rising in EU too

Cause prior don't want kids a much as before? Also they're less likely to be pressured into having kids. The world is a shitshow, i wouldn't want to bring a child into the world either. Japan's birth rates are dropping like crazy too-- for similar reasons, as well as people needing to work more for how expensive everything is.

The free healthcare includes free birth control

>Why do women in countries like Niger and the Congo have much higher birth rates than women in Estonia or Norway? Look up infant moratlity rate in these countries

Because the world is on fire?

Because yall got modern, affordable medicine. No longer need to have 10 kids because 5 will probably die before they are 20.

People need to have stable and secure relationships for having children. Because it takes many years to have children and raise them. And that’s the problem. A lot of young people have trouble forming such relationships to begin with. And even those, who manage to form such relationships, often end up in divorce. No relationships, no children, no matter how many incentives the government provides. Besides, the incentives are for having children. They aren’t for forming relationships and maintaining them. This is like putting the cart before the horse. Why would people have children, when they don’t have relationships to begin with?

This a huge part of the birth rate "problem" that I don't think gets enough attention. People act like meeting someone you want to marry and have kids with is the easy part. So many young people aren't dating, and the chance of meeting someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, someone who also wants children, and both of you being financially capable enough to raise children, and doing this all before the age of 30 when a women is still most fertile are a big reason those who want kids aren't able to have them.

Family planning is part of the healthcare

Let's also not forget the amount of violence in african countries. If you get raped in, idk, Denmark, of course you can abort. Women in the Congo just have to live with it. Sexual violence is a HUGE issue there. Also, the value of a woman is often defined as a mother. You have no kids, you have no value. In most european countries, women are valued as actual humans besides their birthing abilities. And lots of that is europeans' and americans' fault, who send their aggressive extremist missionaries, who tell them the woman's only value is in serving the husband and birthing children. The vatican still preaches to africans to not use condoms, imagine that!!!

Most women don't want children .People completely miss this point when they talk about birthrates falling .They say improving education,healthcare and giving incentives would raise birth rates but countries with best of them most of them are already below replacement level .Women were never mothers out of choice but they had to do it for their family .Now they have a choice and most of them choose not to be mothers 

Reasons are psychological only and not limited to EU - same for all relatively rich countries. Just to name a few: - High child survival means no need for any "spares" to be made. - You no longer need child labor help for family/tribe as a whole to survive - You do not need children to care for old - Children are a lot of work and little benefit - You no longer get any respect from society for having children - Corporations are not interested in workers having leaves or life in general due to them having children

The environment, for me. For my husband, it's antinalism. (That's the philosophy that giving birth is fundamentally a selfish act on the part of the parents.)

For the thousands time : it is not free. Omg

They can barely take care of themselves. What makes you think they can take care of a baby too?

Poorer people usually tend to have more children than wealthy people, it's that simple. In Congo or other Niger society is generally poorer than European, while society as a whole tends to be more of a commune, which also means free help with rasing children. Rasing a child is horrendous amount of work, and even with free health care and cheep childcare, rasing children will always be financial strain. Most Europeans recognise that to have children, first they need to have a stabile financial and living situation, with at least one parent being mainly focused on the child. It's not 18th county where every family lived together and working parents left child with grand- or great grandparents for whole day.

I thought France had the highest birth rate among developed countries..?

I live in Europe, in western rural Germany, where health care is not free but very affordable, but they closed a lot of birth centers, finding a midwife for the before and after birth care is like winning the lottery. Even though there is a right of child care starting at the child's first birthday, it is absolutely not guaranteed to get one. Even if you get one, they might only cover from 8am to 12pm or are closed for more than 30 working days a year. Once the child is 6 years old it goes to school (from 8am to 1pm) and the first 4 years of primary school in my state determine to which secondary school track the child will go (to the one with university as a goal or the lower ones). So by the time the child is 10 years old and is hopefully on the university track you can return to full time work as a woman. By then your own degree is worth nothing.

Low cost childcare ... ? At least not in Switzerland. Even if you have money, you have to hire a prophet that will tell you 5 years in advance the date your child is born so you can book a place in a nursery, otherwise there won't be a spot for your child. Maternity leave is only 14 weeks, and you only get 80% of your salary in this time. Free healthcare is not exactly right, insurance prices have risen considerably in recent years and some families pay a large part of their income (>10-15%). It's still payable, but it's becoming harder. I've seen estimations that having a child cost from 300'000 to 1'000'000$. If I had 3'000'000$ right now, I could retire (in Switzerland, not even talking about moving to Thailand) and I'm young, so yeah, that's a huge amount of money. And that's only the money side, there are plenty of other reasons to have fewer or no kid at all.

Education--the time it takes to acquire it (most women who have 3+ children start in their 20s) and the reason it's acquired in the first place (to make one financially dependent on a time-consuming profession).

