Why have birth rates plummeted in the west?

We don't have infant mortality rates approaching 50% anymore.

And childbearing mortality, ultimately 1 in 4 die in complications

This, globalization is an hassle.

We don't need to pop out kids to do farm work, that's really all it is

Who the hell is going to raise the children? There's a surplus of children, just look at all the Chinese and Russian kids that get adopted by Western families. The real deficit is in competent parents. And I don't think he government can fill that role adequately.

Not that I don't think it'll ever happen. But we simply aren't there yet and won't be for a hundred years at the very least.

>Why have birth rates plummeted in the west?
Life is too comfortable.
It won't plummet into nothing, eventually it will reach a stable level. But it doesn't happen since immigration.

Kids are expensive in both time and money.

Because kids are literal and figurative sacks of shit.

>making kids was prior fueled by religious ideals
Making kids was fueled by lack of reliable and safe birth control.

You mean it was default until sexual liberation? Which itself contributes as a replacement product in the form of hookup culture

The issue is how do you stabilize the population so it doesnt grow or shrink? Its impossible ot contro lthat if anyone can just have or not have kids at whatever rate.
You have to do it in a controlled way.
Raise kids in advanced orphanaghes where all their needs are taken care of, including love and human warmth.
They live there, grow up, get educated and so on. Of course you have women who would get paid to carry and give birth to the child and the sperm will be from a donation pool(or it can be a requirement based on certain needs for a diverse gene pool etc..).

The welfare state. Having children went from being a necessity of survival to a secondary decision. The reason why apes in Africa have so many kids isn't primarily because they're animals; it is because their countries lack the social safety net of the West. Why would you spend two decades of your life raising a child, going through all the hassle, when your government guarantees you a retirement pension? You no longer feel the need to have a kid in order for him to support you on your old age.

What government guarantees a retirement pension? Mine doesn't.

>having no kids
>ending up in a rich retirment home
>get abused by your caretakers and some fetishist uses you for sexual pleasure.

great...

Many European countries do. It's called Social Security. Here in Portugal it's about to go bankrupt anytime soon. And it's not even voluntary; it is mandatory.

Absolute idiocy.
Making kids was a resource for poor families that earned their living through the children's work.
For example in countries with a mostly agricultural economical base birth rates are higher.
This persisted in the first industrial revolutions due to the low wages and legality in child work.

Turns out wealthy families too had a ton of kids because you have no fucking choice in the matter unless you choose to stop fucking, which many people didn't.
Idiot.

Not just the west last time I checked. This is going to be pretty universal in a few decades (outside of africa).

Nice quads, but your post is wrong. Women rights = cultural suicide.

In the West, children have gone from being an investment to being a liability..

They cost a shitload, look at Italy, where some father was forced to pay for his kid's allowance, even if they are over 18. It's very common.

Of course that demolishes the birthrate

Need to get them bitches back to being barefoot and oregnant.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

We need social propaganda that makes being unwed and childless shameful like the slants do.they experience aging population the maximal extent.

You seem to be lost

What's a SAHW?

>spinsters help birth rates
Roastie pls I'm investing in pet food

>Niger
>Chad
>Mali
>Afghanistan
>society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stay in school

Jesus fuck both of you are wrong, kids are an expense in non agrarian societies and their labour isn't worth it.

They do it because they never think long term, as their usual way of life is always engaged on short-term thinking. If they did maybe I'd also see less retards earning the equivalent to under 200 USD getting into debt with others just to buy a fucking widescreen TV (because you sure need that shit in a slum).

Good education (at home anf at school) forces more people to adapt into long term thinking.

Really, there will never be "a right time" to have children -- kids are expensive, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of time and energy spent raising them, which is the real barrier to child rearing.

Once you have a kid, you (should) have an obligation to take care of them and instill knowledge and values in them for around 20 years. That's a huge commitment for anyone, let alone people of the modern age who find their time so constrained by jobs that push them to work such longer hours via overtime and have other obligations to preform as well.

Really, I can say all those people I knew who had children way early (Late teens, early 20s) wound up eventually stabilizing themselves fairly well despite popular criticism otherwise. What mainly changed is most found themselves forced to take up work to pay for childrens' needs and their own instead of coasting through college for a potentially better line of work (And nowadays even that's not sure, I know at least a dozen guys who landed themselves a trade job with education paid by their employer or something in the oil field who are better off than me with my masters degree in IT).

Having anyone other than bio parents raise children irrepairably fucks a child up developmentally. Kindergarten is child abuse, just look at how psychologically fucked up swedes are.

That actually exists where I live. If you're not married by the time you're 30, people look at you like you're defective or gay. People without children wind up being excluded from the community because the biggest way to connect with other families and friends are through your childrens' friends.

The comforts of our civilisation have brought about rampant societal changes such as excessive individualism and materialism, feminism and other assorted decadence.

In short, humans have never lived so comfortably as they do now, and that has brought about massive societal changes, for the worse.

>tfw sterile GF

Amazing feel really

This

If I'm fucked up enough that I'm forcibly moved to a retirement home then there can't be much worth living for

Capitalism

>Kindergarten is child abuse

Haha ok tinfoil

the west has no self-preservation impulse anymore domestication through debauchery is complete.

>the west has no self-preservation impulse anymore domestication through debauchery is complete.

feminism really has to answers for ceding the next generation to be raised by institutions just so you could be wage slaves, suppress wages and whine about a false choice and stopgaps solutions like maternity leave. If kids are just going to be overseen by strangers, who wants that?

It's comforting that none of you fedoras will ever have children.

>for the worse

[citation needed]

I had one

The solution is to make the West poor as shit. Like early 50s China level of poor or similar.
No more iphones, frappuccinos and Xbox.
You want to use the internet, pay 10 Euros/minute out of your 150 euro/month salary a at the public Internet lounge were you have to book a week in advance.
You're daily meal should be porridge and a few tomatoes.
Want entertainment, read some 100 year old books.
That would also solve the problem of obesity.

I don't think you could really stop the internet unless you somehow stopped electricity. And even then, it's debatable.

Not an argument. It is ironic that you are on his complaining about this. You know considering that women rarely were in a better situation than now.
Yet those are more sustainable than the west. At this point you may as well disqualify the west as a society then.

Electricity can become very expensive due to war, many powerplants being destroyed and many resources being allocated to say containing large devastated (irradiated) areas, feeding refugees from other parts of your country...
Electricity could only be allowed a few hours a day.

And internet use could be severely limited as the government would try to control dissent, potential terrorists and fifth column elements in society.

Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous, but I think it's possible.

its expensive to have kids.

The end.

People living in caves and hunting mammoths had children somehow.

Because children are much more expensive, you need to educate them and shit, while in the ooga booga times you need just to force them to work on the fields or steal moneys. Much easier to do.

Not really. You just need a parent out of the workforce and homeschooling happens. But women are all arbeit macht frei about careerism which is really makes them the bourgeois little helper.

>People living in caves and hunting mammoths had children somehow.

In times when currency was minimal at best, and having a big clan and personal slaves was more important im guessing.

Why would you want to make life shit for everyone, just so they can have more kids with a shitty life. What would that solve?

>cutting your income in half is not expensive

What you cal lfucked up might simply be different and completely appropriate with soime modifications to be the future of mankind.

introducing women to the workforce suppresses wages you economic illiterate. you can have women be cucked by porky and whine about muh one income family is dead. That money gets devoured by taxes and paying stranger to watch your kids, where as those expenses can be entirely insourced. Even seculars like elizabeth warren see these structural disadvantages, albeit doesn't name the female evidently.

>more children = more workers = less need for immigration
>less comfort = less obesity = less spending on health, more fit workers, less entitlement
>less internet = more reading = more social interaction

This should also be temporary situation, the standard of living would increase anyway.

> less internet = more reading = more social interaction
This is retarded, people without the internet would just watch television and even if they are into book reading, internet allow much more interaction with other people that reading the obscure book in your basement. Where is even logic here?

wartime brittan is a good example of this....the british were never healthier, productive, and fit then under wartime rationing and austerity

the problem is no one liked it one bit, and when sugar and fat were back on the table the nation ate it up

People realized that having children is insanely expensive and they have to spend 18+ years of their life raising them, which is a pain in the ass.

so is that why women CHOOSE to saturate workline you describe? who should they be taxed to raise some wagewench's spawn when they all could just raise their own?

I think you may want to give that economics textbook another read.

Why should ladies work to pay other ladies (and the taxman as a liaison) to raise their kids for them? So more cheap labor can be taken advantage of?

>other ladies (and the taxman as a liaison)

What are you even referring to? School?

The entire childcare industry that can only be a thing once women are kicked out the place in the home and family?

So, daycare? Obviously that costs far less than someone's entire income, or else they wouldn't be using it.

It's hostage they have no choice since women have killed motherhood by giving what's left of it to corporations.

He's, poorly, saying:

>Introducing women to the workforce lowered the cost of labor and increased the labor pool, meaning that although now both Mom AND Dad make money, Dad makes less money than he did before, the cost of living has increased because Mom no longer does housework, and taxes have gone up to take care of the child at Public School (Which has become glorified daycare partially but not solely as a result of this.
>Women, meanwhile, proudly say that motherhood is stifling and they want to do things other than raise, educate, care for, and help children and people so they go into careers where they...raise, educate, care for, and help children and people.

Ok, but public schools predate women's lib, and are not just "babysitting." And women are doing almost all jobs, not just caring for children. And professional childcare leverages basic efficiencies, e.g. caring for 10 kids is far less than 1000% the labor of caring for 1.

women working prevents a home culture from forming. Matriarchs are the most important role for intergenerational wealth and repurposing them to do jobs teenagers could if they had any kids isn't pro- women and children.

>And women are doing almost all jobs, not just caring for children
No, there is a difference in which jobs are mainly men and which are mainly female. See I'm just explaining what he's saying m8.

So less than 50% women is the same as 0% women? Come on.