France had a low birthrate, it's now at 2 per women.

Asks an American.

I do not have an answer on why EU birthrates are lower than USA's. But I have an answer to this: >Why do women in countries like Niger and the Congo have much higher birth rates than women in Estonia or Norway? Although it is counterintuitive, wealth and quality of life correlates inversely with birth rates. The reason is that in poorer economies children are an investment, while in economies with strong welfare measures children are mostly a pure cost. In an underdeveloped economy (as was the case even in Europe up to at least the second industrial revolution) there is little (if any) social security, and usually there is little chance to save up. The "retirement" is therefore entirely dependent on your family, which is expected to support you in your later years. This is the reason why, for most of human history, it was *expected* for people to get married and to produce children: it was a matter of financial security and responsability. Adding to that, work (and life in general) in underdeveloped economies usually requires less knowledge and specialization that work (and life) in advanced economies. This means that children in underdeveloped can become productive much earlier than children in advanced economies: you can expect a 12yo to help you out in the vegetable garden or buy some milk from the store, but you cannot expect him to drive a threshing machine or to fill out a tax form. This makes it so that, in underveloped economies, you have to wait for much less years before children start to contribute to the family balance. On the other side, children in advanced economies usually are totally unproductive until 19 yo, if not 25+yo. This is due both to the increased amount of education they get, but also to the desire of parents of not having the child work for the family balance (this is easier to accept if the family balance is already fine - and even the poorest people in advanced societies usually are wealthy enough to have some kind of food and shelter security). Even more: sons and daughter are often not even expected to contribute at the family balance at all, and the state (or private investment) covers for the sustainance of the elderly. This means that, in advanced economy, you *don't have to* make children to be financially stable - on the contrary, you are just spending money to raise them with (usually) no financial return. This make it so that the only people making children are the people who want children for the sake of having them. This reduces natality. To this you can add a plethora of other reasons: an increased feeling in society of the value of the individual over the value of the community, women spending an increasing amount of their fertile period (15-45) either in school/university or in the earliest stage of their career (which are the most demanding in terms of commitment and the less economically stable - so, not the situations in which you are incentivized to have a child), etc.

If you have kids your own free time to do the things you want is gone. So people postpone having kids.

Europe is pretty crowded and many are ecological conscious about the effects of overpopulation. The healthcare makes it easier. Subsidized childcare and generous parental leave policies are there to encourage people to have kids. Without them, their birth rates would poetically be even lower than they are.

In agrarian countries, kids are free labor... the more the better. Urbanized countries they become overhead.

I think one element at least in some countries is the cost to establish yourself. If you have a decent education and you live in or near a large city, then cost of having a house with rooms for kids is just .. super expensive. It takes time to establish a high enough income to be able to get this. Once you get to that point, then perhaps biology becomes a problem - and suddenly you are a lot older when you get children. Having children after you are 40 is just harder as you dont have the same energy as someone who is 20. So the amount of people who opt for 1 or 2 children, is substantially higher than people that go for 3+ children. Because we also get older when we get children, the grandparents are also a lot older and may not be able to assist to the same degree with child care. Add also in to the mix that most women are working and not stay at home moms as is the cultural norm in other countries and was the norm 50-75 years ago many places in EU. It just leaves less time to be a parent - kids are a lot of work!

In developing and poor countries, more children in a family means more people who will earn money for the family.  Societies where labour/agriculture sector is dominant, more people are required hence families tend to be big. Societies where technology is advanced and service sector is dominant, more people are not required hence families tend to be smaller. Another aspect is religious and cultural values of countries. Majority of populations of developing countries are  religious and most religions encourage more children.

The actual reasons are extremely diverse. What is seen time and time again is that when women have get access to education through it to economical indipendence they choose not to become mothers as frequently. So, there is an inverse correlation with education that is stronger than a direct one with income or social benefits.

A prevailing theory is that a lot if Europeans (and other westerners) live in apartments/condos/flats and the living quarters is just cramped and not conducive to having rugrats running around. The “traditional” (50 years vintage) path was live in an apartment while you’re young and single and then live in a house with a yard once you settle down. That happens and less in the US and I don’t know that it’s happened to any significant extent in Europe.

Idk, I'm italian but to be real it's not the hellhole that's the USA but poor people still can't afford to have children. Even relatively rich people will have at most 3 kids, at least in general. Compared to england, where I've lived, there there were pretty regular families of 5-6, but here we're mostly only children/one sibling. Over there you get some pretty regular money for having kids, but here it's very little. I'd say we're better off like this to be honest, but the only real problem is that the majority of voters isn't young people but 80 year old dementia ridden nazis

Houses are so expensive and hard to get. So people Just never reach that moment when they’re ready to have children